19950859 Ver 1_Complete File_19950816

TV ' L
1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
SUBJECT: Action ID No. 199303731
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
March 23, 1998
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:

-T
Please reference the subject Department of the Army (DA) permit issued January 29, 1997, to
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), to discharge fill material into 76
acres of wetlands of the United States which are subject to our regulatory authority, pursuant to
the Clean Water Act, in order to widen US Highway 17 from a two-lane facility to a four-lane
facility between Holly Ridge and Jacksonville, in Pender and Onslow Counties, North Carolina.
Special Condition (c) of the subject permit requires the NCDOT to provide an approved
compensatory mitigation plan to me no later than January 30, 1998. As you are aware, I elected
to delete all references to the Greater Sandy Run Mitigation bank in the permit due to concerns
my staff has over preservation of the mitigation bank property.
Through continued coordination with the United States Marine Corps, Camp Lejeune
(USMC), my staff has developed permit conditions that will satisfy our concerns relative to the
final disposition of the mitigation land, for this project only. The attached permit modification
has been executed by an authorized representative of the USMC.
Questions or comments maybe directed to Dr. G. Wayne Wright, Chief, Regulatory Division,
at [phone] or to Mr. Scott McLendon of my Wilmington Regulatory Field Office staff at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Terry R. Youngbluth
Colonel, U.S. Army
Enclosure District Engineer

-2-
Copy Furnished:
Commander
MCB, Camp Lejeune
AC\SEMD Attn: Robert L. Warren
PCS 2000
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542-0004
Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
North Carolina Department of Enviromnent,
/and Natural Resources.
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Protection Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. John Parker
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

MODIFICATION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT, AID 199303731, Widen US
Highway 17 between Holly Ridge and Jacksonville, Onslo County, North Carolina, TIP R-2406
Department of the Army Permit 199303731 is hereby modified to delete Special
Condition (c.) and replace it with the following:
c. To compensate for 9.21 acres of hardwood wetland impacts, 26.2 acres of
pocosin/pine wetland impacts, and 40.4 acres of disturbed wetland impact, the permittee is
responsible for the following restoration/enhancement activities in the Greater Sandy Run
mitigation area. The enhancement/restoration work will provide certain system wide water
quality and habitat benefits to Big Shakey Swamp, Holly Shelter Creek and Juniper Swamp by
restoring the natural surface and groundwater discharge characteristics of headwater swamp and
pocosin habitat draining to these three swamp forest systems.
Mitigation shall be accomplished as follows:
(1) Forty-three (43) acres of the Big Shakey Swamp mitigation site shall be
hydrologically enhanced, as detailed in subparagraphs 2, 3 and 4, below.
(2) The location of the forty-three (43) acre mitigation area is as shown on Attachment A.
(3) The location of the Timber Check Dams is as shown on Attachment B.
(4) The timber check dams will be constructed as shown on Attachment C.
(5) One Hundred and thirteen (113) acres of drained pocosin in the Greater Sandy Run
mitigation site shall be hydrologically restored, as detailed in subparagraphs 6 and 7, below.
(6) The location of the one hundred and thirteen (113) acre mitigation site is as shown on
Attachment D.
(7) The ditch plugs will be installed as shown or. Attachrnem E.
(8) All enhancement and restoration work at Big Shakey Swamp and the drained pocosin
shall be completed no later than July 1, 1998.
cl. The mitigation property will be maintained by the USMC in its natural condition, as
altered by the implementation of the mitigation plan, for so long as the property is owned by the
United States and under the control of the USMC. Prohibited activities within the mitigation
area specifically include, but are not limited to, the construction or placement of structures of any
kind; the discharge of dredged or fill material (including waste debris); excavation; the cutting,
removal or damage of any vegetation; and grading, leveling, or any other earth moving activity.
Training activities that occur within the mitigation area shall be restricted to foot traffic only.
.Ir- r a
c2. In the event the United States sells, leases, or otherwise conveys any interest in the
mitigation property, or the USMC loses control of the mitigation property, the USMC will use
it's best efforts to have the property transferred to a conservation organization acceptable to the
Corps of Engineers, or subject the property to legally binding restrictions to be approved by the
Corps of Engineers, and as generally described in condition cl, above.
c3. The USMC will work with the Department of the Navy and the Department of the
Army in an effort to obtain the legal authority to agree to preserve mitigation property in
perpetuity. In the event such authority is obtained, the USMC shall preserve the mitigation
property in its natural state, as altered by the mitigation plan, in perpetuity, and shall not sell,
lease, or otherwise convey any interest in the property, except to a conservation organization
approved by the Corps of Engineers, or subject to legally binding restrictions as generally
described in condition b, above, approved by the Corps of Engineers.
c4. The mitigation property shall be incorporated into the Greater Sandy Run Mitigation
Bank, if and when the bank is established, and shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions
established pursuant to the approved Greater Sandy Run Mitigation Banking Instrument.
c5. Notwithstanding conditions c through c4 of this permit, in the event the USMC
executes this permit modification agreeing to perform conditions c though c5 of the permit on
behalf of the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the permittee shall be relieved of the
requirement to perform such conditions and any enforcement directives or actions taken as a
result of non-compliance with conditions c through c5 shall be taken against the USMC.
All other conditions of the referenced DA permit remain in full force and effect.
This permit modification is not effective until it has been executed by an authorized
representative of the USMC, in the space indicated below. I request that the executed
modification be returned to me. I will then notify the NCDOT of the effective date of the
modification.
The U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) executes this permit modification for the purpose of
indicating that it accepts and agrees to perform the requirements of special conditions c through
c5 of the permit as modified.
Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune
Date
TERRY R. YOUNGBLUTH
Colonel, U.S. Army
Commanding
Date
q&M 3 Aamp"a
,. 3MS 01 ION St0'Zff4£4Z 689'999 t 6Z f90Z
dWdMS J.3)IdHS 018 l 69'£9 l 4£4Z Z4£'Z 18682 1902
Jo ).8eaNnoe LSL'S I £S£bZ ZLL'Z8S88Z 0902
V ;uatuga>g;;V 9z
Z
zoz 809"L£LSfbZ 989'60099Z SSOZ
Ocoz £6L'6SLS£42 48Z"898L8Z
Z£0 089'96SS£bZ 468'089L9Z £SOZ
CCU 4fOZ b6 l'SL I S£4Z 8 l b'LL4L8Z ZSOZ
zoz O6L'Lb tS£4Z £S£'LLZLBZ I SOZ
scot l
ZZ
9£QCOZ OZ 46 l'SL t S£4Z lL9'99898Z
SZOZ 98L"8£4S£4Z Z t 0'986S8Z
8£OZ t 6l0 bCb'BZLS£4Z 9LZ'b28S8Z £40Z
Zzo 8t
of o 089'96SS£bZ 19 l'L bfSBZ 0402
tbOL Lt0 LStr'LLf
Z40Z LZZ'9SSSfbZ SS£"Z£6b8Z 8£0Z
f
£4DZ 4ZOZ
bboz toZ £84
t S lOZ•
£toz 99 t'4989f42 tS8'6L4f8Z Z£OZ
tOZ £OL'SZ99£4Z 0BL'89Z£8Z I £OZ
Sb
Bt
64 89S'65Z9f4Z 886'L6lF8Z 6ZOZ
•
OSOZ 6002 86t"1S09fbZ 9
19 Z l F'0985£bZ
Ot
tS OZ E 6Z8'SL9
b90 Z lZG'84Z4£4Z SOS'ZL tSBZ ZZOZ
SSOZ 9SOZ SSZ
6S
S380V 00'St ?y
LOtzn 40t"CLS££4Z S9t'Z8tS8Z BtOZ
90Z 46S"4£6F£4Z Z£6'ZZ4S8Z C
103f Md 1000N 803
V38V NOI1V911IY9 Z £SZ'9Lftrf4Z 068'1 4658Z 9lOZ
OOf 800'648b£bZ bFZ"40Z98Z
s tgwZ OOZ bSb8L4£
3+ • 66Z'8Z9b£trZ ZOL"SL£88Z 9002
N
S380V 00"Fb Z9oz o0z
9042-8 rn Z
103f 08d 1000N 803 V38V N011VOUIMt dWVMS
V38V NOliVOIIn"t f90Z ooz A A3)lVHS 918 803 kHVGNnoe
A
CO
W tD
CO."
O to
UN
4902
OOOZ
Coati 193rO8d 1000N 9042-8 1?3P08d 1009N
80j k8VONnoe 803 ABVONt108
t t b l4 [l4
£'0'ZL'w z Tour
9l9"6ff5f4l SLS
'ZZl88Z 6502
8Z!'9t£Sf4t ftClS08B BSOZ
40£'ItZS b St4'LLLLBZ LSOZ
566'£tb5£4Z 88S'60LL8Z 99OZ
809'LfLS£4Z 98S'600$BZ SSW
£ 6L '6SL SF4 b8Z'888L8Z 4502

t1Sb'3

IH180N 089'96SSFbZ 468'089L8Z £SOZ tb' 9b£b £LO"2£48 5902
4 t' LlS£b 814
t L OZ£'
' L b b 404't0 LS 19 t09'9Z6ffbZ Z9S'09b68Z Z00£
4 L4 4 b l l4
b 4 L
[S' 9b£4Z
"ld
."LLbL8 SO 00
4 L L
L 8 9
OL' ££8 £OOf S Obt£8'trZ"f804F4Z bS0'L6t t6Z Z00
l b'9b4 £LO'48 S90
9NI1SV3 9NIH180N 'Id
ZL6'b£Z4£bZ S04'OSbZ6Z 4902

b4 t' l OS4£4Z L£9'4ZZ l6l Z90Z

9l9'6ffSfbZ SLS'ZZZ88Z 6SOZ
l-9t£sf4z £ tc'tso99z 9soz
b0£"t£ZS£4Z Sl4'LLLLBZ L50Z
S66'£t4S£4Z 885'60LL9Z 9SOZ

4SOZ

£8£'tlbSf4Z 64L'460L8Z OSOZ
lL8"4£bS£bZ 604'LS698Z 6402
99'b04S£4Z 9b l"648982 BbOZ
£b6'£6Z5F4Z 604'L6998Z 010Z
9bOZ
99L"46tS£bZ 46l'ZLL98Z SbOZ
4402

960'19L5£4Z 999'1L9S8Z ZbOl
9£0'8tLS£bZ 496'S54S8Z t40Z

S£4Z b l 0'66 1 S8Z 6£OZ

4lS'IILS£bZ l88'84S48Z L£OZ
'£b8S£4Z 949"894b8Z 9£oZ
tbb'9809£bZ tf9"O£Zb8Z S£OZ
£[0'fSb9£4Z 9S9'OlLfBZ b£OZ
8£9'8b69£4Z £6!'bL9£8Z £fOZ

48£'69Z9fbZ 090'9££f9Z 0£OZ

48'901f8Z 8ZOZ
Z99?ZZZFBZ LZOZ
L6Z'LLBSfbZ F£Z'tLL£9Z 9ZOZ
9S9'6ZOSfbZ 8Z0"Ob[tr8Z SZOZ
94L'806bfbZ S09'98LS8Z 4ZOZ
bF42 068'999S8Z £ZOZ

'Ol6££4Z Z£S'84648Z lZOZ
008'8lS££4Z L4F"tSS48Z OZOZ
fb0'8££ff4Z LLt'Ol6b8Z 6tOZ

IOZ

Z60'696F£4Z 56t"btt98Z SIOZ
bZ9'Z46£fbZ tZB"£6Z98Z 4lOZ
689'£Llbf4Z Z££'9Ltr98Z £lOZ
£S8'6£L4£4Z OZS'84t98Z ZIOZ
tIOZ
bZ t09'St998Z Ot0
ZZf'0094£bZ 006'640L8Z 6002
Z£b"86Sb£trZ b£L'bZbLBZ 8002
OOS"40L4£bZ bZ t'1b9L8Z LOU

bS9'Z£Lbf4Z bcL?9ZL88Z SOOZ
OZ£"Lt9tr£4Z 94Z'£4L882 400
Sb8'bZL££4Z 6Z6'56968Z FOOZ
OL£"£804£4Z 4S0'L6 l l6Z ZOOZ
Ob0'tb6££4Z L86'L9St6Z t00Z
bf9'6t8££4Z 808'64SZ6Z OOOZ
9NI15V3 9NIH180N 'ld
ZL6"4FZbfb S04'OS4 6Z 490
t f 4 4 6 'S9 ! f9
44t l b 4 L 4 L
L t4 4 b t l9
Lt5'8lZbfbZ t£O'4SC68Z t00£
LSL'Sl SfbZ LL'Z8S8 090
08l'6!£ £4 lbt'Ll4 8 9

bS9' £L4£4 4L['9ZL
L l9b£4Z 84Z'£4L88 4002

L£ 4Z 6Z6'56969Z f00Z

Otr0"!46££42 L86'L9St6Z t00Z
4£9'6t8££trZ 808'6bSZ6Z OOOZ
9NI15V3 9NIH180N 'ld
(? C
a
j ?
i• /
?? ` N
? L /
W=
om
to '
i '
i I
/ ?dop /
?o
c
aZ*0o D ? i
,?o-0 I
0m
r WZ
Om????
or' a5ig a.
00 %Z
Z ? W
o 0
3 ;;•
A
r?
A
A O
7 a
A K
? C
A ?

p
0
x 11
wo
> cl p
91 0 11
p x
to
off
c
q2,-.
r- Z
AxnqMWU
• YftJS 01 ION
NOliVINV-ld 3NId O3N8ne OMd NISOOOd
30 A8VONnoe
a ;aawga»;;ly
6004
9to4
V38V N0I1V911IW 9001,
N0IIV1NVld 3NId 03Nan8
0004,
s
3+ M
N
V38V NOUVOl11MI NIS030d 0104
S383V 00'9Z
to04
Z too ozo4
6104
ft04
V38V NOI1VOIi1W NIS030d 9004
S383V 00'£ t l
9042-8
133ro8d 10o3N 803
V38V NOUV9u1W
zoo*
ll04 cotzn
133road 1oo3N ao3
L
v3aV NouV9ulw
4 t?1?44
8l 4
9004
4004
f 004
4
N, Ozo
L l44•? L 4
O'? 010
L9 '99Zt44 L t' 9t 0£ 610*
l4 L 4 4
LLUV-
91 1144 MMUM7 4 4
0NuSV3 9NIH180N ld
Lotzn 133P08d 1003N
803 kHVONnos
It l 4 4L Lt 4
0 L144 94 9l 4
L t
90L'S6l 44Z 99 '4tS5o£ £t04
CL ' 86 44 94 £ too
9t9'899 44Z L S' £l4 0 t loo
9NIlSV3 0 IH180N td
904Z-a 133P08d 1003N
803 AWONn09
Z9Z'S9Z444Z SCZ 6Z9tM 0104
LFL tZtf44Z 66ZT ZZ66Z 600b
909'L986F4Z 996"69LOOf 8004
1 1 It l44 I ' Lt L 4
JNIISV3 ONIH18ON 'Id
V38V N011V911M NOIIVINVld 3NId
03NHne 803 AaV0Nn08
l L t' 44 L L? l b
ft0b166f4 64f'L BfOf 9001,
ZZO'z00t44Z LOTt9090£ S004
L b b 0 4004
-
lLl'SS6044Z '9c MOT 70
011
ZS0'9ZLS44Z OL4'SZL90£ Zo04
f9f'6Z9444Z S9S' Sf40£ 1004
44 LL L l 004
9NIlSV3 9NIHlaON 1d
V38V N0I1V9111W
NIS030d 2103 AaVONnoe
OK co
II
zz ~
Tix
, ' C
=Drn
? ?
p
mm > z X s MO CO x
czZOQ, M

Z
o o

;

z=
r
-u
Dm
?
;u OR^,
n? Z o N
i x A
L
9 f 2
ow - 'a 'a
N
m

N v
Z _ ?
Z y
I z ?
A r
° N
z
-? -1 D w C2
f
Ln z 8 cc z
Z o r+
0
co
N
O
Q.
C

Proj.?- _
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
US 17 from US 258 - NC 24 West to US 17 North
Onslow County
State Project No. 6.269001T
T.LP. No. U-2107 and U -2107A
Administrative Action
ENVIRONNTE:NTAL ASSESSMFffr
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332 (2) (C)
APPROVED:
/
AT
z 9 -
DA i as L. Graf, P.E., Division Administrat
rot Federal Highway Administration
' United States Department of Transportation
1

1
1

Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation

1
1

1
1
1
1

JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
US 17 from US 258 - NC 24 WEST TO US 17 NORTH
ONSLOW COUNTY
State Project No. 6.269001T
T.I.P. No. U-2107 and U-2107A
Administrative Action
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
March 1994
Documentation Prepared by Louis Berger ?tssdeiates Auc.
Jz'fin C. Russell, P.E. Chief Engineer_ oL
.rJ
C. RUS,
/liIII%%\\
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
r
i

r?

L. Gail rimes, . - Unit Head
Consultant En ' eering Unit
Cy thia D. Sharer, P.E. - Planning Engineer
Consultant Engineering Unit

SUMMARY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
PREPARED BY
THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
¦ OF
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration Environmental Assessment
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
.. Additional information concerning this proposal and the environmental assessment can
be obtained by contacting:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone: [phone]
Mr. Nicholas Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New.. Bern Avenue,.Swte.41Q... .
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: [phone]
1 III. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct
a highway bypass of the City of Jacksonville on new location from NC 24/VS 258
west of the Jacksonville Central Business District to US 17 (Marine Blvd.) to the north.
The proposed bypass will provide a north-south route for US 17 as well as an east-west
route for NC 24. Presently both US 17 and NC 24 pass through the Jacksonville
Central Business District. The bypass will be a four and six lane freeway with a 60-foot
wide median. Interchanges are proposed at US 17 (Ocean Highway), Montford Point
r Road (Camp Johnson) and NC 24 (Lejeune Boulevard). At-grade intersections are
1
i
11

IV.
proposed at US 258 - NC 24 and NC 53 at the west end of the project and at US 17
at the northeastern end of the project (see Figure 9).
Both US 17 and NC 24 are designated as Intrastate Corridors in the 1994-2000 North
Carolina Department of Transportation's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
Both highways currently are routed on multi-lane surface streets through Jacksonville.
The proposed bypass is intended to relieve the traffic congestion that currently exists
at signalized intersections on both routes through Jacksonville. The center portion, US
17 (Ocean Highway) to NC 24 (Lejeune Blvd.), of this project is located on Department
of Defense property at the United States Marine Corps (USMC) Base, Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina. The portion of the project from NC 53 to US 17 (Ocean Highway)
and the portion from NC 24 to US 17 (Marine Blvd.) are located on privately held
land
The estimated cost of the proposed project is $90,388,000, with right-of-way cost of
$20,538,000 and construction cost of $69,850,000. The 1994 - 2000 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) has divided this project into two sections, U-2107 and U-
2107A. The 5.8 mile section of the project from US 17 south of Jacksonville to US 17
north of Jacksonville has been designated U-2107 and is on the Intrastate System. The
1.5 mile section from US 258/NC 24 to US 17 south of Jacksonville has been
designated U-2107A, and is not on the Intrastate System. The programmed amount for
U-2107 is $79,500,000 for both right-of-way and construction. Right-of-way acquisition
and construction of U-2107 are scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 1995. The TIP notes
the project schedule is subject to a portion of the right-of-way being donated (US
Marine Corps property), and the cost of this property is not included in the cost
estimate. The TIP programs $13,880,000 for right-of-way and construction of the
section designated U-2107A. Right-of-way acquisition and construction of this section
will begin after 2000.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMEN-TAL, BRACTS -
Substantial transportation benefits in traffic operation and highway safety areas will
accrue as a result of the new bypass. Improved traffic operations will relieve congestion
on the existing US 17 - NC 24 routes through Jacksonville resulting in a positive
economic impact on the Jacksonville area by improving access to businesses and
decreasing vehicular operating costs.
With the recommended alternative, 37 houses and 37 businesses will be relocated.
Adequate replacement houses and business sites are available in the area. A substantial '
increase in noise will occur in some residential neighborhoods. The feasibility of noise
abatement measures will be addressed in the final environmental document and a final
i
i
d
d
d
gn.
ur
ng
es
e
determination will be ma
Onslow County is currently in attainment of all ambient air quality standards and no
impact will occur to local air quality. No impact will occur to groundwater quality or
groundwater resources. Erosion and sedimentation control measures will be utilized
to minimize water quality impacts during construction. No impact will occur to any
ii
a
known protected species or suitable protected species habitats. A total of 24 acres of
wetlands will be affected; however, the proposed cooperative USMC/NCDOT
mitigation plan provides for replacement of affected wetlands by restoring degraded
wetlands of like kind. Five potential hazardous waste sites are within the project area.
Two are located on Camp Lejeune, and are scheduled for superfund clean up. Of these
two sites, the Camp Geiger Fuel Farm is the only one that will be impacted by this
t project. The other three are located on private property within the proposed right-of-
way and will be evaluated prior to right-of-way acquisition.
One archaeological site potentially eligible for the National Register lies within the
proposed right-of-way and is recommended for further study. No historic architectural
properties listed in or potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
are located in the study area.
Approximately 414 acres (245 on USMC property) of new right-of-way will be
required.
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
The following alternatives were considered for development of the project:
A. Alternative A on new alignment - Recommended
B. Alternative B on new alignment
C. Alternatives considered but rejected
D. "No action" (Do nothing)
E. Alternative Modes of Transportation
F. Transportation System Management
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
A. The following environmental commitments are included elsewhere in this-
A_nr+r m Pnt•
1vv A wetland mitigation plan will be developed in conjunction with Cam
P
Lejeune prior to permit application.
2) An erosion and sedimentation control plan will be submitted to the
Regional Engineer of the Division of Land Resources of the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
prior to the beginning of construction.
3) Existing trees located in the median on NC 24 (Lejeune Blvd.) that will
be disturbed during construction will be relocated to another suitable
location.
4) One archaeological site (310N522) lies within the proposed 300 foot
construction corridor. Additional investigations will be conducted at this
site to fully evaluate its eligibility for inclusion in the National Register
of Historic Places prior to the final document.
iii
5) At the hazardous waste site designated as Camp Lejeune Site #35 (Camp
Geiger Fuel Farm - Oil and Grease) the USMC has agreed to clean up
the contaminated soil on this site and/or verify that any contamination
will be contained to an area outside of the proposed right-of-way prior
to any land transfers.
VII.
COORDINATION
Appropriate Federal, state and local agencies and officials were contacted during the
preparation of the Environmental Assessment concerning the effects of the project on
the environment. A description of the project with request for comments was sent to
the following agencies:
*North Carolina Department of Crime Control and-
Public Safety
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
North Carolina Department of Human Resources
*North Carolina Department of Environment, Health &
Natural Resources
- Division of Water Resources
- Division of Parks and Recreation
- Division of Forest Resources
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
*North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
North Carolina Geodetic Survey
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
*U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
U.S. Department of Interior
- *Fish and Wildlife Service.:..
- *Bureau of Mines
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
*U.S. Department of Commerce, National Marine
Fisheries Service
U.S. Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune
Mayor of Jacksonville
*City Manager, City of Jacksonville
Onslow County Planning Department
Onslow County Manager
*Input was received from these agencies.
iv
i
VIII.
IX.
1
1
1
1
t

r
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes (in cooperation with
Camp Lejeune) to mitigate wetlands that will be affected by the proposed bypass.
Under the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit(s) will be required. A U.S. Coast Guard
Bridge Permit will be required for the New River Bridge, which is a navigable
waterway of the United States. The North Carolina Coastal Area Management
(CAMA) review will be required of all permit activities.
BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is determined that this
project will not have a detrimental effect upon the quality of the human or natural
environment. The proposed bypass will cause only minor changes in local route
classifications and land use and is not controversial in nature. The project has been
reviewed by appropriate local, state, and federal agencies and no objections have
been expressed. Public meetings have been held for this project and considerable
public support was voiced. As a result of the meetings and reviews of appropriate
agencies, it is concluded that an Environmental Assessment is applicable to this
project.
V

1
Il

r
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I PAGE NO.
I SUMMARY.......... ................................ i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ............................. vi
LIST OF TABLES ...................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES........ ..... x
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....... ......................... 1
1.1 Project Location, Classification and Length ................. 1
1.2 Purpose of Project ... ..... 1
1.3 Project Setting and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.4 Existing Roadway ... ................................
1.4.1 Typical Sections and Posted Speeds 1
1
::::: : :::::::::::
1.4.2 Right-of-Way. . 2
1.4.3 Sidewalks ................................... 2
1.4.4 Interchanges, Intersections and Control ............. 2
1.4.5 Bridge and Railroad Crossing .............. 2
1.4.6 School Bus Use ...............................
1.4.7 Transit ..................................... 2
2
1.4.8 Public Utilities ............................... 2
11 2.0 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION ............. 5
2.1
2.2 Itoz y and T;..:.srortation Plan ........................
Project Status .... .................................. 5
5
2.3 Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service .................... 6
2.4 Accident Information ................................
2.4.1 Occurrence and Type ........................... 8
8
2.4.2 Major Concentrations ........................... 8

2.5 2.4.3 Rates ........................
Benefits to the Community, Region and State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
11
1
t

Vi

PAGE NO.
3.0
4.0
ALTERNATIVES ...................................... 12
3.1 No-Build Alternative ............................... 12
3.2 Alternative Modes of Transportation .................... 12
3.3 Transportation System Management ..................... 12
3.4 Build Alternatives. . ................................ 13
3.4.1 Alternative A (Preferred Alternative) ............... 13
3.4.2 Alternative B ................................ 13
3.4.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected ............... 14
3.4.4 Reason for Selection of Preferred Alternative ......... 14
3.5 Preferred Alternative ............................... 14
3.5.1 Project Length ............................... 16
3.5.2 Typical Sections .............................. 16
3.5.3 Design Criteria .............................. 16
3.5.4 Right-of-Way ................................ 16
3.5.5 Access Control .............................. 16
3.5.6 Intersection Treatment and Type of Control ......... 16
3.5.7 Railroad Work Required ........................ 18
3.5.8 Bridges and Culverts .......................... 18
3.5.9 Parking .................................... 19
3.5.10 Sidewalks .................................. 19
3.5.11 Bicycles ................................... 19
3.5.12 Construction Staging .......................... 19
3.5.13 Geodetic Markers ............................ 19
3.5.14 Utilities ................................... 19
3.5.15 Speed Limits ................................ 20
.3.5.16 Landscaping.... ............................... 20
3.5.17 Cost Estimates .............................. 20
18
3
5 M,,
.,;c;pa1 Agreements ......................... 21
.
. ,
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .......... .........22
4.1 Social and Economic Resources ........................ 22
4.1.1 Land Use .................................. 22
4.1.2 Population Characteristics ....................... 22
4.1.3 Community Cohesion and Community Facilities ...... 24
4.1.4 Economic .................................. 25
4.1.5 Visual . .................................... 25

Vii
1
I PAGE NO.
4.1.6 Displacements and Relocations ................... 27
M 4.1.7 Churches and Schools ......................... 29
4.1.8 Parks and Recreation .......................... 29
4.1.9 Cemeteries ................................. 30
4.2 Cultural Resources .. ............................... 30
4.2.1 Historic Architectural Sites ...................... 30
4.2.2 Archaeological Resources ....................... 30
4.3 Physical Environment .............................. 30
4.3.1 Air Quality ................................. 30
4.3.2 Noise ....................... 35
4.3.3 Floodplains and Stream Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.3.4 Tovozravhv, Geolog-v and Soils .................... 43
4.3.5 Mineral Resources ............................
4.3.6 Hazardous Waste Sites and Underground Storage Tanks . 44
45
4.3.7 Prime and Unique Farmlands .................... 45

' 4.4 Natural Resources .... ..............
4.4.1 Water Resources and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
46
4.4.2 Plant Communities ........................... 49
4.4.3 Wildlife ...... 52
.............................
4.4.4 Protected Species
53
4.4.5 Wetlands ................................... 56
4.4.6 Wild and Scenic Rivers .... 62
4.4.7 Rare/Unique Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.5 Construction Impacts ............................... 63
4.6 Special Permits Required ............................. 65
5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ...................... 67
5.1 Public Involvement ................................. 67
5.2 Agency Coordination ............................... 67
............... ...... . . .... . . . . . . . .
6.0 REFERENCES ..... 70
I FIGURES
APPENDICES
I. Agency Comments
H. Public Involvement
III. Relocation Report
IV. Draft Wetland Mitigation Proposal
1

Viii

F
LIST OF TABLES
NUMBER TITLE PAGE NO.
1 Typical Sections, Existing Roadways and Right-of-Way Widths 3
2 Intersections 4
3 Level of Service 7
4 Level of Service for Major Intersections 9
5 Level of Service - 2010 Build Alternative 9
6 Comparison of Build Alternatives 15
7 Design Criteria 17
8 Onslow County and Jacksonville Historic Populations 23
9 Employees by Industry Group/Onslow County Ten Leading Groups 26
10 Air Quality Receptor Sites 33
11 Model Inputs 34
12 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria 36
13 2010 Build Noise Levels 37
14 T raffic Noise Level increase Summary 38
15 Approaching or Exceeding FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary 39
16 Substantial Noise Increase Summary 40
17 FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Summary 41
18 Stream Quality Classifications 48
19 Individual Wetland Communities Locations and Descriptions 58
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
NUMBER TITLE
1 Location Map
2 Existing Roadways
3 Historic Corridors
4 Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan
5 North Carolina Intrastate System
6 1990 Average Daily Traffic (Existing Streets)
7 2010 Average Daily Traffic No Build Alternative (Existing Streets)
8 2010 Average Daily Traffic Build Alternative (Existing Streets)
9 2010 Average Daily Traffic Bypass Volumes

10 Alternative A (Preferred)
11 Alternative B
12 (9 Sheets) Preferred Alternative
13 Typical Sections
14 Typical Sections Mainline Bridges
15 (2 Sheets) Jacksonville Land Use Plan
16 Noise Monitoring Locations
17 (4 Sheets) Wetlands and Floodplains
18 (2 Sheets) Hazardous Waste Sites and Underground Storage Tanks

x

1

I
r,
1
s
n

1
Ll

1
1
1

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION, CLASSIFICATION AND LENGTH
The proposed project is a multi-lane bypass on new location for the City of Jacksonville in
Onslow County, North Carolina. The bypass is 7.3 miles in length and connects US 258/NC
24, southwest of Jacksonville, to US 17 to the northeast. US 17 and NC 24 presently pass
through the Central Business District (CBD) of Jacksonville with US 17 maintaining a
generally north-south direction while NC 24 has an east-west orientation. The routes are
congruent for a distance of approximately 1.5 miles through the urban area. The proposed
project will bypass the city to the south, crossing the northern most portion of the Camp
I Lejeune Marine Corps Base. See Figure 1 for the project location.
1.2 PURPOSE OF PROJECT
The proposed project will provide a freeway bypass through the Jacksonville urban area for
the heavily congested US 17 and NC 24 routes. The existing surface streets will be left to
better serve abutting development and local traffic in and near the CBD.
1.3 PROJECT SETTING AND LAND USE
The proposed project is located in the City of Jacksonville and Onslow County in the Coastal
Region of North Carolina. The project begins west of the intersection of NC 24/US 258 and
NC 53 west of Jacksonville, crosses US 17, New River, NC 24, and terminates at US 17, south
of the Western Boulevard intersection northeast of Jacksonville. The project is approximately
seven miles in length and crosses the Camp Geiger and Camp Johnson portions of the Camp
Lejeune Marine Corps Base.
1.4 EXISTING ROADWAY
1.4.1 TyPICAL SECTIONS AND POSTED SPEEDS
US 17 south of Jacksonville and NC 24 (Lejeune Blvd) to the east are four-lane divided
roadways with landscaped medians. The remaining sections are five-lane curb and gutter
facilities. NC 24 (Lejeune Blvd.) is scheduled to be a six-lane divided roadway. TIP Project
U-2539 will add an additional eastbound lane to the existing five-lane median section. Speed
limits vary from 25 mph near the Central Business District (CBD) to 45 mph on outlying
sections. There is no control of access on any of these roadways (see Figure 2).
11

-1-

1.4.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY I
Right-of-way width is generally 100 feet except along US 17 (Ocean Highway) south of
Jacksonville where it is 250 feet (See Table 1).
1.4.3 SIDEWALKS
Sidewalks are provided in isolated sections along NC 24 (Lejeune Blvd) near the Jacksonville
Municipal Building.
1.4.4 INTERCHANGES, INTERSECTIONS AND ACCESS CONTROL
No interchanges or control of access are provided on US 17 or NC 24 within the project area.
A listing of all intersections, their configuration and type of traffic control is shown on Table
2. ¦
1.4.5 BRIDGE AND RAILROAD CROSSING
A four-lane bridge carries US 17/NC 24 over the New River. The Camp Lejeune Railroad
and NC 24 (Lejeune Blvd) cross at grade.
1.4.6 SCHOOL BUS USE
School busses currently use all the studied sections of both US 17 and NC 24 routes. I
1.4.7 TRANSIT
Public transportation currently operating in Jacksonville includes a limited private bus service I
which began in 1989. This service primarily provides transportation between the military
bases and the downtown area of Jacksonville:
1.4.8 PUBLIC UTILITIES
Water and Sewer - The City of Jacksonville has underground water and sewer lines located
throughout the project along all streets and roads.
Power - Overhead power lines belonging to the City of Jacksonville, Carolina Power & Light
and Jones Onslow Electric Membership Corporation (EMC) are located throughout the studied
roadway sections.
Telephone - Overhead telephone lines and cables belonging to Carolina Telephone Company
are located throughout the project area.
TV Cable - Two companies provide Cable TV service to the project area. Vision Cable of
Jacksonville serves the City of Jacksonville and Crown Cable provides service to Camp
Lejeune.
-2-

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 1
TYPICAL SECTIONS
EXISTING ROADWAYS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS
US 17
ROADWAY SEGMENT
South of NC 24
NC 24 to New River
New River Bridge
New River Bridge to
Western Blvd.
TYPICAL SECTION ROW WIDTH
4-Lane Divided 90-Foot Grassed Median 250'
5-Lane Undivided 100'
4-Lane Divided 4-Foot Raised Median 100'
5-Lane Undivided 100'
NC 24
ROADWAY SEGMENT TYPICAL SECTION ROW WIDTH
NC 53 to US 17 5-Lane Undivided 100'
US 17 to Bridge St. 5-Lane Undivided 100'
Bridge St. to
Bell Fork Road *4-Lane Divided 16-Foot Grassed Median 100'
Note: See Figure 2 for Existing Road System Map
*To be upgraded to 6-Lane Divided under TIP Project U-2539
-3-

TABLE 2
INTERSECTIONS
CROSS STREET

INTERSECTION
CONFIGURATION TRAFFIC CONTROL
US 17
Blue Creek School Rd.
Camp Geiger Entr.
Cannady Road
First Street
US 258 & NC 24
Broadhurst Street
Georgetown Road
Sybil Street
Old Bridge Street
Milldred Street
Muriell Avenue
Johnson Blvd.
Phillips Road
Sherwood Road
Roosevelt Avenue
Henderson Drive
Onslow Drive
Greston Street
Elizabeth Street
Zack Circle
Zack Circle
Cox Avenue
Thompson Street
Sanders Street
Moosehart Street
Brandon Street
Morton Street
Gum Branch Rd
Bell Fork Rd .
Arnold Road
Hawkside Road
Moosehaven Road
Western Blvd
+ Signal
+ Signal
T Sign
T Sign
Y Signal
T Sign
T Sign
T Sign
Y Signal
T Sign...
T Sign
Y Signal
T Sign
T Sign
T Sign
T Sign
+ Signal
T Sign
T Sign
T Sign
T Sign
T Sign
+ Sign
T Sign
T Sign
T Sign
T Sign
+ Signal
+ Signal:-..
T Sign
T Sign
T Sign
+ Sign
NC 24
NC 53 Y Signal
York Road T Sign
Hickory Road T Sign
Channey Avenue + Sign
Canna Street + Sign
Warlick Street + Sign
Bay Street + Signal
Bridge Street Y Signal
Hargett Street T Sign
Stratford Road T Sign
New River Drive T Sign
Montford Landing Road Y Signal
Ellis Blvd T Sign
Bell Fork Road T Signal
-4-
LEGEND
+ 4-Way Intersection
T 3 -Way Intersection
Y 3-Way Intersection

1 2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 HISTORY AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The need for a bypass of US 17 and NC 24 around the City of Jacksonville has been
recognized and considered by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the City
of Jacksonville for many years. Historically, various routings have been considered in the
thoroughfare planning process. These routes are shown in Figure 3.
The initial location of the Jacksonville Bypass was adopted for the Jacksonville Thoroughfare
Plan in 1969. It was called the Wilson Bay Route. This bypass route remained unchanged up
to the September, 1982 Thoroughfare Plan.
Since 1982, the portion of the bypass between US 17 at Camp Geiger and NC 24 (Le'eune
'
Boulevard) has undergone various revisions. In 1983, the Jack's Point Route was proposed to
avoid the environmental and residential impacts associated with the 1969 Wilson Bay Route.
The further encroachment of the Jack's Point Route into Camp Johnson was not compatible
with future United States Marine Corps' planned training facilities; and in 1984 a new route,
called the Alternate Jack's Point Route was proposed
Review of the Thoroughfare Plan in 1985 found that the Jack's Point route would impact the
Georgetown area more than originally envisioned. This alternative would have caused
community disruptions and conflicted with the Beacham Sewage Plant. The plan was revised
by shifting the bypass southward (see Figure 4).
The remaining sections of the bypass from NC 53 to US 17 and NC 24 (Lejeune Boulevard)
to US 17 (Marine Boulevard) have basically remained unchanged in the Thoroughfare Plan
since 1969.
2.2 PROJECT STATUS
The proposed improvements to US 17 and NC 24 are included in the North Carolina
shows
Department of major Transpnorth-ortation south 1994-route through the coastal region of North Carolina and serves
serves
as part of a highway system that connects Maine to Florida. It is important to the economy
of North Carolina as it provides access to North Carolina's ports at Morehead City and
Wilmington, and is the principal link to the beaches of North Carolina. Locally, it links
together many small towns and communities and provides access to larger cities such as
No. U-2107 and U-2107A. The Intrastate. Corridor Program includes the widening of US 17
from Virginia to South Carolina and NC 24 from Charlotte to Morehead City. Figure 5
a map of the North Carolina Intrastate System.
I Jacksonville and Wilmington. It is important to our nation's defense as it serves the Camp

-5-

Lejeune Marine Base in Jacksonville and Onslow County. Additionally, it is designated as a
hurricane and emergency evacuation route for eastern North Carolina.
Currently, there are fourteen US 17 improvement projects in the TIP, in various stages of
development. Completion of this project will provide a continuous multi-lane bypass on new
location of the City of Jacksonville. Adjacent US 17 projects include TIP No. R-2514 from
Jacksonville to New Bern and TIP No. R-2406 from Holly Ridge to Jacksonville. Both have
planning studies under way.
NC 24 from west of Jacksonville to Lejeune Boulevard will be routed along the proposed US
17 Bypass. NC 24 is one of the major east west corridors in the state. This corridor is a vital
,
link connecting the major urban areas of Charlotte, Fayetteville, and Jacksonville with the port
of Morehead City. It serves an important military function, connecting the Fort Bragg
military installation and Pope Air Force Base near Fayetteville with the Camp Lejeune Marine
Corps Base near Jacksonville.
NC 24 is also an element of the Intrastate Corridor Program. This program includes 18 TIP
projects which will provide a multi-lane facility from Charlotte to Morehead City. Other
projects include TIP No. X-2 in Fayetteville and Cumberland County and TIP No. R-2303
from I-95 to I-40 through Cumberland, Sampson and Duplin Counties. Adjacent NC 24
projects include TIP No. U-2539 from Hargett Street to Bell Fork Road to widen NC 24 to
a six-lane divided roadway. This project is under construction. Another project in the area
is TIP No. U-2540 to widen Bell Fork Road to five lanes with curb and gutter.
2.3 TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE
The need for the proposed project can be seen by examining traffic volumes and levels of
service along existing routes in the study area. Existing (1990) traffic volumes along US 17 and
NC 24 vary from 29,282 vehicles per day (vpd) on NC 24 east of NC 53 to 58,805 vpd (Figure
6) in the more congested areas near the center-of Jacksonville; where-the-two routes utilize the
same roadway. If a bypass is not constructed, these volumes are expected to increase to
bet 1-- 43,753 vpd and 80,- %V- by *ie design year 2010 (Figure 7). If a bypass is
constructed, year 2010 volumes on the existing roadways are expected to vary from 15,686 vpd
to 31,174 vpd (Figure 8). Figures 6, 7, and 8 show traffic volumes in each direction.
In the design year, traffic volumes on the proposed bypass will range from 32,297 vpd on the
southern section between NC 53 and US 17 (Ocean Highway) to 49,333 vpd on the section
of the bypass which crosses the New River between Camp Geiger and Camp Johnson. (Figure
9 shows traffic volume in each direction).
Level of Service (LOS) is a measure of the operational conditions of vehicles in a traffic stream
and how these conditions are perceived by motorists. The LOS definition generally describes
these conditions in terms of such factors as vehicle speeds, travel times, freedom to maneuver,
traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. Six levels of service are used to describe
traffic conditions. (See Table 3). These levels range from "A" to "F", with LOS "A"
representing ideal traffic conditions and LOS "F" representing a complete breakdown of traffic
-6-

TABLE 3
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of Service A represents free flow. Individual users are virtually unaffected by the
presences of others in the traffic stream. Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver
within the traffic stream is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience
provided to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent.
Level of Service B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence of other users in the traffic
stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to select desired speeds 4& -.relatively unaffected, but
there is a slight decline in the freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A.
The level of comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A, because the
presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect individual behavior.
Level of Service C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the beginning of the range of flow
in which the operation of individual users becomes significantly affected by the interactions
with others in the traffic stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the presence of
others, and the maneuvering within traffic requires substantial vigilance on the part of the user.
The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.
Level of Service D represents high-density, but stable, flow. Speed and freedom to maneuver
are severely restricted, and the driver experiences a generally poor level of comfort and
convenience. Small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems at this
level.
Level of Service E represents operating conditions at or near capacity level. All speeds are
reduced to a low, relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver within traffic is extremely ....,
difficult, and is generally forcing a vehicle to "give way" to accommodate such maneuvers.
Comfort and convenience levels are extremely poor, and driver frustration is generally high.
Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small increases in flow or minor
perturbations within the traffic stream will cause breakdowns.
Level of Service F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This condition exists wherever
the amount of traffic approaching a point exceeds the amount which can traverse the point.
Queues form behind such locations. Operations within the queue are characterized by stop-
and-go waves, and they are extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at reasonable speeds for
several hundred feet or more, then be required to stop in a cyclic fashion. Level of Service F
is used to describe the operating conditions within the queue, as well as the point of the
breakdown.
-7-

representing ideal traffic conditions and LOS "F" representing a complete breakdown of traffic
flow. Levels of service "A" through "C" are considered desirable for a major arterial in the
design year.
A traffic capacity analysis was prepared for the three major existing intersections along NC 24
and US 17 and levels of service computed for the existing, no-build, and build conditions.
The findings of this study are presented in Table 4. Freeway segments of the preferred
alternative were also analyzed and are summarized in Table 5. As indicated in Table 4, the
existing levels for the three major intersections ranges from LOS "C" to LOS "F". For the
No-Build alternative in the design year, the levels decrease to LOS "E" and LOS "F" at all
intersections. For the Build Alternative in the design year, the levels improve to LOS "B",
"C", and "E" for these intersections. Traffic service along the freeway segment will be at LOS
"B" and LOS "C" in the design year.
2.4 ACCIDENT INFORMATION
2.4.1 OCCURRENCE AND TYPE
During the period from January 1, 1987 to August 31, 1990, a total of 1,639 accidents was
reported within the study area. Of that total, 620 accidents resulted in 986 non-fatal injuries
and three fatalities. Rear-end collision (slowing or turning) accounted for 39.8 percent of these
accidents. Angle collisions accounted for 16.1 percent, 11.1 percent involved left turn
movements off the main road and the remaining 33 percent accounted for the various other
types of accidents (head-ons, single vehicle, etc.)
2.4.2 MAJOR CONCENTRATIONS
Twelve intersections can be identified as major accident locations during the study period.
US 17
Henderson Drive 59 accidents
Onslow Drive
Preston Street 57 accidents
58 accidents
Bell Fork Road 128 accidents
Western Boulevard 77 accidents
NC 24 .
NC 53 127 accidents
US 17 126 accidents
Muriel Street 88 accidents
Chaney Street 101 accidents
Bayshore Boulevard 43 accidents
Hargett Street 66 accidents
New River Drive 61 accidents
-8-

1
1
1

TABLE 4
LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR MAJOR INTERSECTIONS
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
2010 BUILD 2010 NO-
BUILD 1990 BASE
YEAR
US 258/NC 24 AND US 17 B E C
US 17 AND NC 24 C F F
US 17 AND WESTERN BLVD. E F E

1
1

r,

TABLE 5
LEVEL OF SERVICE - 2010 BUILD ALTERNATIVE
SEGMENT NUMBER OF
LANES LEVEL OF
SERVICE
US 258/NC 24/NC 53 TO US 17 (SOUTH) 4 C
US 17 (SOUTH) TO
MONTFORD POINT ROAD
6
C
NC 24 TO ARNOLD ROAD EXTENSION 4 C
ARNOLD ROAD EXTENSION TO US 17
(NORTH)
4
B
-9-

The above listed locations experienced 991 accidents; 60.5% of the total. The remaining
accidents were widely scattered along the studied routes.
2.4.3 RATES
Listed below are the accident rates (number of accidents per 100 million vehicle miles) for the
study area as compared to the three-year statewide averages in five categories:
US 17 Study Sections Urban US Routes
(4-lane No Control of Access)
Total Accident 579.9 341.8
Fatal Accident 2.3 1.0
Non-Fatal Accident 205.7 127.5
Night Accident 151.7 73.6
Wet Accident 148.4 75.5
NC 24 Study Sections Urban NC Routes
(4-lane No Control of Access)
Total Accident 382.8 538.3
Fatal Accident 0.8 0.0
Non-Fatal Accident 163.2 197.0
Night Accident 96.5 142.3
Wet Accident 142.3 86.8
The accident experience is best shown comparing the accident rates for US 17 and NC 24 with
the statewide averages. This indicates that rates in nearly all categories are higher than the
statewide averages. .
V1JV Td"oited Stays Routes)
STATEWIDE AVET1 A ( IT Trhon T Tn
if 'D..
4-Lane
Non-Controlled Access
Fully Controlled Access
Total Accident
Fatal Accident
Non-Fatal Accident
Night Accident
Wet Accident
341.8
1.0
127.5
73.6
75.5
35.4
0.6 . .
49.9
31.0
34.5
The most significant comparison, however, is between statewide averages for urban four-lane
non-controlled access versus fully-controlled access. Since significant traffic will shift to the
-10-

I proposed fully-controlled access bypass, this project is expected to substantially reduce accidents
in the Jacksonville area.
2.5 BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY, REGION AND STATE
Construction of the proposed bypass will result in improved traffic flow and less congestion
along the heavily traveled US 17 and NC 24 routes within the Jacksonville Urban Area. The
bypass will also result in reduced accident rates, travel time and operating cost for these
existing routes and will provide an overall improvement in the ease and convenience of local
travel.
The proposed bypass, along with the other planned improvements to the US 17 and NC 24
I corridors, will benefit the region by providing continuous multi-lane east-west and north-south
routes to the ports of Wilmington and Morehead. City..-

1

u

-11-

f?

11

E
1
1

1
1

F1

Fi

3.0 ALTERNATIVES
Various alternatives were considered during the course of the study including: the No-Build
Alternative; Alternative Modes of Transportation; the Transportation Systems Management
Alternative; Build Alternative A, the Preferred Alternative; and Build Alternative B. Each of
these alternatives are discussed below. Also discussed are build alternatives that were
considered but rejected after preliminary study.
3.1 NO-BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No-Build Alternative is a "do nothing" alternative in which no new construction or
improvement along existing routes is proposed Only normal maintenance and safety
operations such as patching and resurfacing of roads, regrading shoulders, and maintaining
ditches and drainage systems would be performed With the No=Build Alternative, the
potential for economic growth within the project area will be diminished and the existing
traffic congestion will continue and worsen. The No-Build Alternative is not consistent with
local transportation goals or the Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan and does not meet the
project's purpose and need Therefore, the No-Build Alternative is not considered practicable.
3.2 ALTERNATIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION
No alternative mode of transportation is considered to be a practical alternative for the study
area. Jacksonville presently has a limited private bus service which began in 1989. This service
primarily provides transportation between the military bases and the downtown area of
Jacksonville. The service will not be impacted by and does not lessen the need for the
proposed project since the bus routes serve local travel patterns and the proposed bypass will
serve both local and through traffic. No transit studies (either NCDOT or the City of
Jacksonville) are currently in progress or are anticipated in the near future.
3.3 TRANSPORTATION SYMM MANAGEMEN T .
(T'SM) alternatives consist of low-cost improvements to
iiwllJtJV14w{.aVaa V?VLti.aa?irawaawbr??.raar `a
existing highways to allow traffic to flow more smoothly and efficiently. TSM measures
enhance the operations of a facility with minimal capital and include: improving signalization,
adding high occupancy vehicle lanes (HOV), adding turning lanes and making other similar
improvements. Both US 17 and NC 24 have been widened to multi-lane urban facilities.
Right- of-way and signalization constraints indicate TSM type improvements are not aviable
alternative. TSM improvements will not meet the current or future transportation needs of
the area and will not handle the projected traffic demand Therefore, the TSM Alternative is
not considered practicable.

1
-12-

3.4 BUILD ALTERNATIVES I
In 1989, environmental and engineering studies were initiated to determine possible locations
for a southern bypass of Jacksonville. Preliminary alignments were developed and where
feasible, alignments in one corridor were connected with those in the other corridor to
produce a combination of alternatives. Several alignments and grades were investigated to
determine the most feasible location. The alignments in Camp Geiger and Camp Johnson
were refined to reduce or eliminate impacts to lands marked for USMC planned facilities
expansion. Interchange locations were investigated to improve traffic operations with
minimum construction and right-of-way costs. As a result of these preliminary studies, two
Alternatives, A and B, were selected for detailed studies.
3.4.1 ALTERNATIVE A (Preferred Alternative) ,
Alternative A (Figure 10) begins at US 258/NC 24 west of the intersection of NC 53 and
proceeds eastward to cross and intersect at-grade with NC 53 before continuing eastward to
cross US 17 (Ocean Highway) just south of Brinson Creek. The alignment follows the south
bank of the creek around the northern portion of Camp Geiger; turns to the south to avoid
the Camp Geiger sewage treatment plant before turning eastward to cross the New River f
approximately 1/4 mile south of Montford Point Road. East of New River, Alternative A
turns northeast and crosses Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24) approximately 400 feet east of New
River Drive and reconnects to US 17 (Marine Blvd.) with an at-grade intersection
approximately 250 feet south of Western Boulevard.

Grade separations are proposed at Bell Fork Road and Country Club Road. Interchanges are
proposed at US 17 (Ocean Highway) near Camp Geiger and at Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24)
where directional ramps on the south would connect the major traffic movements to the ,
bypass. A half interchange is proposed at Montford Point Road in Camp Johnson. The US
17 (Marine Blvd.) terminus of the project will be an at-grade intersection. The future extension
of the US 17 Bypass north of the, _terminus,.of this .project..is,included. on the: Jacksonville
Thoroughfare Plan and no known problems exist with this extension.
3.4.2 ALTERNATIVE B
Alternative B (Figure 11) begins at US 258/.NC 24 east of the intersection with NC 53 and
proceeds eastward to cross and interchange with existing US 17 (Ocean Highway) north of
Brinson Creek. The alignment continues eastward along the north side of Brinson Creek and
the south side of the Georgetown community to the crossing of the New River. East of the
river, Alternative B turns northeast and crosses Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24) approximately 400
feet east of New River Drive and reconnects to US 17 (Marine Blvd.) with an at-grade
intersection approximately 250 feet south of Western Boulevard
Grade separations are proposed at Bell Fork Road and Country Club Road. Interchanges are
proposed at US 17 (Ocean Highway) near Camp Geiger and at Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24)

where directional ramps on the north would connect the major traffic movements to the ,
-13- 1

bypass. Half interchanges are proposed in Camp Geiger near the sewage treatment plant and
at Montford Point Road in Camp Johnson. The US 17 (Marine Blvd.) terminus of the project
will be an at-grade intersection. The future extension of the US 17 Bypass north of the
terminus of this project is included on the Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan and no known
problems exist with this extension.
3.4.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED

Alternatives and options considered but rejected included:
1) Brinson Creek Alignment
2) Alternate Camp Johnson Alignment
3) At-grade Expressway (Lejeune Blvd. NC 24 to
Marine Blvd., US 17)
A Brinson Creek alignment was rejected due to impacts on the Brinson Creek aquatic
ecosystem and associated wetland areas. The Alternate Camp Johnson Alignment was found
to be incompatible with planned Marine Corps development at Camp Johnson. The at-grade
Expressway option was dismissed because it did not operate at a desirable level of service
(LOS C) and did not meet the traffic needs of the project. All three were not compatible with
the USMC plans for redevelopment of Camp Lejeune.
3.4.4 REASONS FOR SELECTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Preferred Alternative (Alternative A) will displace fewer wetlands than Alternate B,
approximately 24 acres versus 28 acres, respectively (see Table 6 for acres of different types of
wetlands affected). In addition, the Preferred Alternative will provide a better connection with
Lejeune Boulevard and will avoid the acquisition and relocation of an existing sewage treatment
plant and the planned Georgetown sewer system, 36" force main and pump station.
Another consideration in the selection of Alternative A as the Preferred Alternative is cost.
As shown in Table 6, the Preferred Alternative will cost approximately $31,400,000 less than
Alternative B. Most of the additional cost for Alternative B is associated with $21,550,000 in
bridge cost. Alternative B will cross the New River at two locations while Alternative A will
cross at one location. Also, the right-of-way and utility costs for the preferred alternative will
be approximately $9,850,000 less than for Alternative B. Alternative B will require the
acquisition of more privately owned and developed land than Alternative A. A greater percent
of the necessary right-of-way associated with the Preferred Alternative will be acquired from
the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base.
For the above reasons, Alternative A is selected as the Preferred Alternative.
3.5 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Alternative A, the preferred alternative, as shown in Figure 12, is described in detail below:
-14-

TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF BUILD ALTERNATIVES
Preferred
Alternative A Alternative B
LENGTH (Miles) 7.3 6.8
Estimated Cost:
Construction $69,850,000 $91,400,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities $20,538,000 $30,387,000
TOTAL COST $90,388,000 $121,787,000
RELOCATIONS
Families 37 26
Owners 13 5
Tenants 24 21
Minorities 17 12
Businesses 37 24
Employees 282 221
Non-Profit 1 0
Others 0 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
WETLANDS
Palustrine forested, 15.4 7.7
broad-leaved deciduous
Palustrine forested, 4.0 12.4
needled-leaved evergreen
Palustrine shrub-scrub wetlands 4.8 8.1
Palustrine emergent wetlands 0.0 0.0
TOTAL WETLANDS DISPLACED 24.2 28.2
PLANT COMMUNITIES
Mesic hardwood forest 16.0 7.7
Mixed pine HW forest 155.1 157.0
PINE FOREST
Old growth loblolly 17.0 2.0
Managed pine forest 6.9 15.6
(TOTAL PINE FOREST) 23.9 17.6
Emergent marsh 0.0 0.0
Shrub swamp woodland 4.8 8.1
Open field 46.0 33.7
Man dominated 59.5 84.7

POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
5 ti .
0
NOISE RECEPTORS IMPACTED
Exceed MAC 35 9
Substantial Increase 12 19
RIGHT-OF-WAY (ACRES)
Private 168.7 234.0
Military 245.0 125.7
TOTAL RIGHT-OF-WAY REQUIRED 413.7 359.7
ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES 1 3
-15-

' 3.5.1 PROJECT LENGTH
The total length of the preferred alternative is 7.3 miles.
3.5.2 TYPICAL SECTIONS
The bypass is typically a four-lane facility with 12-foot lanes and a 60-foot wide median;
however, the number of lanes varies to as many as eight in interchange areas. A sic-lane
freeway is proposed between the US 17 (Ocean Highway) and Montford Point interchanges.
Inside and outside (left and right) shoulders will be 12 feet wide with ten feet of the outside
shoulder and ten feet of the inside shoulder paved.
' The lane width of proposed ramps and loops is 14 feet with 12-foot wide inside and outside
shoulders. Four feet of both shoulders wilLle- payed.- These widths may be revised as
necessary to comply with current criteria in effect at the time of design. Typical sections are
shown in Figures 13 & 14.
3.5.3 DESIGN CRITERIA
Design criteria for the project are in accordance with AASHTO standards and are summarized
in Table 7.
3.5.4 RIGHT-OF-WAY
The proposed right-of-way width varies from 250 feet wide along the four-lane sections to 1600
feet in interchanges. Sufficient right-of-way will be acquired to contain all proposed
construction; however, in areas of developed property, right-of-way limits will be established
' in a manner which will minimize property damage and relocations while serving the needs of
the highway facility.
The Camp Lejeune Environmental Management Department reserves the right to contract for
timber sales within the proposed right-of-way on Camp L ejenne prior to construction.
3.5.5 ACCESS CONTROL
This project will be a full control of access facility except at its terminus with NC 53 and at
its northern terminus with existing US 17.
3.5.6 INTERSECTION TREATMENT AND TYPE OF CONTROL
Partially-directional grade-separated interchanges are proposed at US 17 (Ocean Highway) near
Camp Geiger and Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24) with traffic signals at ramp and loop terminals.
A half diamond interchange is proposed at Montford Point Road.
-16-

TABLE 7
US 17, JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
DESIGN CRITERIA
DESIGN SPEED: Freeway: 60 MPH
Ramp: 50 MPH (DES.) 40 MPH (min.)
Loop: 25 MPH (min.)
Cross Street: 45 MPH (varies in accordance with
functional classification)
LEVEL OF SERVICE: Freeway: B
RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH: 225 Feet Minimum
LANE WIDTHS: Freeway: 12 Feet
Interchange Turning Lane: 12 Feet + widening
(AASHTO Criteria)
Ramp, Single Lane: 14 Feet .
Left Turn Storage: 12 Feet Desirable
11 Feet Minimum
Cross Street: 12 Feet
SHOULDER WIDTHS: Freeway: 12 Feet Outside (10 Feet Paved)
12 Feet Inside (10 Feet Paved)
Bridge: 10 Feet Outside
4 Feet Inside
Ramp: 12 Feet (4 Feet Paved)
MEDIAN WIDTHS: Freeway: 60 Feet
Cross Streets: As Required
DEGREE OF CURVE: Freeway: 3.50 Degrees desirable maximum for 60 MPH
Ramp: 7.5 Degrees maximum for 50 MPH
Loop: 200' Minimum radius for 25 MPH
SUPERELEVATION: a Max - 0.08 ft./ft.
RUNOFF: 240 Feet Minimum
GRADES: 3% Maximum - Freeway
_•
o7 o ,raxtmum -Ramp .
0.5% Minimum (In Cut)
0.5% Minimum (In Fill)
STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE: 1984 AASHTO Standards
VERTICAL CURVE LENGTHS: 1984 AASHTO Standards
NORMAL CROSS SLOPE: Pavement - 2%
Shoulders - 4%
VERTICAL CLEARANCE: Over Freeway & Arterials: 16.5 Feet Minimum
Over Local Streets and
Collector Roads 15.5 Feet Minimum
Over Railroad 23 Feet Minimum
SOURCES: "A Policy on Design of Highways and Streets," AASHTO, 1984, and North Carolina Department of
Transportation Roadway Design Manual
-17-
t
3.5.7 RAILROAD WORK REQUIRED
The proposed bypass will bridge the Lejeune Railroad at Bell Fork Road and cross the
' Seaboard Coast Line Railroad at Marine Boulevard (US 17) at-grade. At the present time, the
track that parallels US 17 north of Bell Fork Road is inactive and is anticipated to be
abandoned in the future. A future US 17 project (in Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan/currently
not programmed in TIP) will address the railroad grade separation at this site.
3.5.8 BRIDGES AND CULVERTS
Sup single badges and eight dual bridges are proposed at various points along the bypass. The
six single bridges are located mainly within the two interchanges. Within the Route 17
' interchange, bridges are located on Northbound Route 17 over the Northbound Connector
(180' length) and on the Mainline over the Northbound-Connector (170' length): Within the--
Route 24 interchange, bridges are located on the Northbound Mainline over the Westbound
' Connector (170' length) and on the Westbound Connector over relocated Route 24 (180'
length). Additional single bridges are located over the mainline at Montford Landing Road
' (320' length) and on the Military Road near the sewage treatment plant (270' length).
Dual bridges are located on the mainline over Route 17 (280' length), over Edwards Creek
' (210' length), over the New River (1,650' length), over two military roads (170' and 470'
lengths), over Route 24 (230' length), over the Lejeune Railroad (420' length) and over Country
Club Road (150' length). No existing bridges are affected by the proposed project.
A clear roadway width sufficient to accommodate the travel lanes plus a ten-foot outside
shoulder and a four-foot inside shoulder will be provided on two-lane bridges; a ten-foot inside
and outside shoulder will be provided on bridges with three or more lanes. Typical sections
for bridges over the New River and Edwards Creek are shown in Figure 14.
Bridge widths are subject. to revisions, during.-design-to accommodate-fewer:lanes.being built
due to proposed stage construction of the project (see Figure 14 - Staging Option). Vertical
waterway nagigarion clearance under the New River Bridge is recommended to be 45 feet at
mean high water and a horizontal clearance of 100 feet with 10-foot buffers on both sides. The
45-foot clearance has been approved by the U.S. Coast Guard.
1

J
Several major drainage structures will be required at various locations along the proposed
alignment. Three structures will be required within the Route 17 interchange on Brinson
Creek, a 12'x12' box culvert (260' length) and two 72" R.C.P. (90' and 390' in length). Two
structures will be required on Scales Creek, a 6'x5' box culvert (320' length) and a 54" R.C.P.
(275' length). In addition, the existing twin 6'x6' box culvert located under N.C. 24 will be
extended by 32 feet. A 54" R.C.P. (235' length) will be required on Sandy Run Branch.
-18-

LJ
3.5.9 PARKING
Since this is a controlled access freeway facility, with the exception of emergency stopping, no
parking will be permitted.
3.5. 10 SIDEWALKS
There are no existing sidewalks located along the project and none are proposed.
3.5. 11 BICYCLES
Since this is a controlled access facility, no accommodations will be provided for bicycle traffic.
3.5.12 CONSTRUCTION STAGING
Due to anticipated costs of the project, the bypass is proposed to be constructed in stages. The
first stage will be the section of roadway between US 17 (Ocean Highway) near Camp Geiger
and Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24). Other items to be staged may include: 1) construction of
an at-grade intersection in lieu of the half-diamond interchange, and 2) construction of four of
the proposed six lanes.
The remaining sections and the additional lanes will be constructed as funding becomes
available.
3.5.13 GEODETIC MARKERS
Five geodetic survey markers have been identified within the study area. NC Geodetic Survey
will be contacted once final plans are complete and those markers impacted by the proposed
project will be relocated prior to construction.
3.5.14 UTILITIES
Overhead electric distribution and telephone lines are located throughout the project along all
streets and roads. High-tension overhead electric transmission lines owned by Carolina Power
& Light cross the proposed alignment at three locations; twice between NC 53 and US 17
(Ocean Highway) and once between Bell Fork Road and Western Boulevard. Raising or
relocation of these high-tension lines is not anticipated Relocation of local service overhead
electric and telephone lines will be required at a number of the bypass crossing sites.
An intra-base communication system is crossed by the proposed project at two locations; near
Camp Geiger and between Wilson Bay and Montford Point Road near Camp Johnson. A
fiber optic communication system has been proposed by the Marine Corps along the project
to replace the above ground cable.
-19-
1

1

t

1

A gravity-fed sewerline owned by the City of Jacksonville is under construction along the
north side of Brinson Creek east of US 17 (Ocean Blvd.). This sewer system will serve the
recently annexed Georgetown community. No conflicts with this gravity-fed system are
' anticipated.
A major force main sewer line is proposed along the north side of Brinson Creek both east and
west of US 17 (Ocean Blvd.) and will cross the bypass between NC 53 and US 17. Plans for
this facility have been completed with construction to begin within two years. Close
coordination with the City and its engineer during the planning and design stages will reduce
or eliminate impacts to this sewer facility.
Underground water, sewer, and gas lines, observed at various locations throughout the project
will require relocation. Plans and specifications of all water system improvements must be
approved by the City and the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) Division of Environmental Health prior to the initiation of
construction.
3.5.15 SPEED LIMITS
The proposed speed limit for this project is 55 miles per hour (mph). The existing speed limit
on US 258/NC 24 and US 17 (Marine Blvd.) at the project termini is 45 mph. No revisions
to the existing speed limits are anticipated.
3.5.16 LANDSCAPING
No special landscaping measures are currently proposed for this project, with the exception of
' existing trees located in the median on NC 24 (Lejeune Blvd.) that will be disturbed during
construction will be relocated to another suitable location. In addition, the U.S. Marine Corps
has requested a visual barrier (trees, shrubs, etc.) along right-of-way around the northern end
of Camp Geiger which will be consideredin.the landscape.plans. The..Citlr of Jacksonville is
developing a landscaping plan which will be considered in the final design phase.
3.5.17 COST ESTIMATES
The estimated costs for the.proposed-.project. are as .follows:
Construction $ 69,850,000.00
' (Includes Engineering & Contingencies)
Right-of-Way
' (Includes Acquisition & Utility Relocations) $ 20,538,000.00
TOTAL $ 90,388,000.00
-20-
I
3.5.18 MUNICIPAL AGREEMENTS
Portions of the proposed highway project are located within the corporate limits of
Jacksonville, N.C., and the U. S. Marine Corps Camp Lejeune boundary. Prior to
construction, a municipal agreement will be negotiated and mutually adopted by the City of
Jacksonville and NCDOT. This agreement will include the City's participation, if any, in the
right-of-way cost, utility adjustments and traffic operations.
The right-of-way within Camp Lejeune will require a land transfer agreement between the U.S.
Marine Corps and NCDOT.

-21-
CJ
r?
i

1

11
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES
4.1.1 LAND USE
Land use within the project area is a mixture of residential, recreational, commercial,
office/institutional, military and open space/vacant. A major part of the project area lies
within the Camp Geiger and Camp Johnson portions of the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps
Base. The predominant private land use is residential with most of the residential areas being
developed as low density subdivisions. The commercial land use patterns consist of a relatively
small Central Business District as compared to more extensive strip commercial developments
located along the major thoroughfares. The heaviest concentrations of commercial land uses
are along NC 24 and US 17. The major institutional land uses consist of schools, government
facilities, Onslow Memorial Hospital, and the Coastal Carolina Community College. Roughly
50% of the land use for the City of Jacksonville and its ETJ is vacant. Within the city limits
there are substantial tracts of vacant land within the area formed by Western Boulevard, US
17 and NC 24. The current land uses within the Jacksonville Urban Area are shown on
Figure 15.
The proposed project is consistent with the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Land Use
Plan for Jacksonville. The steady growth of the city has created a need for transportation
improvements on several major thoroughfares through Jacksonville to keep pace with this
development. In addition, further development north and northwest of the city limits is
currently limited due to inadequate access to these areas. Several improvements have been
proposed in the Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan and the Transportation Improvement Plan.
The proposed project is included in the Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan, April 17, 1985 (Figure
4) and the 1994-2000 TIP. The project is also consistent with land use at the Camp Lejeune
Military Base, compatible with the Camp Lejeune Master Plan, and has been coordinated with
the Department of Defense and. officials. at -the Marine. Base..-.-,.
4.1.2 POPULATION CHARACTFRtSTIC.S
The City of Jacksonville is the county seat and the largest municipality within Onslow
County. Its 1990 population of approximately 78,000 people accounted for about 52% of the
County's total population of approximately 150,000. Shown in Table 8 are the populations
of both the City of Jacksonville and Onslow County since 1940. .
Population increases were moderate until the 1940s when the Department of Defense based the
2nd Marine Division and various support missions at Camp Lejeune. During the 1940s, the
population of Onslow County increased from 17,939 to 42,047. During that period,
Jacksonville's population jumped from 873 to 3,960. In subsequent years, the Marine Base has
greatly influenced the population of the area. Prior to the 1990 census, the City of
Jacksonville annexed a portion of the abutting land area with high concentrations of the
-22-

w
TABLE 8

ONSLOW COUNTY AND
JACKSONVILLE HISTORIC POPULATION
i
ONSLOW JACKSONVILLE'S
YEAR COUNTY % CHANGE JACKSONVILLE % CHANGE % OF CO. POP.
1940 17,939 - 873 - 4.9 '
1950 42,047 234.4 3,960 3510' 9.4
1960 82,706 96.7 13,411 252.0 16.2
1970 103,126 24.7 16,289 17.0 15.8 '
1980 112,784 9.4 18,237 12.0 16.2
37
8 21
2 '
1985 118,373 5.0 25,136 . .
1990 149,838 26.6 77,685 209.0 51.8 '
1

Sources: 1985 Land Use Ply.; City Planning Department; Onslow County Planning Department; and U.S.
1990 Census Figures '
r
1
r
r
-23-
1
r
1
' Marine population. This annexation increased Jacksonville's population to 77,685. Currently
over 41,000 military personnel are stationed at the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base. Most
of this 41,000 personnel and their dependents reside in the Jacksonville area.
' Of the City's 1990 population, 52,427 or 67.5% are white; and approximately 25% or 19,730
are black. Asian and Pacific Islanders, American Indians and other races account for the
' remaining 7.2% (5,528 persons) of the population.
4.1.3 COMMUNITY COHESION AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES
Neighborhoods within the project area include Georgetown, Bell Fork Homes, Ellis Park and
several mobile home communities. The Georgetown community is encompassed by Brinson
Creek on the south, US 17 on the west, NC 24 to the north, and the New River to the east.
The proposed project will be located south of Brinson Creek and will not adversely impact this
neighborhood
The Bell Fork Homes community is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
Bell Fork Road and Ellis Boulevard Bell Fork Road and Country Club Road will be grade
separated at the bypass in order to provide uninterrupted local traffic movement between the
existing neighborhood and Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24) and Marine Boulevard (NC 17). The
proposed project will not adversely impact this neighborhood.
The Ellis Park community is located on the south side of Ellis Boulevard. The proposed
project has Ellis Boulevard being a cull-sac at the bypass, therefore eliminating direct access
to Bell Fork Road and Marine Boulevard (NC 17). Access to these roads would be by way
of Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24).
' Several mobile home communities are located between NC 53 and US 17 (Ocean Highway)
south of the proposed project. One community located off NC 53 will not be adversely
' impacted by this project. Two mobile-home communitimlocated.on.Canady Road.will be
provided access onto US 17 (Ocean Highway) by a frontage road that will connect to US 17
at the proposed intersection of US 17 and the relocated entrance to Camp Geiger.
With a grade separation at Bell Fork Road and Country Club Road with the bypass, there will
be no adverse impact of services provided by.the.Onslow County EMC and the Jacksonville
Rescue Squad (located in the vicinity of Bell Fork Park), except to Ellis Boulevard. With
access being eliminated from Bell Fork Road, emergency service to Ellis Boulevard will?be by
way of Bell Fork Road and NC 24 (Lejeune Boulevard).
The proposed project will result in the displacement of 37 residences scattered throughout the
project area. None are located within the neighborhoods described above.

-24-

L
4.1.4 ECONOMIC
As the major employer in the county, the military has contributed greatly to the area's
economy since the 1940s. In 1989, of the 79,491 persons employed in Onslow County, 40,601
were employed by the military.
Of the ten leading employment groups in the Jacksonville-Onslow County area, the military
and federal government have historically employed most of the local work force. Table 9
shows employment by the ten major groups from 1980 through 1988. The project will have
a direct positive benefit on the local economy by improving access to the USMC Base Camp
Lejeune.
Additional commercial development along the project corridor is not likely due to the right-of-
way being fully controlled and that a major portion of the project is on military land.
Development at the proposed interchanges will be limited due to the congestion of strip
development already present. Additional development may be expected to the east and north
due to reduced travel time and better access.
The proposed project will be beneficial to the residents, businesses and tourists. Reduced
congestion, travel time, and safer travel will benefit local citizens and those from surrounding
areas.
Short term positive impacts to the local economics can be expected during the construction
phase due to employment opportunities and increased local retail activity associated with
construction personnel.
4.1.5 VISUAL
The project area is a part of a larger area surrounding Jacksonville and Camp Lejeune. The
landscape in the project area is-defined- as lyurbanlandscape-of residential-and-commercial use,
and 2) the military housing and training facilities. Landcover consists of the New River and
-vegetation, inclluding trees and marsh. Manmade development consists of residential Si uc ?.lrw,
commercial structures, military buildings and their related roadways. The river is used for
recreational activities.
The recommended alternative, on new location, creates a new roadway corridor in the urban
landscape. The highway can be designed to create a pleasing visual experience for the driver.
However, the view of the bridge and roadway will have a visual impact where there are now
unobstructed views of the river, marsh and forest vegetation. Visual impact will be the greatest
in residential areas where permanent residents will be able to view the completed highway.
-25-

r

1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
O N O O N OD O O O O N
OD O N Ln r-1 1-4 r-i w N ra O O
OD N M V? N N %0 w O r-i
4m
rl
ra
Ln
OD
w
ri
ra
e-1
M
ri
v
Vw m m [? O co V? to ri
tD O 10 M N M IV Ln %D I'D O (N
OD O 0) L, k0 ON H LO O Ln ri r,
of
CA
V?
O
Ln
1
N
N
ri
M
O
M <` U
L:
N
,b
•ri
M

l?
M
M
O
Ln
co
M
O
d? N
}.L
LA " ri tl Ln N N m Ln 0) t- v
OD w O -1 M O O N co Ln H 14 44
O In O In rl N rl r-I M O O
M ? N
U

ri
a
O
a 00 0 t- w w t? 01 w N t- (N

M N rn M 01 O O, O ? Ln m a
a O 0% r eN L? V? rl M N M 00 x
M %lo >4
? 0
O
3
w
!^
CD O
Z [? N ri t- ri " O1 Vw Ln w ri
M H k0 w U) N N N O t0 N k0
U

W
aD
ra
r
ON
N
H
O
O %D w
co
H
Q rl t? d? ?O d? ri V? N ri ri N a
LLJ M
O) = J o
J Z
W
m `
r N
Q
N N t, t- co M
l M M t- tl v

F'
m
M l?
O N
Ln O
\0 M
H O
ri E
t- M
CD N
w co
m m
co %D
m
U) Ln tC' d? r l M ri r l r l N N ••
vi

LU :D
O

O -1
O
01 t- w ri ri d? O ri Lo M CO 0
w W*' Lnr t-
O O%
Ln
M
Go
ON
r-4
rn
r-
Ln
en
_ r%
.
W J to M ri M ri r 1 ri M C
?
of a
i
Z o.
O °
ri
v

' Go O
' 0%
'- qw w k0 H w 0%
OD co OD Ln N co ON r-I O O\ N A
to V? M V? M ?O ?O ri N V?
rl M dw In m r1 M .-I .-I rL M % U1
N Ln
O
C
O
U
W
U
O
a
1~
o
? W
a
E-
E-4
z
a E w E M ff o
o V
W H H N o
0 z z x ? E W. w
zz w W i o? w

a c7 W
nn ••

W
W H
q' H H
W E
UI UW
a aiN
a w a
A u
S

> H
>
E. >
a
>
z
1
E 1
O OH W W O O HW O O O
C9 L7U a W w U' U D4 C4 Ea E cn
-26-
1
4.1.6 DISPLACEMENTS AND RELOCATIONS
The proposed project will result in the displacement of 37 residences and 37 businesses (See
Relocation Report, Appendix III). Of these 37 families, 24 families are tenants and the
remaining 13 are homeowners. Seventeen minority families will be displaced by this project.
Two families are located in the vicinity of the intersection of NC 53 and NC 24. Two families
are located along US 17 (Ocean Highway) and 13 families are located in the vicinity of '
Country Club Road. No elderly or handicapped relocations are anticipated Adequate
replacement housing is available in Jacksonville, therefore, no significant impacts are
anticipated
Relocation problems are not anticipated for elderly, handicapped and/or minority

communities. Adequate replacement housing and rental units are available in the immediate '
vicinity.
Of the 37 business displacements, 24 are businesses that own their facilities, one is a non-profit
business and the remaining 12 businesses are tenants. No minority businesses will be displaced.
Many of the businesses are anticipated to relocate back into the area. Business services will still
be available after construction since there are similar businesses unaffected by this project.
Additional businesses along US 17 (Ocean Highway) and NC 24 (Lejeune Boulevard) will be
impacted due to the control of access right-of-way restricting direct access to US 17 and NC '
24. These businesses depend on a close proximity and easy access to Camp Lejeune.
It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation: '
* Relocation Assistance,
* Relocation Moving P.ayments,#and.,
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement.
With the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be available to assist '
displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes, apartments, or businesses
for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The Relocation Moving Payments '
Program, in general, provides for payment of actual moving expenses encountered in
relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property
of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the '
Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up
to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible
and qualify. I
-27-
?

1

J
fl

The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with the
Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
(Public Law 91-646), and the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-
18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating to a
replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one relocation officer is assigned to
each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals, businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance advisory services
without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The NCDOT will schedule its
work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for negotiations and possession of
replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and sanitary standards. The displacees are given
at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. Relocation of displaced
persons will be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard -to public utilities and
commercial facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial
means of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places
of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses, non-
profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an explanation
regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of
replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-occupant housing
to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply information concerning
other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other
advisory services as needed in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting..
to a new location.
P_'

1

EI

The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the costs
of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm
operations acquired for..a highway project...,Under._the Replacement: Program for Owners,
NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for replacement dwellings
such as attorney's fees, surveys, app:"'••:cole? ownd other dosing costs and, if applicable, make a
payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to
owner-occupants for replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental
purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500• (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a
replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the
purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
-28-

It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally- ,
assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been offered
or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement. No
relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining eligibility or the extent of eligibility
of any person for assistance under the Social Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not available,
or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the replacement payment
exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad
latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that decent, safe, and sanitary
replacement housing can be provided. It is not felt that this program will be necessary on the
project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities for relocation within the area. '
4.1.7 CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS
Two churches, The Word of Faith Church and The Lutheran Church of Our Savior, are
located within the project area, neither of which will be significantly affected by the proposed

project. Bell Fork Elementary School is also located within the project study limits. '
However, the project will not impact the operations of Bell Fork Elementary or any other
school or school bus operation. '
4.1.8 PARKS AND RECREATION
i
i
fi
d ,
on
oor recreat
n
ve
The City of Jacksonville and Onslow County operate nine parks and
centers. These facilities offer many programs and activities for the residents of the area. The
only facility located within the project area is Bell Fork Park on Cole Drive. Although not
directly impacted by the proposed project, Bell Fork Park may experience increased noise
levels resulting from traffic operating on the proposed bypass (See Section 3.5.19). The noise
level increase will ? not ,. be such -that.. the ? function;, purpose, -or, use, -of-the park will be
substantially impaired This project has been coordinated with the Onslow County
De^^ merit of P».rkr? aad Recreation, which has concurred with this determination.
r

The New River is an important fishing and recreational facility for Jacksonville area residents. '
Wilson Bay provides docking and servicing facilities for area boat owners. Bridges over the
New River will be designed for a 45-foot vertical clearance to facilitate the movement of boats '
between the bay and the river. In coordination with the United States Coast Guard, it was
determined the 45-foot clearance will be adequate for nearly all recreational boats using the
New River. '

29-

1
4.1.9 CEMETERIES
No cemeteries will be impacted by the preferred alternative.
4.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES
' 4.2.1 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL SITES
A survey of the project area to identify historic architectural resources with the area of
potential effect was completed All properties appearing to be over 50 years of age within the
area of potential effect were photographed and mapped.
No properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or in the North
Carolina Study List were identified The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred with this finding on February 7, 1992, (see letter in Appendix I). Therefore, the
project will have no effect on any historic architectural resources.

11

4.2.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
An intensive archaeological survey of the project area was conducted in May, 1991. Ten
archaeological sites were identified in the Phase I investigations. Of these ten sites, Site
31ON522 lies within the proposed 300-foot construction corridor of the Preferred Alternative.
Additional investigations will be conducted at this site to fully evaluate its eligibility for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places prior to the final document. If, during
final design, it is determined the proposed highway construction will impact any other
significant archaeology sites, Phase II test excavations will be conducted
4.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.3.1 AIR QUALITY.. ,
While air pollution can be caAts?e3 by solid waste disposal, forest fires and burning in general,
the main source of air pollution is the result of industrial emissions and emissions from
internal combustion engines. The impact resulting from the construction of a new highway
or the improvement of an existing highway. can range from aggravating existing air pollution
problems to improving the ambient air conditions. Motor vehicles are known to emit carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate).
The primary pollutant emitted from automobiles is carbon monoxide. Automobiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For these reasons, most of the
analyses presented are concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the project.
-30-

LJI
In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor near a highway, two
concentration components must be used: local and background. The local component is due
to CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the near vicinity (i.e., distances within
100 meters) of the receptor location. The background component is due to CO emissions
from cars operating on streets further from the receptor location.
In this study, the local component was determined using line source computer modeling and
the background component was determined by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). These two concentration
components were determined separately, then added together to determine the ambient CO
concentration for comparison to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Automobiles are generally regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars- are carried into the atmosphere where
they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. It is the ozone and nitrogen
dioxide that are of concern and not the precursor hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxide. Area-wide
automotive emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars, and thus help
lower ambient ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels.
The photochemical reactions that form ozone and nitrogen dioxide require several hours to
occur. For this reason, the peak levels of ozone generally occur 10 to 20 kilometers downwind
of the source of hydrocarbon emissions. Urban areas as a whole are regarded as sources of
hydrocarbons, not individual streets and highways. The emissions of all sources in an urban
area mix together in the atmosphere, and in the presence of sunlight, the mixture reacts to
form ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and other photochemical oxidants. The best example of this
type of air pollution is the smog which forms in Los Angeles, California.
Automobiles are not generally regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. Nationwide, highway sources-account?for less?than seven.percent..of.particulate matter
emissions and less than two percent of sulfur dioxide emissions. Particulate matter and sulfur
'4;nYide emissions are predominantly the result of non-highway sources (e.g., industrial,
commercial, and agricultural). Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from
cars are very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality
standards for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles emit lead as a result of burning gasoline containing tetraethyl lead which is added
by refineries to increase the octane rating of the fuel. New cars with catalytic converters burn
unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. Also, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has required the reduction in the lead content of leaded gasolines.
The overall average lead content of gasoline in 1974 was 2 grams per gallon. By 1989, this
composite average had dropped to 0.01 grams per gallon.
-31-

11

1

1
' In the future, lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the
lead content of leaded gasoline is reduced The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 makes the
sale, supply or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31, 1995.
Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the
NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
A microscale air quality analysis was performed to determine future CO concentrations
resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CALINE3 - A Versatile Dispersion
Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial Streets" was used to
predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptors to the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted of a level
' roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission factors, and
meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are-based on-the annual average-daily traffic
projections. The modeling analysis was performed for a "worst case" condition using winds
blowing parallel to the roadway. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were calculated
for the years 2000 and 2010 using the EPA Publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and
the MOBILE4 mobile source emissions computer model.
The background CO concentrations for the project area was estimated to be 1.9 parts per
million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental
Management (DEM), North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (NCDEHNR) indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 9 ppm is suitable for
most suburban areas.
The closest receptors affected by "worst case" air quality conditions resulting from the
proposed project are businesses near the proposed Lejeune Blvd (NC 24) interchange. The
predicted 2000 and 2010 one-hour average CO concentrations for the proposed Jacksonville
Bypass are presented in Table 10.
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS 8-hour average of 9 ppm
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the "worst case" 1-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed the
standard. See Table 11 for input data.
The project is located within the Southern Coastal Plain Air Quality Control Region. The
ambient air quality for Onslow County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area where the
r State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any transportation control measures, the
conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770 do not apply to this project.

C
32-
1
TABLE 10
AIR QUALITY RECEPTOR SITES
AND
MAXIMUM ONE-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS*
In Parts Per Million (ppm)
Location Year Year 2000 Year 2010
1990
Existing No Build Build No Build Build
Baker Circle
Subdivision N/A N/A 2.4 N/A 2.4
US 17/Bypass
Interchange 3.9 3.1 2.8 3.3 3.2
NC 24/Bypass
Interchange 5.0 3.7 3.3 4.2 3.6
Bell Fork 3.8 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9
Country Club Rd. and 3.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.7
Arnold Rd. Extension
*Results include background concentrations of 1.9 ppm

-33-

MOBIL4
Region:
Registration Distribution:
Vehicle Mix:
Vehicle Operating Mode Phases:
Vehicle Speeds:
Ambient Temperature:
Inspection / Maintenance Program:
Anti-tampering Program:
CALINE3
Site Geometry:
- Cartesian Coordinates
- Roadway Heights
- Receptor Heights
Traffic Data:
Meteorology:
- Wind Speed
- Atmospheric Stability
- Mixing Height
- Wind Angle
Surface Roughness:
Background CO:
Persistence Factor:
Averaging Time:
TABLE 11
MODEL INPUTS
Low-Altitude
National Default
Roadway and Analysis Specific
20.6 / 27.3 / 20.6
Roadway Specific
35.3° F
No
No
Gridded on 200:1 Scale Map
From Highway Profiles
5 Feet
Peak Hourly Volumes
I Meter Per Second
F (very stable)
400 Meters
0° to 3500 at 10° Increments
Worst Case Receptors at 1° Increments
108 cm.
1.9 Parts Per Million (one-hour)
0.61
60 Minutes
SOURCE: Louis Berger & Associates, 1991
-34-

During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing, '
demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise disposed
of by the Contractor. Any burning done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with
15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance
practicable from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard
to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. '
Measures will be taken in allaying the dust generated by construction when the control of dust
d
ents.
is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or area resi
4.3.2 NOISE '
The proposed project was evaluated to determine potential noise impacts of the bypass in
accordance with the guidelines as set forth in 23 CFR 772 and the NCDOT Noise Abatement

Policy. These guidelines established Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) that are used to '
determine the highway noise levels that are or are not compatible with various land uses.
Table 12 presents the noise abatement criteria for various land uses.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was used to predict existing and future noise levels at the
receptor locations (see Figure 16). These levels are shown in Table 13. Table 14 indicates '
increase/decrease of the exterior noise level at the receptors.
Table 15 presents the number of sites approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement ,
criteria for the preferred alternative. Twenty "Activity B" impacts (eleven house trailers and
nine single family residences) and fifteen "Activity C" or commercial receptor impacts are
predicted Of the twenty residential impacts, eleven residences already exceed 66 dBA under '
existing conditions. The fifteen commercial sites also exceed 71 dBA under existing conditions.
Table 16 presents the number -of-sites, showing -substantial- noise -increases,.for the preferred
alternative. Substantial design year noise increases are defined by NCDOT as an' increase of
15 aRA or Wore for existing noise levels less than or equal to 50 dBA, and 10 dBA or more
for existing levels greater than 50 dBA. For existing noise levels less than or equal to 50 dBA, '
there will be six substantial noise increases (five house trailers and one single family residence).
For existing noise levels greater than 50 dBA, there will be six substantial noise increases (three
house trailers and two single family residences and Bell Fork Park). '
The 67 dBA and 72 dBA noise contours for the projected 2010 Build Condition traffic was
calculated The maximum extent of the 67 dBA and 72 dBA noise level contours are shown
in Table 17. Also, shown in Table 17 are the maximum predicted Leq Noise Levels for
distances of 50', 100' and 200' from the center of the nearest travel lane.
i
-35-

1

1
1

TABLE 12
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Activity
Category
Leq (hr)
Description of Activity Category
A 57 (exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of
extraordinary significance and serve an
important public need and where the preser-
vation. _of_.these- qualities-is, ..essential if
the area is to serve its intended purpose.
B 67 (exterior) Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds,
active sports areas, parks, residences,
motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries,
and hospitals.
C 72 (exterior) Developed lands, properties, or activities
not included in Categories A or B above.
D -- Undeveloped lands.
E 52 (interior) Residences, motels, public meeting rooms,
schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
auditoriums.
Source: 23 CFR.772
Note: The NCDOT considers approach values to be 1 dBA less than the FHWA Noise
Abatement Criteria. Exterior noise approach levels are thus 66 dBA for FHWA Activity
Category B (residences, churches, etc.) and 71 dBA for Activity Category C (commercial,
industrial). Interior noise levels were considered for FHWA Activity Category E (churches).

1

-36-

TABLE 13
2010 BUILD NOISE LEVELS
Existing 2010 Build vs. Exist.
Receptor ID Land Use L dBA L dBA Noise
1 Residential 66 70 4
2 Residential 47 64 17
3 Residential 56 66 10
4 Residential 48 57 9
5 Residential 52 63 11
6 Residential 57* 54 -3
7 Residential 48 55 7
8 Residential 42 56 14
9 Residential 59 61 2
10 Church 67/42 67/42 0
11 Residential 55 57 2
12 Residential 60** 58 -2
13 Park 52 62 10
14 Residential 71 68 -3
15 Residential 59 62 3
16 Church 49/Less than 40 63/43 14
17 Residential 64 68 4
18 Residential 51 59 8
Note: Readings shown as #/# are Category E Noise Levels shown with exterior/interior readings.
*Measured reading included noise from construction equipment at the nearby NCDOT maintenance
yard
**Ambient noise level at this site included noise from frequent airplane flyovers.
Source: Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., 1991
-37-
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
OO -- O o

`D O O o

N
W
cn
W
N
-»
O
O

C z
W ..

LLI >
J O
O? N O ...
Q ?

W W
V

Z
Z
c
O
oo
p
,..?
,
m LJU
W
J' W
X
o
0
0
W
U) cr.
O
a
Z V M O N
V ?

Q N O O N

V

'o^
w
°
U ao °
CAP) °
°z
w • ?
N N ?
Q Cn
bq r7- .
.?
z z
s ? ?
-+ N M
-38-

TABLE 15
APPROACHING OR EXCEEDING
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
Approximate Number of Sites
Approaching or Exceeding FHWA
Noise Abatement Criteria
In Various Activity Categories
ACTIVITY CATEGORY
SEGMENT A B C E
US 258 to NC 53 0 7 2 0
NC 53 to US 17 0 5 3 0
US 17 to RR ROW 0 0 0 0
RR ROW to NC 24 0 0 0 0
NC 24 to Powerline ROW 0 6 10 0
Powerline ROW to US 17 0 2 0 0
TOTAL 0.- 20- 15 _ 0.
Source: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1991

-39-
r
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TABLE 16
SUBSTANTIAL NOISE INCREASE SUMMARY
Approximate Number of Sites
Showing a Substantial Noise Increase
In Varioius Activity Categories
Existing Leq Less Than or Existing Leq
Equal to 50 dBA Greater Than 50 dBA
(15 + dB increase+- (10+ dB increase}
ACTIVITY CATEGORY ACTIVITY CATEGORY
SEGMENT A B C E A B C E

US 258 to NC 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC 53 to US 17 0 5 0 0 0 4 0 0
US 17 to RR ROW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
RR ROW to NC 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NC 24 to Powerline ROW 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
Powerline ROW to US 17 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL
0 6 0 0 0 6 0 0
Source: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc., 1991
-40-

TABLE 17
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
MAXIMUM PREDICTED
Leq NOISE LEVELS
(dBA)'
1
2.
3.
DESCRIPTION
Beginning of Project to
US 17 South
US 17 South to NC 24
NC 24 to US 17 North
50' 100' 200'
76.7 72.6 66.8
CONTOUR
DISTANCES
(MAXIMUM?
72 dBA 67 dBA
107 195
76.0 71.9 66.5 99 187
75.7 70.2 64.0 82 143
150', 100', and 200' distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
272 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.

-41-

Noise Barriers - Noise attenuating barriers, when properly designed and positioned, are an
effective means for reducing traffic noise at sensitive receptors along a roadway. Noise barriers
are particularly effective and cost justifiable for use along controlled access facilities such as the
proposed project. In general, noise barriers are considered acoustically justifiable if the traffic
noise contribution can be reduced by six (6) to eight (8) dBA at a given receptor.
Preliminary design indicates that construction of a noise barrier may be warranted near
residential areas between NC 24 (Lejeune Blvd.) and US 17 (Marine Blvd.). The barrier would
be located in the vicinity of Receptor #2. This barrier will reduce the noise level by at least
7 dB at two sites exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and the NCDOT substantial
increase criteria, as well as providing a noise reduction of at least 4 dB for three additional sites
with noise increases of at least 10 dB. If it develops during final design that these conditions
have substantially changed, the abatement measures might not be provided. A final decision
of the installation of the abatement measure(s) will be made upon completion of the project
design and the public involvement process.
Construction Noise - Construction noise differs from traffic noise in several ways: 1)
Construction noise lasts only for the duration of the construction contract, 2) Construction
noise is usually limited to the daylight hours when most human activity occurs; 3)
Construction noise is intermittent and depends on the type of operation, location and function
of the equipment, and the equipment usage cycle.
The proposed project will involve a variety of construction activities, including clearing and
grubbing, excavation and embankment construction, paving, and other miscellaneous work.
General construction noise impacts such as temporary speech interference for passersby and
those individuals living and working near the project can be expected particularly from earth
moving equipment during grading operations and pile driving during bridge construction.
However, considering construction noise is relatively short in duration and generally restricted
to daylight hours, these impacts are not expected to be substantial.
4.3.3 FLOODPLAINS AND STREAM MODIFICATIONS
Floodplains - Boundaries of the 100-year floodplains for the major waterways within the study
area were determined through the use of Flood Insurance Rate Maps published by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (1987).- {See Figure 17).
1 The proposed bridge over the New River near Jack's Point will span the main body of water
and a major portion of the 100-year floodplain on the east bank. Embankment construction
requiring the addition of fill material is proposed through the coastal floodplain to the west.
Bridges are also proposed over two tributaries of Wilson Bay to the east of the New River
bridge. It is proposed that these bridges span the entire 100-year floodplain.

-42-
1
A bridge is also proposed over Edwards Creek on the west side of the New River. This
crossing is in the coastal/tidal floodplain of the New River and has a 100-year flood elevation
of approximately four feet above mean sea level.
The proposed bypass will cross Scales Creek adjacent to Bell Fork Road and the Camp Lejeune
Railroad east of NC 24 (Lejeune Blvd). The 100-year floodplain at this location is
approximately 500 feet wide.
The proposed bypass will also cross the Sandy Run Branch approximately 1000 feet upstream
of the Bell Fork Road crossing at a site where the floodplain is approximately 300 feet wide
with natural ground elevations below 33 feet above mean sea level.
Stream Modifications - Approximately 100 feet of channel change is anticipated on Brinson
Creek. During design, modification of the existing stream shall be minimized to the fullest
extent practical. If stream encroachment is otherwise unavoidable, the modified or relocated
channel shall duplicate the existing stream as nearly as possible. These characteristics shall
include the stream width, depth, slope, flow regime, sinuosity, pool-riffle ratio, bank cover,
side slopes and flow and velocity distribution.
It is the objective of the Department of Transportation to avoid adverse impacts due to
occupancy and alteration of the 100-year floodplain unless the location is the only practical
alternative. In such circumstances, it is required that every effort be made to minimize the
potential risks to human safety and to property, and to minimize negative effects on natural
and beneficial floodplain value. The proposed project will not have a significant impact on
floodplains that are crossed. It is estimated a total of 4.8 acres of fill will be placed in the 100-
year floodplain. Methods to minimize harm and preserve the floodplains will include
minimizing fill and grading requirements, preserving the free natural drainage whenever
possible, maintaining vegetation buffers, controlling urban run-off, and minimizing erosion and
sedimentation during construction.
4.3.4 TOPOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Topography - The terrain is gently sloping (less than two percent) with broad expanses of
generally flat land Elevations vary from 45 feet above mean sea level near the intersection of
Western Boulevard and US 17 (Marine Blvd) to mean sea level in the vicinity of the New
River.
The roadway elevations will be superimposed on the existing terrain to the extent possible.
No significant cuts are anticipated Fills reaching approximately 40 feet in height will be
placed to accommodate the New River crossing and interchanges.
Geology - The geology of the Jacksonville area is the River Bend Formation, consisting of
"limestone and calcarenite overlain by and intercalated with indurated, sandy, molluscan-mold
limestone" (NCGS, 1985). In the area of Camp Lejeune, the formation is the Belgrade
-43-
r

1

t

e

[i

Formation, which is composed of two members that grade into each other laterally; the
Pollocksville and the Haywood Landing Members (NCGS, 1985). Both formations are
underlain by confining units which are comprised of seven aquifers: the surficial, Castle
Hayne, Beaufort, Pee Dee, Black Creek, and upper and lower Cape Fear aquifers. The Castle
Hayne aquifer varies from 150 to 300 feet thick and is the most important source of
groundwater for eastern North Carolina.
Due to the absence of any substantial cuts into the existing topography, no impacts are
anticipated to the groundwater or aquifers in the project area.
Soils - Soil patterns are the result of a number of factors including past geologic activities,
parental material, environmental influences, age of the sediments, and topographic positioning.
Man-induced changes to the landscape and biotic factors (vegetational coverage) also play
important roles in soil formation and characterization:
Although a soil survey has not been published for Onslow County, soil mapping and
designations for the County have been provided by the Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). Soils were mapped by the SCS based on series, phase, and
similarities in color, texture, structure, and drainage conditions. These series are grouped into
categories based on land use constraints. The constraints include prime farmland soils, soils
of statewide importance, and soils with severe construction limitations according to the SCS
soil survey information. Most construction limitations are based on soil saturation and slope
and can be overcome with proper construction technologies.
Soils are classified by the SCS as either hydric (wet) or non-hydric (dry). Hydric soils are
"soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop
anaerobic conditions in the upper part". Soils occurring within the survey area that are
classified as hydric by the SCS include Torhunta, Rains, Muckalee, Dorovan, and Pantego
series.
All soil types, with the exception of the Dorovan Series, will accommodate construction since
appropriate stabilizing action and drainage techniques will be utilized The Dorovan Series will
require removal and replacement with suitable soil material within the limits of construction.
This Series occupies approximately four percent of the soil depicted within the project area.
Approximately eight acres of these soils are located in wetlands on the west approach to the
New River Bridge.
4.3.5 MINERAL RESOURCES
No commercial quarrying or mining operation were found within the project area. Therefore,
the project will not impact any known mineral resources.
-44-

4.3.6 HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES AND
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
Two hazardous waste sites (Figure 18) within the project corridor were identified by either the
Solid Waste Branch, the Hazardous Waste Branch, or the Superfund Branch of the Solid Waste
Management Division of the DEHNR. These sites are: 1) Camp Lejeune Site #35 (Figure 18,
Sheet 2) - Camp Geiger Fuel Farm - Oil and Grease, and 2) Camp Lejeune Site #36 - Camp
Geiger Dump near sewage treatment plant - municipal and industrial waste. Site 35 and Site
36 are located on the Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base property within the study area west
of the New River. Test wells as these sites were first sampled in 1986 and were found to
contain elevated levels of lead (Pb) and hydrocarbons oil and grease (O&G). The wells were
last known to be sampled in 1992 and were still found to contain elevated levels of Pb and
O&G.
These sites have a North Carolina Superfund Abbreviated No. 789 and are currently scheduled
on the national priority list for funding in Fiscal Year 1994. The preferred alternative will
impact the Camp Geiger Fuel Farm Site (See Figure 18). A comprehensive site assessment of
the Fuel Farm was prepared by the Marine Corps. A cleanup plan is being prepared in co-
operation with EPA and the Superfund Section of NCDEHNR. Coordination of cleanup
activities will be considered in the final design and coordinated with the construction of this
highway project. The USMC has agreed to clean up the contaminated soil on this site and/or
verify that any contamination will be confined to an area outside of the proposed right-of-way
prior to any land transfers.
Three other potential hazardous waste and underground storage tank locations (see Figure 18)
were identified by field investigations. No contaminants were reported at any of these sites.
The sites are described as follows:
1) Jet Service Station; US 258 NO 24 and -NC' 53
southwest quadrant - underground fuel tanks
2) B&T Body Shop, Us 258 - NC 24 and NC 53
southeast quadrant - junk auto outside storage
3) Coldman Body Shop, US 17 South
west side of highway - junk auto outside storage .
4.3.7 PRIME AND UNIQUE FARMLANDS
The United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service describes prime
farmland, state and locally important farmland and other farmland as follows:
-45-
1

1
1
F1
ri

A. Prime Farmland - These soils are best suited for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and
oilseed crops. They have good qualities, are favorable for all major crops common to the
county, have a favorable growing season, and receive the available moisture needed to
produce high yields on an average of 8 out of every 10 years.
B. State and Locally Important Farmland - These soils have either seasonal wetness, erosion,
or droughtiness that limits their suitability for some crops. Crops that are adapted to wet
or draughty conditions, or if erosion is controlled, produce moderate to high yields if
treated and managed according to modern farming methods.
C. Other Lands - These soils are generally not suited to crop production without applying
extensive management. Some of these lands are in urban and built-up areas.
The study area contains 69 acres of both prime farmlands-andfarmlands of local and-statewide
importance. Much of the project study area is already developed and increased urbanization
is anticipated on the privately held property. The land within the Camp Lejeune boundary
classified as farmland is reserved for military use and no row crop production has been
observed. The preferred alternative will involve approximately nine acres of prime farmland
and farmland of local and statewide importance outside the military base.
This project has been coordinated with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as required by the
Farmlands Protection Policy Act. The SCS has completed and returned Form AD 1006 (see
Appendix I).
4.4 NATURAL RESOURCES
Ll
1

a
4.4.1 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY
Water Resources - Located in the White Oak River Basin, the major streams and water bodies
within the study area include .Brinson.. Creek,-Edwards... Creek, . Strawhorn. Creek, Chaney
Creek, Scales Creek, the New River, and Wilson Bay, all of which are under slight tidal
influence. The largest bodies of water are the New River and Wilson Bay, both located
between Camp Geiger and Camp Johnson near the center of the project area.
Brinson Creek, Edwards Creek,. New. River and. Scales Creek are located within the vicinity
of the proposed alignment. Brinson Creek varies in width and depth. At its confluence with
the New River, the stream is approximately 100 feet wide and five feet deep, it narrows to five
feet wide and two feet deep where it passes under US 17. Edwards Creek is approximately 90
feet wide and five feet deep. The New River is 1300 feet wide and has a maintained eight foot
channel where the proposed highway crossing occurs. Scales Creek is a small stream that
drains the Bell Fork area. The stream is five feet wide and approximately two feet deep.
Brinson Creek and Edwards Creek are bordered by wetlands containing palustrine forested,
broad-leaved deciduous vegetation. The New River is bounded by mixed vegetation varying
-46-

from shrub/scrub growth to pine dominated systems. Scales Creek vegetation varies, due to
its location in residential, commercial and unoccupied areas, and includes broad-leaved
deciduous, needle-leaved evergreen, and grassed areas.
None of the surface waters in the project area are used for water supply. The freshwater
supply for Onslow County comes from three groundwater aquifers: a surficial deposit (0-65
feet below ground surface); the Tertiary limestone deposits of the Castle Hayne formation (75-
100 feet below ground surface); and the sandstones of the Pee Dee formation (175-200 feet
below ground surface). Of these formations, the Castle Hayne formation is the most utilized
source of freshwater (Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Navy, 1989). Recharge of the surficial aquifer
occurs throughout Onslow County. Recharge of the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee formations
occurs in natural areas west and south of the proposed project in Lenoir, Duplin, and Pender
Counties (LeGrand, 1960).
The New River and Wilson Bay are important as estuarine hatchery and habitat areas for
marine fish and shell fish. Brinson Creek and Edwards Creek are significant as freshwater and
wetland habitat for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna.
The stream classifications for the waterways within the study area are presented in Table 18.
The classifications assigned to the waters of the State of North Carolina as SC are based upon
water quality standards as contained in 15A NCAC 2B. 0212. Additionally, those waters
assigned as Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) shall meet the requirements as contained in 15A
NCAC 2B. 0214.
All of the rivers and major streams in the study area have been designated as nutrient sensitive
waters (NSW) by the North Carolina Department -of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR). Sources of nutrients found in the waters are agricultural runoff in upper
portions of the waterways and sewage treatment plant discharges from Jacksonville and Camp
Lejeune Marine Corps Base.
No Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network Surveys have been conducted on any of the
area streams.
Five National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits have been issued for
the New River, five permits for Brinson. Creek , and one permit for Wilson Bay have been
issued
Water C?uality - The long-term water quality impacts could include increased runoff volumes
in receiving streams due to increase in impervious areas and accompanying pollutants loading
due to introduction of storm runoff components to different subwatersheds. The North
Carolina Stormwater Runoff Regulations specify that permanent stormwater control measures
be included for any development activities in coastal counties. Stormwater control measures
and NCDOT Best Management Practices will be used to minimize the long-term effects of
highway maintenance on receiving water bodies in the project area.
-47-
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
TABLE 18
STREAM QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
WATER BODY
CLASSIFICATION
Brinson Creek
Edward's Creek
Strawhorn Creek
Chaney Creek
Scales Creek
New River
Wilson Bay
SC (NSW)
SC (HQW) (NSW)
SC (HQW) (NSW)
SC (NSW)
SC (HQW) (NSW)
SC (HQW) (NSW)
SC (HQW) (NSW)
SC - Fish and wildlife. propagation
Secondary recreation
Other uses requiring waters of lower quality
HQW - High Quality Waters
NSW - Nutrient Sensitive Waters

SOURCE: 15A NCAC 2B. 0312 August 1, 1990

-4g-
Additional impacts could result from the possibility of spills from vehicular accidents.
Constructing the bypass to freeway standards will provide a safer condition less inducive to
accidents. The permanent stormwater control measures included in the project would also
help control and confine any spills to a small area.
Efforts are being made to insure that roadway designs accommodate continued flow in all
stream segments in order to maintain integrity of aquatic systems and adjacent floodplain
communities. Bridging will be implemented at the New River and Edwards Creek crossings.
Pipes and culverts will be adequately sized in order to insure continuity of flow and to
maintain aquatic habitat integrity.
Temporary impacts due to erosion and sedimentation during construction can be minimized
through implementation of the NCDOT Best Management Practices for the protection of
surface waters. In addition, the construction contractor will"be required to follow contract
specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in the Department of
Transportation's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation has prepared guidelines for control of erosion and sediment
during construction based on various state regulations which specify mitigation measures to
be taken. According to the current regulations, suitable erosion control measures will be used
to control erosion and sedimentation. Dikes, berms, and silt basins will be utilized along with
other controls that must be designed to meet site specific conditions. Rapid re-seeding of
disturbed sites will also help alleviate sediment loading in area waters and wetlands. Increased
runoff from highway surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for grassed median and
embankment and limited use of ditching whenever possible. Sedimentation and erosion
control guidelines for High Quality Waters as established by the North Carolina Sedimentation
Control Commission will be followed
4.4.2 PLANT COMMUNITIES
The following plant community, patterns were evaluated and•eategvrized,based on qualitative
fields surveys conducted between March and Jane of 1990. Descriptions follow the
classification scheme recommended and ut, biz,-d by the 1T%T . Nam l Heritage Program
(NCNHP) (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Community classifications were modified slightly
to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford, et al. (1968).
Mesic Hardwood Forests - Mesic Hardwood Forests occur primarily along stream channels and
in segmented interstream flats which may be intermittently flooded but do not receive regular,
long term inundation. The canopies of these systems are dominated by red maple Acer
rubrum , sweet gum (Liquidambar s raciflua , yellow poplar (Liriodendron tali ifera ,
sycamore latanus occidentalis , green ash raxinus yennsvlvanical, water oak (Quercus
ni ra , willow oak (Q. 12hello , swamp Chesnut oak (Q. michauxii , and an occasional loblolly
pine inus taeda. Understory development consists of a regeneration of canopy trees,
musclewood C inus caroliniana , black gum ssa lvatica , sweet bay Magnolia
-49-
, and wax myrtle rica cerifera . Ground cover is generally sparse, with Japanese
vir ' zimana
honeysuckle onicera 'a onica , cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans , Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and greenbrier
Smilax spy.) often in evidence. This vegetational profile corresponds to NCNHP's Coastal
Plain Bottomland Hardwoods-Mesic Forest classifications.
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forests - Mixed pine-hardwood forest cover is the dominant forest type
Tersea borbonia ,and sweet bay (Magnoli a_vi 'ana . Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia),
Freshwater Marsh - Freshwater marsh communities are found in small, disturbed pockets
throughout the alignment or as narrow bands along creek embankments. Marsh communities
are often seen as a part of the narrow gradient between upland/wetland forest cover and
adjacent aquatic communities. These systems are dominated by emergent, herbaceous species
1
-s0-
within the study area, generally occurring on slopes and other upland areas. However, mixed
stands may also be found on lands, subjected to seasonal saturation or receiving periodic
inundation. Dominant tree species include loblolly pine,. red maple, sweet gum, pond pine
inus serotina ,and oaks uercus 52). Representative mid and under-story species include
saplings and seedlings of the canopy trees, sweet bay, wax myrtle, highbush blueberry
accineum corymbosuml, coastal dog-hobble eucothoe axillari s ,fetter-bush L onia lucida),
ink berry lex lg abra), poison ivy, Virginia -creeper, Japanese honeysuckle; yellow jessamine
Gelsemium sempervirensl, grape vine itis sp), and greenbrier. This community description
t corresponds with NCNHP's Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest classification.
Pine Forests -Pine forests include both natural old-growth pine stands and stands managed for
silviculture.
The natural old-growth stands are dominated by loblolly pine interspersed with sweet gum,
swamp chestnut oak, American holly lex o aca ,and red maple. The mid and under-story
are comprised of saplings and seedlings of the canopy trees, black gum, sweet bay, highbush
blueberry, grape vine, and greenbrier.
The stands managed for silviculture are dominated by loblolly pine with occasional individuals
of long leaf pine (Pinus palustris). Hardwoods associated with these stands are principally
sweet gum and oaks. This community description corresponds to NCNHP's Mesic Pine
Flatwoods description.
Shrub Swamp Woodlands -Shrub swamp woodlands are found in low -lying areas west of the
New River near outer boundaries of Carp Geiger. Low ng, fire; or some other form of
disturbance appears to have reduced the canopy to shrub/sapling cover consisting of Atlantic
white cedar (ChamaecXparis th oides ,red cedar unieras vir 'niana ,red maple, red bay
fetter-bush onia lucida and greenbrier are also present throughout the understory. It is
highly probable that these systems were at one time dominated by Atlantic white cedar., This
community profile corresponds to NCNHP's Nonriverine Swamp Forest and Peatland Atlantic
White Cedar Forest classifications.

f.
including soft rush uncus effusus , spike rush leocharis spy, cattail T ha angustifolia),
sedges Carex -s , bullrush Sci us erinus , and seedbox udwi 'a alternifoli a . Sapling
growth of red maple and black willow (Sak nigra) often occurs. Freshwater marsh
communities correspond to NCNHP's classification of tidal freshwater marshes. Although
recognized as separate vegetational categories for descriptive purposes, the small size and
limited extent of the coverage does not allow for individual mapping of community profiles.
Emergent Estuarine Marsh - Emergent estaurine marsh communities are found near Wilson
Point and on an offshore island near Jack's Point. Although very much like the freshwater
marsh communities described above, these systems receive regular inundation from the New
River estuary, and are dominated by giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides). Salt grass
(Spartina patens), groundsel (Baccharis hamifolia), wax myrtle, swamp hibiscus Hibiscus
moscheutos) and red cedar occur along the wetland/upland interface. This vegetational profile
also corresponds to NCNHP's tidal -freshwater rimsirr assificatioa - -Althouglrfound- within-
the study corridor, no emergent estuarine systems will be impacted by development.
Open Fields - Areas of open fields are highly disturbed and are usually associated with a power
line right-of-way or urban development. The flora of these areas have reverted to an early
successional stage dominated by weedy species such as broomstraw (Andropogon spa, goldenrod
Solida o spa, blackberry ubus spa, and various tree seedlings.
Man-Dominated Areas - Man dominated areas are places where businesses, residences, or other
human related services dominate the landscape (see Figure 15). These areas are concentrated
at the eastern and western termini of the project.
Impacts - As expected, impacts on natural communities are reflective of the relative abundance
of each system present in the study corridor. In spite of the urbanized nature of the
Jacksonville area, large forested tracts remain within the study corridor. Mixed pine/hardwood
forests will be adversely impacted Approximately 155.1 acres of forest will be lost. These
systems represent a diminishing.. resource -in _. the.. Jacksonville-..area-.. due... to.. increasing
urbanization.
Extensive stands of pine forest cover (plantation and natural old growth loblolly) are present
on Marine Corps property south, southwest of NC 24 (Lejeune Blvd). Although
encroachment into pine stands. as. a . result-of highway development will be relatively minor
(23.9 acres), the primary impact will be the fragmentation of contiguous communities that
currently offer potential habitat opportunities for wildlife.
Shrub swamp
development.
chosen.
woodlands west of the New River channel will also be impacted by
Again, segmentation is an inevitable consequence, regardless of the alignment
Smaller takings of bottom-land hardwoods will occur in draws and narrow floodplain fringe
communities bordering waterways. Although limited in extent, these systems also represent
-51-

t

11

E

1
1

1
f

diminishing resources in an area already subject to intense developmental pressures. Loss of
habitat and functional use will occur.
Finally, impacts on urban/residential areas (man dominated systems) are unavoidable.
However, these impacts will generally be concentrated at the terminal ends of the proposed
alignment where similar activities are typical. From a wildlife perspective, loss of habitat is
an unavoidable consequence of development, regardless of the alignment chosen. Many
resident species which occur within the corridor will be displaced by construction. Mobile
animals such as rabbits, squirrels, opossums, rodents, and passerine birds are cosmopolitan in
nature, easily adapting to urbanization. However, larger mammals, such as deer, which seek
refuge in large undisturbed tracts, may experience severe disruptions in mating, feeding or
movement patterns as their habitat range is reduced or segmented.
4.4.3 WILDLIFE
A wide range of habitat types within the study area are capable of supporting an abundance
of wildlife, both terrestrial and aquatic.
Terrestrial Wildlife - Wildlife in man-dominated areas is comprised predominately of raccoon
ro on lotor , gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis , oppossum idel his vir ' 'ana , and
rabbit S lvila alustri s . A number of birds were sighted including blue jay C anocitta
cristata , mockingbird 'mus of lottos , robin urdus mi ratorius , sparrow asser
domesticus , and cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis .
Undisturbed natural areas commonly have all of the above faunal species. These areas
additionally provide for cotton mouse erom scus os inus , hispid cotton rat Si odon
his udus , and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli aureolus . Large expanses of pine forest and
shrub swamp woodlands serve as potential habitat for black bear rsus americanus and white-
tailed deer Odocoileus vi ' 'anus . Beaver (Castor canadensis), skunk Mephitis me hitis ,
muskrat Ondatra zibethicus , and.mink Mustela visina .,historically-haue.been known to be
common in this area but no evidence of their recent presence was observed in field survey:
Aquatic Wildlife - According to field sampling conducted by the Department of Defense,
Department of Navy (1989) and based on literature review describing species in this area, the
common macrofauna in the freshwater creeks and-swampy areas of the project include: turtles
(spotted Clgmm s ttata , snapping Chel dra se entina ); fish (pirate perch (Auhredoderus
sa anus , yellow perch erca flavescens , redfin pickerel sox americanus , banded sunfish
(Enneacanthus obelus , flier (Centrarchus macro terns , mud sunfish (Acantharchus omotis ,
dollar sunfish (Lepomis margin atusl, bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus loriosus , yellow
bullhead catfish ctalurus natali s , eastern mudminnow Umbra aea , swampfish
(Chologaster cornuta , creek chubsucker rim n oblon , starhead topminnow undulus
notti , white perch orone americans , swamp darter theostoma fusiforme , taillight shiner
otro is maculatus , golden shiner (Notemigonus c soleucas), and frogs (bullfrog Rana
catesbeiana , river (Rana heckscheri , green ana clamitans ).
-52-

Common macrofauna in the New River and Wilson Bay includes oysters Crassostrea
a , clams Mercenaria mercenaria, mussels M ilus edulis , blue crab Callinectes
vir -c
sa idus , and a variety of fish species such as striped mullet (Mugil ce halus , white perch,
yellow perch erca flavescens , and sunfish a omis sw. The New River and Wilson Bay
are nurseries for estaurine and marine species and thus will contain a wide variety of
microfauna (plankton and immature individuals).
4.4.4 PROTECTED SPECIES
Federally Listed Species - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified nine species listed as
endangered or threatened and proposed threatened, and ten species under status review which
may occur in Onslow County. These species include:
Endangered or Threatened or Proposed Threatened (E or T or PT)
Red-cockaded woodpecker icoides boreali s - E
Eastern cougar ells concolor cou ar - E
Green sea turtle Chelonia m?daas? - T
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta - T
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea E
Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (LQidochelys kem i E
Rough-leaved loosestrife simachia asnerulaefolial - E
Cooley's meadowrue harum_ cool i - E
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) PT
Candidate Species
Wagner's spleenwort As lenium heteroresiliens) - SR
Pond spice itsea adestivalis - SR
Savanna cowbane Ox olis ternata .r-,SR-
Croatan crayfish rocambus 121uminanus - SR
Henlow's sparrow (Ammodramus henslowil - SR
Carolina grass-of-parnassus arnassia caroliniana - SR
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solida o verna - SR
Wireleaf dropseed S orobolus -teretifolius : SR-
Boykins lobelia obbelia bo - SR
Awned meadow-beauty exia aristosa - SR
The green sea turtle, loggerhead sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle and Kemp's Ridley sea turtle
spend most of their lives in the open ocean. These ocean-dwelling turtles require an expanse
of well drained beaches, clean sand and grassy vegetation for nesting. Nesting beaches should
be relatively undisturbed by humans or by predators. The hatchlings emerge as a group,
usually during the night, and make their way back to the water and are dispersed at sea.
-53-

1
t
1

1

I

Seabeach amaranth is a monoecious annual with alternate, entire leaves. Flowers are in axillary
fascicles and have shiny black seeds 2.5mm long. The preferred habitat is beach dunes and is
endemic to Brunswick, New Hanover and Onslow County.
The sea turtles and the seabeach amaranth are not expected inland of our coastal water.
However, the following species were thoroughly investigated for presence or absence in the
project vicinity. Therefore, this project is not expected to affect sea turtles or the sea
amaranth.
Eastern cougar (Fells concolor cougar) - Although there have been reports of sightings in
coastal swamps of eastern North Carolina, no such records exist to support the presence of
eastern cougar in the vicinity of the proposed project (personal communication, Natural
Heritage personnel; Tom Henson, WRC). Therefore, this project is not expected to affect the
eastern cougar.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - The red-cockaded woodpecker is a colonial
species found in southern pine forests of North and South Carolina. In North Carolina, the
woodpecker is located in Piedmont and Coastal Plain woodlands east of Halifax, Wake,
Montgomery, and Union Counties. Weymouth Woods-Sandhills Nature Preserve and Camp
Lejeune Military Reservation near Jacksonville also have significant populations of the birds
(Wooten, 1978).
Primary habitat consists of mature to over mature southern pine forests including loblolly,
longleaf, slash and pond pines. Open woodlands consisting of pine flatwoods or pine
dominated savannahs serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for the woodpeckers. The pine
and pine-hardwood stands within 1/2 mile of an active nesting site and are considered potential
foraging habitat.
Currently, forty-five colonies, of which, thirty-four are active breeding colonies of red-
cockaded woodpeckers,.. exist on-Camp hejeune Base,property_•(U.S. Department. of Defense,
pers. comm., 1993). The distance from the nearest known active colony to the project study
corridor is approximately four (4) miles.
Louis Berger and Associates coordinated survey efforts for the red-cockaded woodpecker with
endangered species personnel associatedwith Camp Lejeune. Forest stand data, including age
and species composition of all pine stands in the corridor area, were evaluated, along with
aerial photo interpretation. Stands believed to be of sufficient age (30+ years) and composition
(canopy dominated by pines or pine-mixed hardwood stands with greater than 50% pines) were
selected for evaluation. Line tansects were surveyed on selected tracts for evidence of red-
cockaded woodpecker presence or potential cavity trees. Transects were established to provide
complete visual coverage of the areas in question. No sightings occurred A review of Natural
Heritage records failed to substantiate the presence of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the project
area. Based on existing information and subsequent field evaluations, this project is not
expected to impact red-cockaded woodpeckers.
-54-

Rough-leaved Loosestrife Usimachia asperulaefoli a) - The rough-leaved loosestrife is a
perennial, rhizomatous herb endemic to Coastal Plain and Sandhill regions of the Carolinas.
The plant often reaches heights of 1-2 feet with 3-4 leaves in whorls which encircle the stem
below yellow flowers. Flowering occurs from May to June and fruits are produced from July
to October (Radford et al., 1968). The loosestrife is limited to nine counties in North
Carolina, including Onslow County. The preferred habitat consists of open areas between
longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins on moist to seasonally saturated sands or organic
soils overlying sand; the species is also found in elliptic depressions known as Carolina Bays.
The habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is a fire maintained system; therefore, suppression of
naturally occurring fires has contributed to the loss of habitat in our state.
Surveys conducted by LBA in May & June 1991, did not find any suitable habitat or plants
growing in the project area during the blooming season. Therefore, no impact is anticipated.
Cooley's Meadowrue (Thalictrum coolgyi) - Cooley's Meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial
herb with stems that generally do not exceed 1 meter in height. This species is endemic to
southeastern Coastal Plain communities from North Carolina (9 locations) to Florida. Moist
bogs and savannas are preferred habitat for Cooley's meadowrue. This species is dependent
upon some form of disturbance to sustain the open quality of its habitat. As such, Cooley's
meadowrue is sometimes found along utility corridors, roadside margins, or other maintained
areas. Cooley's meadowrue is threatened by fire suppression and land disturbing practices
(silviculture or agriculture).
Thalictrum coolevi and Lysimachia asRerulaefolia have particular habitat requirements based
on disturbance or ongoing successional changes. These species do not occur in heavily wooded
areas nor are they expected in most man dominated systems. Evaluations of habitat in the
project corridor failed to indicate areas in which the two species could possibly be present.
In addition, Natural Heritage records indicated no documented sightings in the project area.
Based on existing information and evaluations of habitat potential, no impacts are anticipated,
therefore, no further action-is recommended.,- u- ? . % ; .. .
Species listed °s Candidate Species r-n-rrPently receive no protection under fe.ieral or state law.
However, the ten Candidate Species with ranges in the project vicinity were considered during
recent investigations. Natural Heritage records were examined for recorded presence; no
sightings have been documented in or around the alignment. None were observed during field
studies.
State Listed Species - Records maintained by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program indicate
several state4isted species that occur in the project area. These species include:
American alligator LE for mississippiensis) -Threatened
Red-cockaded woodpecker icoides borealis - Endangered
-55-

1
1

1

d

1

I!
u
American Alligator - The American alligator Alli for mississi i inhabits waters with a wide
range of salinities from fresh to salty (near 0 to 35 parts per thousand). Potential habitat for
this species does exist within the study area, and personal communication with Camp Lejeune
Marine Corps biologists have confirmed the presence of alligator populations in the region.
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records also confirmed a regional presence.
However, no sightings of the animal nor its habitat occurred during field investigations.
Disruptions due to highway construction are expected to be minimal. Bridging will be
employed over most major water bodies (i.e. New River and Edwards Creek) and adjacent
riparian embankments to alleviate impacts on wetlands and potential nesting areas. Should
evidence of this species be found during construction, the NCDOT will notify appropriate
wildlife authorities, so that relocation can be undertaken or efforts expended to avoid
disturbance to these elusive animals.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker - The Red=cockaded woodpecker icoides borealis has been
discussed in detail in the section above on Federally Listed Species.
Other S1ecies of Concern - The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has identified
several additional species of noted concern that have the potential to exist in the project area.
These include the star-nosed mole (Condylura cristata), Rafinesque's big-eared bat lecotus
rafines uii , Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii),
black vulture (Coragyps atratus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leicocephalus), loggerhead shrike
(Lanus ludovicianus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), glossy ibris (Plegadis falcinelluss ,
northern saw whet owl (,Aegolius acadicusl, Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis), long-
billed curlew (Numenius americanus), shortnose sturgeon WAcipeser brevirostrum), Carolina
gopher frog ana s R.) and Venus flytrap ionaea musci ula .
Personal communications with Mr. Tom Henson, Coastal Endangered Wildlife Project Leader
(WRC), on October 11, 1991 indicated that no surveys have been done for the above
mentioned species. With exception of the bald eagle, there is a low probability that these
animals occur within .project.boundaries.-The bald.,eagle:.requires large trees near. open water
for nesting. Fish are the primary prey items of the bald eagle. While appropriate habitat does
exist, no known nesting pans currently reside in the study area. Natural Heritage records were
examined for recorded presence; no sightings have been documented in the immediate vicinity
of the project corridor. The use of this area by bald eagles appears to be limited to transient
migrants foraging for fish. Bridge construction over the New River has the potential to
temporarily disturb fishing habitat for eagles.
However, impacts related to project construction are anticipated to be negligible.
4.4.5 WETLANDS
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE) serves as the principal permitting agency
for wetland activities as mandated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec.
1344). The COE requires the presence of three parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
-56-

soils, and method hydrology in support of a wetland jurisdictional determination. It should
be noted that aquatic systems (streams, rivers, tributaries, impoundments) are also subject to
Section 404 review as "waters of the United States". In this analysis, defined water bodies with
permanent flow or containment have been separated and described as open water systems (see
Sections 3.4, 3.5).
Field investigations, SCS soil maps, and photo interpretation of leaves-off aerial photography
were the techniques utilized to preliminary identify potential wetland areas. The field
investigation was designed to provide ground-truthing of the wetlands determined by photo
interpretation and the soil maps. This ground-truthing included identifying dominant
vegetation types and verifying the presence of hydric soils.
Jurisdictional wetlands in the study area (see Figure 17) are primarily palustrine in nature, as
defined in Cowardin et al. (1979). Categorizations include: palustrine forested, broad-leaved
deciduous (PF01, PF06), palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen (PF04, PF04/1),
palustrine scrub/shrub (PSS7), and palustrine emergent (PEM1) wetlands. Small pockets of
estuarine emergent wetlands (E2EM) occur at Wilson's Point, in small, ill-defined pockets along
the shoreline south of Jack's Point, and on offshore islands in Wilson Bay. However, these
systems will not be impacted by highway development, and, therefore, no further discussion
of estuarine wetlands is provided. Description of individual wetland areas are shown in Table
19.
Wetland Impacts - Improvements to US 17 and NC 24 cannot be accomplished without
infringing on jurisdictional wetlands within corridor limits. Based on an average right-of-way
width of 250 feet, approximately 24.2 acres of wetlands will be affected by construction of this
project.
Approximately 15.4 acres of deciduous wetlands (PF01, PF06) will be impacted by
construction. Most of the encroachment will occur along the Brinson Creek channel and
bordering other freshwater-tributaries,throughout•thealignment:•: Although limited in sizes and
distribution, these wetlands are important resources exhibiting a number of functions including
serving as habitat for wildlife, shoreline stabilization, flood control, and sediment/nutrient
removal. Limited impacts on these functions may occur.
Approximately four acres of pine dominated wetland systems (PF04, PF04/1) will be
impacted by construction of this project. Habitat segmentation and loss will be an unavoidable
impact resulting from highway development. .
Shrub wetlands (PSS7) on Camp Geiger property west of the New River will also be affected
It is anticipated that 4.8 acres will be impacted The proposed alignment will bisect these
communities, resulting in habitat segmentation and loss. Functional characteristics such as
sediment/nutrient removal, flood control, and limited groundwater recharge capabilities may
also be affected to a limited extent.
-57-
TABLE 19

1

1

INDIVIDUAL WETLAND COMMUNITIES
LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS
COMMUNITY ONE
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFOI).
SIZE: Approximately 3.4 acres
LOCATION: Northeast of Backer-Circle Subdivision
SOILS: Onslow Series
COMMENT: Forested area with extensive ditching
COMMUNITY TWO
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01)
SIZE: Approximately 25.7 acres
LOCATION: Floodplain of Brinson Creek (West of US -17)
SOILS: Muckalee Series
COMMUNITY THREE A
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFOI)
SIZE: Approximately 7.1 acres
LOCATION: Floodplain of Brinson Creek (East of US 17)
SOILS: Dorovan Series
COMMENT: Densely forested floodplain with rich under-story
COMMUNITY THREE (B)
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF06)
SIZE: Approximately 33.5 acres
LOCATION: Floodplain of Brinson Creek (East of US 17)
SOILS: Dorovan and Marvyn Series
COMMENT: Densely forested floodplain with rich under-story
COMMUNITY THREE (C) --,
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF07/1)
SIZE: Approximately 15.5 acres
LOCATION: Floodplain of Brinson Creek (East of US 17)
SOILS: Dorovan and Marvyn Series
COMMENT: Densely forested floodplain with rich under-story.

i
COMMUNITY FOUR
TYPE: Palustrine scrub/shrub (PF07/1)
SIZE: Approximately 14.2 acres
LOCATION: Island in Wilson Bay
SOILS: Dorovan Series
COMMUNITY FIVE
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF07/1)
SIZE: Approximately 28.0 acres
LOCATION: Adjacent to Edward's Creek (East Side)
SOILS: Muckalee Series
COMMENT: Wetland area within the floodplain of Edward's Creek
-58-
1
TABLE 19 (CONTINUED)
COMMUNITY SIX (A)
TYPE: Palustrine scrub/shrub (PF07/1)
SIZE: Approximately 151.9 acres
LOCATION: Edward's Creek to New River
SOILS: Dorovan Series
COMMUNITY SIX (B)
TYPE: Palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen (PF04)
SIZE: Approximately 6.4 acres
LOCATION: East of New River near Jack's Point
SOILS: Dorovan Series
COMMUNITY SIX (C) _
TYPE: Palustrine Emergent (E2EMIP)
SIZE: Approximately 2.3 acres
LOCATION: East Side of Wilson Bay
SOILS: Dorovan Series
COMMUNITY SEVEN
TYPE: Palustrine emergent (E2EMIP)
SIZE: Approximately 1.3 acres
LOCATION: East Side of Wilson Bay
SOILS: Norfolk Series
COMMUNITY EIGHT
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF06/4)
SIZE: Approximately 75.8 acres
LOCATION: East Side of the New River adjacent to Wilson Bay
SOILS: Muckalee Series
COMMENT: Large forested wetland adjacent to Wilson Bay with small creeks associated with the Bay
COMMUNITY NINE
'T'YPE: Paltstrine forested; broad-leaved deciduous (PFOI)
SIZE: Approximately 3.2 acres
LOCATION: East of Montford Point Road
SOILS: Torhunta Series
COMMUNITY TEN
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01) '
SIZE: Approximately 3.7 acres
LOCATION: North of Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24)
SOILS: Onslow Series
COMMUNITY ELEVEN (A)
TYPE: Palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen (PF04)
SIZE: Approximately 30.8 acres
LOCATION: North of Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24)
SOILS: Lynchburg Series
COMMENT: Large forested wetland with minor upland inclusions
-59-
TABLE 19 (CONTINUED)
COMMUNITY ELEVEN (B)
t TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFO1/3)
SIZE: Approximately 12.8 acres
LOCATION: North of Lejeune Boulevard (NC 24)
SOILS: Lynchburg and Rains Series
COMMENT: Large forested wetland with minor upland inclusions
COMMUNITY TWELVE
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFO1)
SIZE: Approximately 18.4 acres
LOCATION: North of New Hope Holy Church, South of Country Club Road
SOILS: Rain Series
COMMUNITY THIRTEEN
TYPE: Palustrine emergent (EMU P)
SIZE: Approximately 0.9 acres
LOCATION: Sandy Run Branch Chaney Creek, just north of Country Club Road
SOILS: Muckalee Series
COMMENT: Emergent wetlands in low lying area adjacent to creek
COMMUNITY FOURTEEN
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01)
SIZE: Approximately 2.3 acres
LOCATION: South side of US 17, just east of Coastal Contractors
SOILS: Rains Series
COMMENT: Forested area completely encircled by ditches

COMMUNITY FIFTEEN
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFO1)
' SIZE: Approximately.14:acres..:...
LOCATION: North side of US 17 between Moosehaven Road and Hawkside Road
SOrr cc; Rains Series
COMMENT: Bottomland hardwood forest associated with an intermittent stream/ditch
COMMUNITY SIXTEEN
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PFO1)
1 SIZE: Approximately 2.6 acres
LOCATION: North side of US 17 between Moosehaven Road and Hawkside Road
SOILS: Rains Series
COMMENT: Bottomland hardwood forest associated with an intermittent stream
J

Emergent marsh systems (PEM1) will not be significantly impacted by construction because
of limited distribution.
Mitigation olicv) -Mitigation is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the
COE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA; Page and Wilcher, 1990), Executive Order
11990 (42 FR 26961 (1977)), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) mitigation policy directives
(46 FR 7644-7663 (1981)), and FHWA stepdown procedures (23 CFR 777.1-777.11). Mitigation
has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; c)
rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the environment (40
CFR 1508.20 (a-e)).
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the COE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990, stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection -of wetlands: Practicable
alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) policy also emphasizes avoidance and
minimization. However, for unavoidable losses, the FWS recommends that mitigation efforts
be based on the value and scarcity of the habitat at risk. Habitat is classified into four
Resource Categories based on decreasing importance and value, with subsequent decreases in
mitigation planning objectives (46 FR 7657-7658). Most wetlands in the project vicinity would
be considered as Category 2 or 3 resources (high to medium value) under the FWS system,
requiring a mitigation goal of no net loss of habitat value (compensation through replacement).
FHWA policy stresses that all practicable measures should be taken to avoid or minimize harm
to wetlands which will be affected by federally funded highway construction. A sequencing
(stepdown) procedure is recommended in the event that avoidance is impossible. First,
consideration must be given to providing for mitigation within highway right of way limits,
generally through enhancement, restoration, or creation. Mitigation employed outside of the
highway right of way must be reviewed, andapprovedon.i. case-by-case basis... Measures should
be designed "to reestablish, to the extent reasonable, a condition similar to that which. would
have existed if the project were not built" (23 CFR 777.9(b)).
Mitintion (Evaluation) - Complete avoidance is not a practicable solution to eliminating
impacts associated with this project. The magnitude and extent of proposed actions will not
allow for total avoidance if needed improvements are to be implemented Alignment shifts
were explored throughout the preliminary design process resulting in the most perpendicular
crossing feasible. The preferred alignment will be the least damaging to wetlands (24 acres
compared to 28 acres for Alternate B). Other measures, such as bridging of sensitive riverine
and riparian wetland systems at the New River and Edwards Creek, have been employed as
avoidance measures. Lengthening of the bridge over New River and the bridging of Edwards
Creek in lieu of culverts have also been employed to reduce the impact.
-61-
1

F

1

t

Minimization will be effectively employed along the preferred alternative. Reduction of fill
slopes where feasible at stream/wetland crossings will be used to reduce unnecessary wetland
takings. Conservative use of culverts and sensitive placement of drainage structures will
minimize further degradation to wetlands and water quality, and reduce adverse impacts on
aquatic habitat viability in streams and tributaries.
In wetland areas not normally saturated or inundated, a system of interconnecting collector
(upstream) - distributor (downstream) ditches will be considered in design of the project to
provide for re-distribution of shallow ground and surface water flow. The ditches would run
parallel to and on both sides of the roadway outside of the embankment. The ditches would
have a 0.0 percent grade and would not connect to any creek or other drainage system. The
parallel ditches would be connected by pipes under the roadway at 200 to 500 foot intervals.
The collector-distributor system shall be designed to help maintain sheet flow as close to its
original pattern as possible. The ditches would be-designed-to- prevenrraising - or dowering
preconstruction water levels.
Compensatory mitigation is recommended for all unavoidable wetland losses. On-site, in-kind
restoration/replacement opportunities are potentially available. Blockage of existing ditches
to re-establish the hydrological regime in drained woodlands south of NC 24 on the Camp
Johnson property would restore pine and pine/mixed hardwood wetlands. It is anticipated
that acreages are available for full compensation of similar wetlands impacted by construction.
Other former wetland sites which have been ditched and drained exist immediately south of
US 17 near the northeastern end of the alignment. Again, simple restoration of the hydrologic
regime would allow for increased wetland functional value on these degraded tracts.
The United States Department of Defense (DOD) recently acquired the Great Sandy Run
Pocosin located west of US 17 south of Verona. This area has been extensively logged, drained
and replanted as pine plantation. Most of the initial wetland functions have been modified or
degraded by these disturbances. The DOD will use portions of this area for military training.
To compensate for this activity, a portion of this land will be restored as wetlands by blocking
ditches to re-establish former hydrological regimes. The NCDOT will enter into a cooperative
agreement with DOD to accomplish this mitigation effort and restore wetland functions and
values in sufficient acreage amounts to provide mitigation for all losses attributed to the bypass.
As a last resort, the NCDOT Company Swamp. Bank in Bertie County may be debited as
mitigation for unavoidable losses.
4.4.6 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
No rivers currently designated as wild and scenic occur within the project area.
-62-

1

4.4.7 RARE/UNIQUE NATURAL AREAS
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program maintains a list of rare and unique natural areas
for the State. No designated rare or unique natural areas occur within the study area.
4.5 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
A number of environmental impacts normally are associated with roadway construction.
These impacts are generally of short term duration and measures will be taken to minimize and
mitigate these impacts.
Traffic along the project route may experience brief periods of delay and disruption during
construction. Water, sewer, and gas lines exist in the project area. In addition, telephone and
electric service are available. The Department of Transportation will hold a preconstruction
conference between representatives of the NCDOT, the contractor, representatives of the
involved utility companies, and pertinent local officials. Methods to coordinate utility
adjustments and to minimize damage or disruption of existing service will be discussed at this
conference.
Mitigation of construction noise and vibration will be accomplished during the development
of a construction noise control plan. This plan will include measures such as the limiting of
certain construction activities or equipment use during evenings, weekends, or holidays; the
location of storage and staging areas away from noise sensitive sites; and techniques to shield
stationary equipment.
The general requirements concerning erosion control and siltation are covered in Article 107-13
of the Standard Specifications which is entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution".
The control of sedimentation and erosion on this project will be in compliance with the
Memorandum of Understanding between the North Carolina Department of Tranportation
and the North Carolina Department-, of.. Ewdronment,...Health.. ,and.. Natural. Resources
(NCDEHNR) and the North Carolina Sedimentation Control Regulations (NC Administrative-
Code, Title 15, Chapter 4). Erosion and sedimentation control measures employed will also
conform with the guidelines of Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Volume 6-7-3.
An erosion control schedule- will be devised by the contractor at least 30 days prior to the
commencement of construction. The schedule will show the time relationship between phases
of work which must be coordinated to reduce erosion and shall describe construction practices
and temporary erosion control measures which will be used to minimize erosion. The best
management practices will be applied during the construction period to control potential
erosion and sedimentation. In conjunction with the erosion control schedule, the contractor
will be required to follow those provisions of the plans and specifications which pertain to
erosion and siltation. Temporary erosion control measures such as the use of berms, dikes,
dams, or silt basins will be used as needed or required Wherever feasible, construction control
measures will be incorporated as permanent features in the highway's design.
-63-

1

t

El

Waste or debris shall be disposed of in areas that are outside of the right of way and provided
by the contractor, unless otherwise required by the plans or special provisions or unless
disposal within the right of way is permitted by the responsible engineer. The contractor shall
be required to observe and comply with all laws, ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
regarding the disposal of solid waste. Solid waste will not be placed into any existing land
disposal site which is in violation of state rules and regulations. The contractor shall maintain
the earth surface of all waste areas, both during the work and until the completion of all
seeding and mulching, or other erosion control measures specified, in a manner which will
effectively control erosion and siltation.
Construction activities will cause minor, short-term air quality impacts in the form of dust
from earthwork and unpaved roads, and smoke from open burning. The rapid completion of
earth moving activities followed by mulching and seeding of disturbed area will
minunize
airborne particulates. Efforts to preserve vegetation will also help control dust. These impacts
will be minimized by adherence to all state and local regulations.
Should burning of debris be permitted, it will be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and ordinances, along with regulations of the North Carolina Plan for Implementing National
Ambient Air Quality Standards. Burning will only be done on the right of way, under
constant supervision, with good atmospheric conditions, as remote from existing dwellings as
possible.
Construction of the bridges may cause minor, short-term impacts to navigational traffic on the
New River in the form of pier construction. Impacts to the river will be minimal with the
construction of coffer dams and other construction control measures.
Additional temporary impacts to wetlands may be anticipated from construction equipment
activities. These impacts would most likely be associated with the destruction or disturbance
of wetland vegetation adjacent to the toes of fill slopes and adjacent to bridge abutments
and/or piers. Such disturbance cannot.befeasiblyavoided. ,The-vegetation-Qf such areas from
the adjoining communities is expected to be relatively rapid. The application of grass seed and
mulch or sod in such disturbed sites will assist in the rerove. I of these areas.
Not all construction activities will occur within the roadway right of way. It may be
necessary to stock pile materials outside of the right of way and construction easements may
be required to assure efficient access to construction sites by heavy equipment. Other off-site
activities required may involve excavation of borrow pits and the construction of temporary
asphalt plants. All of these off-site activities will be temporary in nature, with the exception
of excavated borrow pits. Due to the preliminary nature of the information developed during
the planning and environmental assessment phase, it is not possible to identify the extent and
location of required off-site activities.
-64-

Borrow pits and all ditches will be drained insofar as possible to alleviate breeding areas for
mosquitoes. In addition, care will be taken not to block drainage ditches. An extensive rodent
control program will be established where structures are to be removed or demolished to
prevent the migration of rodents into surrounding areas.
Prior to the approval of any borrow source developed for use on this project, the contractor
shall obtain a certification from the State Historic Preservation Officer of the State Department
of Cultural Resources certifying that the removal of material from the borrow source will have
no affect on any known district, site, building, structure, or object that is included or eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. A copy of this certification shall be
furnished to the Engineer prior to performing any work on the proposed borrow source.
Coordination will be initiated with the N.C. Geodetic Survey to ensure that geodetic markers
located along the project corridor will-be protected
All measures possible will be taken to insure that the public's health and safety will not be
compromised during the movement of any materials to and from construction sites along the
project and that any inconveniences imposed on the public will be kept to a minimum.
4.6 SPECIAL PERMITS REQUIRED
Permits will be required for encroachment into wetland communities as a result of highway
construction. Although several different stream basins will be crossed by the proposed
alignment, wetland takings will be considered cumulatively for permit purposes due to the
continuity of the project.
Application for an Individual Section 404 Dredge and Fill permit (33 U.S.C. 1344) will be
required from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Nationwide permits will
not apply due to the significant amount of wetlands involved
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires each state to certify that state
water quality standards will net be :„elNAto.i ..?rM fnr ..•r:y1t1.°3 which: 1) invol.e issuance of a federal
V3 A?.6?
permit or license; or 2) require discharges into "waters of the United States." The COE will
not issue a 404 permit until 401 certification is approved. Therefore, the NCDOT must apply
to the N.C. Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Department of Environment,
Health & Natural Resources (DEHNR) for 401 certification as part of the permit process.
The United States Coast Guard (USCG), United States Department of Transportation, is
responsible for administering Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401)
and the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33 U.S.C. 525-533). The purpose of these Acts is to
preserve the public right of navigation and to prevent interference with interstate and foreign
commerce. Because the New River is considered a navigable water body, a USCG permit will
be required for bridge construction.
-65-
' Onslow County is one of 20 coastal counties under the jurisdiction of the N.C. Coastal Area
Management (CAMA) Program. CAMA has permit responsibilities for activities which occur
in designated Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs). Freshwater wetlands (such as those
' found in the project area) are not considered AECs for permit purposes. However, the Federal
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 mandates that federal actions (including issuance of 404
permits) comply with requirements of state approved coastal zone programs (16 U.S.C.
1456(c)). Therefore, CAMA will review permit activities which take place in the Onslow
County area for state/federal consistency. A CAMA consistency determination must be
approved as part of the permit review process before construction can be initiated.

1

1

'l

71
1
-66-

' 5.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
5.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public participation is a very important part of the planning process. A Public Involvement
Plan was developed to ensure that the public had ample opportunity for involvement and
comment.
This plan called for the preparation of a mailing list of interested citizens, neighborhood
organizations, business leaders and elected officials. Information concerning the project was
distributed to all those on this mailing list and comments were solicited regarding the project's
impact on the local community. Along with materials disseminated and comments received
via the mailing list, a telephone number was provided in order that interested persons could
call and be advised of the project's activities, status and progress.
The Public Involvement Plan included two citizens informational workshops and two elected
officials meetings. The first of each of these meetings was held on July 11, 1990 at the
Jacksonville Senior High School in Jacksonville. At these meetings, the public and elected
officials were given an over-view of the project and were shown mosaics of the project area.
Citizens expressed concern about impacts on individual properties.
The second workshop and elected official meeting was held on September 16, 1991 at the
Jacksonville City Council Chambers at Jacksonville City Hall. At these meetings, the public
' and elected officials were shown the preferred alternative and associated impacts were discussed.
The design public hearing is one of the final elements of the public involvement process. This
' hearing will be a formal hearing in which the public will again be shown the preferred
alternative. Citizens will have an opportunity to express their concerns on the social,
economic and environmental effects of the project. Transcripts of the hearing will be
developed and reviewed by.the Department.,
5.2 AGENCY COORDINATION
During its development the project was coordinated with the following federal, state and local
agencies:

-67-

Onslow County
County Manager
Superintendent, Onslow County Schools
City of Jacksonville
City Manager
United States Department of Interior
Fish & Wildlife Service
Bureau of Mines
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Admin. - National Marine Fisheries Service
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
United States Department of Defense
Department of the Army-Army Corps of Engineers
United States Marine Corps
Department of the Navy
United States Coast Guard
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
Division of Emergency Management
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Division of Archives and History-Historic Preservation Officer
North Carolina Department, of Environment, Health, and, Natural.Resources.... .
Division of Environmental Management
n:?s:c:nn n? Fnract R acn++rrac
Division of Land Resources
Division of Parks and Recreation - Natural Heritage Program
Division of Soil and Water Conservation..
Division of Water Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Division of Marine Fisheries
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

-68-
u

An interagency review meeting was held on October 29, 1991, to discuss the NCDOT/United
States Marine Corps cooperative wetland mitigation plan for this project and Project R-2406
(US 17 Improvements from Holly Ridge to Jacksonville) and the USMC training facilities to
be relocated on the additional land acquisition area for Camp Lejeune. A list of attendees and
the agencies they represent is as follows:
I Participants

1

Frank Price Louis Berger and Associates
Jeff Williams Louis Berger and Associates
Victor Neal Louis Berger and Associates
B. J. O'Quinn N. C. Department of Transportation
V. C. Bruton N. C. Department of Transportation
Gail Grimes N. C. Department of Transportation
Cynthia Sharer N. C. Department of Transportation
Randy Turner N. C. Department of Transportation
Steven Kroeger N. C. Department of Transportation
Bob Lee Federal Highway Administration
Steve Benton Coastal Mgmt. - EHNR
Stephanie Briggs Coastal Mgmt. - EHNR
Bob Stroud Coastal Mgmt. - EHNR
John Darney Environmental Mgmt. - EHNR
Jim Gregson Environmental Mgmt. - EHNR
Cherri Smith Environmental Mgmt. - EHNR
Fritz Rohde Marine Fisheries - EHNR
Dennis Stewart Wildlife Resources Commission - EHNR
David B. Foster EHNR
Al Austin USMC, Camp Lejeune
Gary Davis USMC Camp Lejeune
Lt.Col. Bruce Reed USMC .. Camp_Lejeune.._..
Robert Conway Jr. USMC Camp Lejeune
Michael Crocker U.S. Fish & Wildl-;fe Service
David Dell U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Franklin US Army Corps of Engineers
The Draft Wetland Mitigation Proposal was presented and reviewed at the meeting. A copy
is included in Appendix IV. , _
-69-

' 6.0 REFERENCES
Air Quality Section. Guidelines for Evaluating the Air Quality Impacts of Complex Sources.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC.
' Air Quality Section. 1989. 1987 Ambient Air Quality. North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management,
Raleigh, NC.
California Department of Transportation. 1979. CALINE 3 -A
' Versatile Dispersion Model for Predicting Air Pollutant Levels Near Highways and Arterial
Streets, FHWA/CA/TL-79/23.
Camp Lejeune. 1985. Complex Master Plan and Capital Improvements Plan Update. Atlantic
Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Norfolk, Virginia.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 23, Chapter 1, Part 772.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
' Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31.
Department of Defense, U.S. Marine Corps Base. 1990. Geographic Information System Maps
of Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina. Unpublished.
Department of Defense, U.S. Navy, Atlantic Division. 1989. Proposed Expansion and
Realignment of the Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement. NAVFACENGCOM, Norfolk. No. N62470-86-C-
8775.
Environmental Science and Engineering. 1987. Evaluation of Data from Second Round of
Verification Sample Collection and Analysis. Confirmation Study to Determine E xistencc aad
Possible Migration of Specific Chemicals In Situ. Prepared for Marine Corps Base, Camp
Lejeune, North Carolina. Gainesville, FL.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1987. Flood insurance rate map, Onslow County,
North Carolina. Community Panel Nos. 3703400190C, 3703400305C. 3703400310C. Nat'l
Flood Insur. Progr., Washington.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland
Delineation. 1989. Federal manual for identifying
and delineating jurisdictional wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, D.C. Cooperative technical publication.
-70-

Federal Register, 1986. Regulatory programs of the Corps of Engineers; Final Rule.
Department of Defense, Corps of Engineers, Dept. of Army. 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330.
Harried, D.A., O.B. Lloyd, Jr., and M.W. Treece, Jr. 1989. Assessment of Hydrologic and
Hydrogeologic Data at Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina. U.S.G.S. Water
Resouces Investigations Report 89-4096. Raleigh, NC.
Henry, V.G. 1989. Guidelines for preparation of biological assessments and evaluations for
the Red-Cockaded woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta,
GA.
13p. plus appendices.
Henry, V.G. 1991. Personal Communication.
Highway Capacity Manual. 1985. Transportation Research Board.
ReportNo. 209.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.,
Division of Parks and Recreation., Raleigh, NC.
Louis Berger & Associates. 1991. Natural Systems Technical Memo. Prepared for North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental Branch. Raleigh, NC.
Louis Berger & Associates. 1991. Noise Analysis Technical Memo.
Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental
Branch. Raleigh, NC.
Louis Berger & Associates. 1991. Air Quality Technical Memo.
Prepared for North Carolina ..Departmentof.Transportation;,,Planning{and Environmental
Branch. Raleigh, NC.
Louis Berger & Associates. 1991. Capacity and Accident Analysis. Prepared for North
Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental Branch. Raleigh, NC.
Louis Berger & Associates. 1991. Historic Structures Report.
Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental
Branch. Raleigh, NC.
Louis Berger & Associates. 1991. Archeological Resources Survey Report. Prepared for
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental Branch. Raleigh,
NC.
-71-
1
Louis Berger & Associates. 1991. Assessment of Hydraulic Aspects of the Environmental
Impact. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning and
Environmental Branch. Raleigh, NC.
Niering, W.A. 1988. Wetlands. Alfred Knopf, New York.
' North Carolina Geological Survey. 19$5. Geologic map of North Carolina. De4T. Nat.
Resour. Commun. Devel., Raleigh.
Palmer, E.L. 1949. Fieldbook of Natural History. McGraw-Hill, New York.
' Charles D. Peterson, Director, Fish and Wildlife Div., Environmental Management, Camp
Lejeune, 1990 and 1991. Personal Communication.
' Planning and Research Branch. 1990. Noise Abatement Guidelines. North Carolina
Department of Transportation. Raleigh, NC.
Plant Conservation Program. 1990. List of North Carolina's endangered, threatened and
candidate plant species. Plant Industry Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture,
Raleigh, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Reed, P.B. 1988. Wetland plants of the state of North Carolina. Nat'l. Wetlands Inventory,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service., St. Petersburg, FL.
' Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification: Birds of
North America. Golden Press, New York. Western Publishing Company, Inc. Racine,
Wisconsin.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. W?akl, y . 1990. Class?j ncat.on of the Natural Com=aniti°s of Nvrth
Carolina. Third Approximation. NC Natural Heritage Foundation.
Sharity, R.R. and J.W. Gibbons. 1982. The Ecology of Southeastern Shrub Bogs (Pocosin)
and Carolina Bays: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of
Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-82/04.
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Hydric soils in North Carolina. SCS, Raleigh,
NC.
' Unpublished soil maps of Onslow County. 1990.
u

-72-
1
U.S.D.O.I. Gunter, H.C., R.R. Mason, and T.C. Starney. 1987. Magnitude and Frequency
of Floods in Rural and Urban Basins of North Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-
Resources Investigation Report 874096.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1982. Federal Aid
Highway Program Manual, Volume 7, Chapter 7, Section 3.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1986. Appropriate
Level of Highway Air Quality Analysis for a CE, EA/FONSI, and EIS. Federal Highway
Discussion Paper.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 1990. Mobile Source
Emission Factors for Highway Project Analyses -MOBILE 4. Technical Advisory T 6640.11.
Water Quality Section. 1989. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned to the
White Oak River Basin. (amended effective 8/1/90). North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh,
NC.
Weakley, A.S. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of the rare plant species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, NC.
Weakley, A.S. 1991. Personal Communication.

73-
1

FIGURES

n

11

w
?I

1

1

F,

7

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
LEGEND
v ,.
r> r r r.'.
Comfort ~t ,-
41
`' _ ?-- - HOFMANN I-= 17
"While
' Richlands \ Belgrade
rade
FOREST
Catherine Lake
?-?
I 0 N 25s ? ? - ? IAI
Jackson Oil

Silverdal
p H ert
11 24
50
Runs Z. Swans6Qro
Verona ' 'r Qti CAMD. lf1EUN? , ,? _ lam(
MAR}yE BASE'
I. `: :. .
PROPOSED BYPASS
Maple
Hill I:
112 r...
U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
1 Dixon::. JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
210•
1 Sne-lds FIGURE 1
LOCATION MAP
SCALE .1" = 6 MI-ES

1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

I
V /
r
1'4`• i
I 1
1 ?
e2 n 1 I ? '?? ?k
w.l \
\
4?•YIIY Itq \
NEW RIVER BRIDGE %
?? .14?N II 4? 27 •I.
23 1
4dt W.
4r Gi ?j
4g •a; ;\ Jy? f Ve
.? r '?i?? ti ` ? ? ^•\2 '"`® Imo,} ?7/
iq•yY r •' t? g C IA t. \7
\4D. URI
4 y
1g •"n / c.
t ?Iqp„ _'4 VyK [t 1 ?? r YI yt• ynM•?e 0 ? •
1111 A?r• +4a. •'a 1111 • o. t ' ?, rr/ ?„ . 4,yr 7a[ .i kl[ °. + ? u y??
IVA ?[f I . d ?? . } i • r? [? ri r • 7 • `• Mrll4y t ?.Yq
} yt,w? 4 ? si+l 'in
N12 p?4 .rr[[u ...... " ? ? "? qu[, \?' Uri. ty g/`+?? 'M. ., rr • / ?? 4. ` `?25(q?Ar N rrlK„?y iW1
? '` .? .r/? I/ g''4? rl Y syl M•[w. ?lir! ? '0 ?. ? U
a• r ti ?
n wt, ?? +rouae tiMl + ? ? M '
or
p"g?rl
\Ln gtlgl
j
CAMP '
GEIGER LEGEND
? "'• ?
(l
NC 24 ROADWAY SEGMENT
CAMP
NC 53 to US 17 ¦ ¦ JOHNSON
US 17 to Bridge Street
Bridge Street to Bell Fork Road 1 ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ I a

US 17 ROADWAY SEGMENT
South of NC 24
NC 24 to New River 1 ¦ 1 ¦ 1 ¦
New River Bridge
New River Bridge to Western Boulevard FAW.
5h4WKSS)E w[a"'Iwn I l ItD.I<I
rMa 01 [wu ? .. J I.11!
?? •f 7j9?0
r
1403
- ss 4
"n M; i . ? II
t
? ,?? ° li11 \I
4.nlLKl / I
1r11`?',IL ? I
"4 +
E?? /pNst ? w h,' ,
I
? Y1x?`OIM ? ? I
[
ah? 31i1 ??? ?? 141
\1? in 4 ? o,.? 770
` 1y I n
•t
I /nom / /
1 / Fl+ i
1
=g
?• © y,4?W1 ? 1 ? 1 ?
? J / pI I
f?
I` f
U-2107, US17
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
FIGURE 2
EXISTING ROAD
SYSTEM
SCALE
OL?YDOOFT
q !1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
/ V
1I rYl r?
?p
LEGEND olo*
C
II t.r,r ' f rri I ? ??
r . 1969 WILSON BAY ALIGNMENT ¦ I 1 ¦ 1 ¦ a~ ?,
a t 1983 JACK'S POINT ALIGNMENT '-
-?? 1984 ALTERNATE JACK'S POINT ¦ ¦ I
A '".1 " ALIGNMENT T' r/ MMYNSI?E CMIANEY Y?:lo"n?Ai
o sto
t rryr "?3~ ' "" ??
1985 ALTERNATE GEORGETOWN IIII IIIxomme it
ALIGNMENT
- 1 1985 JACKSONVILLE THROUGHFARE ,rr
%
N4,,US2.5 PLAN ?'a°' 1403
1985 WHITE STREET EXTENSION .. •' ,,
ee
a.".. LC t ' , I a t Its
or C ' ` #411, 1
r 1
1 / 1
"Ktr1t1? JACKSONVIL ??'"`? .. •, , M"I - o ' \ '. ..?
(''j ? "'f a4!Irr, • \\ ' `p1,5 -T(} d \BEII FOFN , ``\\ wacKYO. ?
?G ,w;uw ;cq: l cxrf r7 K \ ,i °rn, 1
W a II t1 , " tryoia•r I? rnrN rat ?, 1
d' _? 1 r . ? c.uir y i r•alroi. b\ /\ ; r`,
m((/ ? ?/`?9 v;'crKK Rri„e'yn ? /. •' 7'n' t \,\?iur ?p l? .,•\' ? 1
1 1 li !/• ,.r. ?u.r S `rn .?: ?\ rl,® r 1 rrr
I ?'' 'r hr i p• /•4"• rr"rI .' '? y 4 ' ! i ?,! NM i fyt` /I I
? ? . ?i2??a?? r r 3& x"`a ary c ' yr ? I.ry +r..''1 \, Y .. 1 1 \ t i I
r• •• ar r +V rl a' /rrrf Wr " w . Mw R `; IJ ? \
11$ ?? a •?, ,serf '\\ ." '"'",r» I
? ? ll%(?? !roj \\tt I • IL
?A • •r ' fllKy4* ? .
' •Ir Itrl 1 E ?? 1
/ 1 t a.w" f ' ?I i a.arn • rr 'J - iL! Y..
n r ?rRn. T_ r' 4 - j II. n iP to
+alq"w \!' ?riir, „ . r I o'il1 '? ? ? ` ``rtlk?h,. wrw 4 ?
rll } I r h (?
q at I /
p r.y w
Cie-,F?NF
/ 0 •?CK p?rrlr
4S0 c.lnr ? ? .1.101• tr r
•?
ft
CAMP ?Y iR / a?1 ?qR
GEIGER .r CAMP a;,..
Orcs ' JOHNSON Nc2
p ?.
.rye _ v I
Jy ? .Y o r
IYp
r . i
,, ,, ?EF* Q :N U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
FIGURE 3
Not eeulT '"., "^ 'L? ?t
rill , ,?' G 1
Iw, rIrI11r T-
jJ
r HISTORIC
CORRIDORS
I " F
l• SCALE
' ? 0 2000FT

11

t

i

I
I
I
;
1
I'
i
1
1
.I 1
•T '?
040
3y
wr+`tit? .

J
1

C
mw;to
1

. lU
ROPOSED
r

0
JACKSONVILLE
I _ 'V G?• THOROUGHFARE PLAN
I ?--
_ APRL v, roN
d ow.3 m toomoooAAms mw
Ilto m MwAvom" m .r
CT.
? -'? U•2107, U•2107A, US 17
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
%
I FIGURE 4
THOROUGHFARE PLAN
A 1

u

11

s
i

j. ._..

1 _.. ?..._.._.._..T..n ._.._.. VIRGINIA
v _.._ _.._-. _.. .-. ;-e
' -.. ?.._. ?... - -
1

•
'
\ ASNF + /\•-? \
I I RWN I
SPOKES AOCINCM
?1 somr I I Gb„MME
•
- y
a f ""a I O
\ • 1 CATES
I WARREN • I 1\ E 1
,
cJ'
" CASWELL I
'?
\? n I NOAT.ON ? n
1 \ ? •/•?? '\\
ET`?1rx
(WAlALG1 l VMS L r
, "
•.
- - -'_- ?
.r "
?.,..
; -
yY
aa
YADKIN ?
alb"
WAWMI o
l' I / IS; `•t
\'l`- I14
\ •
J
, •^. AVEAV
„
1
E I y.
I
R
Itafll_I YVxmgbrl Durhom±
ORANGE
'?.. `
r j •.?.? ti O " \
1
1
`
/
MfpIFLL
/
v
1 \.
)
_ I
„
} I^,. .? J FRQ40N J / w ?r EEAIIF /
'
f .
,r
Y
\
' NAS,
\

a
4
? cuDWEU j
I I `? 01D I ;
I
ALAMANCE
: EDGECOMaE •, -
' '
( I .
Y?
/ ,
I
1
?:
I ALEXANDER
` _
IF I
l
•,
MADI
Q1 /• ?
/•
11 YNKFY
SON
J•, ')
S• --- ..-
`
;
WYk (
1
nAEDELL ,r+ t, .:tr -.-._. •T
'
'
s /
j
WACf I ?
•
r
"Y O
j
•` "•/) _.
t
"KE
/' j , .
-. _._._ 1 ?
1 I
y '.HgnTomi ./ ,.
.
„ WASMiNGTON IYpBI DARE
J \
r
/
, MARTIN
'
~
"
/ y /
i'
wNCOMaz DAVIDSON " '
?©
r'
/
?'---?-?-'-?•-• '
: 7 l 1
.. •5.. 4" ';. 1 ?
ROWAN
. w
/ ` \ 1 CHATHAM
Wh.
• '?y 1 R \
' _
\ Cl .
J
.
.•• r.S H1YW0o0
SWAN I
,
C MCDOWEIA. Y
+"NIAIAIA `•\ .? J ,^? -
I- _ CATAWBA RWDdM
/
'? ---- ---
-
1 WLWN
BEALIFOR
,
._.
T
HYDE

/
A
,.
L.
?•
,
f ,\-•\/ I

•`
?
?
•

---..?._._S'
\, IINCOIN Y' - ?YtiZ 1 _ _ _ LEE % -.;
-_.r
1 Hit
JOHNSTON
j

1

_•
"{
?,? "
?
?
? I / .1
I
IW
E
` W
F
7
?
1 " 4 WAYNE I GREENE
I 1
\
EAAIYAR
1 J aR \
f
f
• A
pp
p
?-
II,,,,
\ ?..,\ I CLEVELAND ` _ ._.? AP"10p°W,/ i MONTGOMEA 1 '\ / )
•
•
'
?
i ')
_..n , ® (r
)
••?..? •^ .?(
JACKSON
?
`
1
\(fON r•"ly NN4E,T
WS
CAR
R
. ,,•
,
_ •1

/
M
INDlaON A
M
I MOOIIF

.,

/•v
I
LLNOIA CRAVEN
'

•
I
MAC01R r
QkROKtt •ti'°I {•11/JIS'M1YNM
I
\ '
•/v
•) ._.. J.
r ` _ /
SUNNY
-9 (, ', •_ '•?••?
1
AIE / i(
..ll
. 1"7p1a'"? t
'J ti
"•
\
? n.IL
...
/\
'` AUMWIV a
1_.r?.
r•
, \
'\
/ \
/
•??
CLAY
\ 1 \,`
...?;
/ •_.
/
Y
. r,r
1
\ i /
\
.. _.. _..r.._.. _.._..-. ?:a_. _.. _..? Y
?• ` ? WON
,
•
, I SAMPSON /• )ONES /.
?
MWN / M&Olo / ?
UUU mIIRRR ?r
?`., :.,... +•-) 1
HOKE
' GMVW
GEORGIA \
\
\)
a
dqw. 1
I l
/'? CNMbFAUNO
'
F
/
• l
SCOIWAt
r
.
'
I7' WGFAfl
©
SOUTH CAROLINA \ ROBESON ) l•?. _. _.1

1
\ i IR DEN PEND[R
,
1
PROJECT LOCATION

.,
\ C

COLUMISLJS

\ 4 BRUNSWICK {y HAM, ,}

J

1

C

r
i
i
i
i
?L
j ?783
r
16gO ?, ??
T30-1 m ON
M =r ?
\g\00
p lx /02? O?
Oil6/ J?a?i ry00 / N
O
b n aa= I---412
n / a_a
--2 0
ro c/ )?l 499
J
N ?
/ N „-296 4T3
711 ?? 21 f c
•? Western Blvd. 296 j 961
ma ?
M /
12T56-`
0 I y?06
\ v 5137
r o°• as
t o
C• y<<p? ?Q`aP o\\? o
el?ec? a
C.
66 m
6 V ? ?zRa.
\y?9u b'6
?Ia, \d 6 6T4? ?s? n apt
oplot a A?
F
tro0 \ •M 3
\ \oab?ece wed Gs oe a
-V I m
b
Ck ` >t 2\ 909 8
\5 a s a R/?\Z 0 S
o may`''+-,
N
ro 4) 4? \
1 ,
?? ? ? v \ ? /` /\x/43
0 d
020
ao a?3?
s
0 Location of Directional Count ° U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
Not To Scale JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
FIGURE 6
1990 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
(EXISTING STREETS)
A
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Nfff/p_p
j T4 - -203
?8rf4
8203926
I
178-7 minm
am
?? A?ASu? ? .90 e?-J /
?jy --ApY /
l--86
/ r -e-317
I / N
-16 14"n BIvd. 3362 4472:
318-?
eel g36? / 931 to 00
16135-" / o
?a \ J ? 0\2/A D 1 5g22
r yti
tQ3 0°° a
N\ 14,11 141le
tT \ 4y V \' u
GoF
S
ooh aA ~ 4. 1?r P aA???s? •\ oP-? N 1,1611-19
aq-@ It
0 -@ s--OJ q hors P
c3' ?/ Or' ?s?J ??\ Mj 2689
\?1j o,}•`F A?\ ?\o •?
\g2,t9 0•?0 a
x
5? N
s ?/ \e
a ?/ W W
40
9 64?0j/ ` ?a? a ` /sI b
a'. n
13
a
N ?
J? A
rp ?I 'JesO?
o_ r N
11 r?,es? > >-
6s °S r
l
n ea N
MOD ti J
a U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
•
Hot To To oc of Scale Directional Count JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
FIGURE 7
2010 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
"NO BUILD" ALTERNATIVE
(EXISTING STREETS)

U

1

a
i
i
N
=tar-o L --614
-1°? i-461
_.,6T
641llr
1602-'I
50? yNmN
a0\a a\
5
\00`0 On! a1DI(-NO-
to v t -3i4
I? 1^ I I to 929
N ..1 1
..-3362 -_ ? f r
I / 4300-"?
12204 Ivd. 336 / 9
Yl 5? tyro
?eetern 6 looroQ,
/ -o
? I2702-"
@Ja??, Pam f ?o?/ e 1 e 95
v / 5019
6AS
e
el'° ? Q?`F? oy i
F
to
304j \ C
oa i? ?• yO^ 050
91 Po R ss .? ??,? ?iIg
en t
69 'Pool
19
f t
r9
\Z20a c?6a
5y\9 ? h
n. ro,
Y al
\°y °?? p??0 9a 9
\\?y?0 a??/yl0 °I
_ p0 ! h P
°m
o B°0 eOS0
a%ro
tao o ??ro
rv AT
80 P
?o s?s3 U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
• Locatlon of olreotlonol Count JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
Not To Scale
FIGURE 8
2010 AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC
"BUILD" ALTERNATIVE
(EXISTING STREETS)
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
-17532
17831 15591
2040--;
Vr
my
l
-•- 8334
Im
N ? a)
0 L--4087
I I -6560
Rte. 24 -10515 .1 4. (-12562 -23249 R/e. 24
10054- 3314-1 (' 22825
6546-
194-7 to
1 to
p ON
N
M
N
i
-2650
2681-
- 15626
E-15893 _31519
?F
too
Tn
MI?
b
-2689
Montlord Point
F 2689
Rte. 17 .
31501--
N M
\ 8262- 542-
-? 1 T307 -'-
O
126s-- i

O n

m
N

la ?p
R1e.258/24/53 66 O
I NOT TO SCALE
1 r 17209-
000
M F N
M
f
b
"674
+-3286
^1744 -11704
1 r'f 11716-RIe.53
°6\>
It .0.
1e. 258/24
--2738
Camp Geiger Road
2720
W
N
7628
x-T450
r-2121 - IT199

1
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
......
BEGIN PROJECI
NC 1 4
/US
k,, i 1001, iA ? 4W tt`^. I+rr
[n
tu,.lu a uu
BEGIN 1.1907
u po
J?0
CAMP
l?
a W ,
r
\ 11 n
Jy? /ea4s .•9/v
6 ? ? 17=1
a. ' ??0 F I-
?N&k ° END X92
PRO T Q22
nn Ge 1"
I G rt,'ty o '-v.4
II mot, I,u..rr..r
4r ,
Al 44 fl
1.0
LOS
73
1470
.t t
w F ti ppr° . t ; w; i'
j t `\ '' W t 21 ? i I , t
t • ? "`; ? III ? \ VO , 'Ls, +' '-'e.,f I
ti r 1 ? CNWN Q t • L r^ 4 al.rL,¢ ? I
!BELL `?? I
CBFF Y ?t'L\ FOHK
1t I !/ ? ? ? p2P° c al°[,ii ' pe \ `,::i?'a r/ I
? s ?t a 6 w
1.k 1 f 10 i r':luo, pt I,?.r
/ \ 'P, Gar rr a r,.c ?\ I
[` ? ,"? t^,P Wlr t,. ?tW ! ./ ` f .l` u-r . ?' I`lp l
? rr t r 17`e
1? 1 17 7[, -- ?Wp , I 4p ? P ? `` r Inr ",t
II!'re`ha "' /' a •.", f? q l ? iiia^a i /j "qF i I
..rp•" •? bY;G ? X0.iYbILyM +?
",y; ?l l•'r 'b 1 ?
? ! 1
r„'n I
'wr r?` // tr?(wr ?., rr :k" A lm L 1 ?waiwl b\ r/ -I
© 1 ' • r 1
'?a ? (/I,./?• '1' "i. 1",`+rk,?.. fqw ? •O?Lc? ?;w i _,? I
\ / ` M N ? n tNw.°. l[/ 11`2\l\! i_
-
A. / f ?"' I t ..l ! r / 4ql BN N // 11`p i r? .
e . r t?..,e i/ 12 'ttt;°"+` Y10 1
f0 'rW MIIf t. ?.: ^4l .ui' i +" . ++t " ''' / ?? i1 ` `+ES R Ma R I?
??i r reij,?! ? I: n", nht:i?llr ? / •11 E ?i ` a; f, W ( le t
ry / 'Oi ?? too tn. a`,/ j • // B Q ??JC N ?
LAU
END 1 NC 24
ILQ
0, c
0 I
? s E 1 l./ ??r'?? •g 1 r
TREA ENT ?V +?csoN CONNECTOR
ar ? r` 24
PLAN / s 7
( 0 n ` 4yr? I d
CAMP
- p JOHNSON

NEW RNER
U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
FIGURE 10
ALTERNATIVE A
(PREFERRED)
SCALE
0 2000FT
1
1

1

iJ

1

1

1
r

w?
c/
I

1
O 046
1 ! , ,
kNNlfl lal 1\ .
3y Rar
y "!CR I»! JAf(CSONVILLE
?G "IIIIR? y ??l,: _ 1
r.. w 4 I>, I
rte `I q -?.-5' 4 Yr
BEGIN US 17
CONNECTOR
ao?\o?v
CAMP
GEIGER
ki
AFescw e.4r
\lyy -
? yy,,

wr.,w
a „
END NC 24
CONNECTO
CAMP
N. ?+ry,Nnrb
P?
L

/ OG i? ' ro•ua
/
fit. • ? f?

!
?p
t

mar f

/ ? b! 11
au„ / I
`
FORK
?? ?a j

1 ;
lg `I:W !/
IY
? !";?,•
III `r / I
ry 1
? 2
Y
,
\ 11
0
?
l I
I
l ?
O ^ ? 1
U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
FIGURE 11
ALTERNATIVE B
SCALE
OGT OfT

/ `o \\ \
,•\ W ?0 ,pd E v t o
/ ti 0 V ?,a \ 9 Rw ?11,0 V
ell o ? p ?' ? e I
8,
O ? \ E of a4 ?,? f'
2? \ \
afl,
01
0 v \O?? E p L < y!
t \ '(?t ice' s 3 os M
„ 0?S lld Z7 I atPU 2 ? / \ C
I gar © II ?tPf1. \ I? J \ e '
C / C {
\ S
40 12 0
tia A \ s o ?"s N xSl Q -? C D D p ? ? D 4 .?_... ' R R/W SECT F.
R ql \ ?'\? 9 ( o e c to ti xx ;(`/ u A \ N
`\ D 1 ` D C? Bus ! SI j ON " J r 1) ??\? ,`` ?w 71
'Bus D v I 21 I ! 2T ?? '"..
B H ??? 11 a N; r? rl r \?? y ?'I!
TOR LANDS W `Q er aQ D ,r? 26 s o z
4
us 23e , "C 2" D o 9E D 0 P P D' qj ' D 1 ?v .°at V t \ EAR
N a
no + arO 2y. " (l? "r ??? Q
us ' D s . 41 Iy o "r qb. k D B 80'? "P UB ?{? ?a . P ` / 13 4?1
FPO 's
SEN"OE '
A \ p15P0511
P`"" BEGIN'
DISPOSAL STA. 56
" \\
v s
n "lad
74 r ; ?r
f i r N!A ? ??\
4jt .1
-'IVY D
0 7C ,? " 0"ra e U-2107, U-2107A, US '17
ELENE`ENf"Ar 5CN00L O 71 \ \ / x
Cl v r JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
\ o STA.so+oo
x ; \\ FIGURE 12
d
1 ,% ? Bus 2
\\ BLUE CBEEs l
BIP1157 CNUBCN
All\ \ e PREFERRED
ALTERNATIVE
SCALE \
m' ? ` 1 OF 9

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
r
St .. J
1lt p --., '? ,. X45.1 &
,3! , ?u G `. t •, J '../• 100 DOD P
p J jai v
t AMP G
too YR
__ _D A
O _ PlA
FLOO
i" poi I ?• ? f ` ?, ?.
s ?djP G /1
0 r A G \ I __ 1.
It.
r 4i 1 ra t F ue E72"FCCI 5 : ?0• , r
9v L_.
Q !N q, n p. 'ic', -? ?IA °- O 'p. ?? A K Jy? :kFiA W
' FJ ?Ep U p ?? o o u? G _ /^ - fV Il r p/1{? 2
105
10
!"?. ?? r ?' sir ? 1? ^` ? °C o '? <Q ? ? IC .• •? 1? F. ? ? r/ / ? ?( ? ,Q.??'0,??'(? \?_' I J i% ?? p r: o w 0 ° o \ A /per 'r Ct/ 1 ?oj f°' ?' W w f ccQ
F JI U?? 1,1 n ir5 ?''li v% ° \ lp I! . E } 0? /?.. C C
1 I1 roa e ? I' ? ? Z.J ?•? 'r ? ? ?
j
G
L . ?t 0 o J } `1``11 ! \? n .
It. 7L-j
(J
12 :_L 'CNADY EjGER
CAMPS
cl,
• U-2107, U-2107A, US
=JACKSONVILLE BYPA
FIGURE 12
PREFERRED
Mgrch ALTERNATIVE
t?N? sr
S$?DO' . ,? 0 SCALE 400 2 OF 9
1

r?

1

t
1

ICJ

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
tai nl r 4 ?l
v

i
?:Ai'P i,?IGcR
PROPOSED GUARDHOUSE L_OGATION
r?
;ER.
i
z i ;>
w 1
m ? u)
V)E! Dl-,/.)
r. If41PSC)I\I ET. !i>;
(2? MARNE BROADIII.Llt-SI
0 SCALE 400
1

E

11

n
II
1

f..
e P gal r"' Pti'f '', / ;•
r1, u P /
d Pq f
n `... r ..
IOOYR FLOOD PLAT - r
to ,?. ? ?,•?. ?.. ? r :?vr. PFFK ?. S
L
P\ 1 , ?? , / • : \ '^ r ,? E• ?, 1 'lLl. £ON'AROSy
W / r^ --. _?b?/f'x7'??'r '.??l.?x?v,.,?.t?+d.:-`?•-'!.?_'_r•_ ? - ?- -- .??.__?i' `^' / ,? - f rr ?F
71
•, •' l ??. ? . ?? ? ? % A C ,y,,? l 1`11
> / >•i r, ,,' f \ 1 ++ of y .I?¢ , f ? ,
., LL t r .?.
U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
vl?
/;%?? w I' r , ?: •-- - ?? _ ,?, ?? JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
4 / FIGURE 12
?",., C\ ,?\ , ;,/ `?.,? ; ;,. r'.? ??.? r ? ? -??' _ ? "• PREFERRED
-__' ,
ALTERNATIVE
y ///'?' \\ ?/ ?? ??" ? r ' V ;`k r ? r ? ?J Ill' l'' ? 1?? f ?.
\\?i ` \ (( ,,. 1 SCALE
C`M? ?. 0 400 3 Of 8
1

1

E

1

1
1
1
1
1
O
N
N
W
J
V
a
i

1
I
?I
WILSON BAY
i
I
I

I
- _ - ''I Ln I
R/W S8C7.%
I ? \ ? ??? 1\ END M
\\ I 1\ ILL RD. N0, I
22+30
o? , I F
rN I
r I r2
RiW SEC-
/oN
B
/f
i
i
i

aryEA ? h„°? ???
A
0
\ 4X
NEW RIVER d.?
I \
I '
II \ I
I r
I
?I
I
i
I. rl
so
F
w?
OAF

Qp,,- ioo \
dap 2a , ?o \
1 9?L
/
/
00,

1444
H I(IIyE SrA 31
500
I /
,I I
l II
-- ----------- - - ----
I
i
,I\I G\?\oY?, II i?r
?1f ? F I?
x,16 ?f
4<p,
u 1?4
0 SCALE 400
\
11 /1
I•n
i\ u
I ? rl.
I v 11'
I\ h'
I ?? rl
IIIE r ? \? ?
1 ??ly s -
\ti
11 ' 1 '•

CAMP ?jo%(%SON
- I N

1

i

1

?I
11
L

?j

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Ek13T/NB
CEHE7ERY
40
.C
S?
9
?r (? r
Il
(I
I
(ill ?
I(
h
FUTURE CEHETE,CY.. //j--
i
CAMP JOHNSON
aiN. w+vu
NO,3
f p SCALE 400
i
.J
m
IJ
I
H
Q

1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 d
t
U? v o
0 v i
r R V g 4 tea A'u G ;< 0 -44
Or ? ? 1e („ ? ,G
?? o `?' ? ? ? ? al's ????? j ?,,?
10
,.'
14
Q

- E B. NC • ,
.??' , /_ _ __ ';
, /may/ ,r '%?? '

? f
'
F
f' .'
,% '
I U•2107 U-2107A US 17
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS

c FIGURE 12
l0

s?
PREFERRED
r ALTERNATIVE
?
'i? "
c .`?• 0 SCALE 400
,

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
N
?9
N 3.
?( ?../? (? ?•, wit S, ? 0 4 N ?i ti 1?
, \, W 9 l? ' i5 Pr N GS
WQ ?
r ? ? ?',?, 41 N
cQa
3?C ?? N `?R? ?? 1?
? HN
1
??? Z,? Mry N 14U lk IL
r?
4-1
74
0 ? I/ 1' i? L
t' f ? ? : i ? afi'f'+n
'r
M4r?
k (?NF
W a' S T4,
,.. ?, q?sX00
?...., o
P
E4
J
L FJ ?P -
J'
1 rN
d 1
' 00 1 S
01
U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
STA 3666 4?F
*OS Nei • ?; ? ? ?l ?,1NE ?? ; , a ? ? 1
r ?
0 SCALE 400 {??
1

G

1

F

1

1
1

0

r

fl
0

°
44 _ S BN
LC, 24
.o
UC=
0
R
R/x I
NOIEr UNLESS J)THEP ISE NOTFO. 15 I 1? J BUSS
BNLO°ILS iN r-S ax EA eBC
x0U5E igkILEAS. J I- ?4kS 0 AU5
t5 ..
0%
rN 1
us n ere5r _
E ! 3
I T E.
'? I OUS
6 / I
44
x2s
11
6
3T
F,
END SEGMENT N
END PROJECT
STA. 484+45
0
Cri
3 1
V
q q G]
&1END ?11 0 ?jil= o

4?S"? '''^+'`'+??-'`???•??''J^ ?"MSC L

0 SCALE 400
%iiia

BI iS _ F _L_? I I' f
-d II [L
163 , ? 11.5 ?-
?l9fAiJY1LLr ??- ?----
ISIW -- MW
Bu5 5 D BBS ?I
110 f?? Au5
h ,? ?-UJ "l7 , ? ? I L_k----
I
?l^
Bus BUS-
Lam' ?I
LL
?I O Ind -_-
Q ? I .e'MIVLLE LJ '?? I ,,? .n?wru?i~'
e _? I- v g511aN I n
C3 C3 C
<u5 ? I ? Bus ?? I? N e d ? 5 I
p LI //` r _/ I
p w u- Bu5
I ? ??- p Bus ? ?, ek B
1 Q I
i
1l 1 I I 5 ?, ? ?.
U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
Bu> JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
0 Y1. I ?
r_,-?? I
til
I ; BN5
FIGURE 12
o
BUS ; !- PREFERRED
O ?`'
-
......! ? ALTERNATIVE
I I C ? I.
9OF9
a?
0. a
xiq
7n
\ 9
15' VARIES 12' 12' 36' MIN. 30' _ 30' 361 MIN. 2'
(12' LANES) (12' LANES) (15'W.
3 G.-R.)
10' 12' 12' 10
10 10
?ritty?,?
15'
3
IN.
IY
SIX -LANE MAINLINE
12' 24' MIN- 30' 30' 24' MIN. 2'
(12' LANES) (12' LANES) (15'w
G.R.)
10 12' 12' 10
41
FOUR -LANE MAINLINE
IU Z4%- MIN MEDIAN Z4' MIN. 10'
(12' LANES) (SEE NOTE) (12' LANES)
I
----
MULTI LANE STREET
MEDIAN TYPE (FLUSH, RAISED, ETC.)
AND WIDTH VARIABLE TO BE
COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING STREETS.
TWO -LANE CROSSROAD
I?

1 -1- w1
13
I?
It ? VAKItS IU IC IZ IV IZ
IN N (12'w
G.R.)

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10' 36' 10'
10' 36' 10'
SIX -LANE BRIDGE
12'

10' 24' .J
G" AI
Z' Z
J
FOUR -LANE BRIDGE
(STAGING OPTION)
* FUTURE WIDENING
U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
FIGURE 14
TYPICAL SECTIONS
MAINLINE BRIDGES
Edwards Creek, New River, and
Military Crossing Sites
I f%' 174

1
1
1

1

u
City of Jacksonville, NC `? '' ' ' `? '"•.•
CAIVIA Land Use Plan Update
'
1991 ? ' ? '??? w! y; :y 'Y• •• tip; ::a::. .}
• . City Limits / •r , •??'? \ .'?•'
w '' ,4••
ETJ Boundary
Military Controlled
C H y,l• ?? ? 1 \ \ , y •l.,i
Areas
• •; ..5. . n. i ..wE ? ? ? S ,J. a ;? rs.. ti? ?? 1 r 1 ? J' ?
RESIDENTIAL I •; { 4 ' t? ^, `1, ! {?
RECREATION .. ' °?•?3J:. 'ti %:i?? .i ?:, . r ? Iy.
/V •^?%ii: •:h• r.? ?Y/a:d. i!!i' ,.r. •?::? ?: ?:.. ,?q?!„ w . r,• ! ,' ,t',.:7 2 i' 1.?
( COMMERCIAL / • • - - Qr.. yj:?M1 ;??"•?" r.:::'::ii"•:a::"(: ? •7 ? -z ' ? ? • '' ?! 'r „ ?' i. ' ,"1?''. i
OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL 1... • "c!"??^ ':::??r#d t } : a?ewi::F' v , { ?: , )' r
® INDUSTRIAL ?. r ::. i, ' „T:: ` ?;" ' '•?
OPEN SPACE/V•canl
' ' ' 'y ! ,c? , ? • 4 ' of
j,l,4 tJl .i •i?.r° .,.?::. .I. '•,:,;:y;::: '••'•...,,:?;'..: 1..: C? i .1
•r.
J
I
f?
••l
lr:.
t. -
•
..t (
I
'•F •J>n
.b'
.S•
•1:
Si '•? ?-' .1•
f? •:in•?•'':a
1
v I
•''? 'iii ':;?!' •r?4'•'•a i;;l? ..•.S' ?' ?!f?.5. ., \ r!i..':
r?T
t{[ ;w
,T '•i? i?
1
x•
C
n rr
.t )
?:C F
?• i .
e'
;" U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
t•; ay, ',,' '?• fi`''t:„S?• CAM JOHNSON
. ! CAMP I R _ X MOBI HO
FIGURE 15
LAND USE PLAN

1

1

e

I

1
1 1

11

a

i
r
s
¦. r ,

N
I

4

m 9
O

O

Q ? ? C r
Z
W
/ acm c3
W
Imo
,? .
J
u +
h 9
I ' O C
L ?
i
? yl

+
Q ca Cl)
z

e
.
rm O
rCg-
?J wzCL
a? # Z
C-y = 0 n
?co 0LU0
; - LL
?:

r

f
t

i
t
t.
I

c<

16
>
0
m
? c°
E
9
° M O

uj J S
o
o t`. a
F.
°m S
W m >
=mo ° o

0
J
' w 9
I D 4
i
? l
i 4'P

?' r r
1 $ iti?. 7
,;

t

s

Cl)
Z
m
}
m N
r 0
N
J wza
_
p > w

cii 0
?
c!)w0

Q L o

1

a

s
too lt:,,
11 wli=i

Ival

a
0 Z2
r}
co ticl)

QQ
cn r?
??
o > WZa
CC
?° 0
aw
Q ??L
L
1

I

1

t

fl

s

I
t

a

1

I?C`4 wr?!?Y}
A a
1
Nc? US
{?D
11r ? uhf
2
yM 1.11..IR •
??? .Ir 11 `M1r .•rl
BEGIN U907
Lr pRy
Ja0
r QJJ
CAMP

I
!
l
\
SITE DESCRIPTION
1 Jet Service Station
2 B&T Body Shop
3 Coldman Body Shop
4 Camp Geiger Fuel Farm
(See Sheet 2 of 2)
5 Camp Geiger Dump
xy:
?`? 17 71•S ? ,ti r-,µtn 'ark
!121 ` y
3
' / / ; . 1 , lii •41..1 Nr '
`Y 111 ? '? ?Iw re
?*r Ir
'Sl 1 111 /
.
All
?/s E
&TREA ENT jV ??SOr eer
PLAN
5 Irr,?-? ?
rr I \ '
•lIr1.4 Illy
NEW RNER
END NC 24
CONNECTC
CAMP
JOHNSON
Lao 0
/
/ yo..
END

SC/ 1 I%
_1 11. 1
! ?w +w
11D
p ia

_o, ',l"
/

\ wrlM%.1 / I
`BELL F0
1 V,r%Iq / + I
I

Lug
\ ! 12
I

'wwrl 1 /
L?oj
' I
3 1 1
1
I-)0 I
I ?
'
N 0 .g
1+

cE?F? !
I
I
r NF -sr It
z. !

0 1
R
?
29
`
I
I
I
\
.4`gOIC
U-2107, U-2107A, US 17
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
FIGURE 18

HAZARDOUS WASTE
SITES AND
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE TANK SITES
SWEET 1 OF 2
a

? SLgy,
1

H

1

e
a

i
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
i
CAMP
k?.

100 YR / '
FLOOD PLAIN

Qn.c

11

L
1

ILI
L?

1
r
LS

1

1
1
APPENDIX I
AGENCY COMMENTS

I

Fil

1

1

1

North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
(919) 73 3-3 86 7

i

1
1
1

1
August 17, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell CapiI, -Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section O?°?
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
Re: State # N.C. 91-E-4220-0106
N.C. DOT - Proposed US 17 - NC 24 Bypass of
Jacksonville
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order 123,
a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.

STAR
,r" 33
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM; Melba McGee 1},t/
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 91-0106 - Scoping for comments for
Environmental Assessment of the
Proposed US17-NC24 Bypass.
Jacksonville, onslow County
DATE: September 18, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposed
scoping notice. Our review efforts raised several issues that
will need to be more fully addressed. There is mention of
impacts to wetland resources, wildlife and fisheries within and
adjacent to the New River. Reference has been made by the
Division of Parks and Recreation that both state and federal
threatened species will be effected by this project. In relation
to these and other concerns mentioned in the attached comments,
this department recommends that DOT fully address issues and.any
precautionary measures to be taken during the time of
construction that will minimize damages in these areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM:bb
cc: David Foster
P.O. liar _'iis7 R,laiuh. North C: rolina 27611.76.47 Tricnhnnc 919.733.63711
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
1

i

1
i
1
1

1

September 7, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO:. Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherlan
SUBJECT: 91-0106, EA of Proposed US 17-NC 24
Bypass of Jacksonville
we have the following comments on the above project:
1. At stream and wetland crossings, utilize
bridges whenever possible to minimize
habitat losses and floodplain encroachment.
2. Minimize the loss of timber and prime
farmland.
John N. Morris
Director
3. Provide vegetation buffers when highway
passes close to residential areas.
4. Mitigate the loss of wetlands and forests.
5. Minimize the use of curb and gutter; maximize ,
the use of porous pavement and grass swales.
6. Involve local landowners in gathering data on
impacts; be flexible on location of alternatives -
adjust them to meet local concerns.
P.U. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 27611.7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity AHirmarive Action Employer
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
September 5, 1990
Memorandum

TO: Melba McGee
THROUGH: Carol Tingley C-1?
S
FROM: Stephen Hall, Natural Heritage Program
.l
SUBJECT: Scoping -- US 17 - NC 24 Bypass, Jacksonville, Onslow
County
REFERENCE: 91-0106
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for only
one listed species occurring within the project area. The
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) has been observed
in Scales Creek just downstream from NC 24 and also in the New
River. This species is listed as threatened both by the state and
federal government and would be affected by this project both by
direct loss of wetland habitat and by the increased amount of
disturbance this road would create.
One other significant species that is known to occur within four
miles of the project is the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), which is listed as endangered, both federally and by
the state. If there is still a large tract of upland forest
existing between the New River and NC 24 (as indicated by the USGS
Topo), then there is a significant chance that this species could
be nesting there. As far as we know, this tract has not been
surveyed for the woodpeckers and this should be done before the
project can be evaluated any further.
3171

1

1 1,
i

u

1
1
t
3
'•?? {?•_ fig;
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James C. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Harry F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
August 22, 1990
TO: Melba McGee 7-
Environmental Asdessment-*Unit
%•
G:•
FROM: Don H. Robbins 6 6
Staff Forester
SUBJECT: EA Scoping of the Proposed US 17 - NC 24 Bypass South of
Jacksonville in Onslow County
PROJECT 1191-0106

Syr co ••
O K
DUE DATE 9-7-90

1
1
t

To better determine the impact, if any, to forestry in the area of the
proposed project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following
information concerning the proposed alternative routes for the possible
right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2.. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber, and fully stocked
stands of very productive timber within the new right-of-way
purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
_productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland-was removed.
IV Box 276N7, ItilcuJi N„rdh t ando:, 2-s.11 7,.s- !,:Icph,nu w#7'1210
An FnIml i h%h-rt::n,:. •\Ihn::a:?"' I n,I?L.:•c.
Melba McGee
PROJECT #91-0106
Pag e 2
5. If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris Auring right-of-way construction.
Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
6. The provisions that the contractor will ^take during the.construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits.
We would hope that a route could be chosen, that would have the least
impact to forest and related resources in that area.
DHR:la
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Fred White - CO
David Foster - DEM
Donald Edwards - Onslow County
File

"'North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission L.
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Assessment Section
Department of EH&NR
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton ?ccl /? jZ 1_1- ?J
Assistant Director iN?CJ?J? ?X
DATE: August 31, 1990

1
J

f

it
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N.C. Department
of Transportation regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for the proposed US 17/NC 24 Bypass
of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North
Carolina.
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L.J.
Ward of the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for
our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the proposed US 17/NC 24 bypass of
Jacksonville. The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is
concerned over potential adverse impacts to wildlife.
fisheries, and wetland resources within and adjacent to the
construction corridor. We are especially concerned over
impacts on wetland resources in areas adjacent to New River
and its tributaries. These wetland areas are important to a
variety of avian and terrestrial species and provide
important travel corridors for wildlife.
Due to limited information in Mr. Ward's memorandum of
8-10-90, we can express our concerns and requests for
information only in general terms. Our ability to evaluate
project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
reviewing the project Environmental Assessment will be
enhanced by inclusion of the following information:
-. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the
study corridors. Potential borrow areas to be
used for project construction should be included
in the inventories.

Memo Page 2 August 31, 1990
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including
State and Federal species of special concern,
within, adjacent to, or utilizing study corridors.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all projected related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other ,
drainage, or filling for project construction.
4. The need for channelizing or relocating portions
of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
5. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland ,
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
6. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
wetlands and impacts associated with
fragmentation.
7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation ,
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can be of
further assistance, please call on us.
i
cc: The Honorable R.G. Sowers, III
Bennett Wynne, District Fisheries Biologist
Bobby Maddrey, District Wildlife Biologist
C
1 -
L

1

:- DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
tit P.O. BOX 1890 ,a
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
September 10, 1990 41.9
IN REPLY REFER TO Gi h/(i S'U 0
F
Planning Division f a?`c ylL,q), ??
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E. , Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed your letter of August 10, 1990, requesting information
for "Environmental Assessment of the proposed US 17-NC 24 Bypass of
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina; State Project No. 6.269001T;
T.I.P. No. U-2107" and offer the following comments.
The proposed corridors are through flood plains; therefore, any adverse
effects due to the proposed construction on the 100-year-frequency flood
event should be evaluated and discussed in the environmental assessment.
Local ordinance restrictions for the use of the flood plain and floodway
zones should be followed.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for- the discharge
of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project, including 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. When final plans are completed, including
the extent and location of any work within waters of the United States and
wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity-to review
these plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army
permit requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jeff
Richter, Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be
of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
S cerely,
R EIV
? EQ
Lawrence W as E ?' 17 1990
Chief, P ary Divisio
r y E 6REINER COMPANY

i Ti-ii..i .?i.~i:.?-? t 1.??wf••h e?w! /?: ?K CT.:uT:iST
i?? :.. ?_?? ? . ?c.:...?._ =rz_^??33 5•EbtGa?e. ors i.t2e Satre-? ..... _
\` `'.• -\ T+rnrr c srtti r..c ?.? -!t• ??.? ??uF?G G
f='- Rai"•ish Fieid voice
. i :-t:•sac? tai •. ---
? ,r•-•/ ? rosl vtaiCe yvx Jii "
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 ca
'
,larch 15, 1990
V C2
"-'s. Nanc A. Makofka 77--:?
Environmental Scientist R,
Louis Berger and Associates, Inc.
200 New Bern Avenue t? S ?I, i? di •'
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Dear Ms. NWl ofka: '
Subject: Scoping Comments for the proposed Jacksonville
bypass in Onslow County; TIP U-2107.
This responds to your letter of March 6, 1990, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential' impacts of the proposed project upon stream ecosystems and
associated wetlands within the study corridor. Special care should be
exercised in the design and implementation of all stream crossing
structures. The Service is concerned that the alignments under
consideration parallel Brinson Creek for almost its entire length. Shifting
the alignments either north or south as far as possible within the study
corridor would move the highway away from the stream and reduce wetland
and/or riparian corridor impacts. The Service strongly encourages the NCDOT
to consider also the improvement of existing alignments rather than
construction of a new facility.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (Pr) which may occur in the proposed project corridor. If the
proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30 years of
age in pine or pine/ha^dwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active
red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in appropriate habitat within a 1/2
mile radius of project boundaries. if red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed
within the project area or active cavity trees found, the project has the'
potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker and you should '
contact this office for further information.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow

'i
1

1

areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. '
3) Linear feet of any kater courses relocated.
;) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the a%-pected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Attachment
i
1
1
Sincerely yours,
.I
R. Wilson y
Acting Field Supervisor

? initeCl Mates Lepariinelli ul L11C 111LC11U1
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE A=
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 30, 1990
47
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager vU J I•
Planning and Research Branch z
Division of Highways SJCv'. ?Q?'
N.C. Department of Transportation S
Post Office Box 25201 //t,C' & RcSGp'?J
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Subject: Scoping Comments for the proposed US 17 - NC 24 Bypass of
Jacksonville in Onslow County; TIP U-2107; State Project No.
6.269001T.
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your letter of August 10, 1990, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential impacts of the proposed project upon stream ecosystems and
associated wetlands within the study corridor. Special care should be
exercised in the design and implementation of all stream crossing
structures, particulary with regard to any alignment which may parallel
Brinson Creek,
The attached pages identify the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) which may occur in the proposed project corridor. If the
proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30 years of
age in pine or pi ne,/hardwood habitat, surveys should be con._...u-ted for active
red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in appropriate habitat within a 1/2
mile radius of project boundaries. If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed
within the project area or active cavity trees found, the project has the
potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker and you should
contact this office for further information.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed projectRtMVE9d
SFP 11 1990
I E. GREINER COMPANY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely yours, /
L't n? L4Vt?
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Attachments

TAKE
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF MINES
INTERMOUNTAIN FIELD OPERATIONS CENTER
P. O. BOX 25086 '
BUILDING 20, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER L)
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
G v, September 10, 1990
Manager
Planning h?T Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27622-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Environmental Assessment of the proposed US 17-NC 24
Bypass of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina;
State Project No. 6.269001T; T.I.P. No U-2107
We received a copy of the above assessment and appreciate the
opportunity to offer our comments regarding the proposed project.
With regard to review of such environmental documents, our purview
is to determine whether adverse consequences to mineral resources
or related industries would occur. Our information indicates that
there would be no such impacts from proposed highway construction,
therefore, we have no comment.
Sincerely,
ill Wo?ran, Chief
Intermountain Field Operations Center
j ad/bde
RECEIVED
JtN 17 Wu
I E GREINER COMPANY
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
4 1990
??P
„:,,? NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
-fl v
IVISION OF Q
r 9450 Koger Boulevard
' D
HIGHWAYS Q. St. Petersburg, FL 33702

1 /?Gz PESSp,PG? September 11, 1990 F/SER111/RSS
919/728-5090
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
' Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your August 10, 1990, letter requesting our input
into the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed US 17-NC 24 Bypass of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North
Carolina; State Project No. 6.269001T; T.I.P. No. U-2107.
The New River, its tributaries, and their adjacent wetlands provide
habitat for a variety of estuarine dependent and anadromous fishery
resources. Alternatives, corridors, and alignments under study
cross wetlands and estuarine waters that support commercially and
recreationally important fishery resources. Accordingly, we view
the proposed Bypass as having a high potential for adversely
impacting these resources unless adequate consideration is given
to potential wetlands and fishery habitat losses early in the
' planning process. Therefore we recommend that the EA include the
following:
' 1. The EA should address alternative highway alignments and
highway designs that will avoid and minimize wetland losses.
2. The EA should describe the location, species, and acreage of
wetlands potentially impacted under the alignment and design
alternatives considered.
3. The EA should provide a description of the fishery resources
found in the project area and an assessment of the impacts of the
project's alternatives on these resources.
4. The EA should describe measures to be taken (e.g., steep side
slopes, narrow medians, bridging, etc.) to minimize wetland losses.
I We recommend bridging all wetlands to minimize loss of these
important resources.
5. The alternative analysis is that the EA should demonstrate
that the selected alternative also represents the least
environmentally damaging alternative.
6. Bridge construction often requires ??gg filling for
access roads and/or excavation of channels ffi!X= on access.
1. E GREINER COMPANY fgl?
i4 N
11
_2_

The EA should address the impact on wetlands and fishery resources
of any construction related temporary wetland losses.
7. If, after avoidance and minimization of wetland involvement,
the selected alternative requires unavoidable wetland losses, the ,
EA should provide a mitigation plan to compensate for wetlands lost
as a result of project construction. Unless compensation for
wetland losses is incorporated, we will likely recommend against
the issuance of a Corps of Engineers' Section 10/404 permit for the
project.
In conclusion, we recommend that the N. C. Division of Marine '
Fisheries be contacted for data concerning the specific fishery
resources that could be impacted by this project. A representative
of our Beaufort field office is available to meet with you or your
consultant to discuss our concerns and assist in the resolution of
potential environmental problems associated with this project.
Since ly y ur
Z
Andr as Mager,
Ass stant Regi al Director
Habitat Conservation Division

1

k, City of Jacksonville
venro..e ?^-?,,f ?..T. rl???..1tv.:`.._. ?..?:?TO..?.?w ?4'..lw'?: 1•:.?.. ?rJi?.7"J.?"'Li.:"P.... ?1.\?r:?1•:?.?? ±.T^r.. .'.?+,T..^•."F'!?.??...... -'7t.: •.?-
Home of Camp Lejeune f!
' September 11, 1990 Mpgger
??P
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch Z ?19?Q~
North Carolina Department of Transportation 2 S/G/v0F `r
P.O. Box 25201 ?ce
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 9FSEAp,CK?
Dear Mr. Ward:
Our City staff has been actively reviewing the proposed US 17-NC 24 bypass
of Jacksonville, North Carolina (State Project No. 6.269001T) and offers the
following preliminary comments for your review.
-the extension of White Street from its present terminus to Country Club
Road should be made a part of this project
' -the bypass crossings of Bell Fork Road and Country Club Road should be
grade separated
' -established residential neighborhoods in Georgetown and within the Bell
Fork/Country Club Road should be minimally impacted
-care should be taken to minimally impact existing business along Lejeune
Boulevard
-full interchange access should be provided along the southern edge of the
Georgetown community
-provision of police, fire, and rescue squad services should not be
inhibited during project construction
-NCDOT study should be initiated to determine the projects impact on
existing Country Club Road (White Street Extension will provide direct access to
Country Club Road)
-noise and visual pollution (both during construction and as a result of
construction) in the vicinity of the Beirut Memorial should be kept to a minimum
' -no existing Beirut Memorial Trees (in the medium along Lejeune Boulevard)
shall be destroyed, any tree impacted should be moved to a location specified by
the City.
' The City recognizes the US 17-NC 24 bypass as a tree >?? to the
traveling public of our area. We also are well aware and wis o e o NCDOT
that the bypass will result in reduced traffic congestion S tpejepylMviding
' ). E GREI
NER COMPANY
Pncr office Roy 128 • l;ickcnnville. North Carolina 29541 • [phone]
NCDOT
September 11, 1990
Page 2
quicker and safer traffic flow throughout the Jacksonville area.
If the City can provide additional information, please advise.
Sincerely,
erry A. Bittner
City Manager
/sm

'R _
1
i Iltj T T1"', T C ii i " E-- S
I i T
DEP:`-iF r-1, I OF
AGR'T CULTURE
March
5
QIITI
Cap SERVA-; ION
SERVICE
Mr. F;-: ,;: "rice P.E.
LOUIS S?EP.GER AS._OC I H I ESo I I.L .
-Ic3 r_, r WI! " {? i- I TON SCTREET SUITE 'J=-- •J • MTy1,NI?T?'.;' 103 H 1 e ? 11 , I ' L J 6 i I -.
R. E US 1,7 jzcr:1:soj-jvi', !a Bypass U-21(117
'ear Mr. Price
POST OFFIC-E 20%,%z 77576,
FAIRMONT fvi_ G..e84 j
TEL `_ F'I-IONE : (o i o 629-8245
,? j ?--
?
3
E :i I II
ClUsad isTC?1-m HJ-1 (j[1? i armlalld Conversion Impact Rating for
the -ab_I"?e pr_ jact.
The acreage totals for prime and important farmlands include the portion
ol-' the project- that lies within the Camp Leieune Military Base. These areas
Would have been e-cluded ;i the proposed conversion had been or
mi 1 i tar; purcoses.
If ?ou have any questions or need additional infrjrmation, please call
me the above number.
' Willie E. Spr-will
rarely Resource Specialist
Enclosures
c_c:

Horace Smith _

t

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request '
Nntr 9(1 i OOt
Name Of Protect Federal A ency Involved
IIC 1_7 .larkcnnvflla Ryrilcc- 11-9107 (N DO'? (FHWA Constructior, Only) ,
Proposed Land Use ( County And State
Highway nslow County. North Carolina
PART I I (To be completed by SCS) Date Request ReceZ,gd e .
TA w • I ``11_Z Co byt T'+? o . 1?
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ?
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
corm Acres: 3; L- Z 5 % 73,2- Acr Irrigated Average Farm Size
Wbil e /256
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FP-PA
Acres: 34 S 6 Z I % lra 5,7
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
On?lo? L? Name Of Local Site Assessment System
IV?he Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
MiAYCL? u, 1111
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly C. 5 8 . 2 4.12
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site n 5 $ . 2 G; i o -
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 5 0
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0
102-
r 0
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Some Or Higher Relative Value a# do D 06
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
?. a ?
I
I
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points I
1
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Parr VI above or a local
site assessment!
160
TOTAL POI NTS (Total of above 2 lines)
-- 260

Site Selected:
FDate Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
1

?Ty' ?,. ?iAlF o

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Archives and History
Patric Dorsey, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
February 7, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator C
Federal Highway Administration f,
' Department of Transportation ,
310 New Bern Avenue FEB
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 ?? 199
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report ?? ?j??S?pN 2
for US 17 Jacksonville Bypass, U-2107, Gyp, Or v1'
S ??
6.269001T, ER 92-7798 1
?SEARCN?F?
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of January 28, 1992, concerning the above project. We
have reviewed the historic structures report by Elizabeth Rosin and offer our
comments.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is not eligible for listing in the National
' Register of Historic Places:
(former) Prison Camp (ON 672). The prison camp does not possess
sufficient qualities of architectural or historical significance.
In general the report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions .
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
;S* rely,
t
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc. V'/ J. Ward
B. Church 109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Elizabeth Rosin, LBA
LAO
ww?M„r`
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
May 26, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation, Phase I
Archaeological Survey Report, US 17
Jacksonville Bypass, Onslow County, tate
Project 6.269M1 T, TIP U-2107, ER 92-8180
Dear Mr. Graf:
1

Division of Archives and History ,
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of April 13, 1992, concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the archaeological survey report by-Louis Berger &
Associates (LBA) for the Jacksonville Bypass and offer our comments.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we concur that the following properties mayy be significant.
If they cannot be avoided by highway construction, additional investigations
should be conducted to fully evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places.
31ON521. An Early to Late Woodland period site at which cultural
materials were recovered to a depth of .77 meters below surface,
indicating a potential for undisturbed cultural remains.
31ON522. A Middle Woodland period site at which cultural materials
were recovered to a depth of .75 meters below surface. This indicates
a potential for undisturbed cultural remains.
31ON523. A Middle Woodland eriod site at which cultural materials
were recovered to a depth of .95 meters, indicating a potential for
buried and undisturbed cultural remains.
31ON524. Cultural materials were recovered up to .8 meters below
the surface at this Early to Middle Woodland period site, indicating a
potential for undisturbed remains.
109 East f ones Street * Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
I
J

1

Nicholas L. Graf
May 26, 1992, Page
31 QN526. A small Early to Middle Woodland period site at which
cultural remains were recovered to a depth of .8 meters. A burned
zone indicates the potential for undisturbed cultural features.
Each of these sites has the potential to yield information important to the
prehistory of the Coastal Plain region (per Criterion D of the National Register
eligibility criteria) and warrant further evaluative investigation if threatened
by construction activities.
Five additional sites were identified as insignificant by LBA, and were not
recommended for further evaluation. We concur with the findings and
recommendations for one of these sites--310N529--inasmuch as the site
appears to have been largely destroyed by erosion.
However, we believe there is insufficientIIustification for recommending
insignificant for the remaining four sites--310N502, 310N525, 310N5270
and 310N528. Each of these sites is located on small landforms in the
lowland areas adjacent to the New River, and each identified as having a
relativeiv intact 5-horizon (i.e., greater than .2 meters below surface) from
which cultural materials were recovered. In comparison with the five sites
identified as potentially significant, these sites are smaller in overall extent,
but otherwise contain comparable cultural components and evidence of
buried cultural remains. Early Woodland period components were identified
at all but one of the sites (310N528) and at one site (310N527), at Late
Archaic period (Stallings Island) component was identified. Given the overall
lack of archaeological data in the coastal region pertaining to the Early
Woodland and Late Archaic periods, any site containing undisturbed remains
of these periods should be considered potentially significant, regardless of
size or topographic situation.
' It is our opinion that three sites are potentially eligible for inclusion in the
National Register, and that additional evaluative investigations should be
conducted at the sites if they cannot be avoided by construction activities.
We will, however, be pleased to review any additional documentation
provided by LBA to support their findings and recommendations for these
sites.
In general, the report meets our office's
guidelines and those of the
Secretary of the Interior. Specific concerns and/or corrections which need to
' be addressed in the report are attached for the author's use.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of
Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
CFR Part 800. _

i?

the National
on Historic
, codified at 36

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
OVI ook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachment
cc: r. Kay Simpson
Louis Berger & Associates
L. J. Ward
T. Padgett

i
C

1

ATTACHMENT
Phase I Archaeological Survey Report
US 17 Jacksonville Bypass, Onslow County,
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
State Project 6.269001T, TIP U-2107,
CH 91-E-4220-0106, ER 92-8180
Specific concerns and/or corrections.
Page 13,, paragraph 3, sentence 2: The personal communication reference
(Mathis) is confusing and, according to Mathis, taken out of context.
Loftfleld's belief is consistent with that-of every researcher in the coastal
region as a whole. The Roanoke colonists certainly came in direct contact
with Algonkian speakers in the vicinity of Roanoke Island and around the
Albemarle and Pamlico sounds region. Mathis' comments pertains solely to
the area south of the Pamlico/Neuse area.
Bottom of page 22, top of page 23: "... a Federal permit pursuant to (the
Archaeological Resources Protection Act of] 1979 .. .
Page 24, paragraph 2: " Is loaned artifact finds were [identified as?]
locations . . ."
Page 25, paragraph 2: How were prehistoric ceramics grouped for analysis?
Page 25, paragraph 2: "... and small fines/architectural." "fines?"
Page 25, paragraph 3: WordPerfect 5.0 is a word processing software
application, and not a "form of analysis." This appears to be a minor
wording problem.

t

1
1
Page 27: "3. Tested Cobbles." In the outer coastal region, and particuiarly
in the vicinity of shell midden sites, small cobbles are frequently recovered
which bear only one or two flake scars. The frequency of.occurrence of
these artifacts to such contexts, relative to other coastal sites, has been
interpreted as an indication that they may have served as tools (e.g., "oyster
knives") rather than "tested cobbles" (cf. I-oftfield 1976a; 1979b as
referenced in report).
Page 52, paragraph 5: The site numbers in the first sentence appear to have
been reversed (i.e. 31 ON526 and 310N521).
Appendix C, "Survey Area 5--Site 310N524": "H-1 " should be "A-1," etc.

4
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
October 29, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27501-1442
Re: Section 106 consultation, revised Phase I
archaeological survey report, US 17 Jacksonville
Bypass, Onslow County, U-2107, ER 93-7534
Dear Mr. Graf;

Division oi' Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of October 7, 1992, transmitting the revised
archaeological survey report by Louis Berger & Associates for the Jacksonville
Bypass.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that archaeological sites 310N502 and 31 ON521-310N528 may
be significant. If they cannot be avoided by highway construction, additional
investigations should be conducted to fully evaluate their eligibility for inclusion in
the National Register of Historic Places.
Since the report indicates that only site 31ON522 lies within the preferred
alternate construction corridor (Alternate A), we recommend that test excavations
be conducted at 310N522 to fully assess its significance and the potential Impact
of the high way construction. Any future modifications in the Alternate A corridor
alignment may require additional investigations at one or more of the other sites
listed above.
The revised report addresses all of the specific concerns noted in our letter of May
26, 1992, and now meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary gf.the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFA Part 800,

u
n

109 Ease Jones Street a Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
h'?J

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 9191733-4763.
Sinc ly,
,
C '
y
77
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer,
DB:slw
cc: L. . Ward
ouis Berger & Associates, Richmond

i
11

1

w

E

1

1
7

APPENDIX II
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

1

r

il

11

0
1

JACKSONVILLE
US 17 BY-PASS
NEWSLETTER
' NO. 1 JUNE, 1990

1
1
-- STUDY BEGINS --
The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) has begun
studying a proposed highway (US 17) by-
pass of Jacksonville, North Carolina. The
.purpose of the study is to determine the
best location for the highway along.the .
south side of Jacksonville.
Traffic on the existing US 17 has .
become quite congested, particularly
during the early morning and late after-
noon. Motorists using the highway are
not only Jacksonville residents, but
visitors from other areas, through traffic
from Virginia to points south, and Camp
Lejeune Marine Corps Base personnel
going from one Camp to the. other. .
The new highway will ease traffic conges-
tion on the existing US 17 through
Jacksonville by providing an alternative .
route for through traffic and the Base
traffic between camps.
This newsletter provides an intro-
duction to the project and presents the
study procedures including a timetable of
project milestones. Public involvement in
the project is encouraged.
PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located in Tacksonville,
North Carolina in Onslow County. The
project study area begins at the intersec-
tion of US Highway 258 and NC Highway
53, on the west side of Jacksonville, crosses
US 17 and the northern portions. of Camp
Geiger and Camp Johnson, and ends at the
intersection of US 17 and Westem Boule=vard on the east side of Jacksonville. (See
study area map.)
HISTORY OF THE
JACKSONVILLE BY-PASS
Discussion of a Jacksonville by-pass along-
US 17 bV K3Aban1 in 1/V/ it 1969. '{114V d`ltezMKtlv°V coa???Irridor
.
locations were identified in 1982 and 1983
as part of the Jacksonville Thoroughfare
Plan.
NC DOT is now studying alternative `..
locations for the highway in-more detail
than was done in the Thoroughfare Plan. ': .
The State is coordinating its efforts with ihe
City of Jacksonville, Onslow County
officials, and the Camp Lejeune.• Marine _
Corps Base. Other state and'Federal
agencies, including the. FederalHighway.
Administration, are also participating in
the study.

11

11

L

? 1 7 IMPROVEMENT ?? JAU
CKSONVILLE BYPASS 9
Project Newsletter-No.2
September 1991
I INFORMATION WORKSHOP TO BE HELD
?n September 16, the North Carolina
epartment of Transportation will hold a
Citizens Information Workshop to provide
117 formation on the proposed improvement to US
in Jacksonville and Onslow County. This
project which is State Project 6.269001T (T.I.P.
2107) is the proposed Jacksonville Bypass.
he Information Workshop will be held at the
Jacksonville City Council Chambers at 211
ohnson Boulevard, in Jacksonville from 5:00 to
:30 PM. Project Engineers and Planners from
vCDOT and the engineering firm of Louis
Berger and Associates will be available to meet
With interested parties and to discuss the
proposed project. Also plans and materials
dated to the project will be available for review.
addition, individuals may ask questions and
make comments on the proposed project.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
"his project is being developed to provide a
Uass of Jacksonville, North Carolina. This
bypass will be a multi-lane facility on new
cation through a small portion of Onslow
ounty, the Camp Lejeune Military Base and the
ity of Jacksonville. Currently, US 17 and NC
serve as major corridors through this area.
e planned bypass will relieve traffic
congestion on these routes and within the City of
' cksonville. Also, this improvement is part of
e US 17 Intrastate Corridor Improvement
rogram that will eventually provide a
F ntinuous multi-lane facility through eastern
orth Carolina from the Virginia to the South
arolina.
Fe Jacksonville Bypass has been under
consideration since 1969. Since that time,
rious alternatives have been considered and
aluated. The result of the evaluations was the
lection of a preferred alternative.

This preferred alternative, which is 7.3 miles
long, begins near the US 258 and NC 24
intersection with NC 53. As shown on the figure
on the next page, the project then proceeds east
to intersect with existing US 17, crosses Camp
Geiger, the New River and Camp Johnson, and
intersects with NC 24. The project then
continues north to connect with US 17 with an
intersection south of Western Boulevard.
This bypass will be a four and six lane freeway
with a 60-foot wide median. Interchanges will be
provided at intersections with existing US 17
near Camp Geiger, at Lejeune Boulevard (NC
24), and at Montford Point Road on Camp
Johnson. At grade intersection are proposed at
the beginning of the project at NC 53 and at the
terminus at existing US 17.
Since construction and right of way estimates
greatly exceed current Programs Funds (see cost
below), it is proposed that the project be
constructed in stages. The first phase or stage
would be the construction of a 3.5 mile section
between existing US 17 at Camp Geiger and
Lejeune Boulevard. This would include the
directional portions of the interchanges at US 17
and NC 24. This first section will initally be
four lanes but will be widened to six lanes in the
next phase.
The ultimate project will consist of the
construction of the remaining sections. `-This
would include the 1.3 mile section from the US
258 and NC 53 intersection to US 17 and the 2.5
mile section between Lejeune Boulevard and US
17 at the northern terminus of the project. Both
of these sections will be four lanes with a
median. Also, included with this ultimate project
would be the completion of the interchanges at
US 17 at Camp Geiger and "At Lejeune
Boulevard. Other staging options . may be
considered depending upon funding availability.

1

1

U5, I/ 1JV1PAUVtdV1.LA1
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
Project Newsletter - No. 3
T.I.P. U-2107
October 1992
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
will hold a Citizens Information Workshop on
October 29, 1992, to provide information on the
proposed US 17 By-Pass of Jacksonville. The
workshop will be held at the Jacksonville City
Council Chambers at 211 Johnson Boulevard in
Jacksonville from 5:00 to 7:30 p.m. The proposed
By-Pass is identified as State Project 6.269001T
(T.I.P. U-2107). The preferred alternative is 7.3
miles long and begins near the US 258 and NC 24
intersection with NC 53, then proceeds east to
intersect with existing US 17, crosses Camp Geiger,
the New River and Camp Johnson, and intersects
with NC 24. The project then continues north to
connect with US 17 with an intersection south of
Western Boulevard Engineers and Planners from
NCDOT and the engineering firm of Louis Berger
and Associates, Inc., will be available to meet with
interested persons and to discuss the details of the
proposed project. Individuals are encouraged to ask
questions and to provide comments. Plans and
other related data that have been developed will be
available for viewing.
This project is being developed to provide a bypass
of Jacksonville, North Carolina. This bypass will be
a multi-lane facility on new location through a small
portion of Onslow County, the Camp Lejeune
Military Base and the City of Jacksonville.
Currently, US 17 and NC 24 serve as major
corridors through this area. The planned bypass
will relieve traffic congestion on these routes and
within the City of Jacksonville. Also, this
improvement is part of the US 17 Intrastate
Corridor Improvement Program that will eventually
provide a continuous multi-lane facility through
eastern North Carolina from the Virginia to the
South Carolina.
The engineering for the preliminary design is
completed to a stage where the design features of the
project have been identified and approximate right-
of-way requirements determined. The social,
environmental, and economic impacts of the
proposed undertaking have been evaluated and are
included in an Environmental Assessment document.
When the Environment assessment has been
completed and circulated for review a formal public
hearing will be held. The hearing will consist of an
explanation of the proposed location and design,
right-of-way requirements and procedures, relocation
advisory assistance and the Federal/State
relationship. The hearing will be open to those
present for statements, questions, comments and/or
submittal of material pertaining to the project.
It is currently anticipated that the project will be
constructed in stages since the total project costs for
right-of-way and construction exceed available funds.
Current plans are to construct the highway from US
17 at Camp Geiger to NC 24, Lejeune Boulevard as
the first stage. The remaining sections, US 258/NC
53 intersection to US 17 at Camp Geiger and NC 24
to US 17 north of Jacksonville, will be constructed
as funds become available. Other staging options
may be selected.
The current schedule for the project is as follows:
Environmental Assessment - November, 1992
Public Hearing - December, 1992
Final Environment Document - March, 1993
Right-of-Way Acquisition - 1993
(US 17 south to NC 24)
Construction -1993
(US 17 south to NC 24)
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Questions and comments about the proposed Jacksonville Bypass should be directed to:
John C. Russell, P.E. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. Planning and Environmental Branch
119 SW Maynard Road, Suite 208 OR N.C. Department of Transportation
Cary, NC 27511 P. O. Box 25201
[phone] Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
[phone]

j

1

t

11

t

t

APPENDIX III
RELOCATION REPORT

L
IJ

1

11
FELOLATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
ROJECT: 6.269001T COUNTY: Onslow Alternate of Alternate
.D. NO.: U-2107 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alternate A - Section A. From NC 24. 800" +/- West of NC 53 (Sta. 100)
to 300' West of US 17 (Sta. 162+70)

of
Minor-
?.IndividualsJ 1 i
-- !
II
M ? 1 II
milies 9 2 1 10 12 ' 2 1 9 G 3 i ! ! 1
r fusinessg§ 4 *0 3 *4 0 VALUE OF DWELLING i DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE !
4 A . A
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
"• r%r A T%? TV 1917L l It •.f
X
X
1
20-40M! 1150-250
8i 1 0-20M
2 120-40M
! For Rent
-?- a
1$ 0-150 !
731150-250 1 44
1. Will special relocation 170-1001 9400-6001 170-100 3759400-600 9 391
a
services be necessary 9 1
2. Will schools or churches be 1100 UP. 600 UP 1100 UP 931600 UP 211
affected by displacement
3. Will business services still TOTAL 2 1 10 1053 166
be available after project
9 4. Will any business-be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate size! All residential displacees counted as families.
type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc. 3. Business services will still be available after
5. Will relocation cause a 1 project since there are similar businesses
housing shortage unaffected by this project.
i 6. Source for available hous-
ing (list) ' 4. a. NCNB - small - banking - 10 employees.
7. Will additional housing b. Jet Oil Co. - small - gasoline - 5 employees.
programs be needed q c. Western Sizzlin - food -.medium - 20 employees.
8. Should Last Resort Housing d. Auto Salvage - Used Cars - small - 2 employees.
• be considered
a 9. Are there large, disabled, , 6. Multiple Listing Service, Realtors, Property
elderly, etc. families 1 managers and Classified ads.
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGNI
110. Will public housing be ! 8. As mandated by State Law.
needed for project
111. Is public housing avail- `
able *There is one (1) office space for lease not included in
112. Is it felt there will be ad-1 the business count, since it is presently vacant.
equate DDS housing availablel
during relocation period
113. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means 1
114. Are suitable business sites
1 available (list source)
115. Number months estimated to
1 completes RELOCATION
James M. Latham
t Relocation
m 15.4 Revise
l 05/14/91 LA_ e Date Approved Date
5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
?or 2 Copy: Area Relocation File
?I'
. RELCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.269001T COUNTY: Onslow Alternate of Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2107 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alternate A - Section A-1. From 300' West of US 17 to US 17 (Sta. 166)
F.STTMATF.n nTSPT.ArF.F.S 7 INCOME LEVEL
yp
D
e
c
h
ee
is
la !Owners!Tenants! Totallities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Individuals) 1 1 1 ?
Families 0 7 7 2 1 5 I 2 1 I I I?
Businesses 7 7 114 I 0 I VALUE OF DWELLING I DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE _ I
Farms I I I 1 owners I Tenants For Sale For Rent I
Non-Profit I I I I 1 0=20M1 IS 0-150y3 1 0-20M1 1$ 0-150 1
-

ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M I? ?
4 20-40M 731150-250
150-250
441
'YES NO EXPLAIN ALL -YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 1
1
250-400 40-70M 5121250-400
l
621
1 V a i d 0 1 g
1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-6001 70-100 375 400-600 391
i
serv
ces be necessary 4 4
I X1 2.
--?`- Will schools or churches be 100 UP 600 UP I 100 UP 93 600 UP 21$,
1
? affected by displacement
X 3.
14 Will business services still TOTAL 7 1053 1 66

-
b
bl
il
f ,

p 4. e ava
ter project
a
e a
Will any business-be dis-
REMARKS
(Respond by Number)
X ( 9 placed. If so, indicate size) All res idential displacees counted as families.
type, estimated number of D '

X1 5. employees, minorities, etc. 1
Will relocation cause a 0 3. Bus
pro iness services will still be available after
ject since there are similar businesses
-? housing shortage I una ffected by this project.
X 6. Source for available hous- I
ing (list) 1 4. a. Adult Entertainment - small - 5 employees.

1 XI 7.
Will additional housing
b.
Ship Wreck Lounge - medium - 5 employees. '
programs be needed N c. Gilley's - lounge - medium - 5 employees.
X 9 1 8. Should Last Resort Housing # d. The Dungeon - lounge - small - 5 employees.
?
---) be considered 9 e. Spritzer's - lounge - small - 3 employees.
?
0 XO 9. Are there large. disabled, { f. Pete's - lounge - small - 3 employees.
elderly, etc. families g. Chuck's Tavern - small - 3 employees.
ANSWER THESE ALSO JFOR DESIGN I h. Kim's Embroidery - small - 2 employees.
$ X10. Will public housing be 1 1. Saigon Sam's Military Surplus - medium -
needed for project 1 3 employees.
?11. Is public housing avail- J. Wendy's Pub - small - 3 employees%
able 4 k. Mardi Gra Lounge - small - 3 employees.
1 112. Is it felt there will be ad- 1 1. Brenda's Entertainment - small - 3 employees.
equate DDS housing available ) M. Battoo Entertainment - small - 3 employees.
during relocation period n. Touch &Magic Entertainment -.small -
9 113. Will there be a problem of 3 employees.
housing within financial
means A 6. Multiple Listing Service, Realtors, Property
14. Are suitable business sites , managers and Classified ads.
available (list source)
1 115. Number months estimated to 8. As mandat d by State Law.
complete RELOC TION
James M. Latham 05/14/91
Relocation e t Date Approved Date
,pd Form 15.4 Revise(I 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent '
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

RELOCATION REPORT
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR
PROJECT: 6.269001T
I.D. NO.: U-2107
North Carolina Department of Transportation
DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
COUNTY: Onslow Alternate of Alternate
F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alternate A - Section B. From US 17 (Sta. 168+30) to New River
I (Sta. 269).
?
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES { INCOME LEVEL
5
IType ofMinor- g
Dislacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP

'Individualsr a
Families 4 p
Businesses VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
-IFarms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 1150-250 20-40M{ 150-250
MYES,NOJ EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
a ?
1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-6001 70-100 400-600
servi
b "
ces
e necessary
2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 600 UP 100 UP 600 UP ;
affect
d b
di
t
l
e
y
sp
acemen
3. Will business services stilll TOTAL
be av
il
bl
ft
t
a
a
e a
er projec
6 { 4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
D 1 placed. If so, indicate size8
type, estimated number of {
employees, minorities, etc. { NEGATIVE REPORT - NO DISPLACEES ON THIS SECTION.
5. Will relocation cause a i
+ housing shortage {
6. Source for available hous-
ing (list) {
7. Will additional housing {
programs be needed {
8. Should Last Resort Housing {
be considered {
9. Are there large, disabled, {
elderly, etc. families {
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN;
10. Will public housing be {
needed for project {
11. Is public housing avail- {
able
{ 112. Is it felt there will be ad-{
equate DDS housing available{
?D
during relocation period {
# 1113. Will there be a problem of {
housing within financial {
means {
14. Are suitable business sites {
available (list source) {
#15. Number months estimated to {
complete RELOC TION
James M. Latham 05/14/91 _.? ate
Relocation Ag Date Approved Date
1orm 15.4 Revised 5/90
0 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

.RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.269001T COUNTY: Onslow Alternate of Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2107 F.A. PROJECT: N/A ,
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alternate A - Section C. From New River (Sta. 281+50) to NC 24,
Leieune Blvd.
?isplac
Individ
Familie
Busines
Farms
Von-Pro
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
VCC0*TnI LTIVnr A7%1 •rr "%I--" ••r
5-25M 25-35M 6 35
a
9
? i
DWELLING DSS DWE
Tenants I For Sale
0-20MI Is 0-150
A 4
20-40M1 1150-250
JI
i
a?
20-40M1 1150-2-50
40-70M1 25Y 0-400

1. Will special relocation 1 70-1001 1400-6001 70-1001 1400-600
s
i
b i ' ---
--
erv
ces
e necessary K --
r- ? . ?
2. Will schools or churches be # 100 UPI 600 UP 1 1 100 UP 600 UP
aff
t
d b
di
l
t
ec
e
y
acemen
sp
3. Will business services sti119 TOTAL
4 be available after project
1 1 4. Will any business-be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
placed. If so, indicate sizel
type, estimated number of i '
---p employees, minorities, etc. NEGATIVE REPORT - NO DISPLACEES ON THIS SECTION.
5. W i I I re 1ocaIinn cause a A
housing shortage 0
6. Source for available hous-
ing (list)
7. Will additional housing p
programs be needed
8. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc. families
ANSwGR THESE ALSO FOR DESIGNI
10. Will public housing be I
• needed for project i
?11. Is public housing avail-
able ( - --
( 112. Is it felt there will be ad- (
equate DDS housing available ) '
• during relocation period
1 113. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
9 X 14. Are suitable business sites
-?-j available (list source)
115. Number months estimated to
complete REL09ATION
_ _r- 2. /_
James M. Latham /? 05/14/91
e.2?Agzzq*_?
Relocatioq/Agen't Date Approved Date
arm 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

' RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.269001T COUNTY: Onslow Alternate of Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2107 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alternate A - Section D-1. From NC 24, Leieune Blvd. (Sta. 370+80) to
550'+/- North of NC 24 (Sta. 376+70)
F
c i
lit
ee
isola ies 1
lOwnersiTenants
Total 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP

Individuals iV
amilies 1 1 1 i M
_ usinesses M9 4 4 8 0 VALUE OF DWELLING ,
i ?
DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
i arms -? Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
on-Profit 1 1 1 i 1 0-20MI IS 0-1501 1 0-20Mi is 0-150 i
t ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40MI 150-250 20-40M 150-250 e
S NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400 j
u ? w x
X1 1. Will special relocation ? 70-1000 400-6001
; 1 70-1001 1400-600
--
services be necessary }
X 2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP' 600 UP 100 UP 1600 UP 1
affected by displacement I F.
X 1 3. Will business services still TOTAL
b
e available after project
1 4.
' Will any business*be dis- l REMARKS (Respond by Numb er)
X placed. If so, indicate sizel
type, estimated number of 3.. Business services wi ll still be available after

I employees, minorities,'etc. 1 project since there are similar businesses unaffect
X1 5. Will relocation cause a 1 by this project.
1
k housing shortage 1
q
XI 6. Source for available hous- 1 4. a. Lejeune Motor - N ew/Used Car Sales - medium -
?? -
1-
- ing (list) 1 30 employees
¦ 1 X1 7. Will additional housing 1 b. Peele Mobile Home Sales - small- 5 employees.
programs be needed 1 c. Amco Transmission s - medium-10 employees.
X1 8. Should Last Resort Housing 1 d. Goad's Used Cars - small-3 employees.
w be considered 1 e. Excell Body Shop - medium-10 employees.
I X 9.
L Are there large, disabled, 1 f. NAPA Auto Parts - medium-7 employees.
- elderly, etc. families 1 g. Pace Auto Mech. - medium-SO employees.
-:' ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN I h. Mortgage Loans - small-5 employees.
10. Will public housing be 1
needed for project 1
Ili. Is public housing avail- 1 '
able 1
I' 112. Is It felt there will be ad- 1
equate DDS housing available )

during relocation period ,
1 113. Will there be a problem of 1
housing within financial 1
means 1
14. Are suitable business sites 1
available (list source) 1
1 115. Number months estimated to 1
complete RELOC ION
James M. Latham 641e? 05/14/91
Relocation A ent Date
?orm 15.4 Revised 5/90
;P1Lo-
Approved Date
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.269001T COUNTY: Onslow Alternate of Alternate
`I.D. NO.: IJ-2107 F.A. PROJECT: N/A '
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alternate A - Section D. From 550' +/- North of NC 24 to 1400' +/-
North of Bell Fork Road (Sta. 430+00) .
a
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES I INCOME LEVEL
of
r-
Families

Businesses 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 VALUE OF DWELLING 1 DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
`
Non-Profit 1 1 1 1 j 0-20M( 1$ 0-150 i 0-20M 1$ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40MI 1150-250 1 20-40M1 150-250
.YESI NO? EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70MI 1250-400 40-70M 250-400
I
1.
Will special relocation x
70-100 ?r x
400-600 a ?
170-100 1400-600
x
y
x
2 services be necessary
Will
h
l
h
h
b 100 UP 600 UP 1100 UP 600 UP
?
. sc
oo
s or c
urc
es
e
aff
t
d b
t
di
l
M ec
e
y
acemen
sp
X i 3. Will business services stillp TOTAL
b
il
bl
ft
t
e ava
a
e a
er projec
4. Will any business-be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number )
X q g placed. If so, indicate sizeq
type, estimated number of 3. Business services will still be available after
employees, minorities,'etc. project since there ar e similar businesses unaffe ct
X 5. Will relocation cause a by this project.
housing shortage
( X1 6. Source for available hour- p 4. a. Belle Dream. Inc.-l arge- sewing plant -
'-?--?
0 XO 7. ing (list) 1
Will additional housing
b. 50 employees.
Unnamed Warehouse -
medium - 10 employees.
,
-?-? programs be needed
X1 8. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
X 9. Are there large, disabled, I
elderly, etc. families

10. ANSWER THESE ALSO 'FOR DESIGN(
Will public housing be
needed for project 1
Ill. Is public housing avail- '
x able f _ ..

1 112.
Is it felt there will be ad-
, '
equate DDS housing available ) '
during relocation period
1 113. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means S
14. Are suitable business sites

available (list source) '
115. Number months estimated to

complete RELOCATION ?)
z<7

_
James M. Latham 05/14/91 ZA_
Relocation Age fit Date Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/90 )FW Original do 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent,
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
i
I
RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. CORRIDOR DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT: 6.269001T COUNTY: Onslow Alternate of Alternate:
,I.D. NO.: U-2107 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Alternate A - Section E. From 1400' North of Bell Fork Road (Sta.
' 430+00) to US 17 at Western Blvd. (Sta. 510+50)

I yype of 1 1 IMinor-
is lace" Owners Tenants ?TotalIities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP Y
;, Individualsl 1 I
- N I p
Ti
7?1
amilies 11 7 18 13 ? A l li f
13 1 5 { I 1 I
H
usinesses 4 i 0 1 *44
j 0
VALUE OF DWELLING ?
DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE I
I __
arms Owners
I Tenants For Sale For Rent
on-Profit ' 1 0 1 1 0 _
0-20M 2 S 0-150 4 0-20M S 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 4 150-2501 3 ' 150-250 44
20-40M 731

S NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 5 250-400 40-70M 512 62
250-400
x
1
y 0 XI 1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-600 70-100
3751400-600 39?
4 servic
b
es
e necessary
S
G X? 2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 600 UP 100 UP
931600 UP 21

affected b
di
nt
l 1
'
y
sp
aceme
X 1 1 3. Will business services stillI TOTAL 11
7 1 1 1053$ 166'
be availabl
ft
j
t i i
e a
er pro
ec
¢ 4. Will any business-be dis- •r REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X ) placed. If so, indicate size) All residential displacees counted as families.
1 type, estimated number of I
---
--) employees, minorities, etc. 0 3. Business services will still be available after
X
5. Will relocation cause a #
project since there are similar businesses
housing shortage A unaffected by this project.
X
6. Source for available hous-
ing (list) 1 4. a. Bottom Line Scuba - medium - 3 employees.
X 7. Will additional housing b. Newton Sign Shoppe - medium - 5 employees.
programs be needed q c. Coastal Construction Co..- medium - 15 employee
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing f d. PPG Body Shop - small - 3 employees.
be considered f e. Moose Lodge - NPO - medium - 20 members.
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
elderly, etc, families 0 6. Multiple Listing Service, Realtors, Property
?a A ANSWER THESE ALSO*FOR DESIGNI managers and Classified ads.
10. Will public housing be 8
needed for project 8. As mandated by State Law.
11. Is public housing avail- '
able
112. Is it felt there will be ad- 1 *One (1) business for sale - Mercer Realty - not
equate DDS housing available ) included,in the business count.
during relocation period
# 1 13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial
means
14. Are suitable business sites E
available (list source)
J15. Number months estimated to
complete RELOCATION
games M. Latham 05/14/91 Z/`
Relocation Agent Date Approved Date
I lil rm 15.4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
E.I.S. CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
nROJECT* 6.269001T COUNTY=_ ONSLOW Alternate of Alternate
I.D. N0.= U-2107 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
DESCRIPTION-OF PROJECT: SERVICE ROAD - NC 24 BETWEEN ELLIS BOULEVARD AND BELL FORK ROAD
IN JACKSONVILLE
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL.
ype of
IispIacee
ndividuals
'amities
loinor-l -
OwnerslTenants Total Lties -15M
3usinesses 2
arms
Jon-Profit
YES I NO
X
0 d 2 1 D
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
EXPLAIN ALL ' YES„ ANSWERS
15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
VALUE OF DWELLING
Owners Tenants
M $ 0-150
E40M 150-250
40-70M 250-400
1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-600
services be necessary
DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
For Sale For Rent
0-20M b 0-150
20-40M 150-250
40-70M 250-400
70-100 400-600

F1

100 LP ?wIIO UP. '
e ¦
IX 1 2. Will schools or churc es
T--T affected by displacement A
X B 3. Will business services still T00 TAL
--? be available after project II----
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
1
X placed. If so, indicate size
BUSINESS SERVICES WILL STILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER
type, estimated number of 3.
BUSINESSES IN THE
E A
EC
RE
emp I ovees i minorities; etc. PR? ECHO
T .
PROJ
THIS
X 5. Will relocation cause a
_J I housing shortage
- 3 EMPLOYEES
CAR CITY USA - USED AUTO SALES - SMALL -
4
X 6. Source for available hous
(list)-
i 3
.
MERCER MOTORS - USED AUTO SALES - SMALL- -
'
X ns
7. Will additional housing EMPLOYEES
programs be needed.
u
in
MU-TIPLE LISTING SERVICES. LOCAL REALTORS AND
14
X g
s
B. Should Last Resort Ho .
CLASSIFIED ADS. '
be considered
I d 9. Are there I-arge) disabled,
elderly, etc. families
ANSWER TI-ESE ALSO FOR DESIGN r
10. Will public housing be
needed for proJect
11. Is public housing avail-
able
12. Is it felt there will be ad- -
equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial,
means
x 14. Are suitable business*s'ttes
available (list source)
15. Number months estimated to
comple RELOCATION
JAMES M. LATHAM i0a 03-08-94 ate
'-
Date Approved D
Relocation Aqe Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agen
Form 15.4 Revised 5/9 2 Copy= Area Relocation File

RELOCATION REPORT North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
tOJECT: 6.269001T COUNTY=_ ONSLOW Alternate of Alternate
I.D. NO.: U-2107 F.A. PROJECT: N/A
FSCRIPTION OF PROJECT: SERVICE ROAD - US #17 SOUTH - BLUECREEK ROAD TO STATION 95+00 IN
JACKSONVILLE
___ ??EST I MATED D I SPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
I%e of Minor-
Displacee Owners Tenants Total ities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
i v i dua I s
Famili_es
i?inesses? 1 1? 2 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
r _
ms s Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit Y 0-20M 0-150 0-20M ` 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M 150-250 ?_ _. .......
_...._.._ ...,.._._- _ ..
S NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 250-400 40-70M 250-400
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 400-600 70-100 400-600
services be necessary
X 2. Will schools or churches be 100 UP 600 LAP 100 LF 600 UP
affected by displacement -
3. Will business services still TOTAL
be available after project
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
j X Placed. If so, indicate size
type) estimated number of 3. BUSINESS SERVICES WILL STILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER THE
employees, minorities, etc. PROJECT SINCE THERE ARE SIMILAR BUSINESSES IN THE
X 5. Will relocation cause a AREA UNAFFECTED BY THIS PROJECT.
Housing shortage
X 6. Source for available hous- 4. MINI STORAGE BUILDINGS - SPACE RENTALS - SMALL - 1
ins ( 1 i st) /V/A EMPLOYEE
X 7. Will additional housing
programs be needed JACK'S BINGO - BINGO GAMES - SMALL - 3 EMPLOYEES
IF' X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
be considered
X 9. Are there laraei disabledy 14. MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICES, LOCAL REALTORS AND
41- - -11 elderlyi etc. families CLASSIFIED ADS.
10. Will public housing be
needed for project * ONE VACANT BUSINESS - SERVCO SERVICE STATION NOT
11. Is public housing avail- INCLUDED IN THE BUSINESS COUNT.
able
12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available
during relocation period
13. Will there be a problem of
housing within financial,
means
14. Are suitable business sites
available (list source)
15. Number mo the estimated to
comp leteLOCATION
S M. LATHAM 03-08-94
i Relocation gen' -Da a Approved Date
Form 15.4 Revised 5/ 0 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Aaent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File

1

11

1

11

Ell

APPENDIX IV
DRAFT WETLAND MITIGATION PROPOSAL
11

1

I

1

t

C

' Draft Wetland Mitigation Proposal
U-2107, Jacksonville Bypass
R-2406, US 17, Holly Ridge to Jacksonville
The preliminary designs and natural system evaluations for the subject projects have identified
' wetlands that will be impacted due to the construction of the proposed highway facilities. To
the maximum extent possible, wetland impacts have been avoided and/or minimized as a
design consideration (i.e., a bridge is proposed at Edwards Creek on U-2107 rather than a
' culvert in order not to disturb the marsh). The unavoidable wetland losses will be mitigated
through a compensatory on-site, in-kind restoration/replacement plan. North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to enter into a cooperative plan with the
' Department of Defense (DOD), US Marine Corps Camp Lejeune, to accomplish the required
wetland mitigation for these two highway projects (see attached descriptions and maps).

1
'J

Camp Lejeune is in the process of acquiring additional land area for the expansion of the
Marine Base. The Record of Decision (ROD) for this action was published on Page 5101 of
the October 3, 1991 Federal Register. The ROD was based on the Final EIS circulated May
7, 1991 and the Draft EIS dated July, 1989. The land acquisition is described as Alternate E,
Greater Sandy Run Area (see attached Figure 9) and contains approximately 41,000 acres.
An environmental consideration of the proposed DOD land acquisition is to restore 1500 plus
acres of pocosin (hydric soil areas) to pocosin and mixed pine-hardwood forest. This will be
accomplished by filling or damming drainage structure (ditches) constructed by current land
owner, International Paper Company. This will allow the groundwater elevation to return to
its previous undisturbed level. Thus, the pine plantations, classified as totally disturbed
pocosin, would revert to viable wetland by allowing them to regenerate naturally from on-site
seed sources or by planting selected wetland vegetation (see attached list).
The Corps of Engineers, under contract from Camp Lejeune, will develop a mitigation plan
for the Base. This plan will identify all reasonable foreseeable wetland fill requirements, to
include the two highway projects, identify appropriate mitigation and establish an approved
wetlands bank for future mitigation purposes.
Studies to date for both the Camp Lejeune and highway projects have indicated that most of
the unavoidable wetland loss is the type that can be compensated in-kind by the pocosin
restoration project. The Base Acquisition Area is estimated to have approximately 35 ,acres,
the Jacksonville Bypass has approximately 24 acres, and US 17 Jacksonville to Holly Ridge has
55 acres. The amounts of these acreages which may not qualify as in-kind for the pocosin
restoration wetlands (i.e., bottomland hardwoods) will be mitigated on site in areas that have
been identified adjacent to the highway projects, or debited from the NCDOT Company
Swamp Wetlands Bank at a 3:1 ratio. Compensation ratios of 2:1 for the pocosin and 11/2:1
for the bottomland hardwood have been used on similar NCDOT projects for on-site in-kind
wetland mitigation.

WETLAND PLANT SPECIES
The following plants species have been identified by NCDOT as being commercially
available in eastern North Carolina:
Common Name Scientific Name
Pocosin
Titi
Loblolly Bay
Gallberry, IiWeberry
Wax-myrtle
Swamp-Bay, Red-Bay
Pond Pine
Bottomland /Hardwoods
Green Ash
Black Gum
Overcup Oak
Water Oak
Cvrilla racemiflora
Gordonia lasianthus
Ilex glabra
Myrica Cerifera
Persea borbonia
Pinus serotina
Fraxinus pennsylvania _
Nyssa sylvatica
Quercus lyrata
Quercus nigra
Where planting is deemed necessary as a part of the proposed pocosin restoration, species
from the above list will be considered.

n
STATE PROJECT NO. 6.269002T
' T.I.P. NO. R-2406
U.S. 17 IMPROVEMENT
' From NC 50 in Holly Ridge to South of Jacksonville
in Onslow County
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As the accompanying map shows, the project begins at NC 50 in Holly Ridge and ends at
the existing four-lane divided highway south of Jacksonville. From INC 50 to the Holly
Ridge City Limit, a five-lane roadway will be provided; and the curb and gutter along the
east side of the present roadway will be retained. Construction in that segment is expected
to be limited to widening and resurfacing and existing pavement.

1

1

1
11

From the Citv Limit northward to Folkstone, the existing pavement is ) feet wide. That
segment will be widened to 60 feet to provide a five-lane roadway with 10-foot shoulders.
The center lane of the 5-lane roadway will be used as a left-turn lane. The existing
pavement will be resurfaced, and 2 feet of the shoulders each side will be paved.
North of Folkston, a 4-lane, divided highway with a 46-foot median will be provided to a
point south of Southwest Creek where the median will be transitioned to 90 feet to match
the existing divided roadway section. With exception of a 1.5-mile segment of 4-lane bypass
on new location at Verona, the existing roadway will be used for southbound traffic and two
new lanes will be constructed for northbound traffic. Most of the existing pavement is 22
feet wide and will be widened to 24 feet prior to resurfacing. Two feet of shoulder paving
will be provided along each side of the northbound and southbound roadways. The width
of current shoulders along the west side of the southbound lanes is adequate to meet
criteria; therefore, construction along that area is expected to be limited to minor shoulder
restoration. In general, partial control of access is proposed with full control on the Verona
Bypass.
At barade intersections will be constructed to provide access for all NC and SR routes. Each
of the intersections of the divided highway sections will include left-turn lanes for traffic
leaving U.S. 17. NC 210 will be provided with double left-turn lanes and signalization.
Two new bridges will be constructed over Southwest Creek. The double box culverts
located at Hick's Run will be extended.
LI
Sri (r°f ?, <. ?. °<
tya V
?? ? ?• Ruw
1?
a
p ?
Z ?
O
'S
16.
w ?
? O
! C
0
N ' y
O e s
j
.C• : '? • ,
BEGIN PROJECT

T
?P
i

is
Ltr-
END PROJSSF?ECT.?`
zat
rtk '
ONSLOW COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
? ra
?'?_ \\ I 1 . ice..
y: •?? \ \? / ::jam` .? `'"
->
.? `.
R-2406, US 17 ,
HOLLY RIDGE TO JACKSONVILLE
FIGURE 1
PROJECT' LOCATION

STATE PROJECT NO. 6.269001T
' T.I.P. NO. U-2107
U.S. 17 JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
ONSLOW COUNTY
' DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
This project is being developed to provide a bypass of Jacksonville, North Carolina. This
bypass will be a multi-lane facility on new location through a small portion of Onslow
County, the Camp Lejeune Militarv Base and the Citv of Jacksonville. Currently, US 17
' and NC 24 serve as major corridors through this area. The planned bypass will relieve
traffic congestion on these routes and within the City of Jacksonville. Also, this
improvement is part of the US 17 Intrastate Corridor Improvement Program that will
eventually provide a continuous multi-lane facility through eastern North Carolina from
the Virginia to the South Carolina.

1

0

The Jacksonville Bypass has been under consideration since 1969. Since that time. various
alternatives have been considered and evaluated. The project which is approximately is
7.3 miles long, begins near the US 258 and NC 24 intersection with NC 53. As shown on
the figure on the next page, the project then proceeds east to intersect with existing US 17,
crosses Camp Geiger, the New River and Camp Johnson, and intersects with NC 24. The
project then continues north to connect with US 17 with an intersection south of Western
Boulevard.
This bypass will be a four and six lane freeway with a 60-foot wide median. Interchanges
will be provided at intersections with existing US 17 near Camp Geiger, at Lejeune
Boulevard (NC 24), and at Montford Point Road on Camp Johnson. At grade intersection
are proposed at the beginning of the project at NC 53 and at the terminus at existing US
17.
Since construction and right of way estimates greatly exceed current Programs Funds (see
cost below), it is proposed that the project be constructed in stages. The first phase or
stage would be the construction of a 35 mile section between existing US 17 at Camp
Geiger and Lejeune Boulevard. This would include the directional portions of the
interchanges at US 17 and NC 24. This first section will initally be four lanes but will be
widened to six lanes in the next phase.
The ultimate project will consist of the construction of the remaining sections. This would
include the 13 mile section from the US 258 and NC 53 intersection to US 17 and the 25
mile section between Lejeune Boulevard and US 17 at the northern terminus of the project.
Both of these sections will be four lanes with a median. Also, included with this ultimate
project would be the completion of the interchanges at US 17 at Camp Geiger and at
Lejeune Boulevard. Other staging options may be considered depending upon funding
availability.

` _ `vY^u 1 _ ?? a Q W
T ryil'i J! y t++ ui H
Wi dC Q
= O ?_
LLI
UAW 0
\ \' ;•t N
! 11/ V J
f
e 1 ?
_ a
Luu
i ft C.» •r. '
nAD
r N
f i is r f? 1 ? l(\\ 1? _
IIF
Cti
•%) ? a•S• S. , ?;? i?? air ? ?"f ? ?/
?»..' ? ? • v ?!: !fin ? • ? • , ?
1
!
t
Lt
.i?
1 ,
W
? t! ,yea
1
1
1
1

11

REFERENCES
1. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposal Expansion and Realignment of the
Marine Base Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina. Department of the
Navy Atlantic Division, Norfolk Virginia, July 1989.
2. Final Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Expansion and Realignment of the
Marine Base Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina, Department of the
Navy Atlantic Division, Norfolk Virginia, May 1991.
3. Natural System Technical Memorandum, US 17, Holly Ridge to Jacksonville, Onslow
County, North Carolina, R-2406, NCDOT/Louis Berger & Associates, October 1991.
4. Natural Systems Technical Memorandum, Jacksonville, US 17 Bypass, Onslow
County, North Carolina U-2107, NCDOT/Louis Berger & Associates, October 1991.
5. Highways and Wetland: Compensating Wetland Losses Report No. FHWA -1P-86-
22,
August 1986.
6. Impact Assessment, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures. Report No. FHWA -
1P-80-11, July 1980.

PROPOSE _
EXPANSION
M.C.S. Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
u MOFFMAN
SON SOW CO N
FOREST
RAMS u
30
• ° A KSONYI LE
O
ANDY ? A`
j MAR/VCORPS S _
j CA LEi. £U E\
so WE
%Ny?

A ?' L A '"`r'
I C ow
T "
N 7 C WLU
"uLI\vL
®= PROPOSED EXPANSION AREA
COUNTY LINE
SEABOARD COAST LINE .. 4
RAILROAD sc c sn Huxi
ALTERNATIVE E
JULY 1989 CP#699
Figure 9

?VV awr??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
yiav 9.. 199f,
.,.EMORA\DUM TO: Gordon Cashin. Permit Coordinator
Permit & Nlitiy&tion ?snit
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
FRO':: N1. Randall Turner. Environmental Super visor
Environmental Unit
We nd R(.oM,111^, cr.r :1N i fir, th4
By-pass (11-2107) and the W-Iden n__ of liS-17
from Jacksonvill to lolly Ridge (R-2406)
Onslow County: .,rate Project. \os. 6.2169001T
and 6.269002T: Federal aid Nos.
The foi low.;`-' data is sut,.mit led to ,assist you i n your
attempts-to complete Section 404' requiremen-..s. inclu0 r.2
1?f - t
-
catrip ei:satory mi t i as .ion for the proposes i tL
17
n 0° slow County. These dll-ita ar- fc li-210 ( _ O?C. 1~-
406A. R-2406B and R-2406CA a_d R-24050 . s-yo
Resources Southeast Ltd.. have been ,:ass i=gned responsibilities
for the del-:neat-on and description of wetlands associated
with U-2i0-A and 21071). Their work is expected to be
completed o/a June 1. 1995. At the conclusion of thei_ work,
10 ch includes COE verification, they are reauired to submit
h -1.
a delineation report, which will enable you to correlate
wetland community designations by «=etland site number.
For your information, 1 was recently contacted by Wilbur
Smith Associates (an engineering firm under contract to XCDOT
Hydraulics) to schedule a delineation of a "Y"-line on R-
2406B. Apparently, this "Y"-line was recently added to the
scope of work for the engineering firm. Chris Murray of my
staff is scheduled to conduct this delineation on '..iay 22.
Obviously, one or more additional permit drawing(s) may be
needed, depending on the wetland scenarios involved.
Table 1, below, provides a summary of wetland community
distribution for each of the six projects. Subsequent tables
provide site-by-site community descriptors of all wetlands to
be filled/excavated bti- subject projects. Virtually all PFO1
or PF04-coded wetlands in R-2-406A and R-2406B are severely
ociif iec power.line/roadway maintained ri-ghts-of-way. On
those sites w1nicN extend into the tree line are undisturbed.
e

V(?', tj?
Table 1. Anticipated Wetland Community Impacts. US-1-
WETLAND COMMUNITY
PROJECT P EMI PEl12 PFOI PF03 PF04 PSSi TOTAL
U-2107: (-Resources Southeast Ltd.-)
? 'U-2107B 0.36 3.01. 1.36 - - 4.73
??d'sr ?U-21070 - 0.36 2.1.6 0.12 13.6=1 0.46 16.7-
?.U-2107D i-Resources Southeast Ltd.-)
R-2406A - 0.30 <3.19 - <14. 90.54 <18.93
R-2406B - - 7.72 0.27 16.33i - 14.32
R-2406CA - - 0.43 0.72 6.06 - 7.21
R-2406C3 - - 1.32 - 0.0f- 1.3-7
TOTALS 1.02 <1 .33 2.1 7(<' 1.03 ' .00 <"3.3::
•
litL UJ . :'v
;= ? it i..7< iit ti:.. .. ?.. c: .. .: ......:?L . v_. ...
near..st hund 's are reflected;
redth); only permanent impac
the wetland ?
community des/i.-Inations used are defined as:
P-"%'111: Palustrine E er-ent Persistent
7F\''?
..?_.
Palustrine Em ernent \onpersiste:,t
P F01: Palustrine jForested Broadleaf Deciduous

PFO:;:
Plustrine,'Forested Broc:Ldleaf Ever2r ?n
a
PF04: Palustrine) Forested Needle?ieaf Everireer
PSSI: Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Broadleaf ,eciduots
The foll owing data (Table 2-9) provide site-specific
wetland community information for each; project. Tables 2. 4.
6 and 3 provi de a site-by-site presentation for U-2107. R-
2406A. R-2-106B and R=24060. respectively: 'tables 3, 5. % and
9 provide community'summaries. tN
fi ?ti

Table 2 . Wetland Site Community Data.. U-210-
PROTECT SITE , WETLAND COMMUNITY RATIO IMPACTS
U'-2107B lA PFO1 - 0.35
1B PEM2/PFO1 (60:40) 0.05
1C PFOl/PE:M-1 (60:40) 0.07
2A PEN12 - 0.11
2B PEN,12 - 0.05
2C PFO1/PEA12 (60:40) 0.28
3A PE%42' - 0.06
3x PEX11/PF01/PFO3 (60:20:20) 1.60
33 PF01/PF03 (50:50) 2.70
4 PFO1/PF03 (50:50) 2.03
Subtotal 4.73
PROj r;C i SITE _ WETLAND COMMUNITY RATIO I.,4PACTS
U-21070 1 PFOI - 0.06
2A PF01 - 0.30
2B PFOI -
3 PF01 - 0.80
4 PFOI/PS71 (50:50) 0.9i
5 PFOI/PEM2 (50:50) 0.09
6 P;,:'04 - 0.20
PF01/PF03/PF04 (25:25:50) 0.18
4 S PF04 - 9.06
9A PF04 - 4.29
9B PFO1/PF03 (50:50) 0.14
10 PEM2 - 0.32
11 PFO1 - 0.
Subtotal 16.74
TOTAL 22.47
Note: Values given for impacts are in acres (rounded to
nearest hundredth); site 3x denotes temporary fills
associated with bridge construction at Edwards Creek; the
4.73 acres total for U--2107B does not reflect temporary
impacts; ratio denotes approximate percentage of each
community type at mixed-community sites;
a'
Table 3. Wetlani Site Community Summaries. U-3107

WET LAND CO MMUNITY
PROJECT SITE E'tl PEM2 PFO1. PF03 PF04 PSS1 TOTAL
U-21071E 1A - - 0.3S - - - 0.08
1B - 0.03 0.02 - - - 0.05
1C - 0.03 0.04 - - - 0.07
2A - 0.11 - - - - 0.11
2B - 0.05 - - - - 0.05
2C - 0.08 0.20 - - - 0.28
3A - 0.06 - - - - 0.06
1.00 0.30 0.30 _ 1.60
3B _ 1.35 1.35 _ ? 70
-
4 - 1.02 1.01 - - i.03

PROJECT SITE = PEM 1 PEM2 PF01 PF03 PF04 PSSI TOTAL
U-2107C 1 - - 0.05 - - - 0.05
2A - - 0.30 - - - 0.30
2B - - 0.1- - - - 0.14
3 - - 0.50 - - - 0.50
4 - - 0.45 - - 0.45 0.91
7 - 0.04 0.05 - - - 0.09
5 - - - - 0.2)0 - 0.20
7 - - 0.04 0.05 0.09 - 0.18
8 - - - - 9.05 - 9.05
9A - - - - 4.29 - 4.29
9B - - 0.07 0.07 - - 0.14
1.0 - 0.32 - - - - 0.32
11 - - 0.25 - - - 0.25
Subtotal - 0.35 2.15 0.12 13.54 0.45 15.74
TOTAL - 0.72 5.17 2.48 13.54 0.46 32.47
Note: Values given are in acres (rounded to nearest
hundredth); subtotal values for U-2107B and total acreage
values do not reflect temporary impacts;
Table 4. Wctiand Site Community Data, R-2406A
R-2406A SITE WETLAND COMMUNITY RATIO IMPACTS
1 PFO4 - <0.01
2 PFO4 - 0.06
3 PFO4 - 0.01
4 PF01 - 0.02
5 PFO4 - 0.52
6 PFO4 - 0.17
• PFO4 - 0.21
S PFO4 - 0.23
9 PFO4 - 0.40
10 PFO4 - 0.08
11 PFO4 - 0.03
12_ W04 - 0.12
13 PFO4 - 1.05
14 PFO4 - 0.12
15 PFO4 - 0.03
16 PFO4 - 0.02
17 PFO4 - 0.05
18 PFO4 - 0.11
19 PF04 - .0.17
20 PFO4 - 0.06
21 PFO4 - 0.24
22 PFO4 - 0.10
23 PFO4 - 0.25
24 PFO4 - 0.32
25 PFO4 - 0.06
26 PFO4 - 0.03
27 PFO4 - 0.11
28 PFO1 - <0.01
29 PF04/PSSI (50:50) 1.08
30 PFO4 - 0.02
31 PFO4 - 0.06
32 PFO4 - 0.05
33 PFO4 - 0.61
34 OFO4 - 0.12
35 PFO4 - 0.22
36 PFO4 - 0.65
37 PFO4 - 0.05
38 PFO4 - 0.01
39 PFO4 - 1.41
40 PF04/PFO1 (50:20) 0.73
41 PFO1 - 1.47
42 PFO4 - 0.21
43 PFO4 - 0.04
44 PF04 - <0.01
45 PF04/PFO1. (80:20) 5.33
46 PFO4 - 0.96
47 PFOI - 0.14
43 ?FO1 - 0.02
49 PFO4 - 0.44
50 PFO4 - 0.09
51 PFOl/PEM2 (50:50) 0.60
52 PF01 - 0.01
I Subtotal 13.95
Note: Values givei for impacts are in acres (rounded to
nearest hundredth): ratio denotes approximate percentage of
each community tyoc at mixed-community sites;

Table 5. W,-L1and Site Community Summaries, R-2406A
WETLAND COMMUNITY
SITE PEM1 PEM2 PF01 PF03 PF04 PSS1 TOTAL
1 - - - - <0.01 - <0.01
2 - - - - 0.06 - 0.06
3 - - - - 0.01 - 0.01
4 - - 0.02 - - - 0.02
5 - - - - 0.52 - 0.52
6 - - - - 0.17 - 0.17
7 - - - - 0.21 - 0.21
8 - - - - 0.23 - 0.23
9 - - - - 0.40 - 0.40
10 - - - - 0.08 - 0.08
11 - - - - 0.03 - 0.03
12 - - - - 0.1.2 - 0.12
13 - - - - 1.05 - 1.05
14 - - - - 0.12 - 0.12
15 - - - - 0.03 - 0.03
16 - - - - 0.02 - 0.02
17 - - - - 0.05 - 0.05
18 - - - - 0.11 - 0.11
19 - - - - 0.17 - 0.17
20 - - - - 0.06 - 0.06
21 - - - - 0.24 - 0.24
22 - - - - 0.10 - 0.10
23 - - - - 0.28 - 0.28
24 - - - - 0.32 - 0.32
25 - - - - 0.06 - 0.06
26 - - - - 0.03 - 0.03
27 - - - - 0.11 - 0.11
28 - - <0.01 - - - <0.01
29 - - - - 0.54 0.54 1.08
30 - - - - 0.02 - 0.02
31 - - - - 0.06 - 0.06
32 - - - - 0.05 - 0.05
33 - - - - 0.61 - 0.61
34 - - - - 0.12 - 0.12
35 - - - - 0.22 - 0.22
36 - - - - 0:65 - 0.65
37 - - - - 0.08 - 0.03
38 - - - - 0.01 - 0.01
39 - - - - 1.41 - 1.41
40 - - 0.15 - 0.58 - 0.73
41 - - 1.47 - - - 1.47
42 - - - - 0.21 - 0.21
43 - - - - 0.04 - 0.04
44 - - - - <0.01 - <0.01
45 - - 1.07 - 4.26 - 5.33
46 - - - - 0.96 - 0.96
47 - - 0.14 - - - 0.14
48 - - 0.02 - - 0.02
49 - - - - 0.44 - 0.44
50 - - - - 0.09 - 0.09
51 - 0.30 0.30 - - - 0.60
52 - - 0.01 - - - 0.01
ISubtotal - 0.30 <3.19 - <14.95 0.54<18.98
Note: Values given for impacts are in acres (rounded to
nearest hundredth);

Table 6. Wetland Site Community Data. R-2406B
SITE T WETLAND COMMUNITY RATIO IMPACTS
1 PFO4 - U.37
2 PFO4 - 0.5
3 PFO4 - 0.01
4 PFO4 - 1.12
5 PFO4 - 0.70
6 PF04 - 2.95
7 PFO4 - 1.75
8 PFO4 - 0.25
9 PFO4 - 0.07
10 PFO4 - 1.00
11 PF04 - 0.02
12 PFO 1_ - 0 . 0.2

14 PFO1/PFO4 ,(55:45) 0.09
15 PF01/PF04 (30:70) 2.11
16 PF01 - 2.46
1" PFO1 - 0.22
1S PF04/PF01 (80:20) 3.63
19 PFO 1 - ? ,
?0 PFO4 - 1.29
21 PFO4 - 0.05
22 PFO4 - 0.01
` 23 PF04 - 0.56
24 PFO1 - 0.05
ZS PFO3 - 0.-
26 PFO4 - 0.08
27 PFO4 - 0.19
28 PFO4 - 0.05
29 PFO4 - 0.02
30 PFO4 - 0.05
31 PFO4 - 0.0?
32 PFO4 - 0.25
33 PF01 - 0.05
34 PF01 - 0.05
35 PFO1 - 0.05
I Subtotal 24.32
Note: Values given for impacts are in acres (rounded to
nearest hundredth); ratio denotes approximate percentage of
each community type at mixed-community sites;
Table 7. Wetiand Site Community Summaries, R-2406B
WETLA\D COMMUNITY
SITE ;t PEM1 PE!A2 PFO1 PFO3 PF04 PSS1 TOTAL
1 - - - - 0.37 - 0.37
2 - - - - 0.55 - 0.55
- - - - 0.01 - O.Oi
4 - - - - 1.13 - 1.12
- - - - 0.70 - 0.70
6 - - - - 2.9: - 2.95
7 - - - - 1.75 - 1.75
3 - - - - 0.25 - 0.25
9 - - - - 0.07 - 0.0-
10 - - - - 1.00 - 1.00
11 - - - _ 0.02 - 0.02
.. _ _. i .. ... - 11 .U
1, - - - - 1.32 - 1.J?
14 - - 0.05 - 0.04 - 0.09
1? - - 1.48 - 0.63 - ?.11
1C - - 3.46 - - - 2.46
1- - - 0.2' - - - 0.22
15 - 3.90 - 3.63
19 - - 2.53 - - - 2.53
30 - - - - 1 . -19 - 1 . ?9
21 - - - - 0.05 - 0.05
22 - - - - 0.01 - 0.01
33 - - - - 0.56 - 0.56
34 - - 0.05 - - - 0.05
-5 - - - 0.37 - - 0.27
26 - - - - 0.05 - 0.08
27 - - - - 0.19 - 0.19
28 - - - - 0.05 - 0.05
29 - - - - 0.02 - 0.02
30 - - - - 0.05 - 0.05
31 - - - - 0.07 - 0.07
32 - - - - 0.33 - 0.38
33 - - 0.0; - - - 0.05
34 - - 0.05 - - - 0.05
35 - - 0.08 - - - 0.03
Subtotal - ,.72 0.37 16.33 - 34.32
Note: Values given for impacts are in acres (rounded to
nearest hundredth);
Table S. Wetland Site Community Data, R-24060
PROJECT SITE Y WETLAND COMMUNITY RATIO IMPACTS
R-2406CA 1 PF04 - 1.56.
3 PFO4 - 1.11
3A PF04/PFO1 (50:50) 0.06
3D PFOl - 0.40
3C PFO4 - 1.60
4 PFO3/PFO4 (50:50) 1.44
5 PFO4 - 0.97
Subtotal 31
PROJECT SITE WETLAND COtiMUNITY RATIO IMPACTS
"-2-i0f-rP 1 ?Fn-^r 0 05

5 PFOI - 0.3?
3 PFO1 - O.SO
Subtotal
Grand Subtotal 8.58
Vote: Values given for impacts are in acres (rounded to
nearest hundredth); ratio denotes approximate percentage of
each community type at mixed-community sites;
Table 9. Wetland Site Communitv Summaries, R-24060
WETLAND COMMUNITY
PROJECT SITE 4 PEM I PE:N12 PFO 1 PF03 PF04 PSS I TOTAL
R-2406CA 1 - - - - 1.56 - 1.56
2 - - - - 1.13 - 1.15
3A - - 0.03 - 0.03 - 0.06
3B - - 0.40 - - - 0.40
3C - - - 1.60 - 1.60
4 - - - 0.72 0.72 - 1.44
5 - - - - 0.97 - 0.9;
Subtotal - - 0.43 0.72 6.06 - •'1f
R-240.6CB.1 - - - - 0.05 - ;,.0=.
= - - 'v - - - U
5 - - 0.32 - - - 0.
8 - - 0.80 -
II - -
0.80
LS ubtotal - - 1.021 - 0.05 - 1.3?
Grand Subtotal - - 1.75 0.72 6.11 - 8.55
Note: Values 1--iven are in acres (r untied to nearest
hundredth):
S?

?z
3:
U O
Li r-) Q
oaf
Cl? W
CC)
Z
0-In
/1 ?
Cl-
V
m
w
J
o zr
J 0
N
Z U
Q
o?
0
III_
N
1
t 2 .

? >
No
a ? F
N
a
_

z= W a ¢
¢ u
N z

$ _
u y
N ? r °?I
4 '- N- ? z
c c \ ; u11
.1'Q O O O I?I ?1 0 0 1-1?
_e?v l?a a o ?? >- ? ?
g a Wi
N

° o -?
0
-S ?1 N y \ ? 0 0
QI ?I III ` S IN ??
, N 0o
Q C
Oi.OI
I W
N =?
y =
? Id

N
3 ) _ Nr
«?«
I N
O J N
{ =
>
° >r g
F O
V?$'
a u my
i
?\1 2 {?J \
s N
\ ?
N m
°
? 80
O'O

?e ? F? rd } Y z -

} V ¢

FF3
f W ?QQ
{j??
I
m
I m /
VL ' O
\ _
?
? C
O
+
O
s?,el ?
$' 1 r O N ? ?
NIIIIbI
? F ; i

N W ? N W

O
N ?
N ?
O O
W
m ?
c
W
Z
N N W V
°
ti' Y g

m !V
°b
s
=1.. \
~
O
N? a
= m

¢ g
Oo ?g
0
1 X16 C ? ° 1
W < T . O?N
+

a

j
o?
?o
?? u r I
?
rv? \ O 4
N N l a ? N J W - ? P<

N 95

V j

N
J
« O

Y
N
? N l

s Y
S ^ Y
A
~ g
a ? g 0 v?

°
W N V 4
2 u ¢ 3g
a i W W
o
^ ?
oo h' S ?
V ? .
? ' a

\ d r
N bQ 1
I,T?,
q?
W
W
°
n i a ¢ m l a
I W N
• I .- m o
. al w .+ ?
i1

(Q
Q
4
2
1
e
6
N
ME
N
N
•O
u
io
:zz
IQ
¢
Co Lz-n

w / V
a
._I ?
UO?
W p ?-
0
OQ1
? lu
n n-
-
m

liY IS ?
9?Jj? N N i Qt
J a
Of
w ?
N
V C

? ', :ate
? N 4
Na P

N E Lno ?N
.Nz N
5 ? aQ
d
0 1 ??
W WW

OZ
g /b E ?/ ¢2¢

• •? KW
y ZN MN I.J?
Wd
r
g N

/ •
? N
WW
Ci+Q
I d u•
$

, y
J
? yy
f 6 ? OQ

- i? N a 'a?0 p
j C
? 1Wllo
J .,?
.n
oOQ SCE ? 3
N
F' Q H/-,^ ^W
WIN
J
6 U/.! W
Q
y+? !
State of North Carolina -
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry Lancaster, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
` ?.e
®IHNi1
PI-0 I -7r ??'? S
RE: 94-0875 Jacksonville Bypass, US 17 from US 258, Onslow
County
DATE: July 5, 1994
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the environmental assessment for the proposed project.
The attached comments identify a number of concerns which
should be dealt within order for the Department of Transportation
to produce an acceptable environmental document. We ask that
every effort be made to evaluate the potential impacts raised by
our divisions, and consult with them prior to submitting the
environmental document to the State Clearinghouse for final review.
Final project approval will depend on division comments being
adequately addressed.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
attachments
cc: N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Environmental Management
Division of Coastal Management
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r •
III \., \
l .i `rtj1+
A `
f

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton -'''
Assistant Director i6 L4A 4'VVt4'IoA
DATE: June 13, 1994
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
Jacksonville Bypass, US 17 from US 258/NC 24 West
to US 17 North, Onslow County, North Carolina, TIP
No. U-2107 and U-2107A, SCH Project No. 94-0875.
Biologists on the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) staff have reviewed the subject EA and are familiar
with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of
this review was to assess project impacts to fish and
wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
The proposed project involves construction of a four-
lane facility with a 60 foot median on 250 feet of right-of-
way. Additional lanes will be constructed in interchange
areas on 1600 feet of right-of-way. This will be a 7.3
mile, intrastate grade facility with full control of access.
Wildlife habitat losses include approximately 195 acres of
forested communities with the greatest impact (155.1 acres)
to the Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest. Approximately 24.2 acres
of wetlands will be lost to the preferred alternative (A),
as compared to 28.2 acres for Alternative (B).
Concerns of the NCWRC include wildlife habitat loss due
to construction of the proposed roadway and subsequent
secondary development. NCWRC agrees with selection of
~ Memo

Page 2 June 13, 1994
Alternative (A) as the preferred alternative. This
alignment minimizes wetland impacts with no significant
increase in upland wildlife habitat loss. However, this
alignment does impact approximately 17 acres of old growth
loblolly pine forest which could serve as habitat for a
federally listed species, the red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis).
In the Natural Systems Technical Memorandum prepared by
Louis Berger and Associates, Inc., dated October, 1991 it
was determined that this project was not expected to impact
the red-cockaded woodpecker or other protected species.
Information provided in this report and coordination with
the U.S. Department of Defense in 1993 was used to prepare
the EA in March of 1994. No more recent field
investigations are referred to in the project document.
At this time we do not concur with the EA for this
project. Due to the number of active breeding colonies of
red-cockaded woodpeckers on Camp Lejeune Base property and
the relative scarcity of suitable habitat, we feel that a
new assessment of impacts to protected species is warranted.
This should include an assessment of all protected
species which were addressed in the Natural Systems
Technical Memorandum prepared by Louis Berger and
Associates, Inc. in 1991. The findings of the new surveys
should then be appended to the EA for agency review.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this EA.
If we can be of any further assistance please call me at
[phone].
cc: Bennett Wynne, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, TVA,
Health and Natural Resources • 9
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor ID FE C FI
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorn
Monica Swi rt
lnl`i
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for Jacksonville Bypass -US 17 from US 258 -NC 24 West to US 17N
Onslow County
State Project DOT No. 6.269001T, TIP #U-2107 & U-2107A
EHNR # 94-0875
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters of the state including
wetlands. The subject project may impact 24 acres of waters including wetlands.
DOT should develop a mitigation plan for the wetland impacts. The mitigation plan
should be submitted to DEM for review and comment.
The bypass as proposed would have a 60-foot median. What would be the wetland
impacts if the median was reduced to 46 feet?
Most of the streams within the project vicinity have a high quality water (HOW)
classification. There are 5 culverts/pipes that are longer than 235 feet. DEM is
concerned about the potential impacts to these streams. Are there alternatives that
would minimize these impacts? These concerns should be discussed with Eric
Galamb before a permit application is made.
Hazardous spill catch basins should be constructed for this project to protect the HOW
designation. No deck runoff should be directed into waterbodies. Sandy Run Branch
(class SC NSW) will be impacted (page 18) but it is not listed with a stream
classification on page 48.
Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification
upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be
denied unless water quality concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be directed to Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality
Planning Branch.
us17jack.ea
P.O. Box 29,535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
State of North Garoilna.
Department of, Environment,
Health and Naural
Resources Division of Coastal Monapemer7t 4 10
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor,?
. Jonathan B. Hawes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
TO: Melba McGlee# NC office of Policy Development
FROM: Steve Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management
SUWEC7'; Review of SCE #9V DATE; &/ 619 y
12. Please Forward Agency Comments
ZRevietver Comments Attached
Review Con=ents:
This document is being reviewed for consistency with the NC Coastal Management Program.
Agency comments received by SCH are needed to develope the State's consistency position.
A CAMA Permit -,!is o
in Wi bm. L4 r may be required for this project. Applicant should contact
Phone # _ 9 ?U - 3r? . 3gray for information.
A Consistency Determination -is or may be required for this project.
contact Steve Benton or Caroline BelLs in Raleigh, phone # [phone], fo?incfornaationa
Proposal is in draft form, a consistency response is inappropriate. A Consistency
'Determination should be included in the final document.
A CAMA Permit or -_,_ consistency response - has already been issued, or
is currently being reviewed under separate circulation,
PermitJConsistency No. bate issued
Proposal involves < 20 Acres or a structure < 60,000 Sq. Feet and no AEC's or Land Use Plan
Problems.
Proposal is not in the Coastal Area and will have no significant impacts on Coastal Resources.
Proposal is exempt from LAMA by statue _ Other (see attached)
Consistency Position:
The proposal is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program provided that all state
authorization and/or permit requirements are met prior to implementation of the project.
A Consistency position will be developed based on our review on or before
The proposal is inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program,
NOt Applicable .
Other (see attached)
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer W% recycled/ 10% pmlfeeds mor papar
-)U- .2" I MU 1J. UO I 'V. I CL NU; 44.3V1 ( t-Ul)
j of North Caroline
,partment of Environment,
.iealth and Natural Resources
Wilmington Regional Office
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt,.Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Seoretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Steve Benton
Consistency Coord
Janet M. Russell
DCM/Wilrrlington
V
JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
SCH940875I0nslow County
June 27, 1994
A
CJ I.= HNR

The Wilmington Regional Office hes Completed a oursory review of the Environ" MOntal Assessment
for the- proposed Jacksonville Bypass. The proposed bypass is,7.3 miles in length and connects US
258/NC 24, southwest of Jacksonville, to US 17 to the northeast.
The proposed project will require a CAMA Major Permit. Also, a field assessment his = been done
to determine whether concrete pipes and box culverts (as proposed for several drainage structures,
Page 18) are appropriate or whether Coastal Management would consider these locations as
navigable waters. This will have to be followed-up with D.O.T.
We support mitigation requirements for all wetlands lost because of this project.
Since time is critical in offering comments, we choose to go ahead and send comments instead of
waiting to coordinate a slte visit, Please call if you have questions,
127 Cardinal Drive Extension, Wilmington, N.C. 28445.3846 a Telephone 910,995.3900 a Fax 91 o-350-2004
An Eaval Opportunity Affirmative /Action Employer
TOTAL P.02
May 26, 1994
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Fritz Rohde
SUBJECT: Jacksonville Bypass (94-0875)
The primary concern
bridge crossing the
proposed project is
minimize impacts to
bridge construction
activity (April-June
of the Division of Marine Fisheries is the
New River. New River in the area of the
a designated nursery area. In order to
this nursery, the Division requests that
be done outside the period of peak biological
a) .

State of North Carolina Reviewing Office(
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources W + M •?
Project Number: Due D e:,/??
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS Q,? f?(? ?? VV
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed-tithe Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office. Time
(statutory time
PERMITS
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment
sewer system extensions. & sewer
facilities,
systems s not discharging into state surface waters.
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities
C discharging into state surface waters.
Water Use Permit
El Well Construction Permit
C I Dredge and Fill Permit
d Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
C facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H
ny open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal
C prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit)
Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
technical conference usual (90 days/
Application 180 days before hegin activity. On-site inspection. 90.120 days
Pre-application conference us.ial. Additionally. obtain permit to
construct wastewater treatme-, facility-granted after NPDES Reply (N l
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
30 days
Pre-application technical con°erence usually necessary IN A

Complete application must ce received and permit issued
prior to the installation of a 7 days
115 days)
Application copy must be se•:ed on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
owner
.
require Easement to File from N.C. Department of
ma 190 days/
y
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
60 Gays
NIA 190 daysi
60 Gays
N/A
(90 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 2D.0800.
=sbeefore ntation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
C will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect .l at least 30 20 Gays
beginning activit . A fee of S30 for the first acre and 520.00 for each additiona: acre or art must accom an the Ian (t30 days)
30 days)
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: y
r-I Mining Permit
CI North Carolina Burning permit -
I Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit - 22
LII counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils
?I Oil Refining Facilities
?I Dam Safety Permit
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 Days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days)
must be received before the permit can be issued.
On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (N!A)
On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections
" (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned.
90.120 days
NIA (N/A)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. 30 days
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans.
inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days)
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces-
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of $200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
Continued on reverse
:i_ ,,,•
r
L
i
r
' ? Norrnai i?rocess '1
Time
(statutory time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS limit),
File surety bond of $5.000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (N'A)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10'days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. tN:Ai
State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15-20 days
descriptions 8 drawings of structure 8 proof of ownership iN'A)
of riparian property.
60 days
401 Water Quality Certification N/A (130 days)
55 days
CAMA Permit for MAJOR development 5250.00 fee must accompany application 050 days)
22 days
CAMA Permit for MINOR development 550.00 fee must accornpary application (25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C Geodetic Survey. Box 27687. Raleigh. N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any :cells. if required, must be in accordance with Tale 15A. Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if `orphan' underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
rN!A)
Other comments (attach acditional pages as necessary. being certain ;o cite comment auinority):
^7`+ Cek4 ?,1ra,v 3 Ir c uwI'lis?0 F >I A CAL', 6(1 42/pe e?.
S t
l
?
0
v+
?
v
0a51*L
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfin Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Bo x 950 3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Mooresville, NC 28115 Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] [phone]
? Washington Regional Office ? Wilmington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27889 Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone] [phone]
? Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., G over n %iffiths Forestry Center
Jonathan B. Howes, Secret(24y, Old US 70 West
Stanford M. Adams, Dire,'Wn, North Carolina 27520
May 24, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee- Policy Development
?EHNR
mow Idall.,
FROM: Don H. Robbins, Staff Forester Q K
SUBJECT: DOT EA for Jacksonville Bypass on New Location, US 17 from US 258/NC 24 West
to US 17 North in Onslow County
PROJECT NO 94-0875
DUE DATE: 6-10-94
We have reviewed the above subject document and have the following comments:
1. We understand the need for the project.
2. This project will have a heavy impact to woodland as follows:
a. 195 acres of upland type woodland.
b. 4.8 acres of bottomland type woodland.
C. 19.4 acres of forested wetlands.
d. 219.2 acres of total woodland will be impacted by the project.
3. A high percentage of the above acres contains high value merchantable timber (pulpwood,
poles and saw timber). The ROW contractor should make all out efforts to market and
salvage this timber that will have to be cut to permit all construction activities. There is
just too much timber to just push into piles and burn it.
4. Standing trees outside of construction limits should be protected from logging damage and
construction type activities.
5. This area is considered high hazard burning conditions. Any burning attempted by the ROW
contractor will need to be done very carefully, so as not to start any woods fires and doing
any damage to adjacent woodland.
gm
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Onslow County Ranger Donald Edwards
File
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
5'-7
Courity
[rater-Agency Project Review Response
Project Nam- 1'ype of Project V-1c, t- CL
?---, The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
?--? improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to-the award
of a contract or the initiation of construction (as Fequ_-ed by 15A NCAC 18C .0300 et. seq.).
For information, contact the Public Water Supply Sezrion, [phone].
?--? This project will be. classified as a non-community public water supply and must comply with
?--J state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the applicant
should contact the Public Water Supply Section, (91? 733-2321.
r---? If this project is constructed as proposed; we will recommend closure of feet of adjacent
progra
?--? waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information -egarding the shellfis- sanitat' ion
m, the applicant should contact the Shellfish SanitatiDn Branch at [phone].
n The spoil disposal area(s) proposed for this project ma:: produce a mosquito breeding-problem.
For information concerning appropriate mosquito --ontrol measures, the applicant should:
contact the Public Health Pest Management Section t [phone].
r---? The applicant should be advised that orior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
?--! structures, an extensive rodent control grogram ma: be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. The ::formation. concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management.Section.at (919)
733-6407.
? 7 The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
?--? requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A .1900 et. seq.).
For information concerning septic tank and other or-site waste disposal methods, contact the
On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
r-? The applicant should be advised to contract the local health department regarding the sanitary
-? facilities required for this project.
If existing water lines will be relocated during thA construction plans for the water line
?-! relocation must be submitted to the Division of En- ironmental Health, Public Water Supply
Section, Plan Review Branch, 1330 St. N-lary's Street. Raleigh, North Carolina. [phone].
eviewer

SectioiiIBranch
A.
Late
f?FT iN: - Inc in _.1:..11 a /oil

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 11, 1994
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEHNR
Div. of Environmental Management
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1148
Dear Mr. Galamb:
01 0 $ S
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for Jacksonville Bypass, US 17
from US 258/NC 24 West of Jacksonville to US 17 North of
Jacksonville, Onslow County, State Project No. 6.269001T, T.I.P.
No. U-2107 and U-2107A
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural
Resources Technical Memorandum for the subject proposed highway improvement.
It is anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No
Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping
process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
3 1994
MAY 1 ``?,
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY

May 11, 1994
Page 2
Your comments should be received by July 12, 1994. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely, ?If A '34. 1-e-
V.A DM
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr

N A T U R L S YS" itMiS
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
US 17, JACKSONVILLE BYPASS
ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
T. I . P. N O. U-2107, STATE PROJECT NO. 6.296001T
Prepared For :
North Carolina Department Of Transportation
Prepared By :
1
Louis Berger & Associates, Inc.
s
October, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 1
1.2 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . • • • • 1
1.3 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . • • • 1
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 2
2.1 Plant Community Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . • . . • 4
2.3 Protected Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . 12
3.1 Geology . . . . . . _ . . . . .
3.2 Soil Types . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.3 Rare/Unique Natural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.5 Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.6 Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers . . . . . . . . . . .
4.0 IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.1 Habitat Impacts. . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Protected Species Impacts . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Wetland Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Water Quality Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.0 PERMITTING
6.0 MITIGATION
6.1 Policy
6.2 Mitigation Evaluation
7.0 REFERENCES
12
12
14
14
14
16
16
16
16
17
18
18
19
20
20
21
22
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . 3A
Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3B
Wetlands and Floodplains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Soils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Water Quality Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Community Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
Wetland Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Wetlands Displaced by Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Wetlands Displaced by Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . .5
APPENDICES
Individual Wetland Community Descriptions . . . . . . . . A
Agency Comments and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . B
Species Lists of Fauna and Flora . . . . . . . . . . . . . C
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following technical report is a supplement to the Environmental
Assessment for the proposed US 17 Bypass of Jacksonville, North
Carolina; State Project No. 6.269001T; TIP No. U-2107. This
document contains information regarding general land use categories
and descriptions of the natural resources and features found within
the project study area.
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to describe the natural
systems found within the project study area. The description is
accomplished by the documentation of the existing conditions and
by categorizing the natural resources.
1.2 Study Area
The project is located in Jacksonville, a city in Onslow County in
the southeastern coastal plain of North Carolina (see Figure 1).
The study area (see Figure 2) extends from the intersection of US
258 and NC 53 on the west side of Jacksonville, across US 17,
through the northern portion of Camp Lejeune, across the New River,
and northeast to US 17 near Western Boulevard. The project area
is approximately seven miles in length and encompasses
approximately 3500 acres. The project area includes wetlands,
streams, open water, upland forests, fields, and urban/man-
dominated areas.
Within the study area, preliminary engineering and environmental
studies were undertaken to identify environmental resources
constraints. This led to the development of preliminary
alternatives. From the preliminary alternatives, two reasonable
and feasible alternatives were developed. These two alternatives
have been labeled A and B and are shown on figure 3A and 3B.
1.3 Methodology
Prior to field visits, preliminary data were collected from local,
State and Federal agencies. Aerial photography, National Wetland
Inventory Maps, soil survey maps, and information on endangered
species and their preferred habitat were used to identify the
existing land use and natural resources. These data were
translated onto 1:2400 scale aerial mapping and used as a guide for
the field investigations. Boundaries and locations of natural
features were then checked in the field by Berger biologists during
the week of March 26-30, April 17-18 and June 19-20, 1990.
During the field investigations, effort was concentrated in areas
of special concern (such as wetlands, and potential threatened or
endangered species habitats) while community classifications and
ecosystem types were verified by windshield surveys and site
1
inspections. Specific methodologies regarding different types of
field work are described in detail in each appropriate section of
this document.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
2.1 Plant Community Patterns
The following plant community patterns were evaluated and
categorized based on qualitative fields surveys conducted March
through June of 1990. Descriptions follow the classification
scheme recommended and utilized by the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Community
classifications were modified slightly to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in
Radford, et al. (1968). Community types are shown on Figure 4.
2.1.1 Mesic Hardwood Forests
Mesic Hardwood Forests occur primarily along stream channels and
in segmented interstream flats which may be intermittently flooded
but do not receive regular, long term inundation. The canopies of
these systems are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), water oak (Ouercus nigra), willow oak (Q. phellos),
swamp chesnut oak (Q. michauxii), and an occasional loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda). Understory development consists of a regeneration
of canopy trees, musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), black gum
(N ssa svlvatica), sweet bay (Magnolia virginiana), and wax myrtle
(MVrica cerifera). Ground cover is generally sparse, with Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and greenbrier (Smilak spp.) often
in evidence. This vegetational profile corresponds to NCNHP's
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwoods-Mesic Forest classifications.
2.1.2 Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forests
Mixed pine-hardwood forest cover is the dominant forest type within
the study area, generally occurring on slopes and other upland
areas. However, mixed stands may also be found on lands,
subjected to seasonal saturation or receiving periodic inundation.
Dominant tree species include loblolly pine, red maple, sweet gum,
pond pine (Pinus serotina), and oaks (Ouercus sp). Representative
mid and under-story species include saplings and seedlings of the
canopy trees, sweet bay, wax myrtle, highbush blueberry (Vaccineum
corymbosum), coastal dog-hobble (Leucothoe axillaris), fetter-
bush, ink berry (Ilex glabra), poison ivy, Virginia creeper,
Japanese honeysuckle, yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens),
grape vine (Vitis sp), and greenbrier.
2
This community description corresponds with NCNHP's Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest classification.
2.1.3 Pine Forests
Pine forests include both natural old-growth pine stands and stands
managed for silviculture.
The natural old-growth stands are dominated by loblolly pine
interspersed with sweet gum, swamp chestnut oak, American holly
(Ilex o aca), and red maple. The mid and under-story are comprised
of saplings and seedlings of the canopy trees, black gum, sweet
bay, highbush blueberry, grape vine, and greenbrier.
The stands managed for silviculture are dominated by loblolly pine
with occasional individuals of long leaf pine (Pinus palustris).
Hardwoods associated with these stands are principally sweet gum
and oaks. This community description corresponds to NCNHP's Mesic
Pine Flatwoods description.
2.1.4 Shrub Swamp Woodlands
Shrub swamp woodlands are found in low lying areas west of the New
River near outer boundaries of Camp Geiger. Logging, fire, or some
other form of disturbance appears to have reduced the canopy to
shrub/sapling cover consisting of Atlantic white cedar
(Chamaecyparis thyoides), red cedar (Juniperus vircfiniana), red
maple, red bay (Persea borbonia), and sweet bay (Magnolia
virginiana). Sweet pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), fetter-bush
(Lyonia lucida) and greenbrier are also present throughout the
understory. It is highly probable that these systems were at one
time dominated by Atlantic white cedar. This community profile
corresponds to NCNHP's Nonriverine Swamp Forest and Peatland
Atlantic White Cedar Forest classifications.
2.1.4 Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marsh communities are found in small, disturbed pockets
throughout the alignment or as narrow bands along creek
embankments. Marsh communities are often seen as a part of the
narrow gradient between upland/wetland forest cover and adjacent
aquatic communities. These systems are dominated by emergent,
herbaceous species including soft rush (Juncus effusus), spike rush
(Eleocharis sp.), cattail (Typha anaustifolia), sedges (Carex
spp.), bullrush (Scirpus cvperinus), and seedbox (Ludwigia
alternifolia). Sapling growth of red maple and black willow (Salix
nigra) often occurs. Freshwater marsh communities correspond to
NCNHP's classification of tidal freshwater marshes. Although
recognized as separate vegetational categories for descriptive
purposes, the small size and limited extent of the coverage does
not allow for individual mapping of community profiles.
3
2.1.5 Emergent estuarine marsh
Emergent estaurine marsh communities are found near Wilson Point
and on an offshore island near Jack's Point. Although very much
like the freshwater marsh communities described above, these
systems receive regular inundation from the New River estuary, and
are dominated by giant cordgrass (Spartina cynosuroides). Salt
grass (Spartina patens), groundsel (Baccharis hamifolia), wax
myrtle, swamp hibiscus (Hibiscus moscheutos) and red cedar occur
along the wetland/upland interface. This vegetational profile also
corresponds to NCNHP's tidal freshwater marsh classification.
Although found within the study corridor, no emergent estuarine
systems will be impacted by development.
2.1.6 Open Fields
Areas of open fields are highly disturbed and are usually
associated with a power line right-of-way or urban development.
The flora of these areas have reverted to an early successional
stage dominated by weedy species such as broomstraw (Andropogon
sp), goldenrod (Solidaao sp), blackberry (Rubus gR), and various
tree seedlings.
2.1.7 Man-Dominated Areas
Man dominated areas are places where businesses, residences, or
other human related services dominate the landscape (see Figure
3). These areas are concentrated at the eastern and western
termini of the project.
2.2 Wildlife
A wide range of habitat types within the study area are capable of
supporting an abundance of wildlife, both terrestrial and aquatic.
Complete lists of flora and fauna observed during the field
studies, or known to commonly occur in the area provided in
Appendix C.
2.2.1 Terrestrial Wildlife
Wildlife in man-dominated areas is comprised predominately of
raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
oppossum (Didelphis virctiniana), and rabbit (SVlvilagus palustris).
A number of birds were sighted including blue jay (Cvanocitta
cristata), mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), robin (Turdus
migratorius), sparrow (Passer domesticus), and cardinal
(Richmondena cardinalis).
Undisturbed natural areas commonly have all of the above faunal
species. These areas additionally provide for cotton mouse
(Peromyscus aoss inus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispudus), and
golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli aureolus). Large expanses of
4
pine forest and shrub swamp woodlands serve as potential habitat
for black bear (Ursus americanus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virainianus). Beaver (Castor canadensis), skunk (Mephitis
mephitis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), and mink (Mustela vision)
historically have been known to be common in this area but no
evidence of their recent presence was observed.
2.2.2 Aquatic Wildlife
According to field sampling conducted by the Department of Defense,
Department of Navy (1989) and based on literature review describing
species in this area, the common macrofauna in the freshwater
creeks and swampy areas of the project include: turtles (spotted
(Clemmys guttata), snapping (Chelydra serpentina)); fish (pirate
perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens)
redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), banded sunfish (Enneacanthus
obesus), flier (Centrarchus macropterus), mud sunfish (Acantharchus
pomotis), dollar sunfish (Lepomis marginatus), bluespotted sunfish
(Enneacanthus aloriosus), yellow bullhead catfish (Ictalurus
natalis), eastern mudminnow (Umbra pycrmaea), swampfish (Chologaster
cornuta), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), starhead topminnow
(Fundulus notti), white perch (Morone americana), swamp darter
(Etheostoma fusiforme), taillight shiner (Notropis maculatus),
golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), mud sunfish (Acantharchus
pomotis)); and frogs (bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), river (Rana
heckscheri), green (Rana clamitans)).
Common macrofauna in the New River and Wilson Bay includes oysters
(Crassostrea virginica), clams (Mercenaria mercenaria), mussels
(Mytilus edulis), blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), and a variety
of fish species such as striped mullet (Mugil cephalus), white
perch, yellow perch (Perca flabescens), and sunfish (Lepomis spv).
The New River and Wilson Bay are nurseries for estaurine and marine
species and thus will contain a wide variety of microfauna
(plankton and immature individuals).
2.3 Protected Species
2.3.1 Federally Listed Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service identified six species listed
as endangered or threatened, and eight species under status review
which may occur in Onslow County. These species include:
Endangered or Threatened (E or T)
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) - E
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) - T
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) - E
5
Status Review
Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii)
Sea-beach pigweed (Amaranthus pumilus)
Riverbank sand grass (Calamovilfa brevipilis)
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana)
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidaao verna)
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius)
Boykins lobelia (Lobbelia boykinii)
Awned meadow-beauty (Rhexia aristosa)
R
Green and loggerhead sea turtles were not considered in this
analysis. The turtles are not expected inland of our coastal
waters. However, the following species were thoroughly
investigated for presence or absence in the project vicinity:
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar)
The cougar, or mountain lion, was once abundant throughout much of
North Carolina. However, habitat encroachment and over hunting
resulted in this species being eliminated from the mid-Atlantic
states by the late 1800s; many consider the cougar extirpated from
this region (Webster et al., 1985). Although there have been
reports of sightings in coastal swamps of eastern North Carolina,
no such records exist to support the presence of eastern cougar in
the vicinity of the proposed project (personal communication,
Natural Heritage personnel; Tom Henson, WRC).
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a colonial species found in southern
pine forests of North and South Carolina. In our state, the
woodpecker is located in Piedmont and Coastal Plain woodlands east
of Halifax, Wake, Montgomery, and Anson counties. Major
concentrations are found on the Fort Bragg Military Reservation,
the Wildlife Commission's Sandhills Game Land and the Croatan
National Forest (Parnell, 1977). Weymouth Woods-Sandhills Nature
Preserve and Camp Lejeune Military Reservation near Jacksonville
also have significant populations of the birds (Wooten, 1978).
The red-cockaded woodpecker is identified by a black head,
prominent white cheek patch, and its back is barred with black and
white. Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the eye,
but these tale-tale signs are often absent or difficult to see.,
Primary habitat consists of mature to over-mature southern pine
forests, usually including loblolly longleaf, slash (P. elliottii)
and pond pines (Thompson and Baker, 1971: Henry, 1989). The
woodpeckers prefer large trees with little or no understory.
Traditionally, pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannahs which
have been maintained by frequent natural fires (Jackson, 1986)
served as ideal nesting and foraging sites for the woodpeckers.
6
These open woodlands allow the birds to forage for wood-boring
insects, grubs, beetles, and corn worms (Potter et al., 1980).
Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of the
colony trees.
Cavities are generally constructed in living, mature pines which
are often infected with red heart fungus (Fomes pini). The disease
weakens the inner heart wood, making it easier to excavate.
Cavities are usually located 30-50 feet above ground level allowing
for easy detection due to the resinous buildup around cavity
openings. Pine and pine-hardwood stands within 1/2 mile of active
nesting sites are considered potential nesting and foraging habitat
(Henry, 1989).
Currently, approximately forty active colonies of red-cockaded
woodpeckers exist on Camp Lejeune Base property (U.S. Department
of Defense, pers. comm., 1990). The distance from the nearest
known active colony to the project study corridor is approximately
four (4) miles.
Biologists with Louis Berger and Associates coordinated survey
efforts for the red-cockaded woodpecker with endangered species
personnel associated with Camp Lejeune. Forest stand- data,
including age and species composition of all pine stands in the
corridor area, were evaluated, along with aerial photo
interpretation. Stands believed to be of sufficient age (30+
years) and composition (canopy dominated by pines or pine-mixed
hardwood stands with greater than 50% pines) were selected for
evaluation. Random transects were surveyed on selected tracts for
evidence of red-cockaded woodpecker presence or potential cavity
trees. Transects were established to provide complete visual
coverage of the areas in question. No,,?sightings occurred. A
review of Natural Heritage records failed to substantiate the
presence of red-cockaded woodpeckers in the project area. Based
on existing information and subsequent field evaluations, this
project is not expected to impact red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Rough-leaved Loosestrife (Lysimachia asRerolaefolia)
The rough-leaved loosestrife is a perennial, rhizomatous herb
endemic to Coastal Plain and Sandhill regions of the Carolinas.
The plant often reaches heights of 1-2 feet with 3-4 leaves in
whorls which encircle the stem below yellow flowers. Flowering
occurs from May to June and fruits are produced from July to
October (Radford et al., 1968). The loosestrife is limited to nine
counties in North Carolina, including Onslow County. The preferred
habitat consists of cleared areas between longleaf pine uplands and
pond pine pocosins on moist to seasonally saturated sands or
organic soils overlying sand; the species is also found in elliptic
depressions known as Carolina Bays. Rough-leaved loosestrife is
fire maintained; therefore, suppression of naturally occurring
7
fires, which allows the species to re-generate, has contributed to
the loss of habitat in our state.
Cooley's Meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi
Cooley's Meadowrue is a rhizomatous perennial herb with stems that
generally do not exceed 1 meter in height. The plant is normally
erect in full sun but lax in the shade. The petal-less, uni-sex
flowers bloom in June and the fruits mature in August and
September. This species is endemic to southeastern Coastal Plain
communities from North Carolina (9 locations) to Florida. Moist
bogs and savannas are preferred habitat for Cooley's meadowrue.
This species is dependent upon some form of disturbance to sustain
the open quality of its habitat. As such, Cooley's meadowrue is
sometimes found along utility corridors, roadside margins, or other
maintained areas. Cooley's meadowrue is threatened by fire
suppression and land disturbing practices (silviculture or
agriculture).
Thalictrum cooleyi and Lysimachia asperolaefolia have particular
habitat requirements based on disturbance or ongoing successional
changes. These species do not occur in heavily wooded areas nor
are they expected in most man dominated systems. Evaluations of
habitat in the project corridor failed to indicate areas in which
the two species could possibly be present. In addition, Natural
Heritage records indicated no documented sightings in the project
area. Based on existing information and evaluations of habitat
potential, no detailed field investigations were undertaken for
the two species. No adverse impacts are anticipated.
Species listed as Status Review (SR) currently receive no
protection under federal or state, law. However, the eight species
with ranges in the project vicinity were considered during recent
investigations. Natural Heritage records were examined for
recorded presence; no sightings have been documented in or around
the alignment. None were observed during field studies.
2..3.2 State Listed Species
Records maintained by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program indicate
several state-listed species that may occur in the project area.
These species include:
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) - Threatened
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - Endangered
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) - Significantly Rare
American Alligator
The American alligator (Alligator mississippi) inhabits waters with
a wide range of salinities from fresh to salty (near 0 to 35 parts
per thousand). Potential habitat for this species does exist
8
within the study area, and personal communication with camp Lejeune
Marine Corps biologists have confirmed the presence.of alligator
populations in the region. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program records also confirmed a regional presence. However, no
sightings of the animal nor its habitat occurred during field
investigations. Disruptions due to highway construction are
expected to be minimal. Bridging will be employed over most major
water bodies (i.e. New River and Edwards Creek) and adjacent
riparian embankments to alleviate impacts on wetlands and potential
nesting areas. Should evidence of this species be found during
construction, the NCDOT will notify appropriate wildlife
authorities, so that relocation can be undertaken or efforts
expended to avoid disturbance to these elusive animals.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
The Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) has been discussed
in detail in the section above on Federally Listed Species. .
Venus Fly Trap
The Venus fly trap (Dionaea muscipula) is indigenous to the
southeastern coastal plain of North Carolina. This plant is under
intensive harvesting pressure and its population is believed to be
rapidly declining. Suitable habitat is not prevalent in the study
corridor, nor was evidence of the species noted during field
investigations. Based on available information, no adverse impacts
are anticipated.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission has identified
several additional species of noted concern that have the potential
to exist in the project area. These inc?J-ude the star-nosed mole
(Condylura cristata), Rafinesque's big-eared bat (Plecotus
rafinesquii), Brazilian free-tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis),
Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), black vulture (Coragyps
atratus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leicocephalus), loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis),
glossy ibris (Plegadis falcinellus), northern saw-whet owl
(Aegolius acadicus), Bachman's sparrow (Aimobhila aestivalis),
long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus), shortnose sturgeon
(Acipeser brevirostrum), and Carolina gopher frog (Rana sp.).
Personal communications with Mr. Tom Henson, Coastal Endangered
Wildlife Project Leader (WRC), on October 11, 1991 indicated that
no surveys have been done for the above mentioned species. With
exception of the bald eagle, there is a low probability that these
animals occur within project boundaries. The bald eagle requires
large trees near open water for nesting. While appropriate habitat
does exist, no known nesting pairs currently reside in the study
area. Natural Heritage records were examined for recorded
presence; no sightings have been documented in the immediate
vicinity of the project corridor.
9
2.4 Wetlands
Wetlands have been described as:
"those areas that are inundated or saturated by ground water
at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that
under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs,
and similar areas."
(33 CFR 328.3(b), 1986)
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) serves as the principal
permitting agency for wetland activities as mandated under section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1344). The COE requires
the presence of three parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, and hydrology) in support of a wetland jurisdictional
determination (Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland
Delineation, 1989). It should be noted that aquatic systems
(streams, rivers, tributaries, impoundments) are also subject to
Section 404 review as "waters of the United States". In this
analysis, defined water bodies with permanent flow or containment
have been separated and described as open water systems (see
Sections 3.4, 3.5).
Jurisdictional wetlands in the study area are primarily palustrine
in nature, as defined in Cowardin et al. (1979). Categorizations
include: palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01, PF06),
palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen (PF04, PF04/1),
palustrine scrub/shrub (PSS7), and palustrine emergent (PEM1)
wetlands. Small pockets of estuarine emergent wetlands (E2EM)
occur at Wilson's Point, in small, ill-defined pockets along the
shoreline south of Jack's Point, and on offshore islands in Wilson
Bay. However, these systems will not be impacted by highway
development, and, therefore, no further discussion of estuarine
wetlands is provided. Figure 5 shows the location of the various
wetland areas.
A description, including soil series, of each discreet wetland
community crossed by the corridor is presented in Appendix A.
2.4.1 Palustrine Forested, Broad-Leaved Deciduous Wetlands
(PF01, PF06/4)
Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands (PF01, PF06)
occur along stream channels and alluvial draws throughout the
corridor. This wetland type is particularly prevalent in the
Brinson Creek floodplain where freshwater inundation is a frequent
occurrence. These systems are characterized by the presence of
10
mesic hardwood forest cover. Typical species include red maple,
sweet gum, loblolly pine, water oak, and black gum. Representative
mid- and under-story species include canopy tree saplings, sweet
bay magnolia, wax myrtle, highbush blueberry, sweet pepper-bush,
ink berry, coastal dog-hobble, fetter-bush, giant cane, cinnamon
fern, netted chain fern and greenbrier.
2.4.2 Palustrine Forested, Needle-Leaved Evergreen Wetlands
(PF04, PF04/1)
These wetlands are pine dominated systems usually subjected to
ground water saturation or seasonal inundation. Wet pine stands
are primarily found west and south of Jack's Point. Loblolly pines
dominate the canopy, interspersed with sweet gum, red maple,
chestnut oak, water oak and American holly. Bays, black gum,
blueberry, ferns and greenbrier are common understory components.
Depending on the age and degree of recent maintenance, hardwood
species may share dominance in the canopy in older stands.
It should be noted that several pine forest tracts on the Camp
Johnson property south of NC 24 have been extensively ditched and
selectively thinned as part of the Marine Corps timber management
program. Before modification, these areas probably constituted
jurisdictional wetlands. However, hydrologic indicators are no
longer present to support a jurisdictional determination.
2.4.3 Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetlands
(PSS7)
Palustrine shrub/scrub wetlands (PSS7) are prevalent throughout
low-lying areas between Edward's Creek and the New River in the
vicinity of Camp Geiger. These frequently flooded wetlands support
shrub and sapling growth of Atlantic white cedar, red cedar, red
maple, red bay, sweet bay, swamp hibiscus, and giant cordgrass.
It appears that most of these areas may have been subjected to
logging (possibly for Atlantic white cedar), fire, or some other
radical disturbance in previous years, which presently accounts for
the shrub-like growth of canopy/subcanopy layers.
2.4.4 Palustrine Emergent Wetlands
(PEM1)
Palustrine emergent wetlands (PEM1) are predominantly found in low-
lying.areas adjacent to the creeks or other water bodies, and in
disturbed depressions. This is the least common wetland type in
the project corridor, covering less than 5 acres in the area under
investigation. These systems are dominated by a variety of
hydrophytic grasses
11
3.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
3.1 Geology
The project area lies wholly within the Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province of North Carolina. The geology of coastal North Carolina
consists of Quaternary, Tertiary, and upper Cretaceous marine
sediments, underlain by pre-Cretaceous basement rock. The geology
of the Jacksonville area consists of the River Bend Formation,
consisting of "limestone and calcarenite overlain by and
intercalated with indurated, sandy, molluscan-mold limestone"(NCGS,
1985). In the area of Camp Lejeune, the formation is the Belgrade
Formation, which is composed of two members that grade into each
other laterally. These are the Pollocksville and the Haywood
Landing Members. (NCGS, 1985).
The formations are underlain by confining units which are comprised
of seven aquifers: the surf icial, Castle Hayne, Beaufort, Pee Dee,
Black Creek, and upper and lower Cape Fear aquifers. The Castle
Hayne aquifer varies from 150 to 300 feet thick and is the most
important source of groundwater for eastern North Carolina.
3.2 Soil Types
Soil patterns are the result of a number of factors including past
geologic activities, parental material, environmental influences,
age of the sediments, and topographic positioning. Man-induced
changes to the landscape and biotic factors (vegetational coverage)
also play important roles in soil formation and characterization.
Although a soil survey has not been published for Onslow County at
the time of this report, soil mapping and designation for the
county has been provided by the Department of Agriculture Soil
Conservation Service (USDA SCS, 1989; USDA SCS 1990). Soils were
mapped by the SCS based on series, phase, and similarities in
color, texture, structure, and drainage conditions. These series
are grouped into categories based on land use constraints (Figure
6). The constraints include prime farmland soils, soils of
statewide importance, and soils with severe construction
limitations according to the SCS soil survey information. Most
construction limitations are based on degree of wetness and slope
and can be overcome with proper construction technologies.
Soils are classified by the SCS as either hydric (wet) or non-
hydric (dry). Hydric soils are defined as "soils that are
saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season
to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA, 1987;
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation, 1989).
Soils occurring within the survey area that are classified as
hydric by the SCS include Torhunta, Rains, Muckalee, Dorovan, and
Pantego series.
12
Soils belonging to the Torhunta and Rains series are common along
nearly level, broad interstream areas and in depressions near
shallow drainageways where inundation and saturation is prevalent.
Due to the seasonal high water table being at or near the surface,
these soils are poorly suited to most urban and recreation uses.
Torhunta soils are very poorly drained soils that are subject to
rare flooding and may become ponded during wet periods. Rains
soils are poorly drained soils in which standing water is a
seasonal occurrence.
The Muckalee series occurs in nearly level drainageways dominated
by mixed pine forests. This soil has severe limitations for urban
uses because of frequent flooding and wetness. The high water
table (0.5-1.5 feet below ground surface) and stream overflow are
the main limitations to the use of this soil for recreational uses.
The Dorovan series consists of very poorly drained soils that occur
along low flood plains along freshwater and brackish streams. This
soil is frequently flooded throughout the year. Areas where
Dorovan soils occur are often used as woodland, and are usually
dominated by bay or mixed pine forests. Due to the high water
table and flooding, this soil series has severe construction
restraints.
Pantego soils are very poorly drained soils that are located on
broad, smooth flats in interstream areas where the water table is
at or near the surface. Due to the seasonal high water table,
Pantego soils are poorly suited for urban and recreation uses.
Lands dominated by Lynchburg, Marvyn, Onslow, Stallings, Wando, and
Pactolus soils further demonstrate the poor drainage
characteristics found throughout this region. Although not
classified as hydric by the SCS, these series may contain
inclusions of hydric soils. These soils occur in flat, lowland
areas where surface runoff is slow and seasonal high water tables
are common.
The most common non-hydric soils occurring within the survey area
include the Baymeade and Goldsboro series. Baymeade soils are
well-drained and occur on low ridges and convex divides on the
uplands where infiltration is rapid, surface runoff is slow, and
permeability is moderately rapid. The available water capacity is
low and the seasonal high water table is four to five feet below
the surface. Although Baymeade soils are mainly used as woodland,
in some areas it is utilized as cropland or for urban development.
Goldsboro soils are moderately well drained and located on slightly
convex interstream divides near shallow drainageways. Infiltration
is medium, surface runoff is slow, and permeability is moderate.
The available water capacity of Goldsboro soils is moderate to high
and the seasonal high water table is two to three feet below the
surface.
13
3.3 Rare/Unique Natural Areas
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program maintains a list of
rare and unique natural areas for the State. No designated rare
or unique natural areas occur within the study area.
3.4 Water Resources
Major streams and water bodies within the study area include
Brinson Creek, Edwards Creek, Strawhorn Creek, Chaney Creek, Scales
Creek, the New River, and Wilson Bay. All of these are under
slight tidal influence. Permanent streams within the study area
represent 9,900 linear feet, that are considered to be waters of
the United States. The largest of these which are the New River
and Wilson Bay, which are located approximately in the center of
the study area. A salt wedge extends upstream along the New River
past the project location.
None of the surface waters in the project area are used for water
supply. The freshwater supply for Onslow County comes from three
groundwater aquifers: a surficial deposit (0-65 feet below ground
surface) ; the Tertiary limestone deposits of the Castle Hayne
formation (75-100 feet below ground surface) ; and the sandstones
of the Pee Dee formation (175-200 feet below ground surface). Of
these formations, the Castle Hayne formation is the most utilized
source of freshwater (Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Navy, 1989).
Recharge of the surficial aquifer occurs throughout Onslow County.
Recharge of the Castle Hayne and Pee Dee formations occurs in
natural areas west and south of the proposed project in Lenoir,
Duplin, and Pender Counties.(LeGrand, 1960).
The New River and Wilson Bay are important as estuarine hatchery
and habitat areas for marine fish and shell fish. Brinson Creek
and Edward's Creek are significant as freshwater and wetland
habitat for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic flora and fauna
3.5 Water Quality
Water quality classifications for the waterways within the study
area were identified using 15 NCAC 2B.0312 (Water Quality Section,
1989a). These classifications are presented in Table 1. The
appended designation of HQW (High Quality Waters) on some of the
water bodies became effective on August 1, 1990. This water
quality designation was designed to protect certain waters from
continued nutrient and.pollution sources.
The New River and Wilson Bay, in particular have been identified
as nutrient sensitive waters by the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (DEHNR). "Wilson Bay
is highly eutrophic with sufficient nitrogen concentrations to
support bloom phytoplankton populations year round" (DEHNR, Water
14
Quality Section, 1990). A Water Quality Section report also state
"Phytoplankton densities, chlorophyll-a standards violations, and
elevated nutrient concentrations indicate that the New River in the
Jacksonville area suffers from eutropication problems" (DEHNR,
Water Quality Section, 1989b). Sources for nutrients are
agricultural runoff in upper portions of the waterways and sewage
treatment plant discharges from Jacksonville and Camp Lejeune
Marine Corps Base.
Nitrogen concentrations range from 0.9 to 3.0 milligrams per liter
(mg/1). Average summer nitrogen values for Brinson Creek range
from 1.1 to 1.3 mg/l (DEHNR, Water Quality Section, 1990).
Total phosphorous in Wilson Bay and the New River may range from
0.30 to 0.85 mg/1 during the summer months. Phosphorous in Brinson
Creek ranges from 0.33 to 0.38 mg/l in the summer (DEHNR, Water
Quality Section, 1990).
The New River and Wilson Bay are brackish with salinities varying
from near zero ( 1 to 2) to 18 parts per thousand (ppt) (DEHNR,
Water Quality Section, 1990). Brinson Creek and Edwards Creek are
basically fresh water streams with slight elevations of salinity
(up to 13 ppt) due to tidal fluctuations, saline water wedges, and
volume of runoff from rainfall.
The pH values for Wilson Bay, New River, and Brinson Creek range
from 7.0 to 8.5 (DEHNR, Water Quality Section, 1990). These values
are within State standards for tidal waters.
Turbidity of Wilson Bay is relatively high (ranging from 7 to 14
NTU) due to its shallow depths. Turbidity in the New River may
vary from 3 to 6 NTU and Brinson Creek may vary from 7 to 15 NTU
(DEHNR, Water Quality Section, 1990). In addition to depth these
ranges are a function of runoff from rainfall, agricultural
erosion, and erosion from development sites.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in Wilson Bay and the New
River vary from 4 to 19 mg/l (DEHNR, Water Quality Section, 1990).
Salt wedges retard mixing of oxygenated surface waters with oxygen-
depleted bottom waters by creating a density gradient. Inversions,
however, occur by temperature changes or storms (strong winds).
Dissolved oxygen in Brinson Creek may vary from 6 to 15 mg/1 due
to its extremely slow flow and high biological oxygen demand (BOD) .
No measurements or concentrations of heavy metals, toxic chemicals,
toxic compounds, or hydrocarbons are presently known or available
for any of the waterways in the project area.
3.6 Floodplains
Boundaries of one-hundred year floodplains of the major waterways
within the study area were determined through the use of Flood
i5
Insurance Rate Maps for City and County areas. published by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1987). These floodplain
boundaries are shown in Figure 5.
3.7 Wild and Scenic Rivers
No rivers currently designated as wild and scenic occur within the
project area.
4.0 IMPACTS
4.1 Habitat Impacts
As expected, impacts on natural communities are reflective of the
relative abundance of each system present in the study corridor.
Table 2 summarizes potential losses which may result from
development of Alternatives A and B.
In spite of the urbanized nature of the Jacksonville area, large
forested tracts remain within the study corridor. Mixed
pine/hardwood forests will be significantly impacted by proposed
improvements. Approximately 155.1 acres will be lost through
implementation of Alternative A, and 157.0 acres taken by
Alternative B. These systems represent a diminishing resource in
the Jacksonville area due to increasing urbanization.
Extensive stands of pine forest cover (plantation and natural old
growth loblolly) are present on Marine Corps property south,
southwest of NC 24. Although encroachment into pine stands as a
result of highway development will be relatively minor (23.9 acres
on Alternative A, 17.6 acres. on Alternative B), the primary impact
will be the segmentation of contiguous communities that currently
offer potential habitat opportunities for wildlife.
Shrub swamp woodlands west of the New River channel will also be
impacted by development. Again, segmentation is an inevitable
consequence, regardless of the alignment chosen.
Smaller takings of bottom-land hardwoods will occur in draws and
narrow floodplain fringe communities bordering waterways.
Although limited in extent, these systems also represent
diminishing resources- in an area already subject to intense
developmental pressures. Loss of habitat and functional use will
occur.
Finally, impacts on urban/residential areas (man dominated systems)
are unavoidable. However, these impacts will generally be
concentrated at the terminal ends of the proposed alignment where
similar activities are typical. From a wildlife perspective, loss
of habitat is an unavoidable consequence of development, regardless
of the alignment chosen. Many resident species which occur within
the corridor will be displaced by construction. Mobile animals
16
such as rabbits, squirrels, opossums, rodents, and passerine birds
are cosmopolitan in nature, easily adapting to urbanization.
However, larger mammals, such as deer, which seek refuge in large,
undisturbed tracts, may experience severe disruptions in mating,
feeding or migratory patterns as their habitat range is reduced or
segmented.
4.2 Protected Species Impacts
There is no evidence to suggest that federal or state listed
species (or status review species) will be impacted by
construction. A review of records maintained by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program and dialogue with endangered species personnel
from the N.C. Wildlife Resources commission, indicated no
documented sightings of such species in the project vicinity.
Marine Corps personnel have conducted extensive surveys on base
property to determine presence or absence of listed species; no
records of occurrence have been noted in the area of the alignment.
Particular attention has been directed toward evaluation of
potential impacts on federally protected species. Rough-leaved
loosestrife and Cooley's meadowrue have particular habitat
preferences necessary for survival. No such habitat occurs-in the
project corridor.
The range of the red-cockaded woodpecker extends into Onslow
County. Marine Corps endangered species personnel have extensive
data on pine and pine/mixed hardwood stands which occur throughout
the alignment. No RCW presence has been noted. Even so, potential
habitat areas (those exceeding 30 years of age) were surveyed for
cavity trees or presence of the birds. No sightings occurred.
The American alligator has been sighted in the general vicinity of
the project. However, this species has no documented occurrence
in the project alignment, and recent surveys failed to find
evidence of alligators. Even so, every effort will be taken to
minimize potential impacts. Bridging of the New River and Edwards
Creek systems will provide continuity of habitat and range.
Sightings noted during construction will be coordinated with the
WRC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Marine Corps
endangered species personnel.
17
4.3 Wetland Impacts
Improvements to US 17 and NC 24 cannot be accomplished without
infringing on jurisdictional wetlands within corridor limits.
Based on an average right-of-way width of 250 feet, approximately
24.2 acres of wetlands may be affected by construction of
Alternative A and 28.2 by Alternative B. Potential takings, by
wetland type, are shown in Table 3. Encroachments at individual
crossings can be found in Tables 4 and 5 and Appendix A.
Approximately 15.4 and 7.7 acres of deciduous wetlands (PF01, PF06)
will be impacted by construction of Alternatives A and B
respectively. Most of the encroachment will occur along the
Brinson Creek channel and bordering other freshwater tributaries
throughout the alignment. Although limited in size and
distribution, these wetlands are important resources exhibiting a
number of functions including serving as habitat for wildlife,
shoreline stabilization, flood control, and sediment/nutrient
removal. Limited impacts on these functions may occur.
Approximately 4.0 acres of pine dominated wetland systems (PF04,
PF04/1) will be impacted by construction of Alternative A and 12.4
by Alternative B. Habitat segmentation and loss will an
unavoidable adverse impact resulting from highway development.
Shrub wetlands (PSS7) on camp Geiger property west of the New River
will also be affected (4.8 acres for Alternative A; 8.1 acres for
Alternative B). The proposed alignment will bisect these
communities, resulting in habitat segmentation and loss.
Functional characteristics such as sediment/nutrient removal, flood
control, and limited groundwater recharge capabilities may also be
affected to a limited extent.
Emergent marsh systems (PEM1) will not be significantly impacted
by construction because of limited distribution. Although small,
segmented pockets will be lost, many fringing systems will be
bridged or culverted with minimal loss of function and value.
4.4 Water Quality Impacts
The proposed alignment will cross several major water bodies
including the New River, Edwards Creek, and Brinson Creek, in
addition to other smaller tributaries.
Long term impacts to streams and tributaries as a result of roadway
construction are expected to be negligible. Efforts are being made
to insure continued flow in all stream segments in order to
maintain integrity of aquatic systems and adjacent floodplain
communities. Bridging will be implemented at the New River and
Edwards Creek crossings. Pipes and culverts will be properly sized
in order to insure continuity of flow and to maintain aquatic
habitat integrity.
18
Temporary impacts due to erosion and sedimentation during
construction can be minimized through implementation of a stringent
erosion control schedule and the use of best management practices.
In addition, the contractor must be required to follow contract
specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined
in the Department of Transportation's FHPM 6-7-3-1 and Article 107-
3B entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation and Pollution". Dikes,
berms, silt basins, etc. can be used as needed to control runoff.
Rapid re-seeding of disturbed sites will also help alleviate
sediment loading in area waters and wetlands. Increased runoff
from highway surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for
grassed road shoulders and limited use of ditching whenever
possible.
5.0 Permitting
Permits will be required for encroachment into wetland communities
as a result of highway construction. Although several different
stream basins will be crossed by the proposed alignment, wetland
takings will be considered cumulatively for permit purposes due to
the continuity of the project.
Application for an Individual Section 404 Dredge and Fill permit
(33 U.S.C. 1344) will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). Nationwide permits will not apply due to the
significant amount of wetlands involved.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1341) requires each
state to certify that state water quality standards will not be
violated for activities which: 1) involve issuance of a federal
permit or license; or 2) require discharges into "waters of the
United States." The COE will not issue a 404 permit until 401
certification is approved. Therefore, the NCDOT must apply to the
N.C. Division of Environmental Management, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health & Natural Resources (DEHNR) for 401
certification as part of the permit process.
The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Department of Transportation, is
responsible for administering Section 9 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401) and the General Bridge Act of 1946 (33
U.S.C. 525-533). The purpose of these Acts is to preserve the
public right of navigation and to prevent interference with
interstate and foreign commerce. Because the New River is
considered a navigable water body, a USCG permit will be required
for bridge construction.
Onslow County is one of 20 coastal counties under the jurisdiction
of the N.C. Coastal Area Management (CAMA) Program. CAMA has
permit responsibilities for activities which occur in designated
Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs). Freshwater wetlands (such
as those found in the project area) are not considered AECs for
19
permit purposes. However, the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 mandates that federal actions (including issuance of 404
permits) comply with requirements of state approved coastal zone
programs (16 U.S.C. 1456(c)). Therefore, CAMA will review permit
activities which take place in the Onslow County area for
state/federal consistency. A CAMA consistency determination must
be approved as part of the permit review process before
construction can be initiated.
6.0 Mitigation
6.1 Policy
Mitigation is recommended in accordance with Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 230), mitigation policy
mandates articulated in the recent COE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA; Page and Wilcher, 1990), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961
(1977)), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) mitigation policy
directives (46 FR 7644-7663 (1981)), and FHWA stepdown procedures
(23 CFR 777.1-777.11). Mitigation has been defined in NEPA
regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid; b) minimize; c)
rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse
impacts to the environment (40 CFR 1508.20 (a-e)).
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the COE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order
11990, stress avoidance and minimization as primary considerations
for protection of wetlands. Practicable alternatives analysis must
be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife service policy also emphasizes avoidance
and minimization. However,. for unavoidable losses, the FWS
recommends that mitigation efforts be based on the "value and
scarcity of the habitat at risk. Habitat is classified into four
Resource Categories based on decreasing importance and value, with
subsequent decreases in mitigation planning objectives (46 FR 7657-
7658). Most wetlands in the project vicinity would be considered
as Category 2 or 3 resources (high to medium value) under the FWS
system, requiring a mitigation goal of no net loss of habitat value
(compensation through replacement).
FHWA policy stresses that all practicable measures should be taken
to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands which will be affected by
federally funded highway construction. A sequencing (stepdown)
procedure is recommended in the event that avoidance is impossible.
First, consideration must be given to providing for mitigation
within highway right-of-way limits, generally through enhancement,
restoration, or creation. Mitigation employed outside of the
highway right-of-way must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-
case basis. Measures should be designed "to reestablish, to the
extent reasonable, a condition similar to that which would have
existed if the project were not built" (23 CFR 777.9(b)).
20
6.2 Mitigation Evaluation
Avoidance is not a logical solution to eliminating impacts
associated with this project. The magnitude and extent of proposed
actions will not allow for total avoidance if needed improvements
are to be implemented. However, the preferred alignment is the
least damaging to wetlands of the new alignment routes which were
studied. Other measures, such as bridging of sensitive riverine
and riparian.wetland systems at the New River and Edwards Creek,
have been employed as avoidance measures.
Minimization will be effectively employed along the preferred
alternative. Reduction of fill slopes and median widths at
stream/wetland crossings will be used to reduce unnecessary wetland
takings. Conservative use of culverts and sensitive placement of
drainage structures will minimize further degradation to wetlands
and water quality, and reduce adverse impacts on aquatic habitat
viability in streams and tributaries.
Compensatory mitigation is recommended for all unavoidable wetland
losses. On-site, in-kind restoration/ replacement opportunities are
potentially available. Blockage of existing ditches to re-
establish the hydrological regime in drained woodlands south of NC
24 on the Camp Johnson property would restore pine and pine/mixed
hardwood wetlands. Acreages are available for full compensation
of similar wetlands impacted by construction. Other former wetland
sites which have been ditched and drained exist immediately south
of US 17 near the northeastern end of the alignment. Again, simple
restoration of the hydrologic regime would allow for increased
wetland functional value on these degraded tracts.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is in the process of acquiring
the Great Sandy Run Pocosin located west of US 17 near Verona.
This area has been extensively logged, drained and replanted as
pine plantation. Most of the initial wetland functions have been
modified by these disturbances. The DOD would like to utilize
portions of this area for military training exercises; remaining
lands may be restored as wetlands by blocking ditches to re-
establish former hydrological regimes. The NCDOT could participate
with the DOD to restore wetland conditions in sufficient acreage
amounts to provide mitigation for scrub/shrub losses attributed to
the bypass.
Potential sites are available in or adjacent to the Brinson Creek
floodplain near US 17 for mitigation of deciduous wetland losses.
Creation or restoration may be initiated on disturbed tracts, farm
fields, or urbanized sites. As a last resort, the NCDOT Company
Swamp Bank in Bertie County may be debited for avoidable and
unmitigated losses.
21
7.0 REFERENCES
Audubon Society. 1988. Field Guide to North American Fish,
Whales, and Dolphins. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc, New York. 847 p.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the
United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-
79/31. 103 p.
Department of Defense, U.S. Marine Corps Base. 1990. Geographic
Information System Maps of Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base,
North Carolina. Unpublished.
Ibid. 1990. Per. comm. with Charles Peterson, Division of
Environmental Management, Camp Lejeune.
Department of Defense, U.S. Navy, Atlantic Division. 1989.
Proposed Expansion and Realignment of the Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, Onslow County, North Carolina. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. NAVFACENGCOM, Norfolk. No.
N62470-86-C-8775.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1987. Flood Insurance Rate
Map, Onslow County, North Carolina. Community Panel No.
3703400190C. Nat'l Flood Insur. Progr., Washington.
Ibid. 1987. Panel No. 37034003050.
Ibid. 1987. Panel No. 3703400310C.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989.
Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional
Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
U.S.D.A. Soil conservation Service, Washington, D.C.
Cooperative technical publication. 76 p. plus appendices.
Federal Register, 1986. Regulatory Programs of the Corps of
Engineers; Final Rule. Department of Defense, Corps of
Engineers, Dept. of Army. 33 CFR Parts 320 through 330.
41206-41260 p.
Harned, D.A., O.B. Lloyd, Jr., and M.W. Treece, Jr. 1989.
Assessment of Hydrologic and Hydrogeologic Data at Camp
Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina. U.S.G.S. Water
Resources Investigations Report 89-4096. Raleigh, NC. 64 p.
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological
Assessments and Evaluations for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
13p. plus appendices.
22
Jackson, J.A. 1986. Biopolitics, Management of Federal Lands and
the Conservation of the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. American
Birds. 40(5). pp. 1162-1168)
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, NC. 25 p.
Louis Berger & Associates. 1990. Field observations at the
vicinity of Jacksonville and Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base,
North Carolina.
Niering, W.A. 1988. Wetlands. Alfred Knopf, New York. 638 p.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1985. Geologic map of North
Carolina. Det. Nat. Resour. Commun. Devel., Raleigh.
Plant Conservation Program. 1990. List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species. Plant
Industry Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture,
Raleigh, NC. 18 p.
Potter, E.F., J. F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of
the Carolinas. UNC Press. Chapel Hill, N. C. 264 p.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Univ. North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill. 1183 p.
Reed, P.B. 198(15,. Wetland Plants of the State of North Carolina.
Nat'l Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, St.
Petersburg, FL. 40 p.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Sim. 1966. Guide to Field
Identification: Birds of North America. Golden Press, New
York. 340 p.
Schafale, P.M. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the
Natural Communities of North Carolina. NC Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N. C. Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Thompson, R.L., and W.W. Baker. 1971. A Survey of Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Nesting Requirements. p.170-186. in: R.L. Thompson
(eds.). The Ecology and Management of the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker. Tall Timbers Research Station. Tallahassee, Fla.
U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service. 1989. Hydric Soils of North
Carolina. SCS, Raleigh, NC. 20 p.
Ibid. 1990. Unpublished soil maps of Onslow County.
23
Water Quality Section. 1989a. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the White Oak River Basin. (amended
effective 8/1/90). North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development, Division of Environmental
Management, Raleigh, NC. 11 p.
Ibid. 1989b. Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
Water Quality Review 1983=1988. North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC. Rpt. No. 89-08. 193 p.
Ibid. 1990. New River, Onslow County: Nutrient Control Measures
and Water Quality Characteristics for 1986-1989. North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC.
Rpt. No. 90-04. 78 p.
Weakley, A.S. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Parks and Recreation, Raleigh, NC. 56-p.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. UNC Press. Chapel
Hill, N.C. 255 p.
Wooten, C. 1978. Our Endangered Wildlife in North Carolina.
Wildlife Resources commission. in: Wildlife in North
Carolina. Volume 42, Number 7.
24

N M
Q

T

cc 0
W O N Z g Q
a o U.
U
= 0 N
J a Q

r
1` ? N
D
Jm

041

N
J ®,?
? Q
?•
!
?'
a° ,.ter ?
? }
,
/
, t •
? rL
ipNE?•• 'SG
m
y

?.. < Fes' ?

y
G7 \\ Cii /?,a W
? ? ON b,yb ? f)
S O / " ? N5?0'N 7? e
,? ? ?? y .? z?.y?- .gee^?NO• ` B
'? .E ??C• ?? S?NE\•?i.•, .II NO .r;;
X00 0
• o ?Socoe Cr ? l `?',iyg'd ? b1nNE O•
5 ? {P
?? °,,r> mrv' .1
??, a N1 4e { ? _
'R`vE xQ rsa=?"cY
,ry
??? I 4Pa
J
~ LS?h r/? q
ui
rijoy,?, oil
\ l ss
- 9e
_ n
T q,
?C
N
0 Q?
to Q J s
?.• ject_
7
V1
1 ?.
u
__J ,° A
U

fr i
.
??S?E s?i6J -•` J W Q
• 7 FORK g ,
U 3, ?.•?, ROAD ":.j
= Z
0
C wa ?? w j? g?` a OY L
? 'gym • x , ®®/„a,,( Q J
.? rx `gyp. i ? ? Q
10
rya ? ? ?)3 ,! O
a
s •s; aF
Z
in Z • l
}p y a t Z O a
w
? •1a f O I
gOAO
i? ? t pp1PiT
e • n? s' ? ?r •`?? ,?O?FOPO s
. x i? a? .,•s,+
Y
aS y , 'ir a, ?,.
?? ? O?`4 . t . l s rd• i
It , rr? , 4. ? /y
C`tl '3 1 !?
niveq taS`? ?+,
f f
t
i «*x
e ? ?• ^ ? dd W
w ' '? tC7
w ZZ !
m m U \do
r\
s?
af.e `x? ? ?•? ??
e N
f. % a m W
OtiU?EVPaD ` n m ?
M
rnw W H
3 3 cc Q g
FORK
RO-D + = Z rn
W o
H a y4' }. r u, Y V.
all
?I Yo ?
s ;
?z ?:• {d1 Di ?% tl
•? ?% J I Z W
f e i! a? i f] Z e
W U e
r 1{i c
?1 r g ? f
y ¢r
? ? rf GEM• ? j
n -
c / .
of /? 'f I ~" 1 a'! a
!f /j Y JE
y ai Is f ? !a ? a? irf IJ NGW
O6! 1 ~ s ri l?f S
1
cn
j sT
p?' P f
0
s
s •e:
i
r'
NOR taDm9
U U
O 0 Z Z ra
m
m ti W O \tia16,
rd m U
Z
z
a N r
W v /a
f ?s ???•.
rr

W J
m J
0
0
LL J
N m
0 0
x
0 W
= Cx7 IL a
2 z
a s C,0 N w C
0 J m {L G
p U W C7 ? Z '
W X ZO m W Z
v~i m a vxi O m

NOTE:
For descriptions of these numbered
wetlands, refer to Appendix A
UP = Uplands
LEGEND
r
LEGEND
I ;.
Study Area Limit
rid 1 Y +y
Wetland Boundary sue} ?.
-? 100 Year Flood Plain Boundary ,`'
` 7 y
"
?^''p?",?'
Pe.T
.? 5
t,n #,p?ISI
A .? 4
ilslr
It
ir-k
NOTE: For descriptions of these numbered
wetlands, refer to Appendix A
Up = Uplands
4
6B
UP

x
9;
LEGEND
Study Area Limit
Wetland Boundary
•? 100 Year Flood Plain Boundary
z
11A

NOTE: For descriptions of these numbered
wetlands, refer to Appendix A
UP = Uplands
o'4 3". t?'
•
/ ''r,. ' I,F . ,S iR $?c5a e"1^r t' 4 jsi' f,', f' OpB f 'e r. a k ,
0
ly ? _n
4En
R
@riB a
3 f L_ @ ,, x @ c. q i Or,
_4 n7 fPA ) sir, r., 4 y @mB..?
'''? ??• ? :?.. {' r'' r 1 . ? 7? ?m !? MaC t' ? .la 'i'? r ;f' .'C`„/.,?"?'?t?'?'?
Q J,
rt s- DDD
???+, ?aea ??iV".y??ili , , A) _ r B/ ;?"' i' - •, ? I '? fi67'. w<? B?t.:' U ?. F 'a.. 6P@' l YC
b ?r l /?'? c C?B Al•
1• Y }}
r?.gm6 { QJ lb ,, r
"C"A
f 'r a ,{i' r % i \ +'?'7 ?! ? j. 1 ?: fJ riS ?,s•
SERIES LEGEND r Pt`Q Wa@ ' y7 t 4' t ? S its r §N? ?. l Ur `f 17Q r
Ilr eATI1EADE FINE &AND.
D TO 6 PERCENT 5U1PES L' - 1~v R
T ? ?? 1n "`. 'til 4L)J•' 4 yr,A.? OR f
eye "-"DE-URMN LAND m4nE>t, ?? ?'" k'aA s l t 1! ^ •,'Z 4' - '1irF _ G IF1J Ur .
/? 11 rte,,,
1-1 t0 TO 6 PERCENT 310PE4 ' I
C,e C-`FN FINE SANDY LOA..
TO • PERCENT SIDRES
P
DA4
'
1'
1
x' ,
?
' ti
U(
INE L
,
U
PES
.

I
,1.
N
,
?
TO
a ro 1 PERCENT NT SLO 1 4I .,
? ,., p
0. ODROYM INKY
+
7
.'

GM.
JCD RD PINE SANDI ID AY,
O TO 2
PERCENT SCORES

KT (
K 1y

':
1 `' ;
,

@m@ ?!
+9e GClDS
BA CFND COMPLEX,
-
T
-
0 i0 3 SLOPES
PERCENT 4 1
, ?I ti ? A Y ?.
v
4aC LYN0,"G PINE SANDY LOAN
WAR- LOAMY SAND t?
tY ?`t
?'1-
'1
y 1?43{'V? .L M

YY
YUCNAI.[E LOAY V
1 n?? yy
t' 1+
oI y
r
`?'.
.w: NORrI?PF ;:4Y I "NE SANG. j
W
NPB

a NOPFORI IDAYY FINE SAND,
1 -0 a PERCENT SLOPES
O4SLON lDA- FINE SAND
v
I r
?{ 17? P 1l "C' h. ?
1 ^
1 ?'•.!
• •. +

IN SAND

I .
?
. At .

6
S

4-
Y
T

Y
nn TFW D06Y
LOAY

`

.. '
'
±
h SANDY IR,TSI
NAP-OUENTS • ';1 ' 'A
ll

Ra .
UIn1 ZINC (ANDY IDAY a

,
J

\
T STAILNGS LDANY FINE SAND ~? 1 Y

ie
TpIIN1NTA EINE SANDY IDAAI

? .t
.`I'
111

AnrY
J,
''' l
I
.,
t

,i'
? ,{
v UR/AN o ,
LAND

-.8 -00 -f SAND,
iV r

TABLE 1
Water Quality Classifications
Water Body
Classification
Brinson Creek
Edward's Creek
Strawhorn Creek
Chaney Creek
Scales Creek
New River
Wilson Bay
SC
SC(HQW)
SC (HQW)
SC _
SC(HQW)
SC(HQW)
SC(HQWI
SC - Fish and wildlife propagation
Secondary recreation
Other uses requiring waters of lower quality
HQW - High quality waters'
Source: Classification and Water Quality Standards Assigned to
the White Oak River Basin. 15 NCAC 2B.0312. Water
Quality Section (1989).
TABLE 2
COMMUNITY IMPACTS
(In Acres)
Alternatives
Type A B
Mesic HW Forest 16.0 7.7
Mixed Pine-HW Forest 155.1 157.0
Pine Forest
Old Growth Loblolly 17.0 2.0
Managed Pine Stands 6.9 15.6
total pine forest 23.9 17.6
Emergent Marsh 0.0 0.0
Shrub Swamp Woodland 4.8 8.1
Open Field 46.0 33.7
Man Dominated 59.5 84.7
TABLE 3
WETLAND IMPACTS
(In Acres)
Type
PF01, PF06/4
PF04, PF04/1
PSS7
PEM1
Type *
PF01, PF06/4
PF04, PF04/1
PSS7
PEM1
Total
Alternatives
A B
15.4 7.7
4.0 12.4
4.8 8.1
0.0 -0.0
24.2 28.2
Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands
Palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen wetlands
Palustrine shrub-scrub wetlands
Palustrine emergent wetlands
TABLE 4
WETLANDS DISPLACED
By
ALTERNATIVE A
Type Area Numbers Acres Displaced
PF01, PF06/4 1 3.4
2 4.1
3A 0.3
3B 2.5
4 2.6
8 1.3
9 0.8
11B 0.4
15.40 Acres
PF04, PF04/1 5 0.7
11A 3.3
4.0 Acres
PSS7 6A 4.8
4.8 Acres
Total Acres 24.20
Type
PF01, PF06/4 Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands
PF04, PF04/1 Palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen wetlands
PSS7 Palustrine shrub-scrub wetlands
PEM1 Palustrine emergent wetlands
TABLE 5
WETLANDS DISPLACED
By
ALTERNATIVE B
Type Area Number Acres Displaced
PF01, PF06/4 2 0.9
3B 1.7
4 1.8
6B 0.8
8 1.3
9 0.8
11B 0.4
7.7 Acres
PF04, PF04/1 3C 1.2
11A 11.2
12.4 Acres
PSS7 6A 8.1
8.1 Acres
Total Acres 28.20
Type *
PF01, PF06/4 Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands
PF04, PF04/1 Palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen wetlands
PSS7 Palustrine shrub-scrub wetlands
PEM1 Palustrine emergent wetlands
APPENDIX A
Individual Wetland Community Descriptions
INDIVIDUAL WETLANDS COMMUNITY LOCATIONS AND DESCRIPTIONS
Community # 1
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).
SIZE: Approximately 3.4 acres.
LOCATION: Northeast of Backer-Circle Subdivision.
SOILS: Onslow series. COMMENT: Forested area with extensive
ditching.
COMMENT: Forested area with extensive ditching.
Community # 2
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).
SIZE: Approximately 25.7 acres.
LOCATION: Floodplain of Brinson Creek (west of US 17).
SOILS: Muckalee series.
Community # 3A
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).
SIZE: Approximately 7.1 acres
LOCATION: Floodplain of Brinson Creek (east of US 17).
SOILS: Dorovan Series
COMMENT: Densely forested floodplain with rich under-story.
Community # 3B
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF06).
SIZE: Approximately 33.5 acres
LOCATION: Floodplain of Brinson Creek (east of US 17).
SOILS: Dorovan and Marvyn Series
COMMENT: Densely forested floodplain with rich under-story.
Community # 3C
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF07/1).
SIZE: Approximately 15.5 acres
LOCATION: Floodplain of Brinson Creek (east of US 17).
SOILS: Dorovan and Marvyn Series
COMMENT: Densely forested floodplain with rich under-story.
Community # 4
TYPE: Palustrine scrub/shrub (PF07/1).
SIZE: Approximately 14.2 acres.
LOCATION: Island in Wilson Bay.
SOILS: Dorovan series.
Community # 5
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF07/1).
SIZE: Approximately 28.0 acres.
LOCATION: Adjacent to Edward's Creek (east side).
SOILS: Muckalee series.
COMMENT: Wetland area within the floodplain of Edward's creek.
Community # 6A
TYPE: Palustrine scrub/shrub (PF07/1).
SIZE: Approximately 151.9 acres.
LOCATION: Edwards Creek to New River.
SOILS: Dorovan series.
Community # 6B
TYPE: Palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen (PF04).
SIZE: Approximately 6.4 acres
LOCATION: East of New River near Jack's Point.
SOILS: Dorovan Series
Community # 6C
TYPE: Palustrine Emergent (E2EMIP).
SIZE: Approximately 2.3 acres
LOCATION: East side of Wilson Bay.
SOILS: Dorovan Series
Community # 7
TYPE: Palustrine emergent (E2EMIP).
SIZE: Approximately 1.3 acres.
LOCATION: East side of Wilson Bay.
SOILS: Norfolk series.
Community # 8
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF06/4).
SIZE: Approximately 75.8 acres.
LOCATION: East side of the New River adjacent to Wilson Bay.
SOILS: Muckalee series.
COMMENT: Large forested wetland adjacent to Wilson Bay with small
creeks associated with the Bay.
Community # 9
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).
SIZE: Approximately 3.2 acres.
LOCATION: East of montford Point Road.
SOILS: Torhunta series.
. Community # 10
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).
SIZE: Approximately 3.7 acres.
LOCATION: North of Lejeune Blvd. (NC24).
SOILS: Onslow series.
Community # 11A
TYPE: Palustrine forested, needle-leaved evergreen (PF04).
SIZE: Approximately 30.8 acres
LOCATION: North of Lejeune Blvd. (NC 24).
SOILS: Lynchburg Series.
COMMENT: Large forested wetland with minor upland inclusions.
Community # 11B
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01/3).
SIZE: Approximately 12.8 acres
LOCATION: North of Lejeune Blvd. (NC 24).
SOILS: Lynchburg and Rains Series.
COMMENT: Large forested wetland with minor upland inclusions.
Community # 12
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).
SIZE: Approximately 18.4 acres.
LOCATION: North of New Hope Holy Church, South of Country Club Rd.
SOILS: Rain series.
Community # 13
TYPE: Palustrine emergent (E2EMIP).
SIZE: Approximately 0.9 acres.
LOCATION: Sandy Run branch Chaney Creek, just north of Country
Club Rd.
SOILS: Muckalee series.
COMMENT: Emergent wetlands in low lying area adjacent to creek.
Community # 14
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).-
SIZE: Approximately 2.3 acres.
LOCATION: South side of US 17, just east of Coastal Contractors.
SOILS: Rains series.
COMMENT: Forested area completely encircled by ditches.
Community # 15
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).
SIZE: Approximately 1.4 acres.
LOCATION: North side of US 17 between Moosehaven Road and
Hawkside Road.
SOILS: Rains series.
COMMENT: Bottomland hardwood forest associated with an
intermittent stream/ditch.
Community # 16
TYPE: Palustrine forested, broad-leaved deciduous (PF01).
SIZE: Approximately 2.6 acres.
LOCATION: North side of US 17 between Moosehaven Road and
Hawkside Road.
SOILS: Rains Series.
COMMENT: Bottomland hardwood forest associated with an
intermittent stream.
APPENDIX B
Agency Comments and Coordination
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Randy Wilson,
FROM: John Alderman
RE: Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. request for fish
species and endangered species list for Onslow Co.
DATE: October 12, AS-')
Enclosed is the list of expected fish species in Onslow
County, North Carolina. Two < of these species, the Atlantic
sturgeon (proposed state special concern) and the shontnose
sturgeon (federally listed endangered) may occur in the
project area - particularly in the larger water•bodies.
Data on the occurrence of invertebrates are not available
for this area. A thorough survey for freshwater mussels,
snails, and crustaceans is recommended. It is probable that
undescr i bed species may occur in these waters.
One hour was required to complete this analysis.
FRESHWATER FISH SPECIES EXPECTED IN ONSLOW COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA

SCIENTIFIC: NAME
ACIPENSER BREVIROS'TRUM
ACIPENSER OXYRHYNCHUS
LEPISOSTEUS OSSEUS
AMIA CALVA
ALOSA AESTIVALIS
ALOSA SAPIDISSIMA
DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM
ANCHOR MITCHILLI
UMBRA PYGMAEA
ESOX AMERICANUS
ESOX NIGER
CYPRINUS CARPIO
NOTEMIGONUS CRYSOLEUCAS
NOTROPIS AMOENUS
NOTROPIS CHALYBAEUS
NOTROPIS CUMMINGSAE
NOTROPIS PETERSONI
ERIMYZON OBLONGUS
ICTALURUS CA'TUS
ICTALURUS NATALIS
ICTALURUS NEBULOSUS
NOTURUS GYRINUS
NOTURUS INSIGNIS
CHOLOGASTER CORNUTA
APHREDODERUS SAYANUS
STRONGYLURA MARINA
CYPRINODON VARIEGATUS
FUNDULUS HETEROCLITUS
FUNDULUS LINEOLA'TUS
GAMBUSIA AFFINIS
MENIDIA BERYLLINA
MORONE AMERICANA
ACANTHARCHUS POMO'T" I S
CENTRARCHUS MACROPTERUS
ELASSOMA ZONATUM
ENNEACANTHUS GLORIOSUS
ENNEACANTHUS OBESUS
LEPOMIS AURITUS
LEPOMIS GIBBOSUS
LEPOMIS GULOSUS
LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS
MICROPTERUS SALMOIDES
ETHEOSTOMA OLMS'TEDI
ETHEOSTOMA SERRIFERUM
PERCA FLAVESCENS
MUGIL CEPHALUS
MUG I L CUREMA
COMMON NAME
SHOR'TNOSE STURGEON
ATLANTIC STURGEON
LONGNOSE GAR
BOWFIN
BLUEBACK HERRING
AMERICAN SHAD
GIZZARD SHAD
BAY ANCHOVY
EASTERN MUDMINNOW
REDF I N PICKEREL
CHAIN PICKEREL
CARP
GOLDEN SHINER
COMELY SHINER
IRONCOLOR SHINER
DUSKY SHINER
COASTAL SHINER
CREEK CHUBSUCKER
WHITE CATFISH
YELLOW BULLHEAD
BROWN BULLHEAD
TADPOLE MADTOM
MARGINED MADTOM
SWAMPFISH
PIRATE PERCH
ATLANTIC NEELDEHEAD
SHEEPSHEAD MINNOW
MUMMICHOG
LINED TOP-MINNOW
MOSQUITOFISH
TIDEWATER SILVERSIDE
WHITE PERCH
MUD SUNFISH
FLIER
BANDED PYGMY SUNFISH
BLUE-SWOTTED SUNFISH
BANDED SUNFISH
RED BREAST SUNFISH
PUMPKINSEED
WARMOUTH
BLUEGILL
LARGEMOUTH BASS
SAWCHEEK DARTER
YELLOW PERCH
STRIVED MULLET.
WHITE MULLET
a ySTN(°
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM; Melba McGee
Project Review-Coordinator
RE: 91-0106 - Scoping for comments for
Environmental Assessment of the
Proposed US17-NC24 Bypass.
Jacksonville, Onslow County
DATE: September 18, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the Department of Transportation's (DOT) proposed
scoping notice. our review efforts raised several issues that
will-need to be more fully addressed. There is mention of
impacts to wetland resources, wildlife and fisheries within and
adjacent to the New River. Reference has been made by the
Division of Parks and Recreation that both state and federal
threatened species will be effected by this project. In relation
to these and other concerns mentioned in the attached comments,
this department recommends that DOT fully address issues and any
precautionary measures to be taken during the time of
construction that will minimize damages in these areas.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: bb
cc: David Foster
r 4
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
4 1990 P NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
U 9450 Koger Boulevard
r DIVISION OF Z
HIGHWAYS 0Q St. Petersburg, FL 33702
September 11, 1990 F/SERlll/RSS
919/728-5090
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Department of Transportation
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your August 10, 1990, letter requesting our input
into the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
proposed US 17-NC 24 Bypass of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North
Carolina; State Project No. 6.269001T; T.-I.-P. No. U-2107.
The New River, its tributaries, and their adjacent wetlands provide
habitat for a variety of estuarine dependent and anadromous fishery
resources. Alternatives, corridors, and alignments under study
cross wetlands and estuarine waters that support commercially and
recreationally important fishery resources. Accordingly, we view
the proposed Bypass as having a high potential for adversely
impacting these resources unless adequate consideration is given
to potential wetlands and fishery habitat losses early in the
planning process. Therefore we recommend that the EA include the
following:
1. The EA should address alternative highway alignments and
highway-designs that will avoid and minimize wetland losses.
2. The EA should describe the location, species, and acreage of
wetlands potentially impacted under the alignment and design
alternatives considered.
3. The EA should provide a description of the fishery resources
found in the project area and an assessment of the impacts of the
project's alternatives on these resources.
4. The EA should describe measures to be taken (e.g., steep side
slopes, narrow medians, bridging, etc.) to minimize wetland losses.
` We recommend bridging all wetlands to minimize loss of these
important resources.
5. The alternative analysis is that the EA should demonstrate
that the selected alternative also represents the least
environmentally damaging alternative.
6. Bridge construction often requires nn=4on lling for
access roads and/or excavation of channels access.
1. E GREINER COMPANY r1s
r 3
-2-
The EA should address the impact on wetlands and fishery resources
of any construction related temporary wetland losses.
7. If, after avoidance and minimization of wetland involvement,
the selected alternative requires unavoidable wetland losses, the
EA should provide a mitigation plan to compensate for wetlands lost
as a result of project construction. Unless compensation for
wetland losses is incorporated, we will likely recommend against
the issuance of a Corps of Engineers' Section 10/404 permit for the
project.
In conclusion, we recommend that the N. C. Division of Marine
Fisheries be contacted for data concerning the specific fishery
resources that could be impacted by this project. A representative
of our Beaufort field office is available to meet with you or your
consultant to discuss our concerns and assist in the resolution of
potential environmental problems associated with this project.
Since ly y ur ,
Andr as Mager,
Ass stant Regi al Director
Habitat Conservation Division
City of Jacksonville "
.....vr.fY. SSw -c'1lt'"..?.T?YK!.c'e.Az'-`v .. F•4.'.? 'M
"?':tR'3¢?;?:wgY y^^C .'?'^..": .. yyilnt6.••-..
.Y..:..-: .1
Home of Camp Lejeune f! .==101_

September 11, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
r
Of'?1Si 1996
'Y NIO&0/YOF ?.Z
S
9FSEAP.CK6
Our City staff has been actively reviewing the proposed US 17-NC 24 bypass
of Jacksonville, North Carolina (State Project No. 6.269001T) and offers the
following preliminary comments for your review.
-the extension of White Street from its present terminus to Country Club
Road should be made a part of this project
-the bypass crossings of Bell Fork Road and Country Club Road should be
grade separated
-established residential neighborhoods in Georgetown and within the Bell
Fork/Country Club Road should be minimally impacted
-care should be taken to minimally impact existing business along Lejeune
Boulevard
-full interchange access should be provided along the southern edge of the
Georgetown community
-provision of police, fire, and rescue squad services should not be
inhibited during project construction
-NCDOT study should be initiated to determine the projects impact on
existing Country Club Road (White Street Extension will provide direct access to
Country Club Road)
-noise and visual pollution (both during construction and as a result of
construction) in the vicinity of the Beirut Memorial should be kept to a minimum
-no existing Beirut Memorial Trees (in the medium along Lejeune Boulevard)
shall be destroyed, any tree impacted should be moved to a location specified by
the City.
The City recognizes the US 17-NC 24 bypass as a tr?PY'& to the
traveling public of our area. We also are well aware and wis o eMo NCDOT
that the bypass will result in reduced traffic congestion S ?PejolhylMvidin;
1. E GREINER COMPANY
NCDOT
September 11, 1990
Page 2
quicker and safer traffic flow throughout the Jacksonville area.
If the City can provide additional information, please advise.
Sincerely,
)erryA. Bittner
y Manager
/sm

EN7 0, ¦
\Ill../i r? ^ W ? ¦1
United States Department of the Interior
= BUREAU OF MINES
A INTERMOUNTAIN FIELD OPERATIONS CENTER -??
?N P.O. BOX 25086 ¦
BUILDING 20, DENVER FEDERAL CENTER
DENVER, COLORADO 80225
Gds September 10, 1990
L. J. ,(,_,;cF' , Manager
Planning Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27622-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Subject: Environmental Assessment of the proposed US 17-NC 24
Bypass of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina;
State Project No. 6.269001T; T.I.P. No U-2107
We received a copy of the above assessment and appreciate the
opportunity to offer our comments regarding the proposed project.
With regard to review of such environmental documents, our purview
is to determine whether adverse consequences to mineral resources
or related industries would occur. Our information indicates that
there would be no such impacts from proposed highway construction,
therefore, we have no comment.
jad/bde
sincerely,
)11 l Woran, Chief
Intermountain Field Operations Center
RECEIVED
JtF I '! *Wu
J. E GREINER COMPANY
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402.1890
September 10, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
9
n h7 Un
ms`s kRCH
We have reviewed your letter of August 10, 1990, requesting information
for "Environmental Assessment of the proposed US 17-NC 24 Bypass of
Jacksonville, Onslow County, North Carolina; State Project No. 6.269001T;
T.I.P. No. U-2107" and offer the following comments.
The proposed corridors are through flood plains; therefore, any adverse
effects due to the proposed construction on the 100-year-frequency flood
event should be evaluated and discussed in the environmental assessment.
Local ordinance restrictions for the use of the flood plain and floodway
zones should be followed.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge
of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with this project, including 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. When final plans are completed, including
the extent and location of any work within waters of the United States and
wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to review
these plans for a project-specific determination of Department of the Army
permit requirements. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Jeff
Richter, Regulatory Branch, at [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be
of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
S cerely,
R EI VE
Lawrence W. launders EN 1 7 1990
Chief, P an Divisio
E GRElNER COMPANY
d „a SfATf o U)
T-A
1 ok
.rY Ou.. via r .Q ? .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA y?
9ANCi,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR September 4, 1990
THOMAS J. HARRELSON GEORGE E. WELLS, P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
FROM: Tamra Shaw, Statewide Planning ?_Vv
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment of the proposed US
17-NC 24 Bypass of Jacksonville, Onslow
County, North Carolina; State Project No.
6.269001T; T.I.P No. U-2107
This memorandum is in response to the request for
comments regarding the above referenced project. Upon
reviewing the Jacksonville Thoroughfare Plan and the
alternative corridors selected for analysis, the Alternate
Corridor II appears to most closely conform with the adopted
Thoroughfare Plan.
The configuration of the western termini point at US 258
and NC 53 will need to accommodate heavy traffic volumes.
There is much interchange of traffic between these routes and
turning movements are heavy. According to the map, the space
to accomplish this is rather limited so design considerations
will be critical.
The portion of Alternate-Corridor II crossing the
northern edge of Camp Geiger will involve taking of property.
Camp Geiger Officials have tenative plans to develop on these
parcels, but indicated a willingness to discuss the prospects
of relinquishing that property and developing elsewhere.
This issue needs to be clearly defined before the study
continues much further. In addition, the current proposal to
construct a one-half interchange at Camp Geiger needs to be
reconsidered to include the possibility of a full
interchange. There is much developable property to the east
of Camp Geiger that could benefit from improved access.
RECEIVED
S E P 11 )yyu
1• E GREINER COMPANY
The eastern termini point at US 17 North needs to be
carefully designed. There is currently a heavy amount of
traffic on US 17 North and the US 17 Bypass Interchange at
this point will produce an area of traffic congestion.
Adequate design considerations for this section need to
provide for this situation. The eastern termini point is
also located at an area of very intense commercial and office
development. This area along US 17 is developing rapidly and
there is currently extremely limited opportunities for siting
the interchange. The City of Jacksonville is under pressure
• from developers who want to utilize the small amount of
vacant land left in the area. Efforts should be made to
assist the City in protecting this area from development.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions
about my comments.

L
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission .
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Assessment Section
Department of EH&NR
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton
Assistant Director
DATE: August 31, 1990
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N.C. Department
of Transportation regarding fish and wildlife
concerns for the proposed US 17/NC 24 Bypass
of Jacksonville, Onslow County, North
Carolina.
This correspondence responds to a request from Mr. L.J.
Ward of the N.C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for
our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife
resources resulting from the proposed US 17/NC 24 bypass of
Jacksonville. The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) is
concerned over potential adverse impacts to wildlife.
fisheries, and wetland resources within and adjacent to the
construction corridor. We are especially concerned over
impacts on wetland resources in areas adjacent to New River
and its tributaries. These wetland areas are important to a
variety of avian and terrestrial species and provide
important travel corridors for wildlife.
Due to limited information in Mr. Ward's memorandum of
8-10-90, we can express our concerns and requests for
information only in general terms. Our ability to evaluate
project impacts and provide beneficial recommendations when
reviewing the project Environmental Assessment will be
enhanced by inclusion of the following information:
--1. Complete inventories for wildlife and fisheries
resources within, adjacent to, or utilizing the
study corridors. Potential borrow areas to be
used for project construction should be included
in the inventories.
Memo Page 2 August 31, 1990
2. Accurate data on State and Federally listed rare,
threatened, and endangered species, including
State and Federal species of special concern,
within, adjacent to, or utilizing study corridors.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted
by the project. Wetland acreages should include
all projected related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other
drainage, or filling for project construction.
4. The need for channelizing or relocating portions
of streams crossed and the extent of such
activities.
5. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland
wildlife habitat impacted by the proposed project.
Potential borrow sites should be included.
6. The extent of habitat fragmentation in uplands and
wetlands and impacts associated with
fragmentation.
7. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or
compensating for direct and indirect degradation
in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can be of
further assistance, please call on us.
cc: The Honorable R.G. Sowers, III
Bennett Wynne, District Fisheries Biologist
Bobby Maddrey, District Wildlife Biologist
i er/ 1e t n-Y-1
Isof United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ??
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 W„4 A TAW August 30, 1990
G
Q7
Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways 10 ON
N.C. Department of Transportation yam,=r'?'rv?,l'S
Post Office Box 25201 r
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 - RE5G
Subject: Scoping Comments for the proposed US 17 - NC 24 Bypass of
Jacksonville in Onslow County; TIP U-2107; State Project No.
6.269001T.
Dear Mr. Ward:
This responds to your letter of August 10, 1990, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential impacts of the proposed project upon stream ecosystems and
associated wetlands within the study corridor. Special care should be
exercised in the design and implementation of all stream crossing
structures, particulary with regard to any alignment which may parallel
Brinson Greek.
The attached pages identify the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) which may occur in the proposed project corridor. If the
proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30 years of
age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active
red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in appropriate habitat within a 1/2
mile radius of project boundaries. If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed
within the project area or active cavity trees found, the project has the
potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker and you should
contact this office for further information.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed projectRi rVL-1j dp Ud
S E P 11 1990
I E GREINER COMPANY
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) assessments of the expected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely yours, /
l
LL ?l
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
Attachments
r
O t SrA1Z
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
September 7, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO:. Melba McGee
FROM: John Sutherlan
SUBJECT: 91-0106, EA of Proposed US 17-NC 24
Bypass of Jacksonville
we have the following comments on the above project:
1. At stream and wetland crossings, utilize
bridges whenever possible to minimize
habitat losses and floodplain encroachment.
2. Minimize the loss of timber and prime
farmland.
John N. Morris
Director
3. Provide vegetation buffers when highway
passes close to residential areas.
4. Mitigate the loss of wetlands and forests.
5. Minimize the use of curb and gutter; maximize
the use of porous pavement and grass swales.
6. Involve local landowners in gathering data on
impacts; be flexible on location of alternatives -
adjust them to meet local concerns.
P.U. Box 27687. Raleigh, North Carolina 2761/7687 Telephone [phone]
:fin t..?n.il nnrvim mite ?fh.rm ?n ir :1..,.-, •. F....,I,,. •.•.
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
September S, 1990
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
THROUGH:. Carol Tingley C,1
FROM: Stephen Hall, Natural Heritage Program S "T
`l
SUBJECT: Scoping -- US 17 - NC 24 Bypass, Jacksonville, Onslow
County
REFERENCE: 91-0106
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for only
one listed species occurring within the project area. The
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) has been observed
in Scales Creek just downstream from NC 24 and also in the New
River. This species is listed as threatened both by the state and
federal government and would be affected by this project both by
direct loss of wetland habitat and by the increased amount of
disturbance this road would create.
One other significant species that is known to occur within four
miles of the project is the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), which is listed as endangered, both federally and by
the state. If there is still a large tract of upland forest
existing between the New River and NC 24 (as indicated by the USGS
Topo), then there is a significant chance that this species could
be nesting there. As far as we know, this tract has not been
surveyed for the woodpeckers and this should be done before the
project can be evaluated any further.
3171
... sure o
e
>i
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Forest Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor Griffiths Forestry Center Harry F. Layman
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary 2411 Garner Road Director
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
August 22, 1990
MAWnnAMT17TM
.;;'TO: Melba McGee
Environmental "gessment' Unit
FROM: Don H. Robbins ,L?
Staff Forester C7 ?
SUBJECT: EA Scoping of the Proposed US 17 - NC 24 Bypass South of
Jacksonville in Onslow County
PROJECT #91-0106
DUE DATE 9-7-90

To better determine the impact, if any, to forestry in the area of the
proposed project, the Environmental Assessment should contain the following
information concerning the proposed alternative routes for the possible
right-of-way purchases for the project:
1. The number of total woodland acres that would be taken out of timber
production as a result of new right-of-way purchases.
2.. The acres breakdown of this woodland concerning present conditions
such as clear-cut areas, young growing timber, and fully stocked
stands of very productive timber within the new right-of-way
purchases for disturbed and undisturbed portions.
3. The site indexes of the forest soils that would be involved within
the proposed right-of-way, so as to be able to determine the
_productivity of these forest soils in the area.
4. The number of woodland acres that would affect any watersheds in the
area, if the woodland was removed.
? n
M;
uo ;
r o
I'( ). 11, x 27(ti ?Li?c t•?i ' ,,.0, (,in J, '-,!11 1..Icpl "1,- -: "I(.?
Melba McGee
PROJECT x{91-0106
Pag e 2
5. If woodland is involved, it is hoped that the timber could be
merchandised and sold to lessen the need for piling and burning of
debris .during right-of-way construction.
' Provisions should be indicated in the EA that the contractor will
make all efforts to salvage any merchantable timber to permit
construction, once the contractor takes charge of the right-of-way.
6. The provisions that the contractor will take during the. construction
phase to prevent erosion, sedimentation and construction damage to
the remaining standing trees outside of the right-of-way boundary
and construction limits.
We would hope that a route could be chosen, that would have the least
impact to forest and related resources in that area.
DHR:1a
pc: Warren Boyette - CO
Fred White - CO
David Foster - DEM
Donald Edwards - Onslow County
File
a SfATF o
North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
James G. Martin, Governor Division of Emergency Management
Joseph W. Dean, Secretary 116 W. Jones St., Raleigh, N. C. 27603-1335
(919) 73 3-3 867
I
August 17, 1990
MEMORANDUM
To: N.C. State Clearinghouse, Department of Administration
From: J. Russell Cap,?` ,?Division of Emergency Management,
NFIP Section !!?""-
Subject: Intergovernmental Review
-----------------------------------------------------------
Re: State # N.C. 91-E-4220-0106
N.C. DOT - Proposed US 17 - NC 24 Bypass of
Jacksonville
For information purposes, the Commission is advised that
on July 24, 1990, Governor Martin signed Executive Order- 123,
a Uniform Floodplain Management Policy, which must be
followed for development on any site.

\l...
. ~!?
? ti .... ..??,?.T ?.
.
?? ??
r ??YC? ?
,
\
f?
r??' r•.? t ?
?.• -
r
?
r? c_
strnrr a t
r:an til?? ti i:?LL1l'L .?i.r c Sv... !'CY1C ha??

Eaieiah Fieid Of-lice
?'` ?..•p`??"?' r
..« Post Vlllce Dox 333726

3726
27636 --
?ZZUT E=
,.,. -
Raleigh, North Carolina
rlarch 15, 1990 1....?
Ms.
Nancy A. Makofita rv--
Environmental Scientist `
Louis Berger and Associates, inc.
1(i
200 New Bern Avenue
;"S? 1c, i ? •'
A
Raleigh,-North Carolina 27601 1 ' an
Dear Ms. Makofka:
Subject: Scoping Comments for the proposed Jacksonville
bypass in Onslow County; TIP U-2107.
This responds to your letter of March 6, 1990, requesting comments on the
proposed project. These comments are provided in accordance ?.•ith provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1631-1543),
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is particularly concerned about
potential' impacts of the proposed project upon stream ecosystems and
associated wetlands within the study corridor. Special care should be
exercised in the design and implementation of all stream crossing
structures. The Service is concerned that the alignments under
consideration parallel Brinson Creek for almost its entire length. Shifting
the alignments either north or south as far as possible within the study
corridor would move the highcay a;;,-ay from the stream and reduce wetland
and/or riparian corridor impacts. The Service strongly encourages the NCDOT
to consider also the improvement of existing alignments rather than
construction of a new facility.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered (E) and/or
threatened (T) and/or species proposed for listing as endangered (PE) or
threatened (PT) which may occur in the proposed project corridor. If the
proposed project will be removing pines greater than or equal to 30 rears of
age in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, su-veys should be conducted for active
red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees in appropriate habitat within a 1/2
mile radius of project boundaries. If red-coclmded woodpeckers are observed
within the project area or active cavity trees found, the project has the
potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker and you should
contact this office for further information.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly
facilitated if it contained the following information:
1) A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing
and required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow
areas, which may be affected direCt,?; cr indirectly by t._.-, n_oi_c.,_.
improvements.
2) Acreage of branches, creeks, streams, rivers or wetlands to be
filled. Wetlands affected by the proposed project should be mapped
in accordance with the Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3) Linear feet of any water courses relocated.
4) Acreage of upland habitats, by cover type, which would be
eliminated.
5) Techniques which will be employed for designing and constructing
any relocated stream channels or for creating replacement wetlands.
6) Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate,
reduce or compensate for habitat value losses associated with any
of the proposed improvements.
7) Assessments of the e%.-pected secondary and cumulative impacts of the
proposed project on fish and wildlife resources.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments to you and encourage
your consideration of them. Please continue to advise us of the progress of
this project.
Sincerely yours,
R. Wilson y
Acting Field Supervisor
Attachment
REVISED APRIL 5, 1990
Onslow County
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) - E*
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Green sea turtle (Chelonia g!d ) - T
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E
Cooley's meadowrue (Thalictrum cooled) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially- proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are uzrider status review by the -Se_•vice.
"Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the act, and
are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they-
are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are
providing the below list of status review species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might, do
for them.
Pine barrens treefrog (Hyla andersonii) - SR
Sea-beach pig weed (Amaranthus pumilus) - SR
Riverbank sand grass (Calamovilfa brevipilis) - SR
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (Parnassia caroliniana) - SR
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna) - SR
Wireleaf dropseed (Sporobolus teretifolius) - SR
Boykins lobelia (Lobelia boyk-inii) - SR
Ai,ned meadoi.--beauty (Rhe%ia aristosa) - SR
*Considered extirpated in \orth Carolina.

REVISED SEPTEMBM. 11, 1989
onslow County
Eastern cougar (Felis concolor cougar) - E*-
g _cockaded woodpecker (Picoides bor__ e?iG) - E
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mrdas) - T
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lcsima^hia annerulaefolia) - E
Cooley 's meadorzve (Thalictrum cooleyi) - E
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the
Service. "Status Review" (SR) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of status review speciieess which t may o ion.
within the project area for the purpose of giving you vance
will be
These species may be listed in the future, at which time they
protected under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you
might do for them.
Pine barrens treefrog (Hrla andersoni) - SR
Sea-beach pigweed (Amaranthus EU ilus) - SR
Riverbanl: sand grass (Calamovilfa brevivilis) - SR. SR
Carolina grass-of-parnassus (parnassia caroliniana) _
Spring-flowering goldenrod (Solidago verna) - SR
Wireleaf dropseed (Snorobolus teretifooollius) - SR
Boykin lobelia (Lobelia boN-kinii) - SR
Awned meadow-beauty (Ene%ia aristosa) - SR
J?
Q
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
March 219 1990
Nancy Makofka
Louis Berger and Assoc.
200 New Bern Ave.
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Ms. Makofka:
This letter is a response to your request for information on wildlife
species of concern in the area of the proposed Jacksonville bypass, an
NCDOT project. Following is a list of possible species which could be
present in the project area.
SPECIES FEDERAL STATUS STATE STATUS
Carolina Gopher Frog
American Alligator
Black Vulture
Bald Eagle
Cooper's Hawk
Brown Pelican
Glossy This
Long-bi-lled Curlew
Saw-whet Owl
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Loggerhead Shrike
Bachman's Sparrow
Shortnose Sturgeon
Star-nosed mole
Raf inesque' s Bat
Brazilian Free-tailed Bat
Category 2 Special Concern
Threatened by Similarity Threatened
of Appearance
-- Special Concern
Endangered Endangered
-- Special Concern
-- -Special Concern
-- Special Concern
-- Special Concern
-- Special Concern
Endangered Endangered
Category 2 Special Concern
Category 2 Special Concern
Endangered Endangered
-- Special Concern
-- Special Concern
-- Special Concern
This list not intended to be all-inclusive and may omit some species
which are transients or infrequent visitors to the area. Intensive
surveys would be required to determine the actual presence of the
above and other species of concern.
Thomas M. enson
Coastal Endangered Wildlife
Project Leader

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural R
Division of Parks and Recreation
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
May 21, 1990
?Sark Pistrang
Louis Berger and Associates, Inc.
200 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
Dear Mr. Pistrang:
Dr. William W. Davis
Director
Enclosed is a list of rare species for which the Natural Heritage
Program has records on the Jacksonville North and South quads.
All of them are potentially present in the road corridor indi-
cated. Venus flytraps, along with a number of other rare savanna
herbs, can occur on mowed road rights-of-way, so lack of mature
forest should not be taken an indication of lack of potential for
rare species in this part of the state. A general rare species
and natural area survey of Camp Lejeune is currently getting
started. This survey is likely to provide extensive new informa-
tion on rare species in this little-known area. The survey will
not be completed for another year, so it will probably be too
late for your study, but you should be aware of it.
Sincerely, -

Michael P. Schafale
Natural Heritage Program
t_?
RALF- GH, N.C.
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
22 MAY 1990
N. C. NATURPL HEIR 1 -DOGE: IZIR GR(-)ht HND F-'LAN's
ULiiVSEriV?a l ' f uN 1
t -kUGHfHiyl
r LEi*,ir P • 1 1
L i S i
Scientific and Common Name ............... ....... SF,RUT . USES," SR"NK : GPAWK :
ALLIGAI-Ohl Mf*"3f`Sjj-'PI[:NS!" l i G-
AME R 1 CAN ALLIGATOR
GICOIDES BOREALIS E: LE
RED-COCI-Q40ED WOODPECKER
D I ONAEA MUSC 1 F'ULA SR :3c S G:i
VENUS F'LY f RAh'

t--Z.
EXPLANATION OF SPECIES STATUS CODES
The attached output from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
database is a listing of the elements (rare species, geologic
features, natural communities, special animal habitats) known to
occur in your geographic area of interest. Following is an
explanation of the four columns of status codes on the righthand
side of the printout.
STATE STATUS
Plants:
From Sutter, R.D., L. Mansberg, and J.H. Moore. 1983.
Endangered, threatened, and rare plant species of North Carolina: a
revised list. ASB Bulletin 30:153-163, and updated lists of the Natural
Heritage and Plant Conservation Programs.
E = Endangered - C'::- C_ u^.W .
T = Threatened SR = Significantly Rare
SC = Special Concern
E,T,and SC species are protected by state law (the Plant Protection and
Conservation Act, 1979); the other two categories indicate rarity and
the need for population monitoring, as determined by the Plant Conserva-
tion and Natural Heritage Programs.
Animals:
From Cooper, J.E., S.S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (Eds.).
1977. Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina.
N.C. Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, NC. 444 pages + i-xvi, and
updated lists of the Natural Heritage Program. a ^?
E = Endangered SC = Special Concern
T = Threatened UNK= Undetermined
SR = Significantly Rare EX = Extirpated
undue 41-q- IN 4'J Cndi?_7
FEDERAL STATUS _ and Th?il?ne/ W-101,k Acr
From Endangered & Threatened Wildlife and Plants, April 10, s-t.r.
1987. 50 CFR 17.11 & 17.12. Department of Interior. Established
by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
E = Taxa currently listed as Endangered
T = Taxa currently listed as Threatened
PE = Taxa currently proposed for listing as Endangered
PT = Taxa currently proposed for listing as Threatened
Taxa under review for possible listing ("candidate species"):
Cl = Taxa with sufficient information to support listing
C2 = Taxa without sufficient information to support listing

GLOBAL RANK (STATE RANK)

i
The Nature Conservancy's system of measuring rarity and
threat status. "Global" refers to worldwide, "State" to
statewide.
G1 = Critically imperiled globally because of extreme rarity
or otherwise very vulnerable to exinction throughout
its range.
G2 = Imperiled globally because of rarity or otherwise
vulnerable to extinction throughout its range.
G3 = Either very rare and local throughout its range, or
found locally in a restricted area.
G4 = Apparently secure globally, though it may be quite rare
in parts of its range (especially at the periphery).
GS = Demonstrably secure- globally, though it may be quite
rare in parts of its range (especially at the periphery).
GU = Possibly in peril but status uncertain; need more
information.
GX = Believed to be extinct throughout range.
Q = a suffix attached to the Global Rank indicating questionable
taxonomic status.
T_ = an additional status for the subspecies or variety; the
G rank then refers only to the species as a whole.
State rank codes follow the same definitions, except substitute
the words, "in the state," for "globally" or "throughout its
range."
?r?
APPENDIX C
Species Lists of Fauna and Flora
PLANT SPECIES
Forbs
Common Name Scientific Name
Arrow arum Peltandra virginica
Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia
Big cordgrass Spartina cynosuroides
Blackberry Rubus sp.
Blue flag Iris virginica
Bracken fern Pteridium aquilinum
Broomstraw Andropoaon virainiana
Buttercup Ranunculus M.
Carolina cranesbill Geranium cf. carolinianium
Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides
Cinnamon fern Osmunda cinnamomea
Cinquefoil Potentilla canadensis
Coastal dog-hobble Leucothoe axillaris
Common cattail Typha latifolia
Common greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
Devil's walking stick Xanthokylum clava herculis
Dwarf Iris Iris verna
False nettle Boehmeria cylindrica
Giant cane grass Arundinaria gigantea
Groundsel tree Baccharis halimifolia
Inkberry Ilex glabra
Jack-in-the-pulpit Arisaema triphyllum
Lizard's tail Saururus cernuus
Narrow-leaved-cattail Typha anqustifolia
Netted chain fern Woodwardia areolata
Orange milkwort Polygala lutea
Panic grass Panic um ST)_
Pennywort Hydrocotyle sp.
Pickerelweed Pontedaria cordata
Royal fern Osmunda regalis
Seedbox Ludwigia alternifolia
Sedge Carex sp.
Serviceberry Amelanchier cf. canadensis
Smartweed Poly onum sp.
Soft rush Juncus effusus
Sphagnum Sphagnum sue
.
Spike rush ,
Eleocharis sp.
Sundew Drosera sp.
Tall goldenrod Solidauo cf. altissima
Virgin's bower Clematis qR.
Wild ginger Hexastylis sqR.
Wool grass sedge Scirpus cyperinus
Yellow jessamine Gelsemium sempervirens
Shrubs/Vines
Common Name Scientific Name
American holly Ilex opaca
Blackberry Rubus sue,.
Coral honeysuckle Lonicera sempervirens
Dwarf Azalea Rhododendron atlanticum
Fetterbush Lyonia lucida
Grape Vitis sp.
Highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica
Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia
Sumac Rhus sp.
Swamp hibiscus Hibiscus moscheutos
Sweet pepperbush Clethra alnifolia
Virginia creeper Parthenocissus auinauefolia
Trees
Common Name Scientific Name
Alder Alnus sp.
American elm Ulmus americana
American sycamore Platanus occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar Chamaecyparis thyoides
Bald cypress Taxodium distichum
Black gum N ssa sylvatica
Black willow Salix nigra
Cherry Prunus sp.
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida
Green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Groundsel tree Baccharis halimifolia
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Longleaf pine Pinus palustris
Pond pine Pinus serotina
Red cedar Juniperus virginiana*
Red maple Acer rubrum
Sassafras Sassafras albidum
Southern red oak 4uercus falcata
Swamp chestnut oak 4uercas michauxii
Sweet bay magnolia Magnolia virginiana
Sweet gum Liquidambar styraciflua
Tulip poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Water oak 4uercus nigra
Wax myrtle Myrica cerifera
White oak 4uercus alba
Sources: Niering, 1989
Louis Berger & Associates, 1990
Radford et al. 1968
Schafale and Weakley, 1990
FAUNAL SPECIES
Bird species
Common Name Scientific Name
American black duck Anas rubripes
American coot Fulica americana
American crow* Corvus brachyrhynchos
American robin* Turdus migratorius
Barred owl Strix varia
Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon
Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nvcticorax
Blue jay* Cyanocitta cristata
Blue-winged teal Anas discors
Canada goose Branta canadensis
Catbird Dumetella carolinensis
Common flicker* Colaptes auratus
Common moorhen Gallinula chloropus
Common snipe Gallinaao gallinago
Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas
Double-crested cormorant* Phalacrocorax auritus
Downy woodpecker* Picoides pubescens
European starling* Sturnus vulgaris
Great blue heron Ardea herodias
Great egret Casmerodius albus
House sparrow* Passer domesticus
King rail Rallus elegans
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis
Lesser scaup Aythya affinis
Little-blue heron Egretta caerulea
Mallard duck Anas platyrhynchos
Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris
Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos
Northern cardinal* Cardinalis cardinalis
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus
Northern rough-winged swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis
Northern shoveler Anas clypeata
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps
Pileated woodpecker* Dryocopus pileatus
Prothonotary warbler* Protonotaria citrea
Red-bellied woodpecker* Centurus carolinus
Redhead duck Aythya americana
Red-headed woodpecker* Melanerpes erythrocephalus
Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus
Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus
Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis
Snowy egret Egretta thula
Swamp sparrow Melospiza georaiana
Virginia rail Rallus limicola
Wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo
Wood duck
Yellow-crowned night-heron
Mammals
Common Name
Beaver
Black bear
Common skunk
Cotton mouse
Cottontail rabbit
Golden mouse
Gray fox*
Gray squirrel*
House mouse
Marsh rabbit
Marsh rice rat
Meadow vole
Mink
Muskrat
Opossum*
Raccoon*
White-tailed deer*
Reptiles
Common Name
American alligator*
Black swamp snake
Brown snake
Brown water snake
Cottonmouth snake
Eastern box turtle*
Eastern ribbon snake
Glossy crayfish snake
Mud snake
Mud turtle
Musk turtle (stinkpot)
Painted turtle
Pine woods snake
Redbelly snake
Rough green snake*
Slider turtle
Snapping turtle*
Southern water snake
Spotted turtle
Striped water snake*
Timber rattlesnake
Aix sponsa
Nvcticorax violaceus
Scientific Name
Castor canadensis
Ursus americanus
Mephitis mephitis
Peromyscus gossypinus
Sylvilagus floridanus
Ochrotomys nuttalli
Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Sciurus carolinensis
Mus musculus
Sylvilagus palustris
Oryzomys palustris
Microtus pennsylvanicus
Mustela vison
Ondatra zibethicus
Didelphis marsupialis
Procyon lotor
Odocoileus virginianus
Scientific Name
Alligator mississippiensis
Seminatrix pygaea
Storeria dekayi
Nerodia taxispilota
Agkistrodon piscivorus
Terrapene carolina
Thamnophis sauritus
Regina rigida
Farancia abacura
Kinosternon subrubrum
Sternotherus odoratus
Chrysemys Dicta
Rhadinaea flavilata
Storeria occipitomaculata
Opheodrys aestivus
Pseudemys scripta
Chelydra serpentina
Nerodia fasciata
Clemmys guttata
Nerodia sp.
Crotalus horridus
??mhhibians
Common Name Scientific Name
Brimley's chorus frog Pseudacris brimleyi
Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana
Dwarf salamander Eurycea guadridigitata
Eastern newt Notophthalmus viridescens
Greater siren Siren lacertina
Green frog Rana clamitans
Lesser siren Siren intermedia
Many-lined salamander Stereochilus marginatus
Mud salamander Pseudotriton montanus
Northern cricket frog Acris crepitans
Pickerel frog Rana palustris
River frog Rana heckscheri
Southern cricket frog Acris gryllus
Spotted salamander Ambystoma maculatum
Spring peeper Hyla crucifer
Two-lined salamander Eurycea bislineata
Two-toed amphiuma Amphiuma means
Fish
Common Name Scientific Name
American eel Anguilla rostrata
American shad Alosa sapidissima
Atlantic needlehead Strongylura marina
Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus
Banded pygmy sunfish Elassoma zonatum
Banded sunfish Enneacanthus obesus
Bay anchovy Anchoa mitchilli
Black. crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Bluespotted sunfish Enneacanthus gloriosus
Bowfin Amia calva
Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus
Carp Cyprinus carpio
Chain pickerel Esox niger
Coastal shiner Notropis petersoni
Comely shiner Notropis amoenus
Common carp Cyprinus carpio
Creek chubsucker Erimvzon oblongus
Dollar sunfish Lepomis marginatus
Dusky shiner Notropis cummingsae
Eastern mudminnow Umbra pygmaea
Flier Centrarchus macropterus
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas
Grass carp
Ironcolor shiner
Largemouth bass
Lined top-minnow
Longnose gar
Margined madtom
Mosquitofish
Mud sunfish
Mummichog
Pirate perch
Pumpkinseed
Red breast sunfish
Redfin peckerel*
Sawcheek darter
Sheepshead minnow
Shortnose sturgeon
Spotted sucker
Starhead topminnow
Striped bass
Striped mullet
Swamp darter
Swampfish
Tadpole madtom
Taillight shiner
Tidewater silverside
Warmouth
White catfish
White mullet
White perch
Yellow bullhead catfish
Yellow perch
Molluscs
Common Name
Clam
Freshwater clam
Mussel
Oyster*
Plain jingle shell*
Ctenopharyngodon idella
Notropis chalvbaeus
Micropterus salmoides
Fundulus lineolatus
Lepisosteus osseus
Noturus insignis
Gambusia affinis
Acantharchus pomotis
Fundulus heteroclitus
Aphredoderus sayanus
Lepomis gibbosus
Lepomis auritus
Esox americanus
Etheostoma serriferum
Cvprinodon variegatus
Acipenser brevirostrum
Minytrema melanops
Fundulus notti
Roccus saxatilis
Mugil cephalus
Etheostoma fusiforme
Chologaster cornuta
Noturus gyrinus
Notropis maculatus
Menidia beryllina
Lepomis gulosus
Ictalurus catus
Mugil curema
Roccus americana
Ictalurus natalis
Perca flavescens
Scientific Name
Mercenaria mercenaria
Sphaerium striantinum
Mytilus edulis
Ostrea virginica
Anomia simplex
Ik
Crustaceans
Common Name Scientific Name
Blue crab* Callinectes sapidus
Crayfish* Cambarus bartoni
* denotes observed during Louis Berger field investigations
t
Sources: Department of Navy, 1989
Niering, 1988
Robbins, et al. 1966
Louis Berger and Associates, Inc. March 1990
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, 1990
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, 1985
Webster, et al. 1985
Potter et al. 1980
Audubon Society, 1988
Martof et al. 1980
0
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A
Division of Environmental Management'
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor V IM
Jonathan 6. Howes, Secretary ?-7
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
June 30, 1994
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee L
Through: John Dorn'
Monica Swih rt
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: EA for Jacksonville Bypass 9-US 17 from US 258 -NC 24 West to US 17N
Qnslow County
State Project DOT No. 6.269001T, TIP #U-2107 & U-21-07A
EHNR # 94-0875
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the -issuance of the Section 401 Wafter
Quality Certification for activities which impact of waters -of the state including
wetlands. The subject project may impact 24 acres of waters including wetlands.
DOT should develop a mitigation plan for the wetland impacts. The mitigation plan
should be submitted to DEM for review and comment.
The bypass as proposed would have a 60-foot median. What would be the wetland
impacts if the median was reduced to 46 feet?
Most of the streams within the project vicinity have a high quality water (HQW)
classification. There are 5 culverts/pipes that are longer than 235 feet. DEM is
concerned about the potential impacts to these streams. Are there alternatives that
would minimize these impacts? These concerns should be discussed with Eric ?.
Galamb before a permit application is made.
Hazardous spill catch basins should be constructed for this project to protect the HQW
designation. No deck runoff should be directed into waterbodies. Sandy Run Branch
(class SC NSW) will be impacted {page 16) but it is not listed with a stream
classification on page 48.
Endorsement of the EA by DEM does not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification
upon application if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practicable. DOT is reminded that the 401 Certification could be
denied unless water quality concerns are satisfied. Questions regarding the 401
Certification should be. directed to Eric Galamb (733-1786) in DEM's Water Quality
Planning Branch.
usl 7jack.ea
P.O. Box 29536,11aleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
I
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO /
ATTENTION OF
February 13, 1995
Regulatory Branch
ACTION ID. 199402926
Mr. Frank Vick, Manager \
Planning and Environmental Branch
State of North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This concerns the North Carolina Department of Transportation's (NCDOT)
proposed construction of the Jacksonville Bypass, US Highway 17 from US 258-NC
Highway 24 West to US 17 North in Onslow County, North Carolina (State Project
6.269001T; T.I.P. No. U-2107,and U-2107A).
In a telephone conversation with Mr. Ernest Jahnke of my staff sometime
in October 1994, you inquired as to the status of the Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune's (MCBCL) "Greater Sandy Run Area (GSRA) Mitigation Bank Plan." You
stated that the MCBCL and NCDOT had agreed to using the GSRA bank-to mitigate
for unavoidable wetland impacts during the construction of the Jacksonville
Bypass and the upgrading of US 17 from Jacksonville to Holly Ridge.
Mr. Jahnke advised you that the MCBCL estimates that their mitigation plan
will not be submitted for our approval until May, 1996. On,this basis,
Mr. Jahnke suggested tha you may wish investigate other potential mitigation
sites if NCDOT planned to commence construction work prior to May, 1996.
During the January 19, 1995, planning update presentation for this
project given in NCDOT-Corp of Engineers monthly permit coordination meeting
you again stated that NCDOT plans to-use the GSRA MCBCL mitigation bank to
compensate for wetland losses for this project. Be advised that a Department
of the Army permit for this project will not be issued until we have received
and approved the MCBCL GSRA mitigation banking plan. NCDOT should also submit
written approval from the MCBCL to withdraw mitigation credits for this
project from the bank.
If the GSRA mitigation bank plan approval timetable does not satisfy
NCDOT's contract letting and construction timetable for this project, we
suggest you consider formulating a separate mitigation plan proposal.
If you have questions please call Mr. Jahnke at telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosures
Printed on ® Recycled Paper
a
-2-
Copies Furnished:
Commander, US Marine Corps
Marine Corps Base
Environmental Management Department
ATTN: Mr. R.L. Warren
Camp Lejeune, NC 28452-5001
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina
John Dorney
ater Quality Section
Division of Environmental
North Carolina Department
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina
of
27611-7687
Management
of
27611-7687
Ms. L. K. (Mike) Gantt
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. Lee Pelej
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region IV
Wetlands Regulatory Unit
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Regional Director
National Marine Fisheries Services,
NOAA
Duval Building
9450 Koger Boulevard
Saint Petersburg, Florida 33702
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564
Mr. C. Robert Stroud
NC Division of Coastal Management
127 Cardinal Drive
Wilmington, NC 28403
P``NCWtC,HCP,FALLS LAKE
'li ,Ur toy-

TEL:[phone] Sep 08'95 1222 No.003 P.01
® Noah Carolina Wildlife Rmources Commission 0
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina Z7604-1188,919-733-3391
Charlm R. Fulluvood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Franklin T. McBride, Manager VA4,u-4
Habitat Conservation Program/fl T
DATE: September 9, 1995
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Finding of No
Significant Impact (F ONSI) for the US 17 Jacksonville Bypass, from
US 258INC 24 west to US 17 north, Onslow County, North Carolina, TIP
No. U-2107 and U-2107A, SCH Project No. 96-0153.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the subject FONSI and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The
putposc 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).
The proposed project involves constructing a multi-lane freeway on new location
from US 258/NC 24 west of the NC 53 intersection to US 17 (Marine Boulevard)
approximately 3500 feet south of Western Boulevard northeast of Jacksonville. The new
roadway will be a four-lane, median divided facility. Project length is approximately 7.3
miles. Approximately 33.5 acres of waters and wetlands will be impacted by
construction of the roadway.
We feel that many of our concerns regarding the Environmental Assessment (EA)
have been adequately addressed in the FONSI. However, we remain concerned about the
impact this project will have on wetlands and on wildlife movements in the Cheat Sandy
Run area.
NCDOT chose alternative A as the preferred build alternative due to less wetland
impacts and a lower construction cost. The wetland impacts included in the EA for
corridors A and B were 24 and 28 acres respectively. However, wetland impacts
included In ft FONSI for the preferred alternative, presumably alternative A, total 33.5
auras. NCDOT should explain this 38 % inorease in wetland impacts.
NCVC,HCP,FALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Sep 08'95 12:22 No.003 P.02
Memo 2 September 8, 1995
NCDOT has proposed that wetland mitigation be, debited from the U.S. Marine
Ccnps Ureat Sandy Run pocosin Mitig;hO
n Hanle. This will likely be acceptable for
nutigation of pncosin wetland impactswever,
far any emgt mh or bottdmland dwood River wathd may ot be acceblThe information provided on the collector/distributor system to be installed in
wetland areas to maintain sheet flow should be discussed further. It is unclear how these
ditches will allow sheet flow. Detailed topographic maps showing this system should be
provided.
Since bridscs will be provided for tank crossings, the opportunity exists to site the
bridges in areas of heavy wildlife movement and to funnel wildlife through those bridge
openings in an effort to reduce wildlife mortality and improve safety for motorists.
Due to the number of unresolved issues surrounding this project, we do not
concur with this FONSI. These issues should be father documented and resubmitted to
the state clearinghouse for distribution to the review agencies.
bank you for the opportunity to comment on this FONSI. if we can be of further
assistance please call David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: Howard Hall U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor
Jonathan B, Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., RE., Director
August 16, 199
Mr. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC DOT
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
XPIWA
OW
E3 EHNR
rkF Cr?ar
Subject: 401 Water Quality Certification
Jacksonville Bypass
Onslow County
DEM # 95859, TIP # U-2107, State Project No. 6.269001T
On 14 August 1995 you wrote to the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification for your project to fill wetlands for constructing a multi-
lane bypass at Jacksonville in Onslow County. We believe that this project is currently under review
by the State Clearinghouse. DEM cannot issue the 401 Certification until the project has received a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or Record of Decision (ROD) from the State Clearinghouse
in accordance with NCAC 15A: 01C .0402. Therefore, I must hereby place this project on indefinite
hold until the State Clearinghouse has issued the FONSI or ROD.
DEM reviewed the EA and asked for coordination prior to a permit application. This
coordination is still necessary. However we will continue to review the project and make you aware
of any concerns. We recommend that you notify us once the NEPA/SEPA process is complete so we
can reactivate the project. In addition, by copy of this letter, I am also notifying the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers that this project should be placed on hold.
If you believe that this decision is in error, please call me at 919-733-1786 to discuss the
matter.
Sincerely,
W ter Quality Certification rogram
95859.nct
cc: Wilmington DEM Regional Office
Wilmington Corps of Engineers
Central Files
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

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne(AA
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: FONSI for Jacksonville
Onslow County
State Project DOT No.
EHNR # 96-0163
September 12, 1995
Bypass
ID FE F1
6.269001T, TIP # U-2107 and U-2107A
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The Division of
Environmental Management is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for activities which impact waters of the state including wetlands.
The subject project will impact 33.5 acres of waters and wetlands. The following
comments are based on the FONSI document:
A) DEM does not understand how the wetland impacts have increased from the
EA (24 acres) to what is shown in the FONSI (33.5 acres). The cause of the
increase is not explained in the FONSI. Usually design modifications decrease
wetland impacts.
B) Bottomland hardwood (BLH) wetlands will be impacted by the project. The
proposed Sandy Run Pocosin mitigation plan apparently does not have BLH
mitigation proposed. DEM will be requiring in-kind compensatory mitigation for
the impacts to the BLH wetlands. DEM should be consulted on the BLH
mitigation plan.
C) There is not enough explanation on the system of interconnecting collector-
distributor ditches. Plans and supporting text are needed to verify that ditches
will maintain sheet flow as stated on page 6?
D) Our June 30, 1994 memo on the EA requested that DOT investigate
alternatives that would minimize the impacts to the streams. DEM requested a
on-site meeting with Mr. Gordon Cashin to review this project for impacts to
wetlands and waters. DEM anticipates that all issues regarding wetlands and
waters will be resolved during or after this meeting.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 60% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

Melba McGee Memo
September 12, 1995
Page 2
Due to the limited information on waters avoidance alternatives, DEM cannot yet
concur with a finding of no significant impacts (FONSI). DOT is reminded that
endorsement of a FONSI by DEM would not preclude the denial of a 401 Certification
upon application if wetland and water impacts have not been avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable. Questions regarding the 401 Certification should
be directed to Eric Galamb in DEM's Environmental Sciences Branch at 733-1786.
cc: Gordon Cashin
Cindy Sharer, DOT
Central Files
usl 7jack.fon
FAXED
SEP 2 0 1995+
WJUL. •0-10' 98 (FR I) 14: 01 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
-?, State of North Carolina
Department of Environment.
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
JQ mes B. Hunt, Jr„ Govemoi
Jonathan B. Hawes, Secretarv
A. Preston Howard, Jr„ P.E.. Director
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Department of Transportation
Planning and. Environmental Branch
P.D. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick,
TEL,919 733 1495 P. 001
Re: Certifieation Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
Proposed Jacksonville Bypass
WQC Project #95859, COE #199402926
Qnslow County
Attached herew is a copy of Ccri t;atic?n Na. 3140 issued to N. C. Department of
T` ansportadon dated May 1, 1997.
if we can be of father assistance, do not hesitate m contact us,
Sincerely,
stun oward, Jr. P. .
Attachments
95859.wgc
cc: Wilmington District Co" of>;a&eers
W wingjon DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Mr. John Parker, Division of Coastal. Management ft lVz
Central Files
ml?y r? 5 ?99?
post-It' Fax Note
7671
a
phone A
COASrA4 4jq NA 04C
wr
ronmental Sciences Branch
tnviro, sciences Branch. 4401 Re@& Greek Rd.. Ralei4h. NO 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX #x'33-9956
JUL.-10'98(FRI) 11:01 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT TEL:[phone] P. 002
r ?

FORTH CAROLINA 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION
THIS CERTIFICATION is issued in conformity with the requirements of Section 401
Public Laws 92.500 and 95-217 of the United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) Regulations in 15 NCAC 2H, Section .0500 to N.C. Department of
Transportation resulting in 33.36 acres of permanent wetland impact and 2.33 acres of temporary
impacts(+unknown temporary wetland impact for A and D Sections) in Onslow County pursuant
to an application filed on the 1400 day of August of 1995, 27th day of March of 1996, 10th day of
February 1997 and 1st day of April 1997 to construct the Jacksonville Bypass (TIP No. U-2107).
The application provides adequate assurance that the discharge of fill material into the waters
of Brinson Creek, Scales Creek, Sand Run Creek, Edwards Creek StrawhoM Creek and New
River in conjunction with the proposed development will not result in a violation of a licable
Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines. Therefore, the State of North C$ vliaa cerafies
that this activity will not violate the applicable portions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307 of PL
92-500 and PL 95-217 if conducted in accordance with the application and conditions hereinafter
set forth.
. This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you submitted in your application,
as described in the Public Notice or as modified below, If you change your project, you must
notify us and you may be required to submit a revised application- If total wetland fills for this
project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow
the conditions listed below. la addition, you should get any other federal, state or local perralts
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion
control, Coastal Stortnwater, Non-discharge and Water Supply watershed regulations.
Condition(s) of Certification:
That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which equal or exceed those
outlined in the most recent version of the "North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual" or the "North Carolina Surface lvli ing Manual"
(available from the Division of Land Resources in the DFIM Regional or Central
Offices) are utilized to prevent exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard (50 NTUs) in all saltwater classes, and all lakes and reservoirs; and 10 NTUs
in trout waters);
2. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands or waters shall be
removed and the natural grade restored after the Division of Land Resources has
released the project;
3. If an environmental document is required, this Certification is not valid until a FONSI
or ROD is issued by the State Clearinghouse;
4. Measures shall be taken to prevent live or fresh concrcto from coming into contact with
waters of the state until the concrete has hardened;
5. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands, compensatory mitigation will be
required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities;
6, Compensatory mitigation shall be done in accordance with the Corps of Engineers
requirements. DWQ shall be copied on the approved ratio, location, size and method of
nuttgOllon (restoration, enhancement, creation and preservation) within 30 days after the
404 permit is issued and annual reports for the entire length of the monitoring period.
.e, JUL. -10' 98(FR1) 14:01 DEHNR COSTAL MGMT
TEL:[phone] P.003
A minimum of 1:1 restoration or creation is required in accord== with 15A NCAC
2H ,0506(h)(6).
7. TOOT shall strictly adhere to Design Standards in SensitiveWaters (13A NCAC 04B
.0024) for the main water bodies of Edwards Creek, Strawhorn Creek, Scales Creek
and the New River and their unnamed tributaries. `
8. DOT shaU apply for appropriate Certification modifications when the final design of
sections U-2107A and D are complete.
9. The culvert replacement at the mouth of Edwards Creek shall be with V 103" x 71
aluminum pipe - arch culverts.
10. D''WQ shall be furnished a copy of the report that the Duke University Wetland Center
writes to assess the impact of highway construction on wetlands; including the Fdwards
Creek wetlands in Jacksonville.
Violations of any condition herein set forth shall result in revocation of this Certification and
may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. This Certification shall become null and void unless
the above conditions are made conditions of the Federal 404 and/or coastal Area Management Act
Permit. This Certification shall expire upon expiration of the 404 or C.AMA permit.
If this Certification is unacceptable to you you have the right to an adaudicatory hearing upon
written request within sixty (60) days following receipt of this Certification. 't'his request must be
in the farm of a written petition conforming to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General
Statutes and filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C.
27611-7447, If modifications are made to an original Certification, you have the right to an
adjudicatory hetucing on the modifwadons upon written request within sixty (60) days following
receipt of the Certification. Unless such demands are made, this Certification shall be final and
binding.
This the 1st day of May, 1997
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
w Jr. F'
e on hIo
L
WQC #3140