US 33 (6)

DEPARTMENT & THE ARMY yy?pyy??j,jGF? n
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OFINGINEERS`?,
k\ Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
2 Q
Washington, North Carolina 27889-7000 ? IQ O
IN REPLY REFER TO
December 13, 2010,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Action ID: SAW-2010-02056
Dear Dr. Thorpe,
Reference your request for comments on the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Proposed
NC 33 Widening from US 64 Southeast of Tarboro, Edgecombe County to US 264 in Greenville,
Pitt County. (Federal Aid Project MAST-33(3) WBS No. 34539:L1; TIP No. R-3407)
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has reviewed the subject document and is providing
comments in accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and Section 404 of the Clean Water. Act (CWA). The USACE is responsible for the
issuance of any permits required under Section 404 (b)(1)of the Clean Water Act where impacts
to jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the United States may occur.
The project, proposed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), extends for approximately 17.6 to 17.9 miles on the
existing alignment of NC 33 between US 64 near Tarboro, Edgecombe County, and US 264 near
Greenville, Pitt County, and includes two proposed bypasses on new location around the
community of Belvoir Crossroads.
Review of the submitted document indicates that jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the US
will likely be impacted by the proposed widening of NC 33. As such, the USACE submits the
following comments for your review:
1. This project is planned and currently in the 404/NEPA Merger Process. The USACE is a
participant in the Process and will continue to work as a member of the team.
2. The Environmental Assessment (EA) identifies the potential impacts to the human and
natural environment and divides the project into 7 sections; the individual sections are
identified by the proposed activity in each. From North to South: Section 1 as `best fit
widening', Sections 2, 3 and 4 as `north widening', Section 5 as `best fit widening',
Section 6 as either a `north bypass' on new location or `south bypass' on new location
around Belvoir Crossroads, and Section 7 as `best fit widening'.

'3 °7Avoidance?and"minimization of potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters of
the US needs to be implemented to the greatest extent possible. The USACE requests
that Sections 3, 5, and 7 be reviewed for further avoidance and minimization as these
' Sections have large impacts in relation to the amount of road construction proposed.
4. The following impact summary tables presented in the EA do not accurately reflect the
proposed projects impacts:
Table 10: Physical Characteristics of Streams within the Study Area under the "average
channel width/depth" columns are mislabeled. Please identify either feet or inches in each
column.
Table I IH, Section 7, indicates impacts to UT13. UT 13 is not shown in the
corresponding Fig 2, Sheet 14 of 17 "Section 7". Please correct this information.
Tables 11F and I IG indicate impacts to Un-named Tributary (UT10) and Wetland AR,
(WAR), both at the northwest and southeast ends of Section 6 respectively. Review of the
maps associated with Section 6 (Figure 2, Sheets 13 and 14 of 17) indicate that the
northern and southern bypass corridors cross several un-named tributaries and impact
potential wetland areas.
No proposed impacts are presented in the summary tables for either the northern or
southern bypass routes in Section 6, other than the impacts proposed near the current
alignment of NC 33.
5. The EA document, in the paragraph labeled Section C "Safety" on page 6, has three
assertions that are in direct conflict with the data presented in Table 3: "Accident Rates".
Please review the data and statements for accuracy and submit revised information
supporting these assertions.
6. The EA document does not make any reference to impacts to Concentrated Animal
Farming Operations (CAFO); the northern bypass alternative in Section 6 clearly bisects
an operation of this type (Fig.2 Sheet 13 of 17). Please provide information on the status
of this facility and potential impacts associated with the northern bypass alternative.
7. The NC 33 corridor was delineated and reviewed for the presence of jurisdictional
wetlands and waters of the•US and was verified by William J. Biddlecome/USACE on
February 6, 2006. The verification is valid for five years from the date of signature and
will expire February 6, 2011. Due to the lack of information on potential jurisdictional
areas in the proposed north and south bypass corridors of Section 6; USACE will require
review and re-verification the jurisdictional determination for this project upon its
expiration.
Due to the inconsistencies and conflicting information in the EA, the USACE strongly
recommends that the Environmental Assessment document, Impact Summary Tables and Figures
be reviewed for accuracy and re-submitted to the appropriate agencies for comment.
The US Army Corps of Engineers appreciates the opportunity to review this document. If you
have any questions concerning these comments, please call Tom Steffens at 910-251-4615. The
Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help
us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://i)er2.nwp.usace.army.mil/survey.html <http://pert.nwl).usace.anny.mil/survey.html> to
complete the survey online.
Cc:
Chris. Militscher USEPA- Region 4
John Sullivan FHWA
Clarence Coleman FHWA
Rob Ridings NCDWQ
David Wainwright NCDWQ
Travis Wilson NCWRC
Gary Jordan USFWS