20110534 Ver 1_Application_20110531

r ' ~ ARCADIS
The Water Division of ARCADIS
'~ Transmittal Letter
i
To:
NCDWQ
Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
From:
Robert Lepsic
Subject:
Copies: ~ ~ p 5 ~ 4
File S
Date:
5/27/2011
ARCADIS Project No.:
NC611158.0000
We are sending you:
® Attached ^ Under Separate Cover Via the Following Items:
^ Shop Drawings ^ Plans ^ Specifications ^ Change Order
^ Prints ^ Samples ^ Copy of Letter ^ Reports
® other: pre-Construction Notification Form
Co ies Date Drawin No. Rev. Descri tion Action•
5 5/27/11 Pre-Construction Notification Forms AS
1 5/27/11 Check for $240.00 AS

Action•
^ A Approved
^ AN Approved As Noted
® AS As Requested
^ Other:
Mailing Method
^ U.S. Postal Service 1" Class
^ Certified/Registered Mail
^ Other:
^ CR Correct and Resubmit
^ F File
^ FA For Approval
^ Courier/Hand Delivery ^ FedEx Priority Overnight
^ United Parcel Service (UPS) ^ FedEx Standard Overnight
ARCADIS G8M of North Carolina, Inc.
801 Corporate Center Drive
Suite 300
Raleigh
Nonh Carolina 27607
Tel [phone]
Fax [phone]
ARCADIS G8M of North Carolina, Inc.
NC Engineering License # C-1669
NC Surveying License p C-7869
^ Resubmit_Copies
^ Return Copies
^ Review and Comment
^ FedEz 2-Day Delivery
^ FedEx Economy
comments: Send all questions to Robert
9'wrtmnhhn~a x~M1e-aNaa b kL IixNmrnll9 ~c dry3c
Page:
1/1
i

}~
r - ~,:
a:
~.~
.~ f
fil
o~oF wnTFgoG Office Use Only:
h ~ 1 ~ ® ~ _{ GL Corps action ID no.
S ~ g C.J i DWO project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification PC Form
A. A licant Information
1. Processing
1 a. Type(s) of approval sought from the

Corps:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Section 10 Permit
1b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NWP) number: NWP 6 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NWP or GP number been verifed by the Corps? ^Yes ®No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWO (check all that apply):
® 401 Water Quality Certification -Regular ^ Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
^ 401 Water Quality Certification -Express ^ Riparian Buffer Authorization
1e. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ^ No For the record only for Corps Permit:

®Yes ^ Na
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ^ yes ®No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ®Yes ^ No
1 h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ®Yes ^ No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: US 158 Widening from Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West of Winton
2b. County: Hertford
2c. Nearest municipality /town: Murfreesboro and Winton
2d. Subdivision name: N/A
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: project No. 35489.3.1 TIP No. R-2583 C ~ ~
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: See Attached 3 1 Z
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): 6 ~~
3d. Street address:
3e. City, state, zip:
3f. Telephone no.:
3g. Fax no.:
3h. Email address:

Page 1 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

..I ~~
11
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner) i - -
4a. Applicant is: ^ Agent ®'Otfier, specify: NCDOT
4b. Name: Gregory J. Thorpe
4c. Business name
(if applicable): NCDOT
4d. Street address: 1548 Mail Service Center
4e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
4f. Telephone no.: 919-733-3141
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Robert Lepsic
5b. Business name
(if applicable): ARCADIS G&M of NC, Inc.
5c. Street address: 801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27607
5e. Telephone no.: 919-854-9812
5f. Fax no.: 919-854-5448
5g. Email address: [e-mail]
_'~-.
~.,. -
..`ti.: .~„-
Page 2 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ^ Agent ®Other, specify: NCDOT
4b. Name: Gregory J. Thorpe
4c. Business name
(if applicable): NCDOT
4d. Street address: 1548 Mail Service Center
4e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
4f. Telephone no.: 919-733-3141
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. AgenUConsultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: Robert Lepsic
5b. Business name
(if applicable): ARCADIS G&M of NC, Inc.
5c. Street address: 801 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 300
5d. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27607
5e. Telephone no.: 919-854-9812
5f. Fax no.: 919-854-5448
f 5g. Email address: [e-mail]
Page ? of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1 a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID): See Attached
Latitude: See Attached Longitude: -See
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Attached
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDOD)
1 c. Property size: See Attached acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Tributary to Potecasi Creek, Potecasi Creek and Mills
proposed project: Branch
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: All receiving waters are Class C, Nutrient Sensitive
Waters
Chowan Basin USGS HUC 03010204, NCDWQ
2c. River basin: SubBasin 03-01-02
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
Forested wetlands adjacent to US Highway 158. Very little agricultural and rural residental uses present.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
Total acreage of wetlands impacted is 0.089 acre. All impacts are temporary and located in the footprint of the proposed
roadway.
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
Unknown
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to collect soil borings for the US 158 widening project.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
See Attached
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property / ®Yes ^ No ^ Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments:
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type ^ Preliminary ®Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company. HDR Engineering, Inc.,of
the Carolinas
Name (if known): John Jamison Other,
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
03/30!2006
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ^Yes ®No ^ Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
Page 3 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? ~ Yes ®No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 4 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
1 a. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ^ Streams -tributaries ^ Buffers
^ Open Waters ^ Pond Construction
Page ~ of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ -non-404, other) (acres)
Tem ora T
Placement of

W1 ^ P ®T construction mats Riverine Swamp ®Yes ®Corps
0
030
and collection of Forest ^ No ®DWQ .
soil borings
Placement of

W2 ^ P ®T construction mats Riverine Swamp ®Yes ®Corps
0
010
and collection of Forest ^ No ®DWQ .
soil borings
_
Placement of
W3 ^ P ®T construction mats Bottomland ®Yes ®Corps 0
032
and collection of Hardwood Forest ^ No ®DWQ .
soil borings
Placement of

W4 ^ P ®T construction mats Riverine Swamp ®Yes ®Corps
017
0
and collection of Forest ^ No ®DWQ .
soil borings
W5 ^ P ^ T ^Yes ^Corps
^ No ^DWQ
W6 ^ P ^ T ^Yes ^Corps
^ No ^DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.089
2h. Comments: All impacts will be temporary. They will result from the placement of construction mats and soil borings in
wetland areas. The mats are being used to reduce the impact of the wetlands and will be removed after the borings are
collected. All temporary impacts are within the future footprint of US 158.
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ -non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ^ P ^ T ^ PER ^Corps
^ INT ^DWQ

S2 ^ P ^ T
^ PER _
' ^Corps
^INT ^DWQ
S3 ^ P ^ T ^ PER ^Corps
^ INT ^DWQ
S4 ^ P ^ T ^ PER ^Corps
^ INT ^DWQ
S5 ^ P ^ T ^ PER ^Corps
_ ^INT ^DWQ
S6 ^ P ^ T ^ PER ^Corps
^INT ^DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts
3i Comments:
Page 6 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10. 2008 Version

4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individually list all open water impacts below. __
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number - (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Tem orar T
01 ^P^T
02 ^P^T
03 ^P^T
04 ^P^T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction rp oposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.
Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
Pond ID Proposed use or purpose (acres)
number of pond
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
Filled
Excavated
Flooded
P1
P2
Sf. Total
5g. Comments:
5h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
^ Yes ^ No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWQ)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an im acts re uire miti ation, then ou MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
^ Neuse ^Tar-Pamlico ^ Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ^ Catawba ^ Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number - Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Tem orar T im act required?
^Yes
61 ^P^T ^ No
^Yes
62 ^P^T ^ No
^Yes
63 ^P^T ^ No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page7of12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

D.
1. Impact Justification and Mitigation
Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Construction access was determine by the shortest distance throught the wetlands.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
A mid-sized, rubber tracked, low ground pressure equipment will be used. The equipment will track straight in and straight
out, with no turning. Construction mats will be used and removed once boringlsample collection is completed.
2.
2a. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for ^ Yes ®No
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State?
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ^ DWQ ^ Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ^ Mitigation bank

^ Payment to in-lieu fee program
^ Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank:
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ^ Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ^ warm ^ cool ^cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h.
5.
5a. Comments:
Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page R of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version

6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) -required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ^ Yes ®No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 9 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1a. Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ^ Yes ®No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1 b. If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.
^ Yes ^ No
Comments:
2. Stormwater Mana ement Plan
2a. What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? 0
2b. Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ^ Yes ®No
2c. If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why: The project will not result in the
construction of permanent structures or the creation of impervious surface. Stormwater flow will not be generated by the
collection of soil borings/samples.
2d. If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, narrative description of the plan:
^ Certified Local Government
2e. Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ^DWQ Stormwater Program
^ DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project?
^ Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ^ NSW
^ USMP
apply (check all that apply): ^ Water Supply Watershed
^ Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ^ Yes ^ No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Pro ram Review
^ Coastal counties
^ HQW
4a. Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ^ ORW
(check all that apply), ^ Session Law 2006-246
^ Other:
4b . Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ^ Yes ^ No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a . Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ^ Yes ^ No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ^ Yes ^ No
Page 10 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10. 2008 Version

F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
1 a. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ®Yes ^ No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1 b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ®Yes ^ No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) ®Yes ^ No
Comments: A NEPA FONSI was signed by FHWA and NCDOT on 06103/08. Copy
attached.
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWO Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surtace Water or Wetland Standards, ^Yes ®No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ^Yes ®No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ^Yes ®No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
Development of the surrounding area will not result from the collection of the soil samples as proposed in this application.
The collection of soil borings/samples will have a negligible effect on downstream water quality.
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from
the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
The collection of soil borings/samples will not generate wastewater.
Page 1 1 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1 3 December 10, 2008 Version

5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a. Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or ®Yes ^ No
habitat?
5b. Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ®Yes ^ No
impacts?
® Raleigh
5c. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
^ Asheville
5d. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
USFWS and NCNHP County species lists, NCNHP GIS database, and coordination with USFWS and NCWRC.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? I ^Yes ®No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
NCWRC GIS database. II
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ^Yes ®No
status (e.g ,National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What clata sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
NCDCR -Division of Archives and History
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in aFEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ®Yes ^ No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements' The borings will not result in permanent structures or fill within the
Floodway.
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination? NC Floodplain Mapping Information
i
~,,
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name
l~ ~ ~ ~~~,
_~ _ -
Apptica Agent's Signature
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided,)
'`~ ~ /! /
Date
Page 12 of 12
PCN Form -Version 1 3 December 10 2008 Version

A ~. Owner Information
The sites arc: currently owned by private individuals. As the project continues, these locations
will be purchased and owned by the NCDOT. Listed below are the current property owners.
Owner 1
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: ,lesse E. Vaughan
3b. Deed Book and Page No.: DB 381 PCJ 604
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if applicable): N/A
3d. Street Address: Cool Springs Road
3e. City, state, zip: Murfreesboro, NC' 27855
3f. Telephone no.: Unknown
3g. Fax no.: Unknown
3h. Email address: Unknown
Owner 2
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: Fenton Blount Ferguson, EST
3b. Deed Bonk and Page No.: DB 237 PG 4l 1
3c. Responsible Party (for LL,C if applicable): N/A
3d. Street Address: SR 1167 and Highway 158
3e. City, state, zip: Murfreesboro, NC 27855
3 f. Telephone no.: Unknown
3g. Fax no.: Unknown
3h. Email address: Unknown
Owner 3
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: John C. Jones
3b. Deed Book and Page No.: None found
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC. if applicable): N/A
3d. Street Address: Proposed B/S Highway 158
3e. City, state, zip: Murfreesboro, NC 278»
3f. Telephone no.: Unknown
3g. Fax no.: Unknown
3h. Email address: Unknown
O~~ner 4

3a.
3b.
3c.
~d.
3e.
3 f.
3 g.
3h.
Name(s) on Recorded Deed: ,lames Beverly
Deed Book and Page No.: DB 717 PG 648
Responsible Party (for LLC if~applicable): N/A
Street Address:
City, state, zip:
Telephone no.:
Fax no.:
Email address:
B. Project
Owner 1
Owner 2
Owner 3
()caner 4
231 tJS 158 West
Winton, NC 27986
Unknown
Unknown
unknown
Information and Prior Project
T'ax PIN Lat.
x977-85-2621 36.413087
5987-17-1561 36.416205
5987-92-2297 36.404522
5997-90-4487 36.418025
History
Long
77.o4xo77
77.03x360
76.991980
77.045245
Size (acre)
159.34
395.68
157.26
39.78
B3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
fhe rig crew will access the locations by going straight in and back out over the access routes
noted subsequently; no turning will. be attempted within the wetland areas. The crew will utilize
1/2" thick polyethylene portable matting (see exhibit 2). The ground protection mats to be
utilized are 4 i~ct by 8 feet and are rated for a capacity up to 60 tons. Some hand clearing of trees
and undergrowth ~~ith chainsaw or hush axes will be required in the identified areas. Trees will
be cut olf~ at the ground surface and left in place. A belief description of the access routes is
presented below.
• ~l~ributarv to Potecasi Creek Culvert Site -Access site from both sides (see attached
figures),
• ~~ etland Area between 173+00 to 175+00 project left -Access from the existing
roadway embankment from the south (see attached figures).
• Potecasi Creek Bride Access the bridge site Pram the cast (see attached figures).
• Mill Branch Culverts - Access culvert sites l:TOnl the exiting roadway
embankment (see attached figures).
"fhe borings will be drilled using hollow stem augers or rotary wash methods with a Diedrich D-
50 mounted on arubber-tracked carrier. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) will be perforn~ed at

selected intervals with a split spoon sampler to determine N-values and obtain representative soil
samples. Soil samples will be taken at 5-foot intervals. Standard Penetration Testing will be
performed in general accordance with AAStIT'O T203-82 and T206-87. The soil testing holes
will result in 4- to 6-inch diameter holes. These holes will remain uncovered for a maximum of
24 hours, at which time they will be backlilled up to the original ground surface. Spill control
and countermeasures will be implemented to deter waste products from entering the groundwater
atld waterway.
"hhe Diedrich D-~0 is considered amid-sized all purpose drill rig. Our D-50 is mounted on a
MST 600 Morooka rubber-tracked, low ground contact pressure, carrier. The rig is
approximately 6.5-feet wide and 15-feet in length.

I
AlturnaMnTS a~irlually elir~inat:; tlemage to la^.ms and landscapad areas
iinouahout °.he worid..fr~~!n Plorf_h Arneri rr. Asiri. f;~.~srra~ia. Enropt~
µven Artarclica, f h.~sa runGed mats are the popuhr r..h~.~~ce amorn;
prOt?ssiunals bcC<<use the~~~l are easy to use. lor;k tutu place 'o four a
continuo~_rs, s~-1id s^:urk road~a~av ui platfon~~. and [hev last for Veers
Altumaf4lATS •~rc u~tequalled f~.r~ quality and pe~foru~ance under tht~
most ha%arduus conditions.
AlturnatvlATS ara used ir~~ a broad vanefy of applications such as
r~onstruction. golf courses, utilitiets landsetrpin!t. tree rare. cc-rneteries,
drilling... ~~~dherever saline the costs rif qr o Intl n~slara.ion !s a lactor.
find they aro groat to sane he'l~~y vehicles from g't*rng stuck ur rood
Aitu~naf~9A?~ fcattre a nua~, dr~mond d°ck-plah~ dzs~g~~ far maximum
traction and th~.y are available a~itn one or both smootit sides for
easy removal of iiirt.
These ruane.d mats are made of 1!? inch thick polyethylene
so they are virtuall~~ indestructible. TI•~ey tivithstand
vehicles i.rp to 60 tore, bend but do not break: and
they are guaranteed ter a full six years. AlhirnaMATS ~'~
have been field tr.sted in r?cord cold and intense heat.
No^r"~ AlturnaMP,TS introtlures lockine links designed of ~'~+
steel t;~hich fit into holes on each end of the mats. locking `~
them end-to-end to create a continuous r0ad~rday or you can =~
easily create a large plattorm for working vehicles.
Beyond any standard, AlturnaNlATS are the bell value you can buy.
No other mat offers equal quality, proven traction design, cost
effectiveness, and AlturnaMATS are backed by a full 6 year guarantee.
Features
• Leaves turf smooth, even in soft soil conditions
• Minimizes expensive ground restoration costs
• Tough, 1(Z" polyethylene with heavy cleat design
• Last through years of hard use
• Withstand 60 ton loads
• 4'x8', 3'x8', 2'x6', 2'x6 & Z'x4' sizes
• Reuse hundreds of times
• Field tested in racord cold and intense heat
• Full 6 year guarantee
• Less expensive than fiberglass ar~d more cost
effectwe than plywood... no frayed edges
• Available smooth on one or both sides

i2~r f~~~ ;1.
,?. . ~.,
s ~.
SvI.~ ~ •~ l ti ~i~l
fly ~! \~ w
t~u,'`wrY, ,. t'',.t
M1 ,. }
.,ter: .~...~'~_' .
Build an instant roadway.
You can make your "roadway" as long as
you need it using Turn-A-Links. Perfect when
"tiwalkout" is a problem at the work site.
No more plywood!
Plywood often breaks during the first use. It splinters.
warps, gets soggy and water logged, and is awkward
to handle. Plywood often lasts less than one year.

AlturnaMATS
The original Ground Protection Mats ~'
featuring maximum-traction Diamond Plate Tread Design
While
Contractors use AlturnaMATS to protect
turf from vehicle damage. Mats have
excellent traction, eliminating slippage
in wet conditions.
The original tlialrlond plate design is
ideal for rugged applications where
maximum traction is desired. These
1/2 "thick mats are used in a variety
of markets worldwide for applications
as varied as the terrain and weather.
With AlturnaMATS, getting stuck is
virtually eliminated. They are
available smooth on one side or
smooth on both sides.
Sizes to Suit Your Need °
Item Approx. shlp. Wt. '~~
5lze Number lbs. kg.
4' x 8' (1.22 x 2.44m) AM48 86.00 {39.00)
3 x 8' (0.91 x 2.44m) AM38 64,00 (29.25)
2' x 8' (0.61 x 2.44m) Atv128 43.00 (19.50)
2' x 6' (0.61 x 1.83m) AM26 32.25 (14.62)
2' x 4' (0.61 x 1.22m) AM24 21.50 (9.75)
4' x 8' (1.22 x 2.44m1 WM48 86.00 (39.00)
3' x 8' (0.91 x 2.44m) WM38 64.00 (29.25)
2' x 8' (0.61 x 2.44mj WM28 43.00 (19.50)
2' x 6' (0.61 x 1.83m) WM26 32.25 114.62}
2' x 4' (0.61 x 1.22m) >n,~M24 21.50 (9.75)
~.
Heavy vehicles use AlturnaMATS in
a variety of adverse conditions such as
back woods areas and even in swampy
environments, eliminating getting stuck.

R-283 -Nationwide Pernut 6
Hertfiord. North Carolina
Summit Proposal Number: 1 U-030.040
>\1av 12. ?011
EXHIBI"I' #3
I~)iedrich D-5(1 m~~untcd <~n a M~1~ <(1~ Morool:a rubber-tracked
•,
ti
.~
;i e-y~
._~
., .
~:r
t~:
>~
I~~

U~ 1 S8
From the Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West of Winton
Hertford County
WBS Element 35489
TIP PRQJECT R-2583
ADMINISTRRTIVE ACTION
STATE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
IN COMPLIANCE WITFI TFIL NORTH CAROLINA
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPOP,TATIOAI
APPROVED:
CO ~ 0 ~
at ~~ regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT

US 158
From the Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West of Winton
Hertford County
WBS Element 35489
TIP PROJECT R-283
State Finding of No Significant Impact
June 2008
Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
Ch rtes R. Cox, P.E. ~'~tc~,,c . • ~ ,c~f~
.,•:,.~.
Project Engineer ~cj'~= ? ?
. : k.
C ~,~..:~i -u i i.l~~:~, GO,
.,
,`', J,r •
`..fir: l:y~~~,.~~ti\~~

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 158
From the Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West of Winton
Herford County
WBS Element 35489
T1P PROJECT R-2583
COMMITMENTS DEVELOPED THROUGH PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN
Division 1
• A construction moratorium for all in-stream work will be in place between February
15 and June 15 to avoid impacts to anadromous fish:
Division 1, Project Development &~ Environmental Analysis Branch
• The existing Potecasi Creek Bridge will be removed as mitigation. A portion of the
existing US 158 roadbed may be removed east of the old Potecasi Creek crossing
as mitigation, pending further investigation.
• The existing culvert on US 158 east of Mapleton will be removed (stream Site SD
and wetland site WPP). A portion of the existing US 158 roadbed may c~ls~~ be
removed for mitigation purposes pending further investigation.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
• A detailed :archaeological data recovery will be conducted on Site 31HF2G8 prior to
construction.
• Anew survey for the Recl-cockaded woodpecker will be conducted along the
preferred alternative. NCDOT will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding the Biological Conclusion.
Roadway Design Unit
• 3:1 side slopes are required in wetland areas.
R-2583 State Finding of No Significant Impact Page 1 of 1
Junr2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. TYPE OF ACTION ................................................................................................1
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ............................. ...............................1
III. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ............................................... ...............................2
IV. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ..................................................... ...............................2
V. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES .................... ...............................4
VI. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS .................................... ...............................5
A. Circulation of the State Environmental Assessment (SEA) .... ...............................5
B. Comments Received on the SEA ........................................... ...............................5
1. Envirc}nmental Protection Agency ................................................ ...................................5
2. United States Fish & Wildlife Service .......................................... ...................................7
3. NC Division of Forest Resources ................................................. ...................................8
4. NC Division of Marine Fisheries .................................................. ...................................9
5. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission ......................... ...................................9
6. NC Division of Coastal Management ........................................... ................................. l0
7. NC Division of Water Quality ...................................................... .................................10
C. Public Involvement ................................................................. .............................16
VII. REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ............ .............................17
A. Revised Alternative Names .................................................... .............................17
B. Wetland l Stream Impacts ...................................................... .............................17
C. Design Changes ..................................................................... .............................20
D. Forest Resource Impacts ....................................................... .............................20
E. Corrections to SEA ................................................................. .............................21
VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION .............................................. ..............................22
A. January 17, 2008 NEPA/ 404 Merger Team Meeting ............ ..............................22
B. Cultural Resources ................................................................ ..............................23
C. Air Quality -Mobile Source Air Toxics .................................. ..............................24
IX. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING ................ ..............................25
X. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ........ ..............................26
TABLES
Table 1: R-2583 Resources Impact Table ...................................... ................................3
Table 2: R-2583 Summary of Wetland Impacts .............................. ..............................18
Table 3: R-2583 Summary of Stream Impacts ................................ ..............................19
Table 4: R-2583 Bridges and Culverts ............................................ ..............................20
Table 5: R-2583 Forest Resource Impacts ..................................... ..............................20
APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
• Figure 1 Vicinity Map
• Figure 2 Alternative C2 (Preferred Alternative)
Appendix B Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies
Appendix C NEPA/ 404 Merger Team Signatures Sheets

US 158
From the Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West of Winton
Hertford County
WBS Element 35489
TIP PROJECT R-2583
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Prepared by the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
TYPE OF ACTION
This is a North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
administrative action, State Finding of No Significant Impact (SFONSI).
The NCDOT has determined this project will not have any significant
impact on the environment. This SFONSI is based on the State Environmental
Assessment (SEA), which has been independently evaluated by the NCDOT and
determined to adequately and accurately discuss the environmental issues and
impacts of the proposed project. The SEA provides sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
The NCDOT takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the
EA.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The NCDOT proposes to upgrade US 158 in Hertford County to a
multilane facility from the Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West of Winton. The
total length of the project is approximately at 8.1 miles. The project includes both
widening and a new location section. Dual bridges (approximately 390 feet in
length) will be constructed across Potecasi Creek.
According to the approved 2007-2013 and the Draft 2008-2015 TIP, right-
of-way acquisition for the project is scheduled to begin in state fiscal year 2010,
with construction to begin in state fiscal year 2012. The current estimated total
cost is approximately $48,904,000.

R-2583 State FONSI
III. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
Six alternatives were evaluated in the EA, which included: Alternatives A,
B, C and "Mapleton Service Road Alternatives A2, 82; and C2. All six
alternatives were shown at the public hearing. Following the public hearing, a
NEPA/ 404 Merger meeting was held to gain concurrence on the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) for the project.
Concurrence was gained on Alternative C2. Alternative C2 is therefore the
preferred alternative for the project.
IV. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Adverse impacts to the human and natural environments were minimized
for the proposed project through alternative selection and design shifts within the
six design options. No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding area is
anticipated as a result of the project. The proposed project will not adversely
impact any historic structures eligible for or listed on the National Register of
Historic Places. The proposed project will impact one known archaeological site
eligible for listing in the National Register. The project will relocate 19 residences
and 2 businesses; the proposed roadway was shifted farther south to avoid
impacting 15 additional homes within Mapleton that are located on the north side
of US 158. The project will impact approximately 4.8 acres of wetlands and
1,890 linear feet of streams. No Environmental Justice issues were identified
once the Mapleton community was avoided. The Biological Conclusions for the
red-cockaded woodpecker is May Affect- Not Likely to Adversely Affect.
Table 2 gives a comprehensive list of resources and the impacts associated with
each.

R-2583 State FONSI
Table 1: R-2583 Resources Impact Table

Resource Impacted Alternative C2
(Preferred Alternative)
Length 8.1 miles
Length of B ass 1.3 miles
Railroad Crossings None
Residential Relocations 19
Business Relocations 2
Major Utility Crossin s 3
Historic Properties 3 - No Effect
Archaeological Sites 1 impacted; Data
Recovery Re wired
Cemeteries 1
_
Wetland Impacts 4.8 acres
Stream Impacts 1890 feet
100-Year Floodplain Crossings 3
Water Supply Watershed Protected
Areas None
_
Hazardous Spill Basin Areas None
Anadromous Fish S awning Area 1 _
Impacted Noise Receptors None
Federally Protected Species within
Corridor None
Forest Impacts 26 acres
Prime, Unique, and Important
Farmland 145 acres

J
Low Income Population Impacts ~ No
Minority Population Im acts No
Construction Cost $40,100,000
Right-of-Way Cost $8,200,000
Mitigation Cost $604,000
Total Project Cost $48,904,000
Note 1: The construction cost estimates includes dual bridges
(approximately 390-ft in length) at Potecasi Creek

R-2583 State FONSI
V. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
An Individual Permit will be required from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers due to impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters.
A Water Quality Certification is required from the North Carolina Division
of Water Quality Section.
A CAMA Major Development Permit will be required for this project due to
impacts to Public Trust Area and Public Trust Shoreline CAMA AECs.

R-2583 State FON51
Vl. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS
A. Circulation of the State Environmental Assessment (SEA)
The NCDOT approved the SEA on April 27, 2006. The approved SEA
was circulated to the following federal, state, and local agencies for review and
comments. An asterisk (*) indicates a written response was received from the
agency. Copies of the correspondence received are included in Appendix A of
this document. Responses to substantial comments are noted in Section B.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -Regulatory Division
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources -Division of Archives and History
N.C. Department of Public Instruction -School Planning
* N.C. Department~of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of
Water Quality
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Wildlife
Resources Commission
* N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of
Forest Resources
'` N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources -Division of
Marine Fisheries
State Clearinghouse
Mid-East Commission
Hertford County
In addition to the agencies listed above, the following organizations
submitted comments on the SEA:
B. Comments Received on the SEA
Environmental Protection Agency
COMMENT: "EPA notes the environmental (Green sheet) commitments
addressed on page 1 of 1 regarding in-stream moratorium for
anadromous fish, archaeological survey, wetlands mitigation
potential at Potecasi Creek bridge, RCW coordination with FWS,
etc."

R-2583 State FONSI
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "The EA is very comprehensive and Table S-1 Summary of
Potential Impacts is an excellent example of highlighting the
differences in the alternatives and the potential impacts to key
indicators/resources."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "EPA notes that wetland impacts range between 2.90 acres and
4.48 acres depending upon the alternative. Stream impacts
range between 917 linear feet and 1,271 linear feet. Are the
estimated impacts based on the corridor width or the proposed
right of way width? The Merger team may need to discuss this
issue further at the next Concurrence meeting. Because this is
primarily a widening project, I am estimating that the impacts were
developed on the proposed right of way width."
RESPONSE: The wetland and stream impacts were updated prior to the
merger meeting held in January 2008. The impact numbers are
reflected in Section VII.B of this document in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
The impacts are calculated from slope stake to slope stake plus
an additional 25 feet out of each limit as determined from the
current preliminary design plans.
COMMENT: "EPA notes that impacts to Prime, Unique and Important
Farmlands are between 126 and 137 acres. Most of the impacts
appear to be linear in nature and there may be little opportunity
for NCDOT to minimize these impacts. However, for Alternative A
& C, NCDOT may need to examine the proposed roadway
alignment near Mt. Tabor Church Road and the large agricultural
fields for possible avoidance/ minimization measures (e.g.,
Following property boundaries, examine farm equipment crossing
locations, etc.)."
RESPONSE: NCDOT attempted to minimize the new location roadway
footprint; therefore these alignments are relatively straight.
Alternative B maintains a straight alignment that follows the
existing power line closely. Alternative C was developed to
closely follow behind the Mt. Tabor Baptist Church property and
yet minimize impacts to both the historic property and also
adjacent wetlands.
COMMENT: "EPA notes on Pages 63, 65, & 67 that exotic invasive plant
species are present in the project study area (Privet, Japanese
honeysuckle). EPA acknowledges that there is little that NCDOT
6

R-2583 State FON51
can specifically do about the spread of these weed species.
However, Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) has been
positively identified in riparian/NCDOT ROW areas associated
with R-2582/R-2584 north of Conway and Jackson. EPA plans to
investigate if any Japanese knotweed is located at the tributary to
Potecasi Creek, Potecasi Creek & Mill Branch. If positively
identified and one of the alternatives impacts one of the Japanese
knotweed sites, EPA may be recommending that herbicide
eradication be conducted as an environmental commitment prior
to any construction activities. Japanese knotweed is almost
exclusively re-colonized to new riparian areas thru rhizome
transport from such activities as clearing and grubbing. This
issue can be further discussed with the team at the next Merger
meeting. It may be a moot point for this project depending upon
EPA's survey at the proposed stream crossings."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "EPA will be seeking additional avoidance and minimization
measures for streams and wetlands as this project proceeds thru
Merger. EPA notes that there are some very high quality
wetlands (e.g., WD, WP, WV100, WV300, etc.) in the project
study area (Pg. 71, Table 18)."
RESPONSE: The merger team reviewed avoidance and minimization measures
during the January 2008 merger meeting. The list of measures
agreed to by the team is listed in VIII.A of this document.
COMMENT: "EPA has not identified a preferred alternative at this time and
wishes to hear the comments and concerns from the Merger team
agencies regarding the selection of a LEDPA."
RESPONSE: The merger team concurred with Alternative C2 at the January
2008 merger team meeting. EPA concurred with this alternative-
United States Fish ~ Wildlife Service
COMMENT: "There is only one federally protected species listed for Hertford
County -the red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides
borealis). The SEA states that RCW surveys were conducted at
the project site on December 10 and 11, 2003. No RCWs or
cavity trees were observed. After the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative is selected, a new RCW survey
should be conducted in suitable habitat within a half mile radius of
the project area. If no cavity trees are observed within a half mile

R-2583 State FONSI
radius, then the Service would support a "No effect" determination
for this species."
RESPONSE: Anew RCW survey will be completed prior to construction.
COMMENT: "Although the forested habitat types within the project study area
are described in the SEA, there is no quantification of the impacts
to each habitat type."
RESPONSE: See section VII.D for the quantification of the impacts.
COMMENT: "Although the potential for wetland mitigation associated with
removing the existing bridge over Potecasi Creek in Alternative C
is mentioned on the Project Commitments page ("Green Sheet"),
no description or quantification of the potential is given in the body
of the SEA. "
RESPONSE: The existing bridge over Potecasi Creek and a portion of the
roadbed along US 158 may be removed pending further
investigation.
COMMENT: "The physical description of the red-cockaded woodpecker in
Appendix D needs correction. The bird is not 18-20 inches long,
but rather 8-9 inches long."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "After the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
is selected, a new RCW survey should be conducted in suitable
habitat within a half mile radius of the project area."
RESPONSE: Anew RCW survey will be completed prior to construction.
3. NC Division of Forest Resources
COMMENT: "The NC Division of Forest Resources does not support the
project as proposed. The Environmental Assessment fails to
address any of the concerns identified in our response to the
initial scoping letter. The NC Division of Forest Resources cannot
evaluate impacts to forest resources unless information previously
requested is provided."
RESPONSE: Section VII.D of this document gives details of the forest resource
impacts.
8

R-2583 State FONSI
4. NC Division of Marine Fisheries
COMMENT: "The Division prefers Alternative A, which has the least amount of
wetland impacts (2.9 acres) and stream impacts (approx. 917
feet)."
RESPONSE: The Division of Marine Fisheries was part of the merger team that
determined that Alternative C2 was the least damaging
practicable alternative (LEDPA).
COMMENT: "This agency will request a moratorium from February 15 through
June 30. A turbidity curtain should be utilized and maintained
during any construction work in wetlands."
RESPONSE: NCDOT has included the moratorium as a project commitment for
this project (February 15 through June 15 as per Wildlife
Resources Commission). The turbidity curtain will be used where
applicable.
5. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
COMMENT: "Mill Branch, Potecasi, and their associated perennial tributaries
impacted by this project are subject to an anadromous fisheries
moratorium of February 15 to June 15 due to the presence of
River herring in these systems. The document is an adequate
assessment of the environmental impacts ,associated with the
alternative for this project. The NC Wildlife Resources
Commission does not have a preferred alternative at this time.
We will participate in the alternative selection for this project
during the Merger process. At this time, we concur with the EA
for this project."
RESPONSE: NCDOT has included the moratorium as a project commitment for
this project.
COMMENT: "Any environmental contamination (soil or groundwater)
discovered during right-of-way investigations shall be reported to
the Washington Regional Office."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Water supply wells located on any right-of-way property obtained
shall be properly abandoned."
9

R-2583 State FONSI
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Any Confined Animal Feeding Operation affected by the project
shall have its Animal Waste Utilization Plan modified to reflect site
changes."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
6. NC Division of Coastal Management
COMMENT: "Please note that the following information on page 57 of the EA
is erroneous: "The county is under the jurisdiction of the North
Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM}; however, no
Areas of Environmental Concern, as defined by the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), are present within the study area."
Likewise, the following statement on page 77 of the EA is also
erroneous: "Though there are no AECs within the study area,
DCM has determined that Potecasi Creek is a public trust water
within the study area. It is expected that NCDCM will require a
CAMA permit for the project due to the proximity of the project to
the Chowan River." A CAMA permit is required for this project
due to direct impacts to the Public Trust Area and Public Trust
Shoreline CAMA AECs, not due to proximity of the project to the
Chowan River."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
7. NC Division of Water Quality
COMMENT: "DWO recommends that the most protective sediment and
erosion control BMP's be implemented to reduce the risk of
sediment and nutrient runoff to Potecasi Creek. DWQ requests
that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in the most
recent version of NC DWO Stormwater Best Management
Practices ."
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Best management practices are a standard
procedure for NCDOT designs.
10

R-2583 Sate FONSI
COMMENT: "Although the Mapleton Service Road Option would result in
additional impacts of up to 0.82 acres of wetlands and 62 linear
feet of streams, DWQ feels that the additional impacts are
appropriate to avoid potential environmental justice issues with
the Mapleton Community."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "NCDOT should contact the Washington Regional Office of DWQ
to obtain the appropriate permit for the storm water management
system for the proposed project."
RESPONSE: This will be addressed during the permit phase of this project.
COMMENT: "The environmental document should provide a detailed and
itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to wetlands and
streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary
as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a
conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior
to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification."
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Figure 2 of this document shows the wetland
and streams sites. Tables 2 and 3 of this document show the
impacts for each site. A detailed mitigation plan will be developed
during the permit coordination phase of this project.
COMMENT: "Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design
criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from
storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road
designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through
best management practices as detailed in the most recent version
of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as
grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention
basins, etc."
RESPONSE: As more detailed design is developed, NCDOT will be better
suited to incorporate Best Management Practices into the design.
COMMENT: "After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an
issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is
respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams)
to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the
Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC
2H.0506 (h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater
11

R-2583 State FONSI
than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required,
the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
may be available for use as stream mitigation."
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Through the Merger process, NCODT has
shown its efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and
streams.
COMMENT: "In accordance with the Environmental Management
Commission's Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the
mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program
may be available for use as stream mitigation."
RESPONSE: If mitigation is required, NCDOT will coordinate with the NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program for use as stream mitigation,
COMMENT: "Future documentation, including the 401 Water Ouality
Certification Application, should continue to include an itemized
listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping."
RESPONSE: This information will be included in the permit application.
COMMENT: "DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impact that
could result from this project. NC DOT should address these
concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to
the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would
reduce the impacts."
RESPONSE: Please see pages 60-62 of the SEA regarding NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMP).
COMMENT: "An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as
a result of this project is required. The type and detail of analysis
should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10,
2004."
RESPONSE: Pages 48-50 of the SEA gave a qualitative explanation of indirect
and cumulative impacts. More details will be submitted as part of
the permit application.
12

R-2583 State FONSI
COMMENT: "NC DOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts including but
not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to
jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be
included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in
addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also
need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification
Application."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges used
in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that economic
considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be
advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded
passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in areas
where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge
may prove preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install
the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable."
RESPONSE: Comment noted. Dual bridges are proposed across Potecasi
Creek. Culverts will be extended at Mill Branch. The culvert at
the Unnamed tributary to Potecasi Creek will be replaced.
COMMENT: "Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in
wetlands or streams."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to
specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater
management. More specifically, stormwater should not be
permitted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
RESPONSE: The application will indeed address the proposed methods for
stormwater management. stormwater will not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
COMMENT: "Based on the information presented in the document, the
magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may require an
individual permit application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised
that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory
protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards
are met and not wetland or stream uses are lost, Final permit
authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by
the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please
13

R-25$3 State FONSI
be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate
avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the
maximum extent practical, the development of an acceptable
stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate
mitigation plans where appropriate."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be
maintained to prevent direct contact between curing concrete and
stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured concrete
should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential
for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site
shall be graded to its preconstruction contours and elevations.
Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil
and appropriate native woody species should be planted. When
using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs
or other merchandized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact allows the area to revegetate naturally and
minimizes soil disturbance."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams,
and wetlands shall be placed below the elevation of the
streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than
48 inches, and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts
having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low flow passage
of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and
other structures including temporary erosion control measures
shall not be conducted in a manner that may result in dis-
equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or
upstream and downstream of the above structures. The applicant
is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is
unable to be met due to bedrock or other limiting features
encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a
permit modification will be required."
RESPONSE: All culverts will be buried appropriately,
1^
Y

R-2583 State FONSI
COMMENT: "Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect
water resources must be implemented and maintained in
accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina
Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and
the most recent version of NCS000250."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a
dry work area. Approved BMP measures from the current version
of NCDOT Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such
as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and other diversion
structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than
in stream channels in order to minimize sedimentation and reduce
the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent
contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or
placed in the streambed in a manner that precludes aquatic life
passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be
properly designed, sized and installed."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
COMMENT: "Riparian vegetation (native trees and shrubs) should be
preserved to the maximum extent possible. Riparian vegetation
must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project
by the end of the growing season following completion of
construction."
RESPONSE: Comment noted.
15

R-2583 State FONSI
C. Public Involvement
Following the circulation of the State Environmental Assessment, a formal
Public Hearing was held on July 19, 2007 at the Roanoke-Chowan Community
College in Ahoskie, NC. Approximately 100 citizens were present for the
hearing, and 17 NCDOT representatives. A transcript of the Public Hearing was
prepared.
Four citizens spoke at the hearing and 41 written comments were received
between the hearing and the Post Hearing Meeting. Based on the comments
received, Alternative C was favored by a majority of the respondents, who cited
concerns about the impacts Alternatives A and B would have on Mt. Tabor
Baptist Church and the surrounding community. The Hertford County Board of
Commissioners also endorsed Alternative C and the Service Road Alternative.
This was the only comment received regarding the Service Road Alternative. No
comments were received that supported Alternative A or B. The remaining
comments didn't indicate any specific support for an Alternative but expressed
concerns about issues like right of way acquisition, existing drainage problems,
flooding and impacts to parcels.
16

R-2583 State FONSI
VII. REVISIONS TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Revised Alternative Names
The SEA denoted the alternatives as Alternatives A, B, C, and the
Mapleton Service Road Option (with Alternatives A, B, C). The names of these
alternatives have changed slightly. The new names of the alternatives were
shown during the Public Hearing and this SFONSI as follows:
• Alternative A
• Alternative A2 (shifting of Alternative A to provide service road at
Mapleton)
• Alternative B
• Alternative B2 (shifting of Alternative B to provide service road at
Mapleton)
• Alternative C
• Alternative C2 (shifting of Alternative C to provide service road at
Mapleton)
All documentation in this SFONSI uses this newer denotation of the alternative
names.
B. Wetland /Stream Impacts
The wetland and stream impacts were updated prior to the merger
meeting held in January 2008. The impact numbers are reflected in Tables 2
and 3. The impacts are calculated from slope stake to slope stake plus an
additional 25 feet out of each limit as determined from the current functional
design plans,
17

R-2583 State FONSI
Table 2: R-2583 Summary of Wetland Impacts
Wetland Wetland Alternative Wetland Impacts (in Acres)
ID Rating A A2 B B2 C C2
WSS 51 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002
WTT 51 0.147 0.147 0.147 0.147 0,147 0.147
WRR NR 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018
W PP 68 0.615 1.392 0.615 1.392 0.615 1.392
WNN NR 0.017 0.016 0,017 0.016 0.017 0.016
WMM NR 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023 0.023
WLL NR 0.591 0.591 0.666 0.666 0.591 0.591
WKK NR 0.096 0.096 0.265 0.265 0.096 0.096
WHH NR 0.149 0.149 1.061 1.061 0.126 0.126
WJJ 67 0.140 0.140 0.085 0.085
WGG 21 0.022 0.022
WFF NR 0.036 0.036
WEE NR 0.187 0.187
WZ NR 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
W CC 75 0.0 0.0
WV300 75 0.0 0.0
WY 59 0.029 0.029 0.029 0.029
WT NR 0.391 0.391 0,391 0.391
WS NR 0.094 0.094 0.094 0.094
WX NR 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.066 0.066
WM 57 0.011 0.011 0.011 D.011
WK NR 0.033 0.033 0.033 0.033_ 0.033 0.033
WE NR 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
W G 28 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140
WF NR 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.004
W D 83 1 .487 1.487 1.487 1.487 1.487 1.487
W C 50 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
WB NR 0.003 0.003 0.003 _ 0.003 0.003 0.003
WA 25 0.563 0.563 0.563 0.563 0.563 0.563
Totallmpact 4.6 5.4 5.9 6.7 4.1 4.8
Impacts in SEA 2.90 3.66 3.66 4.48 3.70 3.94
Note: The wetland impacts for Alternatives A, A2, B, and B2 are based on dual 200-foot
bridges at Potecasi Creek. Alternative C and C2 are based on dual 390-foot bridges at
Potecasi Creek.
18

R-2583 Siate FON51
Table 3: R-2583 Summary of Stream Impacts
I Alternative Stream Impacts (in Feet)
Stream
D __
Al A2 61 B2 C1 C2
SS 13 13 13 13 13 13
S D 173 208 173 208 173 208
SF 63 63
SF Pot. Trib.
UR 524 524
SF Pot. Trib.
LR 153 153
SQ 151 151 162 162 152 152
SC 244 244 231 231 212 212
SM 100 100
SL 319 319
SJ 113 113 319 319 74 74
SN 38 38
SB 313 313 313 313 313 313
SA (Mill Br.) 140 140 140 140 140 140
SP 101 101 101 101 101 101
Totallmpact 1311 1346 i 1909 1944 1855 1890
In-~,:;~=+~:a ii ~ S~ A ~ `i "~ ~ "1=r ~~ 978.86 1172.58 1234.30 1208.92 1270.64
Note: Tl,e stream impacts for Alternatives A, A2, B, and B2 are based on dual 200-foot bridges
at Potecasi Creek. Alternatives C and C2 are based on dual 39D-foot bridges at Potecasi Creek.
19

R-2583 State FONSI
C. Design Changes
Bridges or culverts proposed for this project are shown in Table 4:
Table 4: R-2583 Bridges and Culverts
Location Current Structure Proposed Structure
Tributary to Potecasi 2 @ 12-ft x 6-ft Remove old culverts and
Creek (Site SD, WPP) Reinforced Concrete Box replace with same size
Culverts RCBC upstream
Potecasi Creek None Dual bridges
(Site SB, WCC, WV300 a rox 390-ft in len th
Mill Branch overflow
Site SA, WD) 1 @ 6-ft by 3-ft RCBC Extend existing culvert
Mill Branch main crossing
Site SA, WD) 1 @ 10-ft by 4-ft RCBC Extend existing culvert
Mill Branch overflow 1 @ 9-ft by 5-ft RCBC Extend existing culvert
Site SA, WD)
Mill Branch overflow
Site SA, WD) 1 @ 6-ft by 3-ft RCBC Extend existing culvert
D. Forest Resource Impacts
Forest resource impacts were calculated along each alternative. The
results are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: R-2583 Forest Resource Impacts
Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
A A2 B B2 C C2
Alternative Impacts (in Acres)
11 12 22 24 2~, ~ 26
- - - - -1- -
20

R-2583 State FONSI
E. Corrections to SEA
The following information on page 57 of the SEA was in error: "The
county is under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Division of Coastal
Management (NCDCM); however, no Areas of Environmental Concern, as
defined by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), are present within the
study area." Likewise, the following statement on page 77 of the EA is also in
error: "Though there are no AECs within the study area, DCM has determined
that Potecasi Creek is a public trust water within the study area- It is expected
that NCDCM will require a CAMA permit for the project due to the proximity of the
project to the Chowan River." A CAMA permit is required for this project due to
direct impacts to the Public Trust Area and Public Trust Shoreline CAMA AEC's,
not due to proximity of the project to the Chowan River."
21

R-2583 Stag FONSI
VIII. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A. January 17, 2008 NEPA/ 404 Merger Team Meeting
NEPA/404 Merger is a process to streamline the project development and
permitting processes. To this effect, the Merger process provides a forum for
appropriate agency representatives to discuss and reach consensus on ways to
facilitate meeting the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act during the NEPA/SEPA decision-making phase of transportation projects.
The Merger process allows agency representatives to work more
efficiently (quicker and comprehensive evaluation and resolution of issues) by
providing a common forum for them to discuss and find ways to comply with key
elements of their agency's mission. The merger process helps to document how
competing agency mandates are balanced during a shared decision-making
process, which results in agency representatives reaching a "compromise based
decision" to the regulatory and individual agency mandates.
The NEPA/404 Merger Team for this project is comprised of the following
agencies: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish ~ Wildlife Service,
Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, N.C.
Division of Water Quality, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, N.C. Division of
Coastal Management, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries, N.C. State Historic
Preservation Office, Peanut Belt RPO, and N.C. Department of Transportation.
A NEPA/ 404 Merger Team Meeting to reach Concurrence Point 2A, 3,
the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), and
Concurrence Point 4A, Avoidance ~ Minimization, was held on February 1 1,
2008.
During this meeting, Concurrence Points 2A, 3, and 4A were reached.
Bridge and culvert recommendations were agreed to (see Table 4) and
Alternative C2 was selected as the LEDPA. The following minimization efforts
were agreed to:
• At Mill Branch, the roadway was shifted south to reduce impacts to wetland
Sites WD, WC, and WB.
• At the eastern terminus, the roadway was shifted north to minimize impacts to
wetland Site WA.
• The preferred alternative (C2) avoids impacts to the historic Mt. Tabor Baptist
Church and its cemetery.
• The preferred alternative (C2) minimizes impacts to the minority community of
Mapleton, as well as the historic Britt Store.
22

R-2583 State FONSI
• Dual 390-foot bridges are proposed across Potecasi Creek to minimize
impacts to wetland adjacent to the creek (wetland Sites WCC and WV300)
• The existing Potecasi Creek bridge will be removed as mitigation. A portion
of the existing US 158 roadbed may be removed east of the old Potecasi
Creek crossing as mitigation, pending further investigation.
• The existing culvert on US 158 east of Mapleton will be removed (stream Site
SD and wetland site WPP) and a new culvert (same size) will be constructed
upstream. A portion of the existing US 158 roadbed may also be removed for
mitigation purposes pending further investigation.
• 3:1 side slopes in wetland areas.
B. Cultural Resources
The SEA identified two archaeological sites eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP):
• Site 31 HF268 (the remains of a farm complex)
• Site 31 HF278 (Civil War-period earthworks)
The preferred Alternative C2 impacts Site 31 HF268, but avoids site
31 HF278. A detailed archaeological data recovery will be conducted at Site
31 HF268 prior to construction.
23

R-2583 State FONSI
C. Air Quality -Mobile Source Air Toxics
Concerns for air toxics impacts are becoming more frequent on
transportation projects during the NEPA process. Transportation agencies are
increasingly expected by the public and other agencies to address MSAT
impacts in their environmental documents as the science emerges. Mobile
Source Air Toxics (MSATs) analysis is a continuing area of research where,
while much work has been done to asses the overall health risk of air toxics,
many questions remain unanswered. In particular, the tools and techniques for
assessing project-specific health impacts from MSATs are limited. These
imitations impede FHWA's ability to evaluate how mobile source health risks
should factor into project-level decision-making under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Also, EPA has not established regulatory concentration
targets for the six relevant MSAT pollutants appropriate for use in the project
development process. FHWA has several research projects underway to more
clearly define potential risks from MSAT emissions associated with transportation
projects. While this research is ongoing, FHWA requires each NEPA document
to qualitatively address MSATs and their relationship to the specific highway
project through a tiered approach (as according to US DOT's Federal Highway
Administration memorandum, "Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA
Documents," from February 3, 2006). The FHWA will continue to monitor the
developing research in this emerging field. A qualitative analysis of MSATs for
this project appears in its entirety as an addendum to the project Air Quality
Analysis report.
24

R-2583 State FONSI
IX. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE FINDING
Executive Order 11990, "Protection of Wetlands," established as a
national policy to avoid, to the extent possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and
to avoid director indirect support of new construction wherever there is a
practicable alternative.
NCDOT was unable to totally avoid wetlands because of the extent of
wetlands in the project area surrounded by wetlands. It was determined there is
no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and that the
proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands
which may result from such use. Minimization efforts include:
• At Mill Branch, the roadway was shifted south to reduce impacts to wetland
Sites WD, WC, and WB.
• At the eastern terminus, the roadway was shifted north to minimize impacts to
wetland Site WA. '
• Dual bridges (approximately 390 feet) are proposed across Potecasi Creek to
minimize impacts to wetland adjacent to the creek (wetland Sites WCC and
WV300)
• The existing Potecasi Creek bridge will be removed as mitigation. A portion
of the existing US 158 roadbed may be removed east of the old Potecasi
Creek crossing as mitigation, pending further investigation.
• The existing culvert on US 158 east of Mapleton will be removed (stream Site
SD and wetland site WPP). A portion of the existing US 158 roadbed may
also be removed for mitigation purposes pending further investigation.
• 3:1 side slopes in wetland areas.
25

R-2.583 State FONSI
X. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project, as
documented in the EA, and upon comments received from federal, state, local
agencies, and the general public, it is the finding of the NCDOT that this project
will not have a significant adverse impact upon the human or natural
environment. The project is not controversial from an environmental standpoint.
No significant impacts to natural, social, ecological, cultural, or scenic resources
are expected. The proposed project is consistent with local plans and will not
disrupt any communities. The project has been extensively coordinated with
federal, state, and local agencies. In view of the above evaluation, it has been
determined that a FONSI is applicable for this project. Therefore, neither an
Environmental Impact Statement nor further environmental analysis is required.
The following person may be contacted for additional information
regarding this proposal;
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone]
CRC/cc
26

R-2583
Appendix A
(Figures)

r'' `
~ .1.,
~ ~ ; ,I
~:. J
f~~ ,
~.;; ~ ~i
,. ~), ' s
O ~" ~ ~\
Cfi _ yC7 ~~ .--•
~t ti4 - ~\~~ 1 ~ iy .I
/ , -- (~/ m
r , I v~
~~, r ~" ;~~ c~ >i~
`• ~ ~, • ,
~~ ~ ;S ~l
~~ `~ • 158 .. w-r. ~ ~= '~~-L ., ~ - ' j ~ I,
5 ~
~~
I,
hG~° G ' ~l1 anl~n) l
~~, `
\.
as ~~' ' ~
,~aRf~n ... r-~-cr 158 ~ ~~
\ v r~~ T`~~ /=
-L.: _ __ .
t>Lt ~~NAI iVE C2
(tomreferred Alternative}
~ ~
~ ~~ ~ I
0 05 1 2
Miles
i:+ '~~''"'+~ US 15S Cuunly HERTFORD 1
" .'i '~ NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTTdENT FROM MURFREESBORO BYPASS Fi ure
-~.~ OF TRANSPORTATION Uiv: 1 TIPtt R-258J
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS TO US 13 WEST OF WINTON '
' `~~~'~PROJECTDEVELOPM1IENTANO
+^ . / NIBS: 35489.1.1
;,y ", ~/ ENVIRONMENTALANAI_/5I5 BRANCI~1 HERTFORD COUNTY
`; ..~ TIP PROJ~C I R-2583
BY; T.f•IOWELL hnh~ - nnril'tr;+lJ

N
"'
FY~, , `
h) W
~ a H
N ~ W
N U' _
K ~ V~
}
l7 t'lZZ
Z ^ Q ~
µZjO~ZO
o U
C rJ i
3w~,~~
m~~n00
X11 ~y Np"r
^~d ~~
~7 ~m~=

V P
r
N
M W
OJ ~ H
~n 7u' I
~LL~ p
z ~oz
Ov+~-~
w~~Z~
u
~m~~n
m"'~nUO
~ W N F H
N~}+w
~ `2 m S

Q
W
N
C5
M W
K
'~~W
~ W ~n I
_Z ~pZ
Za~Z~
DO v
m 3
3w~W°
m~~n00
~'u.Nr-~
~~cyi3s

LL
(4
Q
t7 w
p~ C I-
~ ~ W
I ~_
~ W N
(~ f'I Z Z
z_ ^p~
z~~Zp
u
3m~LL~
mLLNpo
-,~a~~
Nay Wet~J
~~m~S

R-2583
Appendix B
(Comments from Federal, State, and
Local Agencies}

c .. ''~
~1>I~a~~~ ~~~t.~~ ~~el~~~•t>l~~>ra>l +~~ >t~~ ~~r,>t~r!•a~>~° ~'
1;~.;;r..,,
FIS1-1 AND WILDLIFE SERVICE '':~ ;
Raleigh Field Office ~-;~`~ : ~j~~r'ti`:i~~5 ,-.,• -~
Post Office 13vx 33726 ~ <%.cy. lc,~+...a,. -
_a~ fit: - ;> ~ .r ~;'
Raleigh, Nonh Carolina 27636-3726 ~~},~.~ I: f: `, :1 `+~ ~ _ -
~'~ .'.:.
June 19, 2006 ... _
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department of Transportation
154$ Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina ?7699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is In response to your May 2S, 2006 letter which requested comments from the U.S.
t~ csh and Wildlife Service (Service) on the State >/nvironmental Assessment (SF,A) for the
widening of US 1 SS from Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 west of Winton, Herford County,
North Carolina (TIP No. R-2553). 'These comments are provided in accordance with provisions
of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 6~1-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the SEA, the North Carolina Department of 'Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to
~~~iden approximately S.2 miles of US 1 S8 from two lanes to a divided four-lane facility with a
grassed median. There are three tilternatives -Alternative A: Widen on Existing, Alternative B:
~~'iden on Existing with Northern Bypass, and .Alternative C: `Widen on Existing with Souther-n
Bypass. In addition, each alternative has a Mapleton Service Road Option.
`I~he Service has been actively providing input on this project through the combinCd NEPA/404
Merger Process. At this time we do not have a preferred alternative, but will a~ntinue to provide
input during the Merger Process. There is only one federally protected species listed for
Hertford County -the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW)(Yicnides borealis). The SEA states
that RC W cUl-VPVC were C(lnCtl]r.iP.fl :11 tlle~ nrnjrCt cit~• nn T~erarrt~r_r 1 (t on~ 1 1 ~(lll_2, 1~T~ R~~'\7l!~
or cavity trees were observed. After the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative
is selected, a new RCW survey should be conducted in suitable habitat within a halfmile radius
of the project area. If no cavity trees are observed within a half mile radius, then the Service
would support a "Nn effect" determination for this species,
Although the forested habitat types within the project study area are descriheri in the SEA, there
is no quantification of the impacts to each habitat type. Although the potential for «~etland
mitigation associated with removing the existing bridge over Potecasi Creek in Alternative C is
mentioned on the Project Commitments page ("Green Sheet"), no description or quantification of
the potential is given in the body of the SEA. Also, the physical description of the red-cockaded
woodpecker in Appendix D needs cun-ection. "The bird is not 18-20 inches long, but rather S-9
inches long.

The Sen~ii;e appreciates the opportunity to review this project. if you ha~~e any questions
regarding our response, please contact IVIr. Gary Jordan at (919) $56-45?O, ext. 32.
-- -
i
S~ cer ;,
N
Pete B~amin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Chris Militscher, USEP.4, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC
c
c,.
c
c
~ .
~,

r iu~~noe~ r ea~iry ~~.~c~~:~~~i
r William ~;. Ross Jr ,Secretary
`Oft r~G North Carolina Department o1 Environment and Natural Resources
~ f ~ Alan W. Klimek. P E Director
~_ ~ ~ ~ Division of W'aler Duality
'~`
,lone 2~, 200(,
1v1EMORANDURI
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Leg=islative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
t
Froin: Brian L. Wrenn, Transportation Permitting Unit, NC DWQ"~%'~`'
Subject: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Improvements to US 158 from Murfreesboro
Bypass to US 13 West of Winton in Hertford County, WBS Element 35489, TII' Project No. R
2583, State Clearinghouse No. 06-0346
Thrs office has reviewed the referenced document. "I~he Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Seaton 401 Water Quahty Certification fur activities that impact Waters of the
U.S., including wetlands. "the Division of Water Quality offers the following comments:
llocument Specific Comments:
Potecasi Creek is class C; NSW; 303(4) waters of the State, Potecasi Creek is on the 303(4) list
for rmpaired use for aquatic life due to ]ow dissolved oxygen and standard violations for pH.
DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
DWQ recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented
to reduce the risk of sedimant and nutrient runoff to Potecasi Creek. DW'Q requests that road
design plans provide h~eatment of the storm water runoff tluough best management practices as
detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Srnrnrwaler I3es1 A~lanage~rten( Pracfrces,
2. Although the Mapleton Service Road Option would result in additional impacts of up to 0.82
acres of wetlands and 62 linear feet of streams, DWQ feels that the additional impacts are
appropriate to avoid potential environmental justice issues with the Mapleton Community.
3. Hertford County is one of~ the twenty coastal counties that require a state storm water permit for
land disturbances of one acre or more. NC D07 should contact the Washington Regional Office
of DWQ to obtain the appropriate permit for the storm water management system for the
proposed project.
General Comments:
1 . The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
No~[thCaroLna
Transporalion Permitting Unit ,,~lllll!'17~~~
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh. North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Swte 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone. [phone]FAX 91g-733 68931Interner htto.l/n2o enr state nc uslncwetlands
4n Eoual QpportunrtylAlSrmative Action Employer 50 % Recycled/10°! Posl Consumer Paper

t'age 2 of 5
~~-
( ~
2. F.m~ironmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to ~
streams and wetlands from storm ~~ ~er runoff. These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the stop-,, .eater nmoff through best management practices as detailed ~ ,
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Srormi,:a~eJ- Besr Mar~ngemenl Practices, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc. (,
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCI~OT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { I SA NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. 7'he NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management C'ommission's Rules { I SA NCAC
2H.0506(h)},mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mittgation.
5. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should
continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping.
6. UWQ is very concerned with sediment and eeusion impacts that could result from this project.
NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
7. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts ant,c~pated as a result of this project is required.
T'he type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the
assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004.
5. NC DOT is respectfully reminded that al] impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill,
excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be
included in the final impact calculations. 'These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts,
temporary or otherv,>>se, also need to be included as part of the 40l Water Quality Certification
Application,
9. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However,
we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that
culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms.
Moreover, in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove
preferable. When applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the
maximum extent practicable.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.

/wi~ _ _~I IJU
Page 3 of 5
1 1. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands
rn borrow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Qualiry Certificatum and could
precipitate compensatory mitigation.
12. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stornlwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be perrmtted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
13. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an individual permit application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Qualiry
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality
standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require
the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from the NCDWQ.
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization
of wetland and stream nnpacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of an
acceptable storm~vater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where
appropriate.
14. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
15. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horrzorttal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
16. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stonnwater should he directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed
scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current
version of NC DWQ Srornrwaler Bess Management Pracrrces
17. If'concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential far elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
18. if temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstructron
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or
other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-
vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
19. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be placed below
the elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 4R inches,
and 20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow
low flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result

Paee 4 of 5
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. if this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limittng features encountered during construction, please contact the I~rC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required.
20. 1f multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross t
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition ~-
that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
21. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotecltnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Pern~it No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
22. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
23. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Approved IIMP
measures from the most current version of NCDOT Construction and tvlaintenance Activities
manual such as sandbags, rock bernls, cofferdams and other diversion structures should be used
to prevent excavation in flowing water.
24. Vhlrile the use of National Wetland Inventory (N1WI) maps, NC Coasts] Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CR.T:WS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
2~. Heatiy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface
waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
26. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
27. Riparian vegetatron (native trees and shrubs) should be preserved to the maximum extent
possible. Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the constnuction limits of the project
by the end of the growing season following completion of construction.
'The NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide conunents on your project. Should you have any
questions or require any additional information, please contact Rrian Wrenn at 919-733-5715.

iur~r ?b. ~U4rh
1'a~e 5 of 5
i
f
1
f
r
f
f
~_
z
cc: Bill Biddlecome, US ACE VVashrngton regulatory Field Office
Travis Wilson, NC WRC
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Garcy Ward, Washington regional Office, NC DWQ ',
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration
File Copy
C^4~ iI"}i
J~ ~, ~.
,--~~
~ zoos s,
~~~~G ~ t
gip` ~.~ ~ :.

i-r
r
~~~ ~~~
~;~E~~
I
eh:~rtmznt of En~ironri~.rt :. ,
~;a~ll (;11 RCSiIU (l Cj
Michael F. Eusley, Governor
\Viiliam G. ~~ss Jr., Secretary•
FO~I~EST,
S ;~~~ ~~J L ~"~
N~
~'~. _il 1.1 l._.~: J~:'..1
~):~ i inn of Forest Resources
Stanford (~I..Adrims, Director
2411 Old US 70 ~~%est
Clayton, NC 27~?0
June 9, 2006
)\IE~IORANDLi1'i '
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative Affairs ~,~
FROM: Bill Pickens, NC Division Forest Resources
SUBJECT: EA for the proposed US 155 Project from Murfreesboro Bypass to US ] 3 ~ West of
Winton, Hertford County
PROJECT #: 06-0346 and TIP R-283
The North Carolina Division of Forest Resources has reviev~~ed the referenced Environmental Assessment
to evaluate impacts to forest resources as a result of the proposed construction. Comments on issues of
concern to the North Carolina Division of Forest Resources are listed.
• The NC Division of Forest Resources does not supliort the project as proposed.
• The Environmental Assessment fails to address any of the concerns identified in our response to the
initial scoping letter.
• "1'he NC Division of Forest Resources cannot e~ aluate impacts to forest resources unless information
pre~~iously requested is provided.
I can he contacted at 919-553-6175 x 233 or by e-n;ail bill.pickens(c;ncmail.net.
ec: Ban~y New
--~=n r~tly°'r-
'~ x,)11 )1J )ii ~ "~
- ~i
~•' .. ,.
9~~ 2~~~
;~~~ c,
.SF;c*~i ~ ~~ rL.
j1~6. ~.
i
1GIG Mail $ef"~'IC~ Ccntzr, R:~Iri~'h, i~r~tlh Caruliii:r ?7G99•IG01
I'hc~n~. 919 - 733-3162 \ FAX: 919 - 7.;;-01 ~~ 1 lntrrnul: ~~ti±~~,cl~r s}_:~;c.i_~.},~s
A1~' EOUAL O('I'ORTUtiITI' 1 AFFIR~IAT1~'E AC710`~ E~1f'LO1'ER - 5Q`/~ REf.YULEn ! 10`/. POST

~r "~ "
~~ ~ ~~r^....
North Carolina Department of Environm'ai~l`t'~~~n ~
~~~
'~~ichael F. Easley, Governor Division of Marin „~,~ISil~ ~~
William G. Ross Jr ,Secretary ~;;
N `/!mil
CV ~W
MEMORANDUM: ~; ~ ~~
~I Resources
~~..,
~ Preston P Pale Jr., Director
~: ,;
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs
THROUGH: Mike Street, Chief Habitat Section
FROM: Sara E. Winslow, Northern District Manager
SUBJECT: Project No. 06-0346 - NCDOT -Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West of
Winton -TIP Project R-2583
DATE: June 14, 2006
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries has reviewed the SEPA document
and submits the following comments pursuant to General Statute 113-131.
The Division prefers Alternative A, which has the least amount of wetland
impacts (2.9 ac) and stream impacts 0917 ft). Potecasi Creek and its tributaries is a
documented anadromous spawning area for blueback herring and alewife. Resident
species, such as white perch, yellow perch, catfishes and other commercially and
recreationally important species also utilize the creek for spawning and nursery areas.
This agency will request a moratorium from February 15 through June 30. This
will ensure the environmental integrity of the area is protected during critical times of
usage by the previously mentioned species.
A turbidity curtain should be utilized and maintained during any construction
work in wetlands. Any loss/impacts to wetlands should be adequately mitigated.
The Division appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments.
;t~.,
1307 U.S 17 Souih, Elizabeth City, ~,lorh Carolina "L7909 Nc.>rihC~uolinn
~h ~nr 252 i^^- S~ I i 1 ~t'.?; ~~? ?~G-~.l ~.j 1 ir~Icrr~Gt ,;;^~nr,. ni'Jn-~' fi°i ~~~1 <!l1 G1111~
L~-'~

~-
f~ ~~~1,
,;_~. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Coml~zission ~~ _
MEMORANDUM Richard B. H;uuiltun, Executive lairector
'I"O: Melba McGee
Office ofL~gislative and Iuter~;overn?dental Affairs, UEI`R
FRpM; Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator~~ ~/ /~~~ ~
Habitat Consetvation Program v ,
DATE: June 1 ti, 2006 ~ '.
SUBJECT; North Carolina llepat~tment of Transportation (NCDOT) State Environmental
Assessment (EA) for *1:e proposed irnpro~~ements to US 158 from the
Murfreesboro Bypass to US l3 west of Winton, Hertford County, North Carolina.
TIP No. R-2583, SCH Project No. 06-0346
Staff biologists with the Iv'. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA a.nd 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 proviaed in accordance
with eer~tain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. rt0i, as amended; 16 L:~.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen US 158 to a multi-lane facility from the Murfreesboro Bypass to
US 13 west of Winton, The three alteniatives evaluated in the EA consist of a lour-lane di~~ id~d
facility with paved shoulders and a 46 foot wide grass median. The total project length is
approximately 8.1-8.2 miles. Impacts to streams vary with alternativES, and arc. expected to total
approximately 917 to 1270 linear fei;t of stream impac?. Impacts to wetlands vary from 2.R~ to
4.48 acres. Furthermore, Mil] Branch, Potecasi, and their associated pzrennial tributaries
impacted by this project are subject to an anadromous fisheries moratorium ot'Fobruaty ] 5 to
June 15 due to the presence of River herring in there systerrts.
ThL documCnt is an adequate assessment of the ~rnvironmenta! impacts associated with the
alternatives for this project. The NC Wildlife Resources Commission1 does not have a prefel~ed
alternative at this time. We will pariicipate in the alternative selection for this project dunng th°
Mercer process. At this time, we concur with the IrA for this project. Thank you for the
E0 ~9Cd 6E666~56:6 LZ~Di ~+?~?/97/9C~

tiZemo
2 June lb, 2006
opportunity to comment on this EA. if we can b~ or any fwther assistance please call meat
(919) 528-98$6.
cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
Brian Wrenn, DWQ, Raleigh
Bill Biddlecome, U.S. Army Corps of 1/nginecrs

,.
,, ~t
~'3'
b~ ~~~~ 6E8E~3Z56T~ LZ~OT q?a%./~T/9F3

~~~
State of North Carolina
NCDENR pepartment of Environment and Natural Resources
Reviewing Dffice: ~//Q ~C/
Project Number: -. -~/~-~ Due Cave: /~ /~~)
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJEC7COMMENTS ~ ,
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR 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 6e addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of this Form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office-
r ~,
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREM'rM5 Normal Process Time
(Statutory Time Limit
^ Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin consRuttion or award olconsVUCrion
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contratts. On-site inspection. Post-application technical conference usual 30 days
not discharging into state surface waters. . (90 days)
^ NPDES-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewater hcilities conference usual. Additionally, obtain permr, to construct wastewater treatment 90 -120 days
discharging into state surface waters. facility-granted aher NPDES. Reply time, 30 days aher receipt of plans or issue (N/A)
of NPDES permit-whichever is la[er,
^ Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(N/A)
^ We11 Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to d-re 1 days
installation of a well. (15 days)
^ Dredge and Fill permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian prcpstty owner.
On-site inspection. Preapplicarion conference usual Filling may require Easement Si days
to Fitl from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredoe and Fill Permit (~ days)
^ Permit to construct b operate Arr Pollution Aba;amen;
~ facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300, 2M.0600)
^ Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be incompliance with 15 A NCAC 221900
^ Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with
15 A NCAC 2D.1110 (a) (1) which requires notiricauon r,,~,q 60 days
and removal prior to demol+tion Contact Asbestos (90 days)
Control Group 919.733.0820.
^ Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
^ The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1573 must be prope+ly addressed for any land daturbrng acuv^: qn erovon e scd+:nentation 2L days
control plan will be required i(one or more acres to be disturbed Flan filed with proper Rey~onal O`+ce ('_and G.aliry Seaien:• a: leas'. 30 l3~ days)
days before beginning activity. A fee of SSO for the first acre or any part of an acre
~ The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1573 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Grd~nance- 37 says
(
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance w+th NCDOTs approved program- Parncutar attention would be
I
given to design and installation of appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as Stable stonmvater conveyances and outlets. I

^
A1ining Permit
On-srte inspection usual. Surety bond riled wig DENR 9ond amount varies wittt I

i
ype mine and number of acres of affected lan^', kny are mined gra[er titan 30 days
one aae must be permmed, The appropriate bond must be received before (EA days)
the permit can be issued
^ Norrttt Carolina Burning permit Orrsite inspect+on by N.C Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds t days 7 day
(N!A)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 Coum+es On-site inspec;+on by N.C D,.^•,+o^ of Forest Resources regvired'r.' ^tore ti~an five 1 day
in coastal N.C.with organic soils acres of ground cleanny actrv+ues arc invClved_ Inspe:.+ons shout= ~e requested (N!q'
at least ten days before actual burn nplanned-'
^ U+I Refin+ng Facil~t,es N!A 90 - 720 days
IN/A)

--_
PERMITS
^ D
SPECIAL APPLICAT70N PROCEDUkES or RE c
QUIR
1~lENTS
am Safety Permrt .
If permit required, application ED days before begin cons~uctiort APDlic.ant
mun hire N.C qualified en
in
g
eer to: prepare plaru inspect coast ucgon, cer~fy
consnuRion is according to DENR approved plans A:ay also require
mos
e
uito

q
p
rmit under
conhol program, and a a0a permit from Corps of Engineers
An inspeRion of site is necess
r
a
y to verify Hazard Oassifir~tiott A minimum
fee of 5200.00 must accompany the application
Art add
i

P
m .
it
onal processing fee
based on a percentage or the total project cost will be required u

er
it to drill exploratory oil or gas well pon completion.
Fle surety bond of 55,000 with DENR r
i
unn
ng to Srate of N.C conditional tha: any
well opened by drill operator shall
upon aband

Geophysical Exploration Permit ,
onment, be plugged according
ro DENR rules and regulations. ,
Application filed with DENR at least 10 days prior [o issue of perrniC Applicaoan
by lever. No standard applicati
f

SlrateLakez Construction P
i on
orm.
erm
t
Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptiorLs
& drawings of structure & proof of own
hi

401 Water Quality Certification ers
p of riparian property.
'
I~ CAMA Permit for MAJOR development N!A
5250.00 fee must accompany application
CAMA Permit for MINOR development
SS0.00 fee must accompany application
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near t he project area. If any monument
needs to be moved ordes-Toyed, please notiry:
N.C.Geodetrc Survey, eox 2)667 Raleigh, M.C. 27611
No,
(State
~~
30 days
(6D days)
10 days
(N/A)
10 days ~
(N/AJ
1 S - 20 days
(N/A)
55 days
(130 days)
60 days I
(130 days)
22 days
(25 days}
I :..I Aba ndonment o(any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 150. Subchapter X.0100.
I ~ Notification of the proper regional office is requested if'orphan' underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discoverrd Burin; any excasatien o ~,
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwarer Rules} is required. ~_, aticn
I Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite commenr authoriry)
~~,~
Og
:~t;vc~,
<5 days
(N/A)
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
D Asheville Regional Office
59Woodfin Place
Asheville, N.C. 28801
(&26) 251-b208
^ Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.2811 S
[phone]
^ Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Orive extension
Wilmington, N.C. 28405
(910) 395-?900
D Fayetteville Regional Office ^ Raleigh Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714 ^ Winston-Salem Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Fayetteville, N.C.28301 585 Waughtov,~n Street
Raleigh, N.G 27671 Jh'inston-Salem, N.C. X7107
(9 10)486-1541 [phone]
{336) 771-4500
^ Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, N C.27869
[phone]

LV V2t1R Lrat\tJL llv si J~1 H11. L.LG11t'.11vVnvv.~G.
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
MS F.EI•lEE GL~~HILL-EARLEI'
CLEAR?14G~:0USE COOED
CEP: OF CUL RESCL'nCES
ARCHIVES-HISTOR'i BLDG - MSC 96]7
RALEIGH NC
REVIE4J DISTRIBUTION '~~%',
~~ ~' " ~"
CC&PS - DEM, NFIP ~
~,,~
^~`
DE!-!NR - COASTP.L MGT r'• ~U~r' .
2
V
GIS
T
A
S QQ
9~~.)
DENR LE
LA
I
E
FFAIR ~'tn ~`
-°'V
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE Ci~
CLEFT OF CUL RESOURCES 1JC ; ~~
DEFT OF TRANSPORTATIOIJ -~
0
MID E AST COMMISSION 1,+. ,, ,
PROJECT INFORMATION "'
FFPLICANT: NCDOT 11
TYPE: State c,r.~rironmental Policy Act ~ia~~1~ Cp ~O.
ERD: Environmental ?.ssessment
uESC: Proposed ~-~zaE:-„n:, of US 1S6 tc a mt.~lti-faciii.ty beg?nniny at the
the Murf~•eeshcre By-Pass and ending at US 13 in Winton.
TIF ^~c. it-~5e~
CF.C~SS-REF'EREId,~E N'?I~'.FER: C3-E-4220-C135
Tne attached pro,ect has bzen submitted to the ~. C. State Clearinghouse far
i
intergovernmental re•~~iew. Please review and submit your response t.y tF:e above
ir:dicated aa_e to 1.C1 I•;sii Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-I301.
_` a~~4iti.)-.c1 re';iew time is r.eedFd, F:ease contact tt..s offi_e at (91G~8C--245.
t
F.:= A r,~~CLT OF THIS REVIE~h THE FOLL04iING IS SUBMITTEL: l
~,
~- T ~~ r~ ~ . n e Y : l~ ~c, ., ~-
STATE NLTMSER: 06-E-4220-0346 F02
DATE RECEIVED: 05/31/2006
AGENCY RESPONSE: 6/16/200'
REVIEW CLOSED: 05/21/2006
~e~-~ L ~ D c~ - !!~'~ ~ r
f -_ ~1 -
i ~ ~qo~
~~ ~>
(! , ..
~~
~.
F
~.

nLe_'SeCr 1^.^. O.

~1~~
r~
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director
June 16;,2006
Ms. Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mai] Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27649-1601
Resources
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
'~,
~N 2006 '
RFS.~i1V~
~a`~
RE: 5CH No. 06-0346. US 158 from the Murfreesboro Bypass to US I3 V~~est of Winton,
Hertford County, TII' No. R-2583. Environmental Assessment dated 4/27/06.
De~u Ms. McGee:
The N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above referenced project. DCM °eceived a copy of
the EA for review through the State Clearinghouse on 6/S/06.
Thi s project is being carried through the NEPA/404 Merger Process, and DCM is a member of
the NEPA/404 project team. A Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
(LE.DPA) has not yet been selected by the NEPA/404 project team.
The proposed project will impact the following Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA) Areas
of Environmental Concern: Public Trust Area; and Public Trust Shoreline. Therefore, a CAMA
major permit will be required for the project. Please note that the following information on page
57 cif the EA is en•oneous~ "The county is under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Division
of Coastal Management (NCDCM); however, no Areas of Environmental Concern, as defined by
the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA), are present within the study area." Likewise, the
following statement on page 77 of the EA is also erroneous: "Though there are no AECs within
the study area, DCM has determined that Potecasi Creek is a public trust water within the study
area. It is expected that NCDCM will require a CAMA permit for the project due to the
proximity of the project to the C'howan River." A CAMA permit is required for this project due
to direct impacts to the Public "Trust Area and Public Trust Shoreline CAMA AEC's, not due to
proximity of the project to the Chowan River.
Except for the erroneous information as described above, it appears as though the information
contained within the EA is consistent with the information that has been provided to DCM. and
upon which we have commented, through the NLPAl404 Merger Process.
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1638
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement net
An Equal Opportunity 1 AHumaUve Action Employer - 50°i Recycled 110°o Posl Consumer Paper

~ S
~ ~ ~~
.ti ~.~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEP:ARTiv1ENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL. F. EASLEY LANNY T. WILSON
GOVERNOR BOnA~ OF TRnNS}'ORTaT10NMFMBER
April 8, 2008
The Honorable William M. Sue
Vice-Chairman, Brunswick County Commissioner
PO Box 249
Bolivia, North Carolina 28422-0249
Dear Mr. Sue:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
This is to acknowledge the receipt of the Brunswick County C:ommissioner's resolution
passed at their February 18, 2008 meeting. The resolution supported the Department's
reconunended altemative for T1P Project R-3324, Brunswick County.
The proposed alternative of Long Beach Road (NC 133) would be a new connection
between NC 21 1 to ITC 87. This resolution reverses a previous resolution in support of a
private developer's alternative. The resolution will be forward to the appropriate
personnel within the Department for the record and assist in our efforts to improve this
~rcas traffic issues.
Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information.
Sincerely,
f ~ G~r-/
/`^ ~~"
Lane T. Wilson
cc: H. Allen Pope, PE, Division Engineer
Charles Cox, Project Development Group Supervisor, Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Unit
James Goodnight, PE, Project Engineer, Roadway Design Unit
-~(
~ ~ Y
a
d /"
~ l ~
Sn
11.1? Quadrant Circle, b~~,lrtungton. NC 2805 (9101'_56-801) Fax (91D1 2i6-64}'

. t
~x~=~
f~lo~'th Carolina Deparimeni of Environment anu 1at~4rGl ~esou-~cos
Michael F. Easley, Governor
~~~J ~ ~~
MEMORANDUM ~
~`~~' ~~~I20pS
~
c~'~, "'~~ry~ C
~~ ~
~
'
~
TO : Chrys Bagget t
State Clearin
house °l ~~
~Qi7
il
g l `
9~S1 bl ~~~~

FROM: Melba McGee ~ ,
Environmental Review Coordinator
William G. Ross Jr., 5ecrefary
RF: 06-0346 EA for the Proposed US 158 Project from
Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West of Winton in Hertford
County
DATE: June 30, 2006
( The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed ttie proposed project .
Attached are comments made by our divisions in the course
~ of this review. We support continued coordination with the
Division of Forest Resources in identifying forestry information
( that will need to be evaluated in assessing the potential
environmental impacts of this project. The comments provided by
the Division of Forest Resources should be addressed prior to the
applicant circulating the FOIQSI.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
At tachments
'1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc,us/ENR/
An Equal Opporturnry I AffumaUVe Acuon Employer 50 % RecyGed t 10 °I° Post Consumer Paper
1~1o1-thCarolina

ntt-:nT~jzANr~Um
TO: Melba McGee -Environmental Coordinator -Office of Legislative &
Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David May-Regional Aquifer Protection Supervisor- Washington O~ yt~
SUBJECT: US 158 -TIP Project R2583
Hertford County
Project No. 06-0346
DATE: June 6, 2006
The above referenced project was reviewed and the following comments are offered:
1. Any environmental contamination (soil or groundwater) discovered during right-of--way
investigations shall be reported to the Washington Regional Office.
2. Water supply wells located on any right-of-way property obtained shall be properly
abandoned.
3. Any Confined Animal Feeding Operation affected by the project shall have its Animal
Waste Utilization Plan modified to reflect site changes.
Please contact me at 252-948-3939 should you havi; any questions regarding this matter.
~''~'~'~~Ji~l ~3~
`~
.;~~ 2oa~
~~e~~
e

State Project #: 6.079007T TIPS: R-2583 Cor.~nn~: Hertford
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSh~ENT OF EFFECTS
a
lN• 6 • 7~ji~5 7'a'Y~~'+ Sv~ .v~rs-ec~e 5 ~/l ~~
~u --~ -y ~ ~0~~
Project Desc~•iprion: Widen US 158 from Murfreesboro Bypass to`;1J5 13 west of Winton
On January 31, 2006 representatives of the
X North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
® Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
X North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
^ Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
^ There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There are no effects bn the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the•project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
^ There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located witl>sn the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
~, There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
3 ~ -dCo
FHWA, for the Division Adnunistrator, or other Federal Agency Date
~' ~ ~~
Historic Preservation Officer
Date
Representative. NCDOT llate
Representative, H!'U L""`'

Srace Project #: 6.079007T T'IP~. R-2583 Count~~; Hertford
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
~~~Pirvl ~~v'e5 ~ C ~ ~ .~i~aY ~~~ r~~ (I~~> (P,-~~~~ 8~
t~ k .
~ ~-~~a,-~. CPS ~~'~` ~8)
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
f-r ~Pr ~2Gi'~7 / ~ f t T
// //
~ a..~/'/~ ~ !tee s ~ l'~ a o~ iyr i ~ n~r ~o~i a.7~~
/"y~op o s~e d r~/~,~'n
rSX,'Yrr i ~- ~o '~~ ~ur~h ~~t~rLe.~'Q Y ~ a~feri vi -f-~e sE~-, vt a
cewiQ-~ e lit ~ o s 5 -~ ~~ d (e S e~a ~
~~0~ G~t7rc,I~ a~
o. b u -f-~-e ~r acre-o~~ awt d -~'Y~-e~~Qi,-t d f~r~-~, a l~, s ~~~~ ~l ~p
` 'duo.-1 v~~..u ~ s a^^a ~ 5 '~ ~ /
Dh Iy~d1Y1
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable}.
Initialed: NCDOT _~~~ FHWA HPO ~• ~ l~

`.WL ~~
,r \~
~.~ )~
STATE OF NORT;`I CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTATION
MICt3AELF. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR Sr:C;RF.TAH\'
May 21, 2008
Mr. Peter Sandbeck, Administrator
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-461?
Mr. Sandbeck,
Re: Preferred Corridor for the US 158 Murfreesboro Bypass WidCning Project, Hertford County,
North Carolina, TIP No. R-2583, State Project No. 6.0790U7T, ER 02-10781.
I !tank you for your memorandum dated 19 Jul 2005, concurring with the steps proposed by the. North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to evaluate any adverse effects to the extant cultural
resources located either within or adjacent to the project. Since a "Preferred" Alternative has now been
chosen for this project, a meeting was held on Thursday, ] 5 May 2008, hetween representatives of the
NCDOT Archaeology Group and the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) to discuss the need for additional
work for Site 31HF'268** (a turn-of-the-century farmstead), Site 31HF272** (the Hallman Family
Cemetery), and Srte 31 HF278** (a Civil War-era earthwork). At the conclusion of this meeting, it was
determined that:
1) if Site 31HF268**, which has been recommended as eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places (NRHP) per Criterion D, can not be avoidrd by the proposed design, them an
archaeological data recovery investigation would be appropriate in order to mitigate adverse
impacts to the site brought about by the proposed project. In anticipation, a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the US Army Corps of Enbineers (COE), the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO), and the NCDOT would be prepared.
2) Site ?I EIF272** can not he avoided by the proposed design. Rccornmended as not eligible for
the NRI IP, the Hollman Family Cemetery (sec Tippets 2004:100 [OSA Bibliors5351 ]), consisting
of one (I j marked grave and four (4) uruTiarked depressions, will be impacted by the project. We
request iliac the Office of State Archaeology make the determination as to how the removal and
relocation of the gravestte(s) be treated, i.e. by following either NC General Statute 70, Article 3
or NC General Statute 65. if treated under GS 65, removal and relocation will he handled by the
NCDOT Right-of-Way Office. If treated under GS 70, Article 3, removal and relocation will be
handled by the NCDOT Archaeology Group in consultation with the Right-of-Way Office, next-
of-kin (if found), and the Office of State Archaeology.
3) Addit;onal work at Srte 3]HF278**, which has been reconunended as eligible for the N1ZHP
per Criteria A, C, and D, should first consist of a site visitation in order to deternune the presence
of additional trench lines, which may or may not extend south from the known earthwork uTto the
comdor for the Preferred Alternative. 1f additional trench lines are located, an overlay of said
trench lines and the Preferred Alternative will then be prepared. If an overlap of these nvo items
occurs, then the steps outlined in our ]3 Jun 2005 memo shall be followed in conjunction with
those proposed in the survey report ('l~ippett 2004:109 [USA Biblio#5351 ]) (i.e. synopsis of
personal accounts and a systematic metal detector and/or remote sensing survey to Locate potential
artifact concentrations and features. If no overlap of these two hems occurs, then no additional
work will be required for Site 31HF278**.
MAILINGA~DRESS: TE~EPrIONE 919-715-1500 LOCATION
NC DE PART NE NT ~F TRANSVORIATIQN FAX q19-715.1522 2728 CAPITM BOULEVARD, SUITE 16H
I~IUMAN ENVIRON MENI UN11 Rnt.EIGH. NC 27604
1583 M.nll SERVICE CENTER W[OSlTE; w~Vw,N0007.ORG
F2ntElcl-i NC 27699-1583

I hank you for your cooperation and consideration ~n this matter. Should you have anv questions
concerning thts protect, please contact me at [phone] or Mr. Paul J. Mohler, NCDOT
Archaeologist. at (919) 71~-1755.
MTW/pjm
cc: Charles Cox, PDEA
Jeffrey Teague, Roadway Design
Paul J. Mohler, Archaeology Group
Susan Myers, OSA
John Mintz, SSA
Bill Biddlecome, COE
Regards,
Matt 1~'tlkerson
Archaeology Supervisor
Human l;nvironment Untt

~~.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resource;-,. ,
State Historic Preservation Office ~-~ ••-•~= ---~ -a~='`''•='"'
PrrrrH :iand6rck, .AJm,mstruor
A4xhacl I ~. h:aslry, Girncmur ~ UfGce of Arehwcs and llistor)
l.ro-bcth ~ : Evans, ticcremr)~ Drvrsiun of I-lrstoncal Ncuwrccs
Ieffrey J . Crou, [)ep~q' Sccretar)~ David Rmok, Director
MEMORANDUM
` TO: Matt Wilkerson, Archaeology Supervisor
( Di~rision of Highways
llepartment of Tpra~naspo/rtation
1~OM: Peter Sandbeck ~-~/ ~~
RE: Proposed Corridor for the US 158 Murfreesboro $ypass 1X/idening Project, R-2583, Hertford
County, ER 02-1078]
llA-TT=,: July 19, 2005
'T'hank `you for }our letter of June ] 3, 2005, transmitting the additional information concemui~ this project.
\XJe beLeve that the steps proposed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation to evaluate anv
adverse effects to the extant cultural resources located either witllil~ or adjacent to the project ade9uately
addresses our concerns.
-I~he above comments are made pursuant to Section ] OG of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advtsor}r Council un I Iistoric Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section ] OG codified at ~(i CFR
Part 800.
Thank }•ou fox }'our cooperation and considerations. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Farley, environmental review coordinator, at 9]9/733-47G3. In all
funtre communication concerning this project, please cite tTie above-referenced tracking number.
LACab On Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION Sri' N f4loum Srrccr, ltalcrgh NC x617 MaJ ticr~uc lcmrt, Raingh NC 27699-n617 (9P7)'ll.g7(,1;711-A651
RESTORATION SI S N lllnunc ~trcer. Italc,gh Nf: a6t7 Mad \crv,ce Ccnttr, Balogh N(: _7699-a(.1" (')1917 31 6541/71 5 aRUI
SLRVEY & I'L,ANNING 51 i N Illnun~ ~rrccr, Itak,gh, Nr 4617 Mad ]rrva. ('.c mcr, Ralc,gh N/- 2769,-a(1' t91 );711-6545~715~4H~r1

1,
O
('.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 13,2005
Mr. Peter Sandbeck, Administrator
State Historic Preservation Otfce
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Dear Mr. Sandbeck,
LYNDO TIYPETT
S ECRET AR ~'
Re: Proposed Corridor for the U.S. 158 Murfreesboro Bypass Widening Project, Hertford County,
North Caraluta, TIP Nu. R-2583, State Project No. 6.079007'T, Division 1, ER 02-10781.
Three, instead of two, altematives for this road improvement project now currently exist: I) widening on
existing, 2) a northern bypass near Mt, Tabor Baptist Church, and 3) a southern bypass near Mt. Tabor
Baptist Church. The previous archaeological survey (Tippett 2004), prepared by our archaeology
consultants, covered the first nvo alternatives, but not the third. On July 9, 2004, SHPO concurred with the
findings of this report. The sout}rern bypass route was an alternative that the NCDOT had previously
dropped prior to ordering environmental studies, but recently reintroduced to the agencies during the most
recent merger meeting (May 19, 2005). NCDOT had eliminated this particular alternative from
consideration since it involves a new crossing of Potecasi Creek in a ne~v location.
However, now that the agencies have approved this third alternative (even though it was previously
eliminated from consideraton), a request was made for supplemental input regarding cultural resources that
may be located within the neev location section only of the southern bypass alternative (extending south of
Mt. "Tabor Baptist Church). In addition, the Archaeology Section has been asked that the boundaries of Site
31 HF278 be verified in order to confu-m its coordinates represent the extent of the site or if an additional
buffer should be added. Representing a Civil War-period earthwork, Site 31 HF278 was recommended as
eligible for the NRHP per Criteria A, C, and D. It was previously recommended that if this site were to be
impacted by the proposed project, mitigation efforts would be implemented. At this time, it is believed that
the first two altematives will have no impact to the Civil War earthwork; however, based on its design and
orientation, it is believed that the third alternative will impact Site 31HF2?8
Even though the limits of the Civil War earthworks are unknown at this time, preliminary background
research has revealed that a line of Confederate trenches extended south fiont Site 31HF278 to a small
unnamed tributary of Potecasi Creek. Overlooking Hill's Bridge from atop two bluffs, this line of trenches
defended the old road between Winton and Murfreesboro.
On June 8, 2005, a discussion was Field with Lee Tippett (Berger) who conducted the archaeology survey of
the project corridor on behalf of the NCDOT Archaeology Section. Based on the information presented,
the area west of Potecasi Creek that would be urcluded within the expansion of the Area of Potential
Effects {APE) for the third alternative is believed to have a low potential fur containing intact
archaeological remains aside from Site 31 HF278, whose limits may extend into the expanded APE. The
low potential is based on the fact that much of the terrain in this area has already been surveyed, slopes into
the unnamed tributary mentioned above, and shows numerous signs of previous timbering and bulldozing
activities. The area east of Potecasi Creek that would be included within the expansion of the APE is also
believed to have a low potential for containing intact archaeological remains. "phis low potential is based
on the fact that much of the terrain in this area has already been sun-eyed or can he categorized as almost
hydric, with a very high water table.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE [phone] LOCATION:
NC DL'PAHIMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX [phone] PARKER LMCOIN BU4DING
OrFICE OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 2 728 CAPITAL BOUI.EVARQ JUITE 168
1583 MAit. SERVICE Cr_NTER VNEBS/TE WIMN.NCDOT ORG RnLE~GM NC^7n04
Rn~EiG~+NC 27699-1583

Based on a brief meeting with Dolores Hall (OSA) and John Mintz (OSA) on June 10, ?005, the NCDOT
Archaeology Section recommends that additional work should be conducted only if this third alternative is
chosen as the preferred for the proposed project. Such work would then be focused on Site 31HF278
consisting of, but not limited to, a site visitation to determine the presence of additional trench lines and a
synopsis of personal accounts, some of which have already been located at the State Library, Southern
Historical Collection (LJNC-CH), and Special Collections (Duke). References from the O~cia! Record may
also be compiled. In addition, the NCDOT Archaeology Section also~tecommends that if one of the previous
two alternatives is chosen as the preferred, design plans will be reviewed in order to determine if the
proposed activity will impact Site 31HF278. A site visitation may also be required for such a determination.
We look forward to receiving your comments. TJtank you for your assistance in this matter. Should you
have any questions concerning this project, please contact me at [phone] or Mr. Paul J. Mohler,
NCDOT Archaeologist, at [phone].
Regards,
Matt Wilkerson
Archaeology Supervisor
Office of Human Envirotunent
MTW/pjm
cc: Dolores Hall, OSA
Beth Smyre, PDEA
Paul J. Mohler, Human Em~ironment Unit
Lee Tippett, Berger

,. ~rnrF
r~,e ,,,, n .,o. \
~ 4. ~ ~~
~~ :~ i/~~
~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Michael F F.aeley, Governor Qfficc of Archives and History
Lishelh C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Broo4:, Dvector
July 9, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Manager ,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook~~~ ~~
V
SUBJECT: Proposed Comdor for the L'S 158 Murfreesboro Bypass ~7v'idening Project, Hertford County,
R-2583, ER02-1078]
Thank you for pour letter of June 3, 2004, transmitting the archaeological survey report by The Louis $erger
Group, Inc., for the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section IUG of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion D:
31HF268, and that archaeological site 31HF278 is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places under criterion A, C and D. These two sites have the potential to }•ield new information about the
historic archaeology of the Coastal Plain, specifically archaeological site 31HF268 a farmstead occupied for
the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century and archaeological site 31HF278 a Civil ~'ar period earth
work.
The following properties aze determined nit eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
31HF260, 31HF261, 31HF262, 31HF263, 31HF264, 31HF265, 31HF266, 31HF267, 31HF269, 31HF270,
31HF271, 31HF272, 31HF273, 31HF274, 31HF275, 31HF27G, 31HF277, 31HF279. These properties do not
retain the level of integrity nor do they possess the potential to yield significant new information pertauting to
the prehistory of North Carolina.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Prese:-vation's Regulations Ear Compliance with Section lOG codified at 36 CFR
Pan 800. -
~,:
t.n~L00 At eilmg Address TelephondFtU
ADMII~ISTT1AT70r`' 507 N Hlount Street, Raleigh NC aGi 7 t,1ad Scrncc Cenicr. Raingh NC ^_7544-1517 (y!y173i x763+733-8553
R.ESTC)]LATION 515 N Blotmc Sveet, kaletah NC ~w17 Matl Sernce Centr... kalagh Nr ?7549-0517 (41y}73: ~Sg7/7(Sgg(11
S'L!RV'El' & pL,VYNIIHC 51' N Hlotmt Strec4 Italnrh N:: d5171~i;u1 Sernce Center, Ralcteh 1~C ~75~K+7(,17 f419i'3~.c~a5R1 ~--rR01

1 hank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, en<<ironmental review coordinator, at 919/733-~1 ~G3. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Louis Berger, Raleigh
bc: ~-e1a'gget/Ivtintz
Countp

c
~ _i
(1
c~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Da~~d I.. S. Arook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
November. 23, 2002
MEMORANDi1M
Division of Historical Resources
David I. Olson, Du~ector
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
NCDOT Division of Highways '
FROM: Da~~id Brook {~~_ ~' ~C11-~'`~~-~•_
V
SUBJECT: Scoping US 158 Murfreesboro B}pass to US 13 west of Winston, R-2583,
Hertford County, ER02-10781
"Thank you for your memorandum of October 22, 2002, concerning the above project. Please
replace this memorandum for the one incorrectly dated September 1 ~i, 2002.
Because the architectural sur~~ey for the area of potential effect is more than 20 }'ears old, we
recommend that a Department of 'Transportation architectural histonan identify and evaluate am'
structures over 50 years old and report the findings to us.
In teens of archaeological resources, this area of the state is e~ttremely rtch to prehistoric occupation
sites. Several different t3rpes of archaeological sites have been recorded vtithin the area, ranging
from temporary hunting camps, to larger base camps, to more sedentary occupation sites. Several
archaeological sites of the historic period arc also recorded within the study area. We, therefore,
recommend that a comprehensive archaeological sun~ey be conducted on the project area.
The above r.omments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Presen~ation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Presen~ation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 10C
codiEted at 3G CFR Part 800.
Thank }'ou for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Farley, environmental review coordinator, at 019/733-4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
1)I~:doc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
v~latt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location
Administration X07 N Blount St, Raleigh, NC
Restoration 515 N Blount St. Raleigh . NC
~ur,,,,•~- •, "^.nnin~ '. ~ i i '?lerunt `a. 2aieieh 't
Mailing; Address
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-461 7
461? Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
iri I it ~ drui ~er~icc C•~nter. - ~i~-ic~h :':`~~~U-4h I ~~
'Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone] •715-4801
91 til ?3~-476? + %; 5-4801

R-2583
Appendix C
` (NEPA/ 404 Merger Team Signature
Sheets)
t

,~~
Section 4U4/NLPA [rzteragency Agreement '
Concurrence Point No. 2A: i3ridging and .Alignment Review
Project Title: Vdidening cif US 158 fi-om tl~e Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West
of Winton, Hertford County; WBS No. 35489, TIP Project R-?583.
The project team has concwred with the following bridging t:ecommendations:
Site Location Stream Brid in Recommendation
• Alt A, B, C: Retain & Extend Existing 2 @ 12-
1 Between SR 1305 & "rrib to Potecasi Creek ft x Eft RCBC
SR 1157 (SD) Alt A2, B2, C2: Construct the same on new
____
location
~ Just east of potecasi Creek (SB) Alt A, B: Replace with dual 200-fl budges
SR 1334

2a South of Site ? on
Potecasi Creek (SB)
• Alt C: New dual bridges @ ~y -ft C~~`~
New Location

3
Between SR 1174
Mill Branch (overflow) . _
Retain & Extent ] @ 8.5-ft x 3-ft RCBC
and SR 1175
4 $etween 5R 1 174 Mill Branch (SA, main ~ Retain & Extent l @ l0-ft x 4-ft RCBC
and SR 1 175 crossin£)
5 Between SR 1 l74 Mill Branch overflow
( )' •
Retain & Extent 1 @ 9-ft x 5-ft RCBC
and SRI 175
6 Between 5R ] 174 I Mill t3ranch (overflow) ' • Retain & Extent l (a~ 5-ft x 3-f1 RCBC.
and SR 1 175 -~
NAME :1GF.NCY' DATE
NCDOT ~ !? D~
~
_ ~1SAC>=. ~ I~ 7 (off
_
~, ~ ~,
1 -_.-
,I ; i
~1SFw'S
,'~' ~ Z~, s
'~IMFS
~~ ~ ~f ~~~~:~, NCDWQ ,~ _,
1, l V L
NcwRC ~ ~~-~~~
NCDMF
NCSHPO

l
~f ~
l ~
Section 4~4INEPA Interagency Agreement (
Concurrence Point Na. 2A: Bridging and Alignment Review
(~
Project Titie: Widenuig of US 1 ~8 from the Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West ~ '
of Winton, Hertford County; VIrIiS No. 35489, TIP Project R-2583.
The project team has concurred with the following bridging recrnnmendations:
Site Location StrerJm Grid in `Recommendstian
• Alt ft, B, C; Retain & Extend :acisting 2 ~ 12-

1
Between SR 13C5 &
Trib to rotecasi Creek I'
ft x Eft RCBC
5R ] 1 G7 (SD) Alt A?, B2, C2: Constnlct dte same on new ~
__ locution
~ Just east of
5R 1334 potec~si Creek (SB)
~ • Alt A, B: Replace with dun: 200-h hricges '
j
~Q South of Site 2 on
New Locatton Potecasi Creek Sl3
( 1
Alt C: ?few dt~,al br,dges ~ ? D -fl ~ l ~ ~
"'
3 Between SR 1174
and SlZ 1175 Mill Drartch overflow
( )
Retain & Extent 1 ~. 8.5-ft x 3=ft RCBC

4 Between SR l 174 Mill Erflt~irh (SA, main
and SR 1175 ~ crossin) Retain & Extent 1 @ 10-fix 4-fl RCBC
S Between 5R 1 i7~1
and SR 1175 Mi11 Brunch overtlott~
~ } •
Retain ~ Extent 1 ~ 9-ft x 5-fi RCBC
6 Between SR 1174
and SR 1175 Mill Branch overflow
( } •
Retain & Extent 1 @ 6-ft x 3-R RCBC
ivAME AGENCY BATE
NCDOT - - ~ !7 08
./~ USACE Y~ (17.103
~ r--~ n,~l ~
__ LfSEPA 1 ~ 1 7 Ida°`Z~
USFWS
1 17 ~ 20o B
NMFS
- NCDWQ ~ 17 d
NCDCM ~ ~ 7 ~~ ~
~,
~
~; _a~ ~
NCWRC ~
~
,~`` ~ ~ ,R,.y.,.~
..s, f NCDMF
~ 1 z~ - ~ ~
NCSHPO
t

n~ .~,2~7Ei~' 1= ?5 ~iC DCT PLEA 912272'=t8^2S
•~f•"'~l Du~'_
Sectioxe 404;~'~'ET'A Xnteragency~ agreement
CrJacorre>nce Point No. ?A: Bridging, and Alicnmeni Review
Project Titie;_ ~~lidening o£~US 15~ from the Murrxeesboro Bynass to US 13 Vdest
~f Winton, I-iertfbrd County ~JT3S No. 35489, TZP Project R-2583.
The project teen leas cotteurred with the folfowinn bridging recamtnendations:
Site Location Strelm )grid~ing RecommendatSon
Alt A, B, C; Retain 8c Ehtend ,Cxisring 2 @ 12-
Behveen SR l 305 &. Trib to Potccasi Creek ft x b'~1 RCDC
~ 1 1 £~
512 (SD) • Alt A2, A2, C2: Construct the ,vatrre on ne;w
. locution
~ Ju&t east of >?oi.ecasi Creek (SB) • Alt A, k~; Replace with dual 20Q-ft btid~es
" SR 1334
7~ South of5iie 2 on patecasi Creek (SI3) Ni C: New dual 1~ndSes @ ~~p -fl ~~~
Near Location
3 Between 5R 11 ;4 Mill Branch (over(lou~) Retain & Extent 1 (i~ 8.~-f~ x 3-R RC)3C
and SR 1175
Between SR 1174 ivlill Branblt (5A, main JO-ft x 4-(i RCF3C:
~ RctFlrn & Extent 1 @
~ rnc3 SR i l7~ crossin ,
13eriveen SR l ] 74 Mi]l Branch (pvertlow) • Retain & Extent 1 ©4-ft x 5-fl RCBC
' and 5R 1 l75 _
~ Bawee~~ SR 1174 Mill Branch (avert~o~v) + Retain ~ FRtent l @ b-ft k 3-fl RCBC
rind SR 1 173

~~~t rTL• ~~~, ~r C'~~ DATF~
r; cPO ; / ~7 D~'

~~~ us.~c>/
I ~.~

~ /
6_
_~ -
.-_~ USFWS
NMFS

NCT~WQ 1 17 j~oo8
~ ~
~
f /% 6~
_
~ ~v~ NCDC.M
I ` } 7 D
-- -
_~ S~
NCWRC /
~r ! ~_~,~
NCDMF
NCSHPO

Section 404~dEP~ ltttcragency Agreement
~o~leure~emce Poitit Nn. 2A: $ridgln~ and Aligttrrtent ~edie~w
Prnjeci_ Ti;tl_e: Widening of US 158 from the Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West
oF~linton, ~-Iec4ford County; WBS No. 35489, T1P Project ~2-2383.
The project team has concurred with the following bridging recommcmdations:
Sitr 1(.pc~tinn Stream Grid In ~i.ect-manendataota
• Alt A, $, C; Retain & C,xte7ld Existing 2 @ 12-
$CSwccn SR 135 8r Trib to Polccaei Creek fl x Eft RCHC
1 SR J 167 (S)~) Alt A.2, B2, C2: Construct the xame on ncu~
looation
z Just east of p6ter.A61 Crcxk (SB} • Alt A, B: Replace with dual 20fl-ft bridges
SR 1334
2a Soutr oFSite 2 on potcrasi Creek (SB) • Alt C. ~ New dual budges ~a ~a -ft l
New Location

3 ~e4~reen SR 1174
Mill Branch (overflow)
• Retain & Extent) @ 8.3-ft x 3-~ l2C~.
artd SR 1175
~ Betw°~t SR 1174 Mill. Hrani~h (5A, main ~ Ftrtain ~ L-xteut 1 @ ! 0-ft x ~-fl RCBC
and SR 1175 crossiat
S B~veeB cR 1174 Mill $ranch (overflow) • Retain & Extent 1 @ 9-ft x 5-R RCSC
and SR 1175 ._._
6 I 13etwe~n SR 11 ~4 I Mill $rar-ch (overflow} ~ • Reta>,n & Extent Z L 6-fl z 3-R RCI~C J
and SR 11 ?5 L t-
NA.?~E AGENCY g~ATE 1
NCDQT d f7 ~

~I USACE ! ~+ ~ +~~ l
L _+

~ ~1SF~s ~ it-~l ~~a~
NMFS
- NCDWQ ~ ~' ~
~ NCDCM ) ~ 7 Q g
i
rrcw.RC ~ ~ ~-~~
NcnMr-
NCSHPO /.. ~~-Q g

?i iQ - - _: ' iIIJ ^r.,~,r.'~'~.~r ~ r !Q 1 1Hi ~,~~'=,~dd -~ 1 .~[i 1'-~ I H 31!-+1'S .~I J r..- : ~ T ~-;i n-. _ -- ; i , ,

Sectiota 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3: Least Environmentally Damaging Practical
Alternative (LEDPA)/ Preferred Alternative
Project Title: Vi~idening of US 158 from the Murfreesboro Bypass to tJS l 3 West
of Winton, Hertford County; WBS No. 35489, TIP Project R-2583.
The project team has concurred that the Alternative C2. is the LEDPA for Project R-2583.
NAME AGENCY DATE
NCDOT ~ ~Z dS
/J,~,c ~
~/v USACE
I ~
~'~f ~ ~~1.~ ~ U5EPA /
f f ~ ~ ~ ;~a~ A
J~.
V~~
USFWS ~
~ (!~'~CD3
NMFS
,~~~~,~-z ----, ,
J
i~ ~ Q
' - ~ c----- Ncwxc
NCDMF
NCSI-1P(~

'~l .i"'~2~c1c 15: ~; Mi= DO- Pi~ER -~ a125?7~28%~E~ Il_~,. 4 r'ti D~3=~
~ectic~~ ~44~^4~E]Pa. Interagency Agreement
(:ctncue'rence Point i~a. 3: Leant En~~ironmentRlly Darnagin~, Practieai
Alternative (LED1?A)/ Preferred Alternative
~'ro,ject 7Citle_ Widening o~US ls~ from the Mtirfree~bozo Bypass ~o US 13 West
of Wintan, I-Iertford CoLtiat~.~; WBS 1`~0. 35489, TIP Pro}ect ~-2~~3_
'rho proSe~t team has concurred th7t the A~ternntivc ~~ is the LEDPA fir Project R-25fi3
~iA.~E AGENCY' DATE
NCDOT f ~~ ~~
/~,~,c ~ USI#CC - t
,~`( ~-~..._,~ . -, USEPA ~~ t ~ j boa 8
USF~~'S
i ~ f ~'71~.ao~3
NMFS %~ ~

.~ ~ -
_ ,-~ ^ ~,~ '~CDWQ

, vc~cM / / ~
g-~..-~
1 4 ~ ~: ~
~` ~ ~%/ ~ NCWRC J_ ~ ~` v~CC~
N'CDM~=
NCSHPO

t
Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3; Least Environmentally Damaging Practical
Alternative (LEDPA)/ Preferred AllernaUve '
i
Project Title: WidenUig of liS ] SS from the Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 'West
of Winton, Hertford County; WBS Na. 3$489; TIP Project R-?583.
The project team has concurred that the Alternative ~2 is the LEDPA for Project R-?583.
NAME AGENCY DATE
NCDOT ~ ~Z dB
USACE f
~~~.~._.~. ~ USEPA ~I I "7 ~ Sao 8
~~ USFWS ~ ~~ i~2oo~
NMFS
.. NCDWQ 1 / b
~
~
r NCDCvI ~
~ ~ 7 ~ S
-~ ~ c---
---~ NCWRC
~` ~~` aGC~ ..

NCSHPO

~ecti~~ 4~Q~/I~dEIaA I~terugency Aga•eerrneext
~©tec~t•PC~c~e ~~as~g ~Io. 3: ~,e~at Er~~6r•®tttne~t~lly I~~rnag~ra~ ~y ~~~~~~
t~il~~e•au~t9vc ~..,EI~F~t1)I Il'refere'~d ~tern~~we
~rc~~ect'~'~ele: ~/idening of US 1 S8 fT~ru t}i~ Iviur£reesboro P3ypass to tJS l3 V~'cst
." ~:.~~ ~or~ Herford County; ~JHS No. 35489, T1P Project Fd-~5~3.
i
The ~ro~eet te~c~ fr~a~ .ozvcur~e~ that the Altcs-~atave ~~ is the L~~~~lt: fre ~~oje~F ~~~~~.
~d ABM ~
~. ~ 6~~` ,
~~~ ,_ .~
f i '~`]`-
~_
^~~--~
AGENCY tDATE
~1CD~T
- 9 1 ~ d~
--
USACE' A
~
USEPA ~~ r -r j Zoo 8
us~ws ~ f +7~aao8
NMFS
tiCI7WQ f ~
NCDCM
-- ~ } ~ ~ g
T~'CVVRC ~~ ~J- ~~
l~CL7MF
--
NCSHPO 1 -~a -ag
i
.~ .
{( ' .
l ~
C
~~
C~
(,
( l
C-
~?
c
~~
(j
~~
L'
~~

i
- ' '
Section 404/NEYA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4A: Avoidance and Minimization
Project Title: Widening of US 158 from the Murfreesboro Bypass to US 13 West
of Winton, Hertford County; WBS No. 35489, TIP Project R-2583.
"I~he project team has concurred with the following avoidance/ minimization tecluziques:
• Mill Branch -shift roadway south to reduce impacts to wetlands WD, WC, and WB.
• East terminus -shift roadway north to minimize impacts to wetland WA.
• Alternatives B acid C -added to avoid impacts to the Historic Mount Tabor Baptist Church
and its cemetery.
• Alternatives .A2, B2, and C2 -added to minimize impacts to the minority community of
Mapleton, as well as the historic Britt Store.
• Construct longer bridge across Potecasi Creek in order to minimize impacts to wetland WV
300 (approximately 390 feet).
• A portion of the existing US ] 58 roadbed may be removed east of the old Potecasi Creek
crossing as mitigation, pending further investigation.
• Include the removal of the existing culvert just east of Mapleton (Site SD and Vl~'PP). A
portion of the existing US 15h roadbed may also he removed as mitigation pending further
investigation.
• ~:l side slopes in wetland areas.
NAI\'IE AGENCY DATE
---- 2 NCDOT / /7 vF
USAGE
- l7 rIDS
~_,
~~ ,A , --
LISEPA f ~ I -J j e~ _ c',
~,
.-',~. ~ n~~
,~ f
U SF W S ~
' ' , ~, 'z ~~, ~
~ ~ .
. -
NMFS
. ~
~. - NCDWQ
l % i r~Q
NCDCM
~~ NCWRC ~_ ~7 Z(X}~
NCDMF
NCSHPO

t
;,.
Section 404/NEPA Yntera~eney Agreement
Concurrence Point No, aA. Avoidance and Minimization
Project Widening of CJS 158 from the Murl7eesboro Bypass to US 13 V4'est
of Winton, Hertford County; WBS No. 35189, TtP Project R-25g3-
The project team has concurred with the following avoidance/ minimization techniques:
• Mil] Branch -shift roadway south to reduce impacts to wetlands WD, WC, and WB.
• East tearriinus -shift roadway north to minimize impacts to wetland WA.
• Alternatives Band C -added to avoid impacts to the Historic Mount Tabor Baptist CF:urcli
and its cemetery.
• Alternatives A2, B2, and C2 -added to minimize impacts to flee minority community of
Mapleton, as well as the historic Xiriti Store.
• Construct longer bridge across Pote~casi Creek in order to minimize impacts to wetla~~d WV
300 (approximately 390 fcet}.
• A portion of the ovcisting US 158 roadbed may be removed easr of the old Potecssi Creek
crossing as mitigation, pending further investigation
• Include the remove] of the existing culvert just east of Mapleton (Site SD and WPP). A
portion of the existing US 158 roadbed may also be removed as mitigation pending further
investigation.
3:1 Side Slopes in wetland areas.
NAME AGENCY DATE
NCDOT ~/~~ A ~
1 - USACfi ~~l7IDS
~~ /~~ T USEPA ~ ~ , -7 (q ~
~' USFWS ~ ~t' -7/2~^A
NMFS
NCDWQ ~/~ ~,
,., ,~\ NCDCM 1 I' ~ U
- - NCWRC f - ~7 COL ~6
~ %
NCSI-IPO
~~
~'
l
C.

~ -1. ~
FJt ~ 1': ~?_~30~ l5' ~5 rIC DOT PUEH -, 41c5c72AE~7c8
Section X04/NEPA interagency Agreement
C'nneurrertce Point ~'o. 4A: Avoidance and iViinixnizat~on
nl I . a"~ `~ D~'~~
Proiect 'Title, ti~lidenin~ of U5 158 from the MLtrGFesboro Bypass to US 13 ~Uest
~f Wincon, Hertford Cdttnty; WBS No. 35489, TIP PrQ~ect It-2583.
T1ie project team l±as concurred, with the fol]ow~ng avoidance/ minimisation techniques:
?vS.ill Branch -sluff roadway south to reduce impacts to wetlands WD, WC, axed W'i3,
a Gast terr.~inuE -shift roadway north to miztiirni~e impacts to wetland VJA,.
,~ltemntives ~ and C - <<dded t.o nvoid impacts to the Historic 1Wlount Tabor $aptist Church
and its cemetery.
Alte~:~natives A?, 132, and C2 -- addc~cl to minimize impacts tc?~t1ac minority community of
Mapleton, tts well Ts the historic Britt Store.
~ Construct Ionges' bridge across Potectisi creek in order to minimize impacts t4 wel:lnnd W~,`
300 (approximatc'.ly 390 feet).
A port.inn of the existing, US 1 SS roedbcd may be removed east of-the old Poteca.~i Creek
cr~ocsing a; mitigation, pending further int~csiigation
+ 1.ncludc the removal oi' the existing culvert ill9l east of Mapleton (Site SD and WPP). A
portion o',""the existing L'S 158 roadbed may also be removed as mitigation pending further
investigation.
3:1 site slopzs in wetland areas.
NhNiE - - - - :AGENCY ~ nA"fE ~
~
-- ~ I
~ ~ NCDO7 t i7 D$
,~ ,~~ -
n~ ~ UsACE
U;I-DVS ~
- j~_ IBS
~ 1~~1zoD~
'1
/ NMF~S ~ // ~ ;
~ ~
.
/~ NCpWQ // ~ ~
.
~-~` NCDCM ~ ~ l
- -
%4/
N cD:utr

NC51-IPO
.~

5ecdor+ 4(L~lt`1F,PA jntern~tncy Agreement
Concu.rret~ee Poant Na. 4A: Avoidance and 1~vllnimd~atimn
pro~eSt~Tit_le: Widening of U~+ 158 from the Murfreesboro Bypass co US 13 West
of Winton, Hertford County; VJBS No, 35489, TLY Project R-2583.
The project tEam has concurred with she following a~voidancc~ minimization techniques'
• htil] Branch -shift roadway south to reduce impacts to wetlands WD, WC, grad W r~3.
• fia.st terminus - siaiR roadway north to n~inimi2e tmpact5 to wetland WA.
rl.lternatives B and C - added tq avoid ttnpoets to the Historic Tv3ourit Tabor Baptist Church
and its czmetery.
• Alternatives A2, 132, road C2 -added to ruinitnize impacts to the minority co,ntnunity of
Ma;leton, as well as the historic [3ritt Store,
• Construct longer bridge across Potecasi Creek in order to minimize impacts to Weiland ~
300 (approxitr,atcly 390 Coet).
A portion of the exisnng US 158 roadbed may lsc removed east of the old Potecast Creek
crossing as tnttigat~an, pending ftarrltier investigation.
• [nclude the removal of the, existing culvert just east of Mapleton (Site SD and WPIr). R
portion of the existing US 1. g8 roadbed may also be removed aS mifigation prrrtcling ftarthtr
invcatigtttion.
e :~:1 side slopes in wetland areas.
1~ A.1~iE
~ ~ ~ --~
~ J
,~~
z ~~
AGENCY
Nc>~oT
LSACE
L'S 1rPA
USFV~'S
NMFS
NcnwQ
1`CDCM
N CWRC
NCI7MF
NCSHPO
r-iiQ ~;_:~ ' i_irl r-r,. r.'=r:.t, - IJ01 ~ Hi ~,~~'~.~,~,~ ~~ 1 dC~l'S ~ t-! 31N1 = :~r
DATE
f ~7 a~
~ ~' l08
l~t~~o
i 1 ~-~1z~8
1 l7 d S
f - 17 ~~ ~5
~'
l •
~_ :.
t
l
(:
(
(_ ~.;
~..
;..
r
i

CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: R-2583
_ _
~-
~
~ A t t
.~ 0 ~ ~
?~ O T O O

~
N
~-'
.~ _ n
D ~ rr
v ~

O O O
D D
~ oo
b
~7OC-' oNN lZ9
°
°
nn °
<-+acc
~o
i
V O cn
~ rn (l a~ II II II II II II
.Z
~ v
~
CN C O V~ N~ P b
~
II ~
00 CO
~ ;~ ;~ c
n a
A =
O
r r
m m
Z Z
O
D
r N A
-' O
^' A D
Z C ~
~ n
~ ~ f
= A {
_1 N ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
A .y
o " o n
r^ O rn
-ni m y y
A ti A h
N 7C N
ODD N W
W
W
II W II y
u ~
V O V
V O G
A P V
N P P
3 3 3

~ ~,
~
~
~
A

~I~~
~ ~ Z
o I
~ L
T O
- -- I%
~ ` y
A
A

m
b ~
~In m

~A
'n ~ ~ ~

A a C
~ m
,
y
~ I O ..
h
~
m i~ ~
= ~
A ' .:
a
IZ
,I ~
b C
m ~
~
~ o
~ `
~
M
I'R
~ V
•l J

O
;~
:~ c
1 .. I~
it ~i

a
G7 s
r ,,,
z ~--
a ''
~

~

~

~;
I
m ~
it
~'
~°
..
ti~
,{~,1~~~80:0 ~ ^,
A I ~ .~,'

f i~ ti A
~~

b i'
1~ y
.z~:z
C
x
~' a "~
~,
p
/ '~
C.~
nl
z
~,
D
_y
n
2
O
yd
n
n
-,
cy '~
~~
'~ /_<~
` J
i
T
V '

ti
O I ~ r I ''
I' _
~ a ~~~ ~,
it I it ~ ~~"
~ `~ ~ i i ~ I' ~~
I, I
I~ o ~ ,,
c~ ~ ~
C /~ ' I n ,
a ~ y ~ I ~~, I ' , '~
b
C~ ~ ~ I 1 ^- --,
h b ~ ~ ;~ ~i, .~,
_,
'~ ~
c., ..,
~ f ~
y ~ o '~~~'~ C II~ ~` n
~ ~ ~ ~II
`r ~., ~ i
~"i'~ OC
n ~ Z ~
h b ~
~7
X7 ~ Q1
n ~
rr-~ O
~/J
~/~^ MM}h
ll-" IV
jay]

D
~

~ n ~
D
~
~ ~]

~
W _ ~
O

O ~ O

O 2

i ~
i Y
• N ICI
,~~~
~ ~ oo
I I ~ o W iAl
o
~ T - Y -,I I
f
1--~
I
~i '041
V `~ i_ ___'....I
I~ i~ a
-~
~~

REVISIONS
w

y ~

~ n
r
'T

~

b 7
x
C
~ 7
N
h
b ~
'~ h
~']
r a I ~
~ ~ I
i~
`°

,~ 1
/
1
1
sm
a
wA
nT O
0
~o
ti~
MATCH LINE TO SHEET 30
STA. 342 + 00
~i ~
I ,'I I,
n I Yw, Ia~'_r'ps ,I
T ~ _ '`~
I~ ~ ~ ~ :hA. I ?q 4
I f S _ ~
'I
I I III III I
I I
II
I I I I I
III
I I I
I I I
I I I
(
~ I I
I I
I
I ~ I Y.
i '~ ~
~ ~ i
I I
', ', ~ ~
I
I
I I
I
°+
I
s~ I
I
=' ~+
I ~ n
n I ~~ ~,
I~
I ~~ ~ ~
c I'~ I
I, ` ~ ~
~a~ I
i
'j. I
~ , ~ I, ~ F I ~..
I ,~ ,
- a
4
/ I
.~ I - i
I I
.~ ~. x
C
I
I
1 I
n o~
~ ~J~ ,r n _
:: Ij ~~ il~i ~pO
I ~ ~ IG I ~~
I ~ '"t~
I ~~
~ .. L
•' I , ~' I ~
~. \ -
~ ~- ~
,~
~ i ~' ~~=
~~~
i .I ,, '
i ~~ ~~ - ", I f~.
~' ~ ~ ~
`~ r I w ~.
~~' ~ k ,p s_+'
-.
I I , III- ~1:.~
/i/ I , II III I~ ~ ~' :r
~ II
I i
I ~ I r
I ~~ ~ j 1 _
~ 'i ~ ~ I
I n "~ ,~~ I u ' '
I N~ I I, ii II1 .riF' .
I ~ ~ I '
III ~ ~__.. 1
I
~; r
~\ I A
I i~
II,
- -~ ~ ~ ~ .
-__ I Il ,r II II ~
I
.1
--~
- iii
I~ 1
iF
II 1 I~
- - , L.
I
P
~~
I
i II, 1
I _ I ~ ti Via.
I I C.
I I ~. '
~. M
~~ ~ ~k II
.-, I
~ III ~ I I
I ` '•
I , it r I III 'I ~ ~~
,I , ! I,I i it li I .~
"~ ~ I t' I II. I
I 7 I I I i4 .Ill ~ iii _ ly _
I I I ~,:
T. I it I t ;! ~I - I
_ I ~~ 'I ~ ~ ~~~ ~ r
I
._
a _
I~
I ~ ~ \ ~ I ' I M ~IL~ 1 J _5``I. ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ g 'L, ~ i p n
rF +~ Nf ~~
~W~~-- -I~rri - 1 '. ~ ~ .~ z n w
~ ~ ~~~~`~ V. .. = ea ~ o
~ , :n
MATCH LINE TO SHEET 32 -~
STA. 355+00 ~c =y ~o
'~ n=, W
~n N
0

D
RF.vISIONS
MATCH LIN E TO S HEET 22
S TA. 238 + 00
~; :> PS ~;~ 'r P'.
J, _.~ i0'P~.i
- L.. ,4. ~ ~
1
~ ~ ,a 1
~~ ~ ~ ,
,.
1
I ~ ~

~~
~ ~
I_
F °~ " `

<
f •i
C ~ ,.,
~
A

• Z
P ~ '1
/
~I
~
L
~ ~
r \
r d
'• \ ~
n
L^
°
I
~
~ m N
r \ ~ ~
~
°
°' O
m -
,
c
~_ 1 ~ ~ a ~~. ~~~ ~ z
J
. I 3
n

~ ~
'~
'
. ~ 4. ~ -
.. ~

H

9 I
4 ~ .~I
t•
~ ~

'J

..,.
-- - -
-
-
_. - - Hi'brr ~.~

x~I 2~,.9~ a ~r ` ~,, h
~~yy
w ~.1y ~ _ -- - - - -- -- -- -- - -
N
--- _._ __ _ _ _ ±~
~(,n
\
~/
.,
f
~ n \
\
M
~~ 1
~
i ~ M u
t. ~ 4
~ ~' r
~ _
r/ `..~. W/,,~ ~ . , rH~ ,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I y
~~ /'un rr. w ~~~W ". ~W
~SHir~ ~`~Wr.
~ ~~-
b r ~ ~
'
~ ~ -
, ~ ~
i 1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ,
ds ~ ' ~
~
~ ~ ~ y
C ~ "c• I
~
~ 5~.
M
-~ 1 -
~~ b
~C 1~ ,y ~ 5/~ r ~
~
~ ~ I
~
• ~ L ~

i i I
.i
- ~
=~, ,-F
d
~ ;i
a -~
1 - ~ ,
~
y~~ -- i
., ,r ~~ ~
r• ~
~_ - I ~
I ~ ~~

I '
~, ~
~
~ ~
,
i
~ ~ ~
I

., I ~ ~
/
~~ ~
~; I
~ ., I ~
I i
;T; ~ ,~
I
%
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~r
~ ,_ ~ %~
T
~ .,
~
~
~ ,
~
~ D ,
:~ Fc
,.
~o

ti~
~
~ o~ o
~~o
.~
nai•
I Cp o
I .I Z~ N /I
~~ I-r
~
I
~
wr 1 I l I I
1
+1 T
a n ~ ~ I
I
I ~_~ o 0
-. a
- -- -
.
n i Z
~~
~ _f~".r+7 z o
I
i
~
~
/ ~ Fti
MATCH LI NE TO S HEET 24
_
~
STA . 251 +0 0 ~ -~
`
~~
Y ~~
- - - -- -- _
zb
~"j
~'
--- -- ----- --- ----- ------- -- - .,
,
j' I
`- 7
L
O