20211026 Ver 1_R2511_EA_reduced_20210623

US 17
From North of NC 171 to Multi -Lanes South of Williamston
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
And
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted pursuant to 42 U. S. C. 4332(2)C
John F. Sullivan, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA,
at (o(tGrebory J. Thorpe, Ph.
Manager,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit, NCDOT

US 17
From North of NC 171 to Multi -Lanes South of Williamston
Beaufort and Martin Counties
State Project 35494.1.1
TIP Project R-2511
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit by:
Jose 110 , PE
Project, Tanning Engineer,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
4,
Jai s A. McInnis, Jr., P
Project Engineer,
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
/�
72,oi3
i \\\z\A!ICAI/0////
? ; ESSid .(4
:a -SEAL 9r; ...
i : 029507 : a

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
US 17
From North of NC 171 to Multi -Lanes South of Williamston
Beaufort and Martin Counties
State Project 35494.1.1
TIP Project R-2511
NCDOT Hydraulics Unit/Division One Construction
NCDOT will coordinate with the Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated
state agency for administering FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, to determine
whether the Memorandum of Agreement between NCDOT and the FMP is applicable or if
approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) will be required.
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to a FEMA-regulated
stream. Therefore, NCDOT Division One shall submit sealed as -built construction plans to
the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage
structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were
built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
NCDOT Human Environment Section -Traffic Noise and Air Quality Group
The Traffic Noise Analysis for this project will be updated to comply with FHWA's
new noise standard at Title 23 CFR 772 (effective July 13, 2011), NCDOT's current Traffic
Noise Abatement Policy (July 13, 2011), and the NCDOT Traffic Noise Analysis and
Abatement Manual (revised August 22, 2011). The results of the updated analysis will be
included in the final environmental document.
Environmental Assessment-R-2511 Page 1 of 1
May 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PROJECT COMMITMENTS .......................................................................................................................... i
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................... vi
A. Type of Action ...................................................................................................................................... vi
B. Description of Action ............................................................................................................................ vi
C. Alternatives Considered ........................................................................................................................ vi
D. Permits Required ..................................................................................................................................vii
E. Coordination ...................................................................................................................................... viii
F. Contact Information ........................................................................................................................... viii
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .......................................................................................... 1
A. General Description ............................................................................................................................... 1
B. Historical Resume and Project Status .................................................................................................... 1
C. Cost Estimates ........................................................................................................................................ 2
II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 2
A. Purpose for Project................................................................................................................................. 2
B. Need for Project ..................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Description of Existing Conditions ................................................................................................... 2
a. Functional Classification .............................................................................................................. 2
b. Hurricane Evacuation ................................................................................................................... 3
c. Physical Description of Existing Facility ...................................................................................... 3
1) Roadway Cross-Section ........................................................................................................... 3
2) Right of Way and Access Control ............................................................................................ 3
3) Speed Limit .............................................................................................................................. 3
4) Intersections ............................................................................................................................. 3
5) Structures ................................................................................................................................. 3
6) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................. 4
7) Utilities .................................................................................................................................... 4
c. School Bus Usage ......................................................................................................................... 4
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity ............................................................................................................. 4
1) Traffic Volumes ....................................................................................................................... 4
2) Levels of Service ..................................................................................................................... 5
e. Accident Data ............................................................................................................................... 5
f. Airports ......................................................................................................................................... 5
g. Projects in the Area ...................................................................................................................... 5
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans ................................................................................................... 6
a. Strategic Highway Corridors ........................................................................................................ 6
b. Local Thoroughfare Plans ............................................................................................................ 6
c. Land Use Plan .............................................................................................................................. 6
C. Benefits of Proposed Project .................................................................................................................. 6
1. Traffic Volumes/Levels of Service with Project ............................................................................... 6
2. Regional Travel/Hurricane Evacuation ............................................................................................. 7
3. Safety................................................................................................................................................. 7
III. ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................. 7
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 7
1. Alternative Modes of Transportation ................................................................................................ 7
a. Travel Demand Management (TDM) ........................................................................................... 7
b. Mass Transit ................................................................................................................................. 8

2. Transportation System Management (TSM) ..................................................................................... 8
3. “No-Build” Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 8
4. Widen Existing US 17 ....................................................................................................................... 8
B. Detailed Study Alternatives ................................................................................................................. 10
C. Current Alternative............................................................................................................................... 11
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................................... 12
A. Roadway Cross-Section and Alignment ............................................................................................... 12
B. Right of Way and Access Control ........................................................................................................ 12
C. Speed Limit .......................................................................................................................................... 13
D. Design Speed ....................................................................................................................................... 13
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions ............................................................................................................ 13
F. Intersections/Interchanges .................................................................................................................... 13
G. Service Roads....................................................................................................................................... 13
H. Railroad Crossings ............................................................................................................................... 13
I. Structures ............................................................................................................................................. 14
J. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities.......................................................................................................... 14
K. Utilities ................................................................................................................................................. 14
L. Landscaping ......................................................................................................................................... 14
M. Noise Barriers ...................................................................................................................................... 14
N. Work Zone Traffic Control and Construction Phasing ........................................................................ 14
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION .............................................................. 15
A. Natural Resources ................................................................................................................................ 15
1. Biotic Resources .............................................................................................................................. 15
a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................................................................................. 15
b. Aquatic Communities ................................................................................................................. 17
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects ................................................................................................. 17
2. Waters of the United States ............................................................................................................. 19
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments ................................................................................................. 19
b. Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 20
c. Riparian Buffers ......................................................................................................................... 20
d. Summary of Anticipated Effects ................................................................................................. 21
e. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ......................................................................................... 21
f. Anticipated Permit Requirements ............................................................................................... 22
3. Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................................................ 22
4. Soils ................................................................................................................................................. 23
B. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 24
1. Historic Architectural Resources ..................................................................................................... 24
2. Archaeological Resources ............................................................................................................... 24
C. Farmland .............................................................................................................................................. 25
D. Social Effects ....................................................................................................................................... 26
1. Neighborhoods/Communities .......................................................................................................... 26
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses ....................................................................................... 26
3. Minority/Low-Income Populations ................................................................................................. 26
4. Recreational Facilities ..................................................................................................................... 27
5. Other Public Facilities and Services ................................................................................................ 27
E. Economic Effects ................................................................................................................................. 27
F. Land Use .............................................................................................................................................. 28
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning ........................................................................................................ 28
2. Future Land Use .............................................................................................................................. 28
3. Project Compatibility with Local Plans ........................................................................................... 28
G. Indirect and Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................... 29
H. Flood Hazard Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 29
I. Traffic Noise Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 30

1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours ........................................................................................... 30
2. Noise Abatement Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 31
a. Traffic System Management Measures ....................................................................................... 31
b. Highway Alignment Changes ..................................................................................................... 31
c. Buffer Acquisition ...................................................................................................................... 31
d. Noise Barriers ............................................................................................................................. 31
3. Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 32
J. Air Quality Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 32
1. Project Air Quality Effects .............................................................................................................. 32
2. Mobile Source Air Toxics ............................................................................................................... 32
3. Construction Air Quality Effects ..................................................................................................... 33
4. Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 33
K. Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................ 34
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ......................................................................................... 35
A. Citizens Informational Workshop ........................................................................................................ 35
B. Public Hearing ..................................................................................................................................... 35
C. NEPA/404 Merger Process .................................................................................................................. 35
D. Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................................... 36

APPENDICES

Appendix A - Agency Comments
Appendix B – NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation Reports
Appendix C – NEPA/404 Merger Team Concurrence Forms
Appendix D – NRCS Farmland Forms

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table S1 - Summary of Project Environmental Effects ......................................................... vii
Table 1 - Project Cost Estimates ............................................................................................ 2
Table 2 - Existing Structures .................................................................................................. 4
Table 3 - Accident Study ........................................................................................................ 5
Table 4 - Preliminary Widening Alternative Comparisons .................................................... 9
Table 5 - Detailed Study Alternatives Comparison………………………………………...11
Table 6 - Summary of Environmental Effects…………………………………………….. 12
Table 7 - Proposed Structures .............................................................................................. 14
Table 8 - Project Effects on Terrestrial Communities ......................................................... 18
Table 9 - Streams Within the Project Study Area ................................................................ 19
Table 10- Jurisdictional Wetlands in Project Area ............................................................... 20
Table 11 - Wetland/Stream Impacts of Project Alternatives ................................................. 21
Table 12 - Federally-Protected Species Listed for Beaufort and Martin Counties…………. 22
Table 13 - Soils in the Project Area ....................................................................................... 23
Table 14 - Project Effects on Historic Properties……………………………………………24
Table 15 - Project Effects on Prime and Important Farmland…………………………….…25
Table 16 - Homes and Businesses to be Relocated ................................................................ 26
Table 17 - Predicted Traffic Noise Impacts by Alternative ................................................... 30
Table 18 - Potentially Contaminated Properties in Project Area……………………………34

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - Project Location Map
Figure 2 - Proposed Improvements
Figure 3A - Proposed Roadway Typical Section
Figure 3B - Sketch of Directional Median Crossover
Figure 4A - 2010 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 4B - 2035 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes
Figure 5A - 2010 Level of Service without Project
Figure 5B - 2035 Level of Service without Project
Figure 6 - 2035 Level of Service with Project
Figure 7 - Environmental Features in Project Area

vi

SUMMARY
Environmental Assessment Prepared by the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration Action, Environmental Assessment.
B. Description of Action
The proposed project involves widening a section of US 17 in Beaufort and Martin
Counties from two lanes to four lanes. The project extends from north of NC 171 in Beaufort
County to the existing four lanes south of Williamston in Martin county. An expressway type
facility is recommended for this project. The proposed project is approximately 10.6 miles
long (Figure 1).
It is anticipated approximately 220 feet of right of way will be required for the
project. Partial control of access (one access per parcel for properties with no other access)
will be obtained. All intersecting roadways will cross US 17 at-grade, no grade separations
or interchanges are proposed.
The purpose of the proposed project is to alleviate congestion and improve the level
of service along US 17, and in doing so, improve safety to the route.

The proposed project will address the following needs:

 By the year 2030, portions of US 17 within the project area will operate at or near
capacity (LOS E and D).
 US 17 in the project area is a designated hurricane evacuation route as well as a
regionally important route.
 Although lower than the critical rate, the total accident rate along US 17 in the project
area exceeds the statewide average for similar facilities.
C. Alternatives Considered
Widening the existing roadway and the “no-build” alternative were considered for the
project. (Section III)
Table S1 below presents a summary of the environmental effects of the project.

vii

TABLE S1
SUMMARY OF PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Relocations
Residential 36
Business 0
Total Relocations 36
Minority/Low-Income Populations Disproportionately
Impacted? No
Historic Properties (Adverse Effect) No Adverse Effects
Community Facilities Impacted 0
Section 4(f) Impacts None
Noise Impacts (Impacted Properties) 27
Prime Farmland (Acres) 88.9
Forested Areas Impacted (Acres) 28.2
Wetlands (Acres) 4.81
Streams (Linear Feet) 1,400
Riparian Buffer (Square Feet) 120,970
Floodplain (Acres) 4.5
Federally-Protected Species No Effect
Cost (Millions)
Right of Way $15.987
Utility Relocation $4.650
Wetland/Stream Mitigation $1.685
Construction $51.050
Total $73.372
Project Length (Miles) 10.6

D. Permits Required
It will be necessary to obtain an Individual Section 404 Permit from the US Army
Corps of Engineers for this project. This project will also require a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification from the NC Division of Water Quality. A state stormwater permit may also be
required.
This project may require a CAMA permit from the NC Division of Coastal
Management. If a CAMA permit is required, a CAMA Major Development permit will be
required.

viii
E. Coordination
This project was coordinated with the following federal, state and local agencies
during this study:

U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Beaufort County
Martin County
Mid East Rural Planning Organization
F. Contact Information
The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this proposal
and statement:
John F. Sullivan III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601 [phone]
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
(919) 919-707-6000

1
US 17
From North of NC 171 to Multi-Lanes South of Williamston Beaufort and Martin Counties
State Project 35494.1.1
TIP Project R-2511

I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. General Description
The proposed project involves widening a section of US 17 in Beaufort and Martin
Counties from two lanes to four lanes. The project extends from north of NC 171 in Beaufort
County to the existing four lanes south of Williamston in Martin county. An expressway type
facility is recommended for this project. The proposed project is approximately 10.6 miles
long (Figure 1).
It is anticipated approximately 220 feet of right of way will be required for the
project. Partial control of access (one access per parcel with no other access) will be
obtained. All intersecting roadways will cross US 17 at-grade, no grade separations or
interchanges are proposed.

B. Historical Resume and Project Status
The subject section of US 17 was originally paved in 1923 as an 18-foot concrete
roadway. The portion in Martin County was widened in 1943 to 22 feet. In 1954, the portion
in Beaufort County was widened to 24 feet with some relocation on 150 feet of right of way.
In 1957, the section in Martin County was widened to 24 feet on 150 feet of right of way.
TIP Project R-2511 is programmed as widening US 17 to a multi-lane facility from
north of NC 171 to the existing multi-lanes south of Williamston in Beaufort and Martin
Counties. An environmental assessment was prepared in 1981 but the project lost funding.
In 1999, the project was re-scoped and Concurrence Points 1 and 2 (Purpose and Need and
Alternatives for Detailed Study) were reached before the project lost funding.
Project studies were restarted in 2004, but then stopped. Project studies were again
restarted in 2009. Environmental surveys were updated for the project. Concurrence Point 2
was revisited in February 2011.
TIP Project R-2511 is included in the 2012-2018 North Carolina State Transportation
Improvement Program. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for state fiscal year 2019 and
construction is scheduled for state fiscal year 2022 in the draft 2013-2023 NCDOT Program
and Resource Plan.

2
C. Cost Estimates
The cost estimate for the project included in the draft 2013-2023 NCDOT Program
and Resource Plan is as follows:

Right of Way Acquisition $16,000,000
Utility Relocation $4,400,000
Construction $51,000,000
Total Estimated Cost $71,400,000

Current cost estimates for the project are shown in Table 1 below.

TABLE 1
PROJECT COST ESTIMATES
Construction $51,050,000
Right of Way Acquisition $15,987,000
Utility Relocation $4,650,000
Wetland/Stream Mitigation $1,685,000
Total $73,372,000

II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROPOSED PROJECT
A. Purpose for Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to alleviate congestion and improve the level
of service along US 17, and in doing so, improve safety to the route.
B. Need for Project
1. Description of Existing Conditions
a. Functional Classification
US 17 is classified as a principal arterial in the North Carolina Functional
Classification System.

3

b. Hurricane Evacuation

US 17 in the project area is a NCDOT and NC Department of Public Safety designated
hurricane evacuation route. This portion of US 17 provides a connection for residents to both
US 264 and US 64, which are the major east-west hurricane evacuation routes in the area.
c. Physical Description of Existing Facility
1) Roadway Cross-Section
Existing US 17 is a two-lane roadway within the project area. Travel lanes are 12 feet
wide with 11-foot grass shoulders. Two feet of the 11-foot shoulders are paved along
portions of US 17 in Beaufort County, while no paved shoulders are provided along portions
of US 17 in Martin County.
2) Right of Way and Access Control
Existing right of way along US 17 in the project area is 150 feet wide. No control of
access exists along US 17 in the project area. When the right of way for US 17 was
expanded to 150 feet in the 1950’s, houses remained within the then new right of way.
NCDOT purchased the land from the property owners but not the structures. The right of
way agreements allowed the residents to continue to live in their homes. The agreements
stipulated that NCDOT would purchase the structures and provide relocation assistance for
the residents at the time the right of way was needed.
3) Speed Limit
The speed limit along existing US 17 in the project area is 55 MPH.
4) Intersections
All intersections along existing US 17 in the project area are at-grade. No
interchanges are located along the roadway.
5) Structures
Table 2 below describes existing structures larger than 72 inches in diameter along
US 17 in the project area.

4
TABLE 2
EXISTING STRUCTURES
Crossing Existing Structure
Tributary to Latham Creek 1 @ 48” RCP and 1 @ 6’x 4’ RCBC
Gum Swamp/Latham Creek 22’ Bridge
Jacks Swamp 1 @ 8’ x 3’ RCBC
Tributary to Smithwick Creek 2 @ 8’ x 6’ RCBC
Tributary to Smithwick Creek 1@ 4’ x 3’ RCBC
RCP-Reinforced Concrete Pipe.
RCBC-Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert.

6) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
This section of US 17 is not a designated bike route. No exclusive bicycle or
pedestrian facilities currently exist along the roadway.
7) Utilities
The following utilities are located within the project limits:

 Fiber-optic cable is on both sides of US 17
 Gas line is on the west side of US 17
 Telephone line is on the east side of US 17
 Water lines are on US 17
 Power lines are in various locations throughout project
c. School Bus Usage
Four school buses use existing US 17 in the project area in Beaufort and Martin Counties
daily.
d. Traffic Carrying Capacity
1) Traffic Volumes
Traffic volumes for existing US 17 within the project area were estimated for the
years 2010 and 2035. In the year 2010, traffic volumes along existing US 17 ranged between
5,400 and 6,600 vehicles per day. In 2035, traffic along this route is expected to range
between 10,700 and 13,000 vehicles per day. Figures 4A and 4B depict the estimated
average daily traffic volumes for the years 2010 and 2035 along roadways in the project area.
Trucks make up between 11 to 13 percent of the total traffic.

5
2) Levels of Service
The effectiveness of a roadway to service traffic demand is measured in terms of level
of service. Level of service is a qualitative measure describing the ability of a facility to carry
traffic and how individual users perceive traffic conditions. It is based on factors of speed,
travel time, comfort, maneuverability, interruptions, convenience and safety. Levels of
Service range from “A” to “F”, with “A” representing free flow (ideal conditions), and “F”
representing forced or breakdown flow (undesirable conditions).

A transportation facility is considered to be operating at capacity when it is just able
to accommodate the traffic demand. Once the traffic demand exceeds the facility’s capacity
(LOS E), excessive delays occur.

Traffic capacity analyses were conducted for the existing roadway along US 17 for the
years 2010 and 2035. As Figure 5B shows, portions of existing US 17 in the project area will
operate at levels of service D and E in the year 2035.
e. Accident Data
A crash study was conducted for existing US 17 within the project area. Between
August 8, 2008 and July 31, 2011, 111 crashes occurred along US 17 within the project area.
Of these accidents, 18 involved injuries and none were fatal. Table 3 below presents the
results of this crash study.

TABLE 3
ACCIDENT STUDY
2001-2003
Statewide Crash Rates For
Rural Two-lane US
Routes
08/2008-7/2011
US 17
Crashes per 100 MVM
2002-2005
Critical Rate*
Total Fatal Total Fatal Total Fatal
171.66 2.24 174.91 0 193.37 5.17
*Based on statewide crash rate (95% level of confidence).
f. Airports
No airports or other aviation facilities are located within the project area.
g. Projects in the Area
One other STIP project exists in the area. Project R-2510C will widen existing US 17
from south of SR 1536 (Hamilton Beach Road) to north of NC 171 to four lanes with a 46-
foot median. This project is currently under construction. The subject project (R-2511) will
tie into Project R-2510C north of NC 171.

6
2. Transportation and Land Use Plans
a. Strategic Highway Corridors
This section of US 17 is part of Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) Number 52, which
is designated as a freeway and follows US 17 from Wilmington to Norfolk, Virginia. This
particular section of US 17 is one of the last remaining two-lane sections of US 17.

The NC Strategic Highway Corridors program is focused on upgrading and preserving
North Carolina’s existing transportation system. The program’s goals are to maintain and
improve the mobility and connectivity of critical highway facilities while utilizing existing
facilities to the maximum extent possible. The program also fosters economic prosperity by
moving goods quickly and efficiently throughout the state. By facilitating the flow of
through-traffic, the proposed improvements would help move goods throughout the state.
b. Local Thoroughfare Plans
The 2000 Beaufort County Thoroughfare Plan shows widening of US 17 to multi-lanes.
Martin County’s 1995 Thoroughfare Plan also shows US 17 widened to multi-lanes.
Therefore, the subject project is consistent with local thoroughfare plans.
c. Land Use Plan
Beaufort County’s 1997 Land Use Plan was adopted by the Beaufort County Board of
Commissioners on October 5, 1998. This document is the latest update to the original land
use plan which was prepared in 1976 and is in accordance with requirements of the North
Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). Some of the goals and objectives for this
document included development of new policies required by CAMA, an assessment of
actions needed to protect areas of environmental concern and other fragile areas and an
assessment of industrial and overall economic development needs. TIP Project R-2511 is
included in the Transportation Policy section of the 1997 Land Use Plan and, therefore,
supported by Beaufort County. Existing land use along the project corridor is described in
the 1997 Land Use Plan as rural and undeveloped. This document includes a future land use
map which lists the R-2511 project area as Community and Rural with Services, therefore
maintaining its existing character.
Martin County does not currently have a land use plan.
C. Benefits of Proposed Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to alleviate congestion and improve the level
of service along US 17, and in doing so, improve safety to the route.
1. Traffic Volumes/Levels of Service with Project
Traffic volumes for existing US 17 within the project area were estimated for the year
2035. In the year 2035, it is estimated that traffic volumes along existing US 17 will range

7
between 10,700 and 13,000 vehicles per day. Figure 4B depicts the estimated average daily
traffic volumes for the year 2035 along roadways in the project area.
A traffic capacity analysis was conducted for the project for the year 2035. The
project will operate at level of service A in the year 2035. Figure 6 depicts the estimated
level of service for 2035 along US 17 in the project area with construction of the proposed
project.
2. Regional Travel/Hurricane Evacuation
The proposed improvements will improve mobility and increase the traffic carrying
capacity of this regionally important route. As mentioned previously, US 17 is a hurricane
evacuation route. US 17 connects with both US 64 and US 264, which are major east/west
hurricane evacuation routes. The additional capacity provided by this project will reduce
travel time and provide a more reliable route for general travel and hurricane evacuations.
The additional lanes will make it less likely the road would have to be closed due to an
accident or other incident.
3. Safety
By increasing the number of lanes on US 17, the proposed project is expected to have
a positive impact on vehicular safety. The proposed project will likely make it safer for large
trucks and local traffic. The proposed paved shoulders will improve roadway drainage,
making it less likely vehicles will hydroplane during rain events. The proposed median will
provide separation between opposing traffic, making head-on collisions less likely. The
proposed dual lanes in each direction will allow faster traffic to pass slower moving vehicles
without using the opposing traffic lane, making head-on and rear-end collisions less likely.
Emergency response time should improve with construction of the project. By
reducing the congestion on US 17, emergency vehicles traveling within or through this area
would likely have a reduction in emergency response time.

III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Preliminary Study Alternatives
1. Alternative Modes of Transportation
a. Travel Demand Management (TDM)

Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategies include staggered work hours and
ridesharing. Given the predominately rural nature of the project area, it is not expected that
adjustments to work schedules or ridesharing would substantially reduce the peak hour traffic
volumes within the study area.

8
b. Mass Transit
Inter-city bus service is available for both Beaufort and Martin Counties.
Greyhound Bus Lines serves both Washington and Williamston with one bus a day.
Martin County transit buses use the route with three buses traveling the route six times a
day.
Given the predominantly rural nature of the project area, improvements to public
transportation or upgraded inter-city bus service are unlikely to result in substantial
reductions in the amount of traffic along US 17 in the project area.
While both TDM and mass transit alternatives fail to reduce traffic volumes in the
project area, both alternatives would also not address the statewide and regional objectives of
upgrading the US 17 corridor to a four-lane facility.
2. Transportation System Management (TSM)
Transportation system management activities, such as intersection improvements,
signing or traffic signalization improvements would potentially improve safety along existing
US 17. However, such improvements would not sufficiently meet the project purpose of
reducing congestion. TSM alternatives would also not substantially address the statewide and
regional objective of upgrading the US 17 corridor to a four-lane facility.
3. “No-Build” Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to US 17
within the study area; only typical maintenance activities would occur. The No-Build
Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project.
4. Widen Existing US 17

Widening existing US 17 would reduce traffic congestion and improve travel time
and safety along US 17 in the project area. The proposed project was divided into nine
sections and both east side and west side widening were considered. The nine sections are
shown on figure 2 and described below:

Section 1 – North Roberson Road (SR 1418) to approximately 0.25 mile south of Griffin
Road (SR 1421)
Section 2 – Approximately 0.25 mile south of Griffin Road to approximately 0.2 mile north
of Woolard Road (SR 1419)
Section 3 – Approximately 0.2 mile north of Woolard Road to approximately 0.6 mile
north of the Beaufort/Martin County Line in Martin County.
Section 4 – Approximately 0.6 mile north of the County Line to approximately 1.1 mile
south of Smithwick Creek Church Road (SR 1106)
Section 5 – Approximately 1.1 miles south of Smithwick Creek Church Road to
Approximately 0.7 mile south of Smithwick Creek Church Road
Section 6 – Approximately 0.7 mile south of Smithwick Creek Church Road to
approximately 0.2 mile south of Smithwick Creek Church Road

9
Section 7 - Approximately 0.2 mile south of Smithwick Creek Church Road to
approximately one mile north of Smithwick Creek Church Road
Section 8 - Approximately one mile north of Smithwick Creek Church Road to
approximately 0.2 mile south of Dan Peele Road (SR 1114)
Section 9 – Approximately 0.2 mile south of Dan Peele Road to the existing multilane
south of Williamston.

Table 4 below compares the impacts of east and west side widening for each section.

TABLE 4
PRELIMINARY WIDENING ALTERNATIVE COMPARISONS
Section Alternative Homes Businesses
Delineated
Wetlands
(Acres)
Streams
(Feet)
R/W From
Historic
Property? Cemetery
1 East 16 3 0.35 620
West 8 2 0.86 620
2 East 5

2.08 210
West 5

1.19 200
3 East 7 1 0.74
West 6 1 0.9
4 East 10 1 0.07 160 Yes (2) 1
West 8

0.21 80 Yes (2)
5 East 2 1 1.67 150
West 2 1.34 70
6 East 2 0.72 220
West 3 0.95 240
7 East 8 1
West 5 2
8 East 3

Yes (2)
West 5

Yes (2) 1
9 East 3

0.24 460 Yes (1)
West 7

0.005 320 Yes (1)
Impacts are based on 250-foot impact area.

Analysis and refinement of alternatives resulted in widening options being selected
for all but one of the nine project sections. In Section 4, two widening options were carried
forward for detailed study. Two options were carried forward because widening to the west
the entire length of Section 4 would have an adverse effect on a historic property (Griffin’s
Hatchery), while widening to the east would relocate two additional homes. An option which
would involve widening to the west the entire length of Section 4 and an option which would
widen to the west for most of Section 4 but would shift to avoid Griffin’s Hatchery were both
carried forward for detailed study. The alternatives studied in detail for each section are
listed below:

10
Section Widening Why selected?
1 West side fewer relocatees
2 West side less wetlands
3 East side fewer relocatees
4 West side fewer relocatees
4 West/Avoid avoid hatchery
5 Best Fit best fit
6 Best Fit best fit
7 West side less relocatees
8 East side less relocatees
9 Best Fit best fit

The NEPA/404 merger team concurred on the alternatives to be studied in detail at a
merger team meeting held on February 17, 2011.
B. Detailed Study Alternatives
As stated previously, a widening alternative was selected for eight of the nine project
sections. The impacts of the detailed study alternatives are shown on Table 5 below.

11
TABLE 5
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON

Sections
1-3 4 5-9 West Avoid
Relocations*
Residential 18 (5) [3] 8 (2) [7] 4 (2) [] 14 (4) [4]
Business 0 0 0 0
Non-Profit 3 (1) 0 0 0
Total Relocations 21 (6) 8 (2) 4 (2) 14 (4)
Minority/Low-Income Populations
Disproportionately Impacted? No No No No
Historic Properties (Adverse Effect) No Effect Adverse
Effect
No
Adverse
Effect
No
Adverse
Effect
Community Facilities Impacted 0 0 0 0
Section 4(f) Impacts None 1 None None
Noise Impacts (Impacted Properties) 14 5 3 9
Prime Farmland (Acres) 19.9 10.6 11.2 27.4
Forested Areas Impacted (Acres) 14.4 1.1 2.7 11.1
Wetlands (Acres) 2.52 0.18 0.18 2.11
Streams (Linear Feet) 550 140 140 710
Riparian Buffer (Square Feet) 120,970 N/A N/A N/A
Floodplain (Acres) 4.5 0 0 0
Federally-Protected Species No Effect No Effect No Effect No Effect
Cost (Millions)
Right of Way $6.800 $2.535 $2.475 $6.712
Utility Relocation $2.068 $1.162 $1.230 $1.352
Wetland/Stream
Mitigation $0.746 $0.136 $0.136 $0.803
Construction $23.050 $5.700 $5.800 $22.200
Total $32.664 $9.533 $9.641 $31.067
Section Length (Miles) 4.8 1.4 1.4 4.4
*-Parentheses ( ) indicate minority-owned or occupied homes or businesses.
C. Current Alternative
As discussed previously, a widening alternative was chosen for all but one of the
project sections (Section 4). Following detailed environmental surveys and preliminary
design, the decision was made to drop the west side widening option in Section 4 because it
would relocate more homes and would have an adverse effect on the National Register-
eligible Griffin’s Hatchery. The NEPA/404 merger team concurred with eliminating the west
widening option for Section 4 at a meeting held on January 31, 2013. Table 6 below presents
the environmental effects of the current alternative for the project.

12
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Relocations
Residential 36 (11)
Business 0
Non-Profit 3 (1)
Total Relocations 39 (12)
Minority/Low-Income Populations Disproportionately
Impacted? No
Historic Properties (Adverse Effect) No Adverse Effects
Community Facilities Impacted 0
Section 4(f) Impacts None
Noise Impacts (Impacted Properties) 27
Prime Farmland (Acres) 88.9
Forested Areas Impacted (Acres) 28.2
Wetlands (Acres) 4.81
Streams (Linear Feet) 1,400
Riparian Buffer (Square Feet) 120,970
Floodplain (Acres) 4.5
Federally-Protected Species No Effect
Cost (Millions)
Right of Way $15.987
Utility Relocation $4.650
Wetland/Stream Mitigation $1.685
Construction $51.050
Total $73.372
Project Length (Miles) 10.6
*-Parentheses ( ) indicate minority-owned or occupied homes, businesses or non-profit
organizations.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway Cross-Section and Alignment
The proposed cross-section is four 12-foot lanes with a 46-foot median and 8-foot
grass shoulders with a 4-foot paved shoulder on each side. The proposed typical sections are
shown on Figure 3.
B. Right of Way and Access Control
A right of way width of 220 feet is proposed for the project. This right of way width
is sufficient to accommodate a four-lane roadway with a 46-foot median, although temporary
easements may be required outside the proposed right of way in some areas. Partial control
of access will be obtained along the proposed roadway. Access will be limited to one per
parcel with no other access, although additional access points may be provided for larger
properties. The location of access points will be determined during the design phase of the
project.

13
The strategic highway corridor vision for this section of US 17 is a freeway (full
control of access). A freeway facility was considered for this project. Due to the impacts to
adjacent properties and the resulting increase in cost, partial control of access will be
implemented instead of full control of access. This project is considered a step towards the
ultimate implementation of the freeway vision for this strategic highway corridor.
C. Speed Limit
A posted speed limit of 55 MPH is anticipated.
D. Design Speed
A 60 MPH design speed is proposed for the project. This design speed is consistent
with the expected 55 MPH speed limit.
E. Anticipated Design Exceptions
It is anticipated no design exceptions will be required for this project.
F. Intersections/Interchanges
All intersections will be at-grade, with the side roads being stop-sign controlled.
Traffic signals are not proposed at any intersections within the project area. Directional
crossovers with median u-turns will be provided at intersections. No left turns will be
allowed onto US 17 from side roads or driveways.
The proposed directional crossovers will reduce the number of potential conflict
points compared to a traditional full-movement median opening. Studies have indicated that
this type of intersection treatment is safer than intersections with full-movement median
openings. Traffic on the primary highway is not affected, as all movements are still
permitted. Traffic on the secondary highway may only turn right onto the primary highway.
Through and left movements from the secondary highway are directed to a median U-turn
crossover located downstream. Figure 3B depicts a typical intersection with a directional
crossover.
G. Service Roads
There are no service roads planned for this project.
H. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings on the project.

14
I. Structures
Table 7 below describes all of the proposed structures larger than 72 inches
along the project.

TABLE 7
PROPOSED STRUCTURES
Crossing Recommended Structure
Tributary to Latham Creek Retain and extend existing 1 @ 48” RCP and
1 @ 6’x4’ RCBC with 2 @ 60” RCP
Gum Swamp/Latham Creek 1 @ 31’-5” by 7’-3” aluminum box culvert
Jacks Swamp Retain and extend existing 1 @ 8’x 3’ RCBC
Tributary to Smithwick Creek Retain and extend existing 2 @ 8’x 6’ RCBC
Tributary to Smithwick Creek Retain and extend existing 1 @ 4’x3’ RCBC
with 48” RCP
RCP-Reinforced Concrete Pipe.
RCBC-Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert.

J. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
No exclusive bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are proposed as a part of this project.
The proposed four-foot paved outside shoulder will accommodate bicycles.

K. Utilities
Utilities along the project will be relocated prior to construction. Care will be taken
to prevent damage to water and sewer lines and fiber-optic cables in the area.
L. Landscaping
No special landscaping is proposed for this project. Shoulder areas will be seeded
with grass.
M. Noise Barriers
No noise barriers are proposed along this project (Section V-I).

N. Work Zone Traffic Control and Construction Phasing
Traffic will be maintained on-site during project construction. Temporary lane
closures may be required during construction, however.

15
V. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities

Five terrestrial communities were identified within the project area:
Maintained/Disturbed, Pine Plantation, Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest, Maple Gum Swamp
and Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp.

Maintained/Disturbed

The Maintained/Disturbed community encompasses various types of habitats that
have recently been or are currently impacted by human disturbance. This community consists
primarily of roadside shoulders, cut-over areas, maintained lawns, agricultural fields and
utility easements. These are habitats that are either regularly maintained or are currently in a
low-growing, early successional state. Herbaceous species expected in these communities
include fescue, crabgrass, wild onion and foxtail grass. Goldenrod, dandelion, clover,
plantain, blackberry, henbit, Queen Ann’s lace, broomsedge and aster are also expected.
Shrubs, saplings and trees found in this community include loblolly pine, black cherry and
various oaks. Seedlings and saplings of various species occur along road slopes, utility rights
of way and other areas where mowing is less frequent. These species include yellow poplar,
sweet gum and winged sumac.

Wildlife found in this community is limited and consists primarily of wide-ranging,
adaptable species such as hispid cotton rat, white-footed mouse, eastern harvest mouse and
eastern cottontail rabbit. Such species are well suited to coexistence with human
development. Nocturnal mammals common to suburban areas, such as raccoon and Virginia
opossum, may travel periodically through the project area, and gray squirrels may inhabit
forested fringes. Common reptiles include the eastern fence lizard and eastern box turtle.
Bird populations likely include species such as northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee,
American robin, mourning dove, common grackle and European starling. Predators likely to
be found in this community are the black racer and rat snake.

Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp

The Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp community in the project area is
characterized by a canopy dominated by red maple and sweet gum. The understory consists
of Japanese grass, honeysuckle, greenbrier and giant cane.

16
Wildlife expected in this community includes gray squirrel, gray fox, raccoon,
muskrat, Virginia opossum, barred owl, great blue heron, pileated woodpecker, yellow-
bellied sapsucker, wood duck and downy woodpecker. Amphibians common to this
community include the bull frog, spring peeper, southern leopard frog, and the green tree
frog. Reptiles such as the northern water snake, eastern cottonmouth, and the common
snapping turtle may also be found.

Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest

Mixed pine hardwood forests within the project area are characterized by a
combination of relatively mature hardwood species and loblolly pines. Most of these areas
have been previously logged and are gradually maturing into a hardwood forest. Canopy
species include white oak, southern red oak, yellow poplar and sweet gum. The understory is
generally comprised of saplings of sweet gum and yellow poplar along with flowering
dogwoods.

Wildlife expected in this community includes gray squirrel, gray fox, white-tailed
deer, raccoon, Virginia opossum, hispid cotton rat, white-footed mouse, eastern harvest
mouse, and eastern cottontail rabbit. Common reptiles include the five-lined skink and the
eastern box turtle. Amphibians likely found in this community include the spring peeper, the
southern toad and the slimy salamander. Bird populations likely include species such as
northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee, American robin, mourning dove, common grackle, and
European starling. Bobwhite quail may also inhabit the margins of this area occasionally.

Pine Plantation

Areas of this community consist of homogeneous tracts of intensively managed
loblolly pines. These tracts are generally bedded and planted in rows. They are subject to
regular thinning and herbicide applications to stimulate rapid growth and reduce competition
from non-commercially valuable species. Understory growth is usually sparse due to the
intensive management practices, but may include saplings of species such as sweet gum and
yellow poplar as well as a few herbaceous species. Understory species may include Japanese
honeysuckle and Virginia creeper.

Wildlife found in this community is limited. Wildlife likely to be found here
includes eastern harvest mouse, white-tailed deer, eastern cottontail rabbit, racoon and
Virginia opossum. Common reptiles include the eastern fence lizard and eastern box turtle.
Bird species likely to be found include the pine warbler, Carolina chickadee, American robin,
mourning dove, common grackle and pileated woodpecker. Predators likely to be found in
this community are the black racer and rat snake.

17
Maple-gum Swamp Forest

This community type occurs along one major drainage within the project area.
Dominant vegetation found in this community includes red maple, sweet gum, black willow,
swamp tupelo gum and occasionally bald cypress in the over story. The understory is
comprised of giant cane, false nettle, greenbrier, netted chain fern and smartweed.

Wildlife expected in this community includes gray squirrel, gray fox, raccoon,
muskrat, Virginia opossum, barred owl, great blue heron, pileated woodpecker, yellow-
bellied sapsucker, wood duck and downy woodpecker. Amphibians common to this
community include the bull frog, spring peeper, southern leopard frog and the green tree frog.
Reptiles such as the northern water snake, eastern cottonmouth and the common snapping
turtle may also be found.

b. Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic community types, defined as Coastal Plain Perennial Stream and a
Coastal Plain Intermittent Stream, will be impacted by the proposed project. The project
crosses three perennial streams in the Roanoke River basin as well as two perennial streams
and three intermittent streams in the Tar-Pamlico River basin. Creeks in the project area are
characterized by slow moving, tannin stained water over a sandy substrate. Additionally,
most of the streams exhibit extensive channelization and straightening. Perennial streams in
the project area are expected to maintain flowing water throughout the year during most
years. Intermittent streams are expected to carry water for most of the year. In abnormally
wet or dry years the number of months with active flows will correlate directly with the local
weather patterns.

Coastal plain perennial streams are utilized by a variety of aquatic/semiaquatic insects
such as dragonfly and stonefly and by certain species of crayfish and freshwater mussels.
Streams in the project area would also be expected to support fish such as bluegill, yellow
bullhead catfish, pirate perch, mosquito fish and eastern mud minnow.

Coastal plain intermittent streams may be utilized during wetter years by many of the
same species found in the adjoining perennial streams. During the periods of flow, fish and
invertebrates will utilize the stream systems for reproductive habitat, feeding and shelter.

c. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Project construction will have various impacts on the previously described terrestrial
and aquatic communities. Table 8 presents the expected effects of the project on terrestrial
communities.

18
TABLE 8
PROJECT EFFECTS ON TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Community
Estimated
Impacts
(acres)*
Maple Gum Swamp Forest 2.89
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp 0.82
Maintained/Disturbed 221.05
Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest 23.89
Pine Plantation 26.75
Total Area: 275.4
* - Impacts estimated assuming an existing footprint of 80 feet and a 200-
foot proposed footprint.

Potential impacts to aquatic communities downstream of the project area primarily
consist of increased sedimentation of the stream channel and toxic inputs from stormwater
runoff. Aquatic organisms are generally highly sensitive to changes in water quality. Effects
are generally most severe at the point of stream crossings, but can extend downstream for
considerable distance, if not controlled.

If precautionary measures are not taken, excessive soil erosion from construction sites
may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:

1) Increased turbidity and sedimentation.
2) Reduced light penetration due to reduced water clarity.
3) Reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen.
4) Increased nutrient loading.

Sedimentation in rivers and streams reduces water clarity and light penetration,
affecting the photosynthetic ability and growth of aquatic vegetation. Suspended particles
may also impact benthic filter feeders inhabiting downstream areas by clogging their
filtration apparatuses or by covering them with excessive sediment. Moreover, increased
nutrient loadings can result in the accelerated growth of certain types of algae at the expense
of other aquatic organisms. The loss of aquatic plants and animals resulting from these
processes may ultimately affect terrestrial animals which feed on these resources.

In addition, the removal of streamside vegetation results in locally elevated water
temperatures and reduced concentrations of dissolved oxygen. The reduced oxygen content
results in a reduction in aquatic life dependent on high oxygen concentrations. The removal
or burial of stream bank plants also decreases the food and shelter resources available to
aquatic organisms. Disturbance of stream bank vegetation enhances the likelihood of erosion
and sedimentation.

19
Toxic substances from roadways (e.g. oil, gas, etc.) may enter surface waters through
storm water runoff from impervious surfaces. Such chemical substances may result in the
direct mortality of aquatic species inhabiting the water resources located in the project area.

2. Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of “Waters of the United
States” as defined in 33 CFR§328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). These waters are regulated by the US Army Corps of
Engineers. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under these provisions.
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments
Water resources within the project vicinity are part of the Roanoke River Basin and
the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Water resources within Martin County drain to the Roanoke
River and water resources within Beaufort County are in the Tar-Pamlico basin. The project
crosses three perennial streams in the Roanoke River Basin and two perennial streams and
three intermittent streams in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Additionally, there are crossings
of the upper reaches of three unnamed tributaries in the Roanoke basin. As with most natural
water bodies in this region, the majority of the streams exhibit evidence of past efforts to
channelize the stream. It also appears that several of the crossings may be agricultural
drainage ditches that have been cut to connect with the natural drainage patterns of the area.
The final jurisdictional determination rests with the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE). Water resources crossed by the project are shown in Table 9.

TABLE 9
STREAMS WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA
Stream Map ID
DWQ Index
Number
Best Usage
Classification
Project
Section Impacts (feet)
UT to Gum Swamp SZ 28-103-14-2-1 C;Sw,NSW 1 165
UT to Gum Swamp SY 28-103-14-2-1 C;Sw,NSW 1 0
UT to Latham Creek SX 28-103-14-2 C;Sw,NSW 1 185
Gum Swamp SW 28-103-14-2-1 C;Sw,NSW 2 200
UT to Smithwick Creek SE 23-50-2 C 4 (West) 140
(Avoid) 140
UT to Smithwick Creek SV 23-50-2 C 5 70
Jack’s Swamp SU 23-50-2-1 C 6 230
UT to Smithwick Creek ST 23-50-2 C 9 360
UT to Smithwick Creek SS 23-50-2 C 9 50

20
b. Wetlands
Jurisdictional wetlands are also present in the study corridor. Wetland sites in the
project area are presented on Table 10 below and shown on Figure 7.

TABLE 10
JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS IN PROJECT AREA
Wetland
Name/Map ID Wetland Type
Project
Section
Impacts
(Acres)
WE Bottomland Hardwood 1 0.06
WXX Bottomland Hardwood 1 0.05
WZ Bottomland Hardwood 0
WF Riverine Swamp Forest 2 2.06
WG Hardwood Flat 3 0.29
WY Bottomland Hardwood 3 0.05
WW Bottomland Hardwood 3 0.01
WV Headwater Forest 4 (West) 0.18
(Avoid) 0.18
WU Headwater Forest 5 1.03
WC Hardwood Flat 5 & 6 0.03
WB Headwater Forest 6 0.95
WT Headwater Forest 6 0.07
WA Bottomland Hardwood 9 0.03

c. Riparian Buffers
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission adopted rules to protect
50-foot riparian buffers in both the Neuse and Tar/Pamlico River Basins (15 NCAC 2B.0233
and 15A NCAC 2B.0259 respectively). The purpose of these rules is to protect and conserve
existing riparian buffers to maintain their nutrient removal functions. They are part of larger
nutrient removal strategies for each basin.

The rules apply to all jurisdictional surface waters within the respective river basins,
and are administered by the NC Division of Water Quality. The riparian buffers protected
under this rule are measured from the most landward limit of the top of the bank. The 50-
foot riparian buffer is divided into two zones. Zone 1 (first 30 feet) of the buffer is to remain
essentially undisturbed; while Zone 2 (the landward 20 feet) is to remain forested, with
certain uses allowable.

In each of the buffer rules there are certain activities that are considered exempt,
allowable, or allowable with mitigation. Road crossings are exempt if the buffer impacts are
less than 40 feet, allowable if less than 150 feet and less than 1/3 of an acre and allowable
with mitigation if the impacts are greater than 150 and/or greater than 1/3 of an acre.

21
All buffer impacts must be reported, though not all require mitigation. The mitigation ratios
and requirements are addressed in 15 NCAC 2B.0242 and 15A NCAC 2B.0260 respectively.

d. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on wetlands and
surface waters. Table 11 below presents anticipated project effects on wetlands and streams
(Figure 7).

TABLE 11
WETLAND/STREAM IMPACTS
OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Section

1-3

4

5-9
Wetlands
Affected
(acres)

2.52

0.18

2.11
Stream
Impacts
(feet)

550

140

710

The proposed project will impact 120,970 square feet of riparian buffers. Only those
impacts to surface waters that occur within the Beaufort County portion of this project are
currently subject to buffer protection rules. Riparian buffer mitigation will be determined
through coordination with the Division of Water Quality.

e. Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Given the number of streams and wetlands in the project area, total avoidance of
surface waters and wetlands by this project is not feasible.
The alternatives studied in detail for the project were selected because they have
lower impacts on wetlands and streams than other alternatives examined. Additional
minimization measures will be considered as the project progresses.
It is expected that wetland and stream mitigation will be required for the project.
Final decisions regarding wetland and stream mitigation requirements will be made by the
US Army Corps of Engineers and the NC Division of Water Quality. On-site mitigation will
be used as much as possible. The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will be used for
remaining mitigation requirements beyond what can be satisfied by on-site mitigation.

22
f. Anticipated Permit Requirements
The proposed project will likely require an Individual Section 404 Permit from the
US Army Corps of Engineers. Final permit decisions rest with the US Army Corps of
Engineers.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the NC Division
of Water Quality prior to issuance of the Individual 404 Permit. A state stormwater permit
may also be required.
This project may require a CAMA permit from the NC Division of Coastal
Management. If a CAMA permit is required, a CAMA Major Development permit will be
required.
3. Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
As of December 26, 2012, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists seven
species under federal protection for Beaufort County and one species for Martin County.
These species are listed on Table 12.

TABLE 12
Federally-Protected Species Listed for Beaufort and Martin Counties
Common Name Scientific Name Status County Habitat
Biological
Conclusion
Atlantic sturgeon Anquilla rostrata E Both No No Effect
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii E Beaufort No No Effect
Red wolf Canis rufus EXP* Beaufort Yes No Effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E Beaufort No No Effect
West Indian manatee Trichecus manatus E Beaufort No No Effect
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia aesperulaefolia E Beaufort No No Effect
Sensitive joint-vetch Aeschynomene virginica T Beaufort Yes No Effect
*-EXP denotes an experimental population. Experimental, nonessential populations of
endangered species (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened species on public land, for
consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private land.

No habitat exists in the project area for the Atlantic sturgeon, Kemp’s ridley sea
turtle, red-cockaded woodpecker or West Indian manatee. Preferred habitat for rough-leaved
loosestrife does not exist in the project area, but the species is known to occur along road
shoulders, therefore, surveys for the species were conducted on May 17, 2011 with no
individuals found. Suitable habitat for sensitive joint-vetch does exist in the project area but
a September 22, 2010 survey found none. The red wolf is still experimental except on
federal lands where it is endangered.

23
A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) element
occurrence database, updated May 3, 2011, revealed no occurrences of the listed species
within one mile of the study area.

The bald eagle was delisted as of August 8, 2007 and is no longer protected by the
Endangered Species Act. It is, however, protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act. There is no bald eagle nesting or foraging habitat within 660 feet of the study
area. A review of the NC Natural Heritage Program element occurrence database, updated
May 3, 2011, revealed no occurrences of the bald eagle within one mile of the study area.
4. Soils
The dominant soils occurring within the project area are generally of the Goldsboro-
Lynchburg-Norfolk association in Martin County and the Leaf-Lenoir-Craven association in
Beaufort County (NRCS 1989 and 1995)
Table 13 provides an inventory of the soil types known to occur in the project area.

TABLE 13
SOILS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Soil Map
Symbol Map Unit Name
Percent
Slope County
Hydric
Class Inclusion
BoB Bonneau loamy sand 0-6 Martin NH None
CrA Carven fine sandy loam 0-1 Both NH None
CrB Carven fine sandy loam 0-4 Both NH None
GoA Goldsboro fine sandy loam 0-2 Both NH None
La Leaf silt loam Nearly
Level Beaufort H None
Le Lenoir loam Nearly
Level Beaufort HI To/La
Ly Lynchburg fine sandy loam Nearly
Level Both HI Ra
Me Muckalee loam Nearly
Level Beaufort H None
NoA Norfolk loamy fine sand 0-2 Martin NH None
Pn Pantego loam Nearly
Level Martin H None
Ra Rains fine sandy loam Nearly
Level Both H None
H - Hydric soils or soils having hydric soils as a major component.
HI - Soils with inclusions of hydric soils in depressional areas
NH - Nonhydric soils

24
B. Cultural Resources
The proposed project is subject to North Carolina General Statute 121-12(a) and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106 requires federal
agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or
permitted) on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
1. Historic Architectural Resources

No properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places are located within the
project area of potential effects (APE).

NCDOT architectural historians surveyed the APE of the proposed project in 2010
and 2011 and seven properties were identified as eligible for the National Register. They are
Woodmen of the World Lodge, Former Old Ford School, Thad Hodges House, Griffin’s
Hatchery, Smithwick-Green-Clark House, Hadley House and Woodland-Perry House.
Eligibility decisions were coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) and
copies of the correspondence are located in Appendix A.

On November 1, 2011, representatives of NCDOT, FHWA and HPO reviewed the
subject project and concurred on the project’s effects on the seven eligible properties. A copy
of the concurrence form is included in Appendix A. Table 14 below presents the project’s
effects on historic properties.

TABLE 14
PROJECT EFFECTS ON HISTORIC PROPERTIES
Property Project Effect
Woodmen of the World Lodge No Effect
Former Old Ford School No Effect
Thad Hodges House No Effect
Griffin’s Hatchery
Griffin’s Hatchery
Adverse Effect (West Side Widening)
No Adverse Effect (Avoidance Alt.)
Smithwick-Green-Clark House No Adverse Effect
Hadley House No Adverse Effect
Woodland-Perry House No Adverse Effect
2. Archaeological Resources
All identified archaeological sites located within the APE have been considered and
all compliance for archaeological resources with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project. There are no
National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project’s area of potential
effects. No subsurface archaeological investigations are required for this project.

25
C. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime
and important farmland soils. North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires all state
agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime
farmland soils, as designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Land planned or zoned for urban development is not afforded the same level of preservation
as rural, agricultural areas.

Much of the land surrounding the subject section of US 17 is being actively farmed.
Most of the land on either side of the existing road is prime and important farmland. Table
15 shows project effects on prime and important farmlands. A Farmland Conversion Rating
Form (Form NRCS-CPA-106) has been completed for this project (see Appendix) according
to FHWA guidelines. Both the Beaufort and Martin County portions received point totals of
75 and were submitted to NRCS for review. NRCS has completed their review and the
Beaufort County portion of the project corridor received a total point value of 145.4.
Therefore, the Beaufort County portion falls below the NRCS minimum criteria rating of 160
points and will not be evaluated further for farmland impacts. This portion of the project will
not have a substantial impact to farmland.

The Martin County portion received a total point value of 162.1, which exceeds the
minimum criteria rating threshold of 160 points. Alternatives exceeding a point total of 160
are those most suitable for protection under the Farmland Protection Policy Act.

The proposed project involves widening an existing road. With the exception of near
creek crossings, virtually all of the soils on either side of the existing road are prime farmland
or would be prime farmland if drained.

Existing right of way along US 17 in the project area is offset to the west. Widening
to the west would result in less additional right of way and less impacts to farms. US 17 will
be widened to the west for the majority of the proposed project. Widening to the east is only
proposed in areas which would result in less impact to homes, businesses, wetlands or
streams.

TABLE 15 PROJECT EFFECTS ON
PRIME AND IMPORTANT FARMLAND

Section

1-3

4

5-9
Prime and
Important
Farmland
(Acres)

38.7

11.7

38.5

26
D. Social Effects
1. Neighborhoods/Communities
The project area is composed primarily of scattered residences, commercial
properties and farms. A small subdivision (Holly Creek), is located on the west side of US
17 near the northern terminus of the project.
2. Relocation of Residences and Businesses
All of the alternatives studied in detail for the proposed project will require the
relocation of homes and businesses. Table 16 below presents relocations required for the
project. As discussed in Section II-B-1, when the right of way for US 17 was expanded to
150 feet in the 1950’s, houses remained within the then new right of way. NCDOT
purchased the land from the property owners but not the structures. The right of way
agreements allowed the residents to continue to live in their homes. The agreements
stipulated that NCDOT would purchase the structures and provide relocation assistance for
the residents at the time the right of way was needed. Relocatee numbers listed in table 16
below, include homes and businesses within the existing right of way.

All relocations will be carried out in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646) and/or
the North Carolina Relocations Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). NCDOT’s
Relocation Assistance Program will be utilized to assist in finding replacement housing for
residents relocated by the project.

TABLE 16
HOMES AND BUSINESSES TO BE RELOCATED

Section

1-3

4

7-9

Homes

18 (5)

4 (2)

14 (4)

Businesses

0

0

0
Numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate minority-owned or occupied homes or businesses.

Appendix B discusses the NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program and presents the
relocation reports for the project alternatives.

3. Minority/Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency, to the greatest extent allowed by
law, to administer and implement its programs, policies and activities that affect human
health or the environment so as to identify and avoid “disproportionately high and adverse”
effects on minority and low-income populations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

27
amended, prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs on the basis of race, color,
national origin, age, sex or disability.

Beaufort County and Martin County each had a higher percentage of minorities than
North Carolina (29.8%) in 2000. However, the percentage of minorities within the project
area (24.3%) was lower than that of both Beaufort County (33.2 %), and Martin County (48.2
%). Minority relocatees account for approximately 30 percent (12 of 39) of the total
relocatees resulting from the project.

In addition, the percentage of elderly population is lower in the project area than in
both counties, median household incomes are more, the percentage of the population below
the poverty level is less, and the unemployment rate is lower. The proposed project is not
likely to result in disproportionate impacts to any particular community.

A citizens informational workshop was held for the project on November 24, 2009
(see Section VI-A). This workshop was advertised in local newspapers and newsletters
announcing the workshop were mailed to area property owners.

A public hearing will be held for this project following distribution of this document.
This hearing will be advertised in local newspapers and newsletters announcing the hearing
will be mailed to area residents. Citizen comments will be taken into consideration in the
selection of the preferred alternative.

Through the public involvement program, citizens have been kept informed of the
proposed project. Citizen comments have been considered in the development of the project,
without regard to the race, color, national origin, age, sex or disability of the commenter.
Based on project studies, this project will not have a disproportionate impact on low-income
or minority populations. This project is being implemented in accordance with Executive
Order 12898 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

4. Recreational Facilities
There are no public recreational facilities in the project area.
5. Other Public Facilities and Services
Old Ford Volunteer Fire Department is located just south of the project on the east
side of US 17 north of NC 171. There are no post offices or other public facilities located
along US 17 in the project area.
E. Economic Effects
A widened roadway may make it more likely that new businesses could appear along
US 17; however, large-scale growth is not anticipated. Relatively long distances to major
urban centers and sluggish population growth limit the opportunity for large-scale growth as
a result of the project. Most economic effects will be related to the construction of the new
road, which could help the economy temporarily by creating local jobs.

28

Businesses along the corridor may be temporarily affected by reduced visibility or
access due to construction activities. Access to all properties along the project will be
maintained during construction.
F. Land Use
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning

The US 17 corridor in this area of Beaufort and Martin Counties is predominantly
agricultural with some wooded areas and wetlands. Large farm fields are located along both
sides of US 17 in the project area. A few small retail businesses, such as convenience stores
and antique and used furniture shops, exist along the project. Several churches are also
located along this section of US 17. No large-scale residential or commercial developments
exist along the project corridor. Residences along the project are typically single-family
residences, many of them mobile homes.

The largest cluster of homes that was observed along the project corridor includes 15
to 20 residences along the east side of US 17 just north of VOA Road in Beaufort County.
Also located in this cluster is the Church of Divine Truth Holiness Church. Other groups of
houses in the area were found along Thurman Griffin Road, just east of US 17, and along
Rodgers School Road, near Rodgers Elementary School in Martin County.

Beaufort and Martin Counties do not have zoning along this section of US 17.

2. Future Land Use

The 1997 Beaufort County Land Use Plan Update was prepared in accordance with
requirements of the Costal Area Management Act (CAMA). Future land use for the project
area falls under two categories designated by CAMA: Community and Rural with Services.
The Community category extends outward from the city of Washington and into the southern
portion of the project area around Old Ford. The Rural with Services category extends from
just north of Old Ford to the Martin County Line.

Both Martin and Beaufort County officials do not anticipate any major changes to the
project area in the future. The existing land use is rural with some scattered commercial type
enterprises and the road is viewed as more for through-traffic than as a development
simulator.
3. Project Compatibility with Local Plans

This project is generally consistent with existing local land use plans. TIP Project
R-2511 is included in the Beaufort County 1997 Land Use Plan. Beaufort and Martin
County officials do not anticipate the project will alter the land uses along the project

29
corridor. Currently, land use in this area of both counties includes mostly agricultural and
rural residential; therefore, the proposed project appears to be consistent with the existing or
future land uses.

G. Indirect and Cumulative Effects

The proposed project should not induce much growth nor affect overall water quality.
The majority of growth factors are rated low. Even though there is a lack of regulations in
respect to zoning and land use controls in some portions of the project area (Martin County in
particular), growth is not anticipated to occur and cannot occur in any intense pattern due to a
lack of infrastructure.

US 17 in the project area is viewed by Beaufort and Martin Counties as a through-
traffic route for goods and services moving through the region. Both counties have identified
growth areas that are outside the project area. If growth does occur, it is likely to be along
US 17 and intersecting roadways which have some existing service-type businesses.

Because limited indirect impacts are anticipated, the cumulative effect of this project,
when considered in the context of other past, present and future actions and the resulting
impact on notable human and natural features should be minimal. Therefore, contributions of
the project to cumulative impacts resulting from current and planned development patterns
are expected to be minimal.

H. Flood Hazard Evaluation

Beaufort and Martin Counties are both participants in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. The project crossing of Latham Creek is located within a special 100-year
flood hazard zone which is within a detailed flood study reach, having a regulated 100-year
non-encroachment width regulated as a floodway. The proposed box culvert will provide
equivalent or greater conveyance than that of the existing bridge. Figure 7 shows the
approximate limits of the 100-year floodplain for streams in the project area.

NCDOT will coordinate with the Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated
state agency for administering FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program, to determine
whether the Memorandum of Agreement between NCDOT and the FMP is applicable or if
approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of
Map Revision (LOMR) will be required.

This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to a FEMA-regulated
stream. Therefore, NCDOT Division One shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to
the Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage
structures and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were
built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.

30
I. Traffic Noise Analysis
Traffic noise impacts were determined through implementing the current traffic noise
model (TNM®2.5) approved by the Federal Highway Administration and by following procedures
found in Title 23 CFR 772. When traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and
evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures must be considered for reducing or
eliminating these impacts. A copy of the unabridged version of the full technical report
entitled Traffic Noise Analysis can be viewed at the NCDOT Century Center Complex, 1000
Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh.
The Traffic Noise Analysis was performed in accordance with the FHWA noise
standard (23 CFR 772) that existed prior to July 13, 2011 and the NCDOT Traffic Noise
Abatement Policy (September 2004). The Traffic Noise Analysis will be updated to comply
with FHWA’s new noise standard at Title 23 CFR 772 (effective July 13, 2011), NCDOT’s
current Traffic Noise Abatement Policy (July 13, 2011), and the NCDOT Traffic Noise
Analysis and Abatement Manual (revised August 22, 2011). The results of the updated
analysis will be included in the final environmental document.
1. Traffic Noise Impacts and Noise Contours

The maximum number of receptors predicted to become impacted by future traffic
noise is shown in Table 17 below. The table includes those receptors expected to experience
traffic noise impacts by either approaching or exceeding the FHWA Noise Abatement
Criteria or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels.

TABLE 17
PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE*

Section

1-3

4

5-9

Homes

13

1

8

Churches/Cemeteries

1

1

2

Businesses

1

0

0
*Per TNM®2.5 and in accordance with 23 CFR Part 772
(prior to July 13, 2011)

The maximum extent of the 71 and 66 dBA noise level contours measured from the
center of the proposed roadway are 58 feet and 109 feet, respectively.

The traffic noise analysis also considered traffic noise impacts for the no-build
alternative. If the proposed project was not built, traffic noise impacts would occur to 25
receptors and future traffic noise levels will increase by approximately 3 dB(A) by the year
2035. Humans barely detect noise level changes of 3 dB(A) or less. A 5 dB(A) change is
more readily noticeable.

31
2. Noise Abatement Alternatives
Measures for reducing or eliminating traffic noise impacts were considered for all
impacted receptors in each alternative. Noise abatement measures evaluated include highway
alignment changes, traffic system management measures, buffer acquisition and noise
barriers.

For each of these measures, benefits versus costs, engineering feasibility,
effectiveness and practicability, land use issues and other factors were considered. For each
of these measures, noise reduction benefits versus allowable abatement measure quantity
(reasonableness), engineering feasibility, effectiveness, practicability and other factors were
included in the noise abatement considerations.
a. Traffic System Management Measures

Traffic system management measures are not considered viable for noise abatement
due to the negative impact they would have on the capacity and level of service of the
proposed roadway.
b. Highway Alignment Changes

Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not
considered to be a viable option for this project due to engineering and environmental factors.

c. Buffer Acquisition

Costs to acquire buffer zones for impacted receptors will exceed the NCDOT
abatement cost threshold. Therefore, this abatement measure is unreasonable.
d. Noise Barriers

Noise barriers include two basic types: earthen berms and noise walls. These
structures act to diffract, absorb and reflect highway traffic noise.

This project will maintain partial control of access, meaning that most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed project,
and all intersections will be at-grade. The Traffic Noise Analysis for this project confirmed
the physical breaks in potential noise barriers that would occur for property access would
prohibit any noise barrier from providing the minimum required traffic noise level reductions
at all predicted traffic noise impacts, as defined by the noise abatement measure feasibility
criteria of the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy.

32
3. Summary

Based on this preliminary study, traffic noise abatement is not recommended and no
noise abatement measures are proposed. As previously stated, the noise analysis will be
updated to comply with current federal and state noise regulations, policies and guidance and
the results will be included in the final environmental document in accordance with NCDOT
Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State governments are not responsible for
providing noise abatement measures for new development for which building permits are
issued after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed
highway project will be the approval date of the final environmental document. For
development occurring after this date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that
noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
J. Air Quality Analysis
1. Project Air Quality Effects

This project is located in Beaufort and Martin Counties, both of which have been
determined to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed
project is located in attainment areas; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable.

This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area.

2. Mobile Source Air Toxics

Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the
Clean Air Act. MSATs are compounds emitted by highway vehicles and non-road
equipment.

This document includes a basic analysis of the likely MSAT emission impacts of this
project. However, project specific health effects of the emission changes associated with the
project alternatives cannot be predicted with available technical tools.

Evaluating the environmental and health impacts from MSATs on a proposed
highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling,
dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the estimated
emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the estimated
concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the estimated
exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or uncertain science
that prevent a more complete determination of the MSAT health impacts of the proposed
project. Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing.

33
For each alternative, the amount of MSATs emitted is proportional to the vehicle
miles traveled (VMT), assuming other variables such as fleet mix are the same for each
alternative. The VMT estimated for each of the detailed study alternatives will likely be
higher than that for the no-build alternative, because the additional capacity provided by the
project increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips from elsewhere in
the transportation network. The increased VMT would lead to higher MSAT emissions for
the action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a corresponding decrease in
MSAT emissions along other routes. The emissions increase is offset somewhat by lower
MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds. According to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions
model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs except for diesel particulate matter decrease as
speed increases. The extent to which these speed-related emissions decreases will offset
VMT-related emissions increases cannot be reliably predicted due to the inherent deficiencies
of technical models.

Because the estimated VMT for each of the alternatives is nearly the same, it is
expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions among the
various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions in the design year
will likely be lower than present levels as a result of EPA's national control programs that are
projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020. Local
conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover,
VMT growth rates and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the EPA-
projected reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT
emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases.

3. Construction Air Quality Effects
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Also during construction, measures will be taken to
reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the
protection and comfort of motorists or area residents.
4. Summary
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality of the 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments, and no additional reports are necessary. The complete project
Air Quality Analysis is available for review at the NCDOT Century Center Complex, 1000
Birch Ridge Drive, Raleigh.

34
K. Hazardous Materials
Eighteen sites possibly containing underground storage tanks (UST) were found to
exist in the project limits. There is the possibility unregulated USTs may also exist within
the proposed right of way limits. No landfills and no hazardous waste sites were identified
within the project limits. The location of these sites containing USTs is shown on Figure 7.
These sites are described in Table 18 below.

TABLE 18
POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTIES
IN PROJECT AREA
Site Site Name Facility ID# Facility Type
1* Former Jack Cherry Property WA-26396 Former gas station w/ USTs
2* Former Coward Property WA-26372 Former gas station w/ USTs
3* Former Willie Gautier Property 0-004142 Former gas station w/ USTs
4 Farm None Farm w/ USTs
5 Residence None Home heating oil UST
6 Former Wynn’s Gulf None Former gas station w/ USTs
7 Former Faulkner’s Country Store 0-024177 Former gas station w/ USTs
8 Norman’s Olde Store None Former gas station w/ USTs
9 Moore’s Used Cars None Former gas station w/ USTs
10 Griffin’s Hatchery None Possible USTs
11 Residence None Possible former gas station
12 Former Rome Rogerson Store 0-017266 Former gas station w/ USTs
13 Former Joe Mobley Store None Former gas station w/ USTs
14 Peele Barn None Farm w/ UST
15 Barn None Possible former gas station
16 White Building None Former gas station
17 Coltrain Property WA-25103 Former gas station w/ USTs
18 Old garage None Possible former gas station
*-These properties are along the portion of US 17 currently being widened under TIP Project
R-2510C, which is currently under construction.
A preliminary site assessment will be performed on sites containing USTs or other
potentially contaminated sites prior to right of way acquisition.

35

VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshop

A citizens informational workshop for the subject project was held on November 24,
2009 in the Macedonia Christian Church in Bear Grass. Approximately 49 citizens attended.
Maps showing the project were displayed and NCDOT staff were available to answer
questions and receive comments regarding the project. Comment sheets were provided for
citizens to write down their questions or remarks.

Few people attending the workshop were opposed to the project. Most of the
comments made were concerning the project’s effect on individual properties. Several
attendees were concerned about family cemeteries. A previous workshop was held in October
1999.
Comments and concerns of citizens have been taken into consideration during the
development of alternatives for the proposed widening.
B. Public Hearing

A public hearing for this project will be held following distribution of this document.
Comments received at the public hearing will be taken into consideration as project
development continues, in accordance with 23 USC 128.

C. NEPA/404 Merger Process

This project has followed the NEPA/404 merger process. The merger process is an
interagency procedure integrating the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act into the National Environmental Policy Act or State Environmental Policy Act
decision-making processes.
Representatives of the US Army Corps of Engineers, FHWA and NCDOT served as
co-chairs for the merger team. The following agencies also participated on the NEPA/404
merger team for this project:

US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
National Marine Fisheries Service
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Coastal Management

36

The merger team has concurred on the purpose and need, alternatives to be studied in
detail and wetlands/streams to be bridged.

The merger team will select the least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative for the project following the public hearing. The team will also concur on further
avoidance and minimization measures for the project.
D. Agency Coordination

NCDOT has coordinated with appropriate federal, state, and local agencies
throughout the project planning study. Comments on the project have been requested from
the agencies listed below. Asterisks indicate a response was received. Copies of the
comments received are included in Appendix A.

*U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers (Wilmington District)
*U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh
U.S. Geological Survey - Raleigh
*N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Crime Control and Public Safety
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
N.C. Department of Human Resources
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Beaufort County
Martin County
Mid East Rural Planning Organization

M
A
R
TIN C
O
U
N
T
Y
B
E
A
U
F
O
R
T C
O
U
N
T
Y
PITT COUNTYtu17
tu17
Batts
Crossroads
Old Ford
Cory's
Crossroads
Bear Grass
1533
1106
1420
1560
1512
1419
1414
14221421
1106
1409
W h a r t o n
S t a t i o n R d .
1410Stallings
Crossroads
1524
1523
Bear
Gr
ass Rd.
1105
1535
1501
1114
1415
1101
1101 1500
1119
1521
!(171
15271516
1528
tu 64 tu13
64
1410
1418
1409
1413
1410
BEGIN
PROJECT
END
PROJECT
!(171
q
NSECTION 1 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T OF TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2SHEET 1 OF 12
(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
FORMER OLD FORD SCHOOL
(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LODGE
N
C 1
7
1
OLD FORD
US 17
US 17
(UNDER CONSTRUCTION-NOT A PART OF THIS STUDY)
TIP PROJECT R-2510
OLD FORD SWAMP
SR 1418 (N. ROBERSON RD.)BEGIN PROJECT
SZ
SY
WE
SZ
TO WASHINGTON
TO WASHINGTON
LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
NMATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 1MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 1SR 1410 (VOA RD.)(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
THAD HODGES HOUSE
US 17
SECTION 1
WXX WZ
SX
US 17
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T OF TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 2 OF 12
LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
NMATCHLINE SEE SHEET 4MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 4MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2GORHAM ACRESSECTION 1 SECTION 2
BEGIN SECTION 2END SECTION 1US 17 US 17
HOLINESS CHURCH
DIVINE TRUTH
CHURCH OF
IN JESUS
CHURCH OF GOD
HOLY FELLOWSHIP
HOLINESS CHURCH
MT. SINAI TEMPLE
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T OF TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 3 OF 12
LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
NMATCHLINE SEE SHEET 5MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 5MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 3SR 1412
(GRI
FFI
N RD.
)SR 1419 (WOOLARD RD.)SW
WF
WF
LATHAM CREEKSECTION 2 SECTION 3
BEGIN SECTION 3END SECTION 2US 17 U
S
17
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T OF TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 4 OF 12
LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
NSECTION 3
BATTS CROSSROADS SR 1420 (BEARGRASS RD.)S
R 1
4
2
0 (
B
E
AR
GR
AS
S
R
D.)
WG MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 6MATCHLI
NE SEE SHEET
4
MATCHLI
NE SEE SHEET
4 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 6SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T OF TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 5 OF 12BEAUFORT COUNTYMARTIN COUNTYWY WW
LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
MATCHLI
NE SEE SHEET
7
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 5MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 5MATCHLI
NE SEE SHEET
7BEGIN SECTION 4END SECTION 3SECTION 3
SECTION 4
WY WW
SE
WVN
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T OF TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 6 OF 12BEAUFORT COUNTYMARTIN COUNTYLEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
WV
SE
US
17
US 17
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 6NMATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
GRIFFIN’S HATCHERY
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T
O
F TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 7 OF 12
LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTINGMATCHLINE SEE SHEET 6MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8SECTION 4
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 7BEGIN SECTION 5END SECTION 4END SECTION 5BEGIN SECTION 6WU
WU WC WB
WB WT
SU
SV NSUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T
O
F TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 8 OF 12
LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 7MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 9MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 9SECTION 4
SECTION 5
SECTION 6
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 10SECTION 7
END SECTION 6BEGIN SECTION 7US 17 US 17N
(SMITHWICK CREEK CHURCH RD.)SR 1106CROSSROADS
COREY’S CHRISTIAN CHURCH
MACEDONIA
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T
O
F TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 9 OF 12
LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTINGMATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8SR 1106 (JOE MOBLEY RD.)MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 10
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T OF TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 10 OF 12MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 9MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 9MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 11MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 11US 17
US 17BEGIN SECTION 8END SECTION 7SECTION 7 SECTION 8 N(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
SMITHWICK-GREEN-CLARK HOUSE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
MACEDONIA
(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
HANDLEY HOUSE
LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
S
R 1
1
1
4
(
D
A
N P
E
E
L
E

R
D.)SR 1114 (THURMAN GRI
FFI
N RD.)
SECTION 8
SECTION 9
END SECTION 8BEGIN SECTION 9US 17
US 17
ST
ST
SS
SS
WAN MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 12SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T OF TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 11 OF 12MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 12MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 10MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 10(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
WOOLARD-PERRY HOUSE
LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
NEND PROJECT
US 17
US 17
SECTION 9
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
PRELIMINARY DESIGN
0 400FEET
TIP PROJECT R-2511
MARTIN COUNTIES
BEAUFORT AND
WILLIAMSTON
TO MULTILANES SOUTH OF
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17

DEPART
ME
N
T OF TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROL
I
NA

UNIT
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
AND
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF
NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 2
SHEET 12 OF 12MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 11MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 11(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
WOOLARD-PERRY HOUSE
TO W ILLIAMSTON
SR 1205 (HOLLY CRK. BLVD.)SR 1521 (MILL INN RD.)SR 1570 (DAVID ROGERSON RD.)SR 1116 ( RODGERS SCHOOL RD.)LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
OPEN WATER
STREAMS OR
DELINEATED
WETLANDS
DELINEATED
LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
(NATIONAL REGISTER
HISTORIC PROPERTY
EASEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
PROPOSED
SLOPESTAKES
PROPOSED
STRUCTURE
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED
RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING
NOT TO SCALE
4’ PAVED SHOULDER
12’
8’
24’
12’
TIP PROJECT R-2511
4’ PAVED SHOULDER
12’
24’
12’
8’
MEDIAN46’
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION
LEFT OR RIGHT SIDE OF EXISTING LANES, DEPENDING ON PROJECT SECTION.
NOTE: PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TWO LANES MAY BE ON EITHER
6’6’
220’ PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
FIGURE 3A
NOT TO SCALE
TIP PROJECT R-2511
FIGURE 3B
800’ - 1000’**800’ - 1000’
(SUPERSTREET INTERSECTION)
WITH MEDIAN U-TURNS
DIRECTIONAL CROSSOVER
WHERE WARRANTED.
* - RIGHT TURN LANES WILL BE PROVIDED
WHERE WARRANTED.
* - RIGHT TURN LANES WILL BE PROVIDED
2010 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFICCOUNTY: Beaufort & MartinDIVISIONS: 1&2TIP: R-2511WBS: 35494.1.1DATE: 06-28-2010PROJECT:Widening of two-lane section from NC 171 to Multi-lane south of WilliamstonPREPARED BY: Darryl AustinSHEET 1 OF 2L E G E N D###No. of Vehicles PerDay (VPD) in 100s1-Less than 50 VPDx( d, t )PMDDHVDHVPMD( d, t )Design Hourly Volume (%) PM Peak PeriodPeak Hour Directional Split (%)Indicates Direction of DDuals, TT-STs (%)Movement ProhibitedProposed Roadway NO BUILDLOCATION: US 17 from NC 171 to SR 120521-3131-217SR 1114Dan Peel Rd.SR 1116Rodgers School Rd.171111 14111-2860(5,10)PMSR 1106Joe Mobley Rd.SR 1420Bear Grass Rd.SR 1419Woolard Rd.SR 1410VOA Rd.SR 1421Griffin Hodges Rd.SR 1106Smithwick Creek Churcu Rd.SR 1523Thurman Griffin Rd.SR 1570David Rogerson Rd.SR 1205Holly Creek Blvd.17SR 1420Bear Grass Rd.SR 1418Roberson Rd.Beaufort CountyMartin CountyBeaufort CountyMartin CountyN 331 3 61-1-29822275757571-656365456155658188221-6664536257860(5,8)PM8
6 5
(3 ,8 )
P M760(2,1)PM755(3,3)PM12 55
(3,2)
PM
7 55
(3,2)
PM 760(3,2)PM7 60
(3,2)
PM
7 60
(3,2)
PM
12 55
(2,1)
PM
12 55
(3,2)
PM
1255(2,1)PM860(5,8)PM860(4,7)PM860(4,7)PM1255(2,1)PM7 55(4,1)PM7 55(2,1)PM
2035 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFICCOUNTY: Beaufort & MartinDIVISIONS: 1&2TIP: R-2511WBS: 35494.1.1DATE: 06-28-2010PROJECT:Widening of two-lane section from NC 171 to Multi-lane south of WilliamstonPREPARED BY: Darryl AustinSHEET 2 OF 2L E G E N D###No. of Vehicles PerDay (VPD) in 100s1-Less than 50 VPDx( d, t )PMDDHVDHVPMD( d, t )Design Hourly Volume (%) PM Peak PeriodPeak Hour Directional Split (%)Indicates Direction of DDuals, TT-STs (%)Movement ProhibitedProposed Roadway BUILDLOCATION: US 17 from NC 171 to SR 1205416261317SR 1114Dan Peel Rd.SR 1116Rodgers School Rd.171232 28241-4860(5,10)PMSR 1106Joe Mobley Rd.SR 1420Bear Grass Rd.SR 1419Woolard Rd.SR 1410VOA Rd.SR 1421Griffin Hodges Rd.SR 1106Smithwick Creek Churcu Rd.SR 1523Thurman Griffin Rd.SR 1570David Rogerson Rd.SR 1205Holly Creek Blvd.17SR 1420Bear Grass Rd.SR 1418Roberson Rd.Beaufort CountyMartin CountyBeaufort CountyMartin CountyN 662 6 121-1-57162453113113113112111612107101221011111521616331-130127106123111860(5,8)PM8
6 5
(3 ,8 )
P M760(2,1)PM755(3,3)PM12 55
(3,2)
PM
7 55
(3,2)
PM 760(3,2)PM7 60
(3,2)
PM
7 60
(3,2)
PM
12 55
(2,1)
PM
12 55
(3,2)
PM
1255(2,1)PM860(5,8)PM860(4,7)PM860(4,7)PM1255(2,1)PM7 55(4,1)PM7 55(2,1)PM
N
TIP PROJECT R-2511
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 5A
NC 171SR 1410
(VOA RD.)
SR 1421
(GRIFFIN HODGES RD.)
SR 1420
(BEAR GRASS RD.)SR 1420
(BEAR GRASS RD.)
SR 1419
(WOOLARD RD.)
SR 1106
(JOE MOBLEY RD.)SR 1106
(SMITHWICK CREEK
CHURCH RD.)
SR 1205
(HOLLY CREEK BLVD.)
SR 1116
(RODGERS SCHOOL RD.)
SR 1114
(DAN PEEL RD.)SR 1523
(THURMAN GRIFFIN RD.)
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE A
LEVEL OF SERVICE B
LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
LEVEL OF SERVICE F
N
TIP PROJECT R-2511
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 5B
NC 171SR 1410
(VOA RD.)
SR 1421
(GRIFFIN HODGES RD.)
SR 1420
(BEAR GRASS RD.)SR 1420
(BEAR GRASS RD.)
SR 1419
(WOOLARD RD.)
SR 1106
(JOE MOBLEY RD.)SR 1106
(SMITHWICK CREEK
CHURCH RD.)
SR 1205
(HOLLY CREEK BLVD.)
SR 1116
(RODGERS SCHOOL RD.)
SR 1114
(DAN PEEL RD.)SR 1523
(THURMAN GRIFFIN RD.)
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE A
LEVEL OF SERVICE B
LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
LEVEL OF SERVICE F
N
TIP PROJECT R-2511
NOT TO SCALE
FIGURE 6
NC 171SR 1410
(VOA RD.)
SR 1421
(GRIFFIN HODGES RD.)
SR 1420
(BEAR GRASS RD.)SR 1420
(BEAR GRASS RD.)
SR 1419
(WOOLARD RD.)
SR 1106
(JOE MOBLEY RD.)SR 1106
(SMITHWICK CREEK
CHURCH RD.)
SR 1205
(HOLLY CREEK BLVD.)
SR 1116
(RODGERS SCHOOL RD.)
SR 1114
(DAN PEEL RD.)SR 1523
(THURMAN GRIFFIN RD.)
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE A
LEVEL OF SERVICE B
LEVEL OF SERVICE C
LEVEL OF SERVICE D
LEVEL OF SERVICE E
LEVEL OF SERVICE F
NUS 17
TO WASHINGTONTO WASHINGTON
(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
WOODMEN OF THE WORLD LODGE
(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
FORMER OLD FORD SCHOOL
SECTION 1
BEGIN PROJECT
(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
THAD HODGES HOUSESR 1410 (VOA RD.)S
R 1
4
1
2
(GRI
F
F
I
N RD.)SR 1420 (BEARGRASS RD.)SR 1420 (BEARGRASS RD.)BEAUFORT COUNTYMARTIN COUNTYBEAUFORT COUNTYMARTIN COUNTYSECTION 2
SECTION 4
NC 17
1
SECTION 3
SZ
SZ SY
WE
WXX
WZ
SX
WF
WF SW WG
WY
WW WV
SE
SHEET 1 OF 2
U
S 171 2
3
4
5 6
7
8
9
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2LEGEND
FLOODWAY
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED PROPERTY
(NATIONAL REGISTER LISTED OR ELIGIBLE)
HISTORIC PROPERTY
OPEN WATER
DELINEATED STREAMS OR
DELINEATED WETLANDS
N(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
GRIFFIN’S HATCHERY
(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
HANDLEY HOUSE
(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
SMITHWICK-GREEN-CLARK HOUSE
SR 1114 (THURMAN GRIFFIN RD.)SR 1114 (DAN PEELE RD.)(NATIONAL REGISTER ELIGIBLE)
WOOLARD-PERRY HOUSE
SR 1521
TO WILLIAMSTON
END PROJECT
SECTION 4 SECTION 6
SECTION 5
SECTION 7
SECTION 8
SECTION 9
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
OF TRANSPORTATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT

DEPART
ME
N
T
O
F TRANSPORTA TIONSTAT E OF NORTH CAROLI
NA
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNIT
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
IN PROJECT AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
BEAUFORT AND MARTIN COUNTIES
TIP PROJECT R-2511
TO MULTI-LANES SOUTH OF WILLIAMSTON
FROM NORTH OF NC 171
US 17
FIGURE 7SHEET 2 OF 2SR 1106 (SMITHWICK CREEK CHURCH RD.)SR 1106 (JOE MOBLEY RD.)WV
SE
WU
WU WC
SV
SU
WB
WB
WT
ST
SS
WA
US 17
US 17
US 17
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 110
11
12
13 14 15
16
17
18

APPENDIX A

COMMENTS RECEIVED

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
Subject: Action ID. 199910971
April 10, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Please reference your October 19, 1999, correspondence requesting our written concurrence
on the purpose and need for the project and on the alternatives to be studied in the Draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Improvement of US 17, from SR 1418 (Roberson Road
in Beaufort County to SR 1205 (Holly Creek Boulevard) in Martin County, North Carolina (TIP
R-2511, State Project No. 6.159001T). Also, please reference the April 5, 2000, facsimile sent to
Mr. Mike Bell of my staff from Mr. Derrick Weaver of your staff which commits NCDOT to
partial control of access for the proposed project.
This transportation project has been listed in the interagency agreement to integrate Section
404 and NEPA requirements ("A Team Approach for Transportation Projects in North
Carolina"). A project team was assembled in Raleigh on May 6, 1999, to discuss the purpose
and need statement and the alternatives to be carried forward. The following individuals
comprised the project team: Mr. Michael Bell, Regulatory Project Manager/North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Coordinator, Mr. Derrick Weaver of your staff,
Mr. David Moye of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, Mr. Ron Sechler of the
National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Ted Bisterfeld from the Environmental Protection
Agency, Mr. David Cox of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Mr. Tom McCartney of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. John Hennessy of the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, Mr. Shawn McKenna of the North Carolina Division Marine
Fisheries, Ms. April Alperin of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, and
Mr. Jolm Wadsworth of the Federal Highway Administration. Messrs. Bisterfeld, Sechler, Moye,
and McKenna, did not attend the meeting.

According to your correspondence, the purpose and need for the project is to alleviate
congestion and improve the level of service along US 17, and in doing so, improve safety of the
route. The October 19, 1999, letter also designates the alternatives which meet this purpose and
need; east -side widening, west -side widening, and a combination of east -widening and west -
widening. After additional coordination with project team members not in attendance at the
meeting, the team came to a consensus on this purpose and need for the project and on the
alternatives to be carried forward as stated in the October 19t1' letter (Concurrence Points #1 and
#2). Due to heavy work load, Mr. Bisterfeld was not able to comment on the project art this
time.
We encourage you to include a compensatory mitigation plan in the EA to expedite the permit
process. Please coordinate with Mr. Bell to schedule any future public hearings.
We appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with you at this early stage of project design.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bell at the Washington
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 26.
Copies Furnished:
Ms. Renea Geld -Hill Earley
State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Ms. Cathey Brittingham
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
2

Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 1-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27564
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Ms. Katie West
DENR-Division of Marine Fisheries
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
3

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 27, 1999
Mr. William D, GiImore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.D. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr, Gilmore:
This responds to your letter of July 16, 1999, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of
proposed improvements to US 17, from SR 1418 (Roberson Road) in Beaufort County to SR
1205 (Holly Creek Boulevard) in Martin County, North Carolina (TIP No. 2511). This report
provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as
initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting
and/or certification processes for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen US 17 to a four -
lane, divided facility with a 46-foot median and 8-foot grass shoulders. The total project length
is approximately 10.3 miles.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people,
Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site -specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or
previously developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas
exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed anti/or region should

be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings
and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures
that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and
wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced
through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in
sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the Williamston and Old Ford 7.5 Minute
Quadrangles indicate that there are wetlands in the project corridor that may be impacted by the
proposed work. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given
area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel
using an acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits that may be required for this
project at the public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for
modification of the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency
coordination occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise
and minimize delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for the proposed project, including a discussion of the
projects's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Acres of wetland impact should
be differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps);
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
2

6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value;
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally -listed endangered and threatened species that are known
to occur in Beaufort and Martin Counties. Habitat requirements for the federally -listed species in
the project area should be compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable
habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the species should be
performed. Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In
addition to this guidance, the following information should be included in the document
regarding protected species:
1. A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of:
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
c. The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
3

e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation);
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
5. A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post -project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Federal species of concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species for which the Service
remains concerned, but further biological research and field study are needed to resolve the
conservation status of these taxa. Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the
ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT to be alert to their potential presence, and to make every
reasonable effort to conserve them if found. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
John M. HeTner
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Washington, NC (Mike Bell)
NCDOT, Raleigh, NC (Derrick Weaver)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessey)
WRC, Creedmore, NC (David Cox)
FHWA, Raleigh, NC (Nicholas Graf)
EPA, Atlanta, GA (Ted Bisterfield)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:08/26/99:919/856-4520 extension 32:\tip-2511.r
4

Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
May 20, 2011
MEMORANDUM
TO:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Claudia Brown, Acting Administrator
Kate Husband
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Claudia Brown
V,Itt. (T4* luo
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
SUBJECT: Architectural Survey Report, US 17 from North of NC 171 to South of Williamston, R-2511,
Beaufort and Martin Counties, ER 99-8744
We are in receipt of your memorandum of April 20, 2011, transmitting the architectural survey report prepared
by the North Carolina Department of Transportation for the above project.
For the purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
Woodmen of the World Lodge (BF 0226, Property #1) remains eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A for its association with the history of the local rural community, and under
Criterion C for its design and construction. Research and oral histories by Beth King in our Greenville Office
suggests that the lodge was built circa 1890 as a Charitable Brothers Lodge before becoming affiliated with
Woodmen of the World. We also note that this is Lodge #671. The proposed National Register boundary
appears appropriate.
We concur that Griffin's Hatchery (MT 0298, Property #44) remains eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its association with agriculture and Criterion C for is design
and construction. However, we do not believe that enough information has been provided to determine if the
Jasper C. Griffin House (MT 1044, Property #45) and the Tenant House (MT 1046, Property #46) are
eligible, either individually or as part of a larger farm complex that may or may not include the Hatchery.
Without additional information on these houses we cannot concur with the proposed National Register
boundary for the Hatchery.
We also concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
under the criteria cited:
• (Former) Old Ford School (BF 1600, Property #2): Criterion A for its association with the Public
Works Administration in Beaufort County and Criterion C for its design and construction;
• Thad Hodges House (BF 1609, Property #11): Criterion C for its design and construction;
• Smithwick-Green Clark House (MT 0695, Property #62): Criterion C for its design and
construction; and,
• Wooland-Perry House (MT 0653, Property #65): Criterion C for its design and construction.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 29, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
r
FROM: David Brook cr �� _ 1` 'C . � � �- `) Otsr
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
SUBJECT: Widening of US 17 from SR 1418 to SR 1205, Beaufort and Martin Counties,
CH 00-E-4220-0051 and ER 99-8744
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse.
Although our files do not contain any previously recorded archaeological sites in the project area, there
may be as -yet -unidentified sites that could be affected by the project. We recommend that you
conduct historical and environmental background research to help determine the need for further field
studies. In particular, we recommend that you conduct field inspections of the stream crossings to
better assess their archaeological sensitivity. We look forward to reviewing the results of these
investigations.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified
at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:scb
cc: T. Padgett
Location
Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618
[phone] - 733-8653
[phone] • 715-2671
[phone] • 715-4801
[phone] • 715-4801

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
July 27, 1999
MEMORANDUM
NCD
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John E. Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
R E C.'
n'�
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening of US 17 from SR 1418 (Roberson Road) in Beaufort
County to SR 1205 (Holly Crossroads Clydes) in Martin County, State Project No. 6.159001, TIP
R-2511.
Reference your correspondence dated April 14, 1999 and July 16, 1999 in which you requested comments
for the widening of US 17 from SR 1418 to SR 1205 (TIP R-2511). Preliminary analysis of the project
reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project
area. Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other
streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified,
the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
A. We would like to see a discussion in the document that presents a sufficient purpose and need to
justify the project's existence. Based on the information presented in your report, we assume that
the Level -of- Service (LOS) is one of the primary reasons for the project. Therefore, the document
should delineate a detailed discussion on the existing Level -of -Service as well as the proposed future
Level -of -Service. The discussion for the future Level -of -Service should consider the Level -of -
Service with and without the project.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Review of the project reveals that no Outstanding Resource Waters, Water Supply Water, High
Quality Waters, Body Contact Waters, or Trout Waters will be impacted during the project
implementation. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
waters, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and construction of
the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS (Water Supply), ORW
(Outstanding Resource Water), HQW (High Quality Water), B (Body Contact), SA (Shellfish
Water) or Tr (Trout Water) classifications.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post -consumer paper

Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/27/99
Page 2
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. Review of the project reveals that no High Quality Waters or Water Supply Waters will be impacted
by the project. However, should further analysis reveal the presence of any of the aforementioned
water resources, the DWQ requests that hazardous spill catch basins be installed at any bridge
crossing a stream classified as HQW or WS (Water Supply). The number of catch basins installed
should be determined by the design of the bridge, so that runoff would enter said basin(s) rather than
flowing directly into the stream.
G. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
H. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
I. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
G. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
I. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules {15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
J. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. 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 the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.

Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
07/27/99
Page 3
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone] or [e-mail].
cc: Mike Bell, Corps of Engineers
Tom McCartney, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
Personal Files
Central Files
C:\ncdot\TIP 12-251 1\comments\R-251 1 scoping comments.doc

North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
September 13, 1999
Mr. William Gilmore
N.C. Department of Transportation
Project Dev. & Env. Branch
Transportation Building
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Re: SCH File # 00-E-4220-0051; Scoping Proposed Widening of US 17 from SR 1418 (Roberson
Rd.) in Beaufort County to SR 1205 (Holly Creek Blvd.) in Martin County; TIP #R-2511
The above referenced environmental impact information has been reviewed through the State
Clearinghouse under the provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act.
Attached to this letter are comments made by agencies reviewing this document which identify issues to
be addressed in the environmental review document. Theappropriate document should be forwarded to
the State Clearinghouse for compliance with State Environmental Policy Act. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 807-2425.
Attachments
cc: Region Q
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
116 West Jones Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer

ATA
NCDENR
.LAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
WAYNE MCDEVITT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
Melba McGeePj
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: 00E-0051 Scoping US 17 Widening from Roberson Road
in Beaufort County
DATE: August 27, 1999
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has
reviewed the proposed information. The attached comments are
for the applicant's information and consideration.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1999.)
N,C, STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH NC 2761 1 -7687 / 512 NORTH SALISBURY STREET, RALEIGH NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone] WWW.EHNR.STATE.NC.US/EHNR/
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

Aug 26'99
14:14 No.006 P.06
nLLS LAKE TEL:[phone]
ti North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Cog d.Mgtor
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: August 26, 1999
SUBJECT: Request !br information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the US 17 widening,
from SR 1418 (Roberson Road) in Beaufort County SR 1205 (Holly Creek
Boulevard) in Martin County, Beaufortand Martin counties, North
Carolina. TIP No. R-251 1, SCH Project No. 00-E-0051.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. William D. Gilmore of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (C.S.
113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25).
At this time, the NCWRC has no specific recommendations or concerns regarding
the subject project. However, to help facilitate document preparation and the review
process, our general informational needs are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project arca,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]

ALLS LAKE TEL:[phone] Aug 26'99 14:15 No.006 P.07
Memo
2 August 26, 1999
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. 0. Box 27647.
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project -related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). if the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitatimpacted by the
proposed project. Potential borrow sites should he included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. if construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].

AVA
NCDENR
JAMES B. HUNTJR.
GOVERNOR
ROGER N. SCHECTER
DIRECTOR
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
Melba McGee, NC Division of Policy and Development
Steve Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management
SUBJECT: Review of SCH# — po5 ) DATE: $I Zee I cl ,
A COPY OF ALL COMMENTS RECEIVED
BY THE SCH IS REQUESTED
Review Comments:
REVIEWER COMMENTS
ATTACHED
_ This document is being reviewed for consistency with the NC Coastal Management Program pursuant
to federal law and or NC Executive Order 15. Agency comments received by SCH are needed to
develop the State's consistency position.
Project Review Number (if different from above)
A consistency position will be developed based upon our review on or before
LVA Consistency Determination document _is, or Ilay be required for this project pursuant to
federal law and or NC Executive Order 15. Applicant should contact Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis
in Raleigh, phone [phone], for information on proper document format and applicable state
/
guidelines and land use plan policies.
V Proposal is in draft form, a consistency response is inappropriate at this time. A Consistency
Determination should be included in the final document.
A Consistency Determination Document (pursuant to federal law and/or NC Executive Order 15)
is not required.
A consistency response has already been issued.
Project Number , Date Issued
— Proposal involves < 20 Acres and or a structure < 60,000 Square Feet and no AEC's or Land
Use Plan problems.
Proposal is not in the Coastal Area and will have no significant impacts on any land or water
use or natural resources of the Coastal Area.
A CAMA Permit is, or_ may be required for all or part of this project. Applicant should
contact in , phone # , for information.
_ A CAMA Permit _has already been issued, or is currently being reviewed under separate
circulation. Permit Number Date Issued
Other (see attached).
State of North Carolina Consistency Position:
The proposal is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program provided that all conditions
are adhered to and that all state authorization and/or permit requirements are met prior to
implementation of the project.
The proposal is inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program.
Other (see attached).
P.O. BOX 27687, RALEIGH, NC 2761 1 -7687 / 2728 CAPITAL BLVD., RALEIGH, NC 27604
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/10% POST -CONSUMER PAPER

BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM, JR.
RICHARD E. DEDMOND
ANN C. PETERSEN
MARSH SMITH
CUNNINGHAM, DEDMOND, PETERSEN & SMITH
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
225 NORTH BENNETT STREET
SOUTHERN PINES, NORTH CAROLINA 28387
[phone]
August 17, 1999
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Dep't of Administration
116 W. Jones St.
Room 5106 of the Administration Building
Raleigh, NC 27603-8003
RE: TIP # R-2511; SEPA scoping for proposed
widening of US 17 in Beaufort County
To Whom it May Concern:
MAILING ADDRESS
P.O. BOX 1468
SOUTHERN PINES, NC 28388
FAX NO. [phone]
Regarding Environmental Bulletin's solicitation of comments on
the above identified NCDOT project, I would offer the attached
comments, and I ask that they be addressed and made part of the
administrative record.
Sincerely,
141
Marsh Smith
enclosure
cc:
Richard Franck, President, NCATR (w/ encl.)

2_ 57/ . 5,
EIS COMMENTS FOR R=2 .L
1. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and others often tout
the economic benefits of highway construction, but an
objective study of such projects' economic effects remains
undone in North Carolina. Studies in other states have
indicated little, no, or, even, negative benefits. The EIS
needs to include such an objective study.
2. The EIS must thoroughly and exhaustively address secondary
impacts -- something that EISs for other highways have not
come close to doing. Particularly, the EIS must pay attention
to the fact that, if substantial economic growth benefits are
claimed, then secondary impacts -- e.g., an increase in the
"footprint" of suburban sprawl, more traffic, etc. -- cannot
be claimed to be too hard to predict for thorough EIS
evaluation. Evidence of harmful secondary impacts abounds.
NCDOT should be well aware of the recent need to by-pass North
Wilkesboro's 421 by-pass -- a by-pass of the by-pass. This
happened because secondary growth impacts choked the old by-
pass with traffic. NCDOT should not claim in the EIS that
limited access will solve the problem experienced in North
Wilkesboro, and elsewhere, since limited access roads also
induce growth and the associated traffic will produce limited
access roads' trafficability as well. I believe that Judge
Earl Britt made similar points to NCDOT in Mullin v. Skinner
(the Sunset Beach bridge case); hopefully, NCDOT will take
Judge Britt's comments to heart in this EIS.
As you know, Mullin involved FHWA and NCDOT being ordered to
prepare an EIS that they had previously refused to prepare.
Let this letter serve as notice that a misleading, inadequate
or severely flawed EIS is at least as bad as no EIS at all....
and so is an EIS that serves only as a post hoc
rationalization for a foregone conclusion.
3. Evaluations of Average Daily Traffic (ADT) in the base year
should be based on ADTs published by NCDOT for the county ADT
map in the base year, when the data is available for the
measurement points. In the past, highway expansion projects
the EISs have used ADTs substantially higher those shown by
NCDOT's county ADT maps (e.g., R-210, the US1 by-pass of Vass
and Cameron).
4. Programmatic EISs need to be done for both the entire highway
corridor and other highway projects in the region in addition
to the presently proposed site specific EIS for this
particular expansion project. In Kleppe v. Sierra Club the
U.S. Supreme Court pointed out that when several proposals
will have synergistic or cumulative impact, their
environmental consequences must be considered together. In
the FEIS for the US 1 by-pass of Vass & Cameron, NCDOT flatly
refused to consider cumulative impacts when asked by the EPA.

Programmatic EIS must be done for the corridor and for the
region.
5. Next, in any benefit/cost analysis the benefits should be
derived from the same type of projected road construction
design from which the cost are derived. For example, in the
US 1 by-pass of Vass and Cameron, the benefit/cost analysis
used a freeway design with grade separated intersections to
evaluate the benefits, but used at grade intersections to
evaluate the cost, thus skewing the benefit cost analysis in
favor of building the road.
6. In any safety analysis the projected accidents on the new road
must be added to the projected accidents on the old road.
Unless, of course, NCDOT plans to entirely eliminate the old
road's use as a road. Further, the EIS should take into
account that auto travel is inherently unsafe when compared to
train and bus travel in any purported "safety analysis". If
NCDOT really has safety concerns, it should seek to reduce
automobile and truck traffic.
7. It is well known among unbiased traffic experts that each
additional lane mile of highway generates additional traffic
that would not otherwise be generated. Therefore, the
analysis of the no -build alternative should assume
substantially less traffic to handle than the build
alternative due to this induced traffic growth effect of
additional lane miles. And the analyses of the TSM
(transportation systems management) and spot improvement
alternatives should show more than the no -build but not as
much as the proposed ,new 4-lane.
8. In addition to evaluating the no -build alternative, the EIS
must evaluate the spot improvement alternative. The spot
improvement alternative must include such things as turn out
lanes for slow vehicles, redesign of intersections to improve
sight distances, a car and van pool database, alternative
transportation modes (including rail, buses, and bicycles),
purchasing conservation easements in rural areas to reduce the
tendency of highways to attract commercial and residential
growth (thus lessening their ability to handle through
traffic), and any other devices, design practices, or programs
to reduce traffic, in addition to those already mentioned.
Neither the spot improvement alternative nor the TSM
alternative should be cursorily eliminated from consideration
because of NCDOT's notion that state law requires a 4-lane.
If state law requires a 4-lane, that doesn't obviate the
requirement for an EIS as provided by both State (North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act) and federal (National
Environmental Policy Act) law.
9. The EIS should address public transportation alternatives
(separately and in conjunction with TSM and spot improvement
alternatives), and such should include rail and bus. Such an

evaluation should include using public school buses during off
hours assist with public transportation needs. This should
eliminate the over -used excuse that rural areas don't have
sufficient population density to justify public transit's
initial capital outlay. Recall that the lead EIS agency need
not have control over an alternative for the EIS to evaluate
it.
10. Freight by rail as a viable alternative to the long distance
trucks that increasingly clog our highways must be thoroughly
examined as a "corridor wide" alternative for this
transportation corridor. This could best be done in a
programmatic EIS.
11. The EIS should thoroughly examine the consequences to the rail
industry along the corridor occasioned by government
subsidized truck competition in the form of a publicly funded
expanded highway.
12. As already mentioned, secondary growth effects are substantial
and real consequences from highway construction. In addition
to examining those consequences along the entire corridor,
those consequences must be examined in detail for the corridor
and the region. To the extent that the expanded highway
encourages suburbanization of these private land. This cost
-- to farming, forestry and recreational activities such as
fishing, hiking and hunting -- must be factored into the
project's total cost when analyzing benefits and costs. It
should be noted that using rail based freight and transit
alternatives will drastically reduce these potential impacts.
13. The EIS must analyze the effects on county and municipal net
tax revenue in light of the probable induced growth impacts of
the highway expansion. Many studies have documented that
growth in areas outside of existing town centers tends to
cause a county government to have to spend more in services
than it realizes from increased property tax revenues.
Studies have shown this to be true for counties, towns, and
townships in South Carolina, Virginia, and a multitude of New
England States. It will likely also prove true for this
county. Therefore, the EIS needs to analyze the project's
effect on net tax revenue for the county based on projected
induced growth impacts, projected increases in property tax
revenues, and projected increases in governmental service
obligations.
14. Next, in the FEIS and EIS documents for the US 1 by-pass of
Vass and Cameron the NCDOT and FHWA falsely represented that
the local governments of Vass and Cameron supported the
proposed routes of the projected by-pass. Neither Vass nor
Cameron's officials supported that route in any documents that
I have been able to find. In fact, Cameron passed a
resolution in March of 1996, opposing the by-pass. I trust
that this EIS will not misrepresent any local government's

positions.
15. Any watershed that lies within the area will likely be
affected by induced growth from this highway expansion.
Thorough analysis of the likely deleterious effects on the
watershed and the costs thereof must be undertaken in the EIS.
16. For any communities that the R-2511 project may either by-pass
or bisect, a study such as that done for Hwy 321 through
Blowing Rock, NC, needs to be done.
17. Don't select a "preferred alternative" and then use the EIS as
a rationalization for the choice; use the EIS as the decision
making tool it's supposed to be.
18. Don't "piecemeal" the EIS.
Thank you for your attention to these matters. Unless I hear
otherwise from you, I will assume that the EIS will thoroughly
discuss each and every point raised in this letter and arrive at an
objective and reasoned conclusion.

Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
May 20, 2011
MEMORANDUM
TO:
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Claudia Brown, Acting Administrator
Kate Husband
Office of Human Environment
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Claudia Brown
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
SUBJECT: Architectural Survey Report, US 17 from North of NC 171 to South of Williamston, R-2511,
Beaufort and Martin Counties, ER 99-8744
We are in receipt of your memorandum of April 20, 2011, transmitting the architectural survey report prepared
by the North Carolina Department of Transportation for the above project.
For the purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
Woodmen of the World Lodge (BF 0226, Property #1) remains eligible for listing in the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A for its association with the history of the local rural community, and under
Criterion C for its design and construction. Research and oral histories by Beth King in our Greenville Office
suggests that the lodge was built circa 1890 as a Charitable Brothers Lodge before becoming affiliated with
Woodmen of the World. We also note that this is Lodge #671. The proposed National Register boundary
appears appropriate.
We concur that Griffin's Hatchery (MT 0298, Property #44) remains eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its association with agriculture and Criterion C for is design
and construction. However, we do not believe that enough information has been provided to determine if the
Jasper C. Griffin House (MT 1044, Property #45) and the Tenant House (MT 1046, Property #46) are
eligible, either individually or as part of a larger farm complex that may or may not include the Hatchery.
Without additional information on these houses we cannot concur with the proposed National Register
boundary for the Hatchery.
We also concur that the following properties are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
under the criteria cited:
• (Former) Old Ford School (BF 1600, Property #2): Criterion A for its association with the Public
Works Administration in Beaufort County and Criterion C for its design and construction;
• Thad Hodges House (BF 1609, Property #11): Criterion C for its design and construction;
• Smithwick-Green Clark House (MT 0695, Property #62): Criterion C for its design and
construction; and,
• Wooland-Perry House (MT 0653, Property #65): Criterion C for its design and construction.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

The proposed boundaries for the above four properties appear appropriate. We note for clarity that the
proposed boundaries for the Old Ford School do not include the concrete storage shed, the weatherboard
garage, or the Life Center Building. Also, a typo on page 48 of the report indicates the Thad Hodges House is
not eligible; we will correct this when adding this report to our survey files.
For the purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
Benjamin Ward House (MT 1042, Property #41, also known as Ward Farm) is not eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places. The site was determined eligible by Ellis in 2000 under Criterion A for its
association with agriculture (especially the trend of tobacco replacing cotton as the area's primary cash crop)
and Criterion C for its design and construction. However, since that time the site has lost its most significant
agricultural outbuildings, including the two packhouses, and others have been removed or severely altered.
Likewise, the house has been altered insensitively, most notably by removing the central chimneys and major
interior modifications. Thus, the site is no longer eligible for listing in the National Register.
We also concur that the 42 properties listed in Appendix II and the following properties are not eligible for
listing in the National Register:
•- Gorham Family Complex (BF 0244, Property #15);
_♦ Hodges Family Complex (BF 1615, 1616, and 1617, Properties #18, 19, and 20);
• Corey's Crossroads Rural Historic District (MT 0287), which includes: the Rogerson House
(MT 1048, Property #49), Rogerson's Store (MT 1049, Property #50), the Beecham House (MT
1050, Property #51), Corey's Store (MT 1051, Property #52), the Lucien Peel House (MT 1052,
Property #53), the W. O. Peel House (MT 1053, Property #54), the house at 8111 US 17 (MT
1054, Property #55), and the W. S. Revels House (MT 1055, Property #56);
• Holliday Store (MT 1058, Property #59); and,
• Bridge #56 (BF 1255, Property #67).
We cannot concur with the fording that the Hadley House (MT 1060, Property #61) is no longer eligible for
listing in the National Register. The 2000 Ellis report determined that the site was eligible for listing under
Criteria C, for its architecture, and D, for its likelihood of yielding important building technology information.
We believe that the issues raised with regard to the loss of the site's integrity, including its relocation,
deterioration, setting, and comparison to other farmsteads in the county were known and accounted for in the
2000 report, and do not appear to have markedly changed since that time. Thus, we believe that the site
remains eligible for listing under Criterion C. Additionally, a structure eligible under Criterion D, may still be
likely to yield important information even in advanced states of deterioration. As long as the building can reveal
information about its building technique and materials, we believe that the site remains eligible under Criterion
D. Additional photographs of the site's existing condition and an in-depth description of any alterations,
deterioration, or other loss of integrity since the 2000 determination would allow a thorough re-evaluation of
the site's eligibility.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, [e-mail]

0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
e e
0,1
iic 0 o
lii Z. Z
+1)
el)
' 0
4)
-
0 0
2 E
.?; 6
.29
o P,
r .; 1.!
<) t.. t-
.t4
0.1 4 43t"'
4<4
71) A 0. .E ;+ 2 9, o
44
A
-c..1
7. )L)
• - ;•-•:
F
6 tz
03 V • • .0 4)
w . 6
o
.,... C '. ,o
ai 6 Q *
a4 o (7.) 13 ,..0: 4) 6 0.)*ori r‘61 no - . . c.. pri8 (i)j
13 ,-„1 0 0)
(0 „,. ;1, ,,t,z,,, 4, • -
4 ••M '.'1)
„,,,d
f•::
", .r:t•
Cf3 ,4
0
•,,, '11 if ,3 z 11 p, 7- 0 . v. ri
41)
c> 0 I) 0
LI U ,t P t ,6,' e p
. t.4.1
0 0 -0 ,'A ,-:. - ,, ..ti - Q.. t)
13. CL. ,., "i?, 0. 3.4 ')
0... 0 .9 13 ° 0 I-, P. ,: ,-
C) 0, E' - r: C, n
01
1.3
Z
1) 4) 0 4.3
.0 :5
.ii., 7
. . '..-.1 ', „„,
‘0
1
441
4<3
33,
3 -,,,,. /--,
z 61 of,3. 1 ...
"
"Z < 0
.1. ',
In ."0
/ I :..." 0
tz
E 5' l
-6 4
;("5'-.
4
34 +' U 1.3
0 0 1*
O. '6..
':34
0 ...1
,.. e
0, ,....
at ----1 It
'''6 1:01
33 1- 4)
0°4 0
0 g
VI
li "0
E3
III
'V
rl '0 31:
-,3
CI
a...0 ,,...

ix rla'r+ 7 .1 ir1 it. NIA
111'!1, R
Cuwn Martin and FleauJoit
CONCURRENCE 1 b'OR ASSI S"iisJENT O EFFE(FS
Pr.o%+'et 1..)escription: Widening of US I i from North of NC 1 ? South of Williamsion
On November 1, 20I I, representat
n
eS :r
North Carolina Deportment of `ft:ansporintion (tNC`1)0 i')
Federal Highway Administration (1 r11',IA)
�lorih Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (iir'ci)
Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed on the effects findings listed avithitt the table on the reverse
of this signature page.
Signed:
A, far the Division Administrator, or otl Agency
tive,
PO
it
State l listoric Preservation C)f'ftee
Date
Date
Date
Date

Beaufort (ountp Noarb of Qbutation
DR. JACK CHERRY, CHAIRPERSON
BETTY B. RANDOLPH, VICE CHAIRPERSON
H.E.BOYD
IL DON HAMILTON
BRYANT HARDISON
DR. CURTIS R. RAINS
SUPERINTENDENT
Gerald H. Knott, AIA {j
Section Chief
Division of School Planning
Department of Public Instruction
310 N. Wilmington St.
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825
Dear Mr. Knott:
July 28, 1999
F. MAC HODGES
WILLIAM E. JEFFERSON
E. C. PEED
JOHN W. WHITE, JR
RE: National Environmental Policy Act
This is the response as to the impact of the proposed project for
Highway 17 from State Road 1418 (Roberson Road) in Beaufort County to
State Road 1205 (holly Creek Boulevard) in Martin County. There is no
existing school site or proposed school site for this location of Beaufort
County. I have talked with Mr. Jerry Wynne, Beaufort County Schools
Transportation Director, and he will advise you on the impact of school bus
routes for this part of the county.
DC:eh
Sincerely,
Donald Cutler
Facility Director
Beaufort County Schools
A-27
321 Amain Moab, '. o : sijington, jiartlj Carolina 27889
[phone] lax [phone]

Miller, Joseph H
From: Patsy Hudson <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 4:15 PM
To: Miller, Joseph H
Subject: School bus usage US 17 from SR 1521 to the Beaufort County Line
Good afternoon,
There are four buses making two trips daily for the area of SR 1521 to the Beaufort County line.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you,
Patsy t uc o-w
TIMS Coordinator
Beaufort County Schools
Transportation Department
321 Smaw Road
Washington, NC 27889
[e-mail]
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
"If yc u- hccccow Lb• not- o-w your ow w terpm, Lf= tt loak40.00d- to - the- warld' btst doe's- not Feel good. %n • your heart; it i k viot success- at
all:" Anna Quindlen
A-28

Miller, Joseph H
From: Lane, Stephen
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 2:27 PM
To: Miller, Joseph H
Cc: Moye, David; Sollod, Steve
Subject: RE: R-2511 US 17 Beaufort/Martin Counties
Hi Joseph,
The N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has determined that there are no CAMA AECs within the project
boundaries of the R-2511 project, therefore, a CAMA Major Permit will not be required for the project. Please note that
although a CAMA Major Permit will not be required, a CAMA Consistency Determination from the DCM will be required
if a Section 404 Individual Permit is required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. If you have any questions or if I
may be of any further assistance with this project, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Stephen Lane
Coastal Management Representative
Original Message
From: Miller, Joseph H
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 11:45 AM
To: Lane, Stephen
Cc: Moye, David
Subject: FW: R-2511 US 17 Beaufort/Martin Counties
Mr. Lane,
I'm in the process of writing an EA for R-2511 in Beaufort and Martin counties. The files have changed groups and gone
through a couple of moves. I don't have anything in the files stating that we need a CAMA permit but I'd like to make
sure before stating yes or no in the document. I don't know if you have records of it or what you'd need to determine
but I'll be glad to send you what you need if anything.
Thanks,
Original Message
From: Miller, Joseph H
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 3:45 PM
To: '[e-mail]'
Subject: FW: R-2511 US 17 Beaufort/Martin Counties
Hey Stephen,
A-29

I'm in the process of writing an EA for R-2511 in Beaufort and Martin counties. The files have changed groups and gone
through a couple of moves. I don't have anything in the files stating that we need a CAMA permit but I'd like to make
sure before stating yes or no in the document. I don't know if you have records of it or what you'd need to determine
but I'll be glad to send you what you need if anything.
Thanks,
Joseph Miller P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis (PDEA) North Carolina Department of Transportation
Office: 919-707-6031
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties.
A-30

APPENDIX B
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAM/
RELOCATION REPORTS

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally -assisted projects. Furthermore, the
North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
As part of the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT offers comparable replacement housing. Relocation of displaced persons will be
offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means
of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places
of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner -
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
B-1

information concerning other state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations, and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner -occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments, and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses,
on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the
state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state of
federally -assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided.
B-2

E.I.S.
❑ CORRIDOR
n DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT:
35494.1.1
COUNTY
Beaufort/Martin
Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
T.I.P. No.:
R-2511
SECTION 1 WEST -SIDE WIDENING
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
US 17 widen from North of NC 171 to the existing multi -lanes south of
Williamston
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
"
Owners
**
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-i5M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
2-8
2-3
4-11
3
-
6
4
1
Businesses
0
0
0
0
VALUE OF
DWELLING
DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent ""
Non -Profit
1-2
1
2-3
1
0-20M
0
$ 0-150
0
0.20M
0
$ 0-150
0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M
0
150-250
0
20-40M
18
150-250
0
Yes
No
Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70M
3
250-400
2
40-70M
g6
250-400
0
X
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, typo, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8, Should Last Resort Rousing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
70-100M
4
400-600
1
70-100M
66
400.600
1
100 UP
1
600 UP
I 0
100 UP
348
600 UP
2
X
TOTAL
8
l
3 i
528
[
3
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X
Please see attached addendum for a detailed response to the
"Yes" answers.
Please note: It is assumed that the homes pictured in this study
meet DSS Standards, but the homes have not been inspected
to date.
" the first number is displacees due to plans; the second number
is all potential displacees due to plans and septic/well issues
"* rentals do not include low income apartments (please see
attachment
X
f X
X
X
X
X
X
X '
X
X
RELOCATION?
4-8 months
j? ( .1e4-A 06/28/12
CCJJ
7/13/12
Relocation Coordinator Date
Jackie L. flyers Date
Right of Way Agent II - Atkins, Inc.
FRM15-E

EIS Relocation Report:
NCDOT TIP No.:
SECTION 1 WEST -SIDE WIDENING
US 17 widen from North of NC 17 to the existing multi -
lanes south of Williamston
R-2511
Below please find detailed explanations to the questions with "yes" answers ❑n the cover of the
EIS Relocation Report.
2. Will schools or churches be affected by displacement?
Yes, two churches will be impacted and should receive relocation benefits. One church will be
affected by the right of way, the other will be affected because of the well being in the right of
way acquisition area.
3. Will business services still be available after project?
Yes, there are no businesses being directly affected. Only abandoned or vacant buildings which
previously held businesses.
6. Source for available housing:
United Country; Coldwell Banker; The Rich Company; www.citv-date.com; www.homes.com
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
Last Resort Housing should be considered, if necessary, based on Federal requirements.
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families?
It is unknown for sure, but highly likely that there is an elderly population in this area. In this
case, Williamston Home for Elderly would be an option.
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
It is likely that public housing will be needed for this project.
11. Is public housing available?
Yes, currently there is only one HUD house available in Washington and zero in Williamston;
however, there are several low income apartment rental units: Walnut Terrace and Andrews

Park Apartments located in Williamston; and Hope Village and Washington Housing located in
Washington.
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing available during relocation period?
Yes, according to the city reports, there are 566 available houses. It is likely that some of the
houses are very run-down and abandoned, but there should be adequate housing available.
Also, according to the MLS 528 houses are available at all price ranges in Washington and
Williamston combined.

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
I
E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR
['DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT:
35494.1.1
COUNTY
Beaufort/Martin
Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
T.I.P. No.:
R-251 1
SECTION 2 WEST -SIDE WIDENING
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
US 17 widen from North of NC 171 to the existing multi -lanes south of
Williamston
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL.
Type of
Displacees
""
Owners
**
Tenants
""
Total
Minorities_
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
4
50 UP
Residential
2
1
3
1
0
1
2
0
0
Businesses
0
0
0
0
VALUE OF DWELLING
DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent *"
Non -Profit
0
0
0
0
0-20M
0
$ 0-150
0
0-20M
0
$ 0-150
T O
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M
0
150-250
0
20.40M
18
150-250
0
Yes
No
Explain all 'YES" answers. .
40-70M
1
250-400
0
40.70M
96
250-400
0
)(
1. WIII special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Wit business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated numbor of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
S. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will bo adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Wit there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
70-100M
0
400-600
1
70-100M
66
400-600
1
100 UP
1
600 UP
0
100 UP
348 600 UP
2
X
TOTAL
2
1
528 T
3
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X
Please see attached addendum for a detailed response to the
"Yes" answers.
Please note: It is assumed that the homes pictured in this study
meet DSS Standards, but the homes have not been inspected
to date.
"" the first number is displacees due to plans; the second number
is all potential displacees due to plans and septic/well issues
*" rentals do not include low income apartments (please see
attachment
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X -
X
X
REL0CATION?
1 4-8 months ]
I�( J[*10.va 06/28/12
�j
7/13/12
Relocation Coordinator Date
Jackie L. Byers Date
Right of Way Agent II — Atkins, Inc.
FRM15-E

EIS Relocation Report: US 17 widen from North of NC 17 to the existing multi -
lanes south of Williamston
NCDOT TIP No.: R-2511
SECTIONS 2-9 BEST -FIT AND WEST -SIDE WIDENING
Below please find detailed explanations to the questions with "yes" answers on the cover of the
EIS Relocation Report.
3. Will business services still be available after project?
Yes, there are no businesses being directly affected, Only abandoned or vacant buildings which
previously held businesses,
6. Source for available housing:
United Country; Coldwell Banker; The Rich Company; www.city-date.com; www.homes.com
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
Last Resort Housing should be considered, if necessary, based on Federal requirements.
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families?
It is unknown for sure, but highly likely that there is an elderly population in this area. In this
case, Williamston Home for Elderly would be an option.
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
It is likely that public housing will be needed for this project.
11. Is public housing available?
Yes, currently there is only one HUD house available in Washington and zero in Williamston;
however, there are several low income apartment rental units: Walnut Terrace and Andrews
Park Apartments located in Williamston; and Hope Village and Washington Housing located in
Washington.
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing available during relocation period?
Yes, according to the city reports, there are 566 available houses. It is likely that some of the
houses are very run-down and abandoned, but there should be adequate housing available.
Also, according to the MLS 528 houses are available at all price ranges in Washington and
Williamston combined.

EIS RELOCATION
REPORT
E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR
❑ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT:
35494.1.1
COUNTY
Beaufort/Martin
Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
T.I.P. No.:
R-2511
SECTION 3 EAST -SIDE WIDENING
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
US 17 widen from North of NC 171 to the existing multi -lanes south of
Williamston
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
r
Type of
❑isplacees
""
Owners
* *
Tenants
"'
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
3
1
4
1
0
3
1
0
0
Businesses
0
0
0
0
VALUE OF DWELLING
DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent ***
Non -Profit
0
0
0
0
0.20M
0
$ 0-150
0
0-20M
0
$ 0-150
0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M
0
150-260
0
20.40M
18
150-250
0
Yes
No
Explain all 'YES" answers.
40-70M
1
250-400
0
40-70M
96
250-400
0
X
1, Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
t0. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there wilt be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
70.100M
0
400-600
1
70-100M
66
400-600
1
100 UP
2
600 UP
0
100 UP
348 600UP
2
X
TOTAL
3
1
528 r
3
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X
Please see attached addendum for a detailed response to the
"Yes" answers.
Please note: It is assumed that the homes pictured in this study
meet DSS Standards, but the homes have not been inspected
to date.
— the first number is displacees due to plans; the second number
is al! potential displacees due to plans and septic/well issues
k"* rentals do not include low income apartments (please see
attachment
—
X
X
X
X
X
_
X
X
X
X
X
RELOCATION?
4-8 months
.k�.us f ile IA 06/28/12
�j
7/13/12
Relocation Coordinator Date
,
Jackie L. Byers Date
Right of Way Agent II —Atkins, Inc.
FRM15-E

EIS Relocation Report: US 17 widen from North of NC 17 to the existing multi -
lanes south of Williamston
NCDOT TIP No.: R-2511
SECTIONS 2-9 BEST -FIT AND WEST -SIDE WIDENING
Below please find detailed explanations to the questions with "yes" answers on the cover of the
EIS Relocation Report.
3. Will business services still be available after project?
Yes, there are no businesses being directly affected. Only abandoned or vacant buildings which
previously held businesses.
6. Source for available housing:
United Country; Caldwell Banker; The Rich Company; www.city-date.com; www.homes.com
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
Last Resort Housing should be considered, if necessary, based on Federal requirements.
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families?
It is unknown for sure, but highly likely that there is an elderly population in this area. In this
case, Williamston Home for Elderly would he an option.
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
It is likely that public housing will be needed for this project.
11. Is public housing available?
Yes, currently there is only one HU❑ house available in Washington and zero in Williamston;
however, there are several low income apartment rental units: Walnut Terrace and Andrews
Park Apartments located in Williamston; and Hope Village and Washington Housing located in
Washington.
12, Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing available during relocation period?
Yes, according to the city reports, there are 566 available houses. It is likely that some of the
houses are very run-down and abandoned, but there should be adequate housing available.
Also, according to the MLS 528 houses are available at all price ranges in Washington and
Williamston combined.

l
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
I
E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR
❑ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT:
35494.1.1
COUNTY
Beaufort/Martin
Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
T.I.P. No.:
R-2511
SECTION 4 BEST -FIT WIDENING
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
US 17 Widen from North of NC 171 to the existing multi -lanes south of
Williamston
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
** -
Owners
* k
Tenants
""
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
-
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
1-4
0
1-4
2
0
-
1
1
2
0
Businesses
0
0
0
0
VALUE OF DWELLING
' DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent *"
Non -Profit
0
0
0
0
0-20M
p
$ 0.150
p
0.20m
0
$ 0-150
0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M
0
150-250
0
20.40M
18
150-250
0
Yes
No
Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70M
0
250-400
0
40.70M
96
250-400
0
X
1. Wilt special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
70-100M
1
400-600
0
70400M
66
400.600
1
too UP
3
600 UP
0
100 UP
348 Boo uP
2
X
TOTAL
4
J
0
528 l
3
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X
Please see attached addendum for a detailed response to the
"Yes" answers.
Please note: It is assumed that the homes pictured in this study
meet DSS Standards, but the homes have not been inspected
to date.
"" the first number is displacees due to plans; the second number
is all potential displacees due to plans and septic/well issues
— rentals do not include low income apartments (please see
attachment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
_
X
I X
R5LOCATiON?
6-12 months
nur42 [ P.142,LA 06/28/12
--f:,"7/13/12
Relocation Coordinator Date
Jackie L. Byers Date
Right of Way Agent II - Atkins, Inc.
FRM15-E

EIS Relocation Report: US 17 widen from North of NC 17 to the existing multi -
lanes south of Williamston
NCDOT TIP No.: R-2511
SECTIONS 2-9 BEST -FIT AND WEST -SIDE WIDENING
Below please find detailed explanations to the questions with "yes" answers on the cover of the
EIS Relocation Report.
3. Will business services still be available after project?
Yes, there are no businesses being directly affected. Only abandoned or vacant buildings which
previously held businesses.
6. Source for available housing:
United Country; Caldwell Banker; The Rich Company; www.citv-date.com; www.homes.com
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
Last Resort Housing should be considered, if necessary, based on Federal requirements.
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families?
It is unknown for sure, but highly likely that there is an elderly population in this area. In this
case, Williamston Horne for Elderly would be an option.
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
It is likely that public housing will be needed for this project.
11, Is public housing available?
Yes, currently there is only one HUD house available in Washington and zero in Williamston;
however, there are several low income apartment rental units: Walnut Terrace and Andrews
Park Apartments located in Williamston; and Hope Village and Washington Housing located in
Washington.
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing available during relocation period?
Yes, according to the city reports, there are 566 available houses. It is likely that some of the
houses are very run-down and abandoned, but there should be adequate housing available.
Also, according to the MLS 528 houses are available at all price ranges in Washington and
Williamston combined.

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
E.I.S.
['CORRIDOR
❑ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT:
35494.1.1
COUNTY
'Beaufort/Martin
Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate
T.I.P. No.:
R-2511
SECTION 5 WEST -SIDE WIDENING
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
US 17 widen from North of NC 171 to the existing multi -lanes south of
W illiamston
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
`
Type of
Displacees
k*
Owners
'°
Tenants
""
Total
Minorities
A
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
0
1
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
Businesses
0
0
0
0
VALUE OF
DWELLING
DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent **`
Non -Profit
0
0
0
0
0.20M
0
$ 0.150
0
0-20M
0
$ 0-150
0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20.40M
0
150-250
0
20-40M
1$
150-250
0
Yes
No
Explain all "YES" answers.
40.70M
70.100M
0
0 --
250-400
400-600
0 _
1 0- -
40-70M
70-100M
96
66
250-400
400-600
0
1
X
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
100 UP
0 500 up
0
100 UP
348
600 UP
2
X
TOTAL
0t - f
10-
528
1
3
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X
Please see attached addendum for a detailed response to the
"Yes" answers.
Please note: It is assumed that the homes pictured in this study
meet DSS Standards, but the homes have not been inspected
to date.
" the first number is displacees due to plans; the second number
is all potential displacees due to plans and septic/well issues
'' rentals do not include low income apartments (please see
attachment
X
1
X
)(
X
4,9.
X
X
X
X
X
-
1 X
RELOCATION?
4-8 months 1
dix44i�;_[(k.��r, 06/28/12
LJ
7/13/12
Relocation Coordinator Date
Jackie L. Byers Date
Right of Way Agent 11 — Atkins, Inc.
FRM15-E

EIS Relocation Report: US 17 widen from North of NC 17 to the existing multi -
lanes south of Williamston
NCDOT TIP No.: R-2511
SECTIONS 2-9 BEST -FIT AND WEST -SIDE WIDENING
Below please find detailed explanations to the questions with "yes" answers on the cover of the
EIS Relocation Report.
3. Will business services still be available after project?
Yes, there are no businesses being directly affected. Only abandoned or vacant buildings which
previously held businesses.
6. Source for available housing:
United Country; Caldwell Banker; The Rich Company; www.city-date.com; www.homes.com
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
Last Resort Housing should be considered, if necessary, based ❑n Federal requirements.
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families?
It is unknown for sure, but highly likely that there is an elderly population in this area. In this
case, Williamston Home for Elderly would be an option.
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
It is likely that public housing will be needed for this project.
11. Is public housing available?
Yes, currently there is only one HU❑ house available in Washington and zero in Williamston;
however, there are several low income apartment rental units: Walnut Terrace and Andrews
Park Apartments located in Williamston; and Hope Village and Washington Housing located in
Washington,
12, Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing available during relocation period?
Yes, according to the city reports, there are 566 available houses. It is likely that some of the
houses are very run-down and abandoned, but there should be adequate housing available.
Also, according to the MLS 528 houses are available at all price ranges in Washington and
Williamston combined.

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
I
® E.l.S. ❑ CORRIDOR
❑ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT:
35494.1.1
COUNTY
Beaufort/Martin
Alternate 2 of 2 Alternate
T.I.P. No.:
R-2511
SECTION 6 WEST -SIDE WIDENING
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
US 17 widen from North of NC 171 to the existing multi -lanes south of
Williamston
' ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
.•
Owners
kk
Tenants
-
kF
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
1-3
1
2-4
2
0
2
0
2
0
Businesses
0
0
0
0
4 VALUE OF DWELLING
DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent "`"
Non -Profit
0
0
0
0
0-20M
0
$ 0-150
0
0-20M
0
$ 0-150
Q
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20-40M
0
150-250
0
20-40M
18
150-250
0
Yes
No
Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70M
12-
250-400
1 0-
40-70M
96
250.400
0
X
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8, Should Last Resort Housing bo
considered?
9. Are there largo, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
70-100M
0
400-600
0
70-100M
66
400-600
1
100 UP
2
600 UP
Q
100 UP
348 600UP
2
X
TOTAL
3 4-
10-
528 f
3
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X
Please see attached addendum for a detailed response to the
"Yes" answers.
Please note: It is assumed that the homes pictured in this study
meet DSS Standards, but the homes have not been inspected
to date,
"' the first number is displacees due to plans; the second number
is all potential displacees due to plans and septic/well issues
' rentals do not include low income apartments (please see
attachment
X
v
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
RELocATIoN?
16-12 months
�(.2, Lte~A 06/28/12
7/1 3/12
-
Relocation Coordinator Date
Jackie L. Byers Date
Right of Way Agent II— Atkins, Inc.
FRM15-E

EIS Relocation Report: tJS 17 widen from North of NC 17 to the existing multi -
lanes south of Williamston
NCDOT TIP No.: R-2511
SECTIONS 2-9 BEST -FIT AND WEST -SIDE WIDENING
Below please find detailed explanations to the questions with "yes" answers on the cover of the
EIS Relocation Report.
3. Will business services still be available after project?
Yes, there are no businesses being directly affected. Only abandoned or vacant buildings which
previously held businesses.
6. Source for available housing:
United Country; Coidwell Banker; The Rich Company; www.city-date.com; www.homes.com
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
Last Resort Housing should be considered, if necessary, based on Federal requirements.
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families?
It is unknown for sure, but highly likely that there is an elderly population in this area. In this
case, Williamston Horne for Elderly would be an option.
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
It is likely that public housing will be needed for this project.
11. Is public housing available?
Yes, currently there is only one HUD house available in Washington and zero in Williamston;
however, there are several low income apartment rental units: Walnut Terrace and Andrews
Park Apartments located in Williamston; and Hope Village and Washington Housing located in
Washington.
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing available during relocation period?
Yes, according to the city reports, there are 566 available houses. It is likely that some of the
houses are very run-down and abandoned, but there should be adequate housing available.
Also, according to the MLS 528 houses are available at all price ranges in Washington and
Williamston combined.

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
I
E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR
❑ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Wl3S ELEMENT:
35494.1.1
COUNTY
Beaufort/Martin
Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
rT.I,P. No.:
R-2511
SECTION 7 WEST -SIDE WIDENING
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
US 17 widen from North of NC 171 to the existing multi -lanes south of
Williamston
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
""
Owners
"
Tenants
**
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
3
0-1
3-4
2
0
1
3
0
0
Businesses
0
0
0
0
VALUE OF DWELLING
DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
0
0Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent "'"
Non -Profit
0
0
0
0
0.20M
0
$ 0-150
0
0-20M
q
$ 0.150
0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20.40M
0
150-250
0
20-40M
18
150-250
0
Yes
No
Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70M
0
250-400
0
40-70M
96
250-400
0
X
1, Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
displacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4, Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc,
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8, Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10, Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
70-100M
1
400.600
1
70-100M
66
400-600
1
100 UP
2
600 UP
0
100 UP
348
800 UP)
2
X
TOTAL
3
I
1
528
3
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X
Please see attached addendum for a detailed response to the
"Yes" answers.
Please note: It is assumed that the hones pictured in this study
meet DSS Standards, but the homes have not been inspected
to date.
" the first number is displacees due to plans; the second number
is ail potential displacees due to plans and septic/well issues
"** rentals do not include low income apartments (please see
attachment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RELOCATION?
4-8 months
J
cp,,",-y OA� 06/28/12
7/13/12
Relocation Coordinator Date
Jackie L. Byers Date _
Right of Way Agent II — Atkins, inc.
FRM15-E

EIS Relocation Report: US 17 widen from North of NC 17 to the existing multi -
lanes south of Williamston
NCDOT TIP No.: R-2511
SECTIONS 2-9 BEST -FIT AND WEST -SIDE WIDENING
Below please find detailed explanations to the questions with "yes" answers an the cover of the
EIS Relocation Report,
3. Will business services still be available after project?
Yes, there are n❑ businesses being directly affected. Only abandoned ❑r vacant buildings which
previously held businesses.
6. Source for available housing:
United Country; Coldwell Banker; The Rich Company; www.city-date.com; www.homes.com
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
Last Resort Housing should be considered, if necessary, based ❑n Federal requirements.
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families?
It is unknown for sure, but highly likely that there is an elderly population in this area. In this
case, Williamston Home for Elderly would be an option.
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
It is likely that public housing will be needed for this project.
11. Is public housing available?
Yes, currently there is only one HUD house available in Washington and zero in Williamston;
however, there are several low income apartment rental units: Walnut Terrace and Andrews
Park Apartments located in Williamston; and Hope Village and Washington Housing located in
Washington.
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing available during relocation period?
Yes, according to the city reports, there are 566 available houses. It is likely that some of the
houses are very run-down and abandoned, but there should be adequate housing available.
Also, according to the MLS 528 houses are available at all price ranges in Washington and
Williamston combined.

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
I
E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR
❑ DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT:
35494.1.1
COUNTY
Beaufort/Martin
Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
T.I.P. No.:
R-2511
SECTION 8 EAST -SIDE WIDENING
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT,
US 17 widen from North of NC 171 to the existing multi -lanes south of
Williamston
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
kk
Owners
if
Tenants
..
Total
Minorities_
0-15M
15-25M
-
25-35M
- 35-50M
50 UP
Residential
1
0
,
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
Businesses
0
0
0
0
VALUE OF DWELLING
DS5 DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent ***
Non -Profit
0
1 0
0_ 0
0-20M
0
$ 0-150
0
0-20M
0
$ 0.150
0
20.40M
0
150-250
0
20-40M
18
150.250
0
ANSWER
ALL QUESTIONS
40-70M
0
250.400
0
40.70M
_ 96
250.400
0
Yes
No
Explain all 'YES" answers.
70-100M
0
400-600
0
70-100M
66
400-600
1
\
X
1. Will special relocation services be necessary?
100 UP
1
600 UP
0
100 UP
348 600 UP
2
X
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
TOTAL
1
0
528 f
3
displacement?
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X
3. Will business services still be available
Please see attached addendum for a detailed response to the
"Yes" answers.
Please note: It is assumed that the homes pictured in this study
meet DSS Standards, but the homes have not been inspected
to date.
** the first number is displacees due to plans; the second number
is ail potential disp}acees due to plans and septic/well issues
*" rentals do not include low income apartments (please see
attachment
after project?
X
4. Will any business be displaced? if so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
X
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
X
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc,
families?
}(
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X
w
11. Is public housing available?
j(
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION?
1 4-8 months
ciap_b.LIZ. R 06/28/12
—
7 / 13 / 12
Relocation Coordinator Date
-
Jackie L. Byers Date
Right of Way Agent II - Atkins, Inc.
FAM 15-E

EIS Relocation Report: US 17 widen from North of NC 17 to the existing multi -
lanes south of Williamston
NCDOT TIP No.: R-2511
SECTIONS 2-9 BEST -FIT AND WEST -SIDE WIDENING
Below please find detailed explanations to the questions with "yes" answers on the cover of the
EIS Relocation Report,
3. Will business services still be available after project?
Yes, there are no businesses being directly affected. Only abandoned or vacant buildings which
previously held businesses.
6. Source for available housing:
United Country; Coldwell Banker; The Rich Company; www.city-date.com; www.homes.com
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
Last Resort Housing should be considered, if necessary, based on Federal requirements.
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families?
It is unknown for sure, but highly likely that there is an elderly population in this area, In this
case, Williamston Home for Elderly would be an option.
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
It is likely that public housing will be needed for this project.
11. Is public housing available?
Yes, currently there is only one HUD house available in Washington and zero in Williamston;
however, there are several low income apartment rental units: Walnut Terrace and Andrews
Park Apartments located in Williamston; and Hope Village and Washington Housing located in
Washington.
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing available during relocation period?
Yes, according to the city reports, there are 566 available houses. It is likely that some of the
houses are very run-down and abandoned, but there should be adequate housing available.
Also, according to the MLS 528 houses are available at all price ranges In Washington and
Williamston combined.

EIS RELOCATION REPORT
1
tEl E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR
DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT:
35494.1.1
COUNTY
Beaufort/Martin
Alternate 1 of 2 Alternate
T,I.P. No.:
R-2511
SECTION 9 WEST -SIDE WIDENING
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
US 17 widen from North of NC 171 to the existing multi -lanes south of
Williamston
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES
INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
**
Owners
*.
Tenants
**
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential
4
0
4
0
0^ 0
1
3
0
Businesses
0
0
0
0
VALUE OF DWELLING
DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms
0
0
0
0
Owners
Tenants
For Sale
For Rent ***
Non -Profit
0
0
0
0
0-20m
0
$ 0-150
0
0.20M
0
$ 0-150
0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS
20-40m
0
160-250
0
20-40M
18
150-250
0
Yes
No
— Explain all "YES" answers.
40-70M
0
260.400
0
40-70M
96
250-400
0
X
1, Will special relocation services be necessary?
2. Will schools or churches be affected by
dEsplacement?
3. Will business services still be available
after project?
4. Will any business be displaced? if so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (fist).
7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
8. Should Last Resort Housing be
considered?
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
11. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
70-100M
0
400-600
0
70-100m
66
400-600
1
100 uP
4
600 up
0
100 LIP
348
600 LIP
2
X
TOTAL
4
I
0
528
3
REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X
Please see attached addendum for a detailed response to the
"Yes" answers.
Please note: It is assumed that the homes pictured in this study
meet DSS Standards, but the homes have not been inspected
to date.
" the first number is displacees due to plans; the second number
is all potential displacees due to plans and septic/well issues
*" rentals do not include low income apartments (please see
attachment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
RELOCATION?
6-12 months
,[�l.tra.« 06/28/12
JJackie
7/13/12
Relocation Coordinator Date
L. Byers Date
Right of Way Agent II — Atkins, Inc.
FRM15-E

EIS Relocation Report: US 17 widen from North of NC 17 to the existing multi -
lanes south of Williamston
NCDDT TIP No.: R-2511
SECTIONS 2-9 REST -FIT AND WEST -SIDE WIDENING
Below please find detailed explanations to the questions with "yes" answers on the cover of the
EIS Relocation Report.
3. Will business services still be available after project?
Yes, there are no businesses being directly affected. ❑nly abandoned or vacant buildings which
previously held businesses,
6. Source for available housing:
United Country; Coldwell Banker; The Rich Company; www.city-date.com; www.homes.com
8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
Last Resort Housing should be considered, if necessary, based on Federal requirements.
9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families?
It is unknown for sure, but highly likely that there is an elderly population in this area. In this
case, Williamston Home for Elderly would be an option.
10. Will public housing be needed for project?
It is likely that public housing will be needed for this project.
11. Is public housing available?
Yes, currently there is only one HUD house available in Washington and zero in Williamston;
however, there are several low income apartment rental units: Walnut Terrace and Andrews
Park Apartments located in Williamston; and Hope Village and Washington Housing located in
Washington.
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing available during relocation period?
Yes, according to the city reports, there are 566 available houses. It is likely that some of the
houses are very run-down and abandoned, but there should be adequate housing available.
Also, according to the MLS 528 houses are available at all price ranges in Washington and
Williamston combined.

APPENDIX C
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM CONCURRENCE FORMS

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
Subject: Action ID. 199910971
April 10, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Please reference your October 19, 1999, correspondence requesting our written concurrence
on the purpose and need for the project and on the alternatives to be studied in the Draft
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Improvement of US 17, from SR 1418 (Roberson Road
in Beaufort County to SR 1205 (Holly Creek Boulevard) in Martin County, North Carolina (TIP
R-2511, State Project No. 6.159001T). Also, please reference the April 5, 2000, facsimile sent to
Mr. Mike Bell of my staff from Mr. Derrick Weaver of your staff which commits NCDOT to
partial control of access for the proposed project.
This transportation project has been listed in the interagency agreement to integrate Section
404 and NEPA requirements ("A Team Approach for Transportation Projects in North
Carolina"). A project team was assembled in Raleigh on May 6, 1999, to discuss the purpose
and need statement and the alternatives to be carried forward. The following individuals
comprised the project team: Mr. Michael Bell, Regulatory Project Manager/North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Coordinator, Mr. Derrick Weaver of your staff,
Mr. David Moye of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management, Mr. Ron Sechler of the
National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Ted Bisterfeld from the Environmental Protection
Agency, Mr. David Cox of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission,
Mr. Tom McCartney of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mr. John Hennessy of the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality, Mr. Shawn McKenna of the North Carolina Division Marine
Fisheries, Ms. April Alperin of the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, and
Mr. John Wadsworth of the Federal Highway Administration. Messrs. Bisterfeld, Sechler, Moye,
and McKenna, did not attend the meeting.

According to your correspondence, the purpose and need for the project is to alleviate
congestion and improve the level of service along US 17, and in doing so, improve safety of the
route. The October 19, 1999, letter also designates the alternatives which meet this purpose and
need; east -side widening, west -side widening, and a combination of east -widening and west -
widening. After additional coordination with project team members not in attendance at the
meeting, the team came to a consensus on this purpose and need for the project and on the
alternatives to be carried forward as stated in the October 19th letter (Concurrence Points #1 and
#2). Due to heavy work load, Mr. Bisterfeld was not able to comment on the project art this
time.
We encourage you to include a compensatory mitigation plan in the EA to expedite the permit
process. Please coordinate with Mr. Bell to schedule any future public hearings.
We appreciate the opportunity to coordinate with you at this early stage of project design.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bell at the Washington
Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone], extension 26.
Sincerely,
E. David Franklin
Chief, NCDOT Team
Copies Furnished:
Ms. Renea Geld -Hill Earley
State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Ms. Cathey Brittingham
Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment,
and Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

Mr. Larry Hardy
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Service
Fivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Mr. John Hefner, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. William L. Cox, Chief
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Habitat Conservation Program
1142 1-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27564
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water Quality
Environmental Sciences Branch
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Ms. Katie West
DENR-Division of Marine Fisheries
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889

NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 2: Alternatives for Detailed Study
Federal Aid Project Number: NA
State Project Number: WBS Element 35494.1.1
TIP Project Number: R-2511
TIP Description: US 17, Washington Bypass North of NC 171 to Multi -lanes South
of Willianiston, Beaufort and Martin Counties
Purpose and Need of Proposed Project
The purpose of the project is to alleviate congestion and improve the level of service along
US 17, and in doing so, improve safety of the route.
Alternatives to Study in Detail
The merger team concurred an east or west side widening for the following sections:
Section 1 - W1sf
Section 2 - w fsi
Section 3 - Z4 s r
Section 4 - WOri &rri,De s, 7?0/v / P Y14-5'r w�s/#/c r To A vats e// A/ / 14Tf// 9 )-
Section 5 - f/f /•}',or Eue,. Md-)
Section b --/Err
Section 7 -
Section 8 -I/15(
Section 9 --,g‘'5 r /-/r
The Project Team concurred on this date of February 17, 2011 with the alternatives to be carried
forward for the proposed project as indicated above.
u5ai
ledelqihn
Agency
D! a] Fig `Uri r�
NG DC,?? �61�
L) S
NC2 or
.2-17-4 �//

1
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1 F119E97-C2A7-4485-BF03-D73CD4986AB4
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 2A: Hydraulic Structures and Alignments
Federal Aid Project Number: NA
State Project Number: WBS Element 35494.1.1
TIP Project Number: R-251 1
TIP Description: US 17, north of NC 171 to Multi -lanes South of \Villiamston,
Beaufort and Martin Counties
Hydraulic Structures and Locations
Site J
No.
1 tributary to Latham Creek
Crossing
Existing/Recommended Structure
Retain and extend existing 1 (} 48" RCP and 1
6'x4' RCBC with 2 @, 60" RCP
Gum Swarnp/Latham Creek
3 Jacks Swamp
4 Tributary to Smithwick Creek
RCP -Reinforced Concrete Pipe.
RCBC-Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert.
Replace existing 22 foot bridge with
1 ( 3 1'-5" x 7'-3" aluminum box culvert
Retain and extend existing 1 'a 8'x 3' RCBC
Retain and extend existing 2 .c 8'x 6' RCI3C
The Project Team concurred on this date of April 09, 2013 with the structures to be carried
forward for the proposed project as indicated above.
Agency
william J. Biddlecorr
Gary Jordan
Ronald Lucas
David wainwright
Travis W. Wilson
Docu5,gned by,
Name Date
b,j „,t 4/11/2013
ya 9 4/9/2013
I D>,,a
Fritz Rohde °...
2sl dz
EPA
tea
4/11/2013
4/9/2013
4/10/2013
4/10/2013
4/11/2013
Steven D. sollod
Kevin Hart
Sf�wti D. SeU.ed.
,win, it"av{
4/15/2013
4/11/2013
Joseph Miller c;,,Ps9h
4/9/2013

APPENDIX D
NRCS FARMLAND FORMS

1LJ 1b/ LGLrJ 1b: t7U
2514ii2.J4'L1
L,1-11.144AN t 1 b
1414E. U2/133
Count! y North Carolina
2.�OrSOn Cnmpicing Farm
et Nor. R SS
erne Irrigate erage arm ea
IUa h.A, 4i 3 0 d(c.
cunt c earmlend Au Defined in FPF7—
Acres: 4-1 2.1 3 D % 71.7
10. Dale Land &valuation e1Urr d by MRCS
/i — / -1D
AltorThitivo Corridor For Segment
CorridorA Corridor 9 Carrlaor C Corridor D
1S
12.1
,11
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Bp Converted _ e . 01.
D. Porcantspe Of Farmland in Govt. Juriadiollon With same Or Higher stive Value 6 01.41`
PART V (To be completed by S) Lend EkaGwden Infottnadon Cnterfon Relative
value of Farmland to Be Bery laud or Converted (Scale of 0 - i00 Poi►nS)
PART VI ale be Completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation ee1vice
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency} ate or end tivaluas on Request
s. Nam''of Prcieot STIP Project R-2511
2, Type of Project Highway Widening
PART II (To by completed by NRCB) t. Date Requees�tt
3, Dcae the ceriidor contain prime, unique statewide or Noel important farmland? rn I--,
(If no. the FPPA does not apply • Do not complete additional pert, of Mk form), Yea W NO
S, Malty Crop(s) s f . nrm bIA La i GByamment 4utledidlon
NRCS-CPA-1o6
mr$4 1411
11/4110 I' Sheet of
5. Fs erel lOncy Invavod
Facier1l Highwa i Adminl,trition
5. County and Stale !*aufnrt
Acres: Lit 5'/,443 % 95e''1
9. Name fiend Ev cation System Used 9, N3ma of Local Site Ail emgnt System
B e tkc tit L Iv n
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B, Total Acres lb Se Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services
C, Total Acres In Corridor
PART IV (Ta be completed by NRCS) land Fvalvlruan Information
A. Total Acres Prima And Unique Farmland
•
la. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
& Protection Provided By Stale And Local Government
Maximum
r
Assessment Criteria Mess crlterla are explained in 7 CFR 654.3(c)) Patna
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 — 15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use Id t �
3. Percent Cf CCrrtdor Being Farmed 20' 18
20— 20
5. Site or Present Form Unit Cared To Aver: , 10 0
0. Creation Of Nonferfnable Frlrmlend L T
2s o
76.91.4119 of Farms endoea 8 _5.
8. On -Farm investments 20 10
9. Effecra Of Conversion version On Perm Support Servlooa ' 2$ 0
10, CompatiblIlly.,WIth Eitistin$Agricultural Use f0 1
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
75 0
70.1
PART VI' (Ta be completed by FederalAyancy)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Pert v)
Total CorrldcrAssesamert (From Part VI above or a boil alto
oagertatant)
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
1. Corridor 59(eoted:
5. Reason For Selection:
ote Acres 0 arm an s to b
Converted by Project:
100
75
0 0
•
a 0
200
0 0
3. Date 4f Selection: 4. wail A Local Slta Assessment Used?
143eg' 0
vas ❑ lo❑
Signature of Person Completing this P— _
Susan Paschal, HNT8 � 4I
NQ ; Gamplete a Gnu each r1:12 ID
segment with more than one A tam % orrid

121 tb1'LbiU :tb: tat7 2 4Ei2342U CHOWAN NRCS
PAGE 03/ 03
U.S. DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Aervice
1. Noma at Project STIP Project k 2tf11
2. 'typo of Project Highway Widening
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
PART 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) P3• data of Lannvaluatlon Requital 41 win
5. Federal Agency Involved
WedsraI Hlehwey Administration
PART 11 (To be completed by ARCM)
3. Dan the corridor contain prima, unique Mtetas a or local important Fontana?
(if no, the FPPA does not apply . Oa not complete additional parte sf this form],
5 Major Crop(e) a. rerrneeie Land in Goverment Jurladlcticn
Acres: 19 9y % 6S,3
8. Name Of Land valUafiort Rtr1tem Ueed 8. Name of ocM SiSita Aanesament'Syttem
NRCS-CPA-10E
(Rev. 140
81rse or
5. County snit stets
1. oats Request Re4aivad by NfRC3
hL2V Z3 '2,0IV
res 2 Nit
PART tjl (To be completed by Pectoral Agency)
' Martin CountT North Carolina
2, Person Completing Form
4, Acres ungetgd AVararia Farm Etlxe
airs' 1 Z3 7
7, Amnum of Penland Ae ineflned in FPPA"
-1-0.
Aare*: I 7 T 7 % 6,
10. &Ice Land Evefuatlon Returned y
�7,- 46-/0
Alternative Corridor For Segment
Corrldar A Corrldar l3
A. Total Acres lb Ba Ronverted measly '5 9
E. TaterAcres To Be Converted Indirectly, DrTD Receive Services 3 61
C. Tour Aare In Corridor
PART IV (To be completed by MRCS) Land Evaluation Information
.39
A. Val Acres Primo Aid Unique Farmland 31. .
a, TIMMAcres Statewide And Looat Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted c 40 i
D. Percenta Of Farmland in Gm, Jufrsdiction With Same Or Higher Rotative Value sl
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Lend +art lrtformstlon Criterion Relieve 97
value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Corrvtrled (scale of 0 - fflt7 Points,) •
PART VI (To be completed byFerieralAgenoy)Corrldar Maximum
Criteria (These erne,* Ora explained lrr T CFR 65a.5() Pninta
1, Area in Nonurban use
2. Perimeter in Nonurbert Uri
3, Percent Of Corrldar Being Farmed
10
4, Pratectton Provided By State Arrd Local Govamment
5. sine of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
0
e. Creation Of Now able Farmland 26 0
vaitsblill a su $arvi099 S 5
8. Orl-:term ttrvastrnentt _ 20 10
8, Effects or Conversion On Farm Supportservice ' 2a 0
IQ, Competlblilly With Exlaii Agrioutb rei Use 10
1
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSCSSMENT POINTS
PART VtI (To be completed by Federe,Agency)
180
Reletivs Value Of Farmiand (From Pert V)
—Total Corrldar Atsetament (From Part VI above or a local etie
oesesarnent)
TOTAL POINTS (Tato/ of above Z tines)
1. Carrfdcr Selectee:
S. Reason Far Selection:
Signature of Parson Complet s a
Susan Paschal, HN7h
3
to riser 1 Cerrtdor 0
20 ?S
20 20
Total Acres of Farm iT7draii
Converted by Project
10
100
1e0
280
111
75
w�•
0
4. was A Local Site Assessment Ueed?
Yee uQ ❑
NOTE: Comin each segment with mare than one Altsmata 7l 11.12i ID
mp for