R-2553 Kinston Bypass

INTERAGENCY MERGER PROCESS
MEETING PACKET FOR
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A:
Bridging Decisions and
Alignment Review
Kinston Bypass Project
Lenoir, Jones and Craven Counties, North Carolina
STIP Project No. R-2553
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
February 2014

Interagency Merger Process Team Meeting
Concurrence Point 2A:
Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review
Kinston Bypass Project
Lenoir, Craven and Jones Counties, North Carolina
STIP Project No. R-2553
WBS Element No. 34460
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
The purpose of this meeting is to present information to the Interagency Merger Process
Team (Merger Team) to obtain concurrence on Concurrence Point 2A: Bridging Decisions
and Alignment Review. It is anticipated the meeting format will include:
an initial office meeting with the Merger Team to review preliminary
recommendations for natural systems being crossed by Detailed Study Alternatives
field meeting(s) with the Merger Team to review natural systems of special interest
(sites to be identified during the initial office meeting)
a possible follow-up office meeting with the Merger Team to summarize decisions
agreed to during the field meeting(s) and to obtain concurrence
PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action (proposed project) is designated in the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) 2013-2023 Draft State Transportation Improvement Program
(STIP) as project number R-2553 and is proposed as a four-lane, median-divided freeway
with full control of access. The proposed project extends from US 70 near LaGrange (in
Lenoir County) to US 70 near Dover (on the Jones and Craven County line). The project
vicinity is shown in Figure 1.
PROJECT HISTORY
In addition to the STIP, the Kinston Bypass is also identified in the City of Kinston
Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) adopted by the City of Kinston on August 20,
2007, endorsed by the Eastern Carolina Rural Planning Organization (RPO) on August 27,
2007, and adopted by the NCDOT on February 6, 2008. The Kinston Bypass is also
included in the 2011 CTP update.
In 2008, the North Carolina Interagency Leadership Team (ILT) established the Kinston
Bypass project as a Geographic Information System (GIS) pilot project as a means to test
and evaluate streamlining the project development process by utilizing GIS data for
alternative development, alternative analysis, and selection of the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)/Preferred Alternative.
Merger Meeting Packet for CP2A 1
STIP Project R-2553

NEED FOR AND PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
In October 2010, concurrence was achieved on the need for and purpose of the project
which is shown below.
Project Need
Address traffic congestion, capacity deficiencies, and through-traffic delays on US 70
between LaGrange and Dover.
Project Purpose
The purpose of the project is to improve regional mobility, connectivity, and capacity for
US 70 between LaGrange and Dover in a manner that meets the intent of the North
Carolina Strategic Highway Corridors Plan.
DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
As a result of the January 16, 2014 “CP2 Revisited” meeting, all northern bypass
alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. Outcome of this meeting also
included the addition of a new alternative for detailed study: the Upgrade Existing with
Shallow Southern Bypass alternative. This leaves 12 Detailed Study Alternatives
remaining for evaluation in the State Draft Environmental Impact Statement (State DEIS),
which are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A MEETING APPROACH
Per coordination with the Merger Team at the Merger Informational Meeting on
November 21, 2013 and at the “CP2 Revisited” Merger Meeting on January 16, 2014 a
conceptual approach for information to be presented and used for the facilitation of the
CP2A Merger Meeting was agreed upon. This approach, which is presented in Exhibit 1,
included reviews of natural system crossings based on proposed structure size and natural
system connectivity and quality. The goal of this approach was to make the “easy” and
most of the “medium” CP2A decisions with the data now available and to make preliminary
recommendations for the “hard” decisions which would be revisited once detailed field
studies and designs are prepared for the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.
Exhibit 1: GIS Pilot Project Approach for CP2A
HydraulicLowQualityLowQualityHighQualityHighQuality
RecommendationLowConnectivityHighConnectivityLowConnectivityHighConnectivity
Pipeslessthan72"PreLEDPAPreLEDPAPreLEDPAPreLEDPA
SingleBarrelBox
PreLEDPAPreLEDPAPreLEDPAPreLEDPA
Culvert
DoubleBarrelBoxDecidePreLEDPADecidePreLEDPADecidePreLEDPA
PreLEDPA
CulvertonIndividualbasisonIndividualbasisonIndividualbasis
TripleBarrelBoxDecidePreLEDPADecidePreLEDPA
PreLEDPAPostLEDPA
CulvertonIndividualbasisonIndividualbasis
BridgeLengthPreLEDPAPostLEDPAPostLEDPAPostLEDPA
Merger Meeting Packet for CP2A 2
STIP Project R-2553

The matrix shown in Exhibit 1 prompted considerable discussion at both the November and
January merger meetings, as to how the CP2A process would work for this pilot project.
Team members requested clarification so that decisions could be made in context of a
proposed approach. Therefore, an outline is shown below details the proposed approach
to CP2A, and how it fits into the merger milestone process.
NCDOT-Proposed Approach to CP2A for the Kinston Pilot Project
Kinston is one of three projects identified for the use of GIS during the scoping and
planning process. With CP2A approaching, the intent of the outline below is to clarify how
CP2A decisions will “fit” into the merger milestone process for this pilot initiative.
An Interagency Letter of Intent (LOI) signed in December 2012, states:
“The scope of the initiative includes determining the practicality of using GIS
to identify issues of significance and eliminating detailed alternatives for
selection of preferred alternative/LEDPA for agreed-upon pilot projects.”
In the spirit or the LOI, below is listed an outline approach to CP2A decisions in the context
of overall merger milestones (starting after CP2):
1. Generate GIS-based data and subsequent analysis of natural systems.
2. Develop minimum hydraulic recommendations based on engineering
considerations.
3. First CP2A meeting: Office review of all crossings of remaining Detailed Study
Alternatives
a. Make the “easy” decisions on pipes and culverts.
i. Pipes under 72”
ii. Culverts
b. Establish any sites of interest that the team would like to see in the field
before any preliminary decision is made.
4. Second CP2A meeting: Field visit to look at sites of interest.
5. Make decisions on any remaining bridge lengths and culvert sizes & extensions.
a. Possibly a third CP2A meeting if necessary.
6. Sign a CP2A Concurrence Form which indicates that these decisions are
PRELIMINARY and can be revisited post-LEDPA - after a preliminary design and
field delineations are completed, and updated impacts are quantified.
7. Based on preliminary CP2A decisions, generate cost and natural resource impacts
for each crossing site.
8. Include relevant site cost and impact data into the summation for each remaining
Detailed Study Alternative, so that the SDEIS (and eventual LEDPA decision)
reflects a reasonably-accurate cost and impacts assessment for each alternative.
9. Publish a SDEIS, hold public hearing(s), and accept comments on the document.
10. Merger Team makes a CP3 LEDPA decision based on the inter-agency agreement
to make this decision based on GIS-level data, as well as a developed range of
alternatives.
11. Complete stream and wetland delineations in the field (for the LEDPA design).
12. Complete a Best-Fit preliminary design on the LEDPA alternative, continuing to
avoid and minimize impacts as practicable.
13. Based on the Best-Fit preliminary design (which may change previous crossing
locations and/or highway elevations depicted at CP2A) and the updated stream and
Merger Meeting Packet for CP2A 3
STIP Project R-2553

wetland locations and boundaries: Establish whether it is appropriate to “Revisit the
CP2A decision” for any sites.
14. As part of the normal CP4A Minimization approach, revisit any CP2A decisions as
applicable. Update design and impacts.
15. Publish a SFEIS which describes the project and the preferred alternative (LEDPA).
Receive comments.
16. Select the recommended alternative and publish the ROD.
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY
Table 1 lists the drainage area identification number and size for the 166 crossings that
were evaluated for the 12 Detailed Study Alternatives. This evaluation resulted with:
119 drainage areas requiring a structure less than or equal to 72 inches
34 drainage areas requiring a box culvert
18 single barrel box culverts (2 of which are existing)
o
14 double barrel box culverts (2 of which are existing)
o
2 triple barrel box culverts (both of which are existing)
o
13 drainage areas requiring a bridge (4 of which are existing)
Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the locations of the drainage areas which correspond to structures
less than or equal to 72 inches, locations requiring box culverts, and locations requiring
bridge crossings, respectively.
First Filter: Minor Crossings
Table 2 provides a summary of the crossings by Detailed Study Alternative and also
includes a classification of the minor and major crossing types. Only structures greater
than 72 inches will be identified and evaluated within the State DEIS. For these structures,
NCDOT proposes to accept the hydraulic recommendation, which removes 119 structures
from further analysis, which leaves 47 structures for consideration.
Second Filter: Single or Double Barrel Box Culverts Crossings
Table 3 shows a summary of the 32 proposed structures for the drainage areas which
require a box culvert with single or double barrels. NCDOT proposes to utilize the
minimum hydraulic single and double barrel box culverts unless there are specific sites
which the Merger Team identifies for field visit based upon natural system quality and/or
connectivity. This filter removes 32 structures from further analysis, which leaves 15
structures for consideration.
Triple Barrel Box Culvert or Bridge Crossings
Table 4 shows a summary of the 15 remaining proposed structures for the drainage areas
which include a triple barrel box culvert or a bridge. NCDOT proposes to utilize the
minimum hydraulic triple barrel box culverts and bridge lengths for sites with low quality and
low connectivity unless there are specific sites which the Merger Team identifies for field
visit based upon natural system quality and/or connectivity.
Bridge Maps have been created for the 13 drainage areas requiring a bridge, which show
the functional designs plan and profile view. Information also shown includes floodway
boundary, 100 Year Flood Fringe, 500 Year Flood Fringe, and predictive model stream and
wetland locations. Copies of the Bridge Maps are included in the Appendix.
Merger Meeting Packet for CP2A 4
STIP Project R-2553

Additional Data
Due to the size of the project study area and the large amount of sites being crossed by
Detailed Study Alternatives, information included in the CP2A Merger Meeting Packet will
be limited with only summary information provided. For more detailed information on each
site, NCDOT has established an FTP site for access by the Merger Team. Remote quality
assessments were performed by NES for all stream crossings requiring box culverts or
bridges. The results of these assessments have been organized into folders and can be
found at the FTP link below. Upon accessing the FTP site, there will be a folder
corresponding to each site being crossed by the Detailed Study Alternatives. Each folder
contains a remote quality assessment report and map figures. Photos are also included for
some sites.
http://207.4.62.65/PDEA/MergerMeetings/02202014_R2553_CP2A/
Crossing Site Impact Data is Forthcoming
Typically a detailed impacts table is provided within the CP2A Merger Meeting Packet;
however, given that this data is incorporated into the interactive presentation for the merger
team: this information is not critical to initiating the CP2A Merger Meeting process and
therefore will be provided prior to or at the initial office meeting with the Merger Team.
CURRENT PROJECT SCHEDULE
Concurrence Point #2A – Bridging Decisions Early 2014
Distribute State Draft EIS Early 2015
Corridor Design Public Hearing 2015
Concurrence Point #3 (LEDPA) 2015
Distribute State Final EIS 2016
State Record of Decision 2016
Right of Way Acquisition 2020
Construction 2023
Merger Meeting Packet for CP2A 5
STIP Project R-2553

FIGURES

Kinston Bypass
GREENE
STIP Project No. R-2553
COUNTY
Figure 1
£
¤
Project Study Area with
PITT
258
903
COUNTY
Detailed Study
Alternative Corridors
123
February 3, 2014
Grifton
Legend
Study Area
Southern Detailed Study Alternatives
Upgrade Existing Detailed Study Alternatives
11
US Highway
NC Highway
State Road
58
GTP
55
Local Road
Railroad
Stream/River
La Grange
UP_SB_1000Foot_Buffer
£
¤
70
55
Waterbody
Global TransPark (GTP)
Kinston
55
Municipal Area
WAYNE
£
¤
County
COUNTY
70BUS
903
£
¤
70BYP
CRAVEN
COUNTY
¯
11
02.5
Dover
Miles
55
£
¤
70
Cove
55
City
58
11
This map is for reference only.
Sources: CGIA, NCDOT, NCDENR,
DUPLIN
Craven County, NCDCM, NCEM, Lenoir County,
COUNTY
Pitt County, Kinston Planning Department,
NCOneMap, NCWRC, NCSHPO,EPA, USFWS,
£
¤
USDA, NRCS, DWQ, ESRI and URS.
258
903
41
Virginia
Tennessee
JONES
North Carolina
11
COUNTY
South
LENOIR
Carolina
Georgia
COUNTY

Kinston Bypass
FIGURE 2: DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
STIP Project No. R-2553
February 3, 2014
PITT
COUNTY
Upgrade Existing
Upgrade Existing
903
US 70 Shallow Bypass
123
US 70 Alternative
258
Alternative
Grifton
11
258
R
e
s
903 u
258
e
N
903
123
123
55
11
11
58
58
58
55
70
55
70 La
Grange
55
70 70
70
55
55
Kinston
70
258
55
70
258
55
55
58
58
11
11
11
BUS
Alternative 1
Alternative 1 SB
70
903
BYP
70
e
u
N
e
CRAVEN
s
u
e
N
11
COUNTY
70
55
58
Dover
Cove
55
City
70
11
JONES
Southern Bypass Alternatives
COUNTY
258
903
LENOIR 41
DUPLIN
COUNTY
COUNTY
258 58
258258 903 258
258
903
903903903
123
11
123
123123123
11
11111111
58
58
58
5858
55
555555
55
70
7070
7070
70
70
7070
70
55
55
5555
55
258
70
707070
70
55
55555555
58
58
58
58
58
11
258258
111111
11
258
258
Virginia
Alternative 12
Alternative 11
Alternative 31Alternative 32
Alternative 35
Legend
Tennessee
Kinston JetportWaterbody
258
258
258
258
903903 258
903
903
903
North Carolina
123123123
123
123
Upgrade Existing Detailed Study AlternativeMunicipal Area
111111
1111
Southern Detailed Study AlternativesUS Highway
58
5858
58
58
555555
5555
70
70
Not To Scale
70
70
70
Study AreaNC Highway
3
South
Carolina
70
70
70
70
70
CountyProject R-2719A
55
55
5555
55
258
258
70
7070
7070
258
55
55
55
55
5855
58
58(Under Construction)
5858
111111
11
11
258
258
Georgia
Alternative 65
Alternative 63 This map is for reference only. Sources:
Alternative 51
Alternative 36
Alternative 52
CGIA, NCDOT, NCDENR, Craven County, NCDCM, NCEM, Lenoir County, Pitt County, Jones County,
Kinston Planning Department, NCOneMap, NCWRC, NCSHPO,EPA, USFWS, USDA, NRCS, DWQ, ESRI and URS.

Kinston Bypass
STIP Project No. R-2553
GREENE COUNTY
Grifton
Figure 3
<=72" Pipe Locations
PITT COUNTY
February 3, 2014
11
Cr
Legend
GTP
78
<=72" Pipe Crossing
!
Study Area
58
Alternative Alignment
Stream
Railroad
36
US Highway
La Grange
1, 1(SB), 11, 12,
NC Highway
31, 32, 35, 36,
55
55
51, 52, 63, 65
State Road
402
1(SB)
!
1, 1(SB)
!
!
404
Local Road
403
11, 12
1, 1(SB), 11, 12,
County
31, 32, 63, 65
!18
17
Kinston
CRAVEN COUNTY
All Corridors!
£
¤
!
Global TransPark (GTP)
16 11, 12
405
!!
15
14
70BUS
!
401
13
110
Waterbody
LENOIR COUNTY 31, 32
9!
!
8
!
!
!
7
!
!
!
!
5
1 (Upgrade Existing)
199
3
£
11¤
!!166103
!102
Floodplain
!
410
138
!
!
!
!
409
!
!
!
70BYP
114
301
323
302
113
!
Floodway
!
!
324
159
!
170!
115
!
325
1, 1(SB), 12, 32,
!
!
Municipal Area
171
107
108
!
!
162¯
!
!
198 35, 52, 63
!
327
160
161!
306
!
!
!
11, 12, 31,
173
328
!
117
194
32, 63, 65
200
!
!
012,000
322
109
!
!
!
310
!
!
315
164
165
!
35, 36, 51, 52
!
Feet
63, 65
314
321
!
!
!309
!
!!
174
11
320
!
!
141319
!
317
318
142!
!
411
111
49
1(SB)
51, 52!
!
316
50
!
143
!
414
!
!
137!!
413
51
Dover
!
!
!
!
158
!
55
11, 12, 31, 32,!
195
196
135
197
144
341
156
!
134
!
!
155
51, 52, 63, 65
!
!
178
145
!
153
!
!
181
152
!
133
179
!
342
151
!£
146
!¤
12, 32,
!
348
148
!
!
344
343
!
!
347
!
70
!!
!
!
35, 52, 63
!
This map is for reference only.
!
120147
346
349
345
Sources: CGIA, NCDOT, NCDENR, NCFPM,
11, 31, 36, 51, 65
350
!
131
55 351
All Corridors
!
Craven County, NCDCM, NCEM, Lenoir County,
352!
!
!
Pitt County, Kinston Planning Department,
130
t
129
12, 32,
35
!
11, 31,
NCOneMap, NCWRC, NCSHPO,EPA, USFWS,
!
52, 63
USDA, NRCS, DWQ, ESRI and URS.
36, 51, 65
!
128 JONES COUNTY
11
58
!
123
122!
Virginia
124
126
!
!
!
!
127
Tennessee
125
North Carolina
35, 36
South
Carolina
Georgia
£
¤

Kinston Bypass
STIP Project No. R-2553
GREENE COUNTY
Grifton
Figure 4
Existing and Proposed
Culvert Locations
PITT COUNTY
February 3, 2014
11
Legend
Existing / Proposed Structure
GTP
#
*
!
(
Single Box Culvert
/
#
*
58
!
(
Double Box Culvert
/
#
*
!
(
Triple Box Culvert
/
Run
Study Area
Alternative Alignment
1, 1(SB), 11, 12,
Stream
La Grange
31, 32, 35, 36,
37
Railroad
51, 52, 63, 65
55
55
US Highway
NC Highway
1, 1(SB), 11, 12,
State Road
31, 32, 63, 65
Kinston
1, 1(SB),
CRAVEN COUNTY
All Corridors£
¤Local Road
11, 12
11, 12
70BUS
407
County
406
#
*
#
*
LENOIR COUNTY
#
*
12
!
(
1(SB)
6
#
*
!
(
!Global TransPark (GTP)
(
104
2
#
*
#
*!
(
408
#
*
105
35, 36, 51, 52
Waterbody
201
303
1 (Upgrade Existing)
304
£
¤
Floodplain
31, 32
70BYP 1, 1(SB), 12,
326
#
*
Floodway
¯
32, 35, 52, 63
11, 12, 31,
#
*
#
*
12, 32,
#
*
Municipal Area
32, 63, 65
307
#
*
172
311
35, 52, 63
#
116*#
*
#
*312
11308
012,000
63, 65
313
#
*
Feet
!
(
118
#
*
48
!
(
#
*
55415
Dover
112
#
*
202#
*
#
*11, 12, 31, 32,
#
*
416
51, 52, 63, 65
136
51, 52 339
#157
#*
*
#
*
154
176
#
*
£
¤
180
#
*
177
#
*
70
This map is for reference only.
150
132
Sources: CGIA, NCDOT, NCDENR, NCFPM,
11, 31,
55
All Corridors
Craven County, NCDCM, NCEM, Lenoir County,
11, 31, 36, 51, 65
35
36, 51, 65
th
u
Pitt County, Kinston Planning Department,
12, 32,
NCOneMap, NCWRC, NCSHPO,EPA, USFWS,
52, 63
58
USDA, NRCS, DWQ, ESRI and URS.
JONES COUNTY
11
Virginia
Tennessee
North Carolina
35, 36
South
Carolina
Georgia
£
¤

Kinston Bypass
STIP Project No. R-2553
GREENE COUNTY
Grifton
Figure 5
Existing and Proposed
Bridge Locations
PITT COUNTY
February 3, 2014
11
GTP
Legend
58
!
Proposed Bridge Crossing
Maintain Existing Bridge
!
Structure
Study Area
Alternative Alignment
La Grange
All Corridors
Stream
55
55
Railroad
1, 1(SB), 11, 12,
Global TransPark (GTP)
31, 32, 35, 36,
51, 52, 63, 65
County
Kinston
CRAVEN COUNTY
£
¤
11, 12
Waterbody
70BUS
1, 1(SB), 11, 12
LENOIR COUNTY
Floodplain
!
!
35, 36, 51, 52
£
!
¤
106B
Floodway
106A
70BYP
4
1(SB)
!
!
Municipal Area
167
1 (Upgrade Existing)
31, 32
1, 1(SB),12, 32,
305
¯
139
35, 52, 63
!
163
012,000
140
11
!
!
63, 65 Feet
1, 1(SB), 11, 12,
!
31, 32, 63, 65
11, 12, 31,
110
!
32, 63, 65
175
!Dover
55
12, 32,
11, 12, 31, 32,
119
35, 52, 63
51, 52, 63, 65
£
¤
!
51, 52
70
149
This map is for reference only.
Sources: CGIA, NCDOT, NCDENR, NCFPM
11, 31,
11, 31, 36, 51, 65
55
All Corridors
Craven County, NCDCM, NCEM, Lenoir County,
12, 32,
35
36, 51, 65
Pitt County, Kinston Planning Department,
52, 63
thw
u
NCOneMap, NCWRC, NCSHPO,EPA, USFWS,
58
USDA, NRCS, DWQ, ESRI and URS.
!
JONES COUNTY
11
121
Virginia
Tennessee
North Carolina
35, 36
South
Carolina
Georgia
£
¤

RECENT MEETING
MINUTES

SNC
TATE OF ORTH AROLINA
DT
EPARTMENTOFRANSPORTATION
PMCAJ.T
AT CRORYNTHONY ATA
GS
OVERNORECRETARY
MINUTES FROM THE MERGER INFORMATIONALMEETING ON
NOVEMBER 21, 2013
To:Project File
From:Ted Devens, PE
Date:February 5, 2014
Subject:STIP Number R-2553, Kinston Bypass, Lenoir County, North Carolina
A Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Process Team (Merger Team) Informational Meeting was
held at 10:30 AM,Thursday, November 21, 2013in the NCDOT Century Center Complex Structure
Design Conference Room. Those in attendance are shown on the attached sign-in sheet.
Purposes of Meeting
The purpose of the meeting is to provide a project update to the Merger Team including the
identification of a new alternative, review the new 2012 Kinston Travel Demand Model and 2012
Traffic Forecast, and to discuss the next steps in the Merger Process.
Merger Meeting Summary
Tom Steffens initiated the meeting with introductions. Ted Devensthen reviewed the agenda and
corresponding meeting presentation. Major discussion points are shown below.
With regard to the new alternative (Upgrade Existing US 70 with Shallow Bypass), it was
noted that NCDOT has spoken to the local officials and business community about this new
alternative and to date all feedback has been supportive.
When discussing the new 2012 Kinston Travel Demand Model, it was requestedthat
additional information be provided at the upcoming CP2 Revisited meeting including
general breakout of the type of traffic (local, through, freight, etc.).Additionally for this
meeting, it was requested that when discussing amount of traffic being “drawn” from
existing US 70, clarification be provided to better elaborate on what is “significant”and
how it is relevant when discussing meeting the Purpose and Need for the project.
With regard to potentially eliminating alternatives at the upcoming CP2 Revisited meeting,
the following was suggested:
MAILING ADDRESS:T: 919-707-6000LOCATION:
ELEPHONE
NCDOTFAX: 919-250-4224CC,BA
EPARTMENT FRANSPORTATIONENTURY ENTERUILDING
PDEA1000BRD
ROJECT EVELOPMENT AND NVIRONMENTAL NALYSISIRCH IDGE RIVE
W:
EBSITE
1548MSCRNC 27610
AIL ERVICE ENTERALEIGH
://..//E
CONNECTNCDOTGOVRESOURCESNVIRON
HTTPS
RNC 27699-1548
ALEIGH
/P/.
MENTALAGESDEFAULTASPX

R-2553: INTERAGENCY MERGER TEAM INFORMATIONAL MEETING MINUTES
November 21, 2013
Page 2of 3
The same level of information will need to be prepared and presented for existing
o
Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) and the new alternative (Upgrade Existing US
70 with Shallow Bypass).
Impact information presented at the November 2011 CP2 meetingshouldbe
o
provided for the 17 DSAsand for the new alternative(Upgrade Existing US 70 with
Shallow Bypass).
Applicability of the travel demand model and traffic forecast to the DSAs should be
o
discussed as well as a review of the model assumptions included in the previous and
2012 travel demand models. This information should also be included in the Merger
Packet.
Given the recent coordination with FEMA regarding impacting Hazard Mitigation
o
Grant Program (HMGP) properties, if any preliminary corridors were eliminated at
CP2 due to impacting a HMGP property, they should be reconsidered as a Detailed
Study Alternative.
If alternatives were eliminated at CP2 using the results of the 2009 Traffic Forecast
o
they should be reevaluated per the 2012 Traffic Forecast and reconsidered as a
Detailed Study Alternative.
A discussion was then held on CP2A and how the Merger Team wanted to address the fact
that since this is a GIS Pilot project, certain information that is typically available at CP2A
will not be available.
Given bridge lengths aredirectly related to impacts and overall cost, which will
o
ultimatelybe used to select the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative, it was suggested the
project should have a CP2A meeting rather than having a combined CP2A/4A
meeting. This recommendation was based upon the Merger Team suggesting that
initial bridge limits could be set now with the data available as long as NCDOT
would be open to reevaluating bridge lengths after the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative
has been selected and more detailed information will be available. It was noted,
given this is a pilot project; NCDOT will be flexible and consider additional
stewardship efforts following the selection of the LEDPA/Preferred Alternative.
For the purposes of evaluating DSAs within the State Draft Environmental Impact
o
Statement (EIS) NCDOT will continue to work with members of the Merger Team
to develop specific methodologies and approach for holding CP2A. This will
include a matrix depicting areas where straight-forward decisions can be made now
and specific areas where decisions needto be made regarding culvert versus bridge
(which may require site visits at CP2A). For CP2A, known areas requiring bridging
will have approximate lengths; however, following the selection of the
LEDPA/Preferred Alternative, specific bridge lengths will be reevaluated. Notes
taken onthe screen during the meetingare attached.
Given it was determined a CP2A meeting will be held and concurrence will be
o
requested, the Concurrence Form will be prepared to document the methodology
used to make the decisions which will be adequate for evaluating the DSAs in the
State DEIS.

R-2553: INTERAGENCY MERGER TEAM INFORMATIONAL MEETING MINUTES
November 21, 2013
Page 3of 3
Next Steps
NCDOT will continue to work with members of the Merger Team to develop specific
methodologies and approach for holding CP2A.
Action Items
NCDOT will schedule the CP2 Merger Meeting and prepare/distribute the Merger Packet.
After CP2,NCDOT intends to move directly to a series of CP2A Merger Meetings.
Minutes Prepared by Kory Wilmot, URS. If there are any questions or edits, please contact Chris
Werner, URS Project Manager, at [phone] or [e-mail]. Participant
comments or edits on these draft minutes are welcome until February 20, 2014, at which time final
minutes will be prepared and distributed.

R-2553: INTERAGENCY MERGER TEAM INFORMATIONAL MEETING
November 21, 2013
Conceptual Group Agreement @ 11-21-2013 Merger Informational Meeting

PRE-LEDPA “LOW-LYING FRUIT” DECISIONS
Less than 72” pipe – has pipe at ALL crossings
Single Barrel Recommendation – stays single barrel unless other factors apply
At LOW/LOW locations – go with minimum recommended hydraulic crossing

LESS EASY PRE-LEDPA DECISIONS
Decide on CULVERT vs. BRIDGE
Establish ESTIMATED bridge length at each location of a bridge
-Use for NEPA analysis: impacts and cost estimating
-Opportunity to discuss specific features – floodplain pipes, etc.

GENERATE A SIGNED CP2A FORM (with decisions appropriate for NEPA
document)

POST-LEDPA REVISITS (at CP4A – which could include CP2A revisits)
Revisit a specific bridge length if earlier assumptions prove to be changed

CP2 Packet Prep
Apply new traffic model and assumptions to all alts
Explain new travel demand model
Viability to pass through FEMA buy-out properties
Make sure no earlier alts were removed because of FEMA
Any same scrutiny to new/old alts (EJ, etc)

SNC
TATE OF ORTH AROLINA
DT
EPARTMENTOFRANSPORTATION
PMCAJ.T
AT CRORYNTHONY ATA
GS
OVERNORECRETARY
MINUTES FROM THE DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES(CP2
REVISITED) CONCURRENCE MEETING ON JANUARY 16, 2014
To:Interagency Merger Process Team & Other Meeting Attendees
From:Ted Devens, PE
Date:February 4, 2014
Subject:STIP Number R-2553, KinstonBypass, Lenoir County, North Carolina
A Section 404/NEPA Interagency Merger Process Team (Merger Team) Meeting was held at 1:00
PM,on Thursday, January 16, 2014, in the NCDOT Century Center Complex Structure Design
Conference Room. Those in attendance are shown on the attached sign-in sheet.
Purpose of Meeting
The purpose of the meeting was to present information on the recently developed Upgrade Existing
US70 with a Shallow Southern Bypass alternative and to review the Travel Demand Model and
Traffic Forecast Updates. NCDOT proposes toobtain Merger Team Concurrence on the addition of
the Upgrade Existing US70 with Shallow Southern Bypass as aDetailed Study Alternatives Carried
Forward (DSAs),and to remove all northern bypass alternatives from further consideration.
Merger Meeting Summary
Tom Steffens (USACE) called the meeting to order and completed introductions. Ted Devens
(NCDOT) then reviewed the purpose of today’s meeting and turned it over to Chris Werner
(URSCorporation).
Chris Wernerreviewed a slideshow presentation (see attached slides) that went over the development
of the Upgrade Existing US 70 with Shallow Southern Bypass Alternative and reviewed the results of
the Travel Demand Model and Traffic Forecast Updates. The following is a summary of the major
discussion points regarding the presentation.
It was questioned if full control of access would be incorporated into alternatives utilizing
portions of existing US 70. The response was all alternatives would include full control of
access for new location sections as well as the upgrade existing US 70 sections.
MAILING ADDRESS:T: 919-707-6000LOCATION:
ELEPHONE
NCDOTFAX: 919-250-4224CC,BA
EPARTMENT FRANSPORTATIONENTURY ENTERUILDING
PDEA1000BRD
ROJECT EVELOPMENT AND NVIRONMENTAL NALYSISIRCH IDGE RIVE
W:
EBSITE
1548MSCRNC 27610
AIL ERVICE ENTERALEIGH
://..//E
CONNECTNCDOTGOVRESOURCESNVIRON
HTTPS
RNC 27699-1548
ALEIGH
/P/.
MENTALAGESDEFAULTASPX

R-2553: CP2 REVISITED CONCURRENCE MEETING MINUTES
February 3, 2014
Page 2of 3
A question was asked about impacts to Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) properties
that the Upgrade Existing and Upgrade Existing with Shallow Southern Bypass would both
have. It was stated that NCDOT has been coordinating with the State Hazard Mitigation
Office (SHMO) and with FEMA Region IV aboutthis issue. There is a defined process
through a Memorandum of Agreement between FHWA and FEMA regarding the use of
HMGP properties for which the impacts are quantified and a case is made as to why it is
necessary to impact the properties. Through this process the SHMO makes a
recommendation to FEMA who can grant permission for the impact to the HMGP properties.
Based on the current information presented, the SHMO has signaled their willingness to
support the use/impact to these properties should one of these alternatives be chosen.Mr.
Chris Crew, the State Hazard Mitigation Officer was in attendance, and attested to this.It
was also noted for the record -that no previous alternative has been eliminated because of
HGMP properties.
Patrick Flanagan withthe Eastern Carolina Rural Planning Organization, reported that the
Upgrade Existing US 70 with a Shallow Southern Bypass alternative has the support of the
local community. He also stated that after seeing the results of the traffic forecast and model
that the community leaders understand the need to remove the northern alternatives from
further consideration. With regard to the general publics’ thoughts on eliminating the
northern alternatives, Mr. Flanagan noted the public never really had an overwhelming
preference regarding northern alternatives, southern alternatives, or improving existing US
70.
Outcome of theabove discussion, resulted with the Merger Team achieving Concurrence Point 2
(Revisited): Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward as described on the attached Concurrence
Form and shown on the corresponding figure. Summary of the attached agreement includes
eliminating the northern alternatives and the addition of the Upgrade Existing with Shallow Southern
Bypass alternative.
Next Steps
A discussion was then held on the approach for moving forward with Concurrence Point 2A. As a
GIS Pilot project, field studies and detailed design/analysis will only be performed on the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). As aresult, data and information
currently available is not as detailed as the information provided at CP2A for a typical project. The
discussion centered on how the team would be making bridging and alignment review decisions. It
was generally agreed to by the Merger Team that an approach allowing for Pre-LEDPA decisions to
be made on the more straight-forward sites would suffice. With regard to the more complex sites and
those requiring bridges, it was agreed by the Merger Team that preliminary recommendations or
decisions for evaluation within the State Draft Environmental Impact Statement would be acceptable.
This approach will allow for an opportunity for reevaluation of the more complex sites and those
requiring bridges post-LEDPA once field studies and detailed design/analysis data is available.
It was noted that a meeting has been scheduled for later this afternoon to further discuss the details of
the above described approach for facilitating the CP2A meeting. A portion of the Merger Team
scheduled to attend includes USACE, NC Division of Water Resources, US Fish and Wildlife
Service, NC Wildlife Resource Commission, and NCDOT; however, the meeting is open to all
Merger Team members.

R-2553: CP2 REVISITED CONCURRENCE MEETING MINUTES
February 3, 2014
Page 3of 3
Action Items
URS will provide NC Division of Water Resources a copy of the Screening ICE.
CP2A information should include a list of proposed major hydraulic structures by alternative.
CP2A information should include an aerial map of proposed major hydraulic structures.
NCDOT will inform the public of the CP2 Revisited meeting outcome.
NCDOT will prepare documentation of the CP2A approach developed for the GIS pilot
project. Additionally, the Merger Team suggested project issues encountered as a result of
the GIS pilot project should be documented and included in the State Draft Environmental
Impact Statement.
Minutes Prepared by Kory Wilmot, URS. If there are any questions or edits, please contact Chris
Werner, URS Project Manager, at [phone] or [e-mail]. Participant
comments or edits on these draft minutes are welcome until February 20, 2014, at which time final
minutes will be prepared and distributed.

Concurrence Point 2 RevisitedJanuary 16, 2014
TravelDemandModelTraffic
ForecastUpdates
DetailedStudyAlternativesCarriedForward
STIPProjectNo.R2553
KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553
KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553
DetailedStudyAlternativesCorridorMap
ExistingUS70
KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553
R-2553 Kinston Bypass1

Concurrence Point 2 RevisitedJanuary 16, 2014
KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553
KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553
KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553
R-2553 Kinston Bypass2

Concurrence Point 2 RevisitedJanuary 16, 2014
UpgradeExistingUS70w/ShallowSouthernBypass
Upgrade
Existing US 70
Shallow
Bypass
Upgrade
Existing US 70
KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553
Table1:November17,2011500FootCorridorImpactsforDetailedStudyAlternativesandNew2013UpgradeExisting70ShallowBypassAlternative
Corridor(N=NorthernBypass,S=Southern
Bypass)
LengthStructuresUtilitiesCensus
130,26543133211411123832711862215290123,357,061$
124.7
129,968222461*1261123102916652242262143,327,720$
1ShallowBypass24.6
165,2461111811311322168433151211335506185,813,508$
2(N)31.3
176,7491121341132216940388121183617207,842,338$
5(N)33.5
138,23416432122263625612196216178,619,492$
11(S)26.2
139,167119931122163622512154243173,487,390$
12(S)26.4
132,75521591321197322532124168176,948,230$
31(S)25.1
133,6883194131118832222283195167,327,685$
32(S)25.3
149,01411443121139346416928195,362,670$
35(S)28.2
147,047115312203838341691203,417,101$
36(S)27.8
136,1941652123636313312469186,972,385$
51(S)25.8
124,5981200212263526138396158,368,291$
52(S)23.6
149,7481611051211111176353091111279343191,071,783$
53(N)28.4
161,2511613731111117732382111126454213,100,612$
56(N)30.5
170,8371401111573940471126304243,964,586$
57(N)32.4
163,2291102111176433321011279156227,836,748$
61(N)30.9
146,3935316511123173423312124233188,090,545$
63(S)27.7
145,6375213311123403127612133204197,219,836$
65(S)27.6
LowestValue
124,5982410011157271181831123,357,060.55$
HighestValue
176,7493316313321413263322383434041241335617243,964,585.57$
Average
147,426284116811112253629252180239189,015,811.37$
Median
146,3932811641112113630912169216188,090,544.77$
Notes:
1.)Forcomparisonpurposes,impactswerecalculatedbasedupon500footcorridors,eventhoughallcorridorsincludeportionsofupgradeexistingUS70andpossiblyportionsofFelixHarveyParkwaywhichiscurrentlyunderconstruct
ion.Morerealisticimpactswillbepreparedforall
DetailedStudyAlternativesinfuturestagesoftheproject.
2.)Fortableclarity,ScreeningCriteriawhichresultedwithzeroimpactsareshownasblank.
3.)AcopyoftheDataDictionaryisavailablewhichsummarizeshowthepriorityandnonprioritydatalayerswereassimilatedresultingwithonedatalayerforeachofthescreeningcriteria.
*Churchidentifiedwhichwasnotincludedinpreviouslyobtaineddatalayer.
KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553
UpgradeExistingUS70withShallowBypass
UpdatedCorridorMap
TravelDemandModel
TrafficForecast
UpgradeExistingUS70with
aShallowSouthernBypass
2040
KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553
R-2553 Kinston Bypass3

Concurrence Point 2 RevisitedJanuary 16, 2014
ΈØ¨§ΉKinstonTravelDemandModelΈÆ•∑ΉKinston
TravelDemandModel.
SignificantChange:Modelisbasedon6,200GTPjobsinyear2040
AllKinstonBypassforecastspriorto2012weredeveloped
basedonthismodel.
KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553
Baseline:UpgradeExistingUS70
10K
7K
36K
27K
40K
42K30K
57K
38K
•
27,000vehiclesmovingto/fromorthroughKinstoneachday
KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553
•
Upto57,000vehiclesalongUS706lanesneeded
N3:VeryDeepNorthernBypassN2:DeepNorthernBypass
36K36K
42K
42K
27K27K
38K38K
43K
40K
42K
40K
30K
30K
28K
38K
57K57K
36K
36K
27K
27K
46K46K
•
Bypassdrawsonly3,00010,000ADTfromUS70,howevermuchofthisislocaltrafficwestofKinstontocentraland
northernKinston
••
US70strugglesasa4lanehighwayBypassdrawsonly3,00011,000ADTfromUS70
•
•
LightertrafficinNEKinston
US70strugglesasa4lanehighway
••
19%trafficisdrawnfromexistingUS70toaVeryDeepNorthernBypasswhencomparedtotrafficvolumesfor19%trafficisdrawnfromexistingUS70toaDeepNorthernBypasswhencomparedtotrafficvolumesforUpgrading

UpgradingexistingUS70
existingUS70
R-2553 Kinston Bypass4

Concurrence Point 2 RevisitedJanuary 16, 2014
N1:ModeratelyDeepNorthernBypassS2:DeepSouthernBypass
42K
42K
57K
33K
38K
27K
40K
22K
30K
36K36K
13K
42K
27K27K
38K
40K
42K
30K
57K
38K
30K
21K
45K
••
Bypassdrawsonly9,00012,000ADTfromUS70Bypassdraws11,00024,000ADTfromUS70
••
US70strugglesasa4lanehighwayUS70functionsacceptablyasa4lanehighway
••
21%trafficisdrawnfromexistingUS70toaModeratelyDeepNorthernBypasswhencomparedtotrafficvolumes42%trafficisdrawnfromexistingUS70toaDeepSouthernBypasswhencomparedtotrafficvolumesforUpgrading

forUpgradingexistingUS70existingUS70
S1:ModeratelyDeepSouthernBypassProposed:Alternative1SB
42K
43K
42K
57K57K
29K43KTBD
38K38K
21KTBD
40K40K
21KTBD
30K30K
36K36K
12KTBD
ADTalongbypass
27K27K
ToBeDetermined
(TBD)
•
Bypassdraws17,00028,000ADTfromUS70
••
US70functionsacceptablyasa4lanehighwayThisAlternativeisexpectedtodrawthemosttrafficfromUS70
••
49%trafficisdrawnfromexistingUS70toaModeratelyDeepSouthernBypasswhencomparedtotrafficvolumesExistingUS70isexpectedtohavelesstraffictocentralKinstonthanotheralternativesandfunctionacceptablyasa

forUpgradingexistingUS70
4lanehighway
KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553
R-2553 Kinston Bypass5

Concurrence Point 2 RevisitedJanuary 16, 2014
CP2Revisit:RevisedCorridorMap
UpdatedCorridorMap
AlternativeMax.DiversionCentralADT
%Diversion
KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553KinstonBypassSTIPProject#R2553
KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553KinstonBypassSTIP#R2553
R-2553 Kinston Bypass6

TABLES

Table 1. R-2553: Drainage Area Summary for All Hydraulic Crossings
Drainage Area (DA)
acressq. mi.
Crossing IDDetailed Study Alternative(s)
11.170.0011, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 35, 36, 51, 52, 63, 65
27051.101, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 35, 36, 51, 52, 63, 65
35.430.0081, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
429,76046.51, 1 (SB), 11, 12
512.40.011, 1 (SB), 11, 12
61660.251, 1 (SB), 11, 12
713.20.021, 1 (SB), 11, 12
842.90.061, 1 (SB), 11, 12
91.610.0021, 1 (SB), 11, 12
101.760.00211, 12
119.990.011, 1 (SB), 11, 12
1217732.771, 1 (SB), 11, 12
131.610.00211, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
143820.5911, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
155330.8311, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
161380.2111, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
171210.1911, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
182.490.00331, 32, 63, 65
483,2585.091, 1 (SB),12, 32, 35, 52, 63
492.490.0031, 1 (SB),12, 32, 35, 52, 63
5011.70.011, 1 (SB),12, 32, 35, 52, 63
51110.011, 1 (SB),12, 32, 35, 52, 63
10244.80.071, 1 (SB)
10338.30.051
1044740.741
1051,1461.791
106A1,728,00027001
106B900.141
1073.230.0051
1089.40.011
10924.60.031, 1 (SB)
11035,95756.11, 1 (SB)
1111810.281, 1 (SB)
1121,6212.531, 1 (SB), 12, 32, 35, 52, 63
11319.50.0335, 36, 51, 52
1146.310.00935, 36, 51, 52
1158.520.0135, 36
1162,5543.9935, 36
1171.760.00235, 36
1186661.0435, 36
1191,670,717261035, 36
1203.230.00535, 36
12120,54432.135, 36
Page 1 of 4

Table 1. R-2553: Drainage Area Summary for All Hydraulic Crossings (cont.)
Drainage Area (DA)
acressq. mi.
Crossing IDDetailed Study Alternative(s)
1223060.4735, 36
1231650.2535, 36
1249.990.0135, 36
1253.820.00535, 36
12629.30.0435, 36
1273650.5735, 36
1282480.3835, 36
12956.10.0835, 36
1301920.335, 36
1311160.1835, 36
1321,4592.2735, 36
1332.930.00411, 31, 36, 51, 65
13419.30.0311, 31, 36, 51, 65
13512.70.0111, 31, 36, 51, 65
1362,0703.2311, 31, 36, 51, 65
13739.50.0611, 31, 36, 51, 65
138210.031, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
1395,8249.1063, 65
1401,683,200263063, 65
14117.40.0263, 65
1421520.2311, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
1433.670.00511, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
1443.080.00411, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
1451130.1711, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
1465.870.00911, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
14717.90.0211, 12, 31, 32, 51, 52, 63, 65
14812.60.0111, 12, 31, 32, 51, 52, 63, 65
14927,96843.711, 12, 31, 32, 51, 52, 63, 65
1501,2611.9711, 12, 31, 32, 51, 52, 63, 65
151690.111, 12, 31, 32, 51, 52, 63, 65
15297.20.1511, 12, 31, 32, 51, 52, 63, 65
15359.50.0911, 12, 31, 32, 51, 52, 63, 65
1541,7922.8012, 32, 52, 63
155490.0712, 32, 52, 63
1561420.2212, 32, 52, 63
1575590.8712, 32, 35, 52, 63
1582510.3912, 32, 35, 52, 63
15925.50.0331, 32
1608.220.0131, 32
161470.0731, 32
16244.20.0611, 12, 31, 32
1631,683,200263011, 12, 31, 32
Page 2 of 4

Table 1. R-2553: Drainage Area Summary for All Hydraulic Crossings (cont.)
Drainage Area (DA)
acressq. mi.
Crossing IDDetailed Study Alternative(s)
1646.170.00911, 12, 31, 32
16514.80.0263, 65
1661.320.00211, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
16731,16848.711, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
1701.020.00151, 52
17153.90.0851, 52
1723,1624.9451, 52
1731.170.00151, 52
1746.310.00951, 52
1751,676,800262051, 52
1761,2031.8851, 52
1776721.0551, 52
1782.20.00351, 52
1791540.2411, 31, 51, 65
1801,5042.3511, 31, 51, 65
1810.440.000635
1946.460.0163, 65
1957.780.0111, 31, 36, 51, 65
1963.370.00511, 31, 36, 51, 65
1976.90.0111, 31, 36, 51, 65
1983.370.00551, 52
1993020.4735, 36, 51, 52
2001280.2063, 65
2011,7862.7935, 36, 51, 52
2022,2783.5651, 52
3011600.251 (SB)
3021600.251 (SB)
3031,0751.681 (SB)
3041,0881.701 (SB)
3051,728,00027001 (SB)
306270.041 (SB)
3071,3182.061 (SB)
3089471.481 (SB)
30960.011 (SB)
310530.081 (SB)
3119221.441 (SB)
3129021.411 (SB)
3137811.221 (SB)
31420.001 (SB)
315250.041 (SB)
3161410.221 (SB)
317250.041 (SB)
Page 3 of 4

Table 1. R-2553: Drainage Area Summary for All Hydraulic Crossings (cont.)
Drainage Area (DA)
acressq. mi.
Crossing IDDetailed Study Alternative(s)
318160.031 (SB)
319530.081, 1 (SB)
320170.031, 1 (SB)
32190.011 (SB)
32250.011, 1 (SB)
323140.021
324140.021
3251410.221
3261,7542.741
3271730.271
3285250.821
3391,0881.7011, 31, 36, 51, 65
34134121.011, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
34234215051, 52
343770.1251, 52
3441790.2811, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65
3451460.2335, 36
3461500.2335, 36
3471570.2535, 36
348660.1035, 36
3492680.4235, 36
350290.0535, 36
3513310.5235, 36
3521200.1935, 36
4011410.221
4021610.251, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 35, 36, 51, 52, 63, 65
403290.051, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 35, 36, 51, 52, 63, 65
4041920.301, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 35, 36, 51, 52, 63, 65
40510.001, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 35, 36, 51, 52, 63, 65
4066401.001, 1 (SB), 11, 12
4076721.051, 1 (SB), 11, 12
4087171.121, 1 (SB), 11, 12
4092620.411, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 35, 36, 51, 52
41000.001, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 35, 36, 51, 52
411700.111, 1 (SB), 12, 32, 35, 52, 63
4133900.611, 1 (SB), 12, 32, 35, 52, 63
41400.001, 1 (SB), 12, 32, 35, 52, 63
4151,5172.371, 1 (SB), 12, 32, 35, 52, 63
4161,4852.321, 1 (SB), 11, 12, 31, 32, 35, 36, 51, 52, 63, 65
Page 4 of 4

Table 2. R-2553: Hydraulic Crossings by Type
Minor Crossings Single Barrel Double Barrel Triple Barrel Total Major
(<=72" Pipe)Box CulvertBox CulvertBox CulvertBridgeCrossingsTotal Crossings
Detailed Study AlternativeDescription
Upgrade Existing US 70
Alternative
13565241752
Upgrade Existing US 70 with
Shallow Southern Bypass
Alternative
1 (SB)37105232057
11Southern Bypass Alternative4364141558
12Southern Bypass Alternative4465241761
31Southern Bypass Alternative413303950
32Southern Bypass Alternative4234131153
35Southern Bypass Alternative3936121251
36Southern Bypass Alternative3835021048
51Southern Bypass Alternative3156021344
52Southern Bypass Alternative3257121547
63Southern Bypass Alternative3934141251
65Southern Bypass Alternative3833041048
Note: Drainage areas which correspond to structures <=72 inches are considered minor crossings. Only drainage areas requiring structures greater than 72 inches will be identified and
evaluated
within the State Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Crossings reported are based on functional design alignments for the mainlines, Y lines, ramps, loops, and service roads. More
detailed
information regarding stream impacts will be included in the detailed impacts table which will be provided prior to or at the initial office meeting with the Merger Team.

Table3.R2553:PreliminaryHydraulicStructuresSingleandDoubleBarrelBoxCulverts
HydraulicMinimum
DetailedStudyAlternativeCrossingIDSystemName
1
(TypeandSize)
1,1(SB),11,12,31,32,35,36,51,52,
26'x6'UTtoWhitelaceCreek
63,65
2
5'x6'UTtoFallingCreek
1
104
2
12'x8'UTtoNeuseRiver
1
105
35,361186'x6'UTtoNeuseRiver
11,12,31,32,51,52,63,651508'x6'MottSwamp
12,32,35,52,631578'x6'UTtoMillBranch
51,521768'x6'Whitley'sCreek
51,521776'x6'UTtoWhitley'sCreek
x6'UTtoFallingCreek
1(SB)3038'
1(SB)3048'x6'UTtoFallingCreek
1(SB)3088'x6'UTtoNeuseRiver
1(SB)3117'x6'UTtoNeuseRiver
1(SB)3127'x6'UTtoNeuseRiver
1(SB)3137'x6'UTtoNeuseRiver
GumSwamp
11,31,36,51,653398'x6'
1,1(SB),11,124066'x6'UTtoWhitelaceCreek
1,1(SB),11,124076'x6'UTtoWhitelaceCreek
1,1(SB),11,124086'x6'UTtoWhitelaceCreek
2
9'x6'UTtoFallingCreek
1,1(SB),11,12
6
2
6'x6'MillBranch
1,1(SB),12,32,35,52,63
112
35,361166'x6'WhitelaceCreek
35,361326'x6'StrawberryBranch
11,31,36,51,651365'x6'TraceySwamp
12,32,52,631546'x6'StrawberryBranch
51,521728'x6'WhitelaceCreek
11,31,51,651806'x6'StrawberryBranch
UTtoWhitelaceCreek
35,36,51,522015'x6'
51,522026'x6'Whitley'sCreek
1(SB)3075'x6'UTtoNeuseRiver
13266'x7'RivermontTributary
1,1(SB),12,32,35,52,634155'x6'GumSwamp
1,1(SB),11,12,31,32,35,36,51,
4165'x6'GumSwamp
52,63,65
Notes:
1.Alldimensionsinfeet.Culvertsizeshownaswidthxheight.
.enotescrossngwtexstngmaoryraucstructure.xstngcuvertstructureszemeetsorexceesyrauc
2DiihiijhdliEiilidhdli
mnmumszeetermneusngcontrutngranagearea.xstngstructuresassumetoeretaneanextene
iiididiibidiEiidbidddd
asneee.nmumyraucengtrecommenatontoerevsteoowngseecton.
ddMiihdlilhdibiidflliLEDPAli

Table 4. R-2553: Preliminary Hydraulic Structures - Triple Barrel Box Culverts and Bridges
Existence of Stressors
Detailed Study Habitat Wetland Hydraulic Minimum
Crossing IDSystem NameExisting Route
Aquatic Function
AlternativeConnectivityWidth (Feet)(Feet)
Wetland Functions
(Streams)
1
12UT to Falling CreekUS-701, 1 (SB), 11, 12No Wetland-Not AssessedYesLow-
Triple Box 12x10
1, 1 (SB), 12, 32, 35,
1
48Tracey SwampUS-70YesYesLow700
Triple Box 7x7
52, 63
121 (N. Service Rd.)
2
121 (WBL)
4Falling CreekUS-701, 1 (SB), 11, 12NoYesNeutral575
2
121 (EBL)
121 (S. Service Rd.)
2
405 (WBL)
106ANeuse River
2
405 (EBL)
US-701NoYesNeutral3000
2
315 (WBL)
106BUT to Neuse
2
316 (EBL)
2
158 (WBL)
2
110Southwest CreekUS-701, 1 (SB)NoYesLow200
167 (EBL)
167 (S. Service Rd.)
119Neuse RiverN/A35, 36NoNoHigh45003800
121Southwest CreekN/A35, 36NoNoHigh1300945
139Whitelace CreekN/A63, 65No Wetland-Not AssessedYesLow-85
5480 (N. Ramp)
5590 (WBL)
140Neuse RiverN/A63, 65NoNoHigh3800
5760 (EBL)
2140 (S. Ramp)
11, 12, 31, 32, 51, 52,
NoNoHigh9201025
149Southwest CreekN/A
63, 65
163Neuse RiverN/A11, 12, 31, 32NoNoHigh23003691
167Falling CreekN/A11, 12, 31, 32, 63, 65NoYesLow1900390
175Neuse RiverN/A51, 52NoNoHigh31003480
305Neuse RiverN/A1 (SB)NoNoHigh82007115
Notes:
1. Existing triple barrel box culvert in place. Existing structures are assumed to be maintained and lengthened as needed.
2. Existing dual bridge structures at crossing locations 4, 106, and 110 are assumed to be maintained (and widened as needed) for purposes of preliminary hydraulic analysis recommendations.

Structure condition and replacement evaluations, along with associated changes to minimum hydraulic length recommendation, will be revisited following final LEDPA selection.
3. New location crossings consist of dual bridge structures, unless otherwise noted. Minimum hydraulic length recommendations for new crossings were set based on floodway limits when

applicable, or otherwise set based on a minimum 10' offset from top of bank.

APPENDIX