20050785 All Versions_Meeting Minutes_20061024

ti
i. jt`J
US 17 IMPROVEMENTS OCT T
Washington and Chocowinity Vicinity AD _...g-??G.
Beaufort County and Pitt County, North Carolina
From South of SR 1127 (Possum Track Road) to North of SR 1418 (Roberson Road)
Federal Aid Project No. MAF-75-3 (26)
State Project No. 83150601
T.I.P. Project No. R-2510
Concurrence Point No. 3 and 4A Meeting Minutes
January 22, 2003
A Section 404iNEPA Merger Project Team Meeting for the referenced project was held on January 22. 2003
at 3:00 PM. The purpose of the meeting was to gain approval for Concurrence Point No. 3 - Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative tLEDPAj and Concurrence Point No. 4A - Avoidance
and Mimmization. The attendees included:
Mr. Mike Bell: US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Ron Lucas, Federal Highway Administration
MF Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency
Mr Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service
Ms. Cathy Bri`.tingham: NCDENR - Division of Coastal Management
tvlr Travis Wilson. NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr Jchn Hennessy: NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
rvls Beth Barnes. NCDENR - Division of Water Quality
NIs Sarah McBride; NCDCR - SHPO
Ms Renee Gledhill-Earley; NCDCR - SHPO
Ms Gal Grimes. NCDOT - PDEA
Mr Jorn Wadsworth; NCDOT - PDEA
Mr Near Lassiter; NCDOT - Division 2
Mr Ed Eatmon: NCDOT - Division 2
Mr N croge Wainaina; NCDOT - Geotechnical
Mr John Piiipchuk; NCDOT - Geotechnical
Mr. Mike Litt!e: NC DOT - Roadway
Mr. Roger Thomas: NCDOT - Roadway
Mr. DeWayne Sykes; NCDOT - Roadway
Mr. Marshall Clawson; NCDOT - Hydraulics
Ms. Lynn Smith; NCDOT - PDEA -O.N.E.
Mr. Tommy Peacock; RKBK
Mr. Brian Eason; RKBK
Ms. Kim Leioht: RKBK
Ms. Stacy B. Harris. NCDOT - PDEA
Mr. Lubin Prevatt, RKBK
Ms Elizabeth Workman, RKBK
Mr. Ron Sechler; National Marine Fisheries -tnvited but did not attend
Mr Sean McKenna. NCDENR. Division of Marine Fisheries

The meeting began with an introduction by the NCDOT Project Manager, Ms. Stacy Harris. Ms. Harris stated
the purpose of the meeting was review comments received at the November 20, 2002 Project Team
Meeting; select the LEDPA, Concurrence Point No. 3; and agree upon and sign Avoidance and Minimization
Measures, Concurrence Point No. 4A.
A brief history of the project was given and the three Build Alternatives (B. C & t-G) were reviewed. After a
review and some statements about Alternative B. a decision was made to choose Alternative B as the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative {LEDPA}, therefore satisfying Concurrence Point No. 3.
The concurrence form was signed during the meeting
The list of avoidance and minimization efforts for Alternative B included in the handout was read.
Concurrence for Point No. 4A was not reached at this meeting. Two jurisdictional areas located east of
existing US 17 and south of existing NC 33.. designated as tributaries to Maple Branch, will be reviewed in
further detail. Mr. Bell will review these areas to determine quality! potential for fishery spawning and to
determine if any on-site mitigation opportunities exist. He will report his findings back to the Project Team
and additional field meetings may be scheduled
Some discussions about the avoidance and minimization items were made and are listed below.
• WRC stated that an anadromous `ash moratorium from February 15 to June 15 would apply to the
Tar River and Maple Branch Creek and its tributaries If this area is a fish nursery, the moratorium
could extend to June 30`7
• COE stated that the culvert at the Maple Branch tributary may prohibit the passage of white perch.
Can the culvert be shortened to allow mere light into the culvert? As designed the culvert will be
approximately 600 feet long
• USFWS stated that the West Indian Manatee has been spotted near the project study area and
restriction on construction methods may be required USFWS requested that the "Precautionary
Guidelines for General Construction in Areas Which May Be Usec by the West Indian Manatee in
North Carolina" be utilized during construction and included as part of Concurrence Point 4A.
• DCM had several questions and statements.
o Several natural areas adjacent to the Tar River are considered "Exceptional Functional
Significance" by DCM.
c. What techniques are proposed for construction of the bridge over the Tar River?
Will utility relocations result in additional wetland and stream impacts?
c In jurisdictional streams and wetlands of the 20 coastal counties, pipes should be buried one
foot below water level.
o Scenic easements could be used as an avoidance and minimization effort.
Will this project be mcludect in new EEP process',
2
Stormwater collection will be discussed in Concurrence Point No. 4B.
• DCM stated official comments on the DEIS will be submitted within the next week or two.
• NCDOT stated that the side slopes are actually 3:1 rather than what is stated in the handout (2.1).
• NCDOT stated that the existing US 17 bridge over the Tar River would be maintained to allow
access to nearby businesses. Rehabilitation or replacement of the existing bridge may be considered
as part of another project and is not part of T.I.P. Project R-2510.
3