20050785 All Versions_Application_20061215

? COhSTA(
a
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Cyndi Karoly
Env. Biological Supervisor
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Unit
FROM: Doug Huggett Respond to Doug Huggett
Major Permits Processing Coordinator Morehead City Office
Coastal Management Division
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City NC 28557
DATE: 12 December 2006 -D ; ,f7
.? ?.
SUBJECT: CAMA Application Review
5 20 0 6
APPLICANT: NC Department of Transportation R-25101
,,li??Vlq ?NI?6_.I ,alt a?1.??Iu3S?
?NAY 11kNt?? PN41 S ft1?'P?\+Val ?l? E#t?/\P'45:!'!
PROJECT LOCATION: US 17 between SRI 149 and SRI 509 crossing the Tar River near the City
of Washington in Beaufort County, NC.
PROPOSED PROJECT: Applicant proposes to bridge the Tar River as part of the US 17 bypass
around the City of Washington.
Please indicate below your position or viewpoint on the proposed project and return this form by 2
January 1007. Please contact Mike Thomas at 252-948-3950, if you have any questions regarding the
proposed project. When appropriate, in depth comments with supporting data are requested.
REPLY This office has no objection to the project as proposed.
This office has no comment on the proposed project.
This office approves of the proposed project only if the recommended changes
are incorporated. See attached.
This office objects to the proposed project for reasons described in the attached
comments.
Signed
Date
one
NorthCarolina
117ahlrallY
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.neY
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
FIELD INVESTIGATION REPORT
1. APPLICANT'S NAME: North Carolina Department of Transportation R-2510B
2. LOCATION OF PROJECT SITE: US 17 between SR1149 and SR1509 crossing the Tar River, near
the City of Washington, in Beaufort County, NC.
Photo Index 2006: 100-8160 J-4 2000: 100-1143 L-3
State Plane Coordinates - X: 2,568,800 Y: 660,400 GPS Rover File # n/a
USGS Washington (middle right)
3. INVESTIGATION TYPE: CAMA
4. INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURE: Dates of Site Visit - 10 October 2006
Was Applicant Present - No
5. PROCESSING PROCEDURE: Application Received - 8 November 2006
Office - Washington
6. SITE DESCRIPTION:
(A) Local Land Use Plan - Municipal District
(B) AEC(s) Involved: PTA
(C) Water Dependent: Yes
(D) Intended Use: Public
(E) Wastewater Treatment: Existing - N/A
Planned - N/A
(F) Type of Structures: Existing -N/A
Planned - ±2.89 mile long bridge.
(G) Estimated Annual Rate of Erosion: N/A
Source - N/A
HABITAT DESCRIPTION: [AREA]
7.
(A) Vegetated Wetlands
(B) Non-Vegetated Wetlands
River bottom
(C) Other
±3.05 acres
shaded
(D) Total Area Disturbed: 3.05 acres
(E) Primary Nursery Area: Yes - Inland Primary Nursery Area
(F) Water Classification: C, NSW, Open: No
8. PROJECT SUMMARY: Applicant proposes to bridge the Tar River as part of the US 17 Bypass around
the City of Washington.
NCDOT R2510B
Washington Bypass Project
Beaufort County
Project Setting
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to improve existing
U.S. Highway 17 to a high speed, multi-lane highway that bypasses the City of
Washington. The proposed project identified by NCDOT as R251013, will include the
relocation and widening of approximately 6.8 miles of US 17 starting from south of
SR 1149 (Price Rd.) to north of SRI 509 (Springs Rd.) This 6.8-mile section also includes
a 2.89 mile bridge spanning the Tar River and the frequently inundated, wooded wetlands
adjacent to the Tar River. NCDOT received a Clean Water Act Section 404 Individual
permit (USACE Action ID #199301143) and a NC DWQ 401 Certification (DWQ
Project # 050785) for the first designated phase of the project identified as R-2510A.
Though R-2510A does not impact any Areas of Environmental Concern regulated by the
NC Division of Coastal Management, its location in Beaufort County required a
Consistency review by the Division of Coastal Management. On 31 October 2005, the
NC Division of Coastal Management issued a Consistency Certification for R-2510A.
The south side of the project site is bordered upstream and downstream by
standing water, mixed hardwood swamp. National Spinning, an industrial complex,
borders the north end of the project on the downstream side. A City of Washington power
line consisting of five permanent pile supported foundations exists along the project site.
This power line will be relocated as part of this project. Vegetation along the project site
consists of Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum), Black Gum (Nyssa silvatica), Sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and Tupelo (Nyssa
aquatica). The Tar River along the project site is designated Class C NSW by the North
Carolina Environmental Management Commission and is also an Inland Primary Nursery
Area. The tannic waters of the Tar River along the project site are not open to
shellfishing and are absent any commercial shellfish resource.
Project Description
R-2510B consists of a ±2.89 mile long bridge. The bridge deck will be f72'-7"
wide, f8.5" thick and designed for six lanes of traffic. The present plan calls for the
bridge to be striped for four lanes of traffic. 1,229 square pre-stressed concrete piles will
be driven in the adjoining wetland and the Tar River. The specified pilings are 30"
diameter and vary in length depending on substrate. The piles will be configured in
substructure bents of 9 to 12 piles with an intermediate strut added when the elevation of
the bent exceeds 34'. The entire construction of the Tar River bridge will be
accomplished using the Gantry Truss system (see attached illustration). The Gantry
Truss system allows for "top down construction" of the bridge, which will significantly
reduce impacts due to construction. In addition, Shuggart Flexi-floatsTM will be utilized as
an on water work area. Flexi-floats are ±10' X ±40' X ±5'deep and will be moved using a
push boat. The on water work area will be utilized to support the template for driving the
30' concrete piles and for setting the water level struts.
NCDOT R2510B
Washington Bypass Project
Beaufort County
Anticipated Impacts
As proposed, construction of the bridge will result in the shading of ±3.05 acres of
Public Trust Waters. The shading will result from bridge spans that vary in height from
±15' to ±45'. The driving of 1,229 concrete pilings and maneuvering of floating
construction platforms by push boat will result in localized turbidity. Other anticipated
impacts include: fill in ±533 acres of 404 wetlands, ±2,368 linear feet of stream, and
±0.38 acres of surface waters.
_-n
zr
2? ;a
19
0
r,
0
z
z
m
a
qA
C.
40
m

`J

to
F
01m

y

A

1-_- w.
. ?
/ ? Deve(opnrerdType n ; . -j+.
' ' GOM31625 SM)
.tt4800IBM C143D61 ?51D0D35 23611
LWwale.noiraatru
deveippmerdWdoesndkwoive.r. y. = 100i'° (d??SD} 0% (SO`
the aft or e=evaft of any ,
yprnpes?waferarea? _ '
?
ffmp a
ttia. does not irnolve>fre 5 •' •S400 104°.8 [5-4 DO) 0% (SD).
y
axravafiarOra1YRO?W1? .?
• - ..

M FordeveWMwdttratfmotvestht: - -
t,?mp arrdfor arava5Dn of up to
1.wMi
a`ereofwetFandsiuidforopenwaiei
areas; detamvne itA H. C, orD. ""?a .
below epppe=
If1(A} FocPsivafe; non•eamrranaai
development. tf Genera[ water Cua@Y y.,, qp 100°.: (Sa"0) t`%= fe V
Cera=&m NDmol (see attached)
can be applied:
IIjpi ForpubGrorcommeii ial ..
developmwLiFGeneral waterCuaA[y .:- 5400 100% (5:00) n; (5o)
6erEfiea6on No3301(see attached}

Ul(C) If General Water Ch a w
Ceracafion No. 3w (sea attached)
cmtd b& appal. but DW staff
detwaChed that addi5 wl review and
5400
60% MID)
wftsn DWQ =names= is needed
r be=use of =r=-.r z ra:ated to vrr ter
oaalmy or aauxta ttfe
tllp If Genera wate. Cuafdy -
'
Ce-tiF anon No. 2301 (see attached) 340C 6 5: 40) '`•?3;
?_ ,
not be appfie=•
W. Fordeveippmentfha:i molves
the filling and/or e=vafwn of more S475
60°:. ( "`
4x? != =0)
emn one a--a of wet' and/or
:Den water aream

dASW7Eo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
November 13, 2006
N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Washington District Office
943 Washington Square
Washington, North Carolina 27889
ATTN: Mr. Mike Thomas
Field Officer
Dear Sir:
ra-0 14
C 5-SI
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Application for CAMA Major Development Permit Application for the
proposed Washington Bypass. US 17 from South of SR 1149 (Price
Road.) to US 17 North of SR 1509 (Springs Road.). TIP Number: R-
2510B, Federal Aid Project MAF-75-3(26). Debit $475 for CAMA Major
Development Permit Application from WBS Element No. 34440. 1.1
Reference: NCDCM Consistency Certification, dated October 31, 2005
USACE Action ID 199301143
DWQ Project No. 050785, WQC No. 3527
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to improve
existing U.S. Highway 17 (US 17) to a high speed, multi-lane highway that bypasses the
City of Washington. R-2510B will include the relocation or widening of approximately.
6.8 miles of US 17 within Beaufort County, starting from south of Price Road (SR 1149)
south of Chocowinity and ending north of Springs Road (SR 1509) north of Washington.
The proposed roadway will be a four-lane, divided highway, with grass shoulders and
ditches, and a 46-foot wide grassed median. The median will be reduced to a 10-foot
median divided by a barrier on the 2.89 mile four-lane freeway bridge that will span the
Tar River and the frequently inundated forested wetlands adjacent to the Tar River.
The purpose of this document is to submit the final design for approval and to request a
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Development Permit. Included in this
application package are the following: (1) Major Development Permit Application forms,
(2) property owner certified mail delivery receipts, (3) Merger 01, 4A, 413, and 4C
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
meeting minutes, (4) NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) acceptance letter, (5)
permit drawings, and (6) a set of half-size roadway plans.
NCDOT submitted a phased 404/401 application on May 3, 2005 based on final design of
Section A and preliminary design of Sections B and C. The project received a Clean
Water Act Section 404 Individual Permit (USACE Action ID # 199301143) from the
USACE Wilmington District on November 28, 2005. The original Individual Permit
application was dated May 3, 2005 and a Revised Individual Section 404 Permit
Application was submitted on August 5, 2005. This permit authorized construction for
R-2510A. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification (DWQ Project No. 050785, WQC
No. 3527) from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) was issued on September 6, 2005. Geotechnical
borings were permitted under a Nationwide Permit 6 on May 25, 2005 (USACE Action
ID 200510771). Finally, a Consistency Certification was issued by the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Coastal Management on
October 31, 2005.
The initial phased permit application was based on preliminary design for R-2510B and
R-251 0C. This application presents impacts to wetlands and streams based on final
design for R-2510B only. Permit modifications for the 404 Individual Permit and 401
Water Quality Certification are being submitted concurrently with this application.
No staging of materials or construction will occur until all permits have been approved by
the respective regulatory agencies.
Summary of Impacts
Table 1 lists the proposed impacts associated with the construction of R-251013. These
impacts are detailed by site in the Resource Impacts section of this document.
T..1A 1 Dr---..A ;m"aofc fn Waforc of the IT_C_
Permanent -Temporary Streams Surface Temporary
Wetlands Wetlands (linear ft.) Waters SW Impacts
acres) (acres) acres acres
7.92 0.0 2,368 0.38 <0.01
The Tar River and associated bottomland wetland system will be entirely bridged with a
2.6 mile bridge. Temporary impacts necessary for on-site roadway detours and haul roads
are included in the impact calculations and discussed below. Utility relocations also have
been assessed and are included with this permit application.
Summary of Mitigation
On-site mitigation options have been fully evaluated, as described later in this document.
Avoidance and minimization measures have been maximized to the greatest practical
2
extent throughout the planning and design effort. The remaining unavoidable impacts
will be mitigated through on-site mitigation and the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP). It is anticipated that the following impacts will require mitigation:
• 6.04 acres of Riverine wetlands
• 1.88 acres of Non-riverine wetlands
• 2,368 linear ft. of Important Stream Channels
CAMA JURISDICTION
The project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin within the Hydrologic Unit
03020104. The best usage classification for the Tar River is C Sw NSW. The river is not
listed in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System maintained by the National Park
Service. No High Quality Waters, Water Supply Waters, or Outstanding Resource
Waters are located within 1 mile of the project. None of the streams crossed are NCDWQ
303d-impaired listed streams.
R-2510B is located in Beaufort County, one of the twenty coastal counties under the
jurisdiction of the CAMA. However, the only Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
within the project area is the Tar River, a navigable "public trust" waterway under
CAMA guidelines. This public trust water, and associated buffer, will be bridged entirely
by the bridge over the Tar River. A full description of the bridge and associated impacts
is included under Site 6 on page 6 and included in the impact tables below.
The impacts to the public trust waters and associated buffers have been minimized to the
greatest practical extent, as described on pages 9 through 12. The proposed top-down
bridge construction method was determined to involve the least impact to the wetlands
and river, since no workbridge or other temporary access will be required during bridge
construction.
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS
Improvements to US 17 were first recommended in the US 17 Corridor Study in 1982. The
project was first added to the Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) in November
1989 and the environmental study began in 1992. A Purpose and Need Statement
documenting the need for the project and potential benefits was completed in January 1999.
A Preliminary Build Alternatives Analysis was completed in February 1999 which evaluated
10 preliminary build alternatives. An eleventh Preliminary Build Alternative was evaluated
in November 1999. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), which assessed three
Build Alternatives (Alternatives B, C and I-G), was completed and signed in June 2002. The
project went on public notice on October 3, 2002 (USACE Action ID 199301 143). The
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was completed and signed in August 2005.
Copies of the project documents have been provided to regulatory review agencies involved
in the approval process. Additional copies will be provided upon request.
3
The project was developed through the NEPA/404 Merger 01 process. All concurrence
points have been reached for the B section.
No additional impact areas or significant changes to the right-of-way or roadway
alignment have occurred since completion of the Record of Decision (ROD). Therefore,
no additional NEPA documentation is required for the project. All borrow and staging
areas have been evaluated by qualified consultants for jurisdictional waters under the
Clean Water Act, federally protected species, and archaeological resources. There will be
no impacts to any of these resources from borrow/staging activities or haul roads related
to this project.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The following section describes the issues related to the proposed permanent impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams associated with R-251013. The permit drawings
showing the project impacts are attached. Site specific avoidance and minimization
techniques are detailed below in the Mitigation section. Table 2 presents a summary of
these impacts while a detailed breakdown of the proposed impacts is attached with the
permit drawings.
T.?hin 7 C....,marv of Tmnact bites

Site
Station Number

(from/to) Fill in

Wetland
(ac) Excavation
in

Wetlands
(ac) Mechanized
Clearing -

Method III
(ac) Surface
Water

Impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel

Impacted
(ft)
1 -L- 228+08 0.11 - 0.02 0.02 170
2 lm acts at Site 2 have been avoided.
3 -L- 251+10 . 1.00 - 0.45 0.06 363
4 -L- 269+74 2.04 - 0.14 0.07 484
5 -L-3115+20 0.15 - 0.02 - -
6 -L- 324+02/476+76 0.24 0.05 1.83 - -
7 -L-497+90 1.56 - 0.18 1,147
8 -L- 507+50 RT No wetland or stream impacts at this site.
9 -L-515+10 0.10 - 0.06 0.05 204
10 -L- 525+00 LT 0.13 - 0.02 - -
11 -Y22- 28+00/32+00 No wetland or stream impacts at this site.
Total 5.33 0.05 2.54 0.38 2,368
Tables 3 and 4 present detailed descriptions of the status and quality of each of the
impacted stream sites.
4
Table 3. Jurisdictional Stream Information

Site Station
Number
Structure
Stream Name
D
DWQ
Cl
Status
Impact
(ft) Required
Mitigation
ex No
Index
No. ass (ft)
from/to
1 -L- 228+08 60" RCP UT to Maple 29-6-2-1-7 C SW Perennial 170 340 (2:1)
Branch NSW
2 Site 2 has been avoided.
3 -L- 251+10 9' x 7' UT to Maple 29-6-2-1-7 C Sw Perennial 363 726 (2:1)
RCBC Branch NSW
4 -L- 269+74 2 @ 8'x Maple Branch 29-6-2-1-7 C Sw Perennial 484 968 (2:1)
8' RCBC NSW
7 -L- 497+90 48" RCP UT to Cherry 28-103-17 C Sw Intermittent 1,147 1,147 (1:1)
Run NSW
9 -L- 515+10 3 @ 10'x UT to Cherry 28-103-17 C Sw Perennial 204 408 (2:1)
10' RCBC Run NSW
11 -Y22- N/A No stream impacts at this site.
28+00/32+00
Total 2,368 3,589
m?hl . A i.. ?.?;..4.....01 WI flanrl infnrmatinn
Site Riverine/
Non-riverine Cowardin
Classification Impact
Types Wetland
Quality Impact
Acreage
1 Riverine PEM/PFO F/M Medium 0.13
2 Site 2 has been avoided.
3 Riverine PFO F/M Low/Medium 1.45
4 Riverine PFO F/M Medium 2.18
5 Non-riverine PFO F/M Medium 0.18
6 Riverine PFO F/E/M High 2.12
7 Non-riverine PFO F/M Medium 1.56
8 No wetland or stream impacts at this site - determined to be stormwater basin
9 Riverine PSS F/M Medium 0.16
10 Non-riverine PSS F/M Low 0.15
11 No wetland or stream impacts at this site
Total 7.93
Classification Types: Palustrine Emergent (PEM), Palustrine Scrub-Shrub (PSS), Palustrine Forested (PFO)
Impact Types: Fill (F), Excavation (E), and Mechanized Clearing (M)
Delineations
Wetland delineations were conducted using the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetlands and streams were delineated between
December 1999 and February 2000. Mr. Mike Bell of the USACE Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office verified the delineations in the field on February 28, 2000 and
reverified them in March/April 2004.
5
Stream classification, and buffer sites were field verified by Mr. Mike Thomas
(NCDWQ) in March and April 2004.
Wetland and Stream Impacts
Site-by-site descriptions of proposed impacts are included below.
Site I (Sta 228+08) has impacts to 170 linear ft. of perennial stream, and 0.13 acre of
associated forested wetlands. The perennial stream is an unnamed tributary to Maple
Branch. It is about 6 ft. wide. The forested wetlands associated with the stream can be
characterized as Coastal Plain bottomland hardwood wetlands. These wetlands are of
medium quality and are dominated by red maple (Acer rubrum), water oak (Quercus
nigra), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). These impacts are due to the culvert
extension on the downstream side of the road and fill slopes required for the roadway
widening.
Site 2 impacts identified at the conceptual design stage were avoided during final design.
Site 3 (Sta 251+10) impacts 1.45 acres of emergent and forested wetlands, 0.01 acre of
surface water, and 363 linear ft. of perennial stream. The perennial stream is an unnamed
tributary to Maple Branch: It is about 3 ft. wide and has poorly defined banks. This site
is a former pond that has been breached and is now reverting back to wetlands. Dominant
vegetation includes soft rush (Juncus effitsus) and sedges (Carex spp.). Below the
breached dam is a Coastal Plain bottomland hardwood wetland, which is part of a much
larger system. Within this area dominant vegetation includes red maple, bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), and green ash. The emergent
wetlands above the dam are low quality while the forested areas below the dam are
medium quality. Impacts to the stream and wetland are from the placement of a 9' X 7'
culvert and associated roadway fill. Mechanized clearing is also necessary for
construction of a temporary bypass channel during construction of the culvert.
Site 4 (Sta 269+74) is located at a large interchange with NC 33 and includes 2.18 acres
of wetland and 484 linear ft. of perennial stream (Maple Branch) impacts. The wetland is
a medium quality bottomland hardwood wetland containing red maple, bald cypress,
green ash, and blackgum. This impact includes a total take of the wetland area within the
interchange even though not all the area is to be filled. Maple Branch is about 6 ft. wide
and maintains a moderate flow for most of the year. Impacts to the stream are from the
placement of two 8' X 8' culverts and associated roadway fill. The stream loss does not
include the segment interval within the interchange since the existing riverine buffers will
remain in place to help preserve the existing function of the stream channel.
Site 5 (Sta 315+20) is a small medium quality wetland associated with a small drainage
feature. No stream is present. Impacts will occur to 0.18 acre of bottomland hardwood
wetland dominated by red maple, sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), yellow poplar

(Liriodendron tulipifera), and water oak. Impacts to the wetland are from the placement
of a 24" culvert and associated roadway fill.
Site 6 (Sta 324+02.87 to 476+76.84) consists of a 2.6 mile bridge over the Tar River and
adjoining high quality wetlands. There are 1,229 driven bridge piles (30 square
prestressed concrete piles), 1,013 of which are located within the adjoining wetlands.
The bridge deck is 72'-7" wide, 8 1/2" thick and is designed for six lanes of traffic
(striping configuration will be for four lanes - two in each direction). Seven modified 72"
Florida Bulb Tee beams are used in the superstructure with typical span lengths of 120'.
The 30" square prestressed concrete piles are configured in substructure bents of 9 to 12
piles with an intermediate strut provided when the elevation of the top of the bent cap
exceeds 34. The bottom of the strut is at least 1' above the mean high water elevation.
The entirety of the Tar River Bridge will be built top-down using proprietary overhead
erection equipment, thus eliminating the need for a separate marine-based operation.
Placement of the bents and mechanized clearing around the bents will impact 2.12 acres
of wetlands. Hand clearing will be performed in 33.11 acres of the forested wetlands
under the bridge and on 30' to either side to allow for bridge maintenance.
Site 7 (Sta 497+90) consists of impacts to 1.56 acres of wetlands and 1,147 linear ft. of
an intermittent to perennial stream from the construction of the interchange with US 264.
The wetlands are not directly associated with the stream system but are upland
depressions with medium quality wetlands containing bald cypress, red maple, and green
ash. The stream is about 3 ft. wide and has been extensively channelized and modified.
It originates within the western portion of the roadway fill. Stream and wetland impacts
are due to fill from the roadway, which is on new location.
Site 8 (Sta 507+50) was determined to be a stormwater control basin and not a regulated
jurisdictional feature.
Site 9 (Sta 515+10) has impacts to 204 linear ft. of perennial stream, 0.16 acre of
associated forested wetlands. The perennial stream is an unnamed tributary to Cherry
Run. It is about 5 ft. wide. The forested wetlands associated with the stream can be
characterized as bottomland hardwood wetlands. These wetlands are of medium quality
and are dominated by red maple, water oak, and green ash. These impacts are due to the
construction of a 3 @ 10' X IO'culvert and fill slopes required for the roadway widening.
Mechanized clearing is also necessary for construction of a temporary bypass channel
during construction of the culvert.
Site 10 (Sta 525+00) consists of impacts to 0.15 acre of low quality non-riverine forested
wetlands. The wetlands are dominated by red maple and sweetgum. Impacts are due to
roadway fill
Site 11 (Sta Y22- 28+00 to 32+00) does not impact any stream channel or wetlands.
Longitudinal impacts to Tar-Pamlico riparian buffers occur.
7
PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with 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. The
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists seven federally protected species
for Beaufort County as of the April 27, 2006 listing (Table 5).
In a letter dated, December 7, 2001, the USFWS concurs that the project will have "No
Effect" for the red-cockaded woodpecker, bald eagle, and rough-leaved loosestrife and
that the project "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" sensitive joint-vetch. The
USFWS Concurrence letter is included as an attachment.
NCDOT resurveyed areas of potential habitat in the entire construction corridor for
sensitive joint vetch during the 2005 flowering season as requested by the USFWS.
Following the resurvey, a determination of "No Effect" was made for the sensitive joint
vetch.
Ts.M G Ti` o.4 if Prn+"d4P"A CnPeiPc
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Red-cockaded
woodpecker Picoides borealis E No No Effect
Kemp's ridley sea turtle Le idochelys kem ii E No No Effect
Manatee Trichechus manatus E Yes No Effect
Rough-leaved
loosestrife Lysimachia
asperulae olia E Yes No Effect
Bald eagle Raliaeetus
leucoce halus T Yes No Effect
Sensitive joint vetch Aesch nomene vir inica T Yes No Effect
Red wolf Canis ru us EXP No No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered
"T" denotes Threatened
"EXP" denotes Experimental
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The potential of the US 17 Improvements to impact cultural resources was evaluated in
accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended. Potential effects were determined using Criteria for Effect and Adverse Effect
(36 CFR 800.9) developed by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Concurrence on the eligibility of each property with respect to inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places and the final determination of effects were made by the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Copies of all SHPO correspondence and
concurrence forms are found in Appendix B of the FEIS.
8
STAGING, BORROW, AND WASTE IMPACT AREAS
As required for projects in the design-build process, staging areas, borrow and waste
areas, and haul road impacts have been identified prior to the submission of the permit
application. All borrow, staging and waste areas, and haul roads will be in upland areas.
UTILITY IMPACTS
Utility impacts have been accounted for within the attached permit impact sheets and the
impact summary tables within this document. Utility relocations will occur at Site 1 and
Site 6. The powerline relocation at Site 6 has been permitted by the Town of
Washington. A Nationwide 12 was issued by the USACE Washington Regional Office
on September 13, 2006. Permitted wetland impacts associated with the relocation consist
of 0.001 acre of permanent impacts from five permanent foundations for the towers and
2.4 acres of temporary impacts from hand clearing. Utilities at Site 1 will be relocated
within the proposed slope stake limits.
FEMA COMPLIANCE
The project has been coordinated with appropriate state and local officials and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to assure compliance with FEMA, state, and
local floodway regulations.
MITIGATION
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy that embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological,
and physical integrity of the Waters of the United States. Mitigation of wetland and
surface water impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts,
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) and
Department of Transportation Order 5660.1A (Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands),
emphasize protection of the functions and values provided by wetlands. These directives
require that new construction in wetlands be avoided as much as possible and that all
practicable measures are taken to minimize or mitigate impacts to wetlands.
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize wetland impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of
all remaining wetland impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and
documentation phases; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project
design.
9
As previously stated, R-251 0B has been designed to incorporate all reasonable and
practical design features to avoid and minimize impacts to jurisdictional areas.
Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and design process. Minimization
measures were implemented during the design phase to include the examination of
appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse impacts from the project.
Avoidance
The following measures were taken during the planning and design phase of the project,
or will occur during the construction of the project to avoid impacts to jurisdictional
areas:
• No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be
allowed in wetlands or near surface waters.
• In-stream Moratorium: The NCDOT has committed to avoiding in-stream
activities during the spring migration period of anadromous fish (February 15
through June 15) per the request of the NC Wildlife Resource Commission and
USFWS. Additionally, no in-water work within the floodplain, that is actively
connected to the river or its tributaries, will occur from February 15 to May 31 of
any year. The moratorium limits apply from Sandhole Road (SR 1165), south of
the river, to the north end of the proposed bridge on the north side of the Tar
River. Additionally, NCDOT's "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish
Passage will be adhered to for this project.
• Removed an interchange from the design of existing US 17 and Alternative B
south of Chocowinity; avoided relocation of several residences and reduced
impacts to natural systems.
• Shifted Alternative B east at same interchange to avoid relocations on Jones
Circle and Bragaw Lane.
• Closed Grimes Road at historic Rhem Family House to avoid impacts.
• Removed an interchange from the design at existing US 17 and Alternative B
north of City of Washington; avoided relocation of several residences, reduced
impacts to adjacent natural systems and avoided the historic Bishop Joseph A.
Beebe House.
• Terminated right of way and control of access south of the historic Bishop Joseph
A. Beebe House to avoid impacts.
• The 2.6 mile bridge will be constructed using top-down construction to avoid fill
within the extensive bottomland system adjacent to the Tar River (Site 6).
Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts. Minimization techniques were implemented as follows:
10
General Minimization Measures
• Slopes: It is NCDOT's policy to use 2:1 slopes in wetlands, where it is feasible.
Oftentimes, as is the case with this project, the soils will not support steeper than
3:1 slopes, or the steeper slopes would require guardrails, which would require a
wider footprint to back the guardrail away from traffic. Therefore, 3:1 slopes are
being used where fill slopes intersect with wetlands.
• Sediment and Erosion Control Measures: The NCDOT will stipulate that
sediment and erosion control measures not be placed in wetlands unless it is
absolutely necessary to place silt fences on wetland boundaries to contain erosion
caused by the sheet flow of water. This commitment will be incorporated into the
construction contract awarded for the proposed project. "Design Standards for
Sensitive Waters" will be adhered to throughout construction.
• Drainage: Bridge Deck Drains - Deck drains on bridges will be directed away
from open water and released outside of Zone 2 of the riparian buffer. Road
Drainage - Road drainage will flow through grassed buffers before entering the
streams.
• Clearing: Clearing Method III (clearing and grubbing of vegetation to 10 ft.
beyond the construction limits) will be used. Vegetation will be cleared for 30 ft.
beyond the bridge deck but the areas will not be grubbed.
• Reve etg ation: Within 15 days of construction completion, vegetation will be
reestablished on exposed areas with judicious use of pesticide and herbicide.
• "Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the West Indian Manatee: Precautionary
Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters" will be utilized
for this project.
• In the area south of NC 33 and east of Chocowinity, the entire alignment was
shifted westward to minimize a parallel crossing through a large wetland
maintaining continuity of the natural system. Designed a perpendicular crossing of
the northern most finger of the same wetland.
• Reduced median width from 46 ft. to 10 ft. for approximately 500 ft. prior to
beginning of bridge over Tar River.
• Extended Tar River bridge over all open water, adjacent riparian buffers and
natural wetland systems.
• Additional bridging of Chocowinity Creek at the NC 33 interchange was
investigated. The design of Ramp C was tightened and the culvert length was
shortened to reduce impacts to Chocowinity Creek and associated wetlands.
• Compressed interchange at US 264 to minimize impacts to community cohesion
and relocation impacts to Maryanna Mobile Estates.
• To facilitate the protection of water resources, a Special Sediment Control Fence
will be used during construction (see attached information pertaining to the
Temporary Fill in Wetlands for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures).
Site Specific Minimization Measures
• Site 2: Design efforts resulted in avoiding this site. There are no longer wetland
or stream impacts at this site.
11
• Site 3: Wetland impacts increased from 0.43 acre to 1.0 acre at this site.
However, surface water impacts decreased from 0.76 acre to 0.06 acre. Therefore,
overall impacts to jurisdictional resources decreased from 1.19 acres to 1.06 acres.
This site contained a pond that was breached since the initial wetland studies were
performed, therefore, there was a decrease in the area of surface water at the site
but an increase in wetlands. The overall decrease in impacts was accomplished by
lowering the overall grade of the alignment in the location of the site.
• Site 4: Wetland impacts decreased at this site from 3.03 acres to 2.04 acres.
Stream impacts were reduced from 826 linear ft. to 484 linear ft. This decrease
was accomplished by lowering the grade of the mainline of US 17 and raising NC
33 so that NC 33 now passes over US 17. This design feature allowed for an
overall lowering of US 17 which dramatically reduced wetland and stream
impacts at Site 4 by reducing the footprint of fill necessary for construction.
Additionally, it allowed for the installation of two culverts (mainline and ramp)
instead of one, which minimized stream impacts, and allowed for daylight and
maintenance of a riparian buffer between the two shorter culverts.
• Site 6: There is a slight increase in fill from 0.22 acre, to 0.24 acre based upon
final design of the bridge piers. Wetland impacts were minimized by the use of an
innovative top-down construction methodology of the bridge over the Tar River
and its associated wetlands. Top-down construction eliminates the use of work
bridges which can significantly impact wetland soils and vegetation beneath and
around the new bridge. Elimination of the work bridge will minimize impacts to
wetland soils and vegetation within the work area and allow these areas to recover
quicker than if covered by a work bridge for an extended period of time.
• Site 9: Wetland impacts were decreased from 0.13 acre to 0.10 acre, and stream
impacts were reduced from 279 linear ft. to 204 linear ft., by lowering the grade
and designing a shorter culvert.
• Site 11: This site was not included in the original permit application. No
wetlands are present at this site. Stream impacts were avoided by use of a
retaining wall.
Compensation
The primary emphasis of compensatory mitigation is to reestablish a condition similar to
that which would have existed if the project was not built. Mitigation is limited to
reasonable expenditures and practicable considerations related to highway operation.
Mitigation is generally accomplished through a combination of methods designed to
replace wetland and stream functions and values lost as a result of construction of the
project. These methods consist of creation of new wetlands from uplands, borrow pits,
and other non-wetland areas, restoration of wetlands, enhancement of existing wetlands,
and relocation and restoration of streams.
FHWA STEP DOWN COMPLIANCE: All compensatory mitigation must be in
compliance with 23 CFR Part 777.9, "Mitigation of Impacts" that describes the actions
12
that should be followed to qualify for Federal-Aid Highway Funding. This process is
known as the FHWA "Step Down" procedures:
1. Consideration must be given to mitigation within the right-of-way and should
include the enhancement of existing wetlands and the creation of new wetlands in
the highway median, borrow pit areas, interchange areas, and along the roadside.
2. Where mitigation within the right-of-way does not fully offset wetland losses,
compensatory mitigation may be conducted outside the right-of-way including
enhancement, creation, and preservation.
In accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed July 22, 2003 by
USACE, NCDENR, and NCDOT, it is understood that the NCDENR Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) will assume responsibility for satisfying the Clean Water
Act. The offsetting mitigation will be derived from an inventory of assets already in
existence within the same 8-digit cataloging unit. The NCDOT has avoided and
minimized impacts to the jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent possible as
described above.
On-Site Mitigation:
The NCDOT has conducted an exhaustive evaluation of potential on-site mitigation
options for R-251 OB. A number of sites were evaluated for potential stream and wetland
mitigation but in the final analysis were determined not to be feasible. Two on-site
wetland restoration sites are proposed for the project. The first is referred to as the
Osprey Seafood Site, which will provide 0.6 acre of wetland restoration and 3.5 acres of
preservation of riverine wetlands. The second is the Packing House Road site which will
provide 0.1 acres of riverine wetland restoration through the removal of a section of
roadbed and fill of the abandoned Packing House Road.
By letter dated October 27, 2006, EEP has accepted mitigation responsibility for the
entire R-2510 project. Therefore, necessary wetland mitigation, over and above that
generated by the Osprey Seafood Site will be performed by the EEP. A copy of the EEP
acceptance letter is included with this application.
Compensatory Wetland Mitigation: There are 6.04 acres of riverine wetlands and 1.88
acres of non-riverine wetlands impacted by construction of R-251013. The NCDOT
proposes offset of 0.6 acre of wetland impacts through implementation of the Osprey
Seafood Site and 0.1 acres through removal of the road bed at the Packing House Road
Site. The NCDOT proposes to use EEP to mitigate for the remaining impacts.
Compensatory Stream Mitigation: There are 2,368 linear ft. of proposed impacts to
streams associated with R-2510B. The NCDOT proposes to use EEP to mitigate for
these impacts.
13
REGULATORY APPROVALS
This application is hereby made for a CAMA Major Development permit for the
construction of R-2510B. NCDOT is applying for modifications to the existing Section
404 Individual Permit and Section 401 Water Quality Certification under separate cover.
In compliance with Section 143-215.3D(e) of the NCAC, we have provided a method of
debiting $475 as payment for processing the CAMA application.
Additionally, NCDOT is applying for a Coast Guard permit under separate cover.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Chris
Underwood at [phone].
Sincerely,
C, J 11'(A
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: W/attachment
Mr. Steve Sollod, NCDCM
W/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USAGE, Wilmington
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Ms. Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Mr. Ronald Mikulak, USEPA - Atlanta, GA
Mr. Clarence W. Coleman, P.E., FHWA
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., PDEA
Mr. Carl Goode, P.E., Human Environment Unit
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Division 2 Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson, Division 2 Environmental Officer
14
Form DCM-MP-1
APPLICATION
(To be completed by all applicants)
1. APPLICANT
a. Landowner:
Name N. C. Department of Transportation
Address 1598 Mail Service Center
City Raleigh State N.C.
Zip 27699-1598 Day Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
b. Authorized Agent:
Name N/A
Address
City State N.C.
Zip Day Phone
Fax
c. Project name (if any) R-25106: Widening of US 17
State Project No. 8.T150601 / 34440.1.1
NOTE. Perndt will be issued in name of landomter(s), and/or
project name.
2. LOCATION OF PROPOSED
PROJECT
a. County Beaufort
b. City, town, community or landmark
near Chocowinity and Washington
c. Street address or secondary road number
US 17 from South of SR 1149 (Price Rd) to North of
SR 1509 (Springs Rd).
d. Is proposed work within city limits or planning
jurisdiction? X Yes No
e. Name of body of water nearest project (e.g. river,
creek, sound, bay) Tar River and Maple Branch
3. DESCRIPTION AND PLANNED USE
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
a. List all development activities you propose (e.g.
building a home, motet, marina, bulkhead, pier, and
excavation and/or filling activities.
Bridqe, culvert and roadwav construction.
b. Is the proposed activity maintenance of an existing
project, new work, or both? Both
c. Will the project be for public, private or commercial
use? Public
d. Give a brief description of purpose, use, methods of
construction and daily operations of proposed
project. If more space is needed, please attach
additional pages. Widening and new location of
_US 17 which is owned and maintained by NCDOT.
See Detailed Description Appendix A
Revised 03/45
Form DCM-MP-1
4. LAND AND WATER
CHARACTERISTICS
a. Size of entire tract N/A
b. Size of individual lot(s) N/A
Approximate elevation of tract above MHW or
NWL +/- 0 to 10 feet above NWL
d. Soil type(s) and texture(s) of tract Torhunta sandy
loam Seabrook loamv sand, Lenoir loam, and
Craven fine sandy loam generally located on upland areas.
e. Vegetation on tract Residential lawns, agricultural
fields, woods, and wetlands.
f. Man-made features now on tract
N/A
g. What is the CAMA Land Use Plan land
classification of the site? (Consulr the load land use plan.)
Conservation X Transitional
x Developed X Community
Rural Other
h. How is the tract zoned by local government?
None noted.
i. Is the proposed project consistent with the applicable
zoning? X Yes No
(Attach zoning compliance certificate, if applicable)
Has a professional archaeological assessment been
done for the tract? X Yes No
If yes, by whom? NCDOT
k. Is the project located in a National Registered
Historic District or does it involve a. National
Register listed or eligible property?
X Yes No Beebe House.
West side of existino US 17 near the SR 1536 intersection
1. Are there wetlands on the site?. X Yes - No
Coastal (marsh) Other X
If yes, has a delineation been conducted? YES
(Anach documentation, if available)
m. Describe existing wastewater treatment facilities.
N/A
n. Describe location and type of discharges to waters
of the state. (For example, surface runoff, sanitary
wastewater, industrial /commercial effluent, "wash
down" and residential discharges.)
Surface runoff from roadway
o. Describe existing drinking water supply source.
N/A
5. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
In addition to the completed application form, the
following items must be submitted:
• A copy of the deed (with state application only) or
other instrument under which the applicant claims title
to the affected properties. If the applicant is not
claiming to be the owner of said property, then
forward a copy of the deed or other instrument under
which the owner claims title, plus written permission
from the owner to carry out the project.
• An accurate, dated work plat (including plan view
and cross-sectional drawings) drawn to scale in black
ink on an 8 1/2" by 11" white paper. (Refer to
Coastal Resources Commission Rule 7J.0203 for a
detailed description.)
Please note that original drawings are preferred and
only high quality copies will be accepted. Blue-line
prints or other larger plats are acceptable only if in
adequate number of quality copies are provided by
applicant. (Contact the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding that agency's use of larger
drawings.) A site or location map is a part of plat
requirements and it must be sufficiently detailed to
guide agency personnel unfamiliar with the area to the
Revised 03195
Form DCM-MP-1
site. Include highway or secondary road (SR)
numbers, landmarks, and the like.
• A Stormwater Certification, if one is necessary.
• A list of the names and complete addresses of the
adjacent waterfront (riparian) landowners and
signed return receipts as proof that such owners
have received a copy of the application and plats
by certified mail. Such landowners must be advised
that they have 30 days in which to submit comments
on the proposed project to the Division of Coastal
Management. Upon signing this form, the applicant
further certifies that such notice has been provided.
Name Bonnie and Marshall Singleton
Address 920 West 3rd St tasbimatQn nor' 2Zaa9
Phone [phone] -
Name J. Dan Rhem Jr.
Address 2401 Ridge Rd Raleigh NC 27612
Phone [phone] -
Name Stephen A Rhem et al.
Address 2112 Chelsa Drive Wilson NC, 27893
Phone [phone]
• A list of previous state or federal permits issued for
work on the project tract. Include permit numbers,
permittee, and issuing dates.
USACE Permit #199301143, 11/28/05,
DWQ Project No. 050785, WQC No. 3527, 9/6/05,
Nationwide Permit Action ID 200510771 5125105.
NCDENR, DCM, Consistency Certification, 10/31/05.
• A check for $250 made payable to the Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR) to cover the costs of processing the
application.
A signed AEC hazard notice for projects in
oceanfront and inlet areas.
• A statement of compliance with the N.C.
Environmental Policy Act (N.C.G.S. 113A - 1 to
10) If the project involves the expenditure of public
funds or use of public lands, attach a statement
documenting compliance with the North Carolina
Environmental Policy Act.
6. CERTIFICATION AND PERMISSION
TO ENTER ON LAND
I understand that any permit issued in response to this
application will allow only the development described in
the application. The project will be subject to conditions
and restrictions contained in the permit.
I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the proposed
activity complies with the State of North Carolina's
approved Coastal Management Program and will be
conducted in a manner consistent with such program.
I certify that I am authorized to grant, and do in fact,
grant permission to representatives of state and federal
review agencies to enter on the aforementioned lands in
connection with evaluating information related to this
permit application and follow-up monitoring of the
project.
I further certify that the information provided in this
application is truthful to the best of my knowledge.
2W ?
This is the ?2:> day of
Print Name
Signature
Landowner or AsthorE ed Agent
Please indicate attachments pertaining to your proposed
project.
X DCM MP-2 Excavation and Fill Information
DCM MP-3 Upland Development
DCM MP-4 Structures Information
_
X DCM MP-5 Bridges and Culverts
DCM MP-6 Marina Development
NOTE: Please sign and date each attachment in the
. space provided at the bottom of each form.
Revised 03195
Form DCM-MP-2
AVATION
Ex C
AND FILL
(Except bridges and culverts)
Attach this form to Joint -Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
Describe below the purpose of proposed excavation or
fill activities. All values to be given in feet.
Average F'wal
Existing Project
r ...th Width nenth Moth
Access
channel
(MLW) or (NWL)
Canal
Boat
basin
Boat
ramp
Rock
groin
Rock
breakwater
Other
(Excluding
shoreline
stabilization)

- - ----- ------
300 ft Var.
Small area beneath south end of bridge will be
excavated to allow for construction of bent caps and
placement of bents.
1. EXCAVATION
a. Amount of material to be excavated from below
MAW or NWL in cubic yards 550 Cubic Yards
b. Type of material. to be excavated Soil
c. Does the area to be excavated include. coastal
wetlands (marsh), submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAVs) or other wetlands? X Yes No
d. Highground excavation in cubic yards N/A
2. DISPOSAL OF EXCAVATED
MATERIAL
a. Location of disposal area within road bed
and/or interchange area
b. Dimensions of disposal area N/A
c. Do you claim title to disposal area?
)
Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from the
owner.
d. Will a disposal area be available for future
maintenance? - Yes X No
If yes, where? N/A
Revised 03195
Form DCM-MP-2
e. Does the disposal area include any coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
f. Does the disposal include any area in the water?
Yes X No
3. SHORELINE STABILIZATION
a. Type of shoreline stabilization
N/A Bulkhead Riprap
b. Length N/A
c. Average distance waterward of MHW or NWL
N/A
d. Maximum distance waterward of MHW or NWL
N/A
e. Shoreline erosion during preceding 12 months
N/A
(Source of information)
f. Type of bulkhead or riprap material N/A
g. Amount of fill in cubic yards to be placed below
water level
(1) Riprap N/A
(2) Bulkhead backfill N/A
h. Type of fill material . N/A
i. Source of fill material N/A
4. OTHER FILL ACTIVITIES
(Excluding Shoreline Stabilization)
a. Will fill material be brought to site?
X Yes No
If Yes'
(1) Amount of material to be placed in the
water None
(2) Dimensions of fill area See plans
(3) Purpose of fill Roadway construction
b. Will fill material be placed in coastal wetlands
(marsh), SAVs or other wetlands?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Dimensions of fill area N/A
(2) Purpose of fill N/A
5. GENERAL
a. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
and erosion controlled? Silt fencing
b. What type of construction equipment will be used
(for example, dragline, backhoe, or hydraulic
dredge)?
Backhoe and excavator
c. Will wetlands be cr,ssed in transporting equipment
to project site? X Yes No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts. During clearing operations
Use of loq mats when possible
Applicant or ZN
?
Signature
it•13.0(0
Date
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MP 5
BRIDGES AND
CULVERTS
Attach this form to Joint Application for CAMA Major
Permit, Form DCM-MP-1. Be sure to complete all
other sections of the Joint Application that relate to this
proposed project.
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain) N/A
g. Length of proposed bridge 2.89 miles
1. BRIDGES'
% a. Public X Private

b. Type of bridge (construction material)
Concrete
h. Width of proposed bridge 74 feet
i. Height of proposed bridge above wetlands
Variable, 15 to 45 feet.
j. Will the proposed bridge affect existing water flow?
X Yes No
If yes, explain Bents in channel
c. Water body to be crossed by bridge
Tar River
d. Water depth at the proposed crossing at MLW or
NWL 11 feet
k. Navigation clearance underneath proposed bridge
45 feet from MHW
e. Will proposed bridge replace an existing bridge?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of existing bridge N/A
(2) Width of existing bridge N/A
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge N/A
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) N/A
f. Will proposed bridge replace an existing culvert(s)?
Yes X No
1. Will the proposed bridge affect navigation by
reducing or increasing the existing navigable
opening? Yes X No
If yes, explain
N/A
m. Will the proposed bridge cross wetlands containing
no navigable waters? X Yes No
If yes, explain Bridge also crosses extensive bottomland
swamp
If yes,
(1) Length of existing culvert N/A n. Have you contacted the U.S. Coast Guard
(2) Width of existing culvert N/A concerning their approval?
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above x Yes No
the MHW or NWL N/A If yes, please provide record of their action.
Permit Application has been submitted for early
review
Revised 03/95
Form DCM-MRS
2. CULVERTS
a. Water body in which culvert is to be placed
UT to Maple Branch, Maple Branch UT to C n
b. Number of culverts proposed Four
c. Type of culvert (construction material, style)
Bee attachment
d. Will proposed culvert replace_ an existing bridge?
Yes X No
If yes, N/A
(1) Length of existing bridge
(2) Width of existing bridge N/A
(3) Navigation clearance underneath existing
bridge N/A
(4) Will all, or a part of, the existing bridge be
removed? (Explain) N/A
e. Will proposed culvert replace an existing culvert?
Yes X No
If yes, NIA
(1) Length of existing culvert
(2) Width of existing culvert N/A
(3) Height of the top of the existing culvert above
the MHW or NWL N/A
(4) Will all, or apart of, the existing culvert be
removed? (Explain) N/A
f. Length of proposed culvert see attachment
g. Width of proposed culvert see attachment
h: Height of the top of the proposed culvert above the
MHW or NWL see attachment
i. Will the proposed culvert affect existing water flow?
x Yes No
If yes, explain Contraction and expansion loss and
blocking floodplain with fill at culverts will affect C
j. Will the proposed culvert affect existing navigation
potential? Yes X No
If yes, explain
N/A
3. EXCAVATION AND FILL
a. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation below the MHW or NWL?
Yes X No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated N/A
(2) Width of area to be excavated N/A
(3) Depth of area to be excavated N/A
(4) Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards N/A
b_ Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any excavation within:
N. Coastal Wetlands No SAVs Yes Other Wetlands
If yes,. Excavation in wetlands at bridge - 0.014 acre
(1) Length of area to be excavated 300 ft
(2) Width of area to be excavated 14 to 80 ft
(3) Amount of Cubic material be excavated in cubic
yards c. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
require any highground excavation?
X Yes -No
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be excavated 260 ft
(2) Width of area to be excavated 50 to 140 ft
(D Amount of material to be excavated in cubic
yards 7700 CY
d. If the placement of the bridge or culvert involves
any excavation, please complete the following:
(1) Location of the spoil disposal area
Within road bed or interchange area
(2) Dimensions of spoil disposal area
N/A
(3) Do you claim title to the disposal area?
X Yes No
If no, attach a letter granting permission from
the owner.
Revised 03/95
ATTACHMENT
Section 2.c, f, g, and h
Culvert Information
Site No Type of Culvert Length of Culvert Width of Height above
Culvert NWL
3 9 ft by 7 ft 264 feet 9 ft 5 feet
RCBC
4 2@ 8 ft by 8 ft 67 feet 16 ft 6.6 feet
RCBC
4 2 @ 8 ft by 8 ft 238 feet 16 ft 6.6 feet
RCBC
p 9 3 @ 10 ft by 10 ft 216 feet 30 ft 8.3 feet
RCBC
RCBC - Reinforced Concrete Box Culvert
Form DCM-MP-5
(4) Will the disposal area be available for future b. Will the proposed project require the relocation of
maintenance? Yes X No any existing utility lines? X Yes No
(5) Does the disposal area include any coastal If yes, explain in detail City of Washington
wetlands (marsh), SAVs, or other wetlands? Wetland powerline
Yes X No
If yes, give dimensions if different from (2)
above. N/A c. Will the proposed project require the construction of
(6) Does the disposal area include any area below any temporary detour structures?
the MHW or NWL? Yes X No Yes X No
If yes, give dimension if different from No. 2 Ifyeexplain in detail N/A
above. N/A
e. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
result in any fill (other than excavated material d. Will the proposed project require any work
described in Item d. above) to be placed below channels? Yes X No
MHW or NWL? Yes X No If yes, complete Form DCM-MP-2
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled N/A e. How will excavated or fill material be kept on site
(2) Width of area to be filled N/A and erosion controlled?
(3) Purpose of fill N/A Best Management Practices
f. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert f. What type of construction equipment will be used
result in any fill (other than excavated material (for example, dragline, backhoe or -hydraulic
described in Item d. above) to be placed within: dredge)?
- Coastal Wetlands _ SAVs X Other Wetlands Gantry truss system top-down construction.
If yes,
(1) Length of area to be filled see plans
(2) Width of area to be filled see plans g. Will wetlands be crossed in transporting equipment
(3) Purpose of fill roadway construction to project site? X Yes No
If yes, explain steps that will be taken to lessen
environmental impacts. Clearing operations for
g. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert bridge site
result in any fill (other than excavated material
described in Item d. above) to be placed on
highground? X Yes No h. Will the placement of the proposed bridge or culvert
If yes, require any shoreline stabilization?
(1) Length of area to be filled see plans Yes X No
(2) Width of area to be filled see plans If yes, explain in detail N/A
(3) Purpose of fill roadway construction
4. GENERAL Appfimnt or N
a. Will the proposed project involve any mitigation? S*Mtum
X Yes No kk- 13- 00
If yes, explain in detail On-site mitigation is proposed at Date
the Osprey Seafood Site. is mitigation will prove a 0.6 acre
of wetland restoration and 3.5 acres of preservation of riverine
wetlands.
Revised 03195
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Manager Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJECT: CD05-052 - Consistency Concurrence for Improvements to US 17 from
South of SR 1127 to North of SR 1418 (Washington Bypass, TIP No. R-2510)
in Beaufort County, NC (DCM #20050063)
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Division of Coastal Management (DCM) received on September 19, 2005 complete
documentation supporting that the above referenced project would be consistent with the
enforceable policies of North Carolina's coastal management program.
North Carolina's coastal management program consists. of, but is not limited to, the Coastal
Area Management Act, the State's Dredge and Fill Law, and the land use plan of the
County and/or local municipality in which the proposed project is located. It is the
objective of DCM to manage the State's coastal resources to ensure that proposed activities
are compatible with safeguarding and perpetuating the biological, social, economic and
aesthetic values of the State's coastal resources.
To solicit public comments, DCM published a public notice in the "Washington Daily
News" on September 21, 2005 and circulated a description of the proposed project to State
agencies that would have a regulatory interest in the proposed development. No comments
were received asserting that the proposed project would be inconsistent with North
Carolina's coastal management program.
In accordance with the supporting documentation accompanying NCDOT's Consistency
Certification for this project, no CAMA Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC's) are to
be impacted by the construction of the A section, R-2510A. However, the proposed R-
251013 section impacts the Public Trust Area and Public Trust Shoreline CAMA AEC's
where it crosses the Tar River. The proposed R-2510C section impacts the Public Trust
Area and Public Trust Shoreline CAMA AEC's where it crosses Cherry Run and Old Ford
Swamp. Prior to initiating any construction on the remaining segments of this project (R-
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastaimanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
cc: Bill Arrington, DCM
Christina Breen, DWQ
Bill Gilmore, EEP
Terry Moore, DCM
Stephen Rynas, DCM
Steve Sollod, DCM
Chris Underwood, NCDOT
William Wescott, USACE
Page 3
Sincerely,
XIO"L-
V -
Doug Huggett
Manager, Major Permits and Consistency Unit
• o stem
a ?rnerr?..t ? /\
PROGRAM(
OOP
October 27, 2006 "ROK
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. ,EyS
Environmental Management Director /
North Carolina Department of Transportation, PDEA Branch 9°Ftil
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter for Additional Impacts:
R-2510, Washington Bypass, Beaufort County
References: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit; Action ID Number 199301143
dated January 17, 2006
N. C. Division of Water Quality 401 Water Quality Certification; DWQ Project
Number 2005-0785 dated September 6, 2005
EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter dated August 4, 2006 for Wetland, Stream and
Buffer Mitigation through the MOU (In-Lieu Fee)-Program---- - -
This letter comes to you through the MOA program which will be utilized to provide
compensatory mitigation to offset the additional impacts as per the procedures as outlined in the
Memorandum of Agreement (Tri-Party MOA) signed on July 22, 2003, between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
As you are aware, EEP provided under it's MOU Stream, Wetland and Buffer In-Lieu Fee
Programs 8,488 credits of warm stream mitigation, 17.06 credits riparian mitigation, 7.76 credits non-
riparian mitigation, and 929,847 square feet of buffer mitigation for impacts totaling 4,244.4 feet of
stream, 8.53 acres riparian wetlands, 3.88 acres non-riparian wetlands, and 385,780.2 square feet of
buffer. The NCDOT has completed the payment for the mitigation associated with original 404 and 401
permits.
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will provide the required additional riparian and
non-riparian wetland mitigation as prescribed in the (Tri-Party MOA). The amount of impacts and
mitigation to be provided is an additional amount for this TTP project; however, this is a new wetland
request into the MOA Program and an additional request for the Riparian Buffer Restoration Program.
Based on the information supplied by you in letter dated October 19, 2006, the additional impacts to
wetlands and buffer located in CU 03020104 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin of the Northern Outer
Coastal Plain Eco-region (NOCP), and are as follows:
LWWA
A VA
?• • • --•- ? prat" NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
Riparian Wetlands: 0.45 acre
Non-Riparian Wetlands: 0.65 acre
Zone 1 Riparian Buffer: 6,322 square feet
All buffer mitigation requests and approvals are administrated through the Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund in accordance with 15 NCAC 213.0242 (7). The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure
that the appropriate compensation for the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method. of
fund transfer. Upon receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Certification, the NCDOT will provide the EEP a
copy of the Certification along with a letter verifying the buffer impact/mitigation amounts and requesting
a fund transfer to provide the required compensation. The EEP will transfer funds from the Fund 2984
into Fund 2982 and commit to provide the appropriate buffer mitigation to offset the additional buffer
impacts associated with this project. Only at that time, EEP will be responsible for the buffer mitigation
required for this project.
In accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA, EEP will provide compensatory riparian and
non-riparian wetland mitigation utilizing appropriate mitigation assets located within the same cataloging
unit as the identified impacts. EEP commits sufficient compensatory wetland mitigation will be
implemented to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year in which this
project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA. At this time, EEP does not
have approval to utilize assets located outside of the cataloging unit 03020104 of the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin if sufficient mitigation assets are available in the cataloging unit of the impacts. Sufficient
mitigation assets are currently available within the cataloging unit which the impacts are located.
However, the EEP is working with the regulatory agencies for alternative strategies to utilize surplus
mitigation assets located throughout the state.
If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no
longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Bill Biddlecome, USACE-Washington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
Mr. Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
Mr. Steve Sollod, Division of Coastal Management
Mr. Mike Thomas, Division of Coastal Management
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., NCDOT Project Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File: R-2510 Additionai'
Exhibit A
Water Operations for the Washington Bypass Project
Flatiron / United JV will need to access the Tar River Bridge area with Flexi-float and
push boat equipment, at the river crossing, for the purpose of assisting at (16) pier
locations in the waterway area only. (Not in wetlands).
Flatiron / United will use a floating system made up of Shuggart flexi-floats. Each float is
nominally 1Oft x 40ft by 5ft deep and can be connected with pins to form different
configurations. The floats will be used to hold and place the template, (steel frame), for
the 30" x 30" square piles and to assist in providing access and setting of the water level
struts. We will move these floats using a 200 hp push boat or float mounted engine.
These floats typically draw approximately 2 ft of water depending on load. During all
water operations the area around the floats will have a floating turbidity barrier with a 6ft
curtain connected by chain and tied to the floating system, (average flow rate in this area
is approximately 2.1 ft/sec). A crane will be set on the floats and used to install and
remove approximately 6 to 8 spud piles to anchor the float system and template. All
equipment on the float will be diapered. Bottom disturbing activities, (install and remove
spud piles) will be contained inside the turbidity curtain. This floating system will be
moved from pier to pier as the overhead gantry bridge building system progresses across
the river. None of this work will take place during the moratorium period and is
anticipated to take approximately 32 weeks during the June 2008 to February 2009 work
period
All Coast Guard permits and notifications will be provided prior to any water operations
commencing with all approved Coast Guard mooring lights installed as required
Typical Wetland Operation
Wetland operations will consist of installing 30" square piles using a "Top Down"
construction method. Piles will be driven from our proprietary Overhead Gantry system
which will operate above the bridge deck and self erect one span at a time self launching
to the next span. Two of these systems will be employed starting at each end of the bridge
and meeting in the middle area of the wetlands on the south side of the river. The 30"
square piles will be driven using a 220,000 lb B-6505 HD Bermingham Diesel Hammer.
The typical span on this bridge will be 120' long. No template is currently contemplated
in the wetland area. Flatiron/United will also set all precast pier caps and girders with the
Overhead Gantry system. The deck slab will be poured in place, along with other misc.
items such as parapets and joints. No temporary bridge will be required for this operation.
Clearing operations, (135'wide), will occur prior to the above operation using standard
clearing equipment on wooden mats. Skidders will be utilized to haul whatever usable
material can be removed. All waste wood products will either be left in place or piled and
burned. No grubbing will occur in the wetlands except as needed at pier locations.
Temporary Fill in Wetlands for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures:
The areas permitted for Mechanized or Hand Clearing in Wetlands on this project will
include zones for Temporary Fill in Wetlands for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures.
The Erosion and Sediment Control Measures that are considered temporary fill includes
Special Sediment Control Fence and/or Temporary Rock Silt Check(s) Type A.
Special Sediment Control Fence:
Special Sediment Control Fence shall be placed as shown on the plans or as directed by
the Engineer. The Special Sediment Control Fence shall consist of steel posts, '/4 inch
hardware cloth, and sediment control stone. The sections of Special Sediment Control
Fence shall serve as drainage outlets for Silt Fence and each section shall not exceed 10
ft. (3 m) in length and 2 ft. in width (0.6 m).
Materials:
(A) Posts:
Steel posts shall be at least 5 feet (1.5 m) in length, approximately 13/8 inches (35 mm)
wide measured parallel to the fence, and have a minimum weight of 1.25 lb/ft (1.86
kg/m) of length. The post shall be equipped with an anchor plate having a minimum area
of 14.0 square inches (9000 square millimeters), and shall have a means of retaining wire
in the desired position without displacement.
(B) 1 /4 inch (6.4mm) Hardware Cloth:
Hardware cloth shall have 1/4 inch (6.4mm) openings constructed from #24 gauge wire.
The hardware cloth shall be installed according to Standard Drawing No. 1606.01 with a
minimum of 2 ft. (0.6m) of the cloth placed on the ground beneath the Sediment Control
Stone.
(C) Sediment Control Stone:
Sediment control stone shall meet the requirements of Section 1005 of the 2002 Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures. Install stone according to Standard Drawing No.
1606.01.
Maintenance and Removal:
The Contractor shall maintain the special sediment control fence until the project is
accepted or until the fence is removed. The Contractor shall remove and dispose of silt
accumulations at the fence when so directed by the Engineer in accordance with Section
1630 of the 2002 Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures. The special sediment
control fence shall be removed at the completion of the project, and any earth disturbance
inside the Mechanized Clearing area shall be seeded with native grasses.
C)
o T^
N O
n
? Z
fA
? ?O
D ?
N
m
n
M m
aZ
rG)
mm
O
ur
3 z
mo
z
-? 0
0
n v
70 Z
O G)
rT
.? O
m9
Z
A i
m
GENERAL NOTES:
SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE SHALL BE NO. 5
OR NO. 57 AND SHALL BE PAID FOR AT THE
CONTRACT UNIT PRICE PER TON "SEDIMENT
CONTROL STONE."
USE HARDWARE CLOTH 24 GAUGE WIRE MESH
WITH 14 INCH MESH OPENINGS.
INSTALL 5 FT. SELF FASTENER ANGLE STEEL
POST 2 FT. DEEP MINIMUM.
POST SPACING SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 3 FT.
-?-- ?3 fl
VARIABLE ,? * y1 WIRE
DIMENSION
2 ft
IN
lid WIRE I
SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE
1 ft min
WATER FLOW -?
Tip WIRE
2 ft
CONTROL STONE
T ft min
IN
STEEL POST - 2 ft DEPTH
Z
O N
E' a
a3 .
00 w = Z
W QQ LL=
QU¢OH
1-
CAFLLOj
ZOM¢'
~ M
IL
0 a
W
V
Z
W
o V'
LL
J
Z O
H
H
Q Z
¢o O
V
aoz
W
VE
ca p
W
O
co
J . 1
0 Q
W 1-4
V
W
D.
co)
a
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F. Easley, Governor Charles S. Jones, Director William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
12 December 2006
Washington Daily News
PO Box 1788
Washington, NC 27889
Attention: Legal Advertising Department
Please include the enclosed Notice of Filing in the Public Notice section of the 15
December 2006 edition of your newspaper. If it will not be possible to include this notice in that
edition, or if you should have any questions about this notice, please call me as soon as possible
at 948-3820.
. The State Office of Budget and Management requires an original Affidavit of Publication
prior to payment for newspaper advertising. Please send the affidavit, an original copy of the
published notice, and an original invoice to:
DALE SCHMIDT
NCDENR
COASTAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION
400 COMMERCE AVENUE
MOREHEAD NC 28557
Thank you.
Sincerel ,
j
Sherry Tyson, lSecretary
Division of Coastal Management
ATTACHMENT
Cc: File
NiathC:arolinc
943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, North Carolina 27889
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement_neY
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled \ 109% Post Consumer Paper
NOTICE OF FILING
OF APPLICATION FOR
CAMA MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources hereby gives public notice as
required by N.C.G.S. 113A-119(b) that an application for a development permit in an Area of
Environmental Concern as designated under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) was
received on 8 November 2006. According to the said application submitted by North Carolina
Department of Transportation R-2510B, applicant proposes to bridge the Tar River as part of the
US17 Bypass around the City of Washington at US 17 between SR1149 and SR1509 crossing
the Tar River, near the City of Washington, in Beaufort County, North Carolina.
A copy of the entire application maybe examined or copied at the office of Terry Moore,
District Manager, Washington Regional Office, 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC,
during normal business hours. Public comments received by 4 January 2007 will be considered.
Later comments will be accepted and considered up to the time of permit decision. Project
modifications may occur based on further review and comments. Notice of the permit decision in
this matter will be provided upon written request.
Mike Thomas, Field Representative
Coastal Management Representative
NC Division of Coastal Management
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, North Carolina 27889
[phone]
Please publish on: 15 December 2006
UndA&LOC06-

?r iaiier?ie ht
PROGRAM
October 27, 2006 001.
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. G'•?:,,, fy?,y
Environmental Management Director r ??ys
North Carolina Department of Transportation, PDEA Branch °-•
1548 Mail Service Center
?yl
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter for Additional Impacts:
R-2510, Washington Bypass, Beaufort County
References: U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Individual Permit; Action ID Number 199301143
dated January 17, 2006
N. C. Division of Water Quality 401 Water Quality Certification; DWQ Project
Number 2005-0785 dated September 6, 2005
EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter dated August 4, 2006 for Wetland, Stream and
Buffer Mitigation through the MOU (In-Lieu Fee) Program
This letter comes to you through the MOA program which will be utilized to provide
compensatory mitigation to offset the additional impacts as per the procedures as outlined in the
Memorandum of Agreement (Tri-Party MOA) signed on July 22, 2003, between the N. C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), the N. C. Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
As you are aware, EEP provided under it's MOU Stream, Wetland and Buffer In-Lieu Fee
Programs 8,488 credits of warm stream mitigation, 17.06 credits riparian mitigation, 7.76 credits non-
riparian mitigation, and 929,847 square feet of buffer mitigation for impacts totaling 4,244.4 feet of
stream, 8.53 acres riparian wetlands, 3.88 acres non-riparian wetlands, and 385,780.2 square feet of
buffer. The NCDOT has completed the payment for the mitigation associated with original 404 and 401
permits.
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will provide the required additional riparian and
non-riparian wetland mitigation as prescribed in the (Tri-Party MOA). The amount of impacts and
mitigation to be provided is an additional amount for this TIP project; however, this is a new wetland
request into the MOA Program and an additional request for the Riparian Buffer Restoration Program.
Based on the information supplied by you in letter dated October 19, 2006, the additional impacts to
wetlands and buffer located in CU 03020104 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin of the Northern Outer
Coastal Plain Eco-region (NOCP), and are as follows:
'EKAa4dPtg... Prot-" oJtr Stag ?? N
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699-1652 / 919-115-0416 / www.nceep.net

Riparian Wetlands: 0.45 acre
Non-Riparian Wetlands: 0.65 acre
Zone 1 Riparian Buffer: 6,322 square feet
All buffer mitigation requests and approvals are administrated through the Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund in accordance with 15 NCAC 2B.0242 (7). The NCDOT will be responsible to ensure
that the appropriate compensation for the buffer mitigation will be provided in the agreed upon method of
fund transfer. Upon receipt of the NCDWQ's Buffer Certification, the NCDOT will provide the EEP a
copy of the Certification along with a letter verifying the buffer impact/mitigation amounts and requesting
a fund transfer to provide the required compensation. The EEP will transfer funds from the Fund 2984
into Fund 2982 and commit to provide the appropriate buffer mitigation to offset the additional buffer
impacts associated with this project. Only at that time, EEP will be responsible for the buffer mitigation
required for this project.
In accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA, EEP will provide compensatory riparian and
non-riparian wetland mitigation utilizing appropriate mitigation assets located within the same cataloging
unit as the identified impacts. EEP commits sufficient compensatory wetland mitigation will be
implemented to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA Year in which this
project is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA. At this time, EEP does not
have approval to utilize assets located outside of the cataloging unit 03020104 of the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin if sufficient mitigation assets are available in the cataloging unit of the impacts. Sufficient
mitigation assets are currently available within the cataloging unit which the impacts are located.
However, the EEP is working with the regulatory agencies for alternative strategies to utilize surplus
mitigation assets located throughout the state.
If the above referenced impact amounts are revised, then this mitigation acceptance letter will no
longer be valid and a new mitigation acceptance letter will be required from EEP. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. Bill Biddlecome, USACE-Washington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
Mr. Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
Mr. Steve Sollod, Division of Coastal Management
Mr. Mike Thomas, Division of Coastal Management
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P.E., NCDOT Project Management/Scheduling Unit
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
File: R-2510 Additional'