20141169 All Versions_Revised IES 05222008_20080522

Revised Packet

5/22/08

US 17

STATE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ONSLOW & JONES COUNTIES

NORTH CAROLINA
FROM SR 1330/SR 1439 SOUTH OF BELGRADE
TO THE JONES - CRAVEN COUNTY LINE
' STIP NUMBER R-2514 B, C & D

May 22, 2008

SECTION 404/NEPA MERGER PROCESS
CONCURRENCE POINT 2A MEETING
BRIDGING DECISIONS

FOR

t THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROJECT
FROM CHADWICK TO THE JONES-CRAVEN COUNTY LINE

Prepared for:

THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

' Prepared by:
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES

421 Fayetteville Street Mall
Suite 1303
Raleigh, NC 27601

i

i

1

R-2514 C, & D US 17 Improvements
Concurrence Point 2A Meeting Agenda
Bridging Decisions

The Northern Portion of the Project
from Chadwick to the Jones - Craven County Line

1) Purpose of this Meeting: The purpose is to present information to the Merger
Process Team in order to reach concurrence on Point 2A, bridging decisions, based
upon updated jurisdictional wetland information for Segment 4 and preliminary
' hydrologic and hydraulic design of the major stream crossings of the project.
2) TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
' proposes to improve a 16 mile portion of US 17 between SR 1330 (Deppe Loop
Road)/SR 1439 (Spring Hill Road) south of Belgrade and the New Bern Bypass near
the Jones/Craven County line, south of New Bern to multi-lanes with Bypasses of
Belgrade, Maysville and Pollocksville on new location. This concurrence meeting
is to review the northern portion of the project which includes a portion of
section C, and section D.
' 3) Purpose & Need: Improve the capability of US 17 to meet its mandated objectives
as part of the Interstate System, Strategic Highway Corridor Network, and North
Carolina Strategic Corridor System. The existing roadway geometry, projected
traffic, and projected land use conditions diminish US 17's ability to function
efficiently.
4) Merger Process History and Current Project Status:

' A. August 24, 2006 Merger Team Informational Meeting -
• The purpose was to present information to the Merger Process Team
regarding the current status of R-2514 and design changes due to the
Strategic Corridor Initiative.
• Team agreed to divide the project into two halves to facilitate discussions
on corridor selection.
' • It was determined that the merger process needed to look at CP2A and
that bridging alternatives would be reviewed in the field.
' B. November 1, 2006 Field Meeting:
• Held to review bridging alternatives southern section.
• The meeting was successful and bridging lengths were modified to the
Field Recommended lengths.
C. Revised Preliminary Plans:
• The revised plans incorporated SHC revisions (Interchanges, grade
' separations, superstreet design) and bridging design and
recommendations from the November 1St CP2A field meeting.

D. February 22, 2007 CP2A & 3 Meetings:
• Held to review bridging options and corridor selection for southern section
of the project.
• Team verbally concurred to eliminate Alts 2 & 2B, but could not reach
concurrence on Alt 2A vs. Alt 2C; the Elevation Process was initiated.
E. March 6, 2007 Field Meeting:
• Reviewed bridging alternatives for northern section.
• New bridge lengths were recommended in the field and plans were
modified after the meeting.

' F. March 7, 2007:
• USACE requested updated Jurisdictional Determination prior to Corridor
Selection
' G. April 12, 2007 CP2 Revisited Concurrence Meeting:
• Chadwick to New Bern (verbal concurrence) team verbally concurred to
' eliminate all of the alternatives except for Alts 4D and 4E.

H. February 11, 2008:
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination issued by the USACE.
• Final Jurisdictional Determination to be prepared after the least-
environmentally-damaging-practical alternative is selected and the
"Rapanos" forms are prepared. (compliance)
5) Current Status:
• Completed the re-verification of jurisdictional areas for the entire project
' during August 2007.
• USACE issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on 2/11/08.
• A Merger Process Team Concurrence Meeting has been scheduled to
' revisit CP2 (written concurrence for reduction of alternates for both
bypasses) and CP2A (Chadwick to New Bern) for May 22, 2008.
• A Merger Process Team Concurrence Meeting has been scheduled to
revisit CP3 (Belgrade to New Bern) for June 19, 2008.
• Concurrence Point 2 Revisited held immediately prior to this meeting
6) Action Items from Previous Meetings and Agency Requests (Northern)
' Reverification of Jurisdictional Areas
• Completed the re-verification of jurisdictional areas for the entire project
during August 2007.
• DWQ Numeric Ratings determined as part of update, listed in tables in packet
• USACE issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on 2/11/08. (Copy
included as an attachment to this packet)

' Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules Assessment of Stream Feature
• September 14, 2007 letter from DWQ listing and illustrating streams in the
project area that are Applicably of the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules (Copy
' included as an attachment to this packet)
Jurisdictional Areas Results (Hydraulic Min. vs. Field Recommended):
• Values are calculated in tables 2 thru 5 in this packet.

Prime Farmland Values Illustrated in Previous Packets
' Previous packets had listed acreage for prime farmlands. A review of the
rating forms for the project showed that there were no prime farmlands.

Deep Gully
• During the March 6, 2007 CP2A Northern Field Meeting, the Merger Process
Team recommended bridging the Deep Gully Crossing. NCDOT redesigned
the New Bern Bypass plans to provide for bridging of the Deep Gully
' Crossing.
7) Bridging Alternatives Attachments:
• R-2514 B, C & D Location Figure
• Northern Portion Project Figure Chadwick to Jones - Craven County Line,
Alternatives 4D and 4E
' Bridging Options Under Consideration
• Impacts Matrix Northern Portion of the Project
• Notification of Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination USACE
' ESI Wetland and Stream Delineation Reevaluation and Neuse River Riparian
Buffer Memom
• Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules Determination Letter
' Jurisdictional Areas Maps Hydro./ Field Recommendations
• Jurisdictional Impacts Tables - Hydro./ Field Recommendations
• Preliminary Roadway Design Plans

' 1NOTL Are of Common ` Iid nment are Dis la a in the Order;o#Alternative
111<
17 CRAVE
COUNTY;
Jones Cor er q
Jj
~'renmile F c

Oak GLOVe { ~'s SEGMENT 4 ALTERNATIVES
Alternate 4A
, Alternate 4B
58 - Alternate 4D
r f =Alternate 4E
Alternate 4G
shy r
a s ollocksville DAlternate 4H
(=Alternate 41
Alternate 41D

JONES

17 COUNTY
' CROATAN
58 ' NATIONAL
SEGMENT 3 ALTERNATIVES FOREST
Q Alternate 3
f~~f
SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVES
1. ,
' j Alternate 2
- r
Alternate 2A
j Alternate 2 B
-ma ysville' Alternate 2C
ONSLOW
COUNTY

F

:

17 l` , . 2 1
i ~ Miles

NORTH CAROLINA R-2514 B, C & D LOCATION MAP
t
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION Figure 1

` Legend FIELD RECOMMENDED BRIDGE LENGTHS STRUCTURE HYDRAULIC MINIMUMS

Paved Road Alternate 4C - -
St2
M - - Unimproved/GravelRoad Alternate 4E r~ C i 5
yA' j " iP EtJ US .TS F=1. F S I L-1
;
Town Boundary
Eliminated Alternate Sts EXTEND CULVERT 2-B'X6'PC

County Boundary ~c - S15 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 420' c:_
I
~ . 53A CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 330(GOSHEN BRANCH) 'ci- S17 EXTEND CULVERT 2-&'X6 Pr 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Preliminary Corridors Stud Boundar S8 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 290 _ Feet
° ry Y Y 3 c('r ST ,CT BR!CG- -:ENT R dEP) g7 d10' S9 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 2- ' - 0 150 00 600 800 1,200
Meters
. , tt •tt{ 04121108
110# t .x x € a;,;# 7 ` r
a
k
x ~ 1 .ltl'kif TS ~ 1 µ A ywxj Y~~°
gmO
,L-
c4
v r
PON
%-x ilk
va } v
r N~
I ~ a
4 6-
"
nos a }
F ,
Gos
r ~
a
1 "
w
u-
w
q.Q
51,
a
WIN
° r
7' 8 E3
Y xiX Y}
rt,,
cksvlle
17 l~ 58 lIO V =
L -:4
58 ti l t~
If -
Ravenswood
}
-7777-7 t h s 1
x
Z, Y
.
n
' 3 0° r t a~ _ 1~ ><<~.. , ~ :'P`•,'; °a ~JO
LINTY ~
,y
X34 ~ ' 'f' yc t' ~ ~'a r ~ y~ t v ~ ~ ~ 3 1
X
s rCR
VEN

3
R-2514
D CORRIDORS MAP 2008
-AID

R-2514 B, C & D - US 17
' DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
IMPACT MATRIX
' Hydraulic Recommended Field Visit Recommended Relocations SDEIS Potential Neuse
Environmental River
Total Total Total Const. Potential Noise Historic Justices/ Buffer
Length Proposed Bridge Wetland Stream Bridge Wetland Stream Cost# R/W Total Contaminated Cemetery Impacts Resources Community Terrestrial Prime Impacts
Alternatives miles ROW Length Impacts Impacts Length Impacts Impacts (Mil) Cost* Cost Residential Business Minorities Sites impacts (Total) Im acted Im acts Im acts Farmlands s q.
ft)
S9 = 290 S8A=380 Foscue and Hatchville,
Alt 4D 8.28 S17=2-8X6 290 29.26 2075 S8B=1180 24.86 1680 $96.50 $4.58 $101.08 11 0 0 0 0 92 Simmons Goshen, Oak 276 0 150,319
S15 =420 Plantations Grove
W
S9 = 290 S9A=380 Hatchville,
Alt 4E 8.57 S17=2-8X6 290 33.86 1831 S913=1 180 29.77 1436 $100.10 $4.34 $104.44 7 0 0 0 0 86 none Goshen, Oak 283 0 130,166
S17 = 420
Grove
` Cost Estimated in Yr 2001
# - Cost Estimated in Yr 2008 /
Highest Impacts by Alternative
Lowest Impacts by Alternative V

V'j

I

I

I

TABLE 1
BRIDGING OPTIONS UNDER CONSIDERATION
HYDRAULICALLY REQUIRED VS. FIELD RECOMMENDED

Hydraulic Bridge Field Recommended
Detailed Length of Length Required
Study No. Stream Stream ID Existing Comments
Alternative . No. Structure
Length Struct. No. Length

Goshen
S8A Branch T-15 NA None S8A 380' Bridge Previously a single
bridge, now two
4D bridges.
S8B Trent River T-2 NA 290' Bridge SB8 1180' Bridge
Original culverts
removed, bridges
S15 Deep Gully D-1 NA 2 - 8'x6' S15 420' Bridge added.
Goshen
S9A Branch T-15 NA None S9A 380' Bride Previously a single
bridge, now two
4E bridges.
S913 Trent River T-2 NA 290' Bridge S96 1180' Bridge
Original culverts
removed, bridges
S17 Deep Gully D-1 NA 2 - 8'x6' S17 420' Bridge added.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ~
WILMINGTON DISTRICT : s~ t
Action Id. SAW 2008-00528 County: Jones & Craven U.S.G.S. Quad: Stella

NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Address: attn: Mark Pierce
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone No.: 919-733-3141
Property description:
Size (acres) Nearest Town Pollocksville & Maysville
Nearest Waterway Trent River & White Oak River River Basin Neuse & White Oak
USGS HUC 03020106 & 03010204 Coordinates N 34.8746 W -77.2445
Location description Proposed US 17 highway protect is approximately 16 miles long from Belgrade to the
Jones/Craven County line (R-2514B).
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary information, there may be waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area.
We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
' jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33
CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination

There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of
this notification.
There are waters of the U.S. including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
' CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
' determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
' permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.

' Page I of 2

_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
' detennine their requirements.
Action Id. SAW 2008-00528

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact William Wescott at 252-975-1616 ext, 31.
C. Basis For Determination
Waters of the US, including wetlands are present within the ?roiect area Wetland areas were identified using the 1987
USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and field verified by USACE August 27-30,2007.
D. Remarks
Final iurisdictional determinations regarding Rapanos will be conducted once the LEDPA corridor is selected

E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B: above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination,'you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 33I. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn:William Wescott, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
' Washington, North Carolina 27889
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this
1 correspondence.**
11 _.."l
Corps Regulatory Official:

' Date 02/11/2008 Expiration Date 02/11/2013

' The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at http://regulatory.usacesurvey corn/ to
complete the survey online.

Copy furnished:

Page 2 of 2

4 • ~~3~~2. a?: 'c L v-YW"rS~ ~__'+_`.wFq^c r.•.,`~-~:.' _ ,.,?!:':+,,?=:~,`-c-r.,~; .~-~.1•-„.:-,'~:t,.. ~E.~; ~:~ra.:K= ~?.~•`-,.:r=~3~i,
-s '.k:~=.i'~.~?F~-=F,,~ ~";-'S"~i:.:Tr:?cy~,a. ._..-si.-'~ ~.vx-_-r-,.--~~,'.~~<a'li =:,.Z:_a.i c_.,'-"~`:n _-_r~is; •;~.'-c,.~'-.~,...sy._;;.:_>~
~ - '.:._3_ _ ~ ~-~~~tf(~.-:~~.4`kt ti'J'21..~a~i .•3.eZt - ~,a .r.F
.,..a,,=-;,' . _ -;~;=;s Y3.x_~~?.i- _y,3x~T`.~~.~+.XRy' _ =--:?:`=;:"i'5.`_.~.ta.xx~~'~~'4~8 S>~c'~-'~ k,:~:
_ ~'Pur,++' ~._T.,. r,-: I~cA`~_ -c,"~.a._%.x..;~z ~~~~?v..7Pf,_ __t._..+`~~,."F i J--~. ^.G ~ ~-3~',^`t-• ~ ~E fr
Applicant: NCDOT File Number: SAW 2008- Date: 2/11/2008
00528 '
Attached is: Wetland Verification See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of A
permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
' APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
ySEGTION I The.fo116wxng identifies yottr:rrghts and optrons regarding.an admurtstratrve appeal of#lae above
de%ision Additional rn#ormat en may be found at littp /h vw.usace army in1lh tlfi nctiorislcw/cecwo%ree or
Co' s re^' ~ at~ous at 33 CFR Part~.33.1..
' A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: 1'ou may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terns and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
' • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section H of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the pernit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit,
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terns and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
' C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial ofa permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section 1I of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD,
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the for i to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
' JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II RE UEST FOR APPEAL of OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative
record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the
' review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
'POINT:OF.CONTACTFOR UESTIONS OR,:INFORMATION
If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
US Artily Corps of Engineers Mr. Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
attn: William Wescott CESAD-ET-CO-R
Post Office Box 1000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
' Washington, North Carolina 27889 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Geor is 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
investigations.
' Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent,
' For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:

District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn:William Wescott, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory Field Office, Post Office Box 1000, Washington, North Carolina 27889

For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:

Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
' Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9MI5, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8801

Reverification of Jurisditional Areas (Wetlands)
Comparison Table

Wetland Changes
Alternate Original Revised Variance Comments
Delineation Delineation Removed Added Modified
Wetland 99 (Pine Stand) omitted for 16 acre reduction and
wetland 202 modified to reduction of 7 acres. As well as
4D Field Rec. 44.81 24.86 -19.95 1 (-16.32ac 3 (-7.68ac) changes at Deep Gully
Wetland 99 (Pine Stand) omitted for 16 acre reduction and
wetland 202 modified to reduction of 7 acres. As well as
changes at Deep Gully
4E Field Rec. 50.01 29.77 -20.24 2 (-18.77ac) 4 (4.38ac) 1 (-5.67ac)

Results of Revarification of Jurisdictional Areas (Streams)
Comparison Table

Original Revised Stream Changes (ft)
Alternate Delineation Delineation Variance (ft) Comments
(ft) (ft) Removed Added Modified
New Stream D2 added at Deep Gully, 612
ft.
4D Field 1084.32 1680.12 595.79 4(612.88) 1 -17.08
New Stream D2 added at Deep Gully, 612
4E Field 827.98 1436.50 608.52 2 (612.90) 1 (-4.39) ft.

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
' 1022 Grandiflora Drive Suite 250
Leland, North Carolina 28451
910-383-6021 / Facsimile 910-383-6049
www.environmentalservicesine.com

' MEMORANDUM

' TO: Wes Stafford
FROM: Matt Smith

DATE: 3 October 2007

RE: US 17 Belgrade to New Bern (R-2514B)
Wetland and Stream Delineation Reevaluation and Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Reassessment. WIL06-046.01

Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI), has completed a reevaluation of the wetland and stream
' delineation for the proposed right-of-way limits for Alternatives 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4d, and 4e of the

US 17 Belgrade to New Bern improvements project R-2514B. In addition, stream features
located within the Neuse River Basin and potentially impacted by the project were reassessed to
determine applicability of the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules.

' The revised jurisdictional wetland and stream delineation was reviewed in the field by U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) representative William Wescott on 27-30 August 2007. The
revised Neuse River Riparian Buffer assessment was reviewed in the field by N.C. Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) representative David Wainwright on 27 August 2007. The attached

summary of the jurisdictional delineation and riparian buffer assessment is inclusive of any
changes requested by the USACE and NCDWQ.

The attached documentation supporting the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Reassessment includes:
• Summary table of non-stream features evaluated,
• Confirmation letter from NCDWQ on applicability of the Neuse River Basin Riparian
' Buffer Rules,

• Field mapping depicting the locations of features evaluated for eligibility of the Neuse
River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules,
• NCDWQ Stream Identification forms for non jurisdictional features.

1

1

1 The attached documentation supporting the jurisdictional wetland and stream delineation
includes:
1 • Summary table of jurisdictional streams and wetlands,

• NCDWQ Stream Identification forms for jurisdictional streams,
1 • USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets for jurisdictional streams,
0 USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms for jurisdictional wetlands,
• NCDWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets for jurisdictional wetlands.

1 If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 910-383-6021. We look forward to

providing continued assistance to Wilbur Smith Associates and the North Carolina Department
1 of Transportation (NCDOT) with this important project.

i

1

1

i

1

i

1

1

1 2

1

Table 1. Stream features depicted on USGS topographic mapping and/or NRCS soils mapping not delineated
as jurisdictional streams. Features delineated as jurisdictional streams are included in Table 2. Includes
features in the White Oak River Basin not subject to the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules.
Depicted Depicted Flow DWQ USACE
Feature On USGS On Soils Characteristics Rating Rating River Basin Count
2 x Ephemeral 10 n/a White Oak Onslow
8 x Ephemeral 3 n/a White Oak Jones
9 x x Ephemeral 5.5 n/a Neuse Jones
10 x x Ephemeral 4.5 n/a Neuse Jones
21 x Ephemeral 8.75 n/a Neuse Jones
26 x Wetland 12.5 n/a Neuse Jones
27 x Ephemeral 7 n/a Neuse Jones
28 x Ephemeral 15 n/a Neuse Jones
29a x Ephemeral 10.75 n/a Neuse Jones
31 x Ephemeral 8 n/a Neuse Jones
32 x Ephemeral 5 n/a Neuse Jones

Table 2. Stream features depicted on USGS topographic mapping and/or NRCS soils mapping delineated
as jurisdictional streams. Features not delineated as jurisdictional streams are included in Table 1.

Depicted Depicted Subject to Neuse
On On River Riparian Buffer Flow DWQ USACE
Feature Del. ID USGS Soils Rules Characteristics Rating Rating River Basin Count
1 W1/W2 x x Intermittent 17.75 42 White Oak Onslow
3 W14 x x Perennial 49 79 White Oak Onslow/Jones
4 W9 x Perennial 34.5 80 White Oak Onslow
5 W8 x Perennial 45.5 90 White Oak Onslow/Jones
6 W151W161W17/W18 x x Intermittent 17.75 37 White Oak Jones
7 W21 x Intermittent 19.5 26 White Oak Jones
11 T15 x x x Perennial 41.5 79 Neuse Jones
12 Trent River x x x Perennial 46.5 89 Neuse Jones
13 T16 x x x Perennial 21 51 Neuse Jones
14 S18 x x x Intermittent 24.75 63 Neuse Jones
17 D1 x x x Perennial 45.25 88 Neuse Jones/Craven
19 W19 x Intermittent 20.5 13 White Oak Jones
20a G1 x x Intermittent 21.5 41 Neuse Jones
20b G1 x x Intermittent 25.5 41 Neuse Jones
22 G2a x x Intermittent 18 14 Neuse Jones
24 B5 x x Intermittent 19 36 Neuse Jones
29b S14 x x Intermittent 23 n/a Neuse Jones
33 D2 x x Intermittent 22 51 Neuse Jones
15,30 S9/S10/s11 x x x Intermittent 22 30 Neuse Jones
n/a W5 Perennial 30 70 White Oak Onlow
n/a S17 Intermittent 16.5 40 Neuse Jones
n/a W11a/W11b Intermittent 22.25 30 White Oak Jones

' Table 3. Jurisdictional Wetlands within the proposed alignment for US 17
including Alternatives 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4d, 4e.

Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments
1 omitted per USACE
' 2 38 no change
3 omitted per USACE
4 41 no change
' 5 41 no change
6 45 no change
7 45 no change
' 8 47 no change
9 48 no change
10 omitted per USACE
11 74 no change
12 avoided
13 area re-flagged
14 area re-flagged
15 area re-flagged
16 area re-flagged
17 area re-flagged
' 18 avoided
19 area re-flagged
20 area re-flagged
' 21 avoided
22 31 no change
23 avoided
24 31 no change
25 avoided
26 33 no change
27 21 extended
' 28 combined with 27
29 35 no change
30 36 no change
' 31 41 no change
32 42 no change
33 area re-flagged
34 72 extended
35 26 no change
36 33 n change
37 72 no change
38 avoided
39 filled/Byrd
40 filled/Byrd
' 41 80 no change
Table 3 continues.
' 1

' Table 3 continued.
Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments

42 80 no change
' 43 avoided
44 58 no change
45 71 no change
46 80 no change
47 avoided
48 28 no change
' 49 47 extended
50 24 no change
51 24 no change
' 52 22 no change
53 22 no change
54 avoided
55 22 no change
' 56 avoided
57 avoided
58 avoided
' 59 31 refla ed
60 avoided
61 26 no change
62 24 no change
63 26 no change
64 avoided
65 33 no change
66 avoided
67 22 extended
68 33 no change
69 22 extended
70 22 extended
71 17 no change
' 72 17 no change
73 17 no change
74 17 extended
75 36 no change
76 21 no change
77 25 no change
' 78 28 no change
79 29 no change
80 29 no change
81 omitted/not jurisdictional
' 82 36 no change
83 36 no change
84 35 no change
' 85 31 no change
86 31 no change
Table 3 continues.
2

Table 3 continued.
Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments
87 35 no change
' 88 30 refla ed
89 24 no change
90 24 no change
91 27 no change
92 12 no change
93 22 no change
94 53 extended
95 re-flagged as G1 stream
96 re-flagged as G1 stream
97 30 no change
' 98 35 n change
99 omitted/not jurisdictional
100 35 no change
' 101 avoided
102 avoided
103 avoided
' 104 avoided
105 avoided
106 avoided
107 avoided
108 avoided
109 avoided
110 avoided
111 avoided
112 avoided
113 43 no change
114 43 no change
115 avoided
116 avoided
' 117 avoided
118 avoided
119 avoided
120 avoided
121 avoided
122 avoided
123 avoided
' 124 avoided
125 avoided
126 avoided
' 127 avoided
128 avoided
129 avoided
130 88 no change
131 88 no change
Table 3 continues.
3

' Table 3 continued.
Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments
132 88 refla ed
133 avoided
134 avoided
135 59 no change
136 avoided
137 avoided
138 avoided
139 avoided
140 avoided
141 86 no change
142 avoided
143 avoided
144 avoided
145 avoided
146 avoided
147 avoided
148 avoided
149 avoided
150 avoided
151 avoided
152 avoided
153 avoided
154 avoided
' 155 avoided
156 avoided
157 avoided
158 avoided
' 159 avoided
160 avoided
161 avoided
' 162 avoided
163 45 no change
164 avoided
' 165 avoided
166 22 no change
167 38 no change
' 168 avoided
169 avoided
170 avoided
171 avoided
' 172 38 no change
173 38 no change
174 avoided
175 34 no change
176 38 no change
Table 3 continues.
4

Table 3 continued.
Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments

177 38 no change
178 avoided
179 17 no change
180 16 no change
181 55 no change
182 38 no change
183 16 no change
184 55 no change
185 avoided
186 45 refla ed
187 16 no change
188 16 no change
189 28 no change
190 avoided
' 191 avoided
192 44 no change
193 44 no change
' 194 avoided
195 avoided
196 28 no change
197 avoided
198 avoided
199 19 no change
' 200 40 no change
201 36 refla ed
202 22 refla ed
203 avoided
204 avoided
205 avoided
206 avoided
207 avoided
208 avoided
209 avoided
' 210 avoided
211 60 no change
212 32 no change
' 213 avoided
214 avoided
215 36 no change
216 avoided
' 217 77 no change
218 avoided
219 avoided
220 avoided
221 avoided
Table 3 continues.
5

Table 3 continued.
Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments
222 avoided
' 223 avoided
224 74 no change
225 21 new
' 226 21 new
227 21 new
228 stream S17
' 229 17 new
230 omitted per USACE/ditch
231 51 new
232 omitted per USACE/ditch
' 233 48 new
234 48 new
235 avoided
236 60 new
237 60 new
238 65 new
' 239 65 new
240 47 new
241 25 new
242 25 new
243 17 new
244 omitted per USACE/ditch
245 29 new
246 34 new
247 31 new
248 31 new
' 249 32 new

' 6

WATFRQ Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr.. Secretary
AO G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
6 a I I U
r- Coleen H. Sullins. Director
' Q f Division of Water Quality

' September 14, 2007 RECEIVED

Mr. Matthew Smith SEP 2 4 2007
)06 a~
Environmental Services, Inc. BY-: V, / i. /)l
1022 Grandiflora Drive, Suite 250
Leland, NC 28451
Subject: NCDOT TIP # R-2514, US 17 from the Jones/Craven County Line to Maysville, Jones County

' On-Site Determination for Applicability of the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B.0233)
Dear Mr. Smith:

On August 27, 2007, at your request and in attendance with Ms. Nicole A. Loft of Environmental Services
Incorporated (ESI), David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) staff, conducted an on-site
' determination to review a selection of drainage features located in and adjacent to the proposed improvements to
US 17 from the Jones/Craven County line to Maysville with respect to the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules. At
the request of ESI, only sites within the Neuse River watershed were reviewed.
' The following table summarizes the DWQ's findings:

Feature Waterbod * Visited b DW Stream or Ditch Subject to Buffer Rules
9 UT to Mill Creek No Ephemeral Ditch No
10 UT to Mill Creek No Ephemeral Ditch No
1 1 Goshen Branch No Perennial Stream Yes
12 Trent River No Perennial Stream Yes
13 UT to Trent River Yes Perennial Stream Yes
14 UT to Trent River Yes Intermittent Stream Yes
15/30 UT to Scott Creek Yes Intermittent Stream Yes
16 Goshen Branch No Perennial Stream Yes
17 Dee Gull Creek No Perennial Stream Yes
20 UT to Mill Creek Yes Intermittent Stream Yes
' 21 UT to Mill Creek Yes Ephemeral Ditch No
gLIT22UT to Mill Creek Yes Perennial Stream Yes
T to Mill Creek Yes E hemeral Ditch No (not on USGS or MRCS)
to Goshen Branch Yes Intermittent Stream Yes
to Trent River" Yes Wetland; not stream N/A USACE will determine)
27 UT to Trent River Yes Ephemeral Ditch No
28 UT to Trent River Yes Ephemeral Ditclt No
29 UT to Scott Creek Yes Ephemeral Ditch No
31 UT to Scott Creek Yes Ephemeral Ditch No
32 Scott Creek Yes Ephemeral Ditch No
' 33 UT to Dee Gull Creek Yes Intennittent Stream Yes
• UT is Unnamed Tribunary; no name is identified on the USUs 1:24.000 topographic maps. Not all UTs are direct tributaries to primary waterway.
• • This feature was determined to a wetland; however it is shown as an Unnamed Tributary to the Trent River on the NRCS map,
t~~`ja~hCazo ina
' Transportation Permitting Unit ;/VllftlCll~lJ
1650 Mail Service Center, Ralegh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone]Internet http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nmetlands
' An Equal Opportunity/AtBnnative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

pF W ApF9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
C~` Q William G, Ross Jr., Secretary
O North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
> s_ Coleen H. Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality

' The drainage features and site visit locations are approximated on the attached maps.
It was determined in the field that feature 26, although shown as a drainage way on the NRCS maps, was a
wetland system. It appeared as though fill has been brought in to create an access road many years ago. This
road bisected what was probably a natural drainage way. As a result of the fill, the area has subsequently
become a wetland, as the natural watercourse has been altered.

Upon returning to the office, and looking at both the USGS 1:24,000 topoquad maps as well as the NRCS soil
survey maps, it was detenmined that feature 23 is not shown on either map. Therefore, pursuant 15A NCAC 02B
.0233 (3), this feature is not subject to the Neuse River Watershed Riparian Buffer Rules.
Based on these site reviews of determinations made by ESI, all other sites identified in the Jurisdictional
Verification Package but not reviewed on site by DWQ will be considered accurate.

' This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and does not approve any activity within
the buffer, Waters of the United States, or Waters of the State. Any impacts to wetlands, streams and
buffers must comply with the, 404/401 regulations, water supply regulations (15A NCAC 2B.0216),
' applicable buffer rules, and any other required federal, state and local regulations. Please be aware that
even if no direct impacts are proposed to any protected buffers, sheet flow of all new stormwater runoff as
per 15A NCAC 2B.0250 is required.
` Landowners or affected patties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that
a surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by the Director. A
request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o John Hennessy, DWQ
401 Transportation Permitting Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that
dispute a determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the
mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive
this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected
party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that the
applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner,
To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter I SOB of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This
determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
' If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call David Wainwright at 919-715-
3415 or by e-mail at David.Waiiiwriglit ncmail net.

Sincerely,/ a

' David Wainwright

N~`hCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit
~~~ura/~
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
' 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Ralegh, North Carolina 27604 .
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] / Internet: bttp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/n -wetlands
An Equal opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

K-Zbl4 (Ub -I r bypass) rrojecz

N.L. Division of Water Quality Neuse Giver Buffer Review Site Map

Feature 33
UT to Deep Gully Creek
(Visited by DWQ)
/i Subject to Buffer Rules
Feature 17
~r Features 31 & 32 Deep Gully Creek
UT to Scott Creek/Scott Creek (Not visited by DWQ) + TF o 1=-t
Visited by DWQ)
+ = Not Subject to Buffer Rules Subject to Buffer Rules
_
`t! !
1 ,11 "r 17 Beginning of Project
Features 15 & l' UT to Scott Creek 1\ ti.
tf 1 (Visited by DWQ) Jones corner
k S 1 ter;' 1
Subject to Buffer Rules
TA61M Fork Jlr ( J 1
04" G.
Feature 29
- r UT to Scott Creek ; as r1= a I .r
Visited by DWQ) J (r (J r ~i^
Not Subject to Buffer Rules _ ~t , I t%~• t ' ' Y~ r "
~ ; • ~ ,ate, s• l .
Feature 14 ~ • tI ;
r + ` x UT to Trent River
JT ' (Visited by DWQ) 1002 _ " ,.,5' ~~t.• ; ,t
_ _(1 I 1 Subject to Buffer Rules
t% Feature 27 .-Y -
%
UT to Trent River -
Visited by DWQ)
Not Subject to Butter Rules
j ` el.'. = I • \C i1 ~(i It
G ~ _%NM~CTr ~g\ ~ t '•I. ~(1~ ` 8H . JJ - `\t-~v_ _C...~, ti~~; ~--~_v
"Aw
' Feature 28
.u.l UT to Trent River ;r•--_ J. ro ' =a
(Visited by DWQ) ,''t i • i ~~~c~~ F
Not Subject to Buffer Rules
`t5 ;..:'i- '"tic--:~ s (i t_,
Feature 26 ( i
° Wetland Area (claimed by USAGE)
Visited by DWQ) i V : . ' j_- • : r 4, 1'>5
ill ~ :;r~'J ,t,5 ~ _ _ ,t '~l'~T!,V~~~ ? ~ y ;''1~ ~7'_'`.a F
Feature 13 _~C: .}t ~L' r `~k_1^ `.s ' + K Y f;f .!f I~ (~~L •7 I' i GaS ;0.
UT to Trent River _ ` x A rr ? ' t',.ir~ -r Ji y~ Y_ ~a`•
- (Visited by DWQ)
Subject to Buffer Rules
r~_ f` _s,. ~ 4~~, I1 - ~ -~1.• F, r~ rr irr'`~,~ 1 i + \
Feature 12 f; Legend _
Trent River
visited by DWQ) ~`y °i t Approximate sample Location )
(Not
' Subject to Buffer Rule
;t. „ 't J T l NRCS Stream (approx. location) t
Sf a tl S,L USGS Stream (approx. location)
i. Feature 11
Goshen Branch r1 z 12
-1 (Not visited by DWQ) L- 0 0.3 0.6 Miles -
' I•' Subject to Buffer Rules j5-
Tan tags are subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules; grey tags are not .t
' All locations (streams, sample sites, etc.) are approximate and are for representational purposes only. Map Page 1

R-2514 (US 17 Bypass) Project
N.C. Division of Water Quality Neuse River Buffer Review Site Map
I. ~ J~ fly ri ~ ~.J ! ? . ` t, ` 0 -Sr

- -
Feature 16
Goshen Branch 58
~ l r -
(Not visited by DWQ) -•~.?L,#~.!Lf
Subject to Buffer Rules
S I Belt. \ X t~; s6 17 I, r I' r
Feature 24 ; ( J( I `
UT to Goshen Branch 11T41 2e
,"E _ (Visited by DWQ)
' Subject to Buffer Rules
1
.
I
k 1 t2
lra1= Feature 10 ll I Inu1 eem , , r ' I` : •1 J'• I"
UTto Mill Creek
(Not visited by DWQ) , i 7 -
1 H` Not Subject to Buffer Rules
Feature 23 1 Ravenew
'Not on USGS or NRCS maps* I _ , \
(Visited by DWQ)
Not Subject to Buffer Rules
Feature 9
UT to Mill Creek fig~
Not visited b DWQ)
Not Subject to Buffer Rules 'r ? ` F.
Feature 22
UT to Mill Creek - •-''r ! , i
(Visited by DWQ) - t I--- - l -
i-_~,
Subject to Buffer Rules
Feature 21 -
UT to Mill Creek
(Visited by DWQ) V' i
Not Subject to Buffer Rules i i./~/~ _
' FGS - Feature 20
I F' ~-i UT to Mill Creek - •rj-=_='='°"ti- i
t R2F, Visited by DWQ) '
Subject to Buffer Rules f ,
w i
~ eu n.; to !i 1
f I y Legend
! ~0 " - Approximate Sample Location
NRCS Stream (approx. location)
i • ~p~ I USGS Stream (approx. location)
t~ -
0 0.3 0.6 Miles
' T r. -1,1-# #n #hn AI-- Dk- D.,ffer D,J- nrn,~ #ono orn nn# - - -

BRIDGING OPTIONS AND ASSOCIATED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
(HYDRAULIC MINIMUMS)
Legend
' - Inventoried Wetlands Impacts by Disturbed Limits Structure Identification 2
Paved Road O Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4A Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4G .
Series 1 Wetland Wetlands Impacted by Disturbed Limits (1)
- - UnimprovedlGravelRoad ~ Disturbed Limit of Alternate 48 ~ Disturbed Limit ofAltemate4H
Revised Welland . Reservoir/Pond Impacted (P1) r ,,,v ro , :.._F°
Town Boundary Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4D Disturbed Limit of Alternate 41 ,.'L E _ -
Stream/Surface Water Impacted (W1)
. S15 EXTEND CULVERT 2$XB'RCBC
County Boundary Disturbed Limit ofAltemate4E O Disturbed Limit o(Alternate4lD
0 500 ,,000 2,000 9,000 4,000
Preliminary Corridors Study Boundary Proposed Bridge or Culvert - - S17 EXTEND CULVERT 2"8'X6'RCBC
jjjjjjjjjj!!!!!!!M Feet
CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 290' a 150 e00 500 mC 1,200
CONSTRICT FRIDGE 290'
Meters
r - /l k v \ • ~ * ' 04121108
R
Oak i 1 Y
f.:
Grove
, is ~ ~ ~ , ~ . - r_. 1 ,
a• ,~1 y~Q % • i ~ A~a c- Pt 176 1896 -
S9 3 Ba
_ ~y'% T ~ ~ r1` ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~i~ L-. ~ 167 t72 ~~s~ - ~~~e,~o a 200 ~ ? .
~ 5 • } I ~ji, ~~d,~y~1 ~ `i 1 ~,~y~ ~,1 l~~ it 167 try. 'oFoa y "
r
- ;~V, {?1 P' ' - y181 'r 183 - ° is -
i~
e GOShen ~1 X166' sr 1n 401.,:
A e
~ _ 1 rY~ , , ~ IS i ~ 1 . c_ ~ - / ~ - .x`182 -
i~ ~ ° r ~ J/ r•~~ ~ ~r 135 c~ ~ I P ,/.J r 1184 186 . 246 196 y192
J S15

5c
202 141 '
= - 141 - ~f ~ T (I ATt ~ ~ ns
C 137 2
x
Oil
Ten ~ Mi e,, 262 202
R oa p 1 22227 ~ ^ p
-0
Jones Corner, 225 /
17
1 ~ ~Y IJ 212~
ti 249
58 Ravenswood
It-
Q
„
51
- ,`:s ~ ` " - t.i a ca.rb 4 -Jy 1 ~ l r~?~....5~ a• C1 .0, ~ l;- 'r v1,- '(.1 'I tc (r' W~~- d s e
-z`yT r~' h ~ i i l -.ai kL,r _ ? ~ y.~f. `alt ! " ~ r i!!i ~ / ~:r 3 ~tib
^L~'
JONES
5t ,
-co U p*.._ 7~x, f
.'fi.~i Y4K:Y .n. yr I' r, k1, ~O r JJ ~Ii/
, a/, 1 ~~:I i~ l~ ~J 1~1•_. \wr~ p zc,cr1`:~ _ _S'•'~r,... 3~.rr5~,1 6,'! / y/
. Il 4 \"\:ti` ~ ~ ; /\t,; ~ ~ ~ f` ?r~ l ~o"'~ 'J~r~J-~" `@=~L'r I~e /
. ~'n /
i^ ` ,•.H 1 _,1 1` 4 •do; _ X00 ,~v..--5,, 4,•- # \ l /L
WE
.777-
_ CRN:
~.~q1-'
e r ( ~v - 1 .,J s • D - ~~t\, ~"u!P_.Y i i ( -.r ,J x 1 r^
j ' COUNTY
1
r i it
- _ 1 ~ `t_ ,pX. R-2514
1
D JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS 2008

' BRIDGING OPTIONS AND ASSOCIATED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS (FIELD RECOMMENDED
Legend
' Inventoried Wetlands Impacts by Disturbed Limits Structure Identification 2
Paved Road Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4A Disturbed Limit ofAlternate 4G
Series 1 Wetland Wetlands Impacted by Disturbed Limits (1) - -
- UnimprovedlGravelRoad Disturbed Limit ofAlternate4B Disturbed Limit ofAltemate4H`
Revised Wetland Reservoir/Pond Impacted (P1) 33 PET Er „I rear Sill conSiRUh RICC d9
Town Boundary Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4D Disturbed Limit of Alternate 41 r _ R°T,I,IE-I E[11 5._ CONSTRU TE C
- - StieamlS;dree Voter lmi:a~fed PN1) CCN TFUCT BRICGE 340
S13 CGNSTPU T[t
County Boundary Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4E Disturbed Limit of Alternate41D E COm„TeuCTE1[E.:.:P S^l Coyairu Ic u~
conlSiPUCT EEIDCE4V S15 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 4zi' o soa 7,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
Preliminary Corridors Study Boundary o Proposed Bridge or Culvert SEA CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 380'(GOSHEN BRANCH) S16 CONSTPUCT BFior_,- rFeet
S8B CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 1180' (TRENT RIVER) S17 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 40 150 300 500 900 1,200
'
Mefers
y "ATP C'C "°9(GO5H J EF'NCH Er
i
' @•- ~
4/21108
1 C -
9 1 Y7~ L
.
0~ ak Grove
S9A
{ A
t
l 1"
i /
V" ~~yq 72
Y
H~ r. - R~ 3zp zoo
1 ,161 r
9B /
J- Vw-
? f. r"`,r_ : \ a ~F ! .i 166 167 177 I 183 184 f E _ _
Goshen, I. ,•s~, ,67 ,B2 ~ )
• l } 1B4 86 24s 96 ~I
==F~ v
.
i jr~l1~-} .3 \ 929: zo, 202,
It
`~N
v AL i _ s
xN r _
,o
1
s - MileF
Ten orkt- 20%~
i
~zs
100 - l _ r . - 227 " 5~' s
r
r
q, ~~~o
' J
°
.
i
5 211 _
o orn;er
.
i °
17 y~ ~P_ollocksvllle~'~ U.. neS
r
58 a #I -
~ f ,.249
i'
217 ~
Ravenswood -
\ e J
sAy
- ^,`9 ` - 'i". ~ '~;j~r~~4 _ ~ s~ ~7-'f. y~~, is;^~.: f. rt,,_. l/1-,~ ~ u ,i / rr. 3 ~titi~
A
r
1/ _ J,, r~S f - t .x r Y\ k" /%.I 's.\. /l i1 ~I rr #;r3'\' ,I, ,j 65
i
y,r Y :.JONES 1; F f(
.
/f -~1.. , F'.¢, I I ~.'~yV l`.. i~~Y; ~~a',IV i ) `:~-.iyyW A.qr`_
_ k -yr:.r `r1 11 1. J~, /N
^
a 71; t > ~7 _ l ~1. CRAVEN
'j' 'it~.A i • ~ , ~ J "I: ";'.fir- -
COUNTY`
r' 1
~ n- i i L O, - d a a i I I -
a`, R-2514 D JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS 2008'n,i5

TABLE 2
ALTERNATE 4D HYDRAULIC MINIMUM - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
100 43674.33 1346.49 1.00 35
114 78585.31 2017.24 1.80 43
131 63107.78 1097.75 1.45 88
132 24214.27 799.66 0.56 88
135 97519.45 1617.04 2.24 59
141 6797.39 483.73 0.16 86
166 29573.94 1038.76 0.68 22
167 84112.03 3094.58 1.93 38
175 645.19 119.67 0.02 34
177 10243.91 667.51 0.24 38
181 31648.29 812.31 0.73 55
182 19418.18 1293.92 0.45 38
183 1177.11 212.29 0.03 16
184 40656.82 1048.02 0.93 55
184 12106.78 659.75 0.28 55
186 21269.14 652.00 0.49 45
196 14749.04 740.75 0.34 28
201 81538.44 1297.63 1.87 36
202 332067.07 7499.53 7.62 22
211 72477.32 2083.08 1.66 60
212 169.92 97.36 0.00 32
217 1.98 7.37 0.00 77
224 22228.63 1243.05 0.51 74
225 14455.05 636.32 0.33 21
226 59778.61 1194.61 1.37 21
227 99740.62 2850.61 2.29 21
229 2084.13 234.99 0.05 17
246 479.25 148.62 0.01 34
249 10024.74 656.11 0.23 32
TOTAL LINEAR FEET TOTAL ACRES 29.26
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b (1)/(P) c Basin
135 270.97 19.00 36 24 1 Neuse
D1 296.82 45.25 88 17 P Neuse
D2 492.11 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
D2 120.77 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
S9 317.79 22.00 30 15,30 1 Neuse
S14 181.67 23.00 n/a 29b I Neuse
S17 16.50 40 n/a I Neuse
S18 24.75 63 14 1 Neuse
T15 271.06 41.50 79 11 P Neuse
T16 123.75 21.00 51 13 P Neuse
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 2074.92
(a) ESI 1013/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3107 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial
(b) ESI 1013/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert NO PONDS
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S8 T16 E Trent River Trent River Bridge 290'
S15 D1 Dee Gull Dee Gull 2 - 8'X6' RCBC a

TABLE 3
ALTERNATE 4D FIELD RECOMMENDED - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
100 43674.33 1346.49 1.00 35
114 78585.31 2017.24 1.80 43
166 29573.94 1038.76 0.68 22
167 84112.03 3094.58 1.93 38
175 645.19 119.67 0.02 34
177 10243.91 667.51 0.24 38
181 31648.29 812.31 0.73 55
182 19418.18 1293.92 0.45 38
183 1177.11 212.29 0.03 16
184 40656.82 1048.02 0.93 55
184 12106.78 659.75 0.28 55
186 21269.14 652.00 0.49 45
196 14749.04 740.75 0.34 28
201 81538.44 1297.63 1.87 36
202 332067.07 7499.53 7.62 22
211 72477.32 2083.08 1.66 60
212 169.92 97.36 0.00 32
217 1.98 7.37 0.00 77
224 22228.63 1243.05 0.51 74
225 14455.05 636.32 0.33 21
226 59778.61 1194.61 1.37 21
227 99740.62 2850.61 2.29 21
229 2084.13 234.99 0.05 17
246 479.25 148.62 0.01 34
249 10024.74 656.11 0.23 32
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 0.00 TOTAL ACRES 24.86
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b (1)/(P) c Basin
B5 270.97 19.00 36 24 1 Neuse
D1 296.82 45.25 88 17 P Neuse
D2 492.11 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
D2 120.77 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
S9 317.79 22.00 30 15,30 1 Neuse
S14 181.67 23.00 n/a 29b I Neuse
S17 16.50 40 n/a I Neuse
S18 24.75 63 14 1 Neuse
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1680.12
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (I)/(P) Interim/Perennial
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert
NO PONDS
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S8A T15 Goshen Branch Goshen Branch Bridge 380'
S813 T16 Trent River Trent River Bridge 1180'
S15 D1 Dee Gu11 Dee Gull Bridge 420' a

rr r~ rr rr rr ~r rr rr r r r rr rr r r ~r rr rr rr
TABLE 4
ALTERNATE 4E HYDRAULIC MINIMUM - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a) LENGTH (ft) AREA (sf) PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating (c
100 43674.33 1346.49 1.00 35.00
114 78585.31 2017.24 1.80 43.00
131 63088.85 1097.60 1.45 88.00
132 24954.14 831.43 0.57 88.00
135 85805.03 1558.36 1.97 59.00
141 4506.93 327.68 0.10 86.00
166 24943.08 723.53 0.57 22.00
167 97670.90 3449.77 2.24 38.00
172 5019.14 326.44 0.12 38.00
173 23595.99 841.36 0.54 38.00
176 115847.30 2369.30 2.66 38.00
189 22210.47 1096.70 0.51 28.00
200 19719.12 650.57 0.45 40.00
202 579961.47 10436.37 13.31 22.00
211 72477.30 2083.49 1.66 60.00
212 169.92 97.36 0.00 32.00
217 1.98 7.37 0.00 77.00
224 22228.63 1243.05 0.51 74.00
225 14416.86 670.75 0.33 21.00
226 66490.85 1455.75 1.53 21.00
227 99740.60 2850.61 2.29 21.00
249 10024.74 656.11 0.23 32.00
TOTAL LINEAR FEET TOTAL ACRES 33.86
STREAMS
STREAM ID (a) LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating (c) USACE Rating (c) Feature (b) (1)/(P) (c Basin
B5 270.97 19.00 36 24 1 Neuse
D1 296.82 45.25 88 17 P Neuse
D2 492.11 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
D2 120.79 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
S10 255.81 22.00 30 15,30 1 NT15 271.09 41.50 79 11 P T16 123.75 21.00 51 13 P TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1831.34
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert NO PONDS
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S9 T16 Trent River Trent River Bridge 290'
S17 D1 Deep Gully Deep Gull 9 - 8'X6' RCBC (a

TABLE 5
ALTERNATE 4E FIELD RECOMMENDED - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
100 43674.33 1346.49 1.00 35
114 78585.31 2017.24 1.80 43
166 24943.08 723.53 0.57 22
167 97670.90 3449.77 2.24 38
172 5019.14 326.44 0.12 38
173 23595.99 841.36 0.54 38
176 115847.30 2369.30 2.66 38
189 22210.47 1096.70 0.51 28
200 19719.12 650.57 0.45 40
202 579961.47 10436.37 13.31 22
211 72477.30 2083.49 1.66 60
212 169.92 97.36 0.00 32
217 1.98 7.37 0.00 77
224 22228.63 1243.05 0.51 74
225 14416.86 670.75 0.33 21
226 66490.85 1455.75 1.53 21
227 99740.60 2850.61 2.29 21
249 10024.74 656.11 0.23 32
TOTAL LINEAR FEET TOTAL ACRES 29.77 -ji STREAMS
STREAM ID a) LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b (1)/(P) c Basin
135 270.97 19.00 36 24 1 Neuse
D1 296.82 45.25 88 17 P Neuse
D2 492.11 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
D2 120.79 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
S10 255.81 22.00 30 15,30 I Neuse
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1436.50
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (I)/(P) Interim/Perennial
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert
NO PONDS
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S9A T15 Goshen Branch Goshen Branch Bridge 380'
S913 T16 Trent River Trent River Bridge 1180'
S17 D1 Deep Gull Dee Gull Bridge 420' (a)

Revised Packet

5/22/08

' R-2514 B, C, & D US 17 Improvements
Concurrence Point 2 Revisited Meeting Agenda
Study Alternatives Carried Forward

The Southern Portion of the Project
From Belgrade to Chadwick
' and
The Northern Portion of the Project
from Chadwick to the Jones - Craven County Line

' 1) Purpose of this Meeting: The purpose is to present information to the Merger
Process Team in order to re-visit and reach concurrence on Point 2; Alternatives
carried forward, based upon preliminary impacts and updated jurisdictional wetland
' information for Segments 2 and 4 of the project. The last meeting of the Team was
on April 12, 2007. This meeting ended with several action items to be
addressed. These are addressed in this meeting.
2 TIP Description: The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to improve a 16 mile portion of US 17 between SR 1330 (Deppe Loop
' Road)/SR 1439 (Spring Hill Road) south of Belgrade and the New Bern Bypass near
the Jones/Craven County line, south of New Bern to multi-lanes with Bypasses of
Belgrade, Maysville and Pollocksville on new location. This concurrence meeting
' is to review the southern and northern portions of the project which includes
section B, C and section D.

3) Purpose & Need: Improve the capability of US 17 to meet its mandated objectives
as part of the Interstate System, Strategic Highway Corridor Network, and North
Carolina Strategic Corridor System. The existing roadway geometry, projected
traffic, and projected land use conditions diminish US 17's ability to function
efficiently.
4) Merger Process History and Current Project Status:

' A. August 24, 2006 Merger Team Informational Meeting -
• The purpose was to present information to the Merger Process Team
' regarding the current status of R-2514 and design changes due to the
Strategic Corridor Initiative.
• Team agreed to divide the project into two halves to facilitate discussions
on corridor selection.
• It was determined that the merger process needed to look at CP2A and
that bridging alternatives would be reviewed in the field.
B. November 1, 2006 Field Meeting:
• Held to review bridging alternatives southern section.
• The meeting was successful and bridging lengths were modified to the
Field Recommended lengths.

' C. Revised Preliminary Plans:
• The revised plans incorporated SHC revisions (Interchanges, grade
separations, superstreet design) and bridging design and
' recommendations from the November 1St CP2A field meeting.

D. February 22, 2007 CP2A & 3 Meetings:
• Held to review bridging options and corridor selection for southern section
of the project.
• Team verbally concurred to eliminate Alts 2 & 2B, but could not reach
' concurrence on Alt 2A vs. Alt 2C; the Elevation Process was initiated.

E. March 6, 2007 Field Meeting:
• Reviewed bridging alternatives for northern section.
' • New bridge lengths were recommended in the field and plans were
modified after the meeting.
F. March 7, 2007:
• USACE requested updated Jurisdictional Determination prior to Corridor
Selection

G. April 12, 2007 CP2 Revisited Concurrence Meeting:
• Chadwick to New Bern (verbal concurrence) team verbally concurred to
eliminate all of the alternatives except for Alts 4D and 4E.

H. February 11, 2008:
' • Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination issued by the USACE.
• Final Jurisdictional Determination to be prepared after the least-
environmentally-damaging-practical alternative is selected and the
' "Rapanos" forms are prepared. (compliance)

5) Current Status:
' • Completed the re-verification of jurisdictional areas for the entire project
during August 2007.
• USACE issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on February 11,
2008.
• A Merger Process Team Concurrence Meeting has been scheduled to
revisit CP2 (written concurrence for reduction of alternates for both
bypasses) and revisit CP2A (Chadwick to New Bern) for May 22, 2008.
• A Merger Process Team Concurrence Meeting has been scheduled to
revisit CP3 (Belgrade to New Bern) for June 19, 2008.

i

i

The Southern Portion (Maysville Bypass) of the Project
' From Belgrade to Chadwick
6) Action Items from Previous Meetings and Agency Requests (Southern)

Byrd Landfill Disposal Site Violation:
• USACE has concluded that this property could be considered in its pre-
violation condition for the purposes of impact assessment and corridor
selection.
• The Byrd Property is located in the southwest quadrant of Maysville and
' within Bypass Alternate 2C.

Wildlife Underpass:
• The Nature Conservancy, USFWS, USFS, NCDENR, and NCWRC
requested that NCDOT construct a wildlife underpass between Maysville and
the community of Chadwick.
• NCDOT has agreed to construct a wildlife underpass as part of the R-2514
' highway improvements project.
• NCDOT is waiting for responses from stakeholders regarding design criteria
and provisions
' Reverification of Jurisdictional Areas
• Completed the re-verification of jurisdictional areas for the entire project
' during August 2007.
• DWQ Numeric Ratings determined as part of update, listed in tables in packet
• USACE issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on February 11,
2008. (Copy included as an attachment to this packet)
• Table of JD Changes

' Jurisdictional Wetlands Saved (Hydraulic Min. vs. Field Recommended):
• Values are calculated in Tables 2 thru 9 in this packet.

' Prime Farmland Values Illustrated in Previous Packets
• Previous packets had listed acreage for prime farmlands. A review of the
rating form for the project showed that there were no prime farmlands.
' Alternative 2A:
• Highest Level of Control of Access (Freeway, Grade separations,
' Interchanges) and is almost entirely on new location.
• This alternative fits the overall concept of a freeway for US 17 and meets the
strategic highway initiative. This alternative along with Segment 3 and
Segment 4D or 4E to the north forms the only comprehensive project long
limited control of access facility.
• This alternative bypassing Belgrade and Maysville, eliminates impacts to
Belgrade and to southern Maysville and eliminates the possibility of a bypass
' of the bypass.

1

' 7) Southern Section Alternatives Attachments:

• R-2514 B, C & D Location Figure
• Southern Portion Project Figure Chadwick to Jones - Craven County Line
• Meeting Minutes February 22, 2007
• USACE Notification of Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
• Impacts Matrix Southern Portion of the Project
• Jurisdictional Areas Maps - Hydro Min. / Field Recommendations
• Jurisdictional Impacts Tables - Hydro Min. / Field Recommendations
' • Preliminary Roadway Design Plans

1

1

1

1

1

i

1

1

NOTE: Are4 of Common, lignment are Displayed in the Orderpf Alternat ve
17 CRAVEN j
COUNT
- Jones Corder ;

err He C -z

l \ Oak Grove rSEGMENT 4 ALTERNATIVES
Alternate 4A
5
J8 Alternate 4B
Alternate 4D
O J
=Alternate 4E
? l i"-7] Alternate 4G
Shen , pIlocksVille Alternate 4H
~
I
Alternate 41
r ,
C P,.j Alternate 41D
a
- JONES
17 COUNTY
CROATAN
58 NATIONAL
SEGMENT 3 ALTERNATIVES - FOREST
D Alternate 3

SEGMENT 2 ALTERNATIVES
Alternate 2
Alternate 2A
r{' _ Alternate 2B
(-Ma[ysville'Alternate 2C

ONSLOW
COUNTY Beirade.

58

2' 1 0 2
. , . , _ _ 17 ~ ~ It , , - cy{ Miles

NORTH CAROLINA R-2514 B, C & D LOCATION MAP
yc~ O~Y
DEPARTMENT
OF
2 OF TRr TRANSPORTATION Figure 1

r

FIELD RECOMMENDED BRIDGE LENGTHS STRUCTURE HYDRAULIC MINIMUMS
- Y - Legend St EXTEND CULVERT 28'X4' RCSC of EXTEND CULVERT 2-'
'
Alternate 2
z*~ 1 Paved Road S2 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 155' S2 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE'
T" -
Alternate 2A 71
;4t 3, - Unimproved/Gravel Road S3 EXTEND CULVERT 2-8'X4'RCBC S3 EXTEND CULVERT 2
-i 'P
54A CONSTRUCT CULVERT 2 i>, -
+ r 3 v^s, ~`1 J''r s CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 100'
B ,Zt '~+,*s 4,4 ck g,r f'
Town Boundary Alternate 2B ~4-A C _ ~ -•r^*~;;; e,g i r , 3x• ,r''"~ A, # k ~ y' S4-B CONSTRUCT CULVERT/PIPE S4C CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 135
Alternate 2C
County Boundary
-w r s - r
S4-C CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 1160' S5 EXTEND CULVERT 28'X4 RC'
r, Preliminary Corridors Study Boundary Alternate 3 SS EXTEND CULVERT 2-6X4' RCEC 55 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 150
a as Ge'Pfi m wt 7.3r ,a3~1' x,v t1 ; ..n CONSTRUCT S
7 EXTEND CULVERT 28X4'RCi-
, 2,000 BRIDGE 160
I'VE 0 250 500 1000 1,500
x'~~ - sn° ryg~"° +au.r # ""a°f! Feet EXTEND CULVERT 29x4

• rr- \F >r a`t r
0 75 150 300 450 60Meters
.r
V
a m _
G580
ON A,4
;rc-."~. rt -
Field Recommended
r ri ~ ,f~zxVrJd'' 3%a ,~`~i-k' ; fa •.'~`P4~~~, g,~d"n 'T~.. T'
a
i lip - . nimum
' :Km.«-75
!1 - k. f 1
S4-13 (Field Recommenderr~
A r7
k f, A-C (Field Recommended)
n
r 4
r m, ti\\ '4-C (Wrdrel.01r. Minlmi.im)
5
C
TE A E 3
t;
' S, PA.
i S. e+, q
/'l 7
xI`~ a 58.
t''A}}~ C~ r r~ 0 MGySVIIIP. Oa~~;x 'Tr kY-`8y$~ x'`
m
„ieogt g rq r,4`^StlQOEz \ ...9Jen~kns Sheen<'y .:.•4 ia: ,ar
a
Bel jade
r
;Ij j4
h
00,
W Y- {
,
v
.3
e A-
~ e
r f ry
UAW- JPI
L
RF 58 R-2514 B & C Corridors Map 2008dr~v®
- 3
t

RAM"
1 Wilbur Smith Associates

' MEETING MINUTES FROM CONCURRENCE POINTS 2A & 3 421 Fayetteville Street Mall
SOUTHERN SECTION, BELGRADE TO CHADWICK, Suite 1303
CONDUCTED ON FEBRUARY 22, 2007 Raleigh, NC
[phone] phone
(919)
DATE: July 26, 2007 832-8798 fax
Www.wilbursmith.com
' TO: All Attendees
ATTENDEES: See Attached
FROM: Wes Stafford, PE, AICP - Wilbur Smith Associates
SUBJECT: US 17 Improvements from SR 1330/SR 1429 south of Belgrade to the
Jones /Craven County line south of New Bern
' Onslow and Jones Counties, North Carolina
TIP No. R-2514 B, C & D State Project No. 8.T190301, WBS No. 34442.1.1
Federal Aid Project No. NHF-17 (7), (WSA Project No. 297420)
1 William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), opened the meeting with introductions. Mark
Pierce (NCDOT) gave a brief recap of the project to date and brought up the issue of the Byrd Property
site violation. William Wescott brought everyone up to speed on the violation to date.
Byrd Property site violation (illegal filling of wetlands)

' • Landowner is not cooperating and the USACE lawyers are mediating.
• USACE cannot evaluate the impacts for Alternative 2C until the issue is resolved.
• NCDOT proposed that we consider the site as not being filled and that the high quality wetlands
were still present.
• USACE reiterated that it cannot make a corridor selection recommendation while the violation is
unresolved.
Discussion of Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review (Wes Stafford (WSA))

Using the project maps and Table I from the CP2A meeting packet, Wes Stafford presented the
' alignments and proposed hydraulic structures. He gave lengths and structure specifics for each location
and compared them to what was presented in the SDEIS.
• USFWS questioned why the costs of the bridges went up from the SDEIS. Answer is inflation.
• EPA questioned what the height of Bridge S4-A (880') over the White River on Alt. 2A.
Answer is 10' in order to accommodate wildlife crossings.
• EPA questioned the height of Bridge S8 (1690') on Alt. 2C. The reply from DOT was between
8' and 10'.
• The question was asked if any of the bridge heights were adjusted to accommodate wildlife
passage. The NCDOT answered no, because they were originally designed at a height high
enough (10') to accommodate wildlife passage,
Albany NY, Anaheim CA, Atlanta GA, Baltimore MD, Bangkok Thailand, Burlington \T, Charleston SC, Charleston WV, Chicago IL, Cincinnati OH
Cleveland OH, Columbia SC, Columbus Oit, Dallas TX, Dubai UAF, Falls Church VA, Cmemiae SC, Hong Kong Houston TX, Kansas City h10, I:aamille TN Lansing hii,
Lednglon KY, London UK, Milwaukee wi, hiumbai India, Myrtle Beach SC, New Haven CT, Orlando FL, Philadelphia PA, Pittsburgh PA, Portland ME, Poughkeepsie NY,
Raleigh NC, Richmond VA, Sah Lake City UT, San Francisco CA, Tallshusee FL, Tampa FL, Tempe AZ, Trenton NJ. Washington DC
Employee-Owned Company

R-2514BCD: Meeting Minutes from Concurrence Points 2A & 3conducted on 2/22/07
' July26, 2007
Page - 2 -
• The EPA asked if there was anything showing the amount of avoidance or minimization the
' extra long bridges were providing. They want to see if the extra cost of the bridges were worth it
by looking at the quality and quantity of wetlands that were being avoided.
• USFWS indicated that they will accept shorter bridges to save money.
• EPA wanted to see more options than just a long bridge or a culvert.
• USFWS proposed dropping the length of Bridge S4-A from 880' to a 100' foot bridge on Alt.
2A.
• EPA wanted to see a cost comparison and acres of wetlands saved for all bridging options. The
EPA asked if savings of wetlands are not significant than why build such an expensive bridge?
• USFWS proposed it was willing to go to a 100' bridge from the 880' bridge proposed for
structure, S4-A, on ALT 2A, and to drop the 110' foot bridge, S4-13, to a culvert, and to keep the
1160' bridge, S4-C, as proposed. The EPA concurred.
• USACE suggested taking another look at the Alt. 2C because the quality of the violations site is
actually zero, and they pointed out that USFWS and EPA were proposing dropping a 880' bridge
' to 100' bridge over very high quality wetlands for a 1000+' bridge, S8, over zero quality
wetlands?
• A discussion then ensued, taking place over the display boards with members from DOT, ESI,
1 and USACE to ascertain the location of the proposed bridge in relation to the violation site for
EPA and USFWS.
• The EPA indicated that it was willing to accept a bridge 1/3 the length of the proposed 1690',
structure S8 on Alt. 2C, which would be basically adding approximately 300' to the required
hydraulic minimum.
• USFWS agreed and added that it does not make much sense to bridge imaginary wetlands?
• Everyone agreed to limit the 1690' bridge, structure S8, to approximately 560'.
• The agencies agreed to go with the hydraulic minimum of 160' and not the recommended length
of 620' for structure S6 on Alt. 2B.
' • Mark Pierce then went back over each structure before recessing the meeting for a 10-15 minute
break.
After the break Mark Pierce produced a concurrence agreement signature sheet for CP2A and
' reminded everyone that this is a state funded project therefore the USACE is the lead and not the
FHWA. The agreement was passed around and all of the agencies signed.
USFWS brought up an issue that was just brought to their attention the previous day. The Onslow
BIGHT Conservation Forum has been looking at creating a wildlife corridor connecting the Hoffman
State Forest and the Croatan National Forest. In 2003 several agencies signed off on an MOU, one of
which goals is to promote the establishment of the corridor. The DOT had never heard of the MOU,
USFWS just found out about it, and the DOT is one of the signatories. The DOT wanted to know
who from the DOT signed it but the USFWS did not have that information available.
• The Nature Conservancy is in the process of getting a conservation easement from
Weyerhaeuser in order to get the wildlife corridor. The Weyerhaeuser land has been clear-
cut and would be "ready" for bear use in 5-10 yrs.
• One or two wildlife crossings are desired by the Nature Conservancy. They should be large
enough for bear because Hoffman State Forest has a "core" bear population.

R-2514BCD: Meeting Minutes from Concurrence Points 2A & 3conducted on 2/22/07
1 July26, 2007
Page - 3 -
• For wildlife crossings typically a 100' minimum width with a lot of fencing is sufficient.
' Consider using the US 64 passages as a model.
• Karen Compton indicated the Forest Services support for the passages and the concept.
• MOU is not legally binding.
• USFWS pointed out that this is the last chance to ecologically connect the two forests.
• USFWS prefers two crossings/bridges at least 100' in length.

CP3 - (Corridor Selection)

Mark Pierce reminded everyone that there is a March 6'h field meeting for the northern portion and then
handed over the meeting to Wes Stafford who called everyone's attention to table 8 in the concurrence
packet for CP 3.
• EPA asked if there is a DOT "preferred" alternative.
' • Mark Pierce explained that this section of the project has a lot of human enviromnent issues
(town of Maysville and Belgrade). There is support for the project from Maysville but Belgrade
has expressed some concerns from business owners over relocations.
• Wes Stafford summarized the changes to table 8 from the previous merger meeting.
• DOT explained how Alt. 2A fits the overall concept of a freeway for US 17 the best; Alt. 2A is
the DOT "preferred" to meet the strategic highway initiative.
• EPA commented on the dramatic difference in wetland impacts between the Alternatives and
expressed concern on how some of the information is presented in table 8, especially
Environmental Justice (EJ) and Community Impact Issues. The EPA went on to explain that it is
the USACE's call on whether there is an EJ issue. The EPA does not see any of the Alternatives
having a real EJ or community impact to Belgrade. EPA went on to question farmland and forest
impacts and would not agree to accept Alt 2A at this time because the cost and wetland impacts
are so much more significant than the other Alternatives.
• USFWS requested to see a total cost comparison not just construction costs.
• Wes Stafford called out the right-of-way cost for each alternative which could then be added to
construction cost to get a total cost.
' • The EPA noted that there is still a 30 million dollar difference between Alt. 2A and the next most
expensive alternative.
• EPA questioned the layout and need of the southern interchange on Alt. 2A south of Belgrade.
• The DOT reiterated the need to make the roadway a strategic highway corridor and Alt. 2A
would satisfy that need.
• The EPA reiterated its questioning of why Alt. 2A wetland impacts per mile are more than twice
the average. They wanted to hear what the other merger team members think.
• The NC Wildlife Commission had no comment. The SHPO thought that the EJ issues were not
sufficiently analyzed and commented that if a median was constructed through the middle of
downtown Maysville and 6 businesses were displaced that it would rip the heart right out of the
town.
• The EPA would like to see more formalized commitments to mitigate for habitat fragmentation
on Alt. 2A so it could feel better about it. Without formal fording of EJ issues the EPA will only
consider the natural environment impacts in its decision making. The EPA suggested that the
' merger team agree to drop Alts. 2B and 2 from further consideration.
0 Everyone verbally agreed to drop 2B and 2.

R-2514BCD: Meeting Minutes from Concurrence Points 2A & 3conducted on 2/22/07
Juty26, 2007
Page - 4 -
• The Forest Service abstained from offering an opinion on which Alternative it preferred.
I • The MPO recommended Alt. 2A.
• Three team members (NCDOT, RPO, SHPO) supported Alt. 2A, six team members supported
Alt. 2C, and the Forest Service abstained.
• The Elevation process was initiated at Rob Hanson's request to resolve the concurrence issue.
• CAMA infonned the DOT that is will need to apply for a CAMA permit for only the portions of
the project that fall within the coastal counties.

ATTENDANCE RECORD

Name Agency Telephone
Mason Herndon NCDOT - Division 3 910-251-5724
Joe Blair NCDOT - Division 3 910-251-5724
Daniel Van Liere Down East RPO 252-229-0308
SunTem le Hel ren Wilbur Smith Associates 919-573-4196
David Wainwright NCDENR - Division of Water Quality 919-715-3415
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics 919-2504100
Chris Militscher USEPA - Raleigh 919-856-4206
Thomas Stoddard NCDOT - UP Unit 919-733-2039
Carlos Mo a NCDOT-Transportation Planning 919-733-4705
Chris Manley NCDOT - Natural Environment 919-715-1487
Mark Stale NCDOT - Roadside Environmental 919-733-2920
Neil Lassiter NCDOT - Division 2 919-733-2293
Allen Poe NCDOT - Division 3 919-251-5724
John Lansford NCDOT - Roadway Design 919-250-4016
William Wescott US Arm Corps of Engineers 252-975-1616 x 31
James Speer NCDOT-Roadway Design 919-250-4016
Karen Compton US Forest Service 828-257-4230
Steve Sollod NCDENR - Div. Coastal Man. 919-733-2293 x 230
Stephen Lane NCDENR - Div. Coastal Man. 252-808-2808
Kathy Matthews US Environ. Prot. Agency 919-541-3062
' Travis Wilson NCDENR - Wildlife Resources Comm. 919-528-9886
Kevin Markham Environ. Services Inc. 919-212-1760
Matt Smith Environ. Services Inc. 910-383-6021
Renee Gledhill-Earle NCDCR Hist. Pres. Office 919-7334763 x 246
Ed Lewis NCDOT - Human Enviromment 919-715-1593
Chris Rivenbark NCDOT - Natural Environment 919-715-1460
Mar Pope Furr NCDOT- Historic Architecture 919-715-1620
Jim Morrison Wilbur Smith Associates 919-573-4206
Rob Hanson NCDOT - Project Development 919-733-7844 x 226
Mark Pierce NCDOT - Project Development 919-733-7844 x 214
Brian Yamamoto NCDOT - Project Development 919-733-7844 x 265
Greg Thorpe NCDOT - PDEA Branch 919-733-3141
Wes Stafford Wilbur Smith Associates 919-573-4196
Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service 919-856-4520 x32
I

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT • r .+ys~' t.i. s /~aJ~c~~
5f 4-
Action Id. SAW 2008-00528 County: Jones & Craven U.S.G.S. Quad: S t 1
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner/Agent: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Address: atin: Mark Plerce
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone No.: 919-733-3141
Property description:
Size (acres) Nearest Town Pollocksville & Maysville
Nearest Waterway Trent River & White Oak River River Basin Neuse & White Oak
USGS HUC 03020106 & 03010104 Coordinates N 34.874 W -77,2445
Location description Proposed US 17 hlehway project Is approximately 16 miles long from Belgrade to the
Jones/Cr$yen County line (R 2514B).
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preliminary Information, there may be waters of the U.S, including wetlands on the above described project area.
We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA)
jurisdiction. To be considered final, e jurisdictional determination trust be verified by the Corps. This preliminary
determination Is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33
CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area subject to the pennit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law
or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of
this notification,
There are waters of the U.S. Including wetlands on the above described project area subject to the pennit requirements of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWAx33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change In the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for it period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetland on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be
reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to
CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from ilia date of this notification.
There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
Page i of 2

1 _ The property is located hi one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management In Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to
determine their requirements.
Action Id. SAW 2008-00528
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC ¢ 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact William Wescott at 151975-1616 ext. 31.
C. Basis For Determination
Waters of the US. Includine wetlands are nresent within the nroleet area Welland areas were identified using the 1987
USACE Wetland Delineation Manual and field verified by USACE August 27-30,2007,
D. Remarks
Final lurlsdictlonal determinations reeardin Rapanos will be conducted once the LEDPA corridor is selected

E. Appeals Information (This Information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated In
B: above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
detennination,you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this
determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn:William Wescott, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory Field Office
' Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that It is complete, that it meets the criteria for
appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP.
Should you decide to submit an RFA form, It must be received at the above address by
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office ifyou do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.**
l -"1
Corps Regulatory Official: U,v ti . li' l
Date Q2/11/200 8 Expiration Date 02/11/2013
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure Ave continue to
do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at http://re ulatoiy.usacesurvey com/ to
complete the survey online,

Copy ft mished:

Page 2 of 2

i _
fi

Applicant: NCDOT File Number: SAW 2008- Date: 2/11/2008
100528
Attached is:Wetland Verification See Section below
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of A
permission)
PROFFERED PERMIT Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
PERMIT DENIAL C
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
ti a aye al: of #liie :abgy~f?~ -
_ t1lRN T: 'C1i ;fol , it t ; y~plti g our: iQ'}tts 4d o to ,s 7~4~ 7G"76777
ybe~ittid:~~~'iittn //~y~ytvc~io cyv/,~ec~,o/rea;c~r=
-L}yw.r ~t.::`t:.<•-' a - ~L R. ~TFr~I_ r
~_:,~r::~. : ~;=~y~~!
At INITIAL PROFFERED PERP
UITt You may accept or object to the pernhlt.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to file district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work Is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit In its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terns and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
' • OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written, After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: if you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work Is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit In its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, Including its terns and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section ll of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or
provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD In Its entirety, and lvaive all rights to appeal the approved JD,
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. '
i
1

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps
regarding the preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved
JD (which may be'appealed), by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new
information for further consideration by the Corps *to reevaluate the JD.
^f,.:•_'_ _ 1. j'J: •S.- sir. - :`i • . i:'r _ _
:SECTION. i1B$T:FpR~APPE~or. ~ ;:"-f>;' ' -
X~ AI{` . QBJECT'jiON~ ~I'Q? . -II~II'IA~'PROFF$ItLD:);ERMIx=; -
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your
objections to an initial proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to
this form to clarify where your reasons or objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps
memorandum for the record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental informatiop that the
review officer has determined is needed to clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps
may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may provide additional information to clarify
the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
POINT:OR-.CONTAGn'<FOR- L)$STJONS bR 0 TION'•`
77 If you have questions regarding this decision If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you
and/or the appeal process you may contact: may also contact:
US Army Corps of Engineers Mr. Mike Bell, Administrative Appeal Review Oftker
ann: William Wescott CESAD-ET CO-R
Post Office Box 1000 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Washington, North Carolina 27889 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any
government consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You
will be provided a 15 day notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site
- investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or Went.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this
form to:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn:William Wescott, Project Manager,
Washington Regulatory Field Office, Post Office Box 1000, Washington, North Carolina 27889

For Permit denials and Proffered Permits send this form to:

Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Mike Bell,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-ET-CO-R, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 9M15, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303-8801

Reverification of Jurisditional Areas (Wetlands)
Comparison Table

Original Revised Wetland Changes
Alternate Variance Comments
Delineation Delineation Removed Added Modified
Decrease in acreage due to slight change in Delineation
2 9.83 9.00 -0.83 3 (-123ac) 7 (1.42ac) 3 (-1.01 ac)

Increase primarily due to addition wetlands surveyed at
Northern Interchange
2A Field Rec. 28.48 37.52 9.04 4 (-1.09ac) 9 (2.75ac) 6 (4.36ac)
Decrease due to change in JD with wetland No 59 reduced
from 13 acres to 3. Other smaller changes affected the
2B Field Rec 26.92 21.00 -5.92 3 (-1.31 ac) 16 (5.57ac) 2 (-10.25ac) total.

Increase in acreage due to slight change in delineation
and reduced bridge length
2C 14.42 16.30 1.88 5 (-1.46ac) 7 (4.38ac) 2 (-1.05ac)

Decrease in acreage due to slight change in Delineation
3 23.46 23.49 0.03 1 (-0.06ac) 3 (0.01 ac) 10 (0.08ac)
Wetland 99 (Pine Stand) omitted for 16 acre reduction and
wetland 202 modified to reduction of 7 acres. As well as
4D Field Rec. 44.81 24.86 -19.95 1 (-16.32ac) 3 (-7.68ac) changes at Deep Gully

Wetland 99 (Pine Stand) omitted for 16 acre reduction and
wetland 202 modified to reduction of 7 acres. As well as
4E Field Rec. 50.01 29.77 -20.24 2 (-18.77ac) 4 (4.38ac) 1 (-5.67ac) changes at Deep Gully

Revarification of Jurisdictional Areas (Streams)
Comparison Table

Original Revised Stream Changes (ft)
Alternate Delineation Delineation Variance (ft) Comments
(ft) (ft) Removed Added Modified
Streams W3, W7 and W23 were

2 933.92 777.83 -156.09 3 (-207.56) 2 (51.48) removed, 207 ft.

Stream W21 at North End extended 1120
ft.
2A Field 1864.60 2632.80 768.20 2(-449.37) 2(1217.58)
Stream W15 @ NC 58 length reduced
350 ft.
2B Field 1749.80 1720.24 -29.57 1 (-29.57) 1 (350.56) 1 (-350.56)
Stream W12 removed, 253 ft.
2C Field 2316.28 2007.70 -308.58 2 (-308.58) 1 (254.52) 1 (-254.52)

No Change
3 157.07 157.07 0.00 2 (areas) 1 (0.00)
New Stream D2 added at Deep Gully,
612 ft.
4D Field 1084.32 1680.12 595.79 4(612.88) 1 (-17.08)
New Stream D2 added at Deep Gully,

4E Field 827.98 1436.50 608.52 2 (612.90) 1 (-4.39) 612 ft.

i

i

i

i

' TABLE 1
R-2514 B, C & D - US 17
' CORRIDOR SELECTION SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
FOR SOUTHERN PORTION OF PROJECT FROM BELGRADE TO CHADWICK
Minimum Hydraulic Length Field Recommended Relocations SDEIS
Potential
Total Proposed Total Stream Total Noise Historic Environmental Prime
Iternatives Length Length of Stream Length of Potential Cemetery Terrestrial
Bridge Wetland Bridge Length Wetland Const. Cost RIIPI TOTAL
(miles) ROW Length (ft) Impacts Impacts Floodplain (ft) Impacts Impacts Floodplain # (millions) Cost* COST Residential Business Minorities Contaminated Impacts impacts Resources Justi ni Farmlands
( Impacts
(acres) (ft) Crossing (ft) (acres) (ft) Crossing (ft) Sites (total) Impacted Communty (acres)
Impacts
Alt 2 4.72 200' 155 9.00 777 155 155 9.00 777 155 $31.40 $12.30 $43,70 5 4 0 5 0 152 Maysville Historic Belgrade, 16 0
District Maysville
3 Structures 3 Structures
Alt 2A 4.39 250' 2-7'X5', 4274 2803 135 100', Pipe, 1160' 37.52 2632 1270 $75.13 $2.60 $77.73 6 0 0 1 1 60 None 43 0
Pipe, 135' Total = 1270
Alt 2B 5.08 250' 160 21.00 1720 160 160 21.00 1720 160 $35.04 $5.20 $40.24 13 4 5 2 0 173 None Belgrade, 55 0
Maysville
Alt 2C 4.71 250' 150 17.10 2007 150 560 16.30 2007 560 $36.90 $5.60 $42.50 11 6 0 4 2 26 None Belgrade 44 0
' Alt 3 3.36 250' 0 23.46 157 0 0 23.46 157 0 $15.8 $3.70
$19.5 11 1 9 0 0 52 J.M. CFoscue ation Chadwick 27 0
~ Plantation
* Cost estimated in Yr 2001
# Cost estimated in Yr 2007
Highest Impacts by Alternative
Lowest Impacts by Alternative
Does not include wildlife underpass cost estimated at $4.5 mil
1

I

I

In
BRIDGING OPTIONS AND ASSOCIATED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS (HYDRAULIC LENGTH REQUIRED
)
17 Structure Identification
( Legend Inventoried Wetlands Impacts by Disturbed Limits EXTEND CULVERT z 4 -
I
242 t Paved Road Disturbed Limit ofAHernate 2 S2 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 155
Series 1 Wetland . Wetlands Impacted by Disturbed Limits (1)
S3 EXTENDCULVERT 2-7'X5 RCEO
Unimproved/Gravel Road Disturbed Limit of Alternate 2A Revised Wetland . Reservoir/Pond Impacted (P1)
241 s4-A CONSTRUCT CULVERT 2?'°
Town Boundary Disturbed Limit ofARernate 2B Strear ,Su face vVate, 11 I','67 ;:4-C CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 135
1, \ \\.`u, _ ! j County Boundary Disturbed Limit ofAhernate 2C ?j S5 EXTEND CULVERT 2.8'X4 P,
Sv CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 150
Preliminary Corridors Study Boundary
Proposed Bridge or Culvert
S7 FX Er1D CLLVERT 2-8'X4

J i 0 250 500 1,000 1.500 2.000 -
PIMP
Feet
0 75 150 300 450 600
I
oaizlios
2
32 r ii I'f u1
30
II(( 27
c3 ~ ~r
S4
24 t
4A j
4 if1 (t I ,1 f UU 4;~ {L i,
f r,,'!s
44 k
v xN
a ~ 1,I r
'1
S3
* t 9-4-A 240 A s f 42
48
St I Q 1 2,
r I ` 17
" ` t ` rr lP)li 67 69~ro F.a
• ~~o~ 1~ a a9 z31 58
•d • f ~a ga
I
"Maysville~ oar z ,
11 ~ed
r/ ~ B Igrade 5 bo ~Ro d P6 3 35 V / pec ~ 65
!1^\"_ 1 O I .5 fi~~a 1CF.
e B
I ! a ,~•1." el grade. ~267 234
i'~,~, tiY \ ~ • pee ,i - f. ~ v ~ I 53 .51 '0 I ~
.save 55
233 . 51
= T y~ VM i
T v~a~-7~ Ilt` f5• _-=i r - - _ i l f
c
111wX r~:y - m -~.,r~ t Mao ck A.e e({ ' ~ t P11
t s t 1 r~ y
59
ire
ro i 1, r li t p 1 3 m , I
/ i I `t ` 3 j1 M C 1 I 424,7 ~ t i
S,f 248 ~I %
F1 t
t i
77: `7 _ R-2514 B JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS 2008
1 ,i~ 1 d I!!~.: G` Dti r~' "a,;5 -.1.•_f : 1 ..d1' - - ~•A. _Iaanas,dma
Z-
1

I

o
B BRIDGING OPTIONS AND ASSOCIATED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS FIELD RECOMMENDED
17
Legend
~ I t Inventoried Wetlands Impacts by Disturbed Limits Structure Identification
242 Paved Road Disturbed Limit of Alternate 2 _1 Ex* C c c,~i ;
Series 1 Wetland . Wetlands Impacted by Disturbed Limits (1)
?a
l / S2 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 155'
24 l \ - - Unimproved/Gravel Road Disturbed Limit ofAtternate 2A Revised Wetland . Reservoir/Pond Impacted (P1)
53 EXTEND CULVERT 2-8 Y,
yM A Town Boundary Disturbed Limit ofAlternate 2B S a wSurr~ °-a ~.paried (W11 54-A
CONSTRUCT BRIDGE ~
vl County Boundary Disturbed Limit of Alternate 2C -14-e CONSTRUCT CULVER7
-
>6 1mt Preliminary Corridors Stud Boundar C CONSTRUCT BRIDGE i'
Y Y - Proposed Bridge or Culvert
J 1 o 250 Sao 1,000 two 2,e00 EXTEND CULVERT 2.8
WOM" Elm Feet CONSTRUCTBRIDGE .
l 75 150 300 450 600
2 Meters JLVERT 2- x4
~22 ( TBRIDGE -0 0517108
30

29 27
27 6~
ID 411
24
1 j. tr f l
i ~ ~ \ 'lI ~ `1...,-~ `I ~I I i :`v ~ :U 1 1! • • / J-- ~ .-~..:~rt>~+I
a
S1
\ 1 az
1 rN -.13 ,t
-351
A2 1
S7
' n - i~ , 451 ! 7
167 69~Z0
+ • ~ •7 ~ 1 r\ t v _ =ts Vic- t'^ `r-3
\ ~ ~ - 1 j 49 49~ 231 ~
' \ 1 ~l 'r ` +•••\•i ~ 1 ~,R 1 r ~ - L. Fie: S9 /231 65 E$ 58
'Maysville oa - a5a
' G i Bel rade-S Po
-9_ wansboro Road
nleoatml ~ I t ~ - ~ - PSG. ,•~'„1 J ,~nS~ - ~ 50 v5
G't f ~ O ~ a acs - 239 239 ~~I~ • f Jenkins at r. ~ IN~ ` ~ • ~3n9 ~ L' - "37 I i S3 65 '
V .?r 55
2\ -
--T 51
S
Matlak Avenue • ~1`, , '!1
CIO
1
J ~ 111u ~r ~ ~ , r ~ yp 5 T t ` ',~L _T ~1 `
!i i '.r _c vry: 11L i II,ir* U1 I.~.
-'N,6 sip Aap~e avenue" l;
IVY 't i I ~r f it I ~i f: I I' 247
4Xr ` -Yew'-~_-z-,--
Z- 248
1 yy r f Ii J F l(~1 t f
naowlml

1 1 L 58 8 R-2514 B JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS 2008 I r ~a t t
r
i

i

I

BRIDGING OPTIONS AND ASSOCIATED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS
i- ` 1
II ' Legend
Inventoried Wetlands Impacts by Disturbed Limits
I -
Paved Road ~ Disturbed Limit of Alternate 3 Series 1 Wetland . Wetlands Impacted by Disturbed Limits (i)
Unimproved/Gravel Road
Revised Wetland Reservoir/Pond Impacted (P 1)
Town Boundary
r.
14

County Boundary
r~ 0 250 500 tow tsw 2.000
Preliminary Corridors Study Boundary
j!i ti ) . - et
D 73 150 300 450 600
f1
I , I\. ~ i~ ~.___t_ ~-5 Meters
` j 04121/08
,
41-
S T~ `i ( I
r k l
. 1T.
N
86
! l
n•
85 93 1 C
1 U
83
17
4 2 ) . S
i_
~.2y' X231 79 ~ 1 i ti .Il. A
-4 -69
67 P.2 75 d
t
s
e I I 11 F _ ~ ~1 I - dj r~~ T.•5~ i tj __~.T -'.I.--... -T'- I I j l ! r / l
)'l ll}
77f Op9 e F' I .l ~
EI
(D
CM:~-
( CR,-_~ ail r' r ; - ` 1, _ •j
:f J.
OATAN NATIONAL FOREST
Q~
o a, R-2514 C JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS 2008 "
NdM1m Sivth lssxnl¢
i

M M M M TA49 9 M M M M M M M M M
ALTERNATE 3 - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
49 99.04 53.44 0.00 47
65 1560.22 211.80 0.04 33
67 3405.66 425.44 0.08 22
68 445074.59 9519.87 10.22 33
69 9942.99 526.36 0.23 22
70 4916.99 599.75 0.11 22
71 1587.73 203.50 0.04 17
72 6582.05 464.37 0.15 17
74 11170.98 554.44 0.26 17
74 8685.02 543.29 0.20 17
75 126178.84 3270.67 2.90 36
76 40617.53 1716.91 0.93 21
77 3423.40 826.52 0.08 25
78 263.93 87.29 0.01 28
79 35533.56 1149.75 0.82 29
80 18606.85 589.09 0.43 29
82 9051.88 374.35 0.21 36
83 18783.42 887.85 0.43 36
84 28052.42 855.41 0.64 35
85 2677.23 340.52 0.06 31
86 3234.86 310.64 0.07 31
87 42.31 59.90 0.00 35
88 162952.66 3853.13 3.74 30
88 0.08 2.81 0.00 30
89 3055.16 323.89 0.07 24
90 7683.14 608.48 0.18 24
91 5168.51 445.73 0.12 27
92 13461.00 534.00 0.31 12
93 50244.76 1314.48 1.15 22
94 885.85 389.48 0.02 53
231 4831.89 220.80 75.99 0.01 51
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 4831.89 TOTAL ACRES 23.49 j
STREAMS
STREAM~ID a LENGTH ft DWQ Rating c USA CE Rating c Feature b (1)/(P) c Basin
G1 22 41 20a I Neuse
G1 26 41 20b I Neuse
G2A 157.07 18 14 22 I Neuse
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 157.07
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert
PONDS
NO POND ID a ACRES
STRUCTURES P8 0.03
P10 0.00
11 0.03

ALTERNATE 2 - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
2 79719.93 2497.29 1.83 38
4 47947.77 1580.90 1.10 41
5 22765.12 1211.12 0.52 41
6 4277.44 351.24 0.10 45
7 1351.61 241.30 0.03 45
8 1643.86 202.11 0.04 47
9 1048.85 230.27 0.02 48
11 6693.25 383.48 0.15 74
29 6431.42 406.61 0.15 35
32 314.08 141.88 0.01 42
35 5772.25 942.44 0.13 26
36 2168.65 187.98 0.05 33
37 4769.80 418.72 0.11 72
49 2929.51 339.43 0.07 47
50 1975.13 518.59 0.05 24
51 133.50 54.77 0.00 24
52 631.93 136.13 0.02 22
53 544.10 216.69 0.01 22
55 72.82 53.87 0.00 22
65 142072.76 4155.02 3.26 33
68 2516.74 229.83 0.06 33
231 1770.97
240 5415.86 518.98 0.12 47
241 42598.38 1361.60 0.98 25
242 8082.47 538.05 0.19 25
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1770.97 TOTAL ACRES 9.00
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b I / P c River Basin
W1 680.20 17.75 42 1 I White Oak
W2 46.15 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W14 49.00 79 3 P White Oak
W21 51.48 19.50 26 7 I White Oak
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 777.83
PONDS
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation
(c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (I)/(P) Interim/Perennial POND ID a ACRES
P5 0.02
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert P5 0.02
0.04
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S1 W1 UT1 White Oak River Tributary to White Oak River 2 - 8'X4' RCBC a
S2 W14 White Oak River White Oak River Bridge 155"

~ M M M = M M M TAR 3 M M M M M M M M M
ALTERNATE 2A HYDRAULIC MINIMUM - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH ft AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
2 21666.19 1281.91 0.50 38.00
4 9.71 14.29 0.00 41.00
5 10312.20 825.86 0.24 41.00
6 11642.66 576.55 0.27 45.00
24 1612.39 239.57 0.04 31.00
26 131233.86 2220.06 3.01 33.00
27 219178.48 5245.11 5.03 21.00
30 64192.71 988.61 1.47 36.00
31 1169.81 170.14 0.03 41.00
32 8164.33 440.29 0.19 42.00
42 8825.94 374.99 0.20 80.00
44 25473.56 1065.27 0.59 58.00
45 103931.24 1453.44 2.39 71.00
45 34127.50 1230.14 0.78 71.00
45 40100.75 1993.91 0.92 71.00
46 200208.32 2680.32 4.60 80.00
48 399.40 131.79 0.01 28.00
49 700013.87 8623.49 16.07 47.00
52 245.72 118.13 0.01 22.00
65 52103.54 1992.63 1.20 33.00
67 2974.28 388.10 0.07 22.00
68 157505.92 3671.18 3.62 33.00
69 9585.96 527.33 0.22 22.00
70 4916.99 599.75 0.11 22.00
231 2679.36 220.80 75.99 0.01 51.00
241 42598.19 1361.59 0.98 25.00
242 8082.47 538.05 0.19 25.00
245 1222.58 477.00 0.03 29.00
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 2679.36 TOTAL ACRES 42.74 -ji
STREAMS
Basin
STREAM ID a LENGTH ft DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b 7white2ajk
W1 55.30 17.75 42 1 hite Oak
W2 100.69 17.75 42 1 hite Oak
W5 503.11 30.00 70 n/a hite Oak
W9 170.30 34.50 80 4 hite Oak
W21 1973.70 19.50 26 7 TOTAL LINEAR FEET 2803.10
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (I)I(P) Interim/Perennial PONDS
POND ID a ACRES
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert P8 0.03
0.03
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S3 W1 UT1 White Oak River Tributary to White Oak River 2 - 8'X4' RCBC (a
S4-A W9 UT5 White Oak River Tributary to White Oak River 2 - 7'X5' RC BC a
S4-C W8 White Oak River White Oak River Bridge 135'

r M M M M M TAR4 M = M M M M M ' M
ALTERNATE 2A FIELD- REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH ft AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
2 21666.19 1281.91 0.50 27
4 9.71 14.29 0.00 31
5 10312.20 825.86 0.24 32
6 11642.66 576.55 0.27 33
24 1612.39 239.57 0.04 35
26 131233.86 2220.06 3.01 41
27 219178.48 5245.11 5.03 30
30 64192.71 988.61 1.47 28
31 1169.81 170.14 0.03 29
32 8164.33 440.29 0.19 52
42 7039.39 505.52 0.16 39
44 25473.56 1065.27 0.59 34
45 101547.58 1442.09 2.33 36
45 11230.28 803.80 0.26 37
45 39936.82 1985.03 0.92 40
46 0.00 0.53 0.00 38
48 399.40 131.79 0.01 42
49 700013.87 8623.49 16.07 45
52 245.72 118.13 0.01 44
65 52103.54 1992.63 1.20 43
67 2974.28 388.10 0.07 46
68 157505.92 3671.18 3.62 51
69 9585.96 527.33 0.22 47
70 4916.99 599.75 0.11 49
231 220.80 75.99 0.01 48
241 42598.19 1361.59 0.98 25
242 8082.47 538.05 0.19 26
245 1222.58 47 .00 50
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 0.00 TOTAL ACRES 37.52
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH ft DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b I / P c Basin
W1 55.30 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W2 100.69 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W5 503.11 30.00 70 n/a P White Oak
W21 1973.70 19.50 26 7 I White Oak
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 2632.80
PONDS
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial POND ID a ACRES
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert P8 0.03
0.03
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S3 W1 UT1 White Oak River Tributa to White Oak River 2 - 8'X4' RCBC a
S4-A W9 UT1 White Oak River Tributary to White Oak River Bridge 100'
S4-B UT White Oak River minor Minor Unclassified Tributary Culvert/Pi e
S4-C W8 White Oak River White Oak River Bridge 1160'

A M M M M M TAM5 M M M M M M M M M
ALTERNATE 2B HYDRAULIC MINIMUM - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH ft AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
2 79720.08 2497.29 1.83 38
4 48347.17 1582.74 1.11 41
5 22765.16 1211.12 0.52 41
6 4277.44 351.24 0.10 45
7 471.91 139.91 0.01 45
8 1643.86 202.11 0.04 47
9 1048.85 230.27 0.02 48
29 6431.42 406.61 0.15 35
32 314.08 141.88 0.01 42
49 1395.42 171.42 0.03 47
50 30662.25 1635.27 0.70 24
50 4253.04 437.24 0.10 24
51 12842.87 1708.24 0.30 24
59 166353.95 2112.20 3.82 31
61 3311.21 265.62 0.08 26
62 182.84 62.55 0.00 24
65 11655.07 731.24 0.27 33
65 279469.66 4750.55 6.42 33
68 2651.23 232.90 0.06 33
231 1059.21
233 6050.87 464.33 0.14 48
234 30060.22 803.45 0.69 48
236 696.96 122.34 0.02 60
237 7774.11 718.98 0.18 60
238 5715.99 390.41 0.13 65
239 2640.38 260.75 0.06 65
240 7389.00 571.72 0.17 47
241 45763.22 1408.06 1.05 25
242 8082.47 538.05 0.19 25
247 6457.14 669.39 0.15 31
248 116019.71 2435.37 2.66 31
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1059.21 TOTAL ACRES 21.00
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH ft DWQ Rating c USACERating c Feature b (1)/(P) c Basin
W1 680.20 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W2 46.15 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W15 382.97 17.75 37 6 1 White Oak
W16 350.56 17.75 37 6 1 White Oak
W17 19.34 17.75 37 6 1 White Oak
W18 241.01 17.75 37 6 1 White Oak
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1720.24
PONDS
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial POND ID a ACRES
P7 0.10
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert P11 0.58
IF- 0.67
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S5 W1 UT1 White Oak River Tributary to White Oak River 2 - 8'X4' RC BC a
S6 W14 White Oak River White Oak River Bridge 160"

r = = M TAW6 M = M M M M = M M
ALTERNATE 2B FIELD - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
2 79720.08 2497.29 1.83 29
4 48347.17 1582.74 1.11 31
5 22765.16 1211.12 0.52 32
6 4277.44 351.24 0.10 33
7 471.91 139.91 0.01 36
8 1643.86 202.11 0.04 35
9 1048.85 230.27 0.02 37
29 6431.42 406.61 0.15 30
32 314.08 141.88 0.01 56
49 1395.42 171.42 0.03 54
50 30662.25 1635.27 0.70 49
50 4253.04 437.24 0.10 50
51 12842.87 1708.24 0.30 47
59 166353.95 2112.20 3.82 51
61 3311.21 265.62 0.08 26
62 182.84 62.55 0.00 46
65 11655.07 731.24 0.27 45
65 279469.66 4750.55 6.42 48
68 2651.23 232.90 0.06 55
231 231.58
233 6050.87 464.33 0.14 44
234 30060.22 803.45 0.69 43
236 696.96 122.34 0.02 40
237 7774.11 718.98 0.18 39
238 5920.29 390.85 0.14 38
239 2640.38 260.75 0.06 41
240 7389.00 571.72 0.17 34
241 45763.22 1408.06 1.05 27
242 8082.47 538.05 0.19 28
247 6457.14 669.39 0.15 52
248 116019.71 2435.37 2.66 53
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 0.00 TOTAL ACRES 21.00
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b (1)/(P) c Basin
W1 680.20 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W2 46.15 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W14
W15 382.97 17.75 37 6 1 White Oak
W16 350.56 17.75 37 6 1 White Oak
W17 19.34 17.75 37 6 1 White Oak
W18 241.01 17.75 37 6 1 White Oak
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1720.24
PONDS
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial POND ID a ACRES
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert P7 0.10
P11 0.58
MAJOR STRUCTURES 0 .67
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S5 W1 UT1 White Oak River Tributary to White Oak River 2 - 8'X4' RCBC a
36 W14 White Oak River White Oak River Bridge 160'

M M M M M M TAIM7 M M M M M M M
ALTERNATE 2C HYDRAULIC MINIMUM - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
2 79720.01 2497.29 1.83 38
4 48347.11 1582.74 1.11 41
5 22765.16 1211.12 0.52 41
6 4253.12 351.55 0.10 45
7 1169.58 225.56 0.03 45
8 1643.86 202.11 0.04 47
9 1048.85 230.27 0.02 48
11 12636.24 592.58 0.29 74
29 6431.45 406.61 0.15 35
32 314.09 141.88 0.01 42
35 160541.35 2856.74 3.69 26
48 341.96 129.56 0.01 28
49 295561.75 3915.43 6.79 47
65 49969.34 1882.73 1.15 33
68 2652.93 233.00 0.06 33
231 1260.59
240 3562.23 514.35 0.08 47
241 45763.18 1408.06 1.05 25
242 8082.47 538.05 0.19 25
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1260.59 TOTAL ACRES 17.10
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH ft DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b (I)/(P) c Basin
W1 680.20 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W2 46.15 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W11B 324.84 2.25 30 n/a I White Oak
W14 49.00 79 3 P White Oak
W21 701.99 19.50 26 7 I White Oak
W21 254.52 19.50 26 7 1 White Oak
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 2007.70
PONDS
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial POND ID a ACRES
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert P6 0.02
0.02
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S7 W1 UT1 White Oak River Tributary to White Oak River 2 - 8'X4' RCBC (a
S8 W14 White Oak River White Oak River Bridge 150'

M M TAM8 M M M M M M M M M
ALTERNATE 2C FIELD - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c)
2 79720.01 2497.29 1.83 38
4 48347.11 1582.74 1.11 41
5 22765.16 1211.12 0.52 41
6 4253.12 351.55 0.10 45
7 1169.58 225.56 0.03 45
8 1643.86 202.11 0.04 47
9 1048.85 230.27 0.02 48
11 12636.24 592.58 0.29 74
29 6431.45 406.61 0.15 35
32 314.09 141.88 0.01 42
35 125495.47 2561.52 2.88 26
48 341.96 129.56 0.01 28
49 295561.75 3915.43 6.79 47
65 49969.34 1882.73 1.15 33
68 2652.93 233.00 0.06 33
131 1260.59
240 3562.23 514.35 0.08 47
241 45763.18 1408.06 1.05 25
242 1 -1 8082.47 538.05 0.19 25
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1260.59 TOTAL ACRES 16.30
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b (1)/(P) c Basin
STREAM ID a LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c) Feature b) mittent/ P Basin
W1 680.20 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W2 46.15 17.75 42 1 1 White Oak
W11 B 324.84 2.25 30 n/a I White Oak
W14 49.00 79 3 P White Oak
W21 701.99 19.50 26 7 1 White Oak
W21 254.52 19.50 26 7 I White Oak
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 2007.70
PONDS
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial POND _ID (a) ACRES
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert P6 0.02
0.02
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S7 W1 UT1 White Oak River Tributary to White Oak River 2 - 8'X4' RCBC a)
S8 W14 White Oak River White Oak River Bridge 560'

M M M M TA'W9 M M M M M M M M M
ALTERNATE 3 - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
49 99.04 53.44 0.00 47
65 1560.22 211.80 0.04 33
67 3405.66 425.44 0.08 22
68 445074.59 9519.87 10.22 33
69 9942.99 526.36 0.23 22
70 4916.99 599.75 0.11 22
71 1587.73 203.50 0.04 17
72 6582.05 464.37 0.15 17
74 11170.98 554.44 0.26 17
74 8685.02 543.29 0.20 17
75 126178.84 3270.67 2.90 36
76 40617.53 1716.91 0.93 21
77 3423.40 826.52 0.08 25
78 263.93 87.29 0.01 28
79 35533.56 1149.75 0.82 29
80 18606.85 589.09 0.43 29
82 9051.88 374.35 0.21 36
83 18783.42 887.85 0.43 36
84 28052.42 855.41 0.64 35
85 2677.23 340.52 0.06 31
86 3234.86 310.64 0.07 31
87 42.31 59.90 0.00 35
88 162952.66 3853.13 3.74 30
88 0.08 2.81 0.00 30
89 3055.16 323.89 0.07 24
90 7683.14 608.48 0.18 24
91 5168.51 445.73 0.12 27
92 13461.00 534.00 0.31 12
93 50244.76 1314.48 1.15 22
94 885.85 389.48 0.02 53
231 4831.89 220.80 75.99 0.01 51
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 4831.89 TOTAL ACRES 23.49
STREAMS
STREAM -1D a LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating c USA CE Rating c Feature` b (1)/(P) c Basin
G1 22 41 20a I Neuse
G1 26 41 20b I Neuse
G2A 157.07 18 14 22 I Neu se
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 157.07
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert
PONDS
NO POND' ID a ACRES
STRUCTURES P8 0.03
P10 0.00
11 0.03

The Northern Portion (Pollocksville Bypass) of the Project
From Chadwick to the Jones - Craven County Line

8 Action Items from Previous Meetings and Agency Request Northern
Reverification of Jurisdictional Areas
• Completed the re-verification of jurisdictional areas for the entire project
during August 2007.
' • DWQ Numeric Ratings determined as part of update, listed in tables in packet
• USACE issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on 2/11/08. (Copy
included as an attachment to this packet)

1 Results of Reverification of Jurisdictional Areas (Hydraulic Min. vs. Field
Recommended):
• Values are calculated in table 10 thru 13 in this packet.

Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules Assessment of Stream Feature
• September 14, 2007 letter from DWQ listing and illustrating streams in the
project area that are Applicably of the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules (Copy
1 included as an attachment to this packet)

Prime Farmland Values Illustrated in Previous Packets
' • Previous packets had listed acreage for prime farmlands. A review of the
rating form for the project showed that there were no prime farmlands.

Deep Gully
• During the March 6, 2007 CP2A Northern Field Meeting, the Merger Process
Team recommended bridging the Deep Gully Crossing. NCDOT redesigned
the New Bern Bypass plans to provide for bridging of the Deep Gully
Crossing.
9) Northern Section Alternatives Attachments
• Meeting Minutes April 12, 2007/ Pollocksville Area Impacts
• Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules September 14, 2007 Letter from DWQ
• Human Environment Constraints Map
• Alternatives 4D and 4E Map
• Jurisdictional Areas Maps Hydro Min. / Field Recommendations
• Jurisdictional Impacts Tables - Hydro Min. / Field Recommendations
• Public Involvement Tables (1 Master Copy With Wes)
0 Preliminary Roadway Design Plans

E N0A
~ EGOt~OAUSTS
Wilbur'r' mith
A f f O C 1 A T[ f
MINUTES FROM CONCURRENCE POINT 2 (REVISED) NORTHERN SECTION
MEETING CONDUCTED ON APRIL 12, 2007
' DATE: May 29, 2007

TO: All Attendees
' ATTENDEES: See Attached

FROM: Wes Stafford, PE, AICP - Wilbur Smith Associates
SUBJECT: US 17 Improvements from SR 1330/SR 1429 south of Belgrade to the
Jones /Craven County line south of New Bern
Onslow and Jones Counties, North Carolina
TIP No. R-2514 B, C & D State Project No. 8.T190301, WBS No. 34442. 1.1
Federal Aid Project No: NHF-17 (7), (WSA Project No. 297420)
Mark Pierce (NCDOT) opened the meeting by giving a brief summary of public and municipal
involvement activities conducted since the SDEIS was signed in August of 2004 and the initial CP2
agreement was finalized.

1. Goshen Community -NCDOT has continued public involvement meetings and correspondence
' with the Goshen Community. They oppose Alternate 4H because it would split their community
and they have already been impacted by a wastewater treatment plant constructed by the Town of
Pollocksville. The citizens of the Goshen Community feel that this land is a part of their heritage,
it's the first land owned as free people representing a new life and more than just land to them.
2. The Town of Pollocksville - Pollocksville opposes any alternatives through the corporate limits.
Wes Stafford read a letter written by the town for the August 2005 public hearing detailing
concerns that the Town has with Alternatives 4A, 413, 41, and 4ID dividing it in half.
3. Foscue and Simmons Plantations - A 649-acre conservation easement is held by the North
Carolina Costal Land Trust on Foscue Plantation for historic preservation, wildlife habitat and
' water quality. The Foscue Family has agreed to cooperate with NCDOT to provide for
improvements to US 17 on lands west of existing US 17. The Foscue family opposed any
alternative east of existing US 17.
4. The Bryan-Bell Farm - Listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Alternative 4H
bisects this property.
Once discussion of these issues was complete William Wescott asked what Alternatives need to drop out.
It was stated that Alternatives 4A, 4B, 41, and 41D would impact Pollocksville's Historic District and
Foscue Plantation. Alternative 4 does not meet the purpose and need of the project and that Alternative
4H bisected Bryan-Bell Farm causing a Section 106 issue. It was determined that only Alternatives 4D
and 4E were feasible after discussing potential impacts. Verbally it was agreed that all the northern
alternatives be dropped with the exception of 4D and 4E.
Prior to written concurrence it was requested that a list of impact data by alternative be developed
particularly in the Pollocksville area. This list of impacts titled, Pollocksville Area Impacts, is
included as an attachment to these minutes. Additionally, it was requested that the proposed bridge
over Deep Gully be included in the New Bern Bypass project to avoid impacts in that area. The bridge
421 Fayetteville Street Mall, Suite 1303, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
919.755.0583 f919.832.8798 wwwMiilburSmith.com

should be either built first or the termini for the Bypass tie in prior to reaching Deep Gully.
The remainder of the meeting focused on reevaluation of the jurisdictional delineation. William Wescott
will send an email to Mark Pierce with his expectations regarding the jurisdictional delineation. It was
suggested that Alternatives 4D and 4E be reevaluated in the northern section and that all four of the
southern section alternatives be reevaluated.
For reevaluation of the wetlands it was proposed that a quality characterization not be used for the update
and that either the DWQ or the NCWAM method be used when updating the jurisdictional delineation.
Action Items:
• Wilbur Smith Associates will prepare impact data for Alternatives discussed for possible elimination
along the northern segment of R-2514.
• Wilbur Smith Associates and NCDOT will discuss options for the tie in point between R-2514 and
the New Bern Bypass to minimize impacts to the Deep Gully area.
• William Westcott will email Mark Pierce with expectations regarding jurisdictional delineation.

ATTENDANCE RECORD

WilburSmith
As@ act AT 96

i

t Name A enc Telephone
Mason Herndon NCDOT Division 3 910-251-5724
Joe Blair NCDOT Division 3 910-251-5724
Daniel Van Liere Down East RPO 252-229-0308
David Wainwri ht Division Water Quality 919-715-3415
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics 919-250-4100
Kathy Matthews EPA 919-541-3062
Chris Militscher USEPA - Raleigh 919-856-4206
Thomas Stoddard NCDOT - TIP Unit 919-733-2039
Carlos Mo a NCDOT - Transportation Planning 919-733-4705
Chris Manley NCDOT- Natural Environment 919-715-1487
Mark Stale NCDOT - Roadside Environmental Unit 919-733-2920
Neil Lassiter NCDOT - Division 2 919-733-2293
John Lansford NCDOT - Roadway 919-250-4016
William Wescott USACE 252-975-1616 x 31
Karen Compton USFS 828-257-4230
Steve Sollod NCDENR - Division Coastal Management 919-733-2293 x 230
Stephen Lane Division Coastal Management 252-808-2808
Travis Nilson NCWRC 919-528-9886
Ed Lewis NCDOT- HEU 919-715-1593
Chris Rivenbark NCDOT - Natural Environment 919-715-1460
Ma Po Furr NCDOT - Historic Architecture 919-715-1620
Rob Hanson NCDOT - PDEA Branch 919-733-7844 x 226
Mark Pierce NCDOT - Project Development 919-733-7844 x 214
Brian Yamamoto NCDOT - Project Development 919-733-7844 x 265
Wes Stafford WSA 919-573-4196
Carl Goode NCDOT- Human Environment Unit 919-715-1515
Sarah McBride DCR - SHPO 919-733-6545 x 225
Dwayne Sykes NCDOT- Roadway 919-250-4016
Elina Zlotchenko NCDOT - Transportation Planning 919-733-4705 x 57
Phil Harris NCDOT -Natural Environment 919-715-1384
Kimberly Hinton NCDOT - Public Involvement 919-715-1595
John Hennes Division Water Quality 919-733-5694
..Gary Jordan USFWS 919-856-4520 x32
[End of Memorandum)

WilburSmith .
A t t 0 0 1 A 1 t•

Pollocksville Area Impacts
R-2514B,C&D
In response to the request made by the Merger Process Team during the April 12, 2007 meeting,
Wilbur Smith presents the following information regarding impacts to the Human Environment
particularly in the Pollocksville area. Descriptions of each alternative alignment and a matrix of
impacts are also provided. Alternatives were broken out by alignments that are east of existing
US 17 and alignments that are west of existing US 17. A map of human environment constraints
for all Alternatives is attached.
NCDOT is recommending that the Eastern and Western Alternatives listed below be eliminated
for the following reasons:
• The Town of Pollocksville opposes Eastern Alternatives 4A, 413, 41 and 4ID because of
impacts to safety, to developable land, to water and sewer facilities and environmental
justice issues.
• The Costal Land Trust and Foscue Plantation oppose Eastern Alternatives 4B and 4G
which impact Foscue Plantation.
• Bryan - Bell Farm is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. Mr. Hiram Bell
has stated that he opposes Western Alternative 4H because it bisects the farm.
• The Goshen Community opposes Western Alternative 4H because it would split their
community and they have already been impacted enough by the wastewater treatment
plant.
Descriptions of Eastern Alternatives Proposed for Elimination -

Detailed Studv Alternative 4A begins as a four-lane divided facility with a 46-foot median
approximately 0.61 mile south of SR 1114 (Lee's Chapel Road), and follows existing US 17
to approximately 0.3 mile north of SR 1108 (Ravenswood Lane). The alternative then
diverges from existing US 17 and continues east of Pollocksville along the abandoned
Seaboard Coast Line Railroad bed. Detailed Study Alternative 4A crosses SR 1004 (Beaufort
Road) approximately 0.2 mile east of US 17. At this intersection, Detailed Study Alternative
4A transitions to a five-lane shoulder section and proceeds north across the Trent River
before rejoining existing US 17 about 0.6 mile (0.98 km) north SR 1337 (Goshen Road).
Detailed Study Alternative 4A continues along existing US 17 as a five-lane shoulder section
to the proposed New Bern Bypass at Deep Gully near the Jones/Craven County line.
Detailed Study Alternative 4B begins as a four-lane divided roadway with a 46-foot median
approximately 0.61 mile south of SR 1114 (Lee's Chapel Road) and follows existing US 17
to approximately 0.3 mile north of SR 1108 (Ravenswood Lane) then shifts east onto the
abandoned Seaboard Coast Line Railroad bed to approximately 800 feet north of the Trent
River. Detailed Study Alternative 4B then turns west and crosses US 17 approximately 0.23
miles south of the Jones/Craven County line and continues north on new location to
interchange with the proposed New Bern Bypass (TIP Project R-2301) at the Jones/Craven
County Line.
' Detailed Study Alternative 4G begins as a four-lane divided roadway with a 46-foot median
approximately 0.61 mile south of SR 1114 (Lee's Chapel Road) and uses the same corridor as
1 Detailed Study Alternatives 4D and 4E to just north of the Trent River. Detail Study

Alternative 4G then shifts east to cross SR 1121 (Oak Grove/Hargett Road) approximately
0.3 mile west of US 17 and then crosses US 17 approximately 1.4 mile north of the Trent
River in Pollocksville. Detailed Study Alternative 4G joins Detailed Study Alternative 4B
just south of the Foscue and Simmons Plantations and continues north on new location to
interchange with the proposed New Bern Bypass near the Jones/Craven County Line.
Detailed Study Alternative 41 begins as a four-lane divided roadway with a 46-foot median
approximately 0.61 mile south of SR 1114 (Lee's Chapel Road) and proceeds north along the
same corridor as Detailed Study Alternative 4B to 0.4 mile north of the Trent River where it
crosses to the west side of existing US 17. Detailed Study Alternative 41 continues west,
avoiding the historic Foscue and Simmons Plantations, and crosses SR 1121 (Oak
Grove/Hargett Road) approximately 0.5 mile west of US 17 and SR 1002 (Ten Mile Fork
Road) approximately 1.4 miles west of US 17. Detail Study Alternative 41 then curves
sharply east joining Detailed Study Alternative 4E and continues north to interchange with
the proposed New Bern Bypass at the Jones/Craven County Line.
Detailed Study Alternative 4ID begins as a four-lane divided roadway with a 46-foot
' median approximately 0.61 mile south of SR 1114 (Lee's Chapel Road) and follows the same i
corridor as Detailed Study Alternative 41. Detailed Study Alternative 4ID crosses SR 1121
(Oak Grove/Hargett Road) approximately 0.5 mile west of US 17 before diverging from
Detailed Study Alternative 41 and joining Detailed Study Alternative 4D at the eastern edge
of the Progress Energy power line easement. Detailed Study Alternative 4ID uses the same
corridor as Detailed Study Alternative D to the proposed New Bern Bypass (TIP Project No.
R-2301) interchange at Deep Gully near the Jones/Craven County line.
t Description of the Western Alternative Proposed for Elimination -
Detailed Study Alternative 4H begins as a four-lane divided roadway with a 46-foot median
approximately 0.61 mile south of SR 1114 (Lee's Chapel Road) and proceeds north using the
same corridor as Detailed Study Alternative 4D to just south of NC 58. Detailed Study
Alternative 4H then shifts west to minimize impacts to the Goshen Community and avoid the
historic Foscue and Simmons Plantations. The alternative crosses NC 58 approximately 0.7
mile west of US 17 and continues in a northwesterly direction to cross SR 1337 (Goshen
Road) approximately 1.3 mile west of US 17. Detailed Study Alternative 4H crosses the
Trent River approximately 1.75 river miles west and upstream of the existing US 17 bridge
and SR 1121 (Oak Grove/Hargett Road) approximately 1.2 miles west of US 17. Detailed
Shady Alternative 4H joins Detailed Study Alternative 4E near SR 1002 (Ten Mile Fork
Road) and continues north to interchange with the proposed New Bern Bypass near the
Jones/Craven County Line.
The following table summarizes the reconunendations for elimination of these Alternates.

1

~r rr ~r err rr r rr rr r rr ,ter rr r r r r r r r

Alternatives Under Considerations to be Eliminated
ALTS.
HAZ. MATS CE.NNIETERY NOISE HISTORIC COMMENTS
SITES
RESOURCES COMMUNITIES
4A 6 0 183 P
ollocksvi
lie Pollocksville, Opposed by Town
Historic District, Murphytown, Ten of Pollocksville,
Foscue & Mile Fork letter dated
Simmons 8/10/05
Plantation, Ten
Mile Fork Gas
4B Station/Store
2 0 100 Pollocksville Pollocksville Opposed by
Historic District, Coastal Land
Foscue & Trust and Foscue
Simmons
Plantation Plantation
4G 0 1 90 Foscue & Hatchville, Opposed by
Simmons Goshen, Oak Coastal Land
Plantation Grove Trust and Foscue
4I 2 0 Plantation
136 Pollocksville Pollocksville, Oak Opposed by Town
Historic District Grove of Pollocksville,.
letter dated
41D 2 0 8/10/05
136 Pollocksville Pollocksville, Oak Opposed by Town
Historic District, Grove of Pollocksville,
Foscue & letter dated
Simmons 8/10/05
4H Plantations
0 0 74 Bryan-Bell Farm Goshen Opposed by
Hiram Bell and
Goshen
Community

NCDOT is recommending that the lVestern Alternatives listed below be carried fonvard for the
follo?ving reasons:

• Alternatives 4D and 4E are western Alternatives that do not impact Pollocksville's Historic
District or the portion of Foscue Plantation identified for protection by the Costal Land Trust.
• Both Alternatives 4D or 4E avoid impacts to Bryan-Bell Farm.
• Alternatives 4D and 4E avoid Pollocksville and the Goshen Community
• Alternative 4D has minor impacts to the Foscue Plantation along a Progress Energy easement
west of US 17 while Alternative 4E avoids Foscue Plantation entirely.
Description of Western Alternative Proposed to be Carried Forward -

Detailed Study Alternative 4D begins approximately 0.61 miles south of SR 1114 (Lee's Chapel
Road) as a four-lane divided roadway with a 46-foot wide median. Detailed Study Alternative 4D
follows existing US 17 for approximately 0.27 miles before diverging onto new location. The
alternative crosses SR 1114 (Lee's Chapel Road) approximately 0.1 miles west of US 17, SR
1112 (Riggstown Road) approximately 0.4 mile west of US 17, NC 58 approximately 0.4 mile
west of US 17 and SR 1337 (Goshen Road) approximately 0.6 mile west of US 17. Just north of
SR 1337, the alternative crosses Goshen Branch and the Trent River approximately one river mile
1 west and upstream of the existing US 17 bridge. Detailed Study Alternative 4D continues north
crossing SR 1121 (Oak Grove/Hargett Road) approximately 0.75 mile west of US 17 and then
follows the eastern edge of the Progress Energy power line easement through the Foscue and
Simmons Plantations cross SR 1002 (Ten Mile Fork Road) approximately 0.5 mile west of US
17. Detailed Study Alternative 4D crosses SR 1330 (Simmons Loop Road) in two locations
approximately 0.25 mile west of US 17 before interchanging with the proposed New Bern Bypass
(TIP Project No. R-2301) at Deep Gully near the Jones/Craven County line.
Detailed Study Alternative 4E begins as a four-lane divided roadway with a 46-foot median
approximately 0.61 mile south of SR 1114 (Lee's Chapel Road) and uses the same corridor as
Detailed Study Alternative 4D to just north of the Trent River. Detailed Study Alternative 4E then
' swings west to avoid the historic Foscue and Simmons Plantations and continues in a northerly
direction to cross SR 1121(Oak Grove/Hargett Road) approximately 0.8 mile west of US 17. The
alternative then turns east and crosses SR 1002 (Ten Mile Fork Road) approximately 1.3 mile
' west of US 17. Detailed Study Alternative 4E rejoins Detailed Study Alternate 4D south of Deep
Gully and interchanges with the proposed New Bern Bypass near the Jones/Craven County Line.

r

' 119000 1400N0 -

HUMAN ENVIRONMENT CONSTRAINTS
i Legend
Paved Road
Alternate 4A a Alternate 4G t t Cemetery Id Church O Community Center Community Location Z
Unimproved/Gravel Road
Alternate 4B Alternate 4H
f0 1 - a Town Boundary ' 1I _ O Alternate 4D Alternate 41 School Recreational Facility 010. Archaeological Site
County Boundary fi7000 D 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 a 000
Alternate 4E a Alternate 41D Feel
z~ zxt_ Preliminary Corridors Study Boundary . Emergency Service Facility Post Office Historic District/Property o 165 310 620 930 1240
0513.08
772000
s t m i ~ ~~e S, y ~
a 1
"
"COO
Bryan Bell Farm ~AL'TERNATE 4H rj
137000 i (Oakview Plantation) - ~
:
lip
T MOO
a. w
~ r
t
s~
,r
A \
NMI
GOSHEN FORK-
E
yr r9 ~

f,
;r
3
ASK
tt
` K t + ALTERNATE 41D
/ GROVE
.r
7 7400C
s.
t~-~- (TAR , .
AT
t POLLO{'~~P~, t~9TFg P~TERN ELF r` '
n t 1 ~ CKSUILLE~~ ~ .G e9oao
JONES
tl $ _ ?'P Ten Mile Fork CORNER. ,
. ' .F t t.
t i .
58 _ n
9M
ttt ~l ~Itt Itt MCJRP
HY T
W Store
%
HAT---- °F
7TDJD
v _ TON p y
.
ALTERNA
TE46~ ~rt DEEP
P ,r Trent River t r - _ GULLY
J. Nathan Pollocksville a Plantation t - - Y~
' t HIStOrIC
Foscue GARNETa
District FoscueandSimmons tr,~. :i -
' Farm HEIGHTS,
Bryan Lavender
Plantation {
sw
w
House
2 1 w.~ 5 e ~ p r 1© r' x" t 3' S .Y ~1.
0 v
Yr,
a
A,
000 n ` F`- 9 ~ ~F.. r 'c ~ ~ J
-
Yr ; 1
2514 -
R- D CORRIDOR CONSTRAINTS MA~
13 0 , ..l 000 +178 , iaYWO g "JJ D
77{i "
3008

I

Legend FIELD RECOMMENDED BRIDGE LENGTHS STRUCTURE HYDRAULIC MINIMUMS ~J
' Paved Road Alternate 4D - (i
- Unimproved/GravelRoad Alternate 4E
_ Town Boundary Eliminated Alternate T~f F f S
S15 EXTEND CULVERT 2-VX5'RCBC
e ° County Boundary ' _ - - _ ,
Y r*Ct ' - S15 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 420'
Wk~
y ^X S8A CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 380'(GOSHEN BRANCH) S, S17 Et(TENDCULVERT 24T%5 Rcee o soo 1,000 2,ouo 3,000 4,000
Preliminary Corridors Study Boundary S°B CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 11W (TRENT RIVER) S17 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 420' Feel
S8 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 290'
S9A CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 380'(GOSHEN BRANCH) S9 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 290' z - - 0 150 300 500 900 1,200
' ' ~ - -
q3 S98 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 1180- (TRENT RIVER) Me-
i3 04121108
sx
y
i8A
i
r
i
I ~
fat ' . >
S P~TEWINATdE.4E
y*
j
r 1 Y.
4.1-- 41~ .3 / :i° ~ ( y\{ - 'ASR, }
~'1 1 ilr
. 1 by r ys A• A~ '.,C?' d~a 4'i 4 i
w= ili
i Goshen ~ _
y y _
c,-
I y
Will m
,N
S17
a M I
P ~ ~~a +r o ~ ,
Ten
rk p
,
Y
z~ F
J
S8B
• I I - rJ3g4 ~ s~15' S
,1: 58 Jones Corner ~
' l• ~ ~ ~ Pollocksuille; S9~ ,
Ab,
'r"
'a
F r 7 ~
Y~
z
e
r ~
Ravenswood
7 ~ -
slr
e g 40
.:1 I it
$ ~'~~rogf q
~ ~ ~y~x*0,a> r~' ( t .tfa`1•~'~+`7T'n x. 1,.,_~ L•7 } g 'f~~ps ,e~y~~ ar 'n j\ 1
~ T
,~r•~Kx 0 tw,. 'T1,'.e.v'.`"F, - JONEJ 3 e a1 x L -?s 'e / _v`*
AI
} COUNTY 1
-
i 5 xWt /
a r w CR,4VEN
r~- -
CO
LINTY
- R-2514 D CORRIDORS MAP 2008 yWilb,

ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
1022 Grandiflora Drive Suite 250
Leland, North Carolina 28451
910-383-6021 / Facsimile 910-383-6049
www.environmentalservicesinc.com

MEMORANDUM

TO: Wes Stafford
FROM: Matt Smith

' DATE: 3 October 2007

' RE: US 17 Belgrade to New Bern (R-2514B)
Wetland and Stream Delineation Reevaluation and Neuse River Riparian Buffer
Reassessment. WIL06-046.01

Environmental Services, Inc., (ESI), has completed a reevaluation of the wetland and stream

' delineation for the proposed right-of-way limits for Alternatives 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4d, and 4e of the
US 17 Belgrade to New Bern improvements project R-2514B. In addition, stream features
' located within the Neuse River Basin and potentially impacted by the project were reassessed to
determine applicability of the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Rules.

The revised jurisdictional wetland and stream delineation was reviewed in the field by U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) representative William Wescott on 27-30 August 2007. The

revised Neuse River Riparian Buffer assessment was reviewed in the field by N.C. Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ) representative David Wainwright on 27 August 2007. The attached
summary of the jurisdictional delineation and riparian buffer assessment is inclusive of any
' changes requested by the USACE and NCDWQ.

The attached documentation supporting the Neuse River Riparian Buffer Reassessment includes:
• Summary table of non-stream features evaluated,
0 Confirmation letter from NCDWQ on applicability of the Neuse River Basin Riparian

Buffer Rules,
0 Field mapping depicting the locations of features evaluated for eligibility of the Neuse
River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules,
' • NCDWQ Stream Identification forms for non jurisdictional features.

' 1

The attached documentation supporting the jurisdictional wetland and stream delineation
includes:
' • Summary table of jurisdictional streams and wetlands,
• NCDWQ Stream Identification forms for jurisdictional streams,

' • USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets for jurisdictional streams,
• USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms for jurisdictional wetlands,
• NCDWQ Wetland Rating Worksheets for jurisdictional wetlands.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 910-383-6021. We look forward to

providing continued assistance to Wilbur Smith Associates and the North Carolina Department
' of Transportation (NCDOT) with this important project.

2

i

w ww ~w ww ~w ~w w~ ww ww ww ww ww ww w ww w ww w ww

Table 1. Stream features depicted on USGS topographic mapping and/or NRCS soils mapping not delineated
as jurisdictional streams. Features delineated as jurisdictional streams are included in Table 2. Includes
features in the White Oak River Basin not subject to the Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer Rules.
Depicted Depicted Flow DWQ USACE
Feature On USGS On Soils Characteristics Rating Rating River Basin Count
2 x Ephemeral 10 n/a White Oak Onslow
8 x Ephemeral 3 n/a White Oak Jones
9 x x Ephemeral 5.5 n/a Neuse Jones
10 x x Ephemeral 4.5 n/a Neuse Jones
21 x Ephemeral 8.75 n/a Neuse Jones
26 x Wetland 12.5 n/a Neuse Jones
27 x Ephemeral 7 n/a Neuse Jones
28 x Ephemeral 15 n/a Neuse Jones
29a x E hemeral 10.75 n/a Neuse Jones
31 x E hemeral 8 n/a Neuse Jones
32 x Ephemeral 5 n/a Neuse Jones

Table 2. Stream features depicted on USGS topographic mapping and/or NRCS soils mapping delineated
as jurisdictional streams. Features not delineated as jurisdictional streams are included in Table 1.

Depicted Depicted Subject to Neuse
On On River Riparian Buffer Flow DWQ USACE
Feature Del. ID USGS Soils Rules Characteristics Rating Rating River Basin Count
1 W1/W2 x x Intermittent 17.75 42 White Oak Onslow
3 W14 x x Perennial 49 79 White Oak Onslow/Jones
4 W9 x Perennial 34.5 80 White Oak Onslow
5 W8 x Perennial 45.5 90 White Oak Onslow/Jones
6 W15/W16/W17/W18 x x Intermittent 17.75 37 White Oak Jones
7 W21 x Intermittent 19.5 26 White Oak Jones
11 T15 x x x Perennial 41.5 79 Neuse Jones
12 Trent River x x x Perennial 46.5 89 Neuse Jones
13 T16 x x x Perennial 21 51 Neuse Jones
14 S18 x x x Intermittent 24.75 63 Neuse Jones
17 D1 x x x Perennial 45.25 88 Neuse Jones/Craven
19 W19 x Intermittent 20.5 13 White Oak Jones
20a G1 x x Intermittent 21.5 41 Neuse Jones
20b G1 x x Intermittent 25.5 41 Neuse Jones
22 G2a x x Intermittent 18 14 Neuse Jones
24 B5 x x Intermittent 19 36 Neuse Jones
29b S14 x x Intermittent 23 n/a Neuse Jones
33 D2 x x Intermittent 22 51 Neuse Jones
15,30 S9/S10/S11 x x x Intermittent 22 30 Neuse Jones
n/a W5 Perennial 30 70 White Oak Onlow
n/a S17 Intermittent 16.5 40 Neuse Jones
n/a W11a/W11b Intermittent 22.25 30 White Oak Jones

' Table 3. Jurisdictional Wetlands within the proposed alignment for US 17
including Alternatives 2, 2a, 2b, 2c, 3, 4d, 4e.

Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments
1 omitted per USACE
2 38 no change
3 omitted per USACE
4 41 no change
' 5 41 no change
6 45 no change
7 45 no change
8 47 no change
9 48 no change
10 omitted per USACE
' 11 74 no change
12 avoided
13 area re-flagged
14 area re-flagged
15 area re-flagged
16 area re-flagged
17 area re-flagged
' 18 avoided
19 area re-flagged
20 area re-flagged
' 21 avoided
22 31 no change
23 avoided
24 31 no change
25 avoided
26 33 no change
27 21 extended
' 28 combined with 27
29 35 no change
30 36 no change
31 41 no change
32 42 no change
33 area re-flagged
34 72 extended
35 26 no change
36 33 no change
1 37 72 no change
38 avoided
39 filled/Byrd
40 filled/Byrd
41 80 no change
Table 3 continues.
' 1

' Table 3 continued.
Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments

42 80 no change
' 43 avoided
44 58 no change
45 71 no change
46 80 no change
47 avoided
48 28 no change
' 49 47 extended
50 24 no change
51 24 no change
52 22 no change
53 22 no change
54 avoided
55 22 no change
' 56 avoided
57 avoided
58 avoided
59 31 r flagged
60 avoided
61 26 no change
' 62 24 no change
63 26 no change
64 avoided
' 65 33 no change
66 avoided
67 22 extended
68 33 no change
69 22 extended
70 22 extended
71 17 no change
' 72 17 no change
73 17 no change
74 17 extended
75 36 no change
76 21 no change
77 25 no change
78 28 no change
79 29 no change
80 29 no change
81 omitted/not jurisdictional
82 36 no change
83 36 no change
84 35 no change
85 31 no change
86 31 no change
Table 3 continues.
2

Table 3 continued.
Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments

87 35 no change
' 88 30 refla ed
89 24 no change
90 24 no change
1 91 27 no change
92 12 no change
93 22 no change
' 94 53 extended
95 re-flagged as G1 stream
96 re-flagged as G1 stream
' 97 30 no change
98 35 no change
99 omitted/not jurisdictional
100 35 no change
' 101 avoided
102 avoided
103 avoided
' 104 avoided
105 avoided
106 avoided
' 107 avoided
108 avoided
109 avoided
' 110 avoided
111 avoided
112 avoided
113 43 no change
' 114 43 no change
115 avoided
116 avoided
' 117 avoided
118 avoided
119 avoided
120 avoided
121 avoided
122 avoided
123 avoided
124 avoided
125 avoided
126 avoided
127 avoided
128 avoided
129 avoided
' 130 88 no change
131 88 no change
Table 3 continues.
' 3
1

Table 3 continued.
Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments
132 88 refla ed
133 avoided
134 avoided
135 59 no change
136 avoided
137 avoided
138 avoided
' 139 avoided
140 avoided
141 86 no change
' 142 avoided
143 avoided
144 avoided
145 avoided
' 146 avoided
147 avoided
148 avoided
149 avoided
150 avoided
151 avoided
152 avoided
153 avoided
154 avoided
155 avoided
156 avoided
157 avoided
158 avoided
' 159 avoided
160 avoided
161 avoided
162 avoided
163 45 no change
164 avoided
165 avoided
166 22 no change
167 38 no change
168 avoided
169 avoided
170 avoided
171 avoided
172 38 no change
173 38 no change
174 avoided
175 34 no change
176 38 no change
Table 3 continues.
4

Table 3 continued.
Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments

177 38 no change
178 avoided
179 17 no change
180 16 no change
181 55 no change
182 38 no change
183 16 no change
' 184 55 no change
185 avoided
186 45 refla ed
187 16 no change
188 16 no change
189 28 no change
190 avoided
' 191 avoided
192 44 no change
193 44 no change
194 avoided
195 avoided
196 28 no change
' 197 avoided
198 avoided
199 19 no change
' 200 40 no change
201 36 refla ed
202 22 refla ed
203 avoided
204 avoided
205 avoided
206 avoided
' 207 avoided
208 avoided
209 avoided
210 avoided
211 60 no change
212 32 no change
213 avoided
214 avoided
215 36 no change
216 avoided
217 77 no change
218 avoided
219 avoided
220 avoided
221 avoided
Table 3 continues.
' 5

r

1

Table 3 continued.
Wetland # DWQ Rating Comments

222 avoided
223 avoided
224 74 no change
225 21 new
226 21 new
227 21 new
228 stream S17
229 17 new
230 omitted per USACE/ditch
231 51 new
232 omitted per USACE/ditch
233 48 new
234 48 new
235 avoided
236 60 new
237 60 new
238 65 new
239 65 new
240 47 new
241 25 new
242 25 new
243 17 new
244 omitted per USACE/ditch
245 29 new
246 34 new
247 31 new
248 31 new
249 32 new
r

r

r

r

r

' 6

r

~pf VA TFAQ Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr.. Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
4 r Coleen H. Sullins, Director
=I Division of Water Quality
O -C
September 14, 2007 RECEIVED

SEP 2 4 1007
Mr, Matthew Smith
Environmental Services, Inc. BY: kJoi-Ov t',• D/
1022 Grandiflora Drive, Suite 250
Leland, NC 28451
Subject: NCDOT TIP # R-2514, US 17 from the Jones/Craven County Line to Maysville. Jones County
On-Site Determination for Applicability of the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules (I5A NCAC 02B.0233)

' Dear Mr. Smith:
On August 27, 2007, at your request and in attendance with Ms. Nicole A, Loft of Environmental Services,
Incorporated (ESI), David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) staff, conducted an on-site
' determination to review a selection of drainage features located in and adjacent to the proposed improvements to
US 17 from the )ones/Craven County line to Maysville with respect to the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rules. At
the request of ESI, only sites within the Neuse River watershed were reviewed.
The following table summarizes the DWQ's findings:

Feature Waterbod * Visited b DW Stream or Ditch Subject to Buffer Rules
9 UT to Mill Creek No Ephemeral Ditch No
10 UT to Mill Creek No -Ephemeral Ditch No
I 1 Goshen Branch No Perennial Stream Yes
12 Trent River No Perennial Stream Yes
13 UT to Trent River Yes Perennial Stream Yes
14 UT to Trent River Yes Intermittent Stream Yes
15/30 UT to Scott Creek Yes Intermittent Stream Yes
16 Goshen Branch No Perennial Stream Yes
17 Dee Gull Creek No Perennial Stream Yes
20 UT to Mill Creek Yes Intermittent Stream Yes
21 UT to Mill Creek Yes Ephemeral Ditch No
22 UT to Mill Creek Yes Perennial Stream Yes
23 UT to Mill Creek Yes E hemeral Ditch No not on USGS or MRCS)
24 UT to Goshen Branch Yes Intennittent Stream Yes
26 UT to Trent River* Yes Wetland; not stream N/A USAGE will determine)
27 UT to Trent River Yes Ephemeral Ditch No
28 UT to Trent River Yes Ephemeral Ditch No
29 UT to Scott Creek Yes Ephemeral Ditch No
31 UT to Scott Creek Yes E hemeral Ditch No
32 Scott Creek Yes E hemeral Ditch No
33 UT to Dee Gull Creek Yes Intermittent Stream Yes
• UT is Unnamed Tributary; no name is identified on the USGS 1:21.000 topographic maps. Not all Urs an direct tributaries to primary watemly.
This feature was determined to t wetland; however it is shown es an Unnamed Tributary to the Trent River on the MRCS map.
hCeroJ!'na
Trensporlaslon Pann'tVrg Ural .N!!l!!/i7ll~/
1650 6tall Servke Censer, Rakgh, Nash Cardin 276994650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Swte 250, Ralet?h. North Carotba 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] /Internet hltoJlh2o enr stale no us/nave lands
An Equal Opportunely/AlfinnaG+re Add Empbyer-50% Recyded/10%Post Consumer Paper

r
WArp,, Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
`Q North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r? r Coteen H. Sullins, Director
> . t Division of Water Quality

The drainage features and site visit locations are approximated on the attached maps.

It was determined in the field that feature 26, although shown as a drainage way on the NRCS maps, was a
wetland system. It appeared as though fill has been brought in to create an access road many years ago. This
road bisected what was probably a natural drainage way. As a result of the fill, the area has subsequently
become a wetland, as the natural watercourse has been altered.
Upon returning to the office, and looking at both the USGS 1:24,000 topoquad maps as well as the NRCS soil
survey maps, it was detennined that feature 23 is not shown on either map. Therefore, pursuant 15A NCAC 02B
.0233 (3), this feature is not subject to the Neuse River Watershed Riparian Buffer Rules.
Based on these site reviews of determinations made by ESI, all other sites identified in the Jurisdictional
Verification Package but not reviewed on site by DWQ will be considered accurate.

This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and does not approve any activity within
the buffer, Waters of the United States, or Waters of the State, Any Impacts to wetlands, streams and
buffers must comply with the, 404/401 regulations, water supply regulations (15A NCAC 2B ,0216),
applicable buffer rules, and any other required federal, state and local regulations. Please be aware that
even if no direct impacts are proposed to any protected buffers, sheet flow of all new stormwater runoff as
per 15A NCAC 2B.0250 is required.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that
a surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by the Director. A
request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o John Hennessy, DWQ
401 Transportation Permitting Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that
dispute a determination by [lie DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the
mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive
this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected
party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. DWQ recommends that the
applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner.
To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter I SOB of the North Carolina General
Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This
determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
I If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call David Wainwright at 919-715-
3415 or by a-mail at David.Wainwright a.ncmail.net.
Sincerely, t

David Wainwright

M,ppothCare)'`na
Tran3portalion Pemuttirg Uri! ,/Y!lttl!!i7!!lf
1650 Wil SeMm Center, Raleth, North Carolina 27699.1650
2921 Crablree Boubutd, Suits 250, Rakiph, North Carolina 27604 .
Phone: [phone]fFAX919.7934693/lotemelhttolih2o.enr.atate.naus/ncveu nde
An Equal Opportunlry Mmative Action Empbyer-WA Recyrled110%Post Consumer Paper

1

N.C. Division of Water Quality Neuse River Buffer Review Site Map

Feature 33
C .v UT to Deep Gully Creek 1 \
+ + (Visited by DWQ) ` ` ` . '
Subject to Buffer Rules 3• ti t
Feature 17
i Features 31 & 32
Deep Gully Creek , i e
UT to Scott Creek/Scott Creek ' ~t lc
(Visited b DWQ (Not visited by DWQ) <<,3avf,' l
N Y )
'IN Subject to Buffer Rules
Not Subject to Buffer Rules t f,~t }
17 ! Beginning of Project C?,
• Features 15 & 30
UT to Scott Creek x"r ~onw Corwr , ~y t \ -
k~ (Visited by DWQ)
p~. . % Subject to Buller Rules /jj / i?
Tf-He Fork !r J i
CA.* C. l_ r=te - ' 1 d sY' .r _ _ litt i .1 ti'~f`
Q `w(fa~r Feature 29 l., V ``'`'~!•1 y* '`k; 11 I
- LIT to Scott Creak
1\ (Visited by DWQ)
l~ 1 s j Not Subject to Buffer Rules t y r- r
+ t~. + Feature 14 r' f~;~ ' ! i. • s~,` `l
' + a„~' UT to Trent River
(Usited by DWQ) ~ ! ` L-jt ~.•~'t~:r( 'ts`
_ 1_ Subject to Buffer Rules • , ! ~ ~ % ,
Feature 27 s' ,s + UT to Trent River Visited by DWQ) JU
, • I,
t + ,
Not Subject to Buffer Rules
%
~fMAP NA+~ ~ • R ir!! + ~ ` ^ ` ~.1 • , all ~ v(~,`=..v `r
Feature 28
,
r < ui , UT to Trent River,
(visited by DWQ)
Not Subject to Buffer Rules ~\<1, 17 r t~'` ` `
C
VfX &F2
.60 ~ Feature 26
i' x'17 bV~"`t c + ~7 1~ c", 4'r_ `L, ~ L. ° Welland Area (claimed by USACE) `J
' (Visited by DWQ) A. %J
:.)•..t '~syr 'r, w ,'ij ~~s"•,
Feature 13 t-~`t p r1 + !
UT to Trent River
Visited by DWQ) J;'
_
Subject to Buffer Rules
l - Legend
Feature 12 ' -r

Trent River
Approximate Sample Location
C.. (Not visitedbyDWQ) x•. 1{
N ! Sub ect to Buffer Rule NRCS Stream (approx. location) P
USGS Stream (approx. location) j
'<< Feature 11
Goshen Branch - T! ? ? f
} (Not visited by DWQ) rC~ '`pf y r k~ 0 0.3 0.6 Mlles
F' Subject to Buffer Rules i
Tan tags are subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules; grey tags are not
All locations (streams, sample sites, etc.) are approximate and are for representational purposes only. Map Page 1

R•-2514 (US 17 Bypass) Project

N.C. Division of Water Quality Neuse River Buffer Review Site Map
( 0 y, 1. • r_ r•
IN'. 1- j~ _
Wit,
_ _.~i i` { 1 i r , ~.-..51 Y~ S.f J~ . L -i.'- "r-=~'IL/ _'.1
Feature 16
K•. Goshen Branch > 5B ?a~c. •~-?s 0.
1111, "I.
(Not visited by DWQ)
Subject to Buller Rules
• ' _ • ~ ' ~ fir. , F 17 - .1 ~ ~
Feature 24
J',: UT to Goshen Branch
r•~.-4r (Visited by DWQ) is
Y ,r. Subject to Buffer Rules
112 n t
~ r=-.•s. Feature 10 v•`i:~
UT to Mill Creek ' -•1 '1~
; It
(Not visited by DWQ) Z t~~ f ti='
zf Not Subject to Buffer Rules - _ -
} ~r, ",~1 ~ t ~ ~ ~//y/9- ~ 'tel.-o
Feature 23 n,venw , - - "ter
1 'Not on USGS or NRCS maps'
(Visited by DWQ) ^ , ~-r ;
Not Subject to Buffer Rules
Feature 8 =1 cJ L!n a - - _ _ J 1
UT to Mill Creek - ii •h, .`tr ` , , J- : fNr! j=1 - - f
(Not visited by DWQ)
Not Subject to Buffer Rules -
J1J
Feature 22
UT to Mill Creek
Visited by DWQ)
Subject to Buffer Rules
Feature 21
UT to Mill Creek
Visited by DWQ) II c` • ' ` i i
Not Subject to Buffer Rules
_ Feature 20 1 . . i . _ _
UT to Mill Creek 11
(Visited by DWQ) -I
'P~ Subject to Buffer Rules r
1 - _ 'j y`or I Legend
Oo- - %!I, Approximate Semple Location
u !
y
NRCS Stream (approx. location)
' 4 1 ~P~ ? , USGS Stream (approx. location)
0 0.3 0.6 Miles
T nrn nn Mlnw? {n ihn Rlnunn Dlvnr QuNnr DrJne• nrmr 1~n~ ore nnl i
I

R-2514 B, C & D - US 17

DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
' IMPACT MATRIX
Field Visit Recommended Relocations SDEIS Potential Neuse

Total Total Const. Environmental River
Noise Justices/ Buffer
Length Proposed Bridge Wetland Stream Cost# R/W Total Potential Contaminated Cemetery Impacts Historic Resources Communitv Terrestrial Prime Impacts
Alternatives miles ROW Length Impacts Impacts (Mil) Cost" Cost Residential Business Minorities Sites Impacts (Total) Impacted Impacts Impacts Farmlands (s q. ft)
S8A=380 Foscue and Simm Hatchville,
Alt 4D 8.28 250 S8B=1180 24.86 1680 $96.50 $4.58 $101.08 11 0 0 0 0 92 ons Goshen, Oak 276 0 150,319
Plantations
' Grove

S9A=380 Hatchville,
Alt 4E 8.57 2~0 S9B=1180 29.77 1436 $100.10 $4.34 $104.44 7 0 0 0 0 86 none Goshen. Oak 283 0 130,166
Grove
x Cost Estimated in Yr 2001
Cost Estimated in Yr 2008

E Highest Impacts by Alternative
Lowest Impacts by Alternative

I

1

I

I

I

r

BRIDGING OPTIONS AND ASSOCIATED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS (HYDRAULIC MINIMUMS)
Legend
Inventoried Wetlands Impacts by Disturbed Limits Structure Identification 2
Paved Road Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4A Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4G .
Series 1 Wetland Wetlands Impacted by Disturbed Limits (1)
- - Unimproved/Gravel Road Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4B Disturbed Limit ofAlternale 4H tr - - ' 6 `
Revised Wetland . ReservoirlPond Impacted (P1) Ex -El - c;, _ 5
Town Boundary Disturbed Limit Of Alternate 4D Disturbed Limit ofAlternate 41 E: -'i'` E 11 Z~ -7 'C
R' Rp S15 EXTEND CULVERT 2-8X6'f.::
County Boundary Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4E Disturbed Limit ofAltemate41D - T_ JlsS r F26, - S17 EXTEND CULVERT 2 AXE' RC - : 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 T 7, Preliminary Corridors Study Boundary Proposed Bridge or Culvert Feet
CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 290 0 150 300 Sao 500 1,200
-T=
Meters
I
~ ~ b P ~ _ J 1L ~ J t
A
i
(
fit,
~,s 0 k Grove
,
r 4i .,.i t r j~) { rri ~ :fit ? - ' ~ 10''v~~~
,
i 1 ' 'y 189 i y
ii \ \ j 176 .86EhE~~
r~ d
V l1 e o
1 200
r
' ; a r5 4Ro r
a / xgld~y
t / 1~/ tp A~ y.,
' • ' ~ --r-'~ ~ r , , ~ ~ P~ .lei ~ ° -
f 1 4r, 1..1 156 3 184 E
1'~ I Goshen ''=•ir .:`J; 1~py .S fi 167 11 r1 182
e
~ i '1J .Y I1 ! ' y 1840'} jeg 4fi iCS 229 ,d -
t,
2
ERNFS"r
Ten Mile,,FbF 202
t o Boa
~ ~ 114 ~ ~ 3 J .`(1 ~ G
i
n
JonesCorner 225
, r
~Po.llgcksvllle'~ r t~~~. _ % % 211

- 1 ,249
58
` ~ ~ ° l; i -'7 a 1 "y _ v ~ e ~~~~t ~ 217
3 Ravenswood gr ti - -
` ,.i1 ' , 'J 4 • e I ~ •y,'3 n v 17
r
L- r _ f ~ 7
--'113{ asa
JONES' 6\~.ii F •il1l` •a•_
i
COUNTY %~l r z
~.--1 ? ~ - . ( I I r ~ 1 . ` dt' ~ ~r Ft.~~ i\:\ ~"''J ~ J.p~ i ~ -~~\~:r_ ,•,,1-.r v u J~
9
COUNTY
~ „r''1/'tA. L t v \
aEM_ R-2514 D JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS 2008
L

' BRIDGING OPTIONS AND ASSOCIATED JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS FIELD RECOMMENDED

Legend
Inventoried Wetlands Impacts by Disturbed Limits Structure Identification /J 2
Paved Road Disturbed Limit ofAlternate 4A Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4G Series 1 Wetland
Wetlands Impacted by Disturbed Limits (1) z
Unimproved/Gravel Road Disturbed Limit of Alternale4B Disturbed Limit ofAlternate4H 2 TEIC nE aT sv Con TROT ERlCF l leo~R IT PRevised Wetland Reservoir/Pond Impacted (Pt) w REr 111EATEND.,LL ERT 51 CON,:TRUCTPPIDGE36C
Town Boundary ® Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4D Disturbed Limit of Alternate 41 RE?IIbE3UEI C UL.'ERT c12 CCNSTPUCT BRIDGE -
~[~a•NS~ : rt ~~.er is,pjr'ea lcV?% CCHSTRUC E IDGEr40 S13 CONSTRUCT 2 8 S F F
County Boundary Disturbed Limit of Alternate 4E Disturbed Limit of Alternate 41D CONSTRUCT EPOD:;E 0 S14 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE c
CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 470 S15 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 0 500 1,000 2,00D 3,000 4,000
Preliminary Corridors Study Boundary - Proposed Bridge Or Culvert SBA CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 350`(GOSHEN BRANCH) 516 COW; P.UCTBRIDG.-- Feer
^-B CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 1180' (TRENT RIVER) 517 CONSTRUCT BRIDGE 0 150 300 600 900 1,200
r tt_L CTG '7 _ 7 7 F r
1 - Meters
4
C 04/21108,
r
q
' „ ~ t F LJ
t .
Oak GroveSQ
y,.
S9A
t ? - r `
r
~ 189 1 l
~
~l f t:j 6 ~6C8-
'i~` 11 i N 172
s . T n1 C t~ r -fit('-,~ `f ~M,y,R~ m a r- i
X173 e o00 200 0 -
9 + r.
~ o y
9 B ,76 161 2aa po I
S N
- i ~ -
r
, ~ • t 1'" Goshen. r ~k~ ~ f166 ,67 _ aa
, .162 ~ •
184 ..186 246 108 0 h i15
l c3
(P
/ p
•
N iel -qtr }~.rt- all) y/
1
- 202 202
Ten Mile Fork
,
~ i oP
i N 1,4 E 3 5 1 "l _ 226' 227
100 c ` e
_ y•f t) -O. ~ SR ~ ~ 225+ y1F
1
a M
a _ „ I ?Ua 1 i F -
F 5s t Corner,
r
r
r~'aP_ollocksvllle"~:
i ae c i. 1 I, I ~ 2492
58 ( 21 7~ff
3 Ravenswood
1
, r ~ f r ~f _ ~ ;'F ~ E fr u"~ ' _ ~ ~ _ l7 it ~ 17 i
l.. 1.:.,. ~/l._ ~ ~ _ . ~ e a I. 14 lj C,1;1J1. , ~Cf!. 7j"-~ -
- ,ii . `0`-', ` 'r ':.~Y ~~1 •"~.t", 4 n K_ ~ - 'j• Tr ~1' =.2 Y1' / ~f~ 3 ~M1h
r
J~NEJ~
~ ! .;,y' ' ~ • 7 ~'-cc;~ i;1• ~^"ran~ ~ ..a - e ~ r i~:' ~ r~, q~.;; , ' lei~•.l f _ d~~~,
~
ti.
7> V-
Z~-,, rQ, f!1 - i.~ -St •:~~.r$ 0 ~ ^r~ .ice a/
1 ,I '•;?~,r5 2~' - r } ,v 'i'C / L'"~J nr ~il /-~".2~V~• "'"a ~kA
a..- •S } ` ~ i ~ y { - S~'. ~ ~C~~~i . 1r - l ; ~ ~ ir' rf'~ A~ ,ez mR ,
r t I ; }};v r - U, CRAVEN'
o`
}
1
a P , i~,l ~ , . >©r- ; , , ~ ~1 r ~ a 1 _ ;1,~= ~ CQUNTY_
R-2514 D JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS 2008

M TAO M M M M M M M M M
ALTERNATE 4D HYDRAULIC MINIMUM - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
100 43674.33 1346.49 1.00 35
114 78585.31 2017.24 1.80 43
131 63107.78 1097.75 1.45 88
132 24214.27 799.66 0.56 88
135 97519.45 1617.04 2.24 59
141 6797.39 483.73 0.16 86
166 29573.94 1038.76 0.68 22
167 84112.03 3094.58 1.93 38
175 645.19 119.67 0.02 34
177 10243.91 667.51 0.24 38
181 31648.29 812.31 0.73 55
182 19418.18 1293.92 0.45 38
183 1177.11 212.29 0.03 16
184 40656.82 1048.02 0.93 55
184 12106.78 659.75 0.28 55
186 21269.14 652.00 0.49 45
196 14749.04 740.75 0.34 28
201 81538.44 1297.63 1.87 36
202 332067.07 7499.53 7.62 22
211 72477.32 2083.08 1.66 60
212 169.92 97.36 0.00 32
217 1.98 7.37 0.00 77
224 22228.63 1243.05 0.51 74
225 14455.05 636.32 0.33 21
226 59778.61 1194.61 1.37 21
227 99740.62 2850.61 2.29 21
229 2084.13 234.99 0.05 17
246 479.25 148.62 0.01 34
249 10024.74 656.11 0.23 32
TOTAL LINEAR FEET TOTAL ACRES 29.26
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b ([)/(P) c Basin
135 270.97 19.00 36 24 1 Neuse
D1 296.82 45.25 88 17 P Neuse
D2 492.11 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
D2 120.77 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
S9 317.79 22.00 30 15,30 1 Neuse
S14 181.67 23.00 n/a 29b I Neuse
S17 16.50 40 n/a I Neuse
S18 24.75 63 14 1 Neuse
T15 271.06 41.50 79 11 P Neuse
T16 123.75 21.00 51 13 P Neuse
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 2074.92
(a) ESI 10/3107 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial
(b) ESI 10/3107 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert NO PONDS
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S8 T16 Trent River Trent River Bridge 290'
S15 D1 Dee Gull Dee Gull 2 - 8'X6' RCBC a

M M M M M M M M TA"11 M M M M M M M M M
ALTERNATE 4D FIELD RECOMMENDED - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
100 43674.33 1346.49 1.00 35
114 78585.31 2017.24 1.80 43
166 29573.94 1038.76 0.68 22
167 84112.03 3094.58 1.93 38
175 645.19 119.67 0.02 34
177 10243.91 667.51 0.24 38
181 31648.29 812.31 0.73 55
182 19418.18 1293.92 0.45 38
183 1177.11 212.29 0.03 16
184 40656.82 1048.02 0.93 55
184 12106.78 659.75 0.28 55
186 21269.14 652.00 0.49 45
196 14749.04 740.75 0.34 28
201 81538.44 1297.63 1.87 36
202 332067.07 7499.53 7.62 22
211 72477.32 2083.08 1.66 60
212 169.92 97.36 0.00 32
217 1.98 7.37 0.00 77
224 22228.63 1243.05 0.51 74
225 14455.05 636.32 0.33 21
226 59778.61 1194.61 1.37 21
227 99740.62 2850.61 2.29 21
229 2084.13 234.99 0.05 17
246 479.25 148.62 0.01 34
249 10024.74 656.11 0.23 32
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 0.00 TOTAL ACRES 24.86
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH ft DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b ([)/(P) c Basin
B5 270.97 19.00 36 24 1 Neuse
D1 296.82 45.25 88 17 P Neuse
D2 492.11 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
D2 120.77 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
S9 317.79 22.00 30 15,30 1 Neuse
S14 181.67 23.00 n/a 29b I Neuse
S17 16.50 40 n/a I Neuse
S18 24.75 63 14 1 Neuse
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1680.12
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert
NO PONDS
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S8A T15 Goshen Branch Goshen Branch Bridge 380'
S86 T16 Trent River Trent River Bridge 1180'
S15 D1 Dee Gull Dee Gull Bridge 420' a

M M M M M M M M TAW 12 M M M M M M M M
ALTERNATE 4E HYDRAULIC MINIMUM - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO (a LENGTH (ft) AREA (sf) PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating (c)
100 43674.33 1346.49 1.00 35.00
114 78585.31 2017.24 1.80 43.00
131 63088.85 1097.60 1.45 88.00
132 24954.14 831.43 0.57 88.00
135 85805.03 1558.36 1.97 59.00
141 4506.93 327.68 0.10 86.00
166 24943.08 723.53 0.57 22.00
167 97670.90 3449.77 2.24 38.00
172 5019.14 326.44 0.12 38.00
173 23595.99 841.36 0.54 38.00
176 115847.30 2369.30 2.66 38.00
189 22210.47 1096.70 0.51 28.00
200 19719.12 650.57 0.45 40.00
202 579961.47 10436.37 13.31 22.00
211 72477.30 2083.49 1.66 60.00
212 169.92 97.36 0.00 32.00
217 1.98 7.37 0.00 77.00
224 22228.63 1243.05 0.51 74.00
225 14416.86 670.75 0.33 21.00
226 66490.85 1455.75 1.53 21.00
227 99740.60 2850.61 2.29 21.00
249 10024.74 656.11 0.23 32.00
TOTAL LINEAR FEET TOTAL ACRES 33.86
STREAMS
STREAM ID (a) LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating (c) USACE Rating (c) Feature (b) ([)/(P) (c) Basin
B5 270.97 19.00 36 24 1 Neuse
D1 296.82 45.25 88 17 P Neuse
D2 492.11 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
D2 120.79 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
S10 255.81 22.00 30 15,30 1 Neuse
T15 271.09 41.50 79 11 P Neuse
T16 123.75 21.00 51 13 P Neuse
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1831.34
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2
(I)/(P) Interim/Perennial
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert NO PONDS
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S9 T16 Trent River Trent River Bridge 290'
S17 D1 Deep Gull Deep GU11 2 - 8'X6' RCBC (a)

TA1913 r
ALTERNATE 4E FIELD RECOMMENDED - REVISED WETLAND AND STREAM IMPACTS BY ALTERNATE
WETLAND NO a LENGTH (ft) AREA s PERIMETER ACRES DWQ Rating c
100 43674.33 1346.49 1.00 35
114 78585.31 2017.24 1.80 43
166 24943.08 723.53 0.57 22
167 97670.90 3449.77 2.24 38
172 5019.14 326.44 0.12 38
173 23595.99 841.36 0.54 38
176 115847.30 2369.30 2.66 38
189 22210.47 1096.70 0.51 28
200 19719.12 650.57 0.45 40
202 579961.47 10436.37 13.31 22
211 72477.30 2083.49 1.66 60
212 169.92 97.36 0.00 32
217 1.98 7.37 0.00 77
224 22228.63 1243.05 0.51 74
225 14416.86 670.75 0.33 21
226 66490.85 1455.75 1.53 21
227 99740.60 2850.61 2.29 21
249 10024.74 656.11 0.23 32
TOTAL LINEAR FEET TOTAL ACRES 29.77
STREAMS
STREAM ID a LENGTH (ft) DWQ Rating c USACE Rating c Feature b (1)/(P) c Basin
B5 270.97 19.00 36 24 1 Neuse
D1 296.82 45.25 88 17 P Neuse
D2 492.11 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
D2 120.79 22.00 51 33 1 Neuse
S10 255.81 22.00 30 15,30 1 Neuse
TOTAL LINEAR FEET 1436.50
(a) ESI 10/3/07 Delineation (c) ESI 10/3/07 Table 2 (1)/(P) Interim/Perennial
(b) ESI 10/3/07 Table 1 RCBC = reinforced concrete box culvert
NO PONDS
MAJOR STRUCTURES
STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION STREAM NUMBER STREAM NAME STRUCTURE REFERENCE RECOMMENDED STRUCTURE
S9A T15 Goshen Branch Goshen Branch Bridge 380'
S96 T16 Trent River Trent River Bridge 1180'
S17 D1 Deep Gull Deep Gull Bridge 420' (a)