20141169 All Versions_Handouts_20080715

?2 -

Page 1 of 2
Pierce, Mark S
From Pierce, Mark S
Sent Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11 52 AM
To McLendon, Scott, Rawls, Paul, Thorpe, Gregory J, Coleman, Clarence, Wescott, William,
Militscher, Christopher, Jordan, Gary, Wainwright, David, Sollod, Steve, Wilson, Travis,
Compton, Karen, Gledhill-Earley, Renee, Murphey, Trish, Sechler, Ron, Van Liere, Daniel
Cc Barbour, Deborah M, McMillan, Art, Hanson, Robert P, Yamamoto, Brian F, Dickens, Missy,
Stafford, Wes
Subject R-2514 7/30/08 MMT Elevation Mtg for Maysville Bypass
Attachments R-2514-ElevationBnefs-7-14-08 pdf
Dear Merger Management Team,
I am writing to transmit six elevation briefs and to provide Merger Process history in
preparation for your Merger Management Team Meeting regarding elevation of corridor
selection for the Maysville Bypass for R-2514 (US 17 - Belgrade to New Bern, Onslow & Jones
Counties) The MMT Meeting is scheduled for 3:00 p.m. on July 30, 2008 in the Board
Room of the Transportation Building in Raleigh. Please note that this is a state project and
that USACE is the lead federal agency
Dear Merger Process Team,
I am writing to transmit six elevation briefs that I have received from USEPA, USFWS,
NCDWQ, NCDCM, NCWRC, and USACE since our June 19, 2008 CP3 Meeting regarding
corridor selection for the Maysville Bypass I am also writing to notify you that the entire
Merger Process Team is invited to the July 30, 2008 MMT Meeting, not only those who
prepared elevation briefs, but also other interested team members
Everyone,
The Merger Process Team has discussed the Maysville Bypass (Alternate 2A versus Alternate
2C) in informational meetings, corridor selection meetings, and correspondence The resource
agencies support Alternate 2C because it meets the purpose and need, generates fewer
jurisdictional impacts, and costs less that Alternate 2A NCDOT supports Alternate 2A
because it bypasses the community of Belgrade and is in accordance with the US 17 Strategic
Highway Corridor I offer the following Merger Process chronology for your reference
Section 404 / NEPA Merqer Process Team_ Meeting for CP3 (February 22, 2007) The Merger
Process Team held the first corridor selection meeting for the Maysville Bypass on February
22, 2007 The team verbally concurred to eliminate Alternates 2 and 2B, but could not reach
concurrence on Alternate 2A versus Alternate 2C The resource agencies supported Alternate
2C and NCDOT supported Alternate 2A The Elevation Process was formally initiated during
this meeting
7/15/2008
Page 2 of 2
Request for Revenfication of Jurisdictional Areas (March 7, 2007) Mr William Wescott
(USAGE) requested reverification of jurisdictional areas for the Maysville Bypass Alternates (2,
2A, 2B, & 2C), Alternate 3 (widen existing from Maysville to north of the community of
Chadwick), and the Pollocksville Bypass Alternates (4D & 4E) on March 7, 2007 Therefore,
corridor selection was placed on hold until an updated Jurisdictional Determination could be
issued by USACE Mr Wescott and personnel from Environmental Services, Inc conducted
the reverification during August 2007 Mr Wescott issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination on February 11, 2008 and noted that the Final Jurisdictional Determination
would be issued after preparation of the Rapanos Forms for the LEDPA
Section 404 / NEPA Merger Process Team Meeting for CP2 Revisited (May 22, 2008) The
Merger Process Team held a meeting on May 22, 2008 to revisit CP2 and to achieve written
concurrence on reduction of alternates for the Pollocksville Bypass and the Maysville Bypass
The team concurred to eliminate all alternates except for 2A and 2C for the Maysville Bypass
and alternates 4D and 4E for the Pollocksville Bypass
Section 404 / NEPA Merger Process Team Meeting for CP3 (June 19, 2008) The Merger
Process Team held the first corridor selection meeting for the Pollocksville Bypass and the
second corridor selection meeting for the Maysville Bypass on June 19, 2008 The team
concurred on Alternate 4D for the Pollocksville Bypass, but could not reach concurrence on
Alternate 2A versus Alternate 2C for the Maysville Bypass The team agreed that resolution of
corridor selection for the Maysville Bypass should be elevated to the Merger Management
Team and that elevation briefs would be prepared and submitted to NCDOT within three
weeks of our meeting
We appreciate the Merger Process Team's work on this project We also appreciate the
Merger Management Team's time as it considers resolution of corridor selection for the
Maysville Bypass Please let me know if you need additional information as you prepare for
our July 30, 2008 meeting
Thanks,
Mark
Mark Pierce, P E
Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT - Eastern Project Development Unit
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[phone] x214
7/15/2008
Page 1 of l
Pierce, Mark S
From: Mditscher Chns@epamad epa gov
Sent: Monday, June 30, 20081 43 PM
To: Pierce, Mark S
Cc. wdliam g wescott@usace army mil, garyJordan@fws gov, travis wilson@ncwddlife org,
renee gledhdl-eadey@ncmad net, david wainwright@ncmad net, steve soilod@ncmad net,
ron sechler@noaa gov, kcompton@fs fed us, trash murphey@ncmad net
Subject: R-2614B Revised Elevation Brief - CP 3 Maysville Bypass
Attachments: NCDOT-Maysville Bypass-Mergerbnef--6-08 rtf
Mark: Attached is EPA's elevation brief A signed copy will be placed in FHWA/NCDOT inter-office
mail today. I'll be out of the office and will not be returning until 7/7. Thanks for your efforts and
if you have any questions, please call me next week Thanks again
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
7/14/2008
SECTION 404/NEPA MERGER 01 ISSUE BRIEF: 6/30/08
Submitted by Christopher A Militscher, REM, CHMM
Merger Team Representative
USEPA Raleigh Office
THRU Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
USEPA Region 4
Thomas C Welborn, Chief
Wetlands, Coastal Protection Branch
USEPA Region 4
CC. Kathy Matthews, Life Scientist
Wetlands Protection Section
USEPA Region 4 - Durham Office
TO. Mark S Pierce, P E , Project Manager
Planning Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
1 Protect Name and Brief Description R-2514 B Section, US 17 Improvements
(Maysville Bypass), Onslow and Jones Counties, New location and widening sections
south of Pollocksville (R-2514 C and D Sections)
2 Last Concurrence Point CP 3 LEDPA for R-2514C and D Sections
r%t*eiigs 6/19/08
Date of Concurrence
3. Proposal and Position- EPA recommends that Alternative 2C be selected as the
LEDPA for the R-2514B section NCDOT proposes to s4pct Alternative 2A for the
LEDPA based almost entirely upon SHC vision goals Based on our review EPA believes
that Alternative 2C is consistent with the overall US 17 improvements and has the least
overall impacts to both the human and natural environment The Merger team agreed to
`segment' the LEDPA decisions for the US 17 Pollocksville/Maysville Bypass into three
sections: R-2514B/C/D so that NCDOT could proceed with additional design activities
for the R-2514C and D sections
4. Reasons for Non-concurrence Based upon the information provided in the DEIS, the
Concurrence Point 3 LEDPA meeting package dated 2/22/07, and the updated packages
provided for the 6/19/08 meeting, EPA does not concur with NCDOT's proposed
selection of Alternative 2A NCDOT is basing its choice of Alternative 2A primarily due
to a stated desire to construct the new Maysville Bypass section using a Strategic
Highway Corridor (SHC) design with two `freeway-type' interchanges both north and
south of Maysville The sections of US 17 both north (R-2514C) and south (R-2514A) of
Maysville have been or are being constructed to an expressway type design
The 2004 SHC Vision plan was adopted after the purpose and need and the detailed study
alternatives for the project were accepted by the Merger team Based upon traffic data
there does not appear to be a need to provide two `free-flowing', high-speed interchanges
both north and south of Maysville The traffic benefits for providing approximately 4
miles of `freeway' section between two expressway sections have not been documented
by NCDOT The Merger team agreed to drop Alternative 2 (Improve existing through
Maysville) and Alternative 2B (Bypass east of Maysville) due to human and natural
resource impacts. Based upon updated CP 3 Merger handouts, EPA's comments on the
impact differences for specific key indicators between Alternatives 2A and 2C are
provided below
Jurisdictional wetland impacts. Alternative 2A (39 8 acres) has more than double the
wetland impacts as Alternative 2C (14 95 acres) Alternative 2A also has substantially
greater impact to high quality wetland systems than Alternative 2C
Stream impacts: Alternative 2A (3,117 linear feet) has substantially greater impacts to
waters of the U S. than Alternative 2C (2,007 linear feet). These additional stream
impacts include tributaries to the White Oak River watershed
Relocation Impacts and other Human Resource Impacts Alternative 2A (23 residential
and 2 businesses) has substantially higher relocation impacts to residences than
Alternative 2C (12 residences and 15 businesses) Considering that there are
approximately 70-80 total homes in the Belgrade area, 23 residential relocations may
represent a substantial socio-economic burden for local families and citizens
Alternative 2C impacts to businesses have not been fully identified in terms of `complete
relocations' or simply reduced access or parking for the new expressway
Potential Environmental Justice/Community Impacts- NCDOT has agreed to provide the
USACE with a "Benefit/Burden" community impact analysis for the Belgrade
community. The USACE as Lead Federal Agency has to agree that there is a
disproportional adverse impact to minority and low-income persons or community
cohesion issues in Belgrade from Alternatives 2A and 2C As per current relocations and
other community housing statistics provided during the 6/19/08 meeting, Alternative 2A
has substantially more residential relocations than Alternative 2C Considering the
limited housing in and around Belgrade, EPA believes that there could be a potentially
greater EJ impact to the community from Alternative 2A EPA requests a copy of any
community impact analysis that is performed under E O 12989 for Environmental
Justice.
Other Impacts and Relevant Issues As discussed in EPA's 2007 Elevation brief, EPA
supports a SHC design initiative when it can be supported by traffic data and when the
project W tgd in an urbanized and congested areas It is difficult to justify the
substantially greater environmental impacts and the socio-economic costs (e g,
Alternative 2A is $35 million more Alternative 2A is $77 73 million and Alternative 2C
is $42 5 million) associated with the need for potentially large interchanges, `free-
flowing' and high-speed ramp designs both north and south of Maysville Alternative C
with one large interchange north of Maysville offers a better `balance' between
environmental impacts and transportation benefits while employing greatly improved
traffic flow along US 17 Alternative 2C also offers a consistent expressway design
between Pollocksville and Jacksonville
5 Potentially Violated Laws/Regulations. Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act
NCDOT did not make an adequate justification for the substantially increased impacts to
aquatic resources from Alternative 2A (compared to 2C) based upon `other significant
adverse impacts' (LEDPA definition contained at NCDOT's Merger 01 Websrte).
6 Alternative Course of Action- EPA recommends that NCDOT should reconsider its
position on Alternative 2A and concur with EPA, ACE, DWQ, FWS, WRC, DCM and
other agencies on Alternative 2C as the LEDPA. Also, NCDOT should fully investigate
additional avoidance and minimization efforts for stream and wetland impacts and begin
specific coordination with local officials on minimizing potential impacts to Maysville
and Belgrade residences and businesses with the expressway/'Superstreet' design.

Pierce, Mark S
From: Gary_Jordan@fws gov
Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2008 10 40 AM
To: Pierce, Mark S
Cc* william g wescott@usace army mil, travis wdson@ncwidlde org, renee gledhill-
earley@ncmad net, david wainwright@ncmad net, steve sollod@ncmad net,
ron sechler@noaa gov, kcompton@fs fed us, tnsh murphey@ncmad net,
Pete_Ben)amin@fws gov
Subject. R-2514B revised elevation brief - CP 3 Maysville Bypass
Attachments: R-2514 issuebrief pdf
12
R-2514 issuebrief p
df (13 KS)
Mark,
. Attached is the USFWS revised elevation brief for Section B of R-2514
(See attached file R-2514.issuebrief.pdf)
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone [phone] ext 32
Fax [phone]
gary_7ordan@fws gov
1
Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 Issue Brief - July 1, 2008
1 Project Name and brief description: R-2514 B Section, US 17 Improvements (Maysville
Bypass), Onslow and Jones Counties
2 Last Concurrence Point: CP 3 for R-2514 C and D Sections
Date of Concurrence: June 19, 2008
3 Explain what is being proposed and your position including what you object to.
NCDOT's preferred alternative is Alternative 2A NCDOT has based this preference on its
goals under its Strategic Highway Corridors (SHC) initiative The USFWS objects to this
alternative being selected as the LEDPA The USFWS proposes that Alternative 2C be
selected as the LEDPA
4 Explain the reasons for your potential non-concurrence. Please include any data or
information that would substantiate and support your position.
Alternative 2A is clearly not the LEDPA 2A would have 39 80 acres of wetland impacts
versus only 14 95 acres for 2C 2A would have 3117 feet of stream impacts versus 2007 feet
for 2C 2A would have significantly higher impacts to wildlife resources to include direct
mortality, direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and cumulative impacts due to potential
secondary development 2A would have significantly higher impacts to migratory birds
Alternative 2A, being farther out from Maysville, would create the greatest amount of forest
habitat fragmentation effects The effects of forest fragmentation usually extend well beyond
the project footprint and can lead to local extirpation of forest interior species and wildlife
species which require large home ranges Roads act as physical barriers to wildlife
movement and/or cause significant wildlife mortality in the form of road-lulled anmmals
Forest fragmentation can lead to increased predation of some species and increased brown-
headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism of the nests of neotropmcal migrant birds
Habitat fragmentation also often facilitates invasive and/or nonnative species colonization of
fragmented lands Overall, the remaining, smaller, fragmented forest parcels are of less
value to forest interior species
While the USFWS understands NCDOT's preference to build the highest level facility
possible, Alternative 2C would still provide a vast improvement over the existing condition
and clearly meets the purpose and need of the project Given the much higher environmental
impacts, and given the fact that 2A costs $35 2 million more (almost double the cost) than
2C, the USFWS does not see adequate justification to build 2A
Since the roadway both south and north of Section B will not be freeway, the USFWS does
not believe that it is justified to sacrifice an additional 24 85 acres of wetlands and 1110 feet
of stream, and at nearly double the cost, to build a short segment of freeway We believe that
the law of diminishing returns applies here
NCDOT prefers Alternative 2A because it fits more into its SHC vision goals The SHC
initiative was adopted after the purpose and need statement was developed and after the
detailed study alternatives were agreed to by the Merger Team To date, traffic data has not
demonstrated that there is a need for the higher level freeway facility of 2A versus 2C
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated or jeopardized
if the proposed action were implemented and explain the basis for violation.
The USFWS believes that Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act would be violated if
Alternative 2A is chosen as the LEDPA 2A has 166% higher wetland impacts and 55%
higher stream impacts without adequate. justification
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S C 661-667d) provides the basic
authority for the USFWS involvement in evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife from
proposed water resource development projects It requires that fish and wildlife resources
receive equal consideration to other project features It also requires Federal agencies that
construct, license or permit (e g Section 404) water resource development projects to first
consult with the Service and State fish and wildlife agencies regarding the impacts on fish
and wildlife resources and measures to mitigate these impacts Specifically, the USFWS
provides comments and recommendations to the U S Army Corps of Engineers for the
issuance of Section 404 Clean Water Act permits With regard to a project with multiple
alternatives, the USFWS provides recommendations to the USACE as to which alternatives
best avoid and minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources
6. What alternative course of action do you recommend?
NCDOT should concur with the other agencies on the Merger Team that Alternative 2C is
the LEDPA
Pierce, Mark S
From: David Wainwright [David Wainwright@ncmail net]
Sent Tuesday, July 01, 200811 09 AM
To- Pierce, Mark S
Cc. Mditscher Chris@epamail epa gov, william g wescott@usace army mil, garyJordan@fws gov,
travis wilson@ncwildlife org, renee gledhill-earley@ncmad net, steve sollod@ncmail net,
ron sechler@noaa gov, kcompton@fs fed us, trish murphey@ncmail net, Brian Wrenn
Subject: R-2514B Elevation Brief
Attachments: R-25148 DWQ Elevation Brief pdf
C
R-25146 DWQ
Elevation Brief pd
Mark,
Attached is the DWQ's elevation brief. I will send you a paper copy in the mail. If you
have any questions, please feel free to contact me
Thank you
David Wainwright
NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
Raleigh, NC
[e-mail]
919-715-3415
[e-mail] wrote-
> Mark. Attached is EPA's elevation brief A signed copy will be placed
> in FHWA/NCDOT inter-office mail today I'll be out of the office and
> will not be returning until 7/7. Thanks for your efforts and if you
> have any questions, please call me next week. Thanks again
> Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
> USEPA Raleigh Office
> 919-856-4206
1

W ?? Michael F Easley, Governor
9
OQG William G Ross Jr, Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
\
fib r Alan W Klimek, P E Director
j Division of Water Quality
o ?
July 1, 2008
MEMORANDUM
To. Mark Pierce, PE, Project Development and Environmental Analysts Section, NCDOT
Through. Bnan Wrenn, Division of Water Quality ?v
From David Wainwnght, Division of Water Quality
Subject MERGER 01 PROCESS ISSUE BRIEF, TIP R-2514B, improvements to US 17 in
Onslow and Jones Counties, from Belgrade to Chadwick
I Project Name and Brief Description: TIP R-25146, improvements to US 17 to Onslow and
Jones Counties, from Belgrade to Chadwick
2 Last Concurrence Point (signed): CP 3 for sections C and D
Date of Concurrence. June 19, 2008
3 Explain what is being proposed and your position, including what you object to: There are
two alternatives remaining for the project in the area of concern, Alterative 2A and Alternative
2C All other alternatives have been eliminated from further study The NCDOT prefers
Alternative 2A while the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) prefers Alternative 2C
4 Explain the reasons for your potential non-concurrence. Please include any data or
information that would substantiate and support your position: The DWQ prefers Alternative
2C primarily because it has significantly lower impacts to natural resources than Alternative 2A
• According to the "Reveriftcation of Jurisdictional Areas (Wetlands) Comparison Table"
in the revised (June 19, 2008) meeting packet, wetland impacts for Alternative 2C are
anticipated to be 14 95 acres The anticipated impacts to wetlands for Alternative 2A are
39 80 acres (more than 2 5 times that of Alternative 2C)
• According to the "Results of Revenftcation of Jurisdictional Areas (Streams) Comparison
Table" in aforementioned document, Alternative 2C will have anticipated impacts to
2,007 7 feet of stream, Alternative 2A will potentially impact 3,117 0 feet (more than 50
percent greater than Alternative 2C)
Thus far, modifications and re-evaluations made have affected impacts to streams and
wetlands for both alternatives However, additional impacts associated with Alternative
2A have been much greater than those for Alternative 2C For example, based on the
previously mentioned tables, the wetland re-evaluation added an additional 11.32 acres of
impact to Alternative 2A's already 28 48 acres, for a total of 39 80 This amounts to a 40
percent increase When bridge lengths were modified, stream impacts increased 1,252 4
feet, from 1,864 6 feet to 3,117 0 feet, or 67 percent Impacts to wetlands from
Alternative 2C increased 0 53 acres, while stream impacts decreased 308 58 feet
Nrppl° Caro SSna
Transportation Pemdtbng Unit hlClJ?l fJ
1650 Mad Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Ralegh, North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet htt2J/h2o enr,state naus/ncnretlands
An Equal Opportunity/A(6rmatrve Action Employer - 50% Recyded/10% Post Consumer Paper
The NCDOT is stating that impacting the community of Belgrade would constitute an
environmental justice issue if Alternative 2C is selected as the LEDPA This project is
not federally funded. Therefore, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is not
represented in this project and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is
the lead federal agency for this project Generally, the FHWA performs the analysis to
determine if any environmental, justice issues exist within a project it appears that in
FHWA's absence, the NCDOT determined that impacting Belgrade would constitute an
environmental justice issue As the lead federal agency, it should be the USACE which
ultimately makes this determination, not the NCDOT When this issue was discussed
during the June 19, 2008 meeting, it quickly became apparent that there were several
unanswered questions regarding the statement The DWQ believes that this issue should
be further investigated to determine if a real environmental, justice issue would exist
should Alternative 2C be selected as the LEDPA
5 List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated or jeopardized if the
proposed action were implemented and explain the basis for violation. Please attach a copy
of the relevant portion of the law or regulation or provide a web address where the
document(s) may be located: The most relevant law is 15A NCAC 02H 0500
(htto•//h2o enr state nc us/admin/rules/2H 0500 pdf). The following attests to its relevance
15A NCAC 02H 0500 states that "in evaluating requests for certification the Director
shall determine if the proposed activity has the potential to remove or degrade those
significant uses which are present in the wetland or surface water" It goes on to state
that "The Director shall issue a certification upon determining that existing uses are not
removed or degraded by a discharge to classified surface waters for an activity which 1)
has no practical alternative under the criteria outlined in Paragraph (f) of this Rule and 2)
will minimize adverse impacts to the surface waters based on consideration of existing
topography, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions under the
criteria outlined in Paragraph (g) of this Rule and 3) does not result in the degradation of
groundwater or surface waters "
Section (f) of I SA NCAC 02H 0500 (mentioned previously) states that "A lack of
practical alternatives may be shown by demonstrating that, considering the potential for a
reduction is size, configuration, or density, of the proposed activity and all alternative
designs the basic purpose cannot be practically accomplished in a manner which would
avoid or result in a less adverse impact to surface waters or wetlands "
When reviewing applications for 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC), the DWQ is
required per 15 NCAC 02H 0500 to see that impacts to surface waters and wetlands have
been minimized to best extent practical Section (f) states that if a practical alternative
exists that would minimize impacts to wetlands and surface waters, yet still meets the
basic project purpose (as defined by NCDOT's Purpose and Need Statement), then it
should be selected Since Alternatives 2A and 2C have been carried forward, it is
assumed by the DWQ that both are practical and meet the purpose and need of the
project
6 What alternative course(s) of action do you recommend: The impacts from Alternative 2A
are significantly higher than for Alternative 2C The DWQ does not feel it can support
Alternative 2A due to the difference in impacts If the NCDOT can reduce impacts for Alternative
2A such that they are similar to those of Alternative 2C, then the DWQ may reconsider
supporting Alternative 2A Also, the DWQ would like to encourage the NCDOT and the USACE
to further investigate the potential environmental justice issue in Belgrade, as agreed during the
June 19, 2008 concurrence meeting
Pierce, Mark S
From- Steve Sollod [Steve Sollod@ncmail net]
Sent- Tuesday, July 01, 2008 2 49 PM
To Pierce, Mark S, Doug Huggett
Cc: Chris Militscher, William Wescott, Gary Jordan, Travis Wilson, Renee Gledhill-
Earley@ncma)I net, David Wainwright, Ron Sechler (E-mail), kcompton@fs fed us, Trish
Murphey, stephen lane
Subject: DCM's Issue Brief for R-2514
Attachments: R-2514 Issue Brief pdf
FDf j?
R-2514 Issue
Brief pdf (90 KB)
Mark,
DCM's Issue Brief for R-2514 is attached.
concerns
Steve
Let me know if you have any questions or
Steve Sollod
Transportation Project Coordinator
NC Division of Coastal Management
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
[phone] X230 phone
[phone] FAX
1
ALTE
19
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Michael F Easley, Governor James H. Gregson, Director William G Ross Jr, Secretary
Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 Issue Brief
R-2514
NC Division of Coastal Management
July 1, 2008
1. Proiect Name and Brief Descnption:
R-2514 B, C, & D Sections, US 17 Improvements from SR 1330/SR 1439 South of Belgrade
to the Jones - Craven County Line, Onslow and Jones Counties
2 Last Concurrence Point.
CP 2A Bridging and Alignment Review
3. Date of Concurrence:
On 2/22/07 concurrence was reached on the bridging decisions. It should be noted that on
6/19/08, CP 3 was reached on Alternative 3, the center section of the project, and Alternative
4D on the northern (Pollocksville) portion of the project CP 3 could not be reached on the
southern (Maysville) portion of the project.
4. What is ProRosed and the A eg_nc„y Position?
The remaining alternatives under consideration for the southern portion of the project are
Alternative 2A and 2C. Alternative 2A is NCDOT's preferred alternative for the Maysville
portion of the project. DCM and other resource agencies, which DCM relies on in making
permit and consistency decisions, prefer the selection of Alternative 2C for the LEDPA.
The crossing of the White Oak River, with the selection of either Alternative 2A or
Alternative 2C, will require a CAMA Major Permit A CAMA permit for this project, if
issued, will encompass only the portion of the project within the coastal zone, which includes
the portion located in Onslow County and the crossing of the White Oak River
5. Reasons for Non-Concurrence:
On 6119/08 DCM did not concur on Alternative 2A, NCDOT's preferred alternative, for
selection as the LEDPA. The total wetland impacts for Alternative 2A (39.80 acres) far
exceeded the wetland impacts of Alternative 2C (14 95 acres) The stream impacts were over
1000 linear feet greater for Alternative 2a (3117 ft ) compared to Alternative 2C (2007 ft.)
In addition, the residential relocations for Alternative 2A (23) were almost double the
number of relocations for Alternative 2C (12). Both Alternative 2A and Alternative 2C
would meet the project's purpose and need.
400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] l Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity \ A(rirmabve Action Employer - 500/6 Recycled \ 10% Post Consumer Paper
Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 Issue Brief
R-2514, NCDCM
Page 2
6. Relevant Laws or Regulations
COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT (CAMA)
The goals of CAMA are to ensure development of the land and water resources of the coastal
area proceeds in a manner consistent with the capability of the land and water for
development based on ecological considerations and to ensure the orderly and balanced use
and preservation of coastal resources on behalf of the people of North Carolina and the
nation.
§ 113A-120(x)(9) GRANT OR DEMAL OF PERMITS
DCM may deny an application for a permit upon finding that considering engineering
requirements and all economic costs there is a practicable alternative that would accomplish
the overall project purposes with less adverse impact on the public resources.
15A NCAC 07M.0801 DECLARATION OF GENERAL POLICIES
The waters of the coastal area are a valuable natural and economic resource of statewide
significance. Traditionally these waters have been used for such activities as commercial and
recreational fishing, swimming, hunting, recreational boating, and commerce. These
activities depend upon the quality of the waters Due to the importance of these activities to
the quality of life and the economic well being of the coastal area, it is important to ensure a
level of water quality, which will allow these activities to continue and prevent further
deterioration of water quality. No land or water use shall cause the degradation of water
quality so as to impair traditional uses of the coastal waters. The Coastal Resources
Commission takes a lead role in coordinating these activities.
15A NCAC 07M.0802 POLICY STATEMENTS
All of the waters of the state within the coastal area have a potential for uses that require
optimal water quality. Therefore, at every possible opportunity, existing development
adjacent to these waters shall be upgraded to reduce discharge of pollutants. Basin-wide
management to control sources of pollution both within and outside of the coastal area,
which will impact waters flowing into the rivers and sounds of the coastal area, is necessary
to preserve the quality of coastal waters.
15A NCAC 07J.0207 AGENCY REVIEW/COM[MENTS: MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT/DREDGE AND FILL
In order to determine the impact of a proposed project, DCM circulates CAMA major
development permit applications to the state review agencies having expertise in each of their
respective disciplines. Each reviewing agency may make an independent analysis of the
application and submit recommendations and comments. Such recommendations and
comments are considered in taking action on a permit application.
The NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requires applicants to consider alternatives to
impacting waters of the state and wetlands dunng the design of their project. On 6/19/08, the
DWQ and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) did not concur with NCDOT's
preferred alternative DCM must take this into consideration in the selection of the LEDPA
for this project
Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 Issue Brief
R-2514, NCDCM
Page 3
15A NCAC 07J 0209 ISSUANCE OF PERMITS
The decision to issue or deny the permit is based, in part, by the comments of all interested
state agencies.
7. Recommended alternative course of action:
DCM recommends that the NEPA/404 project team concur with Alternative 2C as the
LEDPA
Page 1 of 1
Pierce, Mark S
From. Travis Wilson [travis wilson@ncwildlife org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 2 59 PM
TO. Pierce, Mark S
Cc: Wescott, William G SAW', David Wainwright@ncmail net, 'Steve Sollod',
Gary_Jordan@fws gov, Militscher Chris@epamail epa gov, kcompton@fs fed us
Attachments: MaysvilleBypassElevationBrief doc
Mark I have attached our revised elevation brief for CP 3 US 17 in Maysville
Travis W. Wilson
Eastern Region Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Rd
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Phone- 919-528-9886 ext 226
Fax: [phone]
Travis.Wilson@ncwildlife org
7/14/2008
MEMORANDUM
TO Mark Pierce, P E , Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, NCDOT
FROM Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE June 30, 2008
SUBJECT Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 elevation issue brief for R-2514
1 Project Name and brief description: R-2514 B US 17 improvements from Belgrade to
Chadwick (Maysville Bypass) Onslow and Jones Counties
2 Last Concurrence Point: 2A for Section B
Date of Concurrence: May 22, 2008
3. Explain what is being proposed and your position including what you object to. NCDOT
proposes the selection of Alternative 2A for the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) in order to better met the Strategic Highway Corridor vision plan The
NCWRC does not concur with Alternative 2A as the LEDPA The NCWRC supports Alternative
2C as the LEDPA
4. Explain the reasons for your potential non-concurrence. Please include any data or
information that would substantiate and support your position. Alternative 2A impacts
39 80 acres of wetlands and 3117 linear feet of stream Alternative 2C unpacts 14 95 acres of
wetlands and impacts 2007 linear feet of stream Alternative 2A has the greatest amount of new
location facility resulting in a higher loss of natural habitat and increased habitat fragmentation
compared to alternative 2C At tlus tune NCDOT has not presented any information to the
merger team indicating either alternative is not practicable, therefore it is the NCWRC position
that alternative 2C is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated or jeopardized if the
proposed action were implemented and explain the basis for violation. Please attach a copy
of the relevant portion of the law or regulation or provide an email address where the
documents may be located. The nussion of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
is to protect, preserve, and manage the fish and wildlife resources of the state The selection of
Alternative 2C would be consistent with this nussion
6. What alternative course of action do you recommend? NCDOT should concur with the
selection of alternative 2C as the LEDPA
Page 1 of 1
Pierce, Mark S
From- Wescott, William G SAW [William G Wescott@saw02 usace army mil]
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 4 06 PM
To: Pierce, Mark S
Cc garyjordan@fws gov, travis wdson@ncwddlife org, renee gledhdl-earley@ncmad net,
david wainwnght@ncmad net, steve sollod@ncmad net, smtp-Sechler, Ron,
kcompton@fs fed us, tnsh murphey@ncmad net, Mditscher Chns@epamad epa gov
Subject: Elevation Brief - CP 3 Maysville Bypass
Importance: High
Attachments- Elevation Brief 2 doc pdf
Mark,
Attached is the USACE elevation brief for R-2514 section B
William
7/14/2008
IN REPLY REFER TO
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P O Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889.1000
July 14, 2008
TO- Mark Pierce, P.E , Project Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, NCDOT
FROM William Wescott, P.W S., Pmject Manager F1 Regulatory Division, United States Corps of En eers '
1. Project Name and Brief Description: TIP R-2514 section B, US Highway 17 in
Onslow and Jones Counties, from Belgrade to Chadwick (Maysville Bypass).
2 Last Concurrence Point: CP3 signed for sections C and D
Date of Concurrence: June 19, 2008
3. Explain what is being proposed and your position, including what you object to:
Two corridors were considered for the Maysville Bypass during the CP3 meeting on June
19, 2008 These corridors are Alternatives 2A and 2C NCDOT proposes to select
Alternative 2A for their preferred Based on our review USACE believes that Alternative
2C is consistent with the overall US 17 improvements and has the least overall impacts to
both the human and natural environment; therefore, the USACE supports Alternative 2C
as the LEDPA
4 Explain the reasons for your potential non-concurrence. Please include any data or
information that would substantiate and support your position: With the exception
of wetland quality, the following table of information is directly from NCDOT, June 19,
2008 revised packet of information

Alternatives Total
Length
(miles) Total
Wetland
Impacts
acres Quality of
Wetlands
(Field
Observation Stream
Impacts
(feet) Length of
Floodplain
Crossing
feet Total
Cost
(millions) Total
relocations
2A
(NCDOT 4 39 39 80 Very High 3,117 1,270 $7773 25
preferred)
2C
(USACE 471 14 95 Highly 2,007 560 $4250 27
LEDPA) Impacted
•
USACE does not understand the utility of a 4 39 mile long full control-of-access freeway
designed project that connects to a partial control-of-access highway
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated or
jeopardized if the proposed action were implemented and explain the basis for
violation: Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Based on the information
available, USACE believes Alternative 2C clearly represents the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) that meets NCDOT's transportation needs.
6 What alternative course of action do you recommend: USACE encourages NCDOT
to reconsider its position on Alternative 2A and concur with USACE, USEPA, USFWS,
NCWRC, NCDWQ, NCDCM and other agencies on Alternative 2C as the LEDPA.
USACE request NCDOT provide the Merger Team with a Benefit/Burden Analysis for
potential environmental, justice issues in the community of Belgrade.

0 r = n
CD
Cn CD CD
7 (
O N
_ (n
' 3 3 3
0 v v
E !a o CD
N CL
O (n
CS CS 7
_D
Q CD O
CD O
? O V
O = ?
CD CD N
O
N
O
0
O
Cn
CD
Cn

CD
Q
ly
/09
in
3
D
D
D
D
0
'
.
CA)
n
y >v

CD
N

w
a CD
3
w
a) V w
tD CD
to '
S

O
O N)
(71 NJ
cn ? O
O
O
C
C
(DD
CL
-how W
O p;
_ _ Cl) A

O Ul
II
a C
D
r
CD CD
?-
c
3
N ?
C t
) M M
O ?
C
al G
N
w A W
co 0 'o CD p
A c0 Co a n U ?
CA UI O m
"' N a

O
O
d CD
-n
V y 3
Q.
n ;o
o o CD 0
O _
N
V y. rL
?' 3
O
O O
cc
O O
a
... CD
Q
0
w O
3 N
0) _U
00 o w o n
O
W Cn N 0
4 0) O N
O O
-69
A r.9

Ul
N
V 0

>
O W r

O
N N
W a
CD
O
7 0
- o
N
W Cl)
c ?
n N
N m
Cn

N
n
3 CD
O N W CD
'.
CD
N
,. 3 z
cn
N ?,
O rn
O 0 a 0
.w 0 tD
y
L
l?D =
N z z a y y
CD CD O
0 3
O A
c D
CD
n
a CD

CD _ n 2) 3
<• O
C
D Z C_
a c
CL v
CD to

c
0 Q
CD
CD CD

_ -1
CD
N
V A
.A A
W ? ?
?
i
f
C
N
d

>y

0 0 0 3
N 0 CD
v a
Cn

4A Efl
A
?
Q
-
. C
N O
pl
c _
CA
O
CD 3
cn a
40
w
?
V
CD m o
N
co A
N
n
0
c
CD
cn
N
CD
Q
N
O
O
n
X
M
v
m
r n>!
M ol
n
O
Z0
U) QO
c o
3
D C
? N
N j
V
O
n
3
D
n