19941039 Ver 1_Complete File_19941107

5-lYt IS
III
ccasf? ??
1

IMPORTANT
To
Date Time
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
of
Phone
AREA CODE NUMBER EXTENSION

Message

Signed
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
ODI

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
!O
TO: REF. O. OR OOM, BLDG.
?-
?<<- (S't to V.-Jo evvi. mdt
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Ma(-C-- FLO^>?( F-?-E _
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
M
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
aSTItOt
(103? 4 _
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 2 8 1
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WETLANDS GROUP
P.O. BOX 25201 WATER UALITY SECTION
RALEIGH 27611-5201
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
401 ISS/ ?,ED
October 20, 1992 WILLIAM G MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
Div. of Environmental Management
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
'
Planning and Environmental Branc&/)
SUBJECT: U-2572, New Hanover County, US 76 and SR 1409 (Military
Cutoff), from Bradley Creek to US 74, Widen Existing
Roadway and make intersection improvements
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Division of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to US 76 and SR 1409 in New
Hanover County. The project is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina
Transportation Imprpvement Program and is scheduled for right-of-way in
fiscal year 1994 and construction in fiscal year 1995.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be
helpful in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If
applicable, please identify any permits or approvals which may be required
by your agency. Your comments will be used it the preparation of a
document evaluating environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable
that your agency respond by February 1, 1993 so that your comments can be
used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Marc
Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/plr
Attachment
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

1413
1827
1411
III
IS$ 09
? US 76
11?? SIGNAL
` 9 S END I I l i t t ZCHMURCH
0, PROJECT 74 ?IIII`
SR 1411
?I SIGNAL
?I t I t Ir
I
i
Lr) I
Q I
1409 74
A7 B RADLEY
BRIDGECREEK
v I J
GJ /
PLAZA EAST
SNOPPItvG C.: PROPOSED LANE
76 143 V UST MATTHEW
A.,-M.E. CH. ; I CONFIGURATION
ST. ANDREWS
\` H.
C
BEGIN
PROJECT °90
AVE
i
sqQ
F' 1543
14211 BRADLEY CREEK OR• OLEANDER D 1
SCH. MEMORIAL /
GARDENS
76 4tlCT1.4R0 BRP? r
?\ 0R 1716
1512
1717 .,
OLEANDER
MEMORIAL
GARDENS g?
OREENVILLE
SOUND
RD,
1511
RICE RD, ---'--- _
SKYST4Y
1512 S4jc
4.
AIRLEE
14\ ?
O //rr
141 I /
%r
Q /
a?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
US 76, WILMINGTON
FROM BRADLEY CREEK
BRIDGE TO SR 1409
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
U-2572
0 feet 1000 FIG.2

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
9 // A
Z
TO: REF. N& O ROOM, BLDG.
VrILG /qrg? DIE M
FROM. REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
IMArc- ot^ ? p?
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
i?
srnrF4
fez .? SEP -36K STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?SECt10%
DEPARTMEN
T OF TRANSPORTATION
.O. B 2501
RAL GHO27612-5201 4?011SSUED
JAMES G. MARTIN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON August 31, 1992 WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
SECRETARY STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Marc L. Hamel
?L
SUBJECT: Minutes of Scoping Meeting for U-2572,
Wilmington, US 76 & SR 1409 (Military
Cutoff), New Hanover County, Work Order No.
8.1250801
The following were in attendance at the August 26, 3:00 pm
meeting in the Planning and Research Conference Room:
Jack Matthews
Tom Tarleton
Roger Hawkins
Marilyn Williams
Don Sellers
Danny Rogers
Ray Moore
Eric Galamb
David Yow
David B. Foster
Richard Brewer
Joseph Qubain
Wendi Oglesby
Jerry Snead
Marc Hamel
Photogrammetry
Location & Surveys
Div. Traffic Engineer-Wilmington
Board of Transportation
Right-of-Way
Program Development
Structure Design
DEM
NCWRC
DEHNR
Planning & Environmental
Roadway Design
Traffic Engineering
Hydraulics
Planning & Environmental
Highlights of the scoping items discussed at the meeting are
listed below:
1. The project is located in a High Quality Water Zone,
as noted by DEHNR.
2. The project is located in an county under the
jurisdiction of CAMA.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
f L?
3. In addition to NEPA, Section 404 and Section 401
evaluations may be required.
4. Design details of the new intersection should focus
on safety and should require no unsafe driver
expectations and movements.
5. Attempts should be made to avoid the existing fence
protecting the housing along US 76 east of Military
Cutoff, but some of the development may be needed to
provide a safe design.
6. Design Services Branch will negotiate the contract
for a private firm to perform the design.
7. Surveying will be performed in-house.
8. Under- and above-ground utilities may require a
substantial relocation on this project. Telephone
utility poles may need to be relocated when
realigning Military Cutoff, and underground water
and sewer lines may also require relocation.
9. The Church in the vicinity of the intersection is
potentially eligible for the Historic Register, but
should not be affected.
RLB/

?Q
401 ISSUED
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27,604
James G. Martin, Governor November 30, 1992 A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Acting Dimctor
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
??
Through: John Dorne..?? rte/'
Monica Swihart
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS Documents
Improvements to US 76 and SR 1409
New Hanover County
State TIP #U-2572
EHNR # 93-0272, DEM WQ # 7381
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the EA/EIS documents:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project. The stream
classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original
stream banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated
stream banks be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests that these catch
basins be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible
party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affumative Action Employer
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal -manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Prior to the approval of any borrow
source in a wetland, the contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not
(if applicable)?
J. Will DOT register the corridor according to the 1987 North Carolina Official
Roadway Corridor Map' Act? If not, why not?
K. Efforts employed to minimize interrupting water lines and sanitary sewerage.
L. DEM requests that anti-seep collars be placed on water and sewer lines buried
in wetlands.
Written concurrence of 401 Water-Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit
31 will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practicable.
us761409.sco
cc: Eric Galamb
DEP ?RTMENT OF ElV V IRONMENT , HEALTH, AND NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT
PROJECT REVIEW FORM
TITLE - SLOPING - PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO US 76 AND SR 1409 (MILITARY
CUTOFF), FROM BRADLEY CREEK TO US 74, WIDEN EXISTING ROADWAY
AND MAKE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS (TIP #U-2572)
PROJECT DISTRIBUTION LIST
NO - 93-0272 DIVISION OF MARINE FISHERIES
DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
COUNTY - NEW HANOVER WILDLIFE
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
DATE - 11%02%92 FOREST RESOURCES
SOIL AND WATER
RESPONSE DUE DATE PARKS AND RECREATION
WATER PLANNING
LAND RESOURCES ?.-
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WQ)
WILMINGTON REGIONAL OFFICE J
aa'' ?,q AQ , WQ, GW, LQ
- OTHER
NOV
KANAGER SIGN-OFF/REGION: DATE:
IN-HOUSE REVIEWER/AGENCY: DATE:
AS A RESULT OF THIS REVIEW, THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED:
NO OBJECTION TO PROJECT AS PROPOSED
NO CONufENT
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION
CONSISTENCY STATEMENT NEEDED NOT NEEDED
OTHER (SPECIFY AND A'T'TACH COMMENTS)
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT REQUIRED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF NEPA AND SEPA
RETURN TO MELBA MCGEE, DIVISION OF PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT

JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTATION
P.C. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
October 20; 1992
MEMORANDUM TO: Mrs. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Dept. of Administration
FROM:
SUBJECT:
L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental

DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
NILLIAM G. MARLEY. JR. P.E.
-ATE HIGHWAYADMINIS-BATOR
Branches

U-2572, New Hanover County, US 76 and SR 1409 (Military
Cutoff), from Bradley Creek to US 74, Wfiden Existing
Roadway and make intersection improver-,ents
The Planning and Environmental Branch of the Div=isor of Highways has
begun studying the proposed improvements to US 76 and SR 1409 in New
Hanover County. The project is included in the 1993-1999 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for right-of-way in
fiscal year 1994 and construction in fiscal year 1995.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be
helpful in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. If
applicable, please identify any permits or approvals .:hic.h may be required
by your agency. Your comments will be used in the preparation of a
document evaluating environmental impacts of the project. It is desirable
that your agency respond by so that your comments can be
used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Marc
Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone].
LJW/plr
Attachment
? n
1
1413
1827
I41I

END
o0o PROJECT
74
0
r? 74
X40° ?.
e cc
?J
i a? azA Eas-
\ SHOFP!NG C.
76 l4l =\
?s- rncr-HEW,
II ???rff? y \ / A.,M.E. CH.
S-.-INC==WS
??lul \ BEGIN
PROJECT
< =E /
/ B9
\\?r 1543
1142 i\ / BRAOLEY CREE Oq CLEAN
Z6, MEMOF
. ?. ? ? GARDE
76 I RtONARO BRa? \
v
1716
1411
r`?lo ?? J 1 \\ . 1512
1717
'
C?
I O?EaNOER
f
J MEMORIAL
r

GREENVILLZ
SOUNC ,?C
/ 1511
oirc __ SK
GAR0E4S
'
C v i

.._

i
SR 09
i US 76
SIGNAL
'ItItl STOP ?• /
j GRASS ISLa.YD
'i CHURCH
SR 1411
SIMIAL
jrl
I `! lit
BRADLE° CR=
3RIJGE

A' R' _
L
PROPOSED LANNL
CONFIGURATIO
1411 / ,
j

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTNIF-Ni OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PL?. NI G Ai-ID ENV1-RONNa. TA-L
BRANCH
US 76, WILMINGTON
FROM BRADLEY CREEK
BRIDGE TO SR 1409
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
U-2572
0 feet 1000 FIG.2
1 1 I
F
V?09
IO
S
Ga?03q
994
NOVA -7 ID
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TItANSPORTATIO
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
November 2, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
401 ISSUED
Subject: New Hanover County, US 76 and SR 1409 (Military
Cutoff), from Bradley Creek Bridge to multi-lane
near US 74 (Eastwood Road); State Project Number
8.1250801; T.I.P. No. U-2572
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
During early coordination with the Division of Coastal
Management, it was determined that a CAMA Major Permit will
not be required, as this project does not occur in an Area of
Environmental Concern. Submittal of this document to the
regional DCM office in Wilmington will serve as a formal
permit determination request.
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

9
t.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
Sincerely,
B. O'Qui n, P.E.
A stan anager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: Jeff Richter, COE, Wilmington Field Office
Bob Stroud, DCM, Wilmington
John Dorney, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
D.J. Bowers, P.E., Division 3 Engineer
Marc Hamel, P&E
Davis Moore, P&E
t_
New Hanover County, US 76 and SR 1409 (Military Cutoff),
from Bradley Creek Bridge to multi-lane
near US 74 (Eastwood Road),
State Project Number 8.1250801
Federal Aid Project Number NHF-76 (1)
T.I.P. Number U-2572

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
APPROVED:
Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
y Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Date Nicho L. Gra
Fgivision Administrator, FHWA
N.
New Hanover County, US 76 and SR 1409 (Military Cutoff),
from Bradley Creek Bridge to multi-lane
near US 74 (Eastwood Road),
State Project Number 8.1250801
Federal Aid Project Number NHF-76 (1)
T.I.P. Number U-2572
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1994
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Marc L. Hamel
Transportation Engineer
Teresa Hart
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head N CARD
? ?•? •pEESSrOiyq .. ';
SEAL
t
??? ?•
Richard B. Davis, P. E., Asst. Man ger 6944 :i
Planning and Environmental Branch '••;?hCi NE?Q`:
P
?y?,R•.......••o ,
Categorical Exclusion
Prepared by the
Planning and Environmental Branch
of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative
Action, Categorical Exclusion.
2. Additional Information
The following persons can be contacted for additional information
concerning this proposal and statement:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Telephone [phone]
3. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department-of Transportation, Division of
Highways, proposes to widen and realign US 76 and SR 1409 in New Hanover
County from the Bradley Creek Bridge to the existing multi-lane section of
SR 1409 near US 74 (see Figures 1 and 2). The existing facility will be
widened to a five-lane, 68-foot, face to face of curbs, curb and gutter
roadway. The total estimated cost of the project is $2,175,000, including
$1,,300,000 for construction, $800,000 for right-of-way, and $75,000 for
prior planning and engineering.
4. Summary of Special Project Commitments
Strict adherence to Best Management Practices will be maintained
during the construction phase of the project. Measures to inhibit water
run-off associated with construction will be used to prevent the increased
wash of toxic compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.) into the aquatic
communities.
Actions Required by Other Federal Agencies
No permit will be required from the Division of Coastal Management,
N.C. Coastal Area Management (CAMA) Program.
It was determined that construction work for the proposed project
will require permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977. It will be authorized by provisions of a Nationwide 23
Permit under Section 404. It will likely also require a general 401 Water
Quality Certification from the North Carolina Department of Environmental,
Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) prior to the U. S. Corps of
Engineers (COE) issuance of a general 404 permit.
Compensatory mitigation is not anticipated due to authorization under
a Nationwide Permit.
6. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Impacts
The proposed realignment and multi-lane improvements will enhance the
safety and efficiency of traffic flow in this congested corridor to the
coast. It is anticipated that turning accidents and rear-end collisions
will be reduced by further separating the SR 1409 and SR 1411
intersections with US 76, and by realigning the routes to reflect current
and future traffic demands.
Predominantly, the widening will
There are no relocations proposed.
will enhance movement through the are
on the surrounding environment.
take place on existing right-of-way.
More logical traffic flow.patterns
a, while having little adverse impact
7. Alternatives Considered
Due to topography, local development, and intent of the proposed
improvements, widening on existing location is most desirable.
Construction of a road on new location would not be feasible because
of the higher costs in right-of-way acquisition and construction.
The "Do Nothing" alternative is not feasible due to the expected
growth in this part of New Hanover County and the accompanying increase in
traffic. Predicted future volumes of traffic along this corridor could
not be accommodated by the existing intersection alignments, or the
existing two-lane road (SR 1409). As congestion continues to increase on
the unimproved highway, the accident potential of the highway would
increase.
8. Agency Coordination
During the planning study, contact was maintained with local, state,
and federal agencies. Memoranda and letters requesting environmental
input were sent to the following agencies and replies were received from
those denoted with an asterisk (*).
ii
*U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington District
Division of Environmental Management
*State Clearinghouse
*N.C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N.C. Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction N.C. Wildlife Resources
Commission
New Hanover County Commissioners
Mayor of Wilmington
Cape Fear Council Of Governments
9. Basis for Categorical Exclusion
On the basis of planning and environmental studies, it is anticipated
this project will not have a significant detrimental effect on the quality
of the human environment. The proposed project will cause no significant
changes in route classification and land use, and is not controversial in
nature. The project has been reviewed by federal, state, and local
agencies, and no objections have been raised. No major objections to the
project from the public have been received. For these reasons, it is
concluded that a Categorical Exclusion is applicable to the project.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. TYPE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. PROJECT STATUS AND HISTORICAL RESUME . . . . . . . . . . 1
III. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
• A. General Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
B. Proposed Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1. General Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Length of Proposed Project . . . . . . . . . . 2
3. Design Speed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4. Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
5. Right-of-Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6. Access Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
7. Intersection Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
8. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
a. Roadway Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
b. Drainage Structures. . . . . . . . . . . . 3
9. Parking . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
10. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . • • • • 4
11. Bicycle Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
12. Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
13. Special Permits Required. . . . . . . . . . . . 4
14. Project Terminals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
15. Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C. Alternatives to Proposed Improvements . . . . . . . . 5
1. Alternative A (Recommended) . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. New Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
4. Do Nothing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
IV. NEED FOR PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Characteristics of Existing Facility . . . . . . . . 5
1. Length of Roadway Section Studied. . . . . . . . 5
2. Pavement Width and Shoulders . . . . . . . . . . 5
3. Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Sidewalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5. Roadside Interference . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 6
6. Type of Roadside Development . . . . . . . . 6
7. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature . . . . . . . 6
8. Restricted Sight Distance . . . . . . . . . . . 6
9. Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
.10. Intersecting Roads and type of Control . . . . . . 6
11. Speed Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
12. School Bus Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Transportation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
C. Traffic Accident Analysis . . . . . . . z . . . . . . . 7
D. Projected Traffic Volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
E. Capacity Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
F. Benefits to State, Region, and Community . . . . . . 9
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS . . . . . . . . 9
A. Social Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1. Status and Scope of Local Planning Activities. . . 9
2. Existing Land Use . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3. Existing Zoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Future Land Use . . . . . . 10
5. Project Compatibility with Local Plans . . . . . . 11
6. Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
B. Environmental Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1. Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
a. Study Area. . 11
b. Physiography and?Soils 12
C. Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Water Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
a. Water Quality . . . . . . . . 13
b. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources. 14
3. Biotic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
a. Terrestrial Communities . . . . . . . . . . . 14
i. Man-Dominated . . . . . . . . . . . 14
ii. Mixed Hardwood/PineForrest . . . . . . . 15
iii. Pine-dominated Forest . . . . . . . . . 16
iv. Palustrine Forest . . . . . . . . . . 16
b. Aquatic Communities . . . . . . . . . . . 16
C. Anticipated Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
i. Impacts to Terrestrial Communities . . . 17
ii. Impacts to Aquatic Communities . . . . . 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
4. Special Topics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
a. Waters of the United States . . . . . . . . . 18
i. Impacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters . 18
i i . Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
• iii. Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
b. Rare and Protected Species . . . . . . . . . 20
i. Federally Protected Species 20
ii. Federal Candidate and State Listed
Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
C. Archaeological and Historic Resources . . . . . . . 29
1. Archaeological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2. Historic Architectural Resources . . . . . . . . . 29
D. Noise and Air Quality Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
A. Agency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
B. Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figures
Appendix
New Hanover County, US 76 and SR 1409 (Military Cutoff),
from Bradley Creek Bridge to multi-lane
near US 74 (Eastwood Road),
State Project Number 8.1250801
Federal Aid Project Number NHF-76 (1)
T.I.P. Number U-2572
I. TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrative Action
Categorical Exclusion.
II. PROJECT STATUS AND HISTORICAL RESUME
The routes to be upgraded in this project include US 76 and SR 1409.
In New Hanover County, US 76 serves as one of the primary east-west routes
from the riverfront area of downtown Wilmington to Wrightsville Beach.
SR 1409 (Military Cutoff) was constructed during the early 1940's to
provide a link from military bases north of Wilmington to US 76 and thus
to the shipyards at the Cape Fear River (now the N.C. State Ports
Authority). Together, both of these routes are designated as major
existing thoroughfares on the Wilmington Thoroughfare Plan (adopted 1986,
see Figure 3), and will form a segment of the eastern loop around
Wilmington.
US 76 is a four-lane divided urban roadway north of the Bradley Creek
Bridge. This four-lane roadway is 52-feet wide with a 4-foot raised
concrete median and 4-foot paved shoulders. This road widens to accommo-
date a right turn only lane at SR 1411. Northeast of the intersection
with SR 1409, US 76 tapers to a two-lane, 24-foot facility. SR 1409 is
generally a two-lane, 22-foot roadway. At its intersection with US 76, it
widens to accommodate separate right and left-turn lanes.
As Wilmington has developed rapidly, traffic volumes and congestion
have increased accordingly. The rapid continuing growth at the north end
of this project, and in eastern New Hanover County in general, points to
the immediate need for upgrading this badly congested and potentially
dangerous section of roadway.
The 1995-2001 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for widening the existing two and four-lane roadways to a continuous
multi-lane facility and making intersection improvements. Right-of-way
acquisition is scheduled to begin in this fiscal year (FY 1994). Con-
struction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year 1995. The TIP includes a
cost estimate of $2,125,000 for the project, including $800,000 for
right-of-way, $1,250,000 for construction, and $75,000 expended in prior
year costs. The current planning estimate for the recommended improve-
ments is $2,175,000. The includes $1,300,000 for construction and
$800,000 for right-of-way acquisition. This is a difference of an
additional $50,000.
An informational workshop on the project was held in Wilmington in
November of 1992. Public opinion was favorable, as was support from local
officials.
III. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION
A. General Description
The project is to include widening of US 76 and SR 1409 to a
continuous five-lane facility from the Bradley Creek Bridge to the
existing five-lane section near US 74. The project also includes
intersection realignments and improvements to increase capacity and
safety. This project is approximately 0.7 mile in length. These
improvements will provide a continuous five-lane facility from the
existing four-lane section at the Bradley Creek Bridge to US 74.
B. Proposed Improvements
1. General Location
TIP project U-2572 is located in easterr
will provide a continuous multi-lane link o
Wilmington (see Figure 3). The development
of the northern terminal of the project has
attractive route for traffic traveling into
west (see Figure 1).
2. Length of Proposed Project
New Hanover County, and
the eastern loop of
if properties northeast
made this section an
Wilmington and points
The length of the proposed project is approximately 0.7 mile.
3. Design Speed
The project will be
50 MPH. This corresponds
is anticipated that the
these routes.
4. Cross Section
designed for a minimum design speed of
to the existing posted speed of 45 MPH. It
posted speed limit will remain 45 MPH for
The proposed project consists of widening US 76 and SR 1409 to a
five-lane, 68-foot, face to face of curbs, curb and gutter facility.
This cross section will provide a continuous 12-foot center left turn
lane, and two 12-foot travel lanes in each direction. An additional
2-feet of pavement has been added to the outside lanes to accommodate
bicycle travel. This widening is to generally be performed
symmetrically, with the exception of the section between the SR 1411
and SR 1409. Widening along this section is to be offset on the west
side.
3
5. Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along US 76 and SR 1409 is
generally 100 feet (symmetrical), with no control of access. The
right-of-way at the intersections variably increases due to previous
configurations, and to accommodate current turn lanes.
6. Access Control
No control of access is planned for this facility.
7. Intersection Treatment
All existing intersections on the project are to be retained as
at-grade crossings. Currently signals exist at the intersections of
US 76/SR 1411 and US 76/SR 1409, and they are to be retained (signal
at SR 1409 to be relocated). No new signals are proposed for the
project.
The intersection of US 76 and SR 1409 is proposed to be moved
northward approximately 350 feet, retained at grade, and signalized.
8. Structures
There are two structures related to the project, and they are
listed below:
a. Roadway Structures
The Bradley Creek Bridge, south of the project, was
reconstructed and upgraded under TIP project B-1296. This
bridge improvement was completed in 1989. It carries 4 lanes,
and is 58.5 feet wide. No revisions to this structure are
proposed.
b. Drainage Structures
There is one existing small drainage pipe carrying a small
unnamed tributary, under the section of US 76 to be relocated.
It is anticipated that this structure will be replaced in this
project. However, no other new drainage structures are planned
in the project.
9. Parking
There is no existing parking on the project that would be
affected by the planned upgrades. Parking will not be provided for
or permitted in conjunction with the project.
4
10. Sidewalks
There are no sidewalks existing or planned along the project.
11. Bicycle Facilities
It was determined by the NCDOT Bicycle Coordinator that
accommodations for bicycles are indicated for this project. The
Wilmington area has significant bicycle ridership, and US 76 is a
designated bicycle route. 14-foot outside lanes are recommended for
the entire project.
12. Landscaping
In accordance with NCDOT Highway Landscape Planting Policy,
$9,750 have been included in the construction cost estimate for the
proposed project. No other special landscaping plans are proposed
for this project.
13. Special Permits Required
Nationwide 23 Permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is
likely to be applicable. A 401 Water Quality Certification from
NCDEHNR will be required before the COE issuance of a 404 permit. No
mitigation is foreseen.
14. Project Terminals
The southern terminal of the project is the Bradley Creek
Bridge. The combined lane width on the bridge is 50 feet.
The northern terminal is the existing, six-lane, 76-foot, curb
and gutter section of.SR 1409 located approximately 500 feet south of
US 74. The project will include a tapered widening to six lanes at
the northern terminal to accommodate the extra northbound right-turn
lane.
15. Cost Estimates
US 76/SR 1409
Widening
Right-of-Way $ 630,000
Construction $ 1,090,000
Total $ 1,720,000
Relocations
0
0
Recommended Alt. A
US 76/SR 1409 widening
Prior Year Planning and Engineering Costs
Total Cost of Recommended Improvements
Alt. A
$ 170,000
$ 210,000
$ 380,000
Alt. B
$ 384,000
$ 210,000
$ 594,000
2
$ 380,000
$1,720,000
$ 75,000
$ 2,175,000
5
C. Studied Alternatives to Proposed Improvements
1. Alternative A (Recommended) -.Symmetrical widening. of US 76 and
SR 1409 to a 68-foot curb and gutter facility. Widening between
SR 1411 and SR 1409 is to be offset west to provide a straight,
continuous, roadway alignment. The intersection with existing
US 76 eastbound towards Wrightsville Beach is to be moved
approximately 350 feet northward to separate it from the
existing SR 1411 intersection. This alignment is shown in
Figure 2.
2. Alternative B - This alternative is substantially as in
Alternative 1, with the exception of the realignment of the
eastbound US 76 intersection. This alignment allows for
improved horizontal curvature of the realigned US 76 by shifting
the roadway northward an additional 50 feet. This also allows
increased separation between intersections. This alignment is
not recommended due to disruption and relocation of residences
along the realignment, with a corresponding increase in
right-of-way cost (See Figure 2).
3. New Location Alternative - This alternative is not feasible due
to the short overall project length, straight alignment,
existing development, and environmental concerns along the
project.
4. Do Nothing Alternative - Although this alternative would avoid
the limited environmental impacts that are anticipated to result
from the project, there would be no positive effect on
congestion or traffic safety. For this reason, the Do Nothing
alternative is not recommended.
IV. NEED FOR THE PROJECT
A. Characteristics of Existing Facility
1. Length of-Roadway Section Studied
The total length of the project is approximately 0.7 mile.
2. Pavement Width and Shoulders
The basic existing pavement width along SR 1409 is generally
22 feet. The shoulders are generally 8 feet, unpaved.
US 76 has varying pavement widths along the project. The
roadway north of the Bradley Creek Bridge is a 52-foot urban shoulder
section, with a 4-foot raised median and 8 to 10-foot shoulders.
Four feet of these shoulders are paved to accommodate bicycles.
At SR 1411, the US 76 roadway widens to accommodate a five lane
section. This section is carried through the SR 1409 intersection,
then tapers and lane-drops to a two-lane, 24-foot section with
shoulders.
6
3. Right-of-Way
The existing right-of-way width along the project is 100 feet,
widening near the SR 1411 intersection to accommodate previous
alignments and turn-lanes. This section has no control of access.
4. Sidewalks
There are no existing sidewalks on the project.
5. Roadside Interference
Signs, trees, mailboxes and other roadside hazards are sparse.
6. Type of Roadside Development
Development along the project is predominantly residential and
small commercial properties intermingled.
7. Horizontal and Vertical Curvature
There are no horizontal curves over 3° on the project; the road
is constructed on level terrain.
8. Restricted Sight Distance
There are no areas where sight distance is limited by.terrain.
9. Structures
Existing structures are described above under "III. Description
of Action, B. Proposed Improvements, 8. Structures."
10. Intersecting Roads and Type of Control
Listing from south to north, roads intersecting the project
at-grade are as follows:
Route/Name
SR 1409 (Military Cutoff)
Type of Control
Signal
SR 1411 (Wrightsville Ave.%
Airlee Road)
SR 1413
Signal
Stop Sign
11. Speed Zones
The speed limit on the project is 45 mph.
12. School Bus Data
Twelve school busses utilize these two routes twice a day
(morning and afternoon).
B. Transportation Plan
US 76 and SR 1409 appear on the adopted Wilmington Thoroughfare Plan
(adopted 1985) as major existing thoroughfares. They also appear as
Other Principal Arterials on the County Functional Classification Plan.
C. Traffic Accident Analysis
The main intent of this project is to increase safety by reconfiguring
the geometry of the roadway for a higher roadway standard. In
establishing this, an accident rate analysis for US 76 and SR 1409 was
obtained for a three year period from studies conducted between 1989 and
1992. These studies revealed that the main intersections on the project
have a very high frequency of accidents.
The two main intersections are SR 1411 and SR 1409. These
intersections are located approximately 300 feet apart, and have
interrelating traffic flows, to the detriment of safety and capacity.
In the study period, 47 accidents occurred at these intersections.
Therefore, 78 percent of the 60 total accidents occurring on the project
occurred at the combined SR 1411/SR 1409 intersection locations. Of these
accidents, 26 percent were rear-end accidents, 31 percent were- left-
turning collisions, and 26 percent were angle collisions. These accident
types are indicative of the unsuitable geometry at the existing
intersections.
With the proposed upgrades, the US 76/SR 1409 corridor will have
enhanced safety.
D. Projected Traffic Volumes
It is anticipated that traffic. volumes along the project will range
from 19,300 to 33,500 vehicles-per-day (vpd) in the year 2015. The
current volumes on the project range from approximately 10,000 to 17,000
vpd. Projected traffic volumes along the project, design hour data, and
truck percentages are shown in Figures T-2 and T-3.
E. Capacity Analysis
The concept of levels of service is defined as a qualitative measure
describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and their
perception by motorists and/or passengers. A level-of-service definition
generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and
travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort and
convenience, and safety.
8
Six levels of service are defined for each type of facility for which
analysis procedures are available. They are given letter designations,
from A to F, with level-of- service A representing the best operating
conditions and level-of-service F the worst. In general, the various
levels-of-service are defined as follows for uninterrupted flow
facilities:
Level-of-service A represents free flow. Individual users are
virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream.
Freedom to select desired speeds and to maneuver within the traffic stream
is extremely high. The general level of comfort and convenience provided
to the motorist, passenger, or pedestrian is excellent.
Level-of-service B is in the range of stable flow, but the presence
of other users in the traffic stream begins to be noticeable. Freedom to
select desired speeds is relatively unaffected, but there is a slight
decline in freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream from LOS A. The
level of comfort and convenience provided is somewhat less than at LOS A,
because the presence of others in the traffic stream begins to affect
individual behavior.
Level-of-service C is in the range of stable flow, but marks the
beginning of the range of flow in which the operation of individual users
become significantly affected by interactions with others in the traffic
stream. The selection of speed is now affected by the presence of others,
and maneuvering within the traffic stream requires substantial vigilance
on the part of the user. The general level of comfort and convenience
declines noticeably at this level.
Level-of-service D represents high-density, but stable, flow. Speed
and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted, and the driver and
pedestrian experiences a generally poor level of comfort and convenience.
Small increases in traffic will generally cause operational problems at
this level.
Level-of-service E represents operating conditions at or near the
capacity level. All speeds are reduced to a low, but relatively uniform
value. Freedom to maneuver in the traffic stream is extremely difficult,
and it is generally accomplished by forcing a vehicle or pedestrian to
"give way" to accommodate such maneuvers. Comfort and convenience levels
are extremely poor, and driver or pedestrian frustration is generally
high. Operations at this level are usually unstable, because small
increases in flow of minor perturbances within the traffic stream will
cause breakdowns.
Level-of-service F is used to define forced or breakdown flow. This
condition exists wherever the amount of traffic approaching a point
exceeds.the amount that can traverse the point. Queues form behind such
locations. Operations within the queue are characterized by stop and go
waves, and they are extremely unstable. Vehicles may progress at
reasonable speeds for several hundred feet or more, then be required to
stop in cyclic fashion. Level-of-service F is used to describe the
operating conditions within the queue, as well as the point of the
breakdown. It should be noted, however, that in many cases operating
conditions of vehicles or pedestrians discharged from the queue may be
quite good. Nevertheless, it is the point at which arrival flow exceeds
discharge flow which causes the queue to form, and level-of-service F is
an appropriate designation for such points.
A capacity analysis was performed for both the existing two-lane
highway and the proposed five-lane facility based upon projected traffic
volumes for the years 1995 and 2015. These analyses indicate that if no
improvements are made, the existing facility will operate primarily at
LOS F in the year 1995, and LOS F or worse in the year 2015 during peak
hours. With the proposed widening and realignment, the project is expected
to operate at LOS B at build out, dropping to LOS E by the end of the
planning period. The proposed improvements will greatly improve safety
while allowing the facility to operate at an acceptable level-of-service
through the majority of the design period. These intersection
improvements will need to be reevaluated in the design year to determine
recommendations for further improvements if required.
F. Benefits to State, Region, and Community
The improvement of US 76 and SR 1409 will provide better access to
eastern New Hanover County by completing a section of the eastern loop of
Wilmington. Additionally, the current intersection configurations present
serious delays and back-ups that are currently hazardous and inconvenient.
The proposed upgrades will alleviate these concerns.
With the current and anticipated traffic volumes, US 76 and SR 1409
are in need of upgrading to prevent levels-of-service from falling to
unacceptable levels.
The improved access through the area, savings in operating costs,
reduced accidents, reduced travel times, and the general improvement in
the ease and convenience of travel will benefit the state and region as
well as the local community.
V. SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. Social Effects
1. Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvement is located within the planning and
zoning jurisdiction of New Hanover County. The County in cooperation
with the City of Wilmington, has adopted the Wilmington-New Hanover
Land US Plan Update, 1986-1995. The plan has also been approved by
the Coastal Resource Commission. It outlines various policies,
goals, and guidelines which control growth and development, as well
as protect natural resources within the planning area. The County
also enforces a zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations. Some
development activities within the county are also regulated by the
North Carolina Division of Coastal management, depending on the land
use, location and scope of development.
10
2. Existing Land Use
The project area is one of transition from a rural setting with
a mix of land uses to predominantly suburban uses. Some older, low
to moderate income housing is located within the project area, as
well as industrial uses, particularly at the northern end of the
project. Two multi-family developments are located in the area;
Wrightsville Sound Village, and McCumber Terrace. Landfall, a
planned unit development, is also located near the project's northern
terminus. High income residential development is located at the
project's southern terminus near Bradley Creek. St. Andrews
Episcopal Church is located at the intersection of US 76 and Airlee
Road (SR 1411).
3. Existing Zoning
The project area supports several zoning districts with a
variety of permitted land uses. From Allen Drive to the northern
terminus, zoning districts include Office and Institutional; B-2,
Highway Business, and Planned Development. The southern half of the
project consists of R-10 and R-15 residential zoning districts, which
permit medium density residential development.
4. Future Land Use
According to the Land Classification Map included in the Land
Use Plan Update, Military Cut-off serves as the boundary between two
classifications. The land on the west side of the roadway is
designated as Transition, while the land on the east side is
classified for Resource Protection.
The Transition class provides for "future urban development on
lands which will receive adequate, economically-provided public
services" (Land Use Plan Update, 1986). Resource Protection class is
established "to provide for the preservation and protection of
important natural, historic, scenic, wildlife, and recreational
resources (Land Use Plan Update, 1986). The class recognizes the
fact that New Hanover County contains numerous areas of
"environmental or cultural sensitivity which merit protection from
urban land uses." Residential densities will be limited to no
greater than 2.5 units per acre.
A number of policies are presented in the Wilminqton-New Hanover
Land Use Plan Update: 1986-1995, addressing issues such as
protection of natural resources and economic and community
development. The Plan states that, in general the County will work
to "preserve, protect, and augment the area's important natural
resources." Issues of particular concern to county residents are the
protection of estuarine Areas of Environmental Concern and the
minimization of man-made threats to the community's natural
resources. Regarding community development, the Plan states the
County's support for additional growth. However, that growth must be
compatible with existing land uses and must be of the intensity
recommended in the County's growth management guide.
11
Protection of water resources is an important concern for area
residents, particularly the failure of septic systems and urban
run-off. Drainage from development, agricultural, and forestry is
specifically addressed in the Plan. The Plan states that the County
has an on-going project in which wastewater treatment facilities are
being expanded. The purpose is primarily.to eliminate pollution from
inadequate septic systems and package treatment plants, and is not
meant to encourage development in fragile, rural, or otherwise
protected areas.
5. Project Consistency With Local Planning Efforts
The proposed improvement will increase capacity on a two-lane
segment of roadway located between multi-lane cross sections at both
of the project termini. In addition, the project will realign a
confusing intersection, thereby improving safety. The Wilmington-New
Hanover Land Use Plan Update: 1986-1995 identifies improved
transportation as an important goal, resulting from the rapid growth
experienced by the Wilmington area in the 1980's. Because the
project will increase capacity on a route serving dense land uses at
either end, it will improve traffic circulation. The project is
consistent with the policies presented in the adopted plan.
6. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies
or their representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition
or construction projects on prime and important farmland soils. Land
which has been converted to non-agricultural uses, either by
development or the planning actions of the local government, is
exempt from the consideration under the Act. Because the proposed
improvement will impact land which has been previously developed or
is designated for future residential, commercial, or institutional
development in the future, no further consideration of impacts to
farmland is required.
B. Environmental Effects
1. Purpose
The purpose of this technical section is to inventory, catalog
and describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by
the proposed action. This section also attempts to identify and
estimate the likely consequences of the anticipated impacts to these
resources. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the
context of existing preliminary design concepts. It may become
necessary to conduct additional field investigations, should design
parameters and criteria change.
a. Study Area
The proposed project study area lies in New Hanover County
which is located in the southeastern portion of the Coastal
Plain physiographic providence. New Hanover County has
primarily an urban population. The county's major economic
12
resources include trade, industry, commercial fishing, and
tourism. Wilmington is the county's largest city and is North
Carolina's major deepwater port.
b. Physiography and Soils
New Hanover County is characterized by level to gently
sloping areas with landscapes including flood plains and
marshes. The study area soils vary from very poorly drained to
somewhat poorly drained. The soils have a fine sand and sand
surface layer with a subsoil consisting of fine sand, sand,
sandy loam, and clay loam on uplands and stream terraces.
The New Hanover County soil map lists six soil associations
only one of which (Murville-Seagate-Leon broad soils) will be
crossed by the proposed project. This general map unit contains
some specific soil series which are classified as (A) soils that
are all hydric soils or have hydric soils as a major component
or as (B) soils which have inclusions of hydric soils or have
wet spots (Table 1).
Table 1
New Hanover County Soils
in the Project Area
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Soil Series Slope Classification
Be Baymeade fine sand 1 to 6 none
Jo Johnston soils - A
Le Leon sand - A
Mu Murville fine sand - A
Se Seagate fine sand - B
C. Methodology
Research using the following resources was conducted prior
to field investigations taking place. Information sources used
in this pre-field investigation include; U.S. Geodetic Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map of Wrightsville Beach, National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) Map of Wrightsville Beach, NCDOT aerial
photographs of project area (1:4800), Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and
candidate species, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologist Susan Corda on 04 January 1993 and
04 February 1993 and by NCDOT biol-ogists Phillip Todd and Hal
Bain on 26 October 1993. Plant communities and their associated
13
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife was identified
using a variety of observation techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars), identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows).
2. Water Resources
This section describes the physical aspects of the resource and
its relationship to major water systems. Roadside ditches and an
unnamed tributary of Bradley Creek are crossed in the proposed
project area. The ditches range in width from 0.20 meters (8 in) to
0.91 meters (3 ft) and in depth from 0.08-0.10 meters (3-4 in.). The
stream is in the Cape Fear River Basin and it originates 15.17 meters
(50 ft) northeast of existing US 76 near tennis courts of a
development flowing southeast into lakes associated with Airlee
Gardens. The waters flow from the lakes of Airlie Gardens to Bradley
Creek. The stream ranges in width between 0.30-0.61 meters (1-2 ft)
and depths of (0-3 in). There are pools of water within the creek
having a depth of 0.05 meters (2 in). Bottom composition for the
unnamed tributary includes a mix of sand and silt.
a. Water Quality
This section discusses water quality and special use
resource categories. Classifications are assigned by the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources (DEHNR). The unnamed tributary of Bradley Creek
associated with the proposed project has a best usage
classification of C. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife and secondary
recreation and agriculture.
Waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW) exist in the
project study area. This water resource is Bradley Creek from
its source to U.S. Highways 17, 74 and 76 bridge. The proposed
project will not effect HQW of Bradley Creek as these waters are
upstream from the proposed project.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN)
addresses long term trends in water quality at fixed monitoring
sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates.
These organisms are sensitive to very subtle changes in water
quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the
presence of many intolerant species. Water quality degradation
gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a
community structure quite different from that in an unstressed
waterbody. Specific data is not available for the immediate
project area.
14
b. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
The unnamed tributary will be impacted by the realignment
of the intersection involving US 76 and SR 1409. A pipe will be
used to direct the unnamed creek under the proposed roadway.
Sedimentation and erosion control. precautions will be
implemented to prevent potential washing of sediment and/or fill
into the water resources. The removal of. bank vegetation
associated with a stream can raise water temperatures since
there is no vegetation to shade the stream. Water run-off from
roadways carry sediments into the stream and its water column
causing turbidity which inhibits light penetration to aquatic
vegetation thus depressing vegetative growth. Flow changes may
occur as fill is washed into the stream from the construction
and piping thus altering the immediate environment.
3. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include
communities of associated plants and animals. These descriptions
refer to the dominant plants and animals in each community and how
these biotic components relate one to another. Vertebrate species
which were observed during the site visits are denoted by (*) in the
text.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
used for plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to
the same species will include the common name only.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Man-dominated, Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest, Pine- dominated
Forest and Palustrine Forest are the 4 terrestrial communities
found in the subject project area. Dominant faunal components
associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in
each community description. Many species are adapted to the
entire range of habitats found along the project alignment and
may not. be mentioned in each community description.
i. Man-Dominated
This highly disturbed community makes up the majority
of the terrestrial communities found in the project study
area. This disturbed habitat includes road shoulders,
ditches and lawn habitats. The more well-maintained
(mowed) areas are dominated by Bermuda grass (C ny odon
dactylon), wild onion (Allium canadense), plantain
(Plants o sp.), vetch (Vicia sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum
sp.) and pennywort (Obolaria vir inia).
Opportunistic nocturnal scavenger species such as
raccoon (Procyon lotor) and Virginia opossum* (Dilephis
virginiana) as well as domestic dogs and cats* may live
near roadways and often become fatalities. Mortality among
15
these animals and others often occurs as the animals
attempt to cross roadways. These species may in turn become
forage items themselves for other scavenger species such as
turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), black vulture (Coragyps
atratus) and American crow* (Corvus brachyrnchos).
Reptiles and amphibians, including toads, frogs, turtles
and snakes, may sun themselves on the roadside and even lie
on the road surface at night to absorb heat.
Residential vertebrate species in this habitat are
expected to be few. This scarcity is due to the limited
habitat size and variability. Numerous opportunistic
animals use this area, however, as a foraging region.
The less maintained areas are dominated by dog-fennel
(Eupatorium capillifolium), vetch (Vicia sp.), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), privet (Ligustrum sp.), broom sedge
(Andropogon virginicus), Cassia sp., catbrier (Smilax bona-
nox), and various other grasses (Poaceae) and asters (Aster
sp.). There are also trees growing sporadically in these
areas including long leaf pine (Pinus palustris), loblolly
pine (P. taeda), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera) and sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The slightly dense
vegetation here offers more foraging opportunities for
snakes such as black racer (Coluber constrictor) and
eastern garter snake (Opheodrys aestivus); lizards like the
Carolina anole* (Anolis carolinensis) and five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), common throughout the state, foraging
on small insects in this type of habitat and birds, notably
the Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) and American
robin (Turdus migratorius).
ii. Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest
The mixed hardwood/pine forest is a discontinuous
community found in the project study area. The canopy is
composed of water oak ( uercus ni ra), southern magnolia
(Magnolia grandiflora), red bay (Persea borbonia), loblolly
pine, long leaf pine, American holly (Ilex opaca), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum),
wax myrtle, and sweet gum.
The shrub/herb/vine layer includes pipsissewa
(Chima hila umbellanta), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sp.),
devils walking stick (Aralia spinosa), catbrier, broom
sedge, dog-fennel, goldenrod and saplings of loblolly pine
and oak.
Animals found in the mixed hardwood/pine forest
include the gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis) which is
also common in residential areas. Slimy salamander*
(Plethodon glutinosus) and southern toad (Bufo terrestris)
16
are found in or beneath the shrub/herb/vine layer. The
canopy of this forest serves a refuge for many birds like
the Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), downy
woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) and the pileated woodpecker
(Dryocopus pileatus).
iii. Pine-dominated Forest
Several stands of pine dominated forest exists along
the project study area. These forest contain long leaf and
loblolly pines along with red cedar, wax myrtle, red maple,
red bay, Virginia bay (Magnolia virginiana) and sweet gum.
The shrub/herb/vine layer includes pennywort, sedges (Carex
spp.), bracken (Pteridium aquilinum), titi (C ry illa
racemiflora), poison ivy (Toxicodendion raducans), privet
(Ligustrum sp.) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
Many of the faunal species found in the mixed
hardwood/pine forest may occur here as well. Eastern fence
lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and eastern glass lizard
(Ophisaurus ventralis) are known occupants of pine woods.
iv. Palustrine Forest
This forest includes similar flora and fauna found in
the previously mentioned communities. This community
contains wax myrtle, red maple, sweet gum, black willow
(Salix ni ra), red bay, loblolly pine and white bay.
Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) is an epiphyte which
grows here among the trees.
The shrub/herb/vine layer contains vegetation such as
pompas grass (Cortaderia selloana), cat-tail (Typha sp.),
inkberry (Ilex lg abra), stagger bush (Lyonia mariana
meadow beauty (Rhexia maritima), sweet pepperbush (Clethra
alnifolia), juncus (Juncas sp.), Panicum sp., yucca (Yucca
sp.), yellow-eyed grass (Xyris sp.), woolgrass (Scir us
cyperinus) and giant cane (Arundinaria gigantia). Fauna in
this community may include eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina) and great egret* (Casmerodius albus).
b. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community includes surface waters found in the
roadside ditches and the unnamed tributary of Bradley Creek. It
is important to realize that, although the roadside ditches and
the stream are discussed separately, the previously mentioned
vertebrates found in the terrestrial community are transient
between the terrestrial and aquatic communities. Vegetation
associated with this community consists of giant cane, juncas
and cat-tail.
17
C. Anticipated Impacts
Construction of this project will have various impacts on
the biotic communities described. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to these resources in terms of area impacted
(cleared/ modified) and ecosystem effects. Temporary and
permanent impacts will be addressed here also.
i. Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
True natural communities are few in the project area
and those communities remaining have been highly fragmented
and reduced as a result of previous development. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of
portions of the four plant community types described. The
impacts to areas involving the widening from a two-lane to
five-lane facility require the removal of a large number of
trees. Other areas of widening will impact low growing
vegetation such as Bermuda grass. Nevertheless, all
impacts from the project will result in the loss and
displacement of plant and animal life. New highways can
serve as barriers to less mobile animals and can become
hazards to other animals, who may be killed attempting to
cross roadways. Anticipated hectare (acre) impacts to
terrestrial communities are listed by proposed alignments
in Table 2.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to
Terrestrial Communities by Alternative
Values in hectares (acres).
Community Type Alternative A Alternative B
Man-dominated 0.70 (1.75) 0.72 (1.81)
Mixed Hardwood/Pine Forest 0.04 (0.10) 0.23 (0.58)
Pine-dominated Forest 0.16 (0.39) 0.10 (0.26)
Palustrine Forest 0.34 (0.85) 0.22 (0.56)
Total 1.24 (3.09) 1.27 (3.21)
Impacts are based on 30.3 m (100 ft) of Right of Way for
project with exception 24.7 m (80 ft) of Right of Way for
new location areas.
ii. Impacts to Aquatic Communities
The anticipated impacts to aquatic communities include
degradation of roadside ditches with surface waters and the
stream. These impacts can be attributed to construction
18
related sedimentation and erosion. Although sedimentation
and erosion may be temporary processes during the
construction phase of this project, environmental impacts
from these processes may be long term or irreversible.
Light penetration will be reduced as a result of
sediments in the water column. With the reduction of
light penetration, photosynthetic species cannot grow as
well thus effecting the food chain of not only aquatic
species but terrestrial species as well. Microscopic
invertebrates which live in the water will be disturbed as
stabilized vegetation is degraded. Water vegetation will
also be lost resulting in an increase of water temperatures
as the water now receives direct sunlight. The degradation
of vegetation results in the loss of microscopic
invertebrates as their attachment substrate is lost.
Erosion and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to
aquatic ecosystems. Strict adherence to Best Management
Practices for protection of surface waters is needed to
ensure the biological richness of the waters impacted by
this project. Measures to inhibit water run-off associated
with construction are needed to prevent the probable
increased wash of toxic compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.)
into the aquatic communities.
4.
Special Topics
a. Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category
of "Waters of the United States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and
in accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE).
i. Impacts to Wetlands and Surface waters
The proposed project cannot be accomplished without
infringing on jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters.
All jurisdictional wetlands associated with the subject
project are found along creeks, streams, and lesser
drainages. These jurisdictional areas were identified
using criteria of 1987 wetland delineation manual. For an
area to be considered a "wetland" the following criteria
must be met; presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma
values), presence of hydrophytic. vegetation, and evidence
of hydrology, such as hydrological indicators, including
saturated soils, stained, oxidized rhizospheres, matted
vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree
bases and surface roots.
19
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Classification of
Palustrine Forested mix of broad-leaf deciduous/needle-leaf
evergreen (PF01/4C) is located along the proposed project
alignment with Alternative A (recommended) impacting 0.30
hectares (0.77 acres) and Alternative B impacting 0.19
hectares (0.48 acres). Approximate impacts to wetlands and
surface waters which will result from project construction
are 0.34 hectares (0.85 acres) for Alternative A and 0.23
hectares (0.56 acres) for Alternative B.
ii. Permits
Encroachment into wetlands and surface waters as a
result of project construction will not require a permit
from the Division of Coastal Management, N.C. Coastal Area
Management (CAMA) Program.
New Hanover County is one of twenty counties listed
under the jurisdiction of the CAMA Program. CAMA directs
the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) to identify and
designate Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) in which
uncontrolled development might cause irreversible damage to
property, public health, and the natural environment.
Through a telephone conversation with C. Robert Stroud,
Jr., Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington District
Manager on 09 November 1993, it was determined that no CAMA
development permit will be required for this project. No
permit is needed because no AECs will be.impacted.
Impacts to non-CAMA Section 404 surface waters will
occur. Construction at these sites is likely to be
authorized by provisions of an Nationwide 23 Permit under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
This project will require a general 401 Water Quality
Certification from NCDEHNR prior to the COE issuance of a
General 404 permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) requires that the state issue or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to the waters of
the United States.
iii. Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually
do not require compensatory mitigation according to the
1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army. A final
determination regarding mitigation requirements will be
made in coordination with various environmental review
agencies during the final design phase of the project.
20
b. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been in or are
in the process of decline. This decline in species population
has been caused by either natural forces or the species'
inability to coexist with man.
i. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE)
and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended.
The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists ten
federally protected species for New Hanover County as of 20
September 1993 (Table 3).
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species
for New Hanover County
SCIENTIFIC NAME C"ON NAME TATU
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon E
Haliaeetus leucocephelus Bald eagle E
Charadrius melodus Piping plover T
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle E
Lepidochelys kempi Kemp's ridley sea turtle E
Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle T
Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle T
Acipenser brevirostrum Short-nose sturgeon E
Amaranthus ump ilus Seabeach amaranth T
E denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is 11 kely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) E
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from
New Jersey to southern Florida and west to eastern Texas.
It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, and Missouri. Now found only in coastal states
of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma
and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate
populations are found in the sandhills and in the southern
coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont
and northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of
former populations.
21
The adult RCW's plumage is entirely black and white
except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in
the male. The back is black and white with horizontal
stripes and the breast and underside is white with streaked
flanks. There is a large white cheek patch surrounded by
the black cap, nape, and throat.
RCW's use open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging
and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous
with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years
old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years
of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares
(500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
-nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine
trees and usually in trees that are infected with the
fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located
in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground
and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be
identified by a large encrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree. This is used as a defense against
possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists
of one breeding pair and the offspring from previous years.
The eggs are laid in April, May, and June and hatch 38 days
later. Clutch size is from 3 - 5 eggs. All members of the
clan share in raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers
feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild
fruits.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A survey for the RCW was conducted by NCDOT Biologist
Susan Corda on 04 February 1993 to determine if any RCWs
were present in suitable habitat associated with the
project study area. The survey for the RCW revealed no
cavities and no individuals in the project study area.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the subject project
will not impact the RCW.
Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) E
R
The peregrine falcon is between 41 - 51 cm long and 91
- 112 cm wide, roughly the size of a crow. In this species
the female is roughly 25% larger than the male. Plumage
along its back is dark with the underside being lighter and
barred and spotted. It is most easily recognized by the
dark crown and a dark wedge that extends below the eye
forming a distinct helmet. Like all falcons it is
characterized by pointed wings in flight. Immature falcons
have dark-brownish backs and heavily streaked underparts.
22
The American peregrine falcon is found throughout the
United States in areas with high cliffs and open land for
foraging. Nesting for the falcons is generally on high
cliff ledges, but they may also nest in broken off tree
tops in the eastern deciduous forest and on skyscrapers and
bridges in urban areas. Nesting occurs from mid-March to
May.
Prey for the peregrine falcon consists of small
mammals and birds, including mammals as large as a
woodchuck, birds as large as a duck, and insects. Their
preferred prey is medium sized birds such as pigeons.
Peregrine falcons are at the top of their food chain and
are therefore extremely sensitive to chemical toxins such
as DDT.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not impact nesting or
foraging habitat for this species. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact the peregrine
falcon.
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) E
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to
Alaska. The only major nesting population in the southeast
is in Florida, other nesting occurs in coastal areas of
Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Migrants and
rare nesting pairs do occur elsewhere in the southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large
white head and short white tail. The body plumage is
dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. Immature eagles
lack the white head plumage, juveniles are uniform brownish
to blackish in color with blotchy white on the underside of
the wings, belly, and tail. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar. Adults are from 69-94
cm in length and have a wingspan of 178-229 cm.
There are several factors that affect an eagles
selection of a nest site. Eagle nests are found in close
proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight
path to the water, in the largest living tree in a span,
and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human
disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise
suitable habitat. Eagle nests are approximately 3 meters
across and as deep.
The bald eagles.breeding season begins in December or
January. Fish are the major food source for bald eagles.
Other sources include fish, coots, herons, and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
23
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not impact nesting or
foraging habitat for this species. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact the bald eagle.
Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) T
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that
resembles a sandpiper. An average bird grows to about 17.5
cm in length and has a wing span of 37.5 cm. It can be
identified by the orange legs and black band around the
base of its neck. During the winter the plover loses its
black band, its legs fade to pale yellow, and the bill
fades to black. Breeding birds are characterized by white
underparts, a single black breastband, and a black bar
,across the forehead.
The piping plover breeds along the east coast from New
Foundland to North Carolina. It winters from North
Carolina southward into the Florida Keys and along the Gulf
of Mexico. Plovers return to their breeding grounds in
March or early April.
Piping plovers nest in flat areas with fine sand and
mixtures of shells and pebbles. They nest most commonly
where there is little or no vegetation, but some may nest
in stands of beachgrass. The nest is a shallow depression
in the sand that is usually lined with shells and pebbles.
The piping plover feeds on invertebrates such as
insects and marine worms.
The piping plover is very sensitive to human
disturbances, the presence of people can cause the plover
to abandon its nest and quit feeding.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not impact nesting or
foraging habitat for this species. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact the piping plover.
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) E
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical
waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. They
range as far north as Nova Scotia and New Foundland and as
far south as Australia and the Cape of Good Hope. Major
nesting areas occur in tropical regions and the only
nesting population in the United States is found in Martin
County, Florida. Leatherback nesting occurs from April to
August.
24
The leatherback is the largest of the marine turtles,
weighing from 295 to 680 kg and having an average length of
118n to 1780 mm. Unlike other marine turtles the
leatherback has a shell composed of tough leathery skin.
The carapace has 7 longitudinal ridges and the plastron has
5 ridges. The leatherback is black to dark brown in color
and may have white blotches on.the head and limbs.
Leatherbacks prefer deep waters and are often found
near the edge of the continental shelf. In northern waters
they are reported to enter into bays, estuaries, and other
inland bodies of water. Leather back nesting requirements
are very specific, they need sandy beaches backed with
vegetation in the proximity of deep water and generally
with rough seas. Beaches with a suitable slope and a
suitable depth of coarse dry sand are necessary for the
leatherback to nest. Artificial light has been shown to
cause hatchlings to divert away from the sea. Leatherbacks
feed mainly on jellyfish. They are also known to feed on
sea urchins, crustaceans, fish, mollusks, tunicates, and
floating seaweed.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not impact nesting or
foraging habitat for this species. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact the leatherback
sea turtle.
Kemp's ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys kempii) E
Adult Kemp's ridley sea turtles inhabit the Gulf of
Mexico, with immature-turtles ranging the east coast as far
north as Massachusetts. This turtle is an infrequent
visitor to the North Carolina coast and does not nest here.
The only nesting area for these turtles is a single beach
in Mexico.
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea
turtles that visit North Carolina's coast. It measures
580-750 mm in length and weighs from 36-50 kg. These
turtles have a triangular shaped head and a hooked beak
with large crushing surfaces. It has a heart-shaped
carapace that is nearly as wide as it is long with the
first of five coastal plates touching the nuchal plates.
Adult Kemp's ridley sea turtles have white or yellow
plastrons with a gray and olive green carapace. The head
and flippers are gray. Hatchlings are all black.
Nesting of the Kemp's ridley sea turtle is confined to
14.9 miles of beach between Barra del Tordo and Ostioal in
the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Here the turtles come on
shore in mass to lay their eggs during the day. This can
25
occur as many as three times during the April to June
breeding season. Kemp's ridley sea turtles prefer beach
sections that are backed up by extensive swamps or large
bodies of open water having seasonal narrow ocean
connections and a well defined elevated dune area.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles live in shallow coastal and
estuarine waters, in association with red mangrove trees.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles feed on crabs, shrimp, snails,
sea urchins, sea stars, medusae, fish, and marine plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not impact nesting or
foraging habitat for this species. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact the Kemp's riddley
sea turtle.
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) T
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke
inlet, North Carolina through Florida and on a small scale
off of the Gulf States. There are also major nesting
grounds on the eastern coast of Australia. It lives
worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters.
Adult loggerheads weigh between 77 and 227 kg and are
800 to 1200 mm in length. The loggerhead can be
distinguished from other sea turtles by its unique reddish-
brown color. The loggerhead is characterized by a large
head and blunt jaws. Otherwise they have 5 or more coastal
plates with the first touching the nuchal and 3 to 4 bridge
scutes.
Loggerheads nest nocturnally between May and September
on isolated beaches that are characterized by fine grained.
sediments. It is mainly carnivorous feeding on small
marine animals.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not impact nesting or
foraging habitat for this species. It can be concluded
that the subject project will not impact the loggerhead sea
turtle.
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) T
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and
tropical oceans and seas. It ranges as far north as
Massachusetts on the east coast and British Columbia in the
west. Nesting in North America is limited to small
communities on the east coast of Florida.
26
The distinguishing factors found in the green turtle
are the single clawed flippers and a single pair of
elongated scales between the eyes. This turtle has a small
head and grows to a size of 760-1530 mm and a weight of
100-295 kg. It has a strongly serrate lower jaw and only
four pairs of plural scutes.
The green turtle can be found in shallow waters. They
are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays, Mangrove swamps and
inlets where an abundance of marine grasses can be found.
Marine grasses are the principle food source for the green
turtle. These turtles require beaches with minimal
disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do
not nest in NC).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not impact nesting or
foraging habitat for this species. It can be concluded
that the. subject project will not impact the green sea
turtle.
Short-nose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) E
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small (1 meter in
length) species of fish which occurs in the lower sections
of large rivers and in coastal marine habitats from the St.
John River, Canada to the Indian River, Florida. It can be
differentiated from the Atlantic sturgeon because of its
shorter snout, wider mouth, and the pattern of its preanal
shields (the short-nose having one row and the Atlantic
which has two).
The short-nosed sturgeon prefers deep channels with a
salinity less than sea water. It feeds Benthicly on
invertebrates and plant material and is most active at
night. It is an anadromous species that spawns upstream in
the spring and spends most of its life within close
proximity of- the rivers mouth. At least two entirely
freshwater populations have been recorded, in South
Carolina and Massachusetts.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water
rivers that are unobstructed by dams or pollutants to
reproduce successfully.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not impact habitat for this
species. It can be concluded that the subject project will
not impact the short-nosed sturgeon.
27
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus ump ilus) T
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal
Plain beaches. It was historically known from
Massachusetts to Florida and is presently confined to 55
populations in North Carolina., New York, and South
Carolina.
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in
clumps containing 5 to 20 branches and are often over a
foot across. The trailing stems are fleshy and
reddish-pink or reddish in color and 1 to 6 dm long. The
thick, fleshy leaves are small, ovate-spatulate,
emarginate, rounded and 1- 1.5 cm long. The leaves are
usually spinach green in color, cluster towards the end of
a stem, and have winged petioles. Flowers grow in auxiliary
fascicles and the smooth, indehsicent fruits are 4-5 mm
long. Seeds are glossy black. Both fruits and flowers are
relatively inconspicuous and born along the stem.
Habitat for seabeach amaranth is found on barrier
island beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic and
natural manner. It grows well in overwash flats at the
accreting ends of islands and the lower foredunes and upper
strands of noneroding beaches. Temporary populations often
form in blowouts, sound-side beaches, dredge spoil, and
beach replenishment. This species is very intolerant to
competition and is not usually found in association with
other species. Threats to seabeach amaranth include.beach
stabilization projects, all terrain vehicles (ATV's),
herbivory by insects and animals, beach grooming, and beach
erosion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The proposed project will not impact habitat for this
species. It can be concluded that the subject project will
not impact the seabeach amaranth.
ii. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species
Federal Candidate species are not legally protected
under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any
of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered.
The following table includes federal candidate species
listed for New Hanover County and their state
classifications (Table 4). Organisms which are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and
Animal species are afforded state protection under the
State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
28
Table 4. Federal Candidate Species
(and their State Status) listed
for New Hanover County
COMMON NAME STATUS
(Scientific name) Federal/State HABITAT
Carolina crawfish frog C2/ N
Rana areolata ca 'to
Magnificent rams-horn snail C2/E N
Planorbella magnifica
Greenfield rams-horn C2/ N
Taphius eucosmius
Cape Fear t reetooth C2/T N
Triodopsis soelneri
Rare skipper C2/SR N
Problema bulenta
Savanna lea p ant C2/T N
_A_moha eor Tana var. confusa
C2/E
-
F
N
na sp eenwort
Fi
Caro
Asplenium heteroresiliens
Sandhills milkvetch C2/C N
us mi chauxi i
AAstrra al
?
V6-us fiytrap * C2/E-SC N
Dionaea muscipula
Wh1te cky C2/E-SC Y
Kalmia cuneata
Pondspice C2/C N
Litsea aestivalis
PicFe-r-ii-ng ss morning-glory C2/E N
Stylisma P. var. pickeringii
Smooth bog-asphodel * C2/C Y
Tofieldia lg abra
Dune bluecurls * C2/C N
Trichostema sp.
Population documented as extant in New Hanover County in the past
ten years (1983-1993).
Note: species represented in bold is protected by state law
29
An investigation into the data base of the N.C. NHP
for rare animals and plants revealed no records of North
Carolina rare and/or protected species near the project
study area.
C. Archaeological and Historic Resources
1. Archaeological Resources
An archaeological reconnaissance survey of the proposed project
area was performed on November 18, 1992. The results of this
assessment follow:
The section between the project beginning on the north side of
Bradley Creek Bridge to SR 1411 (Airlee Road) is a highly developed
residential area. Between SR 1411 and the intersection of US 76 and
SR 1409 the Episcopal Church is located on the east side of the road
and the west side appears to be an off-road parking area. The
remainder of SR 1409 has residential and commercial development.
The proposed Alternate A begins south of the tennis courts and
condominiums and follows along US 76 to merge with SR 1409. An
inspection of the wooded area at the corner of US 76 and SR 1409
found abandoned trailers, a backhoe, building materials such as
cinder blocks, asphalt roofing and brick, piles of shattered car
glass and recent household trash. A discussion with Mr. Canady at
1644 Airport Cutoff found that the refuse was probably associated
with the residence/junk yard to the north.
The results of this assessment indicate that the proposed
improvements are planned in an area that has extensive residential
and commercial development. An examination of the North Carolina
archives found that one historic site is recorded in the project
vicinity. This site (31Nh577**) is a ca. 1885 summer house on
Bradley Creek approximately 0.2 mile east of the US 76. Based on the
results of this field reconnaissance and knowledge of the general
area, it appears that the proposed improvements are unlikely to
affect any significant archaeological resources.
2. Historic Architectural Resources
Purpose of Survey
This report was prepared in order to identify historic
properties located in the area of potential effect, and is submitted
pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations
codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment.
30
Methodology
A survey was conducted by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation in accordance with the requirements of FHWA Technical
Advisory T 6640.8A (Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents); the Secretary of
Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological and Historic
Preservation (48 FR 44716); 36 CFR Part 800; and the ACHP and NPS
publication "Identification of Historic Properties: A Decision
Making Guide for Managers".
Survey Results
. The survey located no buildings fifty years or older within the
Area of Potential Effect (APE). The area is characterized by
"builder homes" from the 1950s and 1960s.
St. Andrew's on-the-Sound Episcopal Church is a Spanish Colonial
style structure completed in 1924. The property lines of the church
and cemetery lie to the east of US 76 and are outside the APE.
Improvements to US 76 will neither effect nor be seen from the church
and cemetery. Roughly forty feet of thick vegetation will remain
between the church property and US 76.
Conclusion
The survey identified no buildings over fifty years old within
the APE.
D. Noise and Air Oualitv Analvsis
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the
Wilmington Regional Office of the N.C. Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources. New Hanover has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This project
is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
When real life noises are heard, it is possible to barely detect
noise level changes of 2 to 3 dBA. Exterior traffic noise level increases
will not likely exceed 3dBA, considering current traffic projections. A
doubling of traffic generally increases the noise levels no more than
3dBA, and NCDOT projects less than a 100% increase in the design year.
The intersection improvements proposed will reduce overall vehicular
delay, thereby reducing emissions in the project area.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burnings, all burning shall be
done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. this
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise
(23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no
additional reports are required.
31
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Agency Coordination
During the planning study, contact was maintained with local, state,
and federal agencies. Memorandums and letters requesting environmental
input were sent to the following agencies and replies were received from
those marked with an asterisk (*):
*U. S. Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District
Division of Environmental Management
*State Clearinghouse
*N. C. Department of Cultural Resources
*N. C. Department of Environmental, Health, and Natural Resources
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
New Hanover County Commissioners
Mayor of Wilmington
Cape Fear Council of Governments
B. Public Involvement
A Citizens Informational Workshop was held in November, 1992, in
Wilmington. It was attended by local officials and the public from the
surrounding area. The majority of those attending were in favor of the
project as proposed.
MH/wp
(h A.-
Beach
A-'

c -; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
e OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
\" a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
US 76 AND SR 1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF),
FROM BRADLEY CREEK BRIDGE TO
MULTI-LANE NEAR US 74 (EASTWOOD RD)
U-2572
FIG. 1
?? ?? ?
?4 d ? ? ? k ?
?
-
v §
f" am,e...?. ??"
fin'
4 4A ?

.yv

.: ?
?
??

air `?? ?
? ,
? ??,?.
E.
?,-
f
gam, }f

,??, $•t A
$
? i r l :p R .:
t y ? -
r
< v
°5 P ? ??s.
.i ?µ

',e
,
?, ?'?? d'? ? ? '
'?? ?d? . '*?v? ? ?.
? r ,.
l
?' ?? ?
?? .
?. ? `s ?" ? - ? ? ° v
? ?_ ? ?
?,?b
p %
? ? -?g z ?
? ?? ?? A
? 4t??
fi' /
4 ?. ?
t % Z
?
?
h
.
t
?
?
7 s,np'
, ?
?
A
G?
? i ? 3k ? ? n? .-
Me ? °?
? ?
?? i v ?? '.a??
?

ppw
',Si
a'

? ?

? ? ? ?
?Y ?j6?+,. r

h +'?1
? ? K'

? ? ?
` ? l

?:
I?
THOROUt "-lHFA.RE
z i PLAN
n Leo, /
/
La _?o
?u
;> .
LL
01
y
S / Q i
tz/
14 1
.,y ,09
wR.c,rtSv'E
? /, l mss` %• ?/
?/i
L-a
A,
PR \ e,RLFE,
z / : / \ \! a RIGHTSVILLE
iL3
?s
' 166_0' v ?66\ h \7' //
:. AA4', j;' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
<l ?? '° 4\ OF TRANSPORTA_fION
OQ ,J? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
O / Q PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
US 76 AND SR 1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF),
60.. FROM BRADLEY CREEK BRIDGE TO
G MULTI-LANE NEAR US 74 (EASTWOOD RD)
N h, ?? / ; 4 U-2572
o 6
n U ?
V r
t L
7 >,
O L
C c15
c6 ?
= C
7
N
Z
L 74-
-4-m w
i,
CD
0
0
o ?
v'Z
~ ? Q
vJ
N
.r.. m
tt? t-
N
0 W
w
ti
I
t" M

r
M
r-
'Ct' N
cc
0
W
N O
T
tD
a?
r--I
cu
U
0
O
C
O)
C
.r-f
3
c?
L
r
LT`i
F, O
'T
FIGURE T-1
N • (')
?` O 0)
Ln U rn
N T-
? L
>
O L
cII
T-
ca
L
t)
C)
Q)
F
0
W
?ryryV,,
rW ?'
v ,
CU ~
r?
L)
w
Div
0
O 4J
4-8
t+
?' LD
ti M

T
M
w
w
0
tD
O
T

U

O

O
C

3

L

T
C?
r- o
r FIGURE T-2
w
? tD
CO

N • C7
O cy)
t? U Q)
N *-
L
O
>
O L
9-- cB
ctl Z3
S ?
Rj
D:
Z
N
4-4 W
ro
Itt
to
VJ ? ,Q^
y
N
N
O W
ti N
i`
a
co
R
N
M
r--
t-
a
(D
LO
Cl)

rn
r
N
U'1
d
FIGURE T-3
a)
(0
U
U
0
0
c
c
•r-1
3
L
U-2572/0-1250801
January, 199=
US 76 from SR 1409 to Bradley Creek Bridge
near Seagate, New Hanover County
Table 1
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC SUMMARY SHEET
ROUTE NAME ?i PDT 11 100'S it %TTST ? %DUALS %DHV ;!D I R II
1992 1 99- 1 201511
i
1
1
SR 140? li 100 j 107 +
i
3 10 1! 60
19-? S
i
-
i ,r ? I'
-? 1(7
?+
"
i
j
SR 1 413 i( i 2 _
,
?
!
i? iL-?? fL t
? :_; R 1411 j ? _
I? ? 106
_ 1 196 2 10 ? i 6
ii f• i? (.
IU' 76 1e6 335 2 10 60
= 31 1
I
1 I '
;1 I( if
FIGURE T-4
.? STA$ o
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt, Jr.. Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 28, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: US 76 and SR 1409 from Bradley Creek Bridge to
US 74, New Hanover County, U-2572,
8.1250801, NHF-76(1), ER 94-7394
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of April 11, 1994, explaining how the Federal Highway
Administration delineated the area of potential effect for the above project.
From the information provided, we understand that the project will benefit the St.
Andrews Episcopal Church since existing US 76 will be moved away from the
church. However, we continue to believe that the church is located in the area of
potential effect since the project is immediately adjacent to and visible from the
church, and the church will be accessible from the relocated eastbound portion of
US 76. We also understand that North Carolina Department of Transportation
right-of-way may be given to or purchased by the church once the portion of US
76 adjacent to its property is removed. Given these reasons and the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's guidelines for drawing areas of potential effect,
we believe the church is located in the area of potential effect for the project.
Based upon the information provided in your letter, we also believe the project will
have no effect upon the St. Andrews Episcopal Church if it is determined eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
1n0 Fast rnrwc Rtrept . Ralrioh Nnrth Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
April 28, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Si cerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
I WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO December 4, 1992
Planning Division
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office.Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
9? :. ..:
M
bn`'1 i
This is in response to your letter of October 20, 1992,
requesting our comments;on the initiation of a study of the
project, U-2572, New Hanover County, US 76 and SR 1409 (Military
Cutoff), from Bradley Creek to US 74 „ Widen Existing Roadway and
make intersection improvements," State Project No. 8.1250801,
(Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199300569).
From the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) perspective,
our review and comments focus on impacts to COE projects, flood
plains, and other environmental aspects, primarily waters and
wetlands. The proposed interchange improvements and road widening
would not impact any COE-constructed navigation or flood control
project.
The proposed project is sited in New Hanover County, which
participates in the Federal Flood Insurance Program. From a
review of the September 1992 Flood Insurance Rate Map (photocopy
portion enclosed), the proposed road widening in the vicinity of
the Bradley Creek Bridge is adjacent to an identified flood hazard
area with a 100-year flood elevation of 11 feet above mean sea
level. Since the flooding source is from tidal surge and not
riverine influence, there is no floodway at this location.
However, if flood plain land is involved, we suggest that you
coordinate with New Hanover County for compliance with their flood
plain ordinance. Also, Executive Order 11988 should be complied
with.
Department of the Army permit authorization, pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will
be required for the discharge of excavated or fill material,
including construction debris, into waters of the United States
-2-
or any adjacent and/or isolated wetlands. Please provide
sufficient information for our evaluation. of environmental impacts
for all construction corridors which you are considering.
Included should be wetland and soils mappi'ng, indicating wetland
and soils types, and data regarding endangered species, cultural
resources, and fish and wildlife habitat. Adverse environmental
impacts should be avoided and'-then minimized. Mitigation must be
provided to compensate for ct? !?ri=dab',e impacts Our comments will
be provided in'response to such.informati_on. _Because_of.this_.
early review and evaluation, we would expect a most expeditious
processing of your application for the specific activity requiring
Federal authorization. Questions or comments related to the
permit may be directed to Mr. Jeff Richter, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If
we can be of further assistance to you, please do not hesitate to
contact us.
Sincerely,
Lawrence W..Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosure
r I <?
?.?, c In'2n15'cUm mun,<y `-
',tac: your insurance agent, or call the National Flood Insurance
;)gram, at (800) 63e-6620.
£&
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1000 0 1000 FEET
RATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM
HORS
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NEW HANOVER
COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UNINCORPORATED AREAS)
PANEL 85 OF 128
(SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED)
NOTE-
THIS MAP INCORPORATES APPROXIMATE
BOUNDARIES OF COASTAL BARRIER RE-
SOURCES SYSTEM UNIT AND/OR OTHER-
WISE PROTECTED AREAS ESTABLISHED
UNDER THE COASTAL BARRIER IMPROVE-
MENT ACT OF 1990 (PL 101-591).
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370168 0085 E
MAP REVISED:
Y M,In.
SEPTEMBER 3, 1992
,"._?1
I
1

IT
2

N
O
Z
m
? n
°s K
o
N
O
z
m
C)
?o
> p
a
m Q z
>
O -' X
z? rv? Z
CFO
rr-
O O N
m <

n
N
O
Z
m

a..
L
co
X;bi,
'
N y
O -
z m
.: m

N
O
_z n
m
a
o <..
co pd N c

z

%•
.i
?E„ O

m z
-
C7
r
m N
ND. N
O Z
o z N' m
co m -0
Z V)
A y
?m mD
-D
0
oc ; a
d ene R
0
0 3
o C: 7.
O -n
m n C -? z
Z C e > >> °i p
3m zQ 0 =4 1 -0 c-
> z C c-,
00 0 3C
LJ 1 3 0 7
X Q C? O n n
-, C
r--F C m G
?? ° c .. ?a
O o ^ ,?C Ln
_ $
>
Z
VJ m
z CID
a O.f rri _•
` liJ m c l L O° o
O
Z
m
1---=Z?
N
O
Z'
m
m
All
- O m 00 m G (p !y T T r.
oda-mama-0 arR r O
n n'(D o'n? m o 1) p p
F3 n
aO m D' =.
-3 cr N >
d ° aka C-. 73 C A.
w a
N W' w Co G Z cZ w ?r
r) E
N _ Z
."O G J > v> Q V Z
O " a. rn _ n z T
> co > CD
to m m ? n ? C.-.
-• r' T A Z
m n
-3 C-
m m' O v
?' m Z G O,
? ? ?, m Z
jai ?•: t i r ?.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment; Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee p-.,
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 9370272 Improvements to US 76 and SR 1409,
New Hanover County
DATE: December 1, 1992
Douglas G. Lewis
Director
Planning and Assessment
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
has reviewed the proposed scoping notice regarding the referenced
project.
The attached comments reflect specific concerns of our
divisions that should be addressed and recognized in the proposed
environmental document. The applicant is encouraged to notify our
reviewing divisions with any problems or questions they may have
in addressing these concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
MM: bb
Attachments
cc: David Foster
P.O. Box 27687: f2alci_c \ordh, Carolina 27611-1-687 Teiephone 919-733-6376
VI _ -rIb
??sF
State of North Carolina
Departrn--nt of Environment, Health, and natural Resources
Division of Enviroru-gental Mianagen. ient
512 North Saiisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27504
James G. Martin, Governor A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E.
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary November 30, 1992 Acting Dii=or
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Dorne*7
Monica Swihart1'J
From: Eric Galamb
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for EA/EIS Documents
Improvements to US 76 and SR 1409
New Hanover County
State TIP #U-2572
EHNR # 93-0272, DEM WQ # 7381
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
the following topics be discussed in the EA/EIS documents:
A.. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the,project. The stream
classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelization/relocations. If the original
stream banks were vegetated, it is requested that the channelized/relocated
stream banks be revegetated.
C. Number of stream crossings.
D. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? DEM requests that these catch
basins be placed at all water supply stream crossings. Identify the responsible
party for maintenance.
E. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary) to be employed.
F. Please ensure that sediment and erosion control measures are not placed in
wetlands.
REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Rsle igh WaShion Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/4 86 -154 1 704/663-1699 919/571 X700 9 19/94 6-64 81 919/395 -39 00 9 19/89 6-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Rahioh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
G. Wetland Impacts
i) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and delineating
jurisdictional wetlands.
ii) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
iii) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
iv) Mitigation measures to compensate for habitat losses.
v) Wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
vi) Quality of wetlands impacted.
vii) Total wetland impacts.
viii) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested from DEM.
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Prior to the approval of any borrow
source in a wetland, the contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as possible? Why not
(if applicable)?
J. Will DOT register the corridor according to the 1987 North Carolina Official
Roadway Corridor Map Act? If not, why not?
K. Efforts employed to minimize interrupting water lines and sanitary sewerage.
L. DEM requests that anti-seep collars be placed on water and sewer lines buried
in wetlands.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be required for this project.
Applications requesting coverage under our General Certification 14 or General Permit
31 will require written concurrence. Please be aware that 401 Certification may be
denied if wetland impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practicable.
us761409.sco
cc: Eric Galamb
Project No. 93-0272
Please contact New Hanover County mosquito control at 341-4149 with plans
and work time table to coordinate ditching aspects of this project.

Dr. Alice Anderson

"-? S ? - Z? 70

~ I µ1n:
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
225 North McDowell Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
James G. Martin, Governor MEMORANDUM Roger N. Schecter
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
TO: Melba McGee, Division of Planning & Assessment
n
FROM: ,Caroline Bellis, Division of Coastal Management
TFIROUG Steve Benton, Division of Coastal Management
DATE: November 23, 1992
I:EI=ERENCE- , SCH93-0272 Scoping: Proposed Improvements to US 74, SR1409; Bradley Creek to US 74
The Division of Coastal Management has reviewed the scoping letter for the subject project which
has been submitted for review by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. We offer the
following comments at this stage for consideration in the preparation of the environmental document.
?,Ve agree that the proposed project will do much to enhance traffic flow and safety- tlrough the
intersections designated for improvement. However, consideration should be given to the character and
ambiance of the Airlie Road area. Care should be taken to insure that road widening and intersection
expansions do not disrupt the present character of the area and furthermore do not present opportunities
to alter land uses adjacent to the roadway as such improvement projects can facilitate. Cumulative effects
of road improvements along US 74 from Bradley Creek to US 17 need to be addressed in this respect as
well. The project should be developed after thorough review and consideration of the Airlie Road Plan,
the Wrights-vzlle Beach Land Use Plan and the New Hanover County Land Use Plan.
Roadveav widening in the vicinity of Bradley Creek could impact the estuarine shoreline and or
estuarine waters, both Areas of Environmental Concern (AFC's). For any work which is to take place in
these areas, regulations set forth in 15A NCAC 7H will apply and a CAMA Permit will be required. A
statement of the project's consistency with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program should be
submitted with and or included in the document, in accordance with 15 CFR 930.
We look forward to reviewing the project documents and associated consistency determination
when it is prepared. Our position on consistency will be made upon review of the document submitted
for final approval. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. We request that you
forward agency comments received to our office. If you have any questions, please call me or Steve
Benton at (910733-2293.
cc: Bob Stroud, Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington
P.O.' Box 27687 \::i_-2h, North Q-olina 27611-76?7 Telephone [phone]

North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission i`
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of Envir nment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: November 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for improvements to US 76 and SR
1409 (Military Cutoff), from Bradley Creek to US
74, with associated intersection improvements, New
Hanover County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2572,
SCH Project No. 93-0272.
The following comments are provided in response to a
request from Mr. L. J. Ward of the NCDOT for our concerns
regarding impacts on fish, and wildlife resources resulting
from the proposed project. The N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC).has reviewed the proposed project, and
our comments are provided in.accordance with provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G. S. 113A-1 et
seq., as amended; 1 NCAC_25), and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d) .
The proposed project involves improvements to existing
facilities in a highly developed area in New Hanover County.
A scoping meeting for this project (August 26, 1992) was
attended by NCWRC staff, and no major impacts on fish and
wildlife resources are anticipated. Recent NCDOT
environmental documents for projects of this scope have
included the necessary information on fish and wildlife
resources, and the NCWRC recommends similar document format
for this project. While most wildlife habitat on the
project area has been previously disturbed, surveys for
rare, threatened, and endangered species should be included
in the upcoming study. Information on possible project
Memo Page 2 November 23, 1992
impacts on listed species should be coordinated with NCWRC
Nongame and Endangered Species personnel through Randy
Wilson, Program Manager, at [phone].
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please call David Yow, Highway Project
Coordinator, at [phone].
DLS/DLY

cc Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Bennett Wynne, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
Marc Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT
David Yow, Highway Project' Coordinator

A
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources Reviewing Office: U-) I
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS i Project Number: Due Date:
3-UQ-7 rD 11-Q_? -4
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or apprc:als indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Lava.
Q stions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
ue
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same
Reoional Office. Normal Pro ess

C
C
C
C
C
C
?C
C
C
C
Ps 'o;
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory ; me
limit)
Permit to construct & operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions, & sewer construction contracts On-site inspection. Post-application
systems not discharging into state surface waters. technical conference usual (90 days)
NPDES - permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days before begin activity. On-site inspection. 90-120 days
permit to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Adcitionally. obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (N/A)
time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
?P1??3 S? m?a?n &,n permit whichever is later.
30 days
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary
(NIA)
7 days
Well Construction Permit Ccm,^,!etc application must be receiver! and permit issued
prof to the installation of a well. (15 da.,s;
Application, copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conference usual. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of (90 days!
Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
Permit to construct & operate Air Pc_.lution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A (90 da}s
y open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NC-.C 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structur_s containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 2D.0525 which requires notification and removal N/A,
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control Group
919.733-0820. (90 days:
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20.0800.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentatio
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beginning activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or Dart must accompany the plan. (30 davs,
The Sedimentation Pollution. Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referrenced Local Ordinance: (30 days;
On-site inspection usual. Surety bond filed with EHNR. Bond amount
.Mining Permit varies with type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any area 30 days
mined greater than one acre must be permited. The appropriate bond (60 days
must be received before the permit can be issued.
North Carolina Burning permit On-site inspection by N.C. Division Forest Resources if permit 1 day
exceeds 4 days (NIA)
Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit • 22 On-site inspection by N.D. Division Fcrest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (N/A)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 da s
Oil Refining Facilities N/A (NIA)
If permit required, application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified encineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
1
Dam Safety Permit inspect construction, certify construction-is according to EHNR approv-
ed plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And (60 days!
a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. An inspection of site is neces•
sary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum fee of 5200.00 must ac
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost volt be required upon completion.
Continued on reverse
Y. J+`
y L?
State of North Carolina/vo
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Rem
Division of Land Resources ?c
James a Martin, Govemor PROJECT REVIEW COMMENTS CharigGardner
wiiiam W. Cob -y, Jr., Secretary erector
Project Number: _ i - C L / Z County: /'?, (-1i'?,? c? ??
Project Name: ', = r ?? ?1 G o
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact 2- geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached) 7:
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at c(91* 74-3836.y
Review6l Date
c'
Erosion and Sedimentation Control.
No comment
This project will require approval of an &rosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
` Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
rE it - ?, _c? : ' , `' i? _ - f?G ??: ?•G
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal opportunity A.mnnacveAction Employer
s ° z
W
Lli
?N
S O a N p
pp Q = K O
2 ° ? 4
O a P M .01 O_ ?• O W W W •. O
O m o r
f? Q ^? 2 3 v ? ? p ?N N J20o Z
O H
< " U Al f: N H W
N w Z .IU ut :~i •. .YJ ........... :':::. ?:: > F S O
y. # f. .......
? Z U O W N
4) 00
Q6 ?O? \ t „ w? m Z M 20 ZK
//•????!!"p \\T`pp,, .per <
t37 )+??OY? ?,, ? C W
4
? sY ..r o Co
L S N F T . O
Ln OOO:ii i u < t 3 L (J p .
o ?/i \ ? ? ? o .OS.LL
` z
f
J J t Bbb V .-I \ ??7Ja'? C
N ? d ? ? ? t'. •1 t. .?d O i I <
< N x , Y tea _ ) k''v.l-.? 1 ? ?^ Oa•? G _ ? 0? ?,, p Z
!E 1>
` = a OJ 0 ,- ,l:j + •!?, ??bysa / Z RM?.\ N `Sy`?®' 3 N u S ?? Ols,
Nl n
W G `?W ^r
JP? Y1.'
®SS ZV le?? '/Q c ? .r °1,...,' N x `J W w
k':+?.:'.:- .-I N J(C\ 1 ?J Y w ? _1? W N W N:M y "f J ?y 1
31
o?
p _?c' •• Cam},-?.....\
W L 7 N U_?? ,® Z-
J Y0
® N Od•A.Z W V :a?i Y ?J? N );/31
i?M{ S" ? ?a < N ¢O N
OAQ O ti NM1s d ? Z_m ?
O rrro r?patJ lr ?•1
r y
.00.8E ........:: 3 3 % u _
,, Y .1V MS,•1WP.?.1 >• W tjJ
o_
N tiN •? ?,(1PNN/1h F
Z J J J J ` J` J J J J J U a
I i
m I I ? _ Fz
--------------

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Planning and Assessment
Dept. of EEn'vironment, Health, & Natural Resources
FROM: fo D nnis Stew art, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
Date: November 23, 1992
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N. C. Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and
wildlife concerns for improvements to US 76 and SR
1409 (Military Cutoff), from Bradley Creek to US
74, with associated intersection improvements, New
Hanover County, North Carolina, TIP No. U-2572,
SCH Project No. 93-0272.
The following comments are provided in response to a
request from Mr. L. J. Ward of the NCDOT for our concerns
regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting
from the proposed project. The N. C. Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) has reviewed the proposed project, and
our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of
the North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et
seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25), and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-
667d).
The proposed project involves improvements to existing
facilities in a highly developed area in New Hanover County.
A scoping meeting for this project (August 26, 19921) was
attended by NCWRC staff, and no major impacts on fish and
wildlife resources are anticipated. Recent NCDOT
environmental documents for projects of this scope have
included the necessary information on fish and wildlife
resources, and the NCWRC recommends similar document format
for this project. While most wildlife habitat on the
project area has been previously disturbed, surveys for
rare, threatened, and endangered species should be included
in the upcoming study. Information on possible project
Memo Page 2 November 23, 1992
-ts on listed species should be coordinated with NCWRC
;_.-,game and Endangered Species personnel through Randy
Wilson, Program Manager, at (919)`733-7291.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please call David Yow, Highway Project
Coordinator, at [phone].
DLS/DLY
cc Bobby Maddrey, District 2.Wildlife Biologist
Bennett Wynne, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr. 1
Marc Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT
David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator

Memo Page 2 November 23, 1992
f
-ts on listed.species should be coordinated with NCWRC
i-agame and Endangered'Speries personnel through Randy
Wilson, Program Manager, at [phone].
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the
early planning stages for this project. If we can further
assist your office, please call David Yow, Highway Project
Coordinator, at [phone].
DLS/DLY
cc Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Bennett Wynne, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Program Mgr.
Marc Hamel, Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT
David Yow, Highway Project Coordinator