U-2733

RECEIVED
United States Department of the Interior GL CT 1 0,1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ^?+
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
October 4, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Manager, Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
N. C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of August 7, 1996, requesting
comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), dated July 1996, for
the widening of US 74 from SR 1905 to SR 1409, New Hanover
County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-2733). The FONSI is based on
information provided in an Environmental Assessment (EA), dated
January 31, 1996. This report is provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.
661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to the FONSI, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen US 74 (Eastwood Road) to
a multi-lane section from SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409
(Military Cutoff Road). The existing two- and three-lane
facility would be widened to a five-lane curb and gutter roadway.
Most of the project would be constructed within the existing 150-
foot easement. The total length of the proposed project would be
2.2 miles.
Alternatives Analysis
The Service has reviewed the alternatives analysis in both the EA
and the FONSI. We are pleased that the required transportation
improvements can be made by widening the existing road. We
consider the analysis of alternatives to be adequate.
Wetlands
The EA discusses (pp. 14-15) project impacts on wetlands.
Project plans indicate that wetland impacts would be minimal and
consist of less than 0.1 acres. The Service is especially
pleased that the FONSI (p. 3) indicates that a detention basin
will be provided in order to filter runoff leading to a tributary
of Bradley.Creek. Based on information in the EA and the FONSI,
the Service believes that the NCDOT has endeavored to avoid and
minimize wetland impacts associated with this project.
Federally Protected Species
The EA (pp. 16-20) discusses potential impacts to species
protected by the ESA. The EA determined that the project would
not affect any of the species which have been reported in New
Hanover County. Based on the information in the EA, the Service
concurs that this project is not likely to adversely affect any
Federally-listed endangered and threatened species, their
formally designated critical habitat, or species currently
proposed for Federal listing under the ESA, as amended.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the ESA have
been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species
or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered; (2)
this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not
considered in this review; and/or,(3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the
identified action.
Summary
The Service believes that the EA adequately describes the purpose
and need for the project, the alternatives considered, and the
environmental impacts of the project. Therefore, the Service
would support a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for this
project.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this
project. Please continue to advise us of the progress made in
the planning process, including your official determination of
the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard
Hall at (919) -856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely,
John M. He ner
Supervisor
FWS/R4:HHall:10/4/96:WP:A:U-2733.096
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources 1 • •
Division of Coastal Management f
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary IDEiHNF;Z
Roger N. Schecter, Director
July 8, 1996

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
REFERENCE: SCH96-0616: EA Improve US 74 (Eastwood Road) from Racine Drive to
Military Cutoff Road, Wilmington TIP No. U-2733
f t
Dear Mr.Vick:
The State of North Carolina has completed its review of the proposed widening and other
improvements to US 74 between Racine Drive and Military Cutoff Road in Wilmington. The project
is one of a series of improvement projects which are progressively widening US 74 and US 76
through Wilmington. Based upon our review we have determined that the project is consistent with
the North Carolina Coastal Management Program, provided the following conditions are met:
1. A 401 Water Quality Certification, if required for the project, is received from the NC
Division of Environmental Management.
2. A stormwater management plan for the project is approved by the NC Division of
Environmental Management and effectively incorporated into the design and construction
of the project.
3. Sedimentation and erosion control measures for High Quality Waters are incorporated
into the project and are strictly enforced. Special devices to contain sediment such as
turbidity curtains should be used as necessary.
4. Culverts are designed to allow fish passage.
P.O. Box 27687, ?? FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 C
N v-f
Voice 919-733-2293!?!!a? 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
<p d'
7
If you have any questions regarding our finding, please contact Steve Benton or Caroline
Bellis, Division of Coastal Management, at [phone]. Thank you for your consideration of the
North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
Sincerely,
Ze ? 4 ' d14 %'?-/ z
Roger N. Schecter
cc: Bob Stroud, Division of Coastal Management, Wilmington
John Domey?'- Division of Environmental Management
Bradley Bennett, Division of Environmental Management
David Cox, Wildlife Resources Commission
Melba McGee, DEHNR
Chrys Baggett, State Clearinghouse RECEIVED
AUG Q" I?/?6
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
BRANCH
US 74 (Eastwood Road)
from SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
Wilmington, New Hanover County
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13)
State Project No. 8.1251101
TIP Project No. U-2733
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Submitted Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)
'1-26=q? ? ? V. Date H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Mf, -& -
anager
°rPlanning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
7 L l ?
Date is V s L. Graf, P.E.
ir- ivision Administrator, FHWA
US 74 (Eastwood Road)
from SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
Wilmington, New Hanover County
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13)
State Project No. 8.1251101
TIP Project No. U-2733
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Document Prepared in the Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Beverly J. Grate
Project Planning
Robert P. Hanson, P.E.
Project Planning Unit Head
, P"n?&
'??7e ?f Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
CARO
SEAL i
17282
o•''•F?`GIN
EE•?
P. NI`?;;
•`•aM G
2

Y
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. TYPE OF ACTION .....................................................................................1
H. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .................................................... .1
III. SUMMARY OF SPECIAL PROJECT COMMITMENTS .............................. .2
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENTS ...........................................................2
A. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment ........................................2
B. Comments Received on Environmental Assessment ..............................3
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing .............5
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT .........................6
1. Right of Way ............................................................................6
2. Intersections and Types of Control ............................................ 6
3. Cost Estimates .......................................................................... 6
4. Structures ................................................................................. 6
5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control ........................................... 6
VI. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING .................. 7
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ............................... 7
APPENDIX
US 74 (Eastwood Road)
from SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
Wilmington, New Hanover County
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13)
State Project No. 8.1251101
TIP Project No. U-2733
TYPE OF ACTION
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administrative action, Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
The FHWA has determined this project will not have any significant impact on the
human environment. This Finding of No Significant Impact is based on the January 31,
1996 Environmental Assessment (EA) which has been independently evaluated by the
FHWA and determined to adequately and accurately discuss the need, environmental
issues and impacts of the proposed project. The EA provides sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
The FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the
Environmental Assessment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen US 74 (Eastwood Road) to a multi-lane section from SR 1905 (Racine
Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) in Wilmington. The 3.54 km (2.2 mile) project
will widen the existing two to three lane facility to a five lane curb and gutter section.
Most of the project will be constructed within the existing 45.7 m (150 feet) of
right of way. Drainage and construction easements may be required. The roadway
alignment is proposed to be shifted 2 meters (6.6 feet) south of the existing centerline in
various locations to allow a wider buffer for adjoining development.
The proposed project is included in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 1996 and
construction for FY 1996.
The total estimated cost for the proposed project includes $40,000 for right of way
acquisition and $5,400,000 for construction. The Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) cost includes $500,000 for right of way acquisition and $4,000,000 for construction.
2
III. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement all practicable
measures and procedures to minimize environmental impacts to the human environment.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
High Quality Waters Sedimentation Control Guidelines will be enforced during the
construction stage of the project.
A detention basin will be constructed near the Rogersville Road intersection to
filter surface water runoff draining to the tributary to Bradley Creek.
The roadway alignment is proposed to be shifted 2 meters (6.6 feet) south of
existing centerline in various locations to allow a wider buffer for adjoining development.
With the recommended curb and gutter cross section, wide 4.2 meters (14 feet)
outside lanes and safe bicycle drainage grate covers will be provided. The roadway will be
signed with "Share the Road" signs.
Additional coordination between the DEM and the NCDOT's Hydraulic Unit wil
be undertaken to determine the final design for handling storinwater runoff.
IV. COORDINATION AND COMMENT
A. Circulation of Environmental Assessment
The January 31, 1996 Environmental Assessment was circulated to the following
federal, state and local agencies for review and comments. An asterisk (*) indicates a
written response from the agencies. Copies of the correspondence received are included
in the Appendix of this document (see pages A-1 through A-10). Substantive comments
are discussed in Section IV. B.
*U. S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers - Wilmington
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U. S. Geological Survey
USDA - Soil Conservation Service
Chairman of the New Hanover County Board of Commissioners
Mayor of Wilmington
*N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission - Raleigh
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources - Division of
Environmental Management - Water Quality Lab
N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources - Division of Parks
and Recreation
B. Comments Received on Environmental Assessment
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Comment: "NCDOT should include commitments in the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) to protect the water quality and aquatic habitat in
Bradley Creek and its tributaries. Sedimentation and erosion control measures for
High Quality Waters should be strictly enforced. Special devices to contain
sediment turbidity curtains should be used as needed and culverts should be
designed to allow fish passage."
Response: High Quality Waters Sedimentation and Erosion Control Guidelines
will be enforced. Culverts will be designed to allow fish passage.
2. North Carolina Deoartment of Environment Health and Natural Resources.
Division of Environmental Management
Comment: The environmental document basically indicates that for storm
water management, wet detention ponds are not appropriate and will not be used
for this project. While ponds may not be appropriate for all projects, we feel that
other alternatives for stormwater control should be considered for this and all
other future projects. One of our major concerns is the handling of stormwater
flows such that direct discharge to surface waters is avoided. Management
measures may include the use of vegetative practices, extended dry detention
areas, etc. to handle the flow coming from the roadway areas.
Informal discussions with DOT on the stormwater provision for this
project have indicated that options for sheet flow of runoff and the use of a wet
pond for stormwater control are available. We feel that utilization of these options
can work to resolve the stormwater issues that remain for this project. DOT
should continue to pursue these options and provide DEM with appropriate design
information on these measures for review and inclusion into the environmental
documents.
Response: Two meetings were held involving the Division of Environmental
Management and NCDOT to determine the most efficient and practical means of
handling stormwater runoff for this project. Some of the options under
consideration for handling stormwater include swales, extended dry detention
basins or wet detention basins. Any combination of these could be used to handle
stormwater runoff. Further coordination between DEM and the Hydraulic Design
Unit of the NCDOT will be undertaken before the design is finalized. Through
coordination with the Division of Environmental Management, it has been agreed
that a detention basin will be provided as part of this project to filter runoff leading
to the tributary of Bradley Creek.
4
3. Department of the Army Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Comment: Floodplains: POC - Mr. Bobby L Willis Special Studies and
Flodplains Services Section at [phone]
If the roadway grade is maintained and the existing culverts are replaced by
a larger capacity box culvert as indicated, we would agree that backwater from the
proposed culvert will not likely have a significant adverse impact on the floodplain.
Response: None required.
Comment: Waters and Wetlands: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon. Wilmington
Field Office. Regulatory Branch_ at [phone]
According to information provided in the EA, the proposed improvements
to US 74 will require the installation of a 2-cell concrete box culvert at Bradley
Creek and the placement of fill into approximately 0.1 acres of forested wetlands
adjacent to Bradley Creek. Although the proposed work may qualify for a
nationwide permit (NWP) authorization, it is incumbent upon the North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid and minimize all impacts to
waters and wetlands. When final design has been completed, you should contact
Mr. Scott McLendon in the Wilmington Regulatory Field Office for a final
determination of the Department of the Army (DA) permit requirements for this
project.
It was noted that the proposed improvements include a 5-lane curb and
gutter section. We would encourage the use of the shoulder sections in the vicinity
of Bradley Creek and adjacent wetlands. If this cannot be accomplished, NCDOT
should determine if sheetflow of stormwater can be directed into adjacent wetlands
or into some type of detention basin.
Response: Impacts to surface waters only will occur from project
construction. For permits requirements, the project can be authorized under a
Section 404 Nationwide # 26. Since the impact is less than 0.33 acres, the
NCDOT is not required under this permit to notify the Corps of Engineers or the
DEM.
As mentioned in a previous response, additional coordination between the
DEM and NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit will be undertaken to determine the final
design for handling stormwater runoff. Final plans will include a detention basin.
Final design plans will be sent to the Wilmington Regulatory Branch.
5
4. New Hanover County Planning Department
Comment: The proposed widening of US 74 will help facilitate the increased
traffic that has accompanied this growth. New Hanover County supports these
improvements and hopes that construction can be expedited since the current
condition of the roadway is inadequate.
It is encouraging to see that some provisions have been made for bicycle
transportation as part of this project. However, it is our belief that dedicated,
signed and striped lanes within the curb and gutter design should be included to
offer a safer environment for cyclists.
Response: Striped bicycle lanes are discouraged on 5 lane curb and gutter
sections. The presence of the continuous center turn lane provides for turning
movements at any time which would allow motorists to turn across the path of a
straight through cyclist. In accordance to AASHTO Standards wide 14' outside
lanes will be constructed to accommodate bike travel.
C. Comments Received During and Following the Public Hearing
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, an open forum public
hearing was held at Noble Middle School Cafeteria located at 6520 Market Street in
Wilmington on May 16, 1996. Interested citizens were given the opportunity to review
preliminary designs of the project, talk to NCDOT engineers and right of way agents, and
make comments concerning the proposed improvements. Approximately 45 + persons
attended the public hearing. NCDOT addressed the concerns of all of those who
commented on the proposed improvements, either in person or by written letter following
the public hearing. The following is a list of comments received during and following the
public hearing, along with NCDOT's responses.
Comment: Will the improvements to US 74 include bicycle accommodations?
Response: With the recommended curb and gutter cross section, wide 4.2 meter (14
feet) outside lanes and bicycle safe drainage covers will be provided. The roadway will be
signed with "Share the Road" signs.
Comment: Two churches are in close proximity of each other. On days or nights that
services are held it is difficult for the congregation to get out onto Eastwood Road. Can a
signal be place at the intersection of one of the roads accessed by both churches or at one
the churches intersection?
Response: Signals are not currently-recommended at the intersections near the
churches.
6
Comment: Can the road be shifted more to the south using all of the right of way
shown to the south?
Response: Shifting the road any more to the south would cause the construction limits
for this project to be outside of our existing right of way. This would require additional
right of way. Because this would increase project costs, the alignment will not be shifted
further south.
V. REVISIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
A. Proposed Improvements
1. Right of Way
Minor amounts of new right of way will be required at the intersection of
Rogersville Road and US 74 (Eastwood Road) for the realignment of Rogersville
Road and to handle stormwater runoff. The EA stated that no new right of way
would be required.
2. Intersection Revisions and Types of Control
Rogersville Road will be realigned to form a four leg intersection with the
entrance of Eastwood Village and US 74. This intersection realignment was not
mentioned in the EA. All other intersecting Roads will be provided with an
exclusive right turn lane off of US 74.
3. Costs Estimates
The current estimated cost is approximately $5,400,000 for construction
and $40,000 for right of way. The previously estimated cost in EA was
$5,000,000 for construction and $40,000 for right of way.
4. Structures
An on site detour will be constructed at the culvert location creating a
"run-around" to stage construct the proposed culvert. This detour will be
contained within the existing right of way. A detour was not mentioned in the EA.
5. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
High Quality Waters Erosion and Sedimentation Control measures will be
implemented as part of this project. The EA mentioned only standard erosion
control measures.
7
VI. ONLY PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE WETLAND FINDING
Executive Order 11990 established as a national policy to avoid, to the extent
possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of the new
construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.
The majority of impacts to "Waters of the United States" will be in the form of
surface water impacts at stream crossings. One small wetland area, measuring <0.1 ha
(<O.1 acre), will be impacted. With the exception of not building the project, there are no
feasible means of avoiding this wetland taking. NCDOT will minimize impacts on
wetlands through the use of best management practices.
It has been determined there is no practicable alternative to the proposed
construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to
minimize harm to wetlands which may result from such use.
VII. BASIS FOR FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Based upon a study of the impacts of the proposed project as documented in the
Environmental Assessment and comments received from federal, state and local agencies,
it is the finding of the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration that this project will not have a significant impact upon the
quality of the human or natural environment. Therefore , an Environmental Impact
Statement will not be required.
The following persons may be contacted for additional information regarding this
proposal:
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone]
BG/plr

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
d TRANSPORTATION
3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WIDEN US 74 FROM RACINE DRIVE
TO SR 1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. U-2733
' 0 mile 1/2 FIGA
APPENDIX
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Henry M. Lancaster II, Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
FROM: Melba McGee P-1,
? E I--tN R
RE: 96-0616 EA US 74 Widening to Military Cutoff Road, Wake County
DATE: April 29, 1996
The Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed project.
There are several points that need further clarification in order not to delay
the Finding of No Significant Impact. We encourage the Department of
Transportation to directly contact our reviewers directly.
Thank you for your continuing efforts to improve and facilitate the review
process.
attachments
RECEIVED
APR
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone]
An Equcl Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5010 recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
A-1
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
C)EHNF=?k
April 26, 1996
Memo To: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Bradley Bennett, Technical Support Branch
Subject: Stormwater Review- Project #96-0616; NC DOT Proposed
Improvements to US 74, New Hanover County TIP #U-2733
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management has the
following comments concerning stormwater management provisions for the
referenced project.
The environmental document basically indicates that for stormwater
management, wet detention ponds are not appropriate and will not be used for
this project. While ponds may not be appropriate for all projects, we feel that
other alternatives for stormwater control should be considered for this and all
future projects. One of our major concerns is the handling of stormwater flows
such that direct discharge to surface waters is avoided. Management measures
may include the use of . vegetative practices, extended dry detention areas, etc. to
handle the flow coming from the roadway areas. Information on these potential
measures should be developed and submitted for our review and should be
included in the environmental assessment.
Informal discussions with DOT on the stormwater provision for this project have
indicated that options for sheet flow of runoff and the use of a wet pond for
stormwater control are available. We feel that utilization of these options can
work to resolve the stormwater issues that remain for this project. DOT should
continue to pursue these options and provide DEM with appropriate design
information on these measures for review and inclusion into the environmental
documents.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper

r
A-2
FAX
To: North Carolina State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
Intergovernmentai Reviei
From: Chris O'Keefe, AMP
New Hanover County Planning Department
Re: N.C. Dept. Of Tr ansponatic li
State Number: 96-E-4320-061.6
Proposed widening ofTi5 "14 from SR 190; (Racine Dave) to SR 1409 (Militar)7 Cutoff
Road) In Wihin,7ton, NC
TIP #U-27133
Date: April 19, 1996
Thanks for the. opportani-,y to cerwnent on the above refcren«d 7roj8--,. New Hanover Coll;ltd'
has experienced dramatic giowch both as a tcurist destination and as a p anent residence since
the completion of i- 4t in 199,,-). The pr oposed wideninu of US 74 will help facilitate the increased
traffic that has accompanied this growth. New Hanover County supports these improvements and
hopes that construction can be expedited since the current condition of the roadway is inadequate.
It is encouraging to _see that some provisions have been made for bicycle transportation as pai-, of
this project. However, it is our belief that dedimcd, signed and striped bike lanes within the curb
and gutter desip, should be included to offer a safer environment for cyclists.
Thanks again for thi,; opporvinity to co.*nment. We recognize the importance of this project and
hope that construction Rill commence as soon as possible. If you have any questions regarding
my suggestions please do not hesitate to call' me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Chris O'Keefe, AICP
Planner, Ncw Hanover County Punning Deparunent
A-3
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Conmiission E?
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
_- Charles R. Fullwood,-Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DEI INR
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coord' for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: April 23, 1996
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Environmental
Assessment (EA) for US 74 (Eastwood Road) widening, from SR 1905 (Racine
Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road), Wake County, North Carolina. TIP
No. U-2733, SCH Project No. 96-0616.
Staff biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission have reviewed the subject
EA and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review was to
assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Our comments are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen US 74 to a five-lane curb and gutter facility from SR 1409
(Racine Drive) to SR 1905 (Military Cutoff Road). The project length is approximately 2.2
miles. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will likely be covered under nationwide permits.
The EA provides an adequate discussion of anticipated impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the project area. Due to the nature of the project area and the decision to widen an
existing roadway, we feel that impacts to natural resources will be minimal. However, we
remain concerned over the potential adverse impacts to the tributary of Bradley Creek.
We will concur with the EA for this project. However, NCDOT should include
commitments in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) to protect the water quality and
aquatic habitat in Bradley Creek and its tributaries. Sedimentation and erosion control measures
A-4
Memo
2 April 23, 1996
for High Quality Waters should be strictly enforced. Special devices to contain sediment such as
turbidity curtains should be used as needed and culverts should be designed to allow fish
passage.
Thank you liar the opportunity to comment on this EA. If we can be of any further
assistance please call me at [phone].
cc: U.S. Dish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
A-5
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 5U"
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF June 3, 1996
Special Studies and G E
Flood Plain Services Section
O
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager JUN "u 6 1996
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways 2, Ca'?iSIGti C;r
C S ??l
Post Office Box 25201 HIGHWAY
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 ?ViRONt+A?N?
Dear Mr. Vick:
This is in response to your letter of March 15, 1996, requesting our comments on
the "Federal Environmental Assessment for US 74 (Eastwood Road), from SR 1905
(Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Wilmington, New Hanover County,
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13), State Project No. 8.1251101, TIP Project
No. U-2733" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199603557).
Our comments involve impacts to flood plains and jurisdictional resources, which
include waters, wetlands, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers projects. The proposed
roadway improvements would not cross any Corps-constructed flood control or
navigation proiart. Enclosed are our comments on the other issues.
We apps .?ciate the opportunity to comment on this project. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
C. E. Shuf rd, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering and
Planning Division
Enclosure
A-6
June 3, 1996
Page 1 of 1
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Federal Environmental Assessment for US 74 (Eastwood Road), from SR 1905
(Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Wilmington, New Hanover County,
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13), State Project No. 8.1251101, TIP Project
No. U-2733" (Regulatory Branch Action I.D. No. 199603557)
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Mr. Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
The proposed project is located ;n New Hanover County which p?rficipates in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From a review of Panel 85 of the September 1992
New Hanover County, North Carolina Flood Insurance Rate Map, the road crosses
Bradley Creek Tributary, a detail study stream with 100-year flood elevations
determined and a floodway defined. This is acknowledged on page 21 of the
Environmental Assessment (EA). If the roadway grade is maintained and the existing
culverts are replaced by a larger capacity box culvert as indicated, we would agree that
backwater from the proposed culvert will not likely have a significant adverse impact on
the flood plain. However, for your information, we are enclosing a copy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways". In addition, we suggest coordination with the
county for compliance with their flood plain ordinance and any changes, if required, to
their flood insurance map and report.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, at [phone]
According to information provided in the EA, the proposed improvements to US 74 will
require the installation of a 2-cell concrete box culvert at Bradley Creek and the
placement of fill into approximately 0.1 acres of forested wetlands adjacent to Bradley
Creek. Although the proposed work may qualify for nationwide permit (NWP)
authorization, it is incumbent upon the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) to avoid and minimize all impacts to waters and wetlands. When final design
has been completed, you should contact Mr. Scott McLendon in the Wilmington
Regulatory Field Office for a final determination of Department of the Army (DA) permit
requirements for this project.
It was noted that the proposed improvements include a 5-land curb and gutter section.
We would encourage the use of shoulder sections in the vicinity of Bradley Creek and
adjacent wetlands. If this cannot be accomplished, NCDOT should determine if
sheetflow of stormwater can be directed into adjacent wetlands or into some type of
detention basin.
If you have any questions, they should be addressed to Mr. McLendon.
A-7
t/'J` '
North Carolina
Department of Administration
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
2 06

Katie G. Dorsett, Secretary
June 10, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Whit Webb, NCDQT, Program Development Branch
CJ
FROM: Chrys Baggett, N.C. State Clearinghouse
RE: SCH #96-E-0616; Env. Assess. - Proposed Widening of US
74 in Wilmington; TIP #U-2733
Attached are additional comments which were submitted following
our clearance letter cn your:
Notification to Clearinghouse of Intent to Apply for
Federal Assistance
X Environmental Review
Other
If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact
me at [phone].
CB/if
Attachment
?WEp
N ?1 1?q6

A-8
116 West Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27603-8003 0 Telephone [phone]
State Courier 51-01-00 dJQ
An Equal Opportunity / Affirmative Action Employer OOP
t
it
State of North Carolina .
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources ` •
Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
James B. Hunt, Governor E H N R
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary Richard E. Rogers, Jr., Acting Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee e
Environmental Review Coordinator
RE: Project Ntunber 96- 0616
DATE: June 6, 1996
The attached comments were received by this office after the response due
date. These comments should be forwarded to the applicant and made a part of our
previous comment package.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond.
Attachment
RECEIVED
JUN
N.C. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
FAX [phone]
P.O. Box 27687, W ;*
C
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687 NAn Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
919-715-4148 50% recycled/ 100% post-consumer paper
A-9
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Roger N. Schecter, Director
-EL T
[D EHNF1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, NC Division of Policy and Development
FROM: Steve Benton, NC Division of Coastal Management
-
---------------
- SUBJECT---Review-of SCH#/= o?i6
_j_,4f`Copy of All Comments Received by the SCH
is Requested
DATE: Sz41i6
-Reviewer Comments Attached
Review Comments:
This document is being reviewed for consistency with the NC Coastal Management Program pursuant to federal
law and/or NC Executive *Order 15. Agency comments received by SCH are needed to develop the State's
consistency position.
Project Review Number (if different from above)
A Consistency position will be developed based on our review on or before i./ ,71f6
_ A Consistency Determination document _is, or _may be required for this project. Applicant should contact
Steve Benton or Caroline Bellis in Raleigh, phone I [phone], for information on the proper document
format and applicable state guidelines and local land use plan policies.
Proposal is in draft fora, a consistency response is inappropriate. A Consistency Determination should be included
in the final document.
A Consistency Determination document (pursuant to federal law and/or NC Executive Order 15) is not required.
A consistency response has already been issued.
Project No.. Date issued
Proposal involves < 20 Acres or a structure < 60,000 Sq. Feet and no AEC's or Land Use Plan Problems.
Proposal is not in the Coastal Area and will have no significant impacts on any land or water use or
natural resource of the Coastal Area.
_ CAMA Permit _is, or may be required for all or part of this project proposal. Applicant should contact
in , phone # , for information.
_ A CAMA Permit _ has already been issued, or _ is currently being reviewed under separate circulation.
Permit No. Date issued
Other (see attached).
State of North Carolina Consistency Position:
The proposal is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program provided that all conditions are adhered to
and that all state authorization and/or permit requirements are met prior to implementation of the project.
The proposal is inconsistent with the NC Coastal Management Program.
Other (see attached)
P.O. Box 27687, Raleigh. North Carolina 27611-7687 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Ecuc! Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50%recyc!ed/ 10% past-ccn--,jmer paper
A-10
i
r.
It
&/An
JArC- ?, &vsr&-x-
1204 Two Mile Circle, West
Wilmington, N.C. 28405.4116 '5x ?02 A41-1 /,Fr+(;
/ :Ti: pNo,U-9733
N? ors ??- ??
l 56, Gv
tUVUAt4
1 nti'
glut
A-11

f lo-? ??? . (zend - wh?
- ------------
-- `?'
--------------
Coe) ??Jor
TO 4- V?-
roll,
44
6.e
, Imo. • v?? - i? ?.K.t ???????? ,, _
A-12

i
A
z z m 9.6
lV L- C o t'Y r? j3t F, ins
Fes, J'1vi . Ga rreff AIN ? .
i S fe 40
Aa4
T11. A,2 b/lcK? ivC 1bT try dX
wit .mac. At
A,• Alvo W
Vill,
Key, -
644 ezowin
W-n??.o r£..evr .y yl? x??
c A
cdYri OueafiwrA, ? ?-
oo el
vollo, r?
7 4
A-13
Department of Environment, Health, and 'Natur I Resources
Project located in 7th floor library
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs h
Project Review Form p` ?3
Project Number: County: Date: Date Response Due (firm deadline):
C ? iQ
?,A 4A
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review ''1Tgls?,
c
? Asheville ? All RIO Areas ? Soil and Water ? Marine Fisheries

ill
? ? Air
Management ? Water Planning
'SiC
e
Fayettev
E.- Water
L? Water Resources ? Environmental Health
? Mooresville ±Groundwater X Wildlife ? Solid waste management
? Raleigh E Land Quality Engineer r tion Protection
Forest Resources
El Washington ? Recreational Consultant
? Coastal management Consultant [
Land Resources tt31 a r
Parks and Recre tt Other ( ify)
? 96
Wilmington ? Others Environmental M emig a? A9

El Winston-Salem
PWS lion
Monica Swihart
WNIEft ??;AL1T`l
?1N??? ?sftA?CN
P1.R
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date:
4 In-House Reeviie--wer/Agency:
-
/7&11,w P41
fY l
a
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
R'c's?JF
? No El Comment
Insufficient information to complete review F"`11?,04 qpyF0 ? 1996
,,,Npq? Sc/FNC??
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attachedlauthority(ies) cited)
OCr11C61 rn-
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
2/0ther (specify and attach comments) ?D
W 5I
Melba McGee
P5 104
710
OfUpe fp, Leg?isla 'v ?vernmental Affairs
-91-01
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
ED FE 1=1
April 26, 1996
---Memo T-o, -Melba McGee, Legislative & -Intergovernmental- Affairs
From: Bradley Bennett, Technical Support Branch Al/
Subject: Stormwater Review- Project #96-0616; NC DOT Proposed
Improvements to US 74, New Hanover County TIP #U-2733
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management has the
following comments concerning stormwater management provisions for the
referenced project.
The environmental document basically indicates that for stormwater
management, wet detention ponds are not appropriate and will not be used for
this project. While ponds may not be appropriate for all projects, we feel that
other alternatives for stormwater control should be considered for this and all
future projects. One of our major concerns is the handling of stormwater flows
such that direct discharge to surface waters is avoided. Management measures
may include the use of vegetative practices, extended dry detention areas, etc. to
handle the flow coming from the roadway areas. Information on these potential
measures should be developed and submitted for our review and should be
included in the environmental assessment.
Informal discussions with DOT on the stormwater provision for this project have
indicated that options for sheet flow of runoff and the use of a wet pond for
stormwater control are available. We feel that utilization of these options can
work to resolve the stormwater issues that remain for this project. DOT should
continue to pursue these options and provide DEM with appropriate design
information on these measures for review and inclusion into the environmental
documents.
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
S
-X X
a
A
x ISFD x ISFD x
X x
X x -,X-
2400 2400 WO
w w
w W-
ISFD

?WI X
X^X X X X-
I,?
ISFD ISFD
I
xll
X - f Q
0 XII
0 cc?x
-x ? x x ?G
3,048 X 2703f G
w I
ioftX C
-
-w
III
v II X ISFD
FO- oIl - L-1 0 -
0v Ilr ro
E V. x--
J ll fx
II 7t,30--048 X 2 , 36
ft X 7' s, .$D
_ - - 450 (W 0 450 cm? 450
--------------------- - -
------ ---DI IT<
cw
OD DR 72 BST 4
I Lil
-1371
s
---l 'l/

--------_ - i __ ____ -- \
-'45m -T-AREP- 30m FULL
-
m
LT I LT
X X-J I ?x x---Ox cHL x x x x
1800 I 112+70.000 //(77
X I 20.995 Y51REV 9+38.471
x
--?? -------? 17.00
-L- POT Sta,112+99.842 =
` 9+40.000
-Y50- POT Sta./1t00.000- = 12.2000
-Y51- POT Sta.9+15.066
Y51REV- POT Sta.9+15.066
\
qn
IN MEDIWMMkANKING Y50
l/
X
0 0
-X-
x
I-
?I -
x
C? I C.
x X
A" ,?
O
co
PC Sta. 9+32.86`
-- - - - - - - - - - - ------------
\ 20 ? s
0 R?
70 \
rly?
s
C? ?
+uu ? esT lrso%'
.?' S 61° 12' 06.5" E
F
PI Sta 9+67°566
? p = 89 30 07.9 (LT) 987,543
12.2000

L = 54.674
T = 34,697
R = 35.000 PI Sta a10+49.925
SE = p =19 58 01.2' (RT)
L = 62.728 co
T = 31.585 rn
o = rRn nnn
E--- E L
10+18.239 ,
122000
9-,87,543
17.000
E--E
10+18.239
6X T
15.200
C\j
y

'
C)
0
0 C.? L
x X 2400XWD X- _
?- O
O
O
i
i
i
o
i CONC
rrr. u.ur nn,in-rr I
0
?
e
e

J^

J?
00
?e
?0
P

al
.:gr
a
lb
V
--?- 3.0 CHL /?/i pJr

? EXISTING R/W
- /// / / v? i•
200 PVC
w
600 DIP +/- 1050 DEEP -,
w / w _
w
w
w w
w
!r??
W
T ,
tin }Lr!??
---- ---------- ----- 45o coRc?- @ `20 X 2olm RCBC-
,4 T
T

.
It
I-
5.720
0
.00 ft? i -,X/ if G

C)
Cl\i 250
PVC
ss
375 C0NC,,- /
=1375 SS
ss-
CONC

? o? cz L; F Li
D HW Li
DI
EXISTING R/W
^o
A,
1
TT
T?E
EX ANO 1_31
lk?
6
6-
/
?? RI w
lDtIq 45I-
LF TAT TNK []1893 I
NOT SURE OF U/G LOCATION I I -3 EIP
/
1 ? I
-4-
0

J
O Q
0 J
O O
Lf) O
O
? O
Lo
0 +
0
O
W CL-
J J
X
- w w
w - w w - ?= w - - -
r??L !?Lrr?Lr?i .. c
_ T w `°'GZ
m RCBC_ ------ T T T
°A------------------ - ----------- _______`__
' 375 CONC ss L - _ - ePl. ss ss-
_ell WD HW DI 1,y,, ce
IC_r!}L_(.!`,?_?(`? - I }? 7Ji- f'n'LC'(li_,^('?'L_l(ll_f'.`tiL.fn'1_CryL-'f1M+ •,?
Tf' TAT TNK []1893 I Itt ,
NOT SURE OF U/C LOCATION ' I t I
1,3
.-A-EIP nEIP
?--? - T-4
i I -
? 1 ? ?''•? ICI I m ? '
? I I
I

o.. STA7E o
? Vwx v?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 2, 1996,
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: Corrections to Environmental Assessment, US 74 (Eastwood Road) from
SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road), Wilmington,
New Hanover County, Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13), State
Project No. 8.1251101, TIP Project No. U-2733
An error was made on the project description of this document. The secondary
road numbers for the project termini are revised. Please make note of the correct termini
description "From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road). Changes
should be made to the following pages: cover pages, page 1 of the summary and page 1 of
the body.
If you have any additional questions or concerns feel free to give me a call at (919)
733-7844 extension 247.
Sincerely,
BJG/bjg
RECEIVED
4PR 081996
-'JVVI RCN?NrA' SCIENCES
1%
Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
?10 US 74 (Eastwood Road),
from SR IAN (Racine Drive) to SR APIP(Military Cutoff Road)
Wilmington, New Hanover County
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13)
State Project No. 8.1251101
TIP Project No. U-2733

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Environmental Assessment
U. S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
and
N. C. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
?-31-9i?( Cam-,: v
Date H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
'- Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
/Pty
Date FoP.N ch s L. Gr , P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
US 74 (Eastwood Road),
from SR 1409 (Racine Drive) to SR 1905 (Military Cutoff Road)
Wilmington, New Hanover County
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13)
State Project No. 8.1251101
TIP Project No. U-2733
Environmental Assessment
Document Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
e erly J. Gr to
Project Plannin ? gineer
Robert P. Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer Unit Head
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Table of Contents
I.
II.
T
V
III.
IV
V.
t
VI
Page
SUMMARY ..................................................................... i
DES CRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ....................................... I
PURPOSE OF PROJECT. ..................................................................... 1
A. Need for the Proposed Improvements .............................................. 1
B. Traffic Volumes and Capacity .......................................................... 2
C. Thoroughfare Plan ..................................................................... 2
D. Accident Analysis ...................................................................... 3
EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS ........................................ 3
A. Existing Cross-Section .................................................................... 3
B. Existing Right of Way ..................................................................... 3
C. Access Control ..................................................................... 3
D. Speed Limit ..................................................................... 3
E. Functional Classification .................................................................. 3
F. Utilities ..................................................................... 4
G. Structures ..................................................................... 4
H. School Buses ..................................................................... 4
PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ..............................................................:. 4
A. Project Length ..................................................................... 4
B. Proposed Cross Section ................................................................... 4
C. Proposed Alignment ..................................................................... 4
D. Structures ..................................................................... 4
E. Right of Way ..................................................................... 5
F. Design Speed ..................................................................... 5
G. Intersection Revisions and Type of Control ..................................... 5
H. Access Control. ..................................................................... 5
1. Bicycles ..................................................................... 5
J. Sidewalks ..................................................................... 5
K. Cost Estimates ..................................................................... 5
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ............................................................. 6
A. Alignment Alternatives .................................................................... 6
B. Typical Section Alternative .............................................................. 6
C. Public Transportation Alternative .................................................... 6
D. No-Build Alternative ..................................................................... 6
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................ 7
A. Potential Social Impacts .................................................................. 7
1. Public Facilities and Services Impacts ................................... 7
2. Relocation Impacts .............................................................. 7
Table of Contents
Page
B. Land Use Planning Activities ........................................................... 7
1. Status of Local Planning Activities ....................................... 7
2. Existing Land Use ................................................................ 7
3. Existing Zoning Districts ..........................

Future Land Use .................................................................. r
8
C. Cultural Resources ..................................................................... 9
r
I . Architectural Resources ...................................................... 9
2. Archaeological Resources .................................................... 9
D. Farmland ..................................................................... 9
E. Natural Resources ..................................................................... 10
1. Biotic Resources .................................................................. 10
a. Terrestrial Communities ........................................... 10
b. Aquatic Communities ............................................... 11
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................. 11
2. Physical Resources ............................................................... 12
a. Water Resources ...................................................... 12
b. Best Usage Classification .......................................... 12
C. Water Quality ........................................................... 13
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts .............................. 14
3. Special Topics ..................................................................... 14
a. Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics .... 14
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ....... 14
C. Anticipated Permit Requirements .............................. 15
d. Mitigation ................................................................ 15
e. Rare and Protected Species ...................................... 16
4. Soils and Topography .......................................................... 21
5. Floodplain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns .................. 21
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis ....................................................... 22
G. Air Quality Analysis ..................................................................... 25 1
H. Hazardous Material Involvement ..................................................... 27
1. Storage Tank Facilities ........................................................ 28
2. Other Potential Hazards ....................................................... 28
1. Geodetic Markers ..................................................................... 28
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT........ 29
Table of Contents
Page

v
Figures
Appendix
FIGURES
Figure I - Vicinity Map
Figure 2 - Aerial Mosaic
Figure 3 - Typical Section
Figure 4 - Lane Configuration Diagram
Figure 5 Traffic Projections
Figure 6 - Stream and Wetland locations
Tables
Table 1 - Impacts to Biotic Communities .............................12
Table 2 - Federally Protected Species ..................................16
Table 3 - Federal Candidate and State Protected Species..... 20

US 74 (Eastwood Road),
from SR 1409 (Racine Drive) to SR 1905 (Military Cutoff Road)
Wilmington, New Hanover County
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13)
State Project No. 8.1251101
TIP Project No. U-2733
SUMMARY
1. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen US 74 (Eastwood Road) to a multi-lane section from SR 1409 (Racine
Drive) to SR 1905 (Military Cutoff Road) in Wilmington. The 3.54 km (2.2 mile) project
will widen the existing two to three lane facility to a five lane curb and gutter section.
The project will be constructed within the existing 45.7 in (150 feet) of right of
way. Temporary drainage and construction easements may be required. The roadway
alignment is proposed to be shifted 2 meters (6.6 feet) south of the existing centerline in
various locations to allow a wider buffer for adjoining development.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 and
construction for FY 1998.
The total estimated cost of the proposed project includes $40,000 for right of way
acquisition and $5,000,000 for construction. The Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) cost includes $40,000 for right of way acquisition and $4,600,000 for construction.
2. Summary of Environmental Impacts
The proposed project will have a positive impact on the Wilmington area by
improving overall traffic carrying capacity and providing safer and more efficient turning
movements along the project. No relocation of businesses or residences are anticipated as
a result of this project. No recreational facilities or sites listed on the National Register of
Historic Places will be involved.
Approximately <0.1 ha (<O.1 ac) of wetland will be impacted.
Thirty-five residential and 2 commercial receptors are predicted to be impacted by
highway noise.
3. Summary of Environmental Commitments
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will implement all practical and
standard measures and procedures to minimize environmental impacts as well as impacts
to the human environment.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control Guidelines will be enforced during the
construction stage of the project.
The roadway alignment is proposed to be shifted 2 meters (6.6 feet) south of the `
existing centerline in various locations to allow a wider buffer for adjoining development.
With the recommended curb and. gutter cross section, wide 4.2 meters (14 feet)
outside lanes and bicycle safe drainage grate covers will be provided. The roadway will be
signed with "Share the Roads" signs.
4. Alternatives Considered
The following alternatives were considered in the development of the project:
Typical Section
Both five lane curb and gutter and five lane shoulder section alternatives
were considered for the project.
Improving the existing facility to a five-lane curb and gutter section was
chosen for several reasons. Curb and gutter allows for narrower construction
limits than the shoulder section. Given the urban nature of the project vicinity,
curb and gutter is an appropriate means of drainage. The sections of roadway to
which this roadway ties are both curb and gutter (Eastwood Road east of Military
Cutoff Road and Smith Creek Parkway). Based on past experience with drainage
in the project area, curb and gutter will likely provide better drainage.
Both alternatives (shoulder and curb and gutter) were presented to the
public at a Citizens Informational Workshop. All of those who commented
favored the curb and gutter alternative. A shoulder section would eliminate all of
the trees within the existing right of way.
Finally, the shoulder section would add $800,000 to the project cost.
Alignment
Two alternatives were considered for this project's alignment.
Symmetrical widening was the initial alignment studied for the project.
However, public comments at a Citizens Informational workshop and through
written correspondence greatly emphasized that adequate buffer be provided for
development on the north side of Eastwood Road. Therefore, the proposed
alignment was shifted 2 meters (6.6 feet) to the south of the existing centerline in
various locations in an effort to preserve more trees on the north side and increase
the buffer for development.
No-Build
The No-Build alternative was rejected as existing facilities will not
effectively serve traffic generated by the completion of Smith Creek Parkway
(U-92). Existing facilities will create a bottle neck for roadway improvements on
either end of the proposed project. This would create very poor traffic operations.
5. Coordination
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted
regarding this project:
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Geological Survey
U. S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Cape Fear Council of Governments
Mayor of Wilmington
New Hanover County Commissioners
A citizen's informational workshop was held on November 16, 1995 to obtain
public comments on this project.
6. Additional Information
Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by
contacting the following:
H. Franklin Vick, RE.-,; Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
[phone] -
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
[phone]
y
US 74 (Eastwood Road),
from SR 1409 (Racine Drive) to SR 1905 (Military Cutoff Road)
Wilmington, New Hanover County,
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13)
State Project No. 8.1251101
TIP Project No. U-2733
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways,
proposes to widen US 74 (Eastwood Road) to a multi-lane section from SR 1409 (Racine
Drive) to SR 1905 (Military Cutoff Road) in Wilmington. The 3.54 km (2.2 mile) project
will widen the existing two to three lane facility to a five lane curb and gutter section.
The project will be constructed within the existing 45.7 m (150 feet) of right of
way. Temporary drainage and construction easements may be required. The roadway
alignment is proposed to be shifted 2 meters (6.6 feet) south of the existing centerline in
various locations to allow a wider buffer for adjoining development.
The proposed project is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) with right of way acquisition scheduled for Fiscal Year (FY) 1997 and
construction for FY 1998.
The total estimated cost of the proposed project includes $40,000 for right of way
acquisition and $5,000,000 for construction. The Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) cost for right of way includes $40,000 for right of way acquisition and $4,600,000
for construction.
II. PURPOSE OF PROJECT
A. Need for Proposed Improvements
The purpose of widening the section of US 74 between Smith Creek Parkway and
Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) is to improve the capacity and safety for existing and
projected traffic volumes. A combination of the following three factors is placing a heavy
burden on this section of US 74, thereby necessitating the proposed improvements.
l) Development in Wilmington is growing at a significant rate and is causing
large traffic increases on all of the thoroughfares in the Wilmington area.
2) Since the completion of I-40, traffic using Eastwood Road as a route to
Wrightsville Beach has increased considerably (particularly as a result of
summer day trips), and this trend is expected to continue.
3) The impending completion of Smith Creek Parkway (TIP Project U-92) will
combine with Eastwood Road to provide an attractive east-west
thoroughfare between Wrightsville Beach and downtown Wilmington. This
new thoroughfare will divert some traffic from Oleander Drive to
Wrightsville Avenue onto Eastwood Road.
In addition, this section of US 74 is currently a 2-lane "gap" between multi-lane
sections to the east and west.
B. Traffic Volumes and CapacitX
Projected traffic volumes anticipated for US 74 (Eastwood Road) are as follows:
Projected traffic volumes along the subject section of US 74 for the year 1998 will
range from 19,115 vehicles per day (vpd) at Racine Drive to 29,400 vpd at Cardinal
Drive. Projected traffic for the year 2018 will range from 29,192 to 45,400 at the above
locations. Truck traffic will comprise approximately six percent of those volumes (5%
duals, I% TTST's). Project traffic volumes, major turning movements, truck data and
design hour data are shown on Figure 5.
A capacity analysis was performed to predict the level of service (LOS) for the
project. This analysis indicated the proposed five-lane curb and gutter facility will operate
at an overall level of service C with 1998 traffic. In the design year (2018), the facility will
operate at a level of service D.
The proposed improvements will allow the Military Cutoff Road intersection to
operate at a LOS D in 1998, but the intersection will deteriorate to a LOS F by 2018.
Major revisions to this intersection will be needed to allow an acceptable LOS by design
year. Either additional through lanes or an interchange may be necessary in the future.
Both of these are beyond the project scope. An interchange is included in the Wilmington
Thoroughfare Plan.
No-Build Alternative
With the no-build alternative, the subject section of US 74 will deteriorate to a
level of service F by 1998. This section is already congested and will continue to worsen
as traffic increases.
C. Thoroughfare Plan
US 74 (Eastwood Road) is classified as a Major thoroughfare in the 1986 mutually
adopted Wilmington Thoroughfare Plan. This project is a portion of the major east-west
corridor in Wilmington. The proposed improvements are consistent with the Wilmington
Thoroughfare Plan.
D. Accident Analysis
Accident rates for US 74 were obtained from studies conducted from June 1,
1991 to May 31, 1994. The accident rate for this studied two to three lane section is
260.18 accidents per one hundred million vehicle kilometers. In comparison to the
statewide rate of 107.77 accidents per one hundred million vehicle kilometers for urban
US two lane undivided routes and 79.99 accidents per one hundred million vehicle
kilometer for urban US three lane undivided routes, US 74 is above the statewide rates.
Most of the accidents occurring along US 74 are rearend type accidents. Improvements
to US 74 will reduce the potential for this type accident. The additional through-lane in
each direction will allow drivers to slow down for a right-turn without slowing all traffic
moving in their direction.
III. EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
A. Existing Cross-Section
The studied section of US 74 is currently a two to three lane facility with 6.6 to
10 m (22 to 33 feet) of pavement. The existing roadway has 3 m (10 feet) grass shoulders
and center turn lanes on some portions of the studied section.
B. Existing Right of Way
Existing right of way along US 74 is 45.7 meters (150 feet), symmetrical about the
existing centerline.
C. Access Control
No control of access exists along the studied section.
D. Speed Limit
The current posted speed limit along the studied section of US 74 is 90 km/h
(55 mph).
E. Functional Classification
US 74 (Eastwood Road) is classified as an Other Urban Principal Arterial in the
statewide functional classification system.
4
F. Utilities
Sewer, water, power and telephone utilities are all located within the right of way.
G. Structures
Existing drainage structures include two 1500 mm (60 in) and one 1200 mm (48
in) corrugated metal pipes carrying Bradley Creek under US 74.
--- - -- -- - - - - I-H.- - - -School Buses
r
Approximately 25 school buses use US 74 (Eastwood Road) on a daily basis with
two trips per day.
IV. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Project Length
The project length is approximately 3.54 km (2.2 miles), and extends from Racine
Drive to Military Cutoff Road.
B. Proposed Cross-Section
The proposed cross section will consist of two through lanes in each direction with
a continuous center turn lane. Curb and gutter will be used along this portion of US 74.
Wide 4.2 m (14 feet) outside lanes will be used to accommodate bicycle traffic. Total
pavement width will be 19.2 m (64 feet) (see Figure 3). Three meter (10 foot) berms will
be provided behind the curbs.
C. Proposed Alignment
As a result of citizens concerns regarding increased noise impacts and impacts to
adjacent trees, asymmetrical widening is proposed., The roadway will be shifted
approximately 2 meters (6.6 feet) to the south of the existing centerline in various
locations. The alignment shift will not cause the improvements to extend beyond existing
right of way.
D. Structures
The 1200 mm (48 inch ) and two 1500 mm (60 in) corrugated metal pipes carrying
Bradley Creek will be removed and replaced with a double barrel 2.4 m by 2.1 m (8 ft by 7
ft) box culvert with the same grade elevation as the existing roadway.
E. Right of Way
The existing 45.7 m (150 feet) of right of way will be used to accommodate
proposed improvements. No new right of way will be required. Temporary construction
and drainage easements may be required.
F. Design Speed
An 80 km/h (50 mph) design speed is recommended for the project. The posted
speed limit is expected to be 70 km/h (45 mph).
G. Intersection Revisions and Type of Control
Racine Drive, SR 1482 (Cardinal Drive), Rogersville Road and Military Cutoff
Road intersections will be signalized. Improvements made to Racine Drive are covered in
TIP Project U-92 Final Environmental Impact Statement. All other intersections along the
project are proposed to be stop sign controlled. Proposed intersection configurations are
shown on Figure 4.
H. Access Control
No control of access is proposed for the project.
1. Bicycles
This segment of US 74 is the primary roadway from the Wilmington area to
Wrightsville Beach and connects at US 76 to the " River to Sea" Bike Route. The
Wilmington Urban Area has ranked this segment's improvements as a high priority on
bicycle and pedestrian candidate project lists, and the US 74 project is included on the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Incidental Bicycle Project list.
With the recommended curb and gutter cross section, wide 4.2 meter (14 feet)
outside lanes and bicycle safe drainage grate covers (if needed) will be provided. The
roadway will be signed with "Share the Roads" signs.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are not currently proposed for the project. However, the 3 meter
(9.8-foot) berms will provide an area for pedestrians. Sidewalks may be added to the
berm area in the future.
K. Cost Estimates
The proposed improvements are estimated to cost a total of $5,040,000. This cost
includes $5,000,000 for construction and $40,000 for right of way acquisition.
6
V. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
A. Alignment Alternatives
Symmetrical widening was the initial alignment studied for the project.
Public comments at the citizens informational workshop and through written
correspondence greatly emphasized that as much buffer as possible be provided for
development on the north side of Eastwood Road. -Therefore,-the proposed-alignment- - - - - -
- - -was shifted 2 meters (6.6 feet) to the south in an effort to preserve more trees on the north
side and increase the buffer for development.
B. Typical Section Alternatives
Two typical section alternatives were studied as a part of the proposed project:
(1) A five lane curb and gutter section and (2) a five lane shoulder section for the entire
length of the project.
The recommended five lane curb and gutter section consists of two 3.6 m (12 foot)
inside through lanes and two 4.2 m (14 foot) outside lanes and one 3.6 m (12-foot)
continuous center turn lane. This alternative was selected for several reasons. Curb and
gutter allows for narrower construction limits than the shoulder section. Given the urban
nature of the project vicinity, curb and gutter is an appropriate means of drainage: The
sections of roadway to which this roadway ties are both curb and gutter (Eastwood Road
east of Military Cutoff Road and Smith Creek Parkway). Based on past experience with
drainage in the project area, curb and gutter will likely provide better drainage. 'A
shoulder section would likely often have standing water in the ditches.
Both alternatives (shoulder and curb and gutter) were presented to the public at a
Citizens Informational Workshop. All of those who commented favored the curb and
gutter alternative. A shoulder section would eliminate all of the trees within the existing
right of way.
Finally, the shoulder section would add $800,000 to the project cost.
C. Public Transportation Alternative
Public Transportation is not considered a feasible alternative to increase the traffic
carrying capacity. The thoroughfare Plan objective of providing a continuous multi-lane
east-west corridor would not be accomplished.
D. No-Build Alternative
The no-build alternative is the least expensive alternative from a construction
standpoint. The no-build alternative avoids impacts to the natural environment of the
proposed project. However, if the no-build alternative were chosen, transportation
benefits of the proposed project will not be fulfilled. A capacity analysis indicated the
facility will reach Level of Service F by 1998 if no improvements are made. Therefore, the
no-build alternative was rejected.
VI. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
A. Potential Social Impacts
Public Facilities and Services Impacts
The proposed improvements will provide a safer highway facility for all
commercial and residential access. In addition, the improvements will make a safer
facility. The proposed action will not disrupt neighborhood cohesion. It will not
interfere with the accessibility of facilities and services.
2. Relocation Impacts
No relocatees will result from this project.
B. Land Use Planning Activities
Status of Local Planning Activities
The proposed improvement is located within the municipal limits of the
City of Wilmington. The Wilmington - New Hanover Land Use Plan 1986 Update
is a comprehensive planning tool prepared and adopted jointly by the Wilmington
City Council and the New Hanover Board of County Commissioners in 1986 and
1987. The plan was also approved by the Coastal Resources Commission. The
City's zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations are based on the policies and
guidelines presented in the 1986 plan.
2. Existing Land Use
The project corridor is a main thoroughfare from I-40 to Wrightsville
Beach and experiences high volumes of traffic flow. The land uses in the project
area are a mix of residential, commercial, office\institutional and recreational. The
area at the beginning of the project corridor from the SR 1905 (Racine Drive)
intersection to SR 1482 (Cardinal Drive) is a strip of commercial uses on both
sides of the road. There is a large self-storage facility at the end of Vision Drive
on the north side of the corridor, several convenience stores and service stations,
and other miscellaneous shops. From SR 1482 to the project terminus at SR 1409
(Military Cutoff Road) the project area changes from primarily commercial to
primarily residential and recreational. The area between SR 1492 and John Paul
8
Drive (a private road) on the north side of the corridor is single-family. The
Windemere Presbyterian Church is located between SR 1807 and SR 1820, and
the Saint Mark Catholic Church is located at John Paul Drive, both on the north
side of the road.
The south side of the corridor between SR 1482 and John Paul Drive is the
location of the Duck Haven Golf Club and driving range facilities. The College
Acres Baptist Church is located on the southeast corner of SR 1482.
From John Paul Drive to the project terminus the project area is partially
wooded and undeveloped on both sides of the corridor. Eastwood Village, a
single family subdivision, is located on "the north side of the corridor just east of
John Paul Drive. The Coastal Garden Center is located across from Eastwood
Village. The remainder of the project area is scattered with the residential uses
primarily on the south side of the corridor. Eastwood homes, a small single family
sub-division is located on the northeast corner of the intersection of SR 1409, the
project terminus. There is a McDonalds and a First Union Mortgage on the
southwest corner of SR 1409. The First Union Bank and CP&L Building are on
opposite corners across SR 1409.
3. Existing Zoning Districts
The project area is located in the Urban Transitional zone according to the
New Hanover Land Classification Map. Urban Transitional allows for intensive
urban development on lands that have or will be provided necessary services such
as water and sewer systems. Residential developments can exceed 2.5 units per
acre provided sewer service is available and there is access to a major road.
The beginning of the project area is zoned strip commercial to the SR 1482
intersection. From SR 1482 to the project terminus, the project area is zoned
single-family residential, and small commercial and public/commercial
recreational. There are scattered office/institutional zones along the entire project
corridor. There is a small area approximately one-quarter mile west of the project
terminus at SR 1409 on the south side of the corridor that is designated as a
Conservation area on the Land Classification Map. This is a wetland area
surrounding Bradley Creek, which drains into Masonboro Sound.
4. Future Land Use
The Urban Transitional classification for the project area allows for
residential commercial growth. The Wilmington area has seen steady and above-
average population growth over the past five years. Due to this population
increase, the project corridor being used as a major transit route from I-40 to
Wrightsville Beach and the favorable status of the area for residential and
commercial growth, local planning officials are expecting high growth in this area
to continue. The Wilmington - New Hanover Land Use Plan Update discusses the
issue of appearance, relative to strip commercial development and protection of
natural resources, including street trees.
C. Cultural Resources
Architectural Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106,
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.
The area of potential effect (APE) of the subject project was reviewed in
the field by a NCDOT staff architectural historian. No properties over fifty years
of age are located in the APE. The area is characterized by modern commercial
and residential development (See Appendix, page A-1).
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section
106 is required.
2. Archaeological Resources
There are no known archaeological resources in the vicinity of the
proposed project. The project is not expected to affect any archaeological
resources eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic
Preservation Office concurred with this finding and recommend that no
archaeological investigation be conducted for this project.
D. 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. Projects which effect land that has been previously
converted to non agricultural land uses are exempt from the requirements of the Act. The
entire project area is being developed with commercial, residential, or institutional land
uses. Therefore, no further consideration of farmland impacts is required.
to
E. Natural Resources
Biotic Resources
a. Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project
study area: Pine Flatwood/Savannah and Maintained Community. Many
faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate the entire range of the
two terrestrial communities discussed, as well as other communities outside
-- ----- - -- - - of the-project study area. - Faunal-species-observed during the site visit are
noted with an asterisk (*).
Pine Flatwood/Savannah
The Pine Flatwood/Savannah Community is found throughout the
project area. Before urbanization, this was the dominant community. The
vegetation has a very characteristic appearance, consisting of an open layer
of scattered, large longleaf pines and a lower layer of scrub oaks.
Longleaf pines and scattered loblolly pines now dominate the canopy
in most areas. The understory, which at one time was probably very sparse,
is now composed primarily of hardwoods such as sweetgum, live oak, water
oak, turkey oak, blackjack oak and tulip poplar. Other species found
throughout the understory are red maple and black cherry. Shrub, vine and
herbaceous layers contain blueberry, dwarf huckleberry, sweet pepperbush,
Japanese honeysuckle and wire grass.
The Pine Flatwood/Savannah Community offers habitat for a variety
of fauna. Reptilian species that may inhabit such areas include the eastern
box turtle, five-lined skink and ground skink. These species forage on small
plants and insects such as crickets, grasshoppers, beetles and harvestmen.
Also, white-tailed deer* and raccoon* frequent this area. The black racer
and copperhead serve predatory roles by feeding on numerous small reptiles,
birds, mammals and amphibians.
The presence of vegetative stratification provides habitat for species
such as the fox squirrel, gray squirrel*, pine warbler, tufted titmouse, red-
bellied woodpecker, northern flicker and downy woodpecker.
Maintained Community
The maintained community incorporates all areas along roadsides and
powerline right-of-ways which are dominated by early-successional
vegetation. These areas are regularly controlled by mowing. In addition,
seedlings of canopy trees exist sporadically in small areas. Dominant species
found within the proposed project area are herbaceous, and include fescue,
clover, henbit, chickweed, wild onion and dandelion.
This landscape setting provides habitat for the existence of many
faunal species adaptable to urban settings. Species such as the northern
cardinal*, mourning dove, northern mockingbird and American robin* are
found throughout this community. The hispid cotton rat, Norway rat,
11
eastern cottontail and rat snake may also find foraging opportunities and
shelter in this community. A major predator of this community is the red-
tailed hawk, which forages mainly on rodents.
Another portion of the maintained community is the roadside
drainage canal. These canals parallel the roadway in most areas of the
proposed project. They exhibit floral species adapted to wetter conditions.
Such species include black willow, cattail, red bay, sedgegrass, soft rush, tag
alder and seedbox. These species help to stabilize bank erosion while
providing shelter for many types of amphibians.
The roadside drainage canal provides ideal breeding and foraging
opportunities for amphibians. The green treefrog, spring peeper, barking
treefrog, southern chorus frog* and green frog are commonly found resting
on plant stems and detritus directly adjacent to water.
b. Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic community types, the coastal plain tidal creek and
roadside drainage canal, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
and chemical characteristics of the water body dictate faunal composition of
the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities and vice versa.
The coastal plain tidal creek exhibits habitat for anadromous fish,
which forage in salt waters and make annual spring migrations up rivers,
streams and creeks to spawn. Species that may occur at or near the proposed
project are blueback herring, American shad, white perch and yellow perch.
These fish feed primarily on copepods, insects, pelagic shrimps, worms and
some fishes. They also provide forage opportunities for piscivorous fish
such as striped bass and southern flounder.
The roadside drainage canal offers habitat for species adapted to
seasonal conditions. During dry periods, water may recede from these
canals thus offering no habitat for most fish species. Some fish like the
eastern mudminnow are very hardy and are able to utilize atmospheric
oxygen.. Other fish including killifishes may be found in areas with
permanent water.
C. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the
biotic resources described. Any construction- related activities to or near
these resources will impact biological functions. This section quantifies and
qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here
as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
12
biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the proposed right of way of 45.7 in (150.0 ft). Prc jeqJ
will not require the entire study area or even right of way; therefore, actual
impacts will be considerably less.
Table 1
Impacts To Biotic Communities
Community Impact
Pine Flatwood/Savannah 1.9 4.8
Maintained Community 8.4 20.8
Total- --- - - - ---1 -10.4 25.6
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat
reduction. Since the project area is already fragmented, relatively little
impact will occur to species that live along the edges and open areas.
However, ground dwellers and slow moving organisms will decrease in
numbers. Mobile species will be permanently displaced. Increased predation
may occur as a result of habitat reduction.
Impacts to aquatic communities will occur in the form of increased
sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss of habitat. Sedimentation
covers benthic organisms, inhibiting feeding and respiration. Removal of
stream-side vegetation may lead to increased water temperatures; which can
be detrimental to freshwater aquatic species.
Anadromous fish are an important and sensitive resource in North
Carolina. Some stream crossing structures, particularly culverts, have been
demonstrated to impede normal up-stream migrations of various fish species
and thus keeping them from reaching spawning habitat.
2. Physical Resources
a. Water Resources
Project U-2733 is located within the Cape Fear River Basin. One
perennial stream, a tributary of Bradley Creek, intersects the proposed
project (Figure 6). Bradley Creek originates from the confluence of three
headwaters just south of the study area and flows southeasterly
approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi.) to converge with the Intracoastal Waterway.
The tributary of Bradley Creek exhibits a substrate primarily
composed of sand. Channel width and depth average 1.5 m (5.0 ft) and 15.2
cm (6.0 in), respectively. Water clarity is excellent and flow rates were
relatively slow during the site visit. Benthic algae is present throughout the
stream except in areas of scour.
b. Best Usage Classification
Most streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). Bradley Creek and its
corresponding tributaries are designated as Class "SC HQW #". Class "SC"
waters denote Tidal Salt Waters with aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife and secondary recreation. HQW denotes High Quality
13
Waters, which are rated as excellent based on biological and
physical/chemical characteristics through division monitoring or special
studies. Stringent sedimentation control measures apply to HQW's (15A
NCAC 2B.0101(e)(5)). The disclaimer # depicts that discharges of sewage
are prohibited to segments classified SB or SC according to the provisions of
15 NCAC 2B .0203 and 2H .0404(a) in order to protect adjacent shellfishing
areas.
Bradley Creek and its corresponding tributaries are also designated
as Primary Nursery Areas. Primary Nursery Areas are defined as areas in
which young marine fish or crustaceans spend a major portion of their initial
growing season due to favorable food, cover, bottom type, salinity,
temperature or other factors (G. S. 113-132; 113-134).
Neither WS-1 or WS-II Water Supplies nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi.) of the proposed project.
However, Masonboro Sound, classified ORW, is located approximately 3.2
km (2.0 mi.) downstream of the project study area.
C. Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water quality. The
program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. No BMAN
information is available for Bradley Creek nor its tributaries.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. No
permitted discharges occur into Bradley Creek nor its corresponding
tributaries.
During an early scoping meeting for this project, the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management recommended construction of wet
detention basin(s) if a curb and gutter section was selected for this project.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation has developed
draft guidelines to determine when hazardous spill catch basins are
applicable on highway projects. Because the following criteria are not met,
construction of a wet detention basin is not considered appropriate at this
location:
(1) The stream is not identified as an Outstanding Resource Water or a
WS-1 watersupply.
(2) The stream is not within 1/2 mile of the critical area of a WS II,
WS III, or WS IV water supply source.
14
Because of DEM's recommendation, installation of a wet detention
basin was further evaluated to determine if site conditions warranted an
exception to the above criteria. The project is located in an area of
residential development. Due to the project's urbanized setting, a wet
detention basin would cause problems involved with continuing maintenance,
unsuitable appearance, mosquito breeding, and liability. Therefore, no wet
detention basin is proposed as part of this project.
d. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Increased channelization_and-sedimentation -are the major-anticipated-
impacts to water quality of the proposed project. Scouring of the stream
bed, soil compaction and loss of shading due to vegetation removal are also
potential impacts. Increased sedimentation from lateral flows, along with
erosion is expected.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in
the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters, and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be enforced
during the construction stage of the project.
3. Special Topics
a. Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of
Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are
those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life
in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these
areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U. S.C. 1344).
b. Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
One particular wetland system may be impacted by proposed project
construction (Figure 6). The wetland is described below and rated in
accordance with methodologies recommended by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM).
This wetland is associated with a small canal flowing adjacent to
US 74. The current project limits skirt the edge of the wetland. However, a
minor change in right-of-way width may infringe upon this ecosystem.
Bottomland hardwoods, including sweetgum, tulip-poplar and red maple are
dominant species in this area. Other flora includes soft rush, seedbox and
cinnamon fern. Soil colors in this community range from 10 YR 2/1 (black)
to 10 YR 5/2 (grayish brown). Hydrologic indicators include shallow roots,
buttressed trunks, multiple stems and oxidized rhizospheres. The Cowardin
Classification of this community is PFO1B (palustrine, forested, broad-
leaved deciduous, saturated). The DEM rating of the wetland is 77.0 out of
a possible 100.0 points. Approximate amount of impact is <0.1 ha (<O.1 ac).
15
C. Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In
accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 14 (road crossings) is
applicable to the project.
Nationwide Permit #14 authorizes fill for roads crossing waters of
the U.S. including wetlands and other aquatic sites. Standard conditions
include: (1) the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the
actual crossing; (2) the fill placed in waters of the U. S. is limited to a filled
area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.3 ac); and (3) no more than a total of 61.0
linear meters (200.0 ft) of the fill for the roadway can occur in special
aquatic sites, including wetlands.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC # 2745) is
also required for any activity which may result in a discharge and for which a
certification is required. Certifications are administered through the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).
Encroachment into surface waters and possible jurisdictional
wetlands as a result of project construction is inevitable. The subject project
is located within a county that is under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area
Management Act (LAMA), which is administered by the Division of Coastal
Management (DCM). DCM is the lead permitting agency for projects
located within its jurisdiction.
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. CAMA necessitates a permit if
the project meets all of the following conditions:
- it is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA;
- it is in or affects an AEC designated by CRC;
- it is considered "development" under the terms of the Act, and;
- it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the Act or by CRC.
This project will not require a CAMA major development permit
because impacts to AEC's are unlikely.
d. Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net
loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore
and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing
impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating
for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
16
e. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist
with man. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect
species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws. ----------- -_--___-----------
---___---_------------------- 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. As of March 28, 1995, the FWS lists the
following federally-protected species for New Hanover County (Table 2). A
brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species - New Hanover County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Charadrius melodus piping lover T
Falco ere rinus peregrine falcon E
Haliaeetus leucoce halus bald eagle E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded
wood pecker E
Caretta caretta loggerhead sea turtle T
Chelonia m das green sea turtle T
Dermochel s coriacea leatherback sea turtle E
Lepidochelys kempi Kemp's Ridley sea
turtle E
Aci enser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon E
Amaranthus umilus 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 likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
Charadrius melodus (piping plover) T
The piping plover breeds along the east coast. In North Carolina,
this bird nests 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.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
17
No suitable habitat is found for this species at 'or near the project.
The proposed project is located inland and does not exhibit any beachgrass
nor sand lined with shells and pebbles (i.e. beaches). Therefore, no impacts
will occur to the piping plover as a result of project construction.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) E
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.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near the project.
The proposed project does not exhibit high cliffs, skyscrapers nor deciduous
forests. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the peregrine falcon as a result
of project construction.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) E
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 an area, and
having an open view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause
an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding season for the
bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major food source for
bald eagles.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near the project.
After extensive field reconnaissance, no large trees with clear flight paths to
open water exist along the proposed project. Furthermore, with increased
human disturbances occurring throughout the project area, no suitable
nesting habitat exists for the bald eagle. Therefore, no impacts will occur to
the bald eagle as a result of project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine, 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
18
average 9.1- 15.7 in (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs
in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
After extensive field reconnaissance, it was determined that both
nesting and foraging habitat exists for the RCW. However, no nesting trees
occur within 0.8 km (0.5 mi.) of the proposed project. Therefore, no
impacts will occur to the red-cockaded woodpecker as a result of project
construction.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) T
The loggerhead nests on suitable beaches from Ocracoke inlet, North
Carolina through Florida and on a small scale off of the Gulf States. It lives
worldwide in temperate to subtropical waters. Loggerheads nest nocturnally
between May and September on isolated beaches that are characterized by
fine grained sediments.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near the project.
The proposed project is located inland and does not exhibit any isolated
beaches. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the loggerhead turtle as a
result of project construction.
Chelonia mydas (green sea turtle) T
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and
seas. Nesting in North America is limited to small communities on the east
coast of Florida requiring beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping
platform for nesting (they do not nest in NC). 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.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near the project.
The proposed project is located inland and does not exhibit any beaches with
minimal disturbances. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the green sea
turtle as a result of project construction.
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) E
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the
Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. 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
19
sand are necessary for the leatherback to nest. Major nesting areas occur in
tropical regions and the only nesting population in the United States is found
in Martin County, Florida.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near the project.
The proposed project is located inland and does not exhibit any isolated
beaches. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the leatherback turtle as a
result of project construction.
Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley sea turtle) E
Kemp's ridley sea turtles live in shallow coastal and estuarine waters,
in association with red mangrove trees. A majority of this sea turtle's nesting
occurs in a 24 km (14.9 mile) stretch of beach between Barra del Tordo and
Ostioal in the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. This turtle is an infrequent
visitor to the North Carolina coast and usually does not nest here. Kemp's
sea turtle can lay eggs 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.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near the project.
The proposed project is located inland and does not exhibit any beach
sections that are backed up by extensive swamp or large bodies of open
water. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the Kemp's sea turtle as a result
of project construction.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short-nosed sturgeon) E
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water rivers that are
unobstructed by dams or pollutants to reproduce successfully. 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.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Extensive field reconnaissance reveals that no suitable habitat exists
for the short-nosed sturgeon at or near the proposed project. The tributary
of Bradley Creek is too shallow to support traveling and spawning activities
needed for this species. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the short-nosed
sturgeon as a result of project construction.
Amaranthus pumilus (sea-beach amaranth) T
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal Plain beaches.
Habitat for seabeach amaranth is found on barrier island beaches functioning
in a relatively dynamic and natural manner. Seabeach amaranth grows well
in overwash flats at the accreting ends of islands and the lower foredunes
20
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.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near the project.
The proposed project is located inland and does not exhibit any barrier island
beaches. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the seabeach amaranth as a
result of project construction.
Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are fourteen federal candidate (C2) species listed for New
Hanover County. Federal Candidate species are not afforded federal
protection 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. C2 species are defined as organisms which
are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data currently exists to
warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or
Proposed Threatened. 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 1993 are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists federal candidate species, the species' state status (if
afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each
species in the study area. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Candidate and State Protected Snpripc -Npw AannVnM irnszn+-,
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC
STATUS SUITABLE
HABITAT
Rana areolata ca ito_ Carolina crawfish fro SC Y
Planorbella magnifica Magnificent rams-
hornsnail* E N
Ta hius eucosmius Greenfield rams-horn* EX N
Triodo sis soelneri Cape Fear three tooth T Y
Problema bulenta Rare skipper SR N
Amorpha georgiana
confusa Savanna leadplant* T Y
As lenium heteroresiliens Carolinas leenwort* E N
Astra alus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch* Y
Dionaea musci ula Venus flytrap SC Y
Kalmia cuneata White-wick E-SC N
Litsea aestivalis Ponds ice N
St lisma . var. ickerin ii Pickerin 's morning-glory E Y
Tofieldia labra Smooth bog-asphodel C Y
Trichostema s pp. Dune blue curls N
No specimen found in New Hanover County in twenty years.
"EX" Believed to be extinct.
21
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit,
nor were any of these species observed. A review of the database of the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed
two records of golden crest, a North Carolina Endangered plant, occurring
near the project area. No records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species occur in or near the project study area.
4. Soils and Topography
Two dominant soil associations are found within the project study area;
Murville-Seagate-Leon Association and Kureb-Baymeade-Rimini Association. The
Murville-Seagate-Leon Association exhibits very poorly drained to somewhat
poorly drained soils that have a fine sand and sand surface layer and a fine sand,
sand, sandy loam and clay loam subsoil. The Kureb-Baymeade-Rimini Association
exhibits excessively drained and well drained soils that have a sand and fine sand
surface layer and a sand, fine sandy loam and loamy fine sand subsoil or underlying
layer. Both associations are found primarily on uplands.
New Hanover County lies in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. The
topography of New Hanover County is level to gently sloping and short breaks
separate the uplands from the floodplains and marshes.
5. Floodnlain Involvement and Hydraulic Concerns
The major stream crossing within the project limits is Bradley Creek
Tributary. A tributary joining Bradley Creek Tributary from the west runs along the
north side of US 74 for approximately 600 m (2000 ft) offset approximately 30 m
(100 ft) north of the existing roadway centerline.
The crossing of Bradley Creek Tributary is approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mi.)
west of the intersection of US 74 and SR 1905 (Racine Drive). The existing
drainage structure at this stream crossing consists of two 1500 mm (60 in) and one
1200 mm (48 in) corrugated metal pipes carrying Bradley Creek under the existing
two lane section of US 74. These existing pipes were determined hydraulically
inadequate. It is recommended that they be removed and replaced with a double
barrel 2.4 m by 2.1 m (8 ft by 7 ft) reinforced box culvert with the same grade
elevation as that of the existing roadway. Recommendations are preliminary and
could be subject to change, based on information obtained from a more detailed
analysis in the final design phase of the project.
New Hanover County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance
Regular Program. The Bradley Creek Tributary is in a designated flood hazard
study. Bradley Creek Tributary is included in the detailed flood study. The
proposed culvert will have a conveyance greater than that of the existing pipes;
therefore, the backwater from the proposed culvert will not have a significant
adverse impact on the flood plain and associated flood hazard.
The Bradley Creek Tributary is above headwaters. New Hanover County is
within the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA); no CAMA
permit however is required. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the
extent practicable. Groundwater resources will be assessed in final hydraulics
design to ensure that measures are taken, if needed, to prevent groundwater
contamination.
22
F. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis
An analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed widening of
US 74 from SR 1905 to SR 1409 in New Hanover County on noise levels in the
immediate project area. This investigation included an inventory of existing noise sensitive
land uses and a field survey of ambient (existing) noise levels in the study area. It also
included a comparison of the predicted noise levels and the ambient noise levels to
determine if traffic noise impacts can be expected to result from the proposed project.
Traffic noise impacts are determined from the current procedures for the abatement of
highway traffic noise and construction-noise,- appearing asPart 7-72 of Title 23--ofthe Code
of Federal Regulations. If traffic noise impacts are predicted, examination and evaluation
of alternative noise abatement measures for reducing or eliminating the noise impacts must
be considered.
Characteristics of Noise
The magnitude of.noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range
of sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some common reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are often defined in terms of frequency
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D).
The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively in vehicle noise
measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency range to which the
human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels measured using a
weighted-A decibel scale are often expressed as dBA. Throughout this report, all noise
levels will be expressed in dBA's. Several examples of noise pressure levels in dBA are
listed in Table N 1 (Appendix A-21).
Review of Table NI indicates that most individuals in urbanized areas are exposed
to fairly high noise levels from many sources as they go about their daily activities. The
degree of disturbance or annoyance of unwanted sound depends essentially on three
things:
l ) The amount and nature of the intruding noise.
2) The relationship between the background noise and the intruding noise.
3) The type of activity occurring when the noise is heard.
Noise Abatement Criteria
In order to determine whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with
various land uses, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed noise
abatement criteria (NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of
highways. These abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in the aforementioned
Federal reference (Title 23 CFR Part 772). A summary of the noise abatement criteria for
various land uses is presented in Table N2 (page A-22). The Leq, or equivalent sound
23
level, is the level of constant sound which in a given situation and time period has the same
energy as does time varying sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic
noise are represented in terms of a steady noise level with the same energy content.
Ambient Noise Levels
Ambient noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine
the existing background noise levels. The purpose of this noise level information was to
quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact
of noise level increases. The existing Leq noise levels along US 74 as measured at 15
meters from the roadway ranged from 68.0 to 70.0 dBA. Measured exterior Leq noise
levels are presented in Table N3 (Appendix page A-23).
Procedure for Predicting Future Noise Levels
The procedure used to predict future noise levels in this study was the Noise
Barrier Cost Reduction Procedure, STAMINA 2.0 and OPTIMA (revised March, 1983).
The BCR (Barrier Cost Reduction) procedure is based upon the FHWA Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108).
Only preliminary alignment was available for use in this noise analysis. The project
proposes to widen the existing two and three lanes of US 74 to a five lane section from
SR 1905 to SR 1409. Existing natural or man-made barriers were included in setting up
the model. The roadway sections and proposed intersections were assumed to be flat and
at-grade. Thus, this analysis represents the "worst-case" topographical conditions. The
noise predictions made in this report are highway-related noise predictions for the traffic
conditions during the year being analyzed.
Peak hour design and level-of-service (LOS) C volumes were compared, and the
volumes resulting in the noisiest conditions were used with the proposed posted speed
limits. Hence, during all other time periods, the noise levels will be no greater than those
indicated in this report.
The STAMINA 2.0 computer model was utilized in order to determine the number
of land uses (by type) which would be impacted during the peak hour of the design year
2018 would be exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise
abatement criteria and those land uses predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase.
The Leq traffic noise exposures associated with this project are listed in Table N4
(pages A-24 to A-29). Information included in these tables consist of listings of all
receptors in close proximity to the project, their ambient and predicted noise levels, and
the estimated noise level increase for each.
24
Table N6 (Appendix page A-31)indicates the exterior traffic noise level increases
for the identified receptors in each roadway section. Predicted noise level increases for
this project range from +6 to +8 dBA. When real-life noises are heard, it is possible to
barely detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5 dBA change is more readily noticeable.
A 10 dBA change is judged by most people as a doubling or a halving of the loudness of
the sound.
Traffic Noise Impact Analysis
Traffic-noise-impacts occur_when_the-predicted -traffic-noise levels-either: [a]_ -
approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within
1 dBA of the Table N2 value), or [b] substantially exceed the existing noise levels. The
NCDOT definition of substantial increase is shown in the lower portion of Table N2.
Consideration for noise abatement measures must be given to receptors in the project area.
As shown in Table N5, 37 receptors are predicted to experience noise impacts with the
recommended alignment. If symmetrical widening were used for the entire project length,
36 receptors would experience noise impacts. (See Appendix page A-30).
Noise Barriers
Physical measures to abate anticipated traffic noise levels can often be applied with
a measurable degree of success by the application of solid mass, attenuable measures to
effectively diffract, absorb, and reflect highway traffic noise emissions. Solid mass,
attenuable measures may include earth berms or artificial abatement walls.
The project will have no limited control of access, meaning most commercial
establishments and residences will have direct access connections to the proposed
roadway, and all intersections will adjoin the project at grade.
For a noise barrier to provide sufficient noise reduction it must be high enough and
long enough to shield the receptor from significant sections of the highway. Access
openings in the barrier severely reduce the noise reduction provided by the barrier. It then
becomes economically unreasonable to construct a barrier for a small noise reduction.
Safety at access openings (driveways, crossing streets, etc.) due to restricted sight
distance is also a concern. Furthermore, to provide a sufficient reduction, a barrier's
length would normally be 8 times the distance from the barrier to the receptor. For
example, a receptor located 15 meters (50 feet) from the barrier would normally require a
barrier 120 meters (394 feet) long. An access opening of 12 meters (39 feet) (10 percent
of the area) would limit its noise reduction to approximately 4 dBA.
In addition, businesses, churches, and other related establishments located along a
particular highway normally require accessibility and high visibility. Solid mass, attenuable
measures for traffic noise abatement would tend to disallow these two qualities, and thus,
would not be acceptable abatement measures in this case.
25
No-Build Alternative
The traffic noise impacts for the "no-build" alternative were also considered. If the
proposed widening did not occur, 23 residential receptors would experience traffic noise
impact by approaching or exceeding the FHWA NAC. Also, the receptors could
anticipate experiencing an increase in exterior noise levels in the range of +0 to +4 dBA.
As previously noted, it is barely possible to detect noise level changes of 2-3 dBA. A 5
dBA change in noise levels is more readily noticed.
Construction Noise
The major construction elements of this project are expected to be earth removal,
hauling, grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as temporary
speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project,
can be expected particularly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment
during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature of
construction noise and the limitation of construction to daytime hours, these impacts are
not expected to be substantial. The transmission loss characteristics of nearby natural
elements and man-made structures are believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of
intrusive construction noise.
Summary
Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not recommended,
and no noise abatement measures are proposed. This evaluation completes the highway
traffic noise requirements of Title 23 CFR Part 772, and unless a major project change
develops, no additional noise reports will be submitted for this project.
G. Air Quality Analysis
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industrial and internal
combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Other origins of common outdoor air
pollution are solid waste disposal and any form of fire. The impact resulting from highway
construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problems to improving the
ambient air conditions. The traffic is the center of concern when determining the impact of
a new highway facility or the improvement of an old highway facility. Motor vehicles emit
carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter, sulfur
dioxide (SOD, and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). Automobiles are
considered to be the major source of CO in the project area. For this reason, most of the
analysis presented is concerned with determining expected carbon monoxide levels in the
vicinity of the project due to traffic flow.
CO Analysis
in order to determine the ambient CO concentration for the receptor closest to the
highway project, two concentration components must be used: local and background. The
local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the
near vicinity (i.e., distances within 100 meters (328 ft)) of the receptor location. The
26
background concentration is defined by the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR) as "the concentration of a pollutant at a point
that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the
upwind edge of the local sources."
In this study, the local concentration was determined by the NCDOT Traffic
Noise/Air Quality Staff using line source computer modeling and the background
concentration was obtained from NCDEHNR. Once the two concentration components
were resolved, they were added together to determine the ambient CO concentration for the
receptor in question and to compare to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).
A microscale air quality_analysis was-performed-to-determine futuie CO
---- -concentrations resulting from the proposed highway improvements. "CAL3QHC - A
Modeling Methodology For Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway
Intersections" was used to predict the CO concentration at the nearest sensitive receptor to
the project.
Inputs into the mathematical model to estimate hourly CO concentrations consisted
of a level roadway under normal conditions with predicted traffic volumes, vehicle emission
factors, and worst-case meteorological parameters. The traffic volumes are based on the
annual average daily traffic projections. The traffic volume used for the CAL3QHC was
the highest volume along the project. Carbon monoxide vehicle emission factors were
calculated for the completion year of 1999 and the design year of 2018 using the EPA
publication "Mobile Source Emission Factors" and the MOBILE 5A mobile source
emissions computer model.
The background CO concentration for the project area was estimated to be 1.8 parts
per million (ppm). Consultation with the Air Quality Section, Division of Environmental
Management, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
indicated that an ambient CO concentration of 1.8 ppm is suitable for most suburban/rural
areas.
The worst-case air quality receptor was determined to be receptor #11 at a distance
of 25 meters from the proposed centerline of the median. The "build" and "no-build" one-
hour CO concentrations for the nearest sensitive receptor for the years of 1998 and 2018
are shown in the following table.
One Hour CO Concentrations PPM
Nearest Sensitive Receptor Build No-Build
1998 2018 1998 2018
R-11 2.8 3.2 3.1 6.1
Comparison of the predicted CO concentrations with the NAAQS maximum
permitted for 1-hour averaging period = 35 ppm; 8-hour averaging period = 9 ppm)
indicates no violation of these standards. Since the results of the worst-case 1-hour CO
analysis is less than 9 ppm, it can be concluded that the 8-hour CO level does not exceed
the standard. See Tables Al through A4, Appendix pages A-l7 through A-20, for details
of the computer modeling used for this.
27
Other Pollutants
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atmosphere where
they react with sunlight to form ozone and nitrogen dioxide. Area-wide automotive
emissions of HC and NO are expected to decrease in the future due to the continued
installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars. Hence, the ambient
ozone and nitrogen dioxide levels in the atmosphere should continue to decrease as a result
of the improvements on automobile emissions.
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide. Because emissions of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide from automobiles are
very low, there is no reason to suspect that traffic on the project will cause air quality
standards for particulate matters and sulfur dioxide to be exceeded.
Automobiles without catalytic converters can burn regular gasoline. Newer cars
with catalytic converters burn unleaded gasoline eliminating lead emissions. In the future,
lead emissions are expected to decrease as more cars use unleaded fuels and as the lead
content of leaded gasoline is reduced. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 make the
sale, supply, or transport of leaded gasoline or lead additives unlawful after December 31,
1995. Because of these reasons, it is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will
cause the NAAQS for lead to be exceeded.
The project is located in New Hanover County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing
and grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air
quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure that burning
will be done at the greatest practical distance from dwellings and not when atmospheric
conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will only be utilized under
constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust
generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and
comfort of motorists or area residents. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA process,
and no additional reports are necessary.
H. Hazardous Material Involvement
A field reconnaissance survey conducted along the project corridor identified two
(2) potential sites containing underground storage tanks (USTs) and one (1) site containing
above ground storage tanks. It is anticipated this project's construction will be maintained
within existing right of way limits, therefore, no conflicts with these UST's are expected.
This information is included in case a project change requires construction to extend beyond
the existing right of way.
28
Storage Tank Facilities
Site No. I
Wet Willies
Eastwood Road
Wilmington, NC
Facility ID #: Unknown
There are currently two (2) above ground tanks located behind the building.
The tanks are far away from the centerline of Eastwood Road. The establishment is
located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Eastwood Road and Racine
Drive.
Site No. 2
Vay-lor Convenience Store
431 Eastwood Road
Wilmington, NC 28405
Facility ID #:0-022264
UST Owner: Vay-lor Foods
P. O. Box 3227
Wilmington, NC 28406
There are currently two (2) gasoline USTs (6,000 gallon) and one (1)
gasoline UST (8,000 gallon) located on-site registered with DEM. These tanks are
of steel construction with fiberglass piping and were installed on January 24, 1992.
The USTs are located 86 and 106 feet from the centerline of Eastwood Road.
According to DEM, three (3) gasoline USTs (10,000, 10,000 and 6,000 gallon)
were removed from the site on January 8, 1992.
Site No. 3
Scotchman #83 UST Owner: Worsley Companies
610 Eastwood Road P. O. Box 3227
Wilmington, NC 28403 Wilmington, NC 28406
Facility ID #: 0-020170
There are currently three (3) gasoline USTs (4,000, 4,000 and 6,000 gallon)
and one (1) kerosene UST (4,000 gallon) and one diesel UST (4,000 gallon)
located on-site registered with DEM. They are all of steel construction and were
installed on April 10, 1984. The USTs are located approximately 87 feet from the
centerline of Eastwood Road.
2. Other Potential Hazards
The Geographical Information Service (GIS) was consulted for the project
corridor in New Hanover County. The study revealed that there were no regulated
or unregulated landfills or dump sites within the project limits.
Geodetic Markers
Two geodetic survey markers are anticipated to be impacted as a result of this
project.
29
VII. COMMENTS, COORDINATION, AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
The following federal, state, and local agencies and officials were consulted to
solicit suggestions and receive environmental input regarding this project (Note: an
asterisk indicates those agencies who responded):
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U. S. Geological Survey
*U. S. Department of Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
*N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
*N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N.C. Department of Public Instruction
Cape Fear Council of governments
Mayor of Wilmington
New Hanover County of Commissioner
A citizen's informational workshop was held on November 16, 1995 in
Wilmington to obtain public comments and suggestions on this project. Approximately 50
people attended this meeting. Most of the comments received involved trees that adjoin
the north side of Eastwood Road. Citizens suggested that the road alignment be shifted to
the south and that a curb and gutter section be chosen to save trees and increase the noise
buffer provided to their homes.
BG/plr
FIGURES
1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WIDEN US 74 FROM RACINE DRIVE
TO SR 1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
T.I.P. NO. U-2733
' 0 mile 1/2 FIG.1 I
? 1

ft
t?

-
E
TWOOD RQAI .ALI Nt?NJ T

s?,
,

c

.
r }? j k p
?lx

A,
-Jaw
LARRY'S TIRE r" v
MIA,
-,

F
.. HEFT 2 OF 6

I M-

?auc
a
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
"m T CONSTRUCTION LIMITS FOR
CURB AND GURRER SECTIOI
`' IIIIINIIIIIIIIIII PAVEMENT REMOVED
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
SMITH CREEK PARKWAY
Y' !rT! T. I. P. PROJE I U 47fi
a,

?,

g
At,

!fir.. .
i'k4 '
#Jl

IIC 74 tFdI:?TWnoD ROADS
+ - r
= ti °A,
;? : 9 a. ? 5 ?„ t?' ?, ¢ c`•^- ` fin` `i 'ka 1s?s ?.'k -RM+

x

f

G
h
w

Q

E
e
Z
O
~
U M

W
to I`

N
I Q i
::D
I u
a
mono
W

I a r

w
W
(n
I p
cr
W O
I o o-
I ?
I ?
e
mm?
E
17
m
?o
4

lq-
A
r
Q
rn
O
Ctl
V)
E7-
z
0
0
z
O
U
CD
z
cn
X
w

Q
z
0
a
U
Ln

0
Q
O
/ r,r
w
w
O
U
1
{

t
w
z
a
?z
O
o?
wQ
U) Cr
Oz
a_ 0
O-
r-rw
wz
O
U
cn
Ww
a
U
O
O
Z
W
N

0
O
z
U
W
O
W
0
W
0
0
US 74
FROM SR 1905 (RACINE DRIVE)
TO SR 1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD)
55- PM 9-
(5.1)
US 74
191 15
29192
2477
3862
m

IL
in
12331
17405
1998 ADT'S
2018
PIA
9 (2.0)60
OO
14808
21346
29400
45400
3377
4761
SR 1482 .-PM
60 (2.0)9
862 3708
216 __46
154 x662
1777
1969
28038
39731
24215
34292
23523
36138
PM
9 (3.1)55
5231 7708
7381246
256 I 5515
3869 8592
T
a L6
Ln
Lp
19354
28123
NOT TO SCALE
6338
10031
SR 1475
5515
8592
0000 = VPD
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUMES
I%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AM / PM = AM OR PM PEAK
- DIRECTION OF D
15, D DUALS. TTST (%)
PM
10 (2.0) 60
FIGURE 5
UNITED STATES
' L
?? DEPARTMENT' OF THE INTERIOR
ti<" GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
a r 7 mr7
77°52'30 236000 "E. Yrrs rrrrr n,,.
34 ° 15'
-? mrra -• a- - r c
.1793ono„ N
2
m
?y
J
Q
2
U
r
C)
O
z
J
3
ar
a
J
O
3791

2
0
U
z
12'30"
3787
2
2~
In
y J
STATE OF NORTH CAF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND ECOP
RALEIGH, NORTH CARO
5452 IV SE
240 (SCOTTS 'HILL)

0
.

w
LINA DEPARTMENT O F
TION
D ENVIRONMENTAL

ENING
'
aND LOCATIONS r,
r
R

.733 .

FIGURE 6

h i

7
COAST CjUARD,, Z' fJ
?.p? S,TA r7ON
F
APPENDIX
TIP ?1 Z?? Federal Aid # i(Q- Hiff: County NRL) %?D?fk
CONCURRENCE FOMI
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
On AMI 27 representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
-? .North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
?- Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other.
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration d within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:'
X71'Is
,N
wk, to-,{ the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
1,21
Date
-9111f S
tare Historic Preservation Officer
D
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A-1
.,a STiVFo
NORTH CAROLINA
•?«?• DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
301 North Wilmington Street, Education Building RIDGE X0,
Raleigh, NC 27601-2825 co k rtt
January 20, 1995 JAN 2 4 1995
DIVISION OF
G'fHIGHWAYS
?N?ROnME ?.
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
FROM: Charles H. We e , ? /11
Assistant Stat p rintendent
Auxiliary Services
RE: Widening of US 74, from SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409
(Military Cutoff Road), Wilmington, New Hanover County, Federal
Aid Project STPNHF-74(13), State Project 8.1251101, T.I.P. Project
U-2733
Please find attached communication from Mr. Mike Wayne, Director of
Transportation for New Hanover County Schools, relative to subject project.
mrl
Enclosure
A-2

An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
1#*141k
a ap zqu
NEW
xaxoVEn
cOUxrr
SCHOOLS

low
{

DR. DALE F. MARTIN
Superintendent
MICHAEL WAYNE
Director, Transportation
January 19, 1995

To: Dr. Charles H. Weaver
From: Mick Wayne, Director of Transportation M 1,J
Subject: Widening of US 74 from SR 1905 (Racine Dr.) to SR 1409 (Military
Cutoff Rd), Wilmington, New Hanover County, Federal Aid Project
STPNHF-74 (13), State Project 8.1251101, T.I.P. Project V-2733
This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 11, 1995 addressing. the
widening of US 74. We are not aware of any potential environmental impacts of this
project.
If you have any questions, please call me at [phone].
A-3
502 S. 13TH STREET - WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28401 - PHON= [phone] - FAX [phone]
United States Department of the In
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE s
Ecological Services
Post Office Box 33726 -? MAR 1 4 1995
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
March 13, 1995 Dft'/ISICN OF Q`t
cHIGHWAYS ??,?
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Proposed widening of US 74 from SR 1905 to SR 1409, New Hanover
County, North Carolina, TIP No. U--Z.;a ?
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of January 9, 1995 requesting information from the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced project. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for widening US 74 from SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff
Road) in Wilmington. The project would consist of upgrading the existing two and
three lane roadway of US 74. The NCDOT is presently considering two upgrade
alternatives for use throughout the project corridor: (1) a five-lane curb and
gutter section; and (2) a five-lane shoulder section.
The Service's review of any environmental document would be greatly facilitated
if it contained the following information:
1. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within existing and
required additional right-of-way and any areas, such as borrow areas,
which may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed project.
2. A list of the wetland types which will be impacted. Wetland types should
follow the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. This list should also give t::e acreage of ef.ch wetland type to
be affected by the project as determined by the Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
3. Engineering techniques which will be employed for designing and
constructing any wetland crossings and/or relocated stream channels along
with the linear feet of any water courses to be relocated.
4. The cover types of upland areas and the acreage of each type whicsly would
be impacted by the proposed project.
5. The environmental impacts which are likely to occur after construction as
a direct result of the proposed project (secondary impacts) and an
assessment of the extent to which the proposed project will add to similar
environmental impacts produced by other, completed projects in the area
(cumulative impacts).
A-4
6. Mitigation measures which will be employed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, or
compensate for upland and wetlands habitat impacts associated with the
project. These measures should include plans for replacing unavoidable
wetland losses.
The attached pages identify the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species which occur in Craven and Beaufort Counties. The section of
the environmental document regarding protected species must contain the following
information:
1. A review of the literature and other information;
2. A description of any listed species or critical habitat that may be
affected by the action;
3. An analysis of the "effect of the action", as defined by CFR 402.02, on
the species and habitat including consideration of direct, indirect,
cumulative effects, and the results of related studies;
4. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any species or
critical habitat;
5. Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measure of potential effects; and
6. Determination statement based on evaluation criteria.
Candidate species refers to any species being considered by the Service for
listing as endangered or threatened but not yet the subject of a proposed rule.
These species are not legally protected under the Act or subject to its
provisions, including Section 7, until formally proposed or listed as threatened
or endangered. New data could result in the formal listing of a candidate
species. This change would place the species under the full protection of the
Endangered Species Act, and necessitate a new survey if its status in the project
corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would be prudent for the project to avoid any
adverse impact to candidate species or their habitat. The North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species under State
protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please
continue to advise us of the progress of this project, including your official
determination of the impacts of this project. If our office can supply any
additional information or clarification, please contact Howard Hall, the
biologist reviewing this project, at 919-856-4520 (ext. 27).
Sincerely yours, /
U, b.?- L?
L.K. "Mike" Gantt
Supervisor

A-5
REVISED NOVEMBER 30, 1994
New Hanover County
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Peregrine falcon (Falco Perearinus) - E
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - E
Piping plover (charadrius melodus) - T
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - E
Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelvs coriacea) - E
Green sea turtle (Chelonia mvdas) -:T
Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) - T
Kemp's Ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelvs kempi) - E
American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) - T S/A+
Seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus) - T
Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew (Sorex lonairostris fisheri) - T
Sea turtles when "in the water" and the shortnose sturgeon is under the
jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service and should be
contacted concerning your agency's responsibilities under Section 7 of the
Endangered species Act. Their address is:
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Koger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for
listing as endangered or threatened, are under status review by the Service.
These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally protected under the
Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7,
until they are formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We
are providing the below list of candidate species which may occur within the
project area for the purpose of giving you advance notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected
under the Act. In the meantime, we would appreciate anything you might do
for them.
Carolina crawfish frog (Rana areolata capito) - C2
Magnificent ramshorn snail (Planorbella magnifica) - C2*
Greenfield ramshorn snail (Taphius eucosmius eucosmius) - C2*
Cape Fear three tooth (Tridopsis soelneri) - C2
Rare skipper (Problema bu enta) - C2
White wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - C2
Savanna leadplant (Amorrha creoraiana confusa) - C2*
Sandhills milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii) - C2*
Pondspice (Litsea aestivalis) - C2
Pickering's morning glory(Stvlisma pickeringiivar.Dicker inaii) - C2*
Dune blue curls (Trichostema sp. - C2
Carolina spleenwort (Asplenium heteroresiliens) - C2*
Smooth bog-asphodel (Tofieldia labra) - C2
Venus flytrap (Dionaea muscipula) - C2
+Threatened/Similarity of Appearance
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
A-6
I1 North Carolina W ldlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604.1188, 919-7333391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Dim-tor
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor ator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 2, 1995
SUBJECT: Request G:)r information from the N. C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for US 74 Improvements,
from US 17 to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff), New Hanover County, North
Carolina. TIP No. U-2733, SCH Project No. 95-0480.
This memorandum responds to a request from Mr. H. Franklin Vick of the
NCDOT for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from
the subject project. Staff biologists of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements, and our comments are provided in
accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
NCDOT proposes to widen existing two and three-lane section of US 74 to a five-
lane curb and gutter or shoulder section. The total project length is approximately 2.2
miles.
We are concerned about potential impacts to wetlands and water quality that may
result from construction of curb and gutter along this project. The drainage that is
crossed by US 74 is a tributary to Bradley Creek. B3radley creek supports shellfish
populations that may be adversely affected by a degradation of water quality. Therefore,
we recommend that NCDOT use sedimentation and erosion control measures for High
Quality Waters (11QW) and minimize wetland impacts. We will likely oppose a curb and
gutter section on this project due to shellfish resources associated with Bradley Creek.
In addition to any specific recommendations or concerns regarding the subject
project, our general informational needs are outlined below:
A-7
Memo
March 2, 1995
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used !'or project
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
P. O. Box 27687
.Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need
for channclizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may undergo
hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or filling for
project construction. Wetland identification may be accomplished through
coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). If the COE
is not consulted, the person delineating wetlands should be identified and
criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and
indirect degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7, A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the
environmental effects of highway construction and quantities the
contribution of this individual project to environmental degradation.
S. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will
result from secondary development facilitated by the improved road
access.
If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state,
municipal, or private development projects, a description of these projects
A-8
Memo 3 March 2,1995
should be included in the environmental document, and all project
sponsors should be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact David Cox, Highway
Project Coordinator, at [phone].
cc: Bobby Maddrey, District 2 Wildlife Biologist
Brad Hammers, District 2 Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangercd Species Program Mgr.
David Dell, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
A-9
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment.
Health and Natural Resources A &
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor V
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary _ [D E H IV 11
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
March 1, 1995
Ulm
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swiharte'Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: Project Review #95-0480; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to US 74, New Hanover County
TIP #U-2733
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
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 and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and ,
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
A-10
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Melba McGee
March 1, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to.the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
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.
10838.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
A-11
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
February 27, 1995
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall 514
SUBJECT: Scoping -- US 74 Widening, Wilmington
REFERENCE: 95-0480
The Natural Heritage Program database contains records for a rare plant that has been found
in the vicinity of the proposed highway widening. Two populations of golden crest (Lophiola
aurea), state listed as Endangered, were found in 1973 at two points along US 74, near the
intersection with SR 1905 and near the intersection with SR 1821. Given the scarcity of this
species in North Carolina, we request that a survey be made for it in all boggy habitats or
pocosin ecotones along the project length. If the alignments for the widening cannot be
selected that will avoid populations of this species or any other rare plants that are
discovered, we recommend that the NC Plant Conservation Program be consulted about the
possibility for transplantation or other forms of mitigation.
A-12
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources • •
Division of Environmental Health
Public Water Supply Section C
James B. Hunt, Jr„ Governor ? H N F=?L
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
Clearinghouse Project No. 95-0480
New Hanover County
January 19, 1994
A complete analysis of alternative modes of transportation should be included in the analysis.
Secondary impacts (i.e., development generated from the road project) should be addressed in the evaluation.

Paul B. Clark
Environmental Engineer
Water Quality Compliance Branch
Public Water Supply Section
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources
A-13
P.O. Box 29536, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0536 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
r?1 • ._?1.:;?:`: t ); 1?.?`I?%Ll.?.t..'t'??x'11•:3`? ??... (11.•:... .'t i
(n-let-Agency hr0)Ccc Review

Y'ro;cC: Muni 1•ypc of Pro)CCC
r--- , The applicant mould be. idvised c ac plans and specifications for ail wacel, syscer
?- unprovemetics must be approved by Che D1-,1510(1 of Environmental Health. prior co:che-award -
of a concracC or Che inlclaciot: of consc-icCton (as required by 15A NCAC 1St; .0300 cc, Seq.).
For information, contact. the Public W;;Ec:• Supply Se_tion, [phone].
This project wi11 be classified as -nor.-_o?n:rtunic;r put is water suppl;r and must como?y with.
?- -J state and federal drinking `:race:.:ionircrin: requireinea:cs. For more information ehe applie:ar_:
should contact the Public Wat_r )Up,;i), S_ccior?, (9151 733-23,21.
i--; .If Chis project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feec•of adjacent
I graters to the harvest of s::ell:isa. Fcr i:?formation r-garding the.shc1liis s-.nicacioa progra
m, the applicant should concac_ the Shellfish Sanicaci:,n Branch ac (91-9) 726-6827.
The spoil disposal area(s) procosed for this grojecc nm:.- produce a mosquito breeding-problen:.
For information concerning appropr:ace mosqulto •_ontrol measures, the applicanc -should
contact the 1 ublic Health Iles_ Mana-.me nC Scalon t [phone].
-i The applicant: should be advised chat -,-lot- co .he removal. Or de_molino.. of dilaoidatec
-1 sCruetures, an extellsiYe roder:C COOEroi proararn be necessa. f in Cr•.'cC.' CO pseYC'nt tilE
a'riloraClOn of CiC rodent'S CC 4lacc^_ The :._f.7rTlailOil. CvliCeriili?? ?GdCni ceiltro
i>OS1C2Ct L'1-ie ?0Ca1 he21C h dCOali-mc-rlc sr ChC Pu •llc 1 _aaltll Pe.-SL Maila--omen- Section: ac 919
733-6407.
---? Tie applicant should be ac•fised tc ccacact the -local health departmerc regarding thei
r I rtvulrCmerts for SCrocic Eats :^St311:_:?re (as tegtltrea undel
For lnfor-n-acivn c^nar^: ? °'+! :? t::';: !rid ocher on-sir? waste cisoosal me,iluds, conca-cc ti
On-Site 3n95
r-1 1 he applicant: should be ..,.. M chi. 'coal nealch dr.p:.l- liAZllt. c'egar:;.r, me sanic:..
l..- .. _1 1,'aClllCt::S rCCh.ll:'ed lUI' Chl:i
i -' il' CXVI-Litlg \waG_. IMCr. TV":: Lip- C.ollstl'uc::1C: ! •r:.a:. 1i'
-J rCloCactot'l Illus: i:Il' `n%dCC:: St1 is
JC:CC1011, lCi<t!f i\ :160 7?. ._ r?
_cvlewer Sec ion/Brancli. - r
Dace
A-14
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW - PROJECT COMMENTS
Reviewing Office:
Project Number: Due
After review of this project it has been determined that the EHNR permit(s) and/or approvals indicated may need to be obtained in
order for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office indicated on the reverse of the form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Normal Process
Regional Office.
C
C
C
C
Lk
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
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. Additionally, obtain permit to
discharging into state surface waters, construct wastewater treatment facility-granted after NPDES. Reply (NIA)
time. 30 days after receipt of plans or issue of NPDES
permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Pre-application technical conference usually necessary 30 days
(NIA)

Well Construction Permit
Complete application must be received and permit issued 7 days
prior to the installation of a well. 115 days)
Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property 55 days
1 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 Pollution Abatement 60 days
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15A NCAC 21H.06 N/A (90 days)
,,Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 20.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A 60 days
NCAC 20.0525 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 2D.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 Duality Sect.) at least 30 20 days
days before beoinnin activity. A fee of $30 for the first acre and $20.00 for each additional acre or art must accompany the plan (30 davsi
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,;. r On-site inspection by N.D. Division Forest Resources required "if more 1 day
counties in coastal N.C. with organic soils than five acres of ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections (NIA)
should be requested at least ten days before actual burn is planned."
90.120 days
Oil Refining Facilities NIA (N/A)
If permit required. application 60 days before begin construction.
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare plans. 30 days
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 $200.00 must ac-
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
PS I05
A15
Continued on reverse
Normal Process
I
E
C
C
C
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS (statutory time
limit)

Permit to drill
l
t
il File surety bond of $5,000 with EHNR running to State of N.C. 10 days
exp
ora
ory o
or gas well conditional that any well opened by drill operator shall, upon (N/A)
abandonment, be plugged according to EHNR rules and regulations.
Geophysical Exploration Permit Application filed with EHNR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit 10 days
Application by letter. No standard application form. (NIA)
J State Lakes Construction Permit Application fee based on structure size is charged. Must include 15-20 days
descriptions & drawings of structure & proof of ownership (NIA)
of riparian property.

401 Water Quality Certification
NIA 60 days
(130 days)

CAMA Permit for MAJOR development
$250.00 fee must accompany application 55 days
(150 days)

CAMA Permit for MINOR development
$50.00 fee must accompany application 22 days
(25 days)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or near the project area. If any monuments need to be moved or destroyed. please notify:
N.C. Geodetic Survey. Box 27687, Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abandonment of any wells. if required, must be in accordance with Title 15A, Subchapter 2C.0100.
Notification of the proper regional office is requested if -orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
Compliance with 15A NCAC 2H.1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) is required. 45 days
(N/A)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authority):
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions regarding these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office ? Fayetteville Regional Office
59 Woodfipl Place Suite 714 Wachovia Building
Asheville, NC 28801 Fayetteville, NC 28301
[phone] [phone]
? Mooresville Regional Office
919 North Main Street, P.O. Box 950
Mooresville, NC 28115
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
1424 Carolina Avenue
Washington, NC 27889
[phone] A-16
EJ Winston-Salem Regional Office
8025 North Point Blvd.
Suite 100
Winston-Salem, NC 27106
[phone]
Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, Suite 101
Raleigh. NC 27609
[phone]
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, NC 28405
[phone]

TABLE Al
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2733: US 74 New Hanover Co. RUN: US 74 2000 BUILD 90 KMH
DATE: 07/03/95 TIME: 09:51
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXH - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M) I LENGTH ERG TYPE VPH EF H W V/C QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 11.0 -804.7
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 804.7
JOB: U-2733: US 74 New Hanover Co.
DATE: 07/03/95 TIME: 09:51
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
11.0 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1179. 13.3 0.0 13.4
0.0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1179. 13.3 0.0 13.4
RUN: US 74 2000 BUILD 90 KMH
LINK DESCRIPTION CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-11,25m LT. CL RES -19.5 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 2.8
DEGR. 6
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 2.80 PPM AT 6 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-17
TABLE A2
CAL3QSC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2733: US 74 New Hanover Co. RUN: US 74 2020 BUILD 90 KMH
DATE: 07/03/95 TIME: 09:51
SITE i METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD : 0.0 CM/S ZO = 108. CM
U - 1.0 M/S CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES MIXR - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK VARIABLES
LINK nr-grRTW"nu
1. Far Lane Link
2. Near Lane Link
LIRA COORDINATES (M) LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W WC QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
11.0 -804.7 11.0 804.7 I 1609. 360. AG 2115. 9.8 0.0 13.4
0.0 804.7 0.0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 2115.. 9.8 0.0 13.4
JOB: U-2733: US 74 New Hanover Co. RUN: US 74 2020 BUILD 90 W0
DATE: 07/03/95 TIME: 09:51
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
LINK DESCRIPTION CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EK FAC TYPE RATE '
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-11,25m LT. CL RES -19.5 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 3.2
DEGR. 9
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.20 PPM AT 9 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-18
a

TABLE A3
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2733: US 74 New Hanover Co. RUN: US 74 2000 NO BUILD 90 KME
DATE: 07/03/95 TIME: 09:51
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
U = 1.0 M/S CLAS = 5 (E) ATIM = 60. MINUTES MIXB = 1000. M AMID - 1.8 PPM
LINK DESCRIPTION I LINK COORDINATES (M) I LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W WC QUEUE
X1 Y1 X2 Y2 (M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VEH)
1. Far Lane Link 7.3 -804.7
2. Near Lane Link 0.0 604.7
JOB: U-2733: US 74 New Hanover Co.
DATE: 07/03/95 TIME: 09:51
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
7.3 804.7 1609. 360. AG 1179. 17.8 0.0 9.8
0.0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 1179. 17.8 0.0 9.8
RUN: US 74 2000 NO BUILD 90 KMH
LINK DESCRIPTION CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-11,25m LT. CL RES -21.3 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 3.1
DEGR. 9
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 3.10 PPM AT 9 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-19
TABLE A4
CAL3QHC: LINE SOURCE DISPERSION MODEL - VERSION 2.0, JANUARY 1992
JOB: U-2733: US 74 New Hanover Co. RUN: US 74 2020 NO BUILD 90 KMH
DATE: 07/03/95 TIME: 09:51
SITE 8 METEOROLOGICAL VARIABLES
VS - 0.0 CM/S
U - 1.0 M/S
LINK VARIABLES
LINK DESCRIPTION
VD - 0.0 CM/S ZO - 108. CM
CLAS - 5 (E) ATIM - 60. MINUTES 14M - 1000. M AMB - 1.8 PPM
LINK COORDINATES (M)
X1 Yl X2 Y2
2. Near Lane Link
7.3 -804.7
0.0 804.7
7.3 804.7 1609. 360. AG 2115. 34.6 0.0 9.8
0.0 -804.7 1609. 180. AG 2115. 34.6 0.0 9.8
JOB: U-2733: US 74 New Hanover Co. RUN: US 74 2020 NO BUILD 90 KMH
DATE: 07/03/95 TIME: 09:51
ADDITIONAL QUEUE LINK PARAMETERS
LINK DESCRIPTION CYCLE RED CLEARANCE APPROACH SATURATION IDLE SIGNAL ARRIVAL
LENGTH TIME LOST TIME VOL FLOW RATE EM FAC TYPE RATE
(SEC) (SEC) (SEC) (VPH) (VPH) (gm/hr)
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
COORDINATES (M)
RECEPTOR X Y Z
1. R-11,25m LT. CL RES -21.3 0.0 1.8
MODEL RESULTS
REMARKS : In search of the angle corresponding to
the maximum concentration, only the first
angle, of the angles with same maximum
concentrations, is indicated as maximum.
WIND ANGLE RANGE: 0.- 20.
WIND CONCENTRATION
ANGLE (PPM)
(DEGR) REC1
MAX 6.1
DEGR. 9
THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION IS 6.10 PPM AT 9 DEGREES FROM REC1 .
A-20
LENGTH BRG TYPE VPH EF H W WC QUEUE
(M) (DEG) (G/MI) (M) (M) (VES)
s
P-
TABLE Nl
HEARING: SOUNDS BOMBARDING US DAILY
a
•
140 Shotgun blast, jet 30 m away at takeoff PAIN
Motor test chamber HUMAN EAR PAIN THRESHOLD
130
Firecrackers
120 Severe thunder, pneumatic jackhammer
Hockey crowd
Amplified rock music UNCOMFORTABLY LOUD
110
Textile loom
100 Subway train, elevated train, farm tractor
power lawn mower, newspaper press
Heavy city traffic, noisy factory LOUD
90
D Diesel truck 65 kmph 15 m away
E 80 Crowded restaurant, garbage disposal
C Average factory, vacuum cleaner
I Passenger car 80 kmph 15 m away MODERATELY LOUD
B 70
E Quiet typewriter
L 60 Singing birds, window air-conditioner
S Quiet automobile
Normal conversation, average office QUIET
50
Household refrigerator
Quiet office VERY QUIET
40
Average home
30 Dripping faucet
Whisper 1.5 m away
20 Light rainfall, rustle of leaves
AVERAGE PERSON'S THRESHOLD OF HEARING
Whisper JUST AUDIBLE
10
0 I THRESHOLD FOR ACUTE HEARING
Sources: World Book, Rand McNally Atlas of the Human Body,
Encyclopedia Americana, "Industrial Noise and Hearing
Conversation" by J. B. Olishifski and E. R. Harford
(Researched by N. Jane Hunt and published in the Chicago
Tribune in an illustrated graphic by Tom Heinz.)
A-21
TABLE N2
NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Activity
Category Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public
(Exterior) need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to
serve its intended purpose.
B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, parks, residences, motels,
(Exterior) hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above.
(Exterior)
D -- Undeveloped lands
E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and
(Interior) auditoriums.
Source: Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 772, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration
DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level increase in dBA from Existing Noise
in Leq(h) Levels to Future Noise Levels
< 50 > 15
> 50 > 10
Source: North Carolina Department of Transportation Noise Abatement Guidelines.
01
•
A-22
TABLE N3
AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
(Leq)
US 74, Wilmington, New Hanover County
From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
TIP N U-2733 STATE PROTECT N 8.1251101
SITE LOCATION
NOISE
LEVEL
DESCRIPTION (dBA)
1. US 74, 235 Meters East of SR 1905 Grassy 70
(Racine Drive)
2. US 74, 100 Meters West of SR 1410 Grassy 68
(Long Leaf Acres)
3. US 74, 340 Meters West of SR 1409 Grassy 69
(Military Cutoff Road)
Note: The ambient noise level sites were measured at 15 meters from the
center of the nearest lane of traffic.
A-23
TABLE N4
1/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 74, Wilmington, New Hanover County
From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
TIP N U-2733 STATE PROTECT 4 8.1251101
Symmetrical Widening
AMBIENT NEAREST NOI SE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
US 74, From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1482 (Cardinal Drive)
1 Business C US 74 75.0 L 57 US 74 75.0 L - - 64 + 7
2 Business C " 35.0 R 64 " 35.0 R - - * 71 + 7
3 Business C •' 50.0 R 61 " 50.0 R - - 68 + 7
4 Business C It 56.0 L 60 " 56.0 L 67 + 7
5 Residence B to 58.0 R 60 " 58.0 R - - * 67 + 7
6 Business C to 55.0 L 60 " 55.0 L - - 67 + 7
7 Business C " 32.0 L 65 to 32.0 L - - * 72 + 7
8 Business C " 42.0 L 63 to 42.0 L - - 70 + 7
9 Business C " 43.0 L 63 of 43.0 L - - 70 + 7
10 Residence B " 40.0 L 63 It 40.0 L - - * 70 + 7
it Residence B " 25.0 L 67 " 25.0 L - - * 74 + 7
12 Residence B " 60.0 L 60 " 60.0 L - - * 66 + 6
13 Business C to 77.0 R 57 to 77.0 R - - .64 + 7
14 Business C of 44.0 R 62 " 44.0 R - - 69 + 7
US 74, From SR 1482 (Cardinal Drive) to SR 1821 (Brentshire Road)
15 Residence B US 74 33.0 L 63 US 74 33.0 L - - * 71 + 8
16 Church E It 62.0 R 58/00 to 62.0 R - - 66/41 + 8/1
17 Residence B " 40.0 L 62 of 40.0 L - - * 70 + 8
18 Residence B " 40.0 L 62 " 40.0 L - - * 70 + 8
19 Residence B " 43.0 L 61 •' 43.0 L - - * 69 + 8
20 Residence B •' 45.0 L 61 to 45.0 L - - * 69 + 8
21 Residence B " 43.0 L 61 to 43.0 L - - * 69 + 8
22 Residence B " 42.0 L 61 of 42.0 L - - * 69 + 8
23 Residence B " 45.0 L 61 to 45.0 L - - * 69 + 8
24 Residence B " 48.0 L 60 It 48.0 L - - * 68 + 8
25 Residence B " 46.0 L 60 " 46.0 L - - * 68 + 8
26 Residence B " 47.0 L 60 of 47.0 L - - * 68 + 8
27 Residence B " 44.0 L 61 It 44.0 R - - * 69 + 8
28 Residence B " 43.0 L 61 It 43.0 L - - * 69 + 8
29 Residence B " 50.0 L 60 to 50.0 L - - * 68 + 8
30 Residence B " 50.0 L 60 to 50.0 L - - * 68 + 8
31 Residence B to 52.0 L 59 " 52.0 L - - * 67 + 8
32 Business C " 45.0 R 61 " 45.0 R - - 69 + 8
33 Residence B to 48.0 L 60 " 48.0 L - - * 68 + 8
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).

A-24
TABLE N4 2/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 74, Wilmington, New Hanover County
From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
TIP # U-2733 STATE PROJECT # 8.1251101
Symmetrical Widening
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE r PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
US 74, From SR 1482 (Cardinal Drive) to SR 1821 (Brentshire Road) Cont'd
34 Residence B US 74 55.0 L 59 US 74 55.0 L - - * 67 + 8
35 Church E to 77.0 L 55/<40 to 77.0 L - - 63/<40 + 8/0
36 Residence B " 35.0 L 63 to 35.0 L - - * 71 + 8
37 Residence B " 65.0 L 57 It 65.0 R - - 65 + 8
38 Residence B " 37.0 L 62 It 37.0 L - - * 70 + 8
US 74, From SR 1821 (Brentshire Road) to SR 1409 (Military Cuttoff Road)
39 Residence B US 74 35.5 L 64 US 74 35.5 L - - * 70 + 6
40 Business C " 73.0 L 57 it 73.0 L - - 63 + 6
41 Church E It 48.0 L 61/<40 " 48.0 L - - 67/42 + 6/2
42 Residence B If 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 53 + 7
43 Residence B to 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 53 + 7
44 Residence B of 49.0 L 45 " 49.0 L - - 51 + 6
45 Residence B it 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 53 + 7
46 Residence B to 31.0 L 46 of 31.0 L - - 52 + 6
47 Residence B to 32.0 L 46 of 32.0 L - - 52 + 6
48 Residence B " 65.0 L 47 '. 65.0 L - - 53 + 6
49 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 of 31.5 L - - 53 + 7
50 Residence B " 32.0 L 46 " 32.0 L - - 53 + 7
51 Residence B to 32.5 L 46 " 32.5 L - - 53 + 7
52 Residence B " 29.5 L 46 " 29.5 L - - 53 + 7
53 Residence B " 29.0 L 46 " 29.0 L - - 53 + 7
54 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 to 31.5 L - - 53 + 7
55 Residence B " 66.0 L 45 It 66.0 L - - 51 + 6
56 Residence B to 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 53 + 7
57 Residence B " 31.0 L 46 " 31.0 L - - 53 + 7
58 Residence B It 31.0 L 46 " 31.0 L - - 53 + 7
59 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 53 + 7
60 Residence B " 32.5 L 46 " 32.5 L - - 53 + 7
61 Business C " 47.0 R 61 " 47.0 R - - 68 + 7
62 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 - " 31.5 L - - 53 + 7
63 Residence B to 32.0 L 46 " 32.0 L - - 53 + 7
64 Residence B " 77.0 L 45 to 77.0 L - - 51 + 6
65 Residence B " 32.5 L 46 " 32.5 L - - 53 + 7
66 Residence B " 32.5 L 46 to 32.5 L - - 53 + 7
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-25
RECEPTOR INFORMATION
ID N LAND USE CATEGORY
TABLE N4
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 74, Wilmington, New Hanover County
From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
TIP 4 U-2733 STATE PROJECT N 8.1251101
Symmetrical Widening
AMBIENT NEAREST
NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS
NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM
US 74, From SR 1821 (Brentshire Road) to SR 1409 (Military Cuttoff Road) Cont'd
P
67 Residence B US 74 31.5 L 46 US 74 31.5 L -
68 Residence B " 31.0 L 46 " 31.0 L -
69 Residence B " 31.0 L 46 it 31.0 L -
70 Residence B " 32.0 L 46 to 32.0 L -
71 Residence B to 30.5 L 46 of 30.5 L -
72 Residence B to 31.5 L 46 it 31.5 L -
73 Residence B " 58.0 L 46 to 58.0 L -
74 Residence B to 31.5 L 46 to 31.5 L -
75 Recreation B ° 35.0 L 64 to 35.0 L -
76 Recreation B " 38.0 L 63 to 38.0 L -
77 Residence B to 61.0 R 59 It 61.0 R -
78 Residence B It 33.0 R 64 of 33.0 R -
79 Residence B to 44.0 R 62 of 44.0 R -
80 Residence B to 50.0 R 61 to 50.0 R -
81 Residence B " 60.0 R 59 to 60.0 R -
82 Residence B to 67.0 R 58 It 67.0 R -
83 Residence B to 62.0 R 59 to 62.0 R -
84 Residence B " 35.0 R 64 to 35.0 R -
85 Residence B " 40.0 R 63 to 40.0 R -
86 Residence B " 37.0 L 63 of 37.0 L -
87 Residence B " 30.0 L 65 " 30.0 L -
88 Business C to 60.0 R 59 of 60.0 R -
89 Business C to 95.0 R 54 it 95.0 R -
3/6
NOISE
LEVEL
INCREASE
- 53 + 7
- 53 + 7
- 52 + 6
- 52 + 6
- 53 + 7
- 53 + 7
- 53 + 7
- 53 + 7
- * 70 + 6
- * 70 + 7
- 65 + 6
- * 71 + 7
- * -68 + 6
- * 67 + 6
- 65 + 6
- 64 + 6
- 65 + 6
- * 70 + 6
- * 69 + 6
- * 70 + 7
- * 71 + 6
- 65 + 6
- 60 + 6

v
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * => Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-26

TABLE N4 4/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 74, Wilmington, New Hanover County
From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
TIP # U-2733 STATE PROJECT # 8.1251101
Asymmetrical Widening
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
US 74, From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1482 (Cardinal Drive)
1 Business C US 74 75.0 L 57 US 74 75.0 L - - 64 + 7
2 Business C
"
35.0
R
64
to
35.0
R -
- * 71
+
7
3 Business C " 50.0 R 61 " 50.0 R - - 68 + 7
4 Business C " 56.0 L 60 " 56.0 L - - 67 + 7
5 Residence B " 58.0 R 60 " 58.0 R - - * 67 + 7
6 Business C " 55.0 L 60 " 55.0 L - - 67 + 7
7 Business C " 32.0 L 65 " 32.0 L - - * 72 + 7
8 Business C " 42.0 L 63 " 42.0 L - - 70 + 7
9 Business C " 43.0 L 63 " 43.0 L - - 70 + 7
10 Residence B " 40.0 L 63 " 40.0 L - - * 70 + 7
11 Residence B " 25.0 L 67 " 25.0 L - - * 74 + 7
12 Residence B " 60.0 L 60 " 60.0 L - - * 66 + 6
13 Business C " 77.0 R 57 " 77.0 R - - 64 + 7
14 Business C " 44.0 R 62 " 44.0 R - - 69 + 7
US 74, From SR 1482 (Cardinal Drive) to SR 1821 (Brentehire Road)
15 Residence B US 74 33.0 L 63 US 74 33.0 L - - * 71 + 8
16 Church E " 62.0 R 58/00 It 62.0 R - - 66/41 + 8/1
17 Residence B " 40.0 L 62 " 40.0 L - - * 70 + 8
18 Residence B
40.0
L
62
"
40.0
L -
- * 70
+
8
19 Residence B " 43.0 L 61 " 43.0 L - - * 69 + 8
20 Residence B " 45.0 L 61 " 45.0 L - - * 69 + 8
21 Residence B " 43.0 L 61 " 43.0 L - - * 69 + 8
22 Residence B " 42.0 L 61 " 42.0 L - - * 69 + 8
23 Residence B " 45.0 L 61 " 45.0 L - - * 69 + 8
24 Residence B " 48.0 L 60 " 48.0 L - - * 68 + 8
25 Residence B " 46.0 L 60 " 46.0 L - - * 68 + 8
26 Residence B " 47.0 L 60 " 47.0 L - - * 68 + 8
27 Residence B " 44.0 L 61 " 44.0 R - - * 69 + 8
28 Residence B " 43.0 L 61 " 43.0 L - - * 69 + 8
29 Residence B " 50.0 L 60 " 50.0 L - - * 68 + 8
30 Residence B " 50.0 L 60 " 50.0 L - - * 68 + 8
31 Residence B " 52.0 L 59 " 52.0 L - - * 67 + 8
32 Business C " 45.0 R 61 " 45.0 R - - 69 + 8
33 Residence B " 48.0 L 60 " 48.0 L - - * 68 + 8
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-27
TABLE N4 5/6
Leq TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 74, Wilmington, New Hanover County
From SR 190 5 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
TIP # U-2733 STATE PROTECT # 8.1251101
Asymmetrical Widening
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
US 74, From SR 1482 (Cardinal Drive) to SR 1821 (Brentshire Road) Cont'd
34 Residence B US 74 55.0 L 59 US 74 55.0 L - - * 67 + 8
35 Church E it 77.0 L 55/00 It 77.0 L - - 63/<40 + 8/0
36 Residence B to 35.0 L 63 to 35.0 L - - * 70 + 8
37 Residence B " 65.0 L 57 " 65.0 R - - * 66 + 8
38 Residence B " 37.0 L 62 " 37.0 L - - * 70 + 8
US 74, From SR 1821 (Brentshire Road) to SR 1409 (Military Cuttoff Road)
39 Residence B US 74 35.5 L 64 US 74 35.5 L - - * 69 + 6
40 Business C " 73.0 L 57 " 73.0 L - - 53 + 6
41 Church E •' 48.0 L 61/<40 " 48.0 L - - 67/42 + 6/2
42 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 52 + 6
43 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - .52 + 6
44 Residence B " 49.0 L 45 " 49.0 L - - 51 + 6
45 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 52 + 6
46 Residence B " 31.0 L 46 " 31.0 L - - 52 + 6
47 Residence B " 32.0 L 46 " 32.0 L - - 52 + 6
48 Residence B " 65.0 L 47 " 65.0 L - - 53 + 6
49 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 52 + 6
50 Residence B " 32.0 L 46 " 32.0 L - - 52 + 6
51 Residence B " 32.5 L 46 •' 32.5 L - - 53 + 7
52 Residence B •' 29.5 L 46 " 29.5 L - - 53 + 7
53 Residence B " 29.0 L 46 " 29.0 L - - 53 + 7
54 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 53 + 7
55 Residence B " 66.0 L 45 •• 66.0 L - - 51 + 6
56 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 53 + 7
57 Residence B " 31.0 L 46 " 31.0 L - - 53 + 7
58 Residence B " 31.0 L 46 " 31.0 L - - 53 + 7
59 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 52 + 6
60 Residence B •' 32.5 L 46 " 32.5 L - - 52 + 6
61 Business C to 47.0 R 61 " 47.0 R - - 68 + 7
62 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 to 31.5 L - - 52 + 6
63 Residence B " 32.0 L 46 It 32.0 L - - 52 + 6
64 Residence B " 77.0 L 45 it 77.0 L - - 51 + 6
65 Residence B " 32.5 L 46 to 32.5 L - - 52 + 6
66 Residence B " 32.5 L 46 " 32.5 L - - 52 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/46). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
F

t
A-28
TABLE N4 6/6
Leg TRAFFIC NOISE EXPOSURES
US 74, Wilmington, New Hanover County
From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
TIP # U-2733 STATE PROJECT # 8.1251101
Asymmetrical Widening
AMBIENT NEAREST NOISE
R RECEPTOR INFORMATION NEAREST ROADWAY NOISE PROPOSED ROADWAY PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS LEVEL
ID # LAND USE CATEGORY NAME DISTANCE (m) LEVEL NAME DISTANCE (m) -L- -Y- MAXIMUM INCREASE
US 74, From SR 1821 (Brentshire Road) to SR 1409 (Military Cuttoff Road) Cont'd
67 Residence B US 74 31.5 L 46 US 74 31.5 L - - 52 + 6
68 Residence B " 31.0 L 46 " 31.0 L - - 52 + 6
69 Residence B " 31.0 L 46 " 31.0 L - - 52 + 6
70 Residence B " 32.0 L 46 " 32.0 L - - 52 + 6
71 Residence B " 30.5 L 46 " 30.5 L - - 52 + 6
72 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 52 + 6
73 Residence B " 58.0 L 46 " 58.0 L - - 52 + 6
74 Residence B " 31.5 L 46 " 31.5 L - - 52 + 6
75 Recreation B " 35.0 L 64 " 35.0 L - - * 70 + 6
76 Recreation B " 38.0 L 63 " 38.0 L - - * 70 + 7
77 Residence B " 61.0 R 59 •' 61.0 R - - 65 + 6
78 Residence B " 33.0 R 64 " 33.0 R - - * 71 + 7
79 Residence B " 44.0 R 62 " 44.0 R - - * .68 + 6
80 Residence B " 50.0 R 61 •' 50.0 R - - It 67 + 6
81 Residence B " 60.0 R 59 It 60.0 R - - 65 + 6
82 Residence B It 67.0 R 58 It 67.0 R - - 64 + 6
83 Residence B to 62.0 R 59 " 62.0 R - - 65 + 6
84 Residence B to 35.0 R 64 " 35.0 R - - to 70 + 6
85 Residence B •' 40.0 R 63 " 40.0 R - - * 69 + 6
86 Residence B " 37.0 L 63 to 37.0 L - - * 70 + 7
87 Residence B " 30.0 L 65 " 30.0 L - - * 71 + 6
88 Business C " 60.0 R 59 " 60.0 R - - 65 + 6
69 Business C " 95.0 R 54 " 95.0 R - - 60 + 6
NOTE: Distances are from center of the existing or proposed roadways. -L-=> Proposed roadway's noise level contribution.
All noise levels are hourly A-weighted noise levels. -Y-=> Noise level from other contributing roadways.
Category E noise levels shown as exterior/interior (58/48). * _> Traffic noise impact (per 23 CFR Part 772).
A-29
Description
TABLE N5
FHWA NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA SUMMARY
US 74, Wilmington, New Hanover County
From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
TIP # U-2733 STATE PROJECT # 8.1251101
Maximum Predicted Contour
Leq Noise Levels Distances
dBA (Maximum)
15m 30m 60m 72 dBA 67 dBA
Symmetrical widening
1. US 74, From SR 1905 to SR 1482 75 71 66 34.7m 60.Om 0 4 2 0 0
2. US 74, From SR 1482 to SR 1821 75 71 65 32.1m 56.2m 0 20 0 0 0
3. US 74, From SR 1821 to SR 1409 74 70 64 29.7m 52.3m 0 10 0 0 0
Total 0 34 2 0 0
Asymmetrical widening
1. US 74, From SR 1905 to SR 1482 75 71 66 34.7m 60.Om 0 4 2 0 0
2. US 74, From SR 1482 to SR 1821 75 71 65 32.1m 56.2m 0 21 0 0 0
3. US 74, From SR 1821 to SR 1409 74 70 64 29.7m 52.3m 0 10 0 0 0
Total 0 35 2 0 0
r
NOTES - 1. 15m, 30m and 60m distances are measured from center of nearest travel lane.
2. 72 dBA and 67 dBA contour distances are measured from center of proposed roadway.
Approximate Number of Impacted
Receptors According to ,r
Title 23 CFR Part 772
A B C D E
A-30
ft?,
r
t
x
TABLE N6
TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASE SUMMARY
US 74, Wilmington, New Hanover County
From SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
TIP R U-2733 STATE PROJECT 4 8.1251101
RECEPTOR EXTERIOR NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Substantial Impacts Due
Noise Level to Both
Section <=0 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 >= 25 Increases(1) Criteria(2)
Symmetrical Widening
1. US 74, From SR 1905 to 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1482
2. US 74, From SR 1482 to 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1821
3. US 74, From SR 1821 to 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1409
TOTALS 0 0 89 0 0 0 0 0 0
Asymmetrical Widening
1. US 74, From SR 1905 to 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0'
SR 1482
2. US 74, From SR 1482 to 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1821
3. US 74, From SR 1821 to 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0
SR 1409
TOTALS 0 0 89 0 0 0 0
(1) As defined by only a substantial Increase (See bottom of Table N2).
(2) As defined by both criteria in Table N2.
0 0
A-31

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT R8VIB1w7 Cot?NTS
1NWiam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Project Number: , q f'-O f14f lJ County: fill,
Project Name:
CA
Geode/tic. Survey
y This project will impact geodetic sitrve markers.
Geodetic 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)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer Date
Erosion and Sedimentation-Control
No comment
This projeit will require approval of an erosion 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.
I--,- 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].
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 2:A-32,7 • Telephone [phone]
r . RECEIVED
DEHNR
JAN 19 W
LANDAILL hLMr AECTION
r
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TRANSMITTAL SLIP owt?
TO,
16 / •?? (
RE NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
REP NO OR ROOM. BLDG. -
l
`'. r4
ACTIO
? NOTE AND :FILE - ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TOME - - ?. PER. YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
FOR YOUR INFORMATION
O
AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS
?
.
.
N
TE
? PLEASE ANSWER ?FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE. REPLY FOR MY. SIGNATURE. ? SIGNATURE
i
? TAKE` APPROPRIATE ACTION ?. INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
Ire,

by ?

.. ?o+STATF°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 4, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Beverly J. Grate (,'(5
Project Planning Engineer
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Wilmington, US 74, from Racine Drive to SR 1409 (Military
Cutoff Road), New Hanover County, Federal Aid Project
STPNHF-74(13), State Project 8.1251101, TIP Project
U-2733
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room on November 14, 1994. The following
persons were in attendance:
David Cox
Wady Williams
Eric Galamb
Doug Bowers
.Enrico A. Roque
John Maddox
Ray Moore
Rob Stone
Barry Shapiro
Faye Fleming
Charles Mullen
Jack Matthews
Tom Tarleton
Eileen Fuchs
Brian Williford
Kenney McDowell
-Paul Koch
Tom Norman
Pat Puglisi
David Smith
Rob Hanson
Ted Devens
Tracy Turner
Beverly J. Grate
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Environmental Management
Division Engineer, Division 3
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Structure Design
Traffic Engineering.
Traffic Engineering - Signals & Geometrics
Traffic Engineering - Signals & Geometrics
Traffic Control
Photogrammetry
Location & Surveys
Geoenvironmental
Hydraulics
Hydraulics
Statewide Planning
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation
Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation
Program Development
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental

January 4, 1995
Page 2
The following is a summary of comments made at the meeting and through
written-correspondence.
Project Termini
There are two adjacent projects to U-2733, T.I.P. U-92D Smith Creek
Parkway (currently under construction) and Randall Creek Parkway (not
currently programmed in the T.I.P.). The limits for the subject project have
changed due to the U-92C project. The project will begin at Racine Drive
instead of at US 17 (Market Street) and end at SR 1409 (Military Cutoff
Road).
Typical Section
The existing cross section consists of two lane 22-foot and three lane
33-foot shoulder sections. The following two alternatives are being studied
for the proposed project:
(a) Five lane curb and gutter section. The curb and gutter alternative
would avoid problems associated with roadway ditches in the area.
Due to drainage problems, it is likely that standing water would
occur in the ditches. this is undesirable in the project's urban
setting.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management recommends
construction of wet detention basin(s) if curb and gutter is used.
Wet detention basins will filter runoff before it reaches
downstream shellfish beds. However, wet detention basins would
have problems associated with them such as maintenance, unsightly
appearance, mosquitos and liability concerns.
(b) A five lane shoulder section. A shoulder section is recommended by
the Wildlife Resources Commission and the N. C. Division of
Environmental Management because of its ability to filter runoff
before it reaches the tributary to Bradley Creek.
Intersections
There are twelve stop sign controlled intersections and three signalized
intersections along the subject project. The signals are located at SR 1905
(Racine Drive), SR 1482 (Cardinal Drive), and SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road).
Desian Criteria
A 100 km/h (60 mph) design speed was determined to be appropriate for
this..project if a curb and gutter section or shoulder section is chosen.
The design year for this project is 2020.
Right of Way
The existing 150 feet of Right of Way will be sufficient for this
project. Some construction and drainage easements may also be needed.
January 4, 1995
Page 3
Cultural Resources
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has commented by phone
concerning this project. There are no known National properties or study
list properties in the immediate project vicinity.
It is anticipated that few (if any) archaeological sites will be
eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and those
that are eligible will be candidates for mitigation through data recovery
methods.
Natural Resources
One stream crossing and one possible wetland are located on the project.
The existing 48" and two 60" pipes will be replaced with a double barrel box
culvert. According to the Division Engineer, flooding occurs in the area
around Cavalier Drive due to flat topography, so the drainage will need to be
designed to eliminate this problem.
It was recommended by Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources that erosion control measures for high quality water areas be used.
Utilities
Sewer, water, power and telephone utilities are all located within the
right of way.
Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities
The Office of Bicycles and Pedestrian Transportation's response to
accommodations for bicycles and pedestrians are as follows:
Bicycle Accommodations: This segment of US 74 is the primary roadway
from the Wilmington area to Wrightsville Beach and connects US 76 to the
"River to Sea" bike route. The Wilmington Urban Area has ranked this
segment's improvement as a high priority on bicycle and pedestrian candidate
project lists, and the US 74 project is included on the STIP Incidental
Bicycle Project list.
The Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation recommends that
bicycle accommodations be provided as an incidental bicycle feature of this
project. If a curb and gutter cross section is used, wide (14') outside
lanes and bicycle safe drainage grate covers (if needed) should be provided.
If a shoulder section is used, paved shoulders at least 4-feet wide will
accommodate:.bicycles.. Due to the high traffic volumes,- a wider paved -
shoulder width is desirable. The roadway should be signed with "Share the
Roads" signs.
Pedestrian Accommodations: the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation recommends that a sidewalk on the north side of US 74 be
included as a study alternative. The proximity of residential development to
commercial and retail uses and the beach makes the need for sidewalks likely
over the design year period.
r,
January 4, 1995
Page 4
Additionally, the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
suggests that vehicular capacity constraints along the corridor make the
provision of sidewalks a reasonable and desirable alternative.
A question was raised as to who would maintain the sidewalks. The
county would be responsible for maintaining the sidewalk because this project
is outside the city limits. The Division Engineer expressed concern in that
the county does not have the proper means for maintaining sidewalks. Also,
the sidewalk policy calls for funding participation by localities.
Therefore, sidewalk provisions would depend on local cost sharing.
The Division Engineer was concerned that a very wide paved shoulder
would become a parking lane. Therefore, the paved shoulder will be limited
to 4 to 5 feet.
Hazardous Materials
There are three gas stations located on the project. The first, Wet
Willies Beverage, has two above ground storage tanks. Vay-Lor Food Mart and
Scotchman have one underground storage tank each.
Traffic Projections
Traffic projections have been received. (See attached).
Schedule
The final issue discussed at the scoping meeting was the projects
schedule. The project schedule has been set up as follows:
Functional Design
Citizen's Info. Workshop
Environmental Assessment
Public Hearing
FONSI
Right of Way Acquisition
Construction
BJH/rfm
Attachments
April 1995
May 1995
January 1996
March 1996
August 1996
January 1998
April 1999
e
cc: Scoping Participants
ICestle I 5Scotts Hilnl?
FjANOVf:-R.
000
e?\ ` ?I lmingtup??,}
•
1,t - Jql ,i?n,.brG
', f r'1 1 I,IaV
v
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OP HIGHWAYS
J PLANNING AND PJNVIRONMENTAL
tw_„ux BRANCH
f9.(
1,121
DEMERE
WNW.)
POP. 4,115
erg
1477 1475
Ion R•o
lu \.
1909 100 _ '??, lard
!903 S p ` ??. ? 1!
Ieo1 ?_ /,
1s`T O
1420
I.sp
ue1 ,..?
i.?1 >ao IaSe, i
b lab! / I e
1
arT )
I
in7o
..__ X871 , ? I
Ixeg 1
18Ta
8T1 a09
iBTI w
)) )W
'12
i?"\g
" 1897 a • -MA
WIDEN US 74 FROM RACINE DRIVE
TO SR 1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
T.I.P No. U - 2733
FIG. 1
121 ?hfa•
% )effr
j? I/?erom
1 ? ;I'? '(1 coy
,e • (!ggoat
` 1KI
k1
•• ?p q
?.- 7Y! f
-' (. A
e
ZI ..\\E
I!?
-0.M?k01A ? ?Lii
?I
\ e
` Itl11 ?`\
\sy a ItlIT t7-4 ?\ e
? o? 2147.
.1"Imo?
1859
IPA# w

8900 26600
16700
? vs 17
00 400
9 ?? 9 - +ss
55
RACINE DIL I350o 221V
(SR 1486) I1300
?
ss ?Z ? 9
S
N
b
N
600 1 3000
SR 1482 3100 ? `'' 5600 SR 1475
1500 ( 1600
p" ?_
66
6B
a0) 9 IG RO)
S
N
N
H
4800 t } 7000
OLEANDER AVE. 21000 ?25800 MILARY CUTOFF RD.
2300 \ f 4900
9 (--ss
!fir
FIGURE 1
1994 ADrS US 74
FROM US 17 TO SR 1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF)
TIP PROJECT U-2733
LEGEND
0000 = vpd
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (°b,)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (Yo)
AM,FAl = AM OR AVf PEAK
DIRECTION OF D
(5,1) DUAL TRUCKS, TTST (Ya)
10
PM 60
(
DHV D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES: DHV & D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG

!l
loco t6soo
32000 L 50300
US 17
4600 700
' so 9 -ss
4
L
T
RACIVE DR
(SR 1486)
ss --P-" (40) 9
SR 1482 4900
60 P,
OLEANDER AVE. 37400
9 (-f- ss

40!?
18w0
2300 ( 7600
1800 5.2000
10400 SR 1475
10 P.
(z0)
0
M
7600 t }11600
4000•../8900
46300 MILITARY CUTOFF RD.

FIGURE 2
2020 ADTS US 74
FROM US 17 TO SR 1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF)
TIP PROJECT U-2733
LEGEND
0000 = vpd
DHV = DESIGN HOURLY VOLUME (%)
D = DIRECTIONAL FLOW (%)
AMPM = AM OR PM PEAK
- DIRECTION OF D
(S,l) DUAL TRUCKS, TTST (%)
?
l0 P 60
(40)
DHV D
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES. DHV & D IF NOT
SHOWN ARE THE SAME FOR
THE OPPOSING LEG
v
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF'TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE D I Ilk
T? _ R F. NO. R ROO . BLDG.
FR?? tt i'1? REF. ?? ROOM. BLDG.
°?" ACTJOfY
? NOTE AND FILE I
? 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: -
L 711,1c,
OCT 2 01994
3 f
WETLANDS GROUP
WATER UALITY SECTION„ ?,.
?? ^j.4
.?
r'^
- _?'.':?
??:
? '??
_ - r,

.. _. ? ?!.
i? . ,i

??
L ?:
., !1 ? ?

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
October 17, 1994
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor -
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Wilmington, US 74, from
US 17 to SR 1409 (Military Cutoff), New Hanover County,
Federal-Aid Project STPNHF-74(13), State Project
No. 8.1251101, TIP Project U-2733
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for November 14, 1994 at 10:30 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Beverly J. Grate, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
BJG/plr ???? ,t, appO 0 06 2_c?
Attachment 1 r U
f ect
_-? cwb

.

w r!p
ate" ..
64
r ,?(
?Li
/S^8 7-2il - ?_(z'
,b ? I
2-
2 ? ?
y
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Date: October 17, 1994
Revision. Date:
Project Development Stage
Programming
Planning XXX
Design
TIP # U-2733
Project # 8.1251101
F.A. Project # STPNHF-74(13)
Division Three
County New Hanover
Route US 74
Length 2.2 miles
Functional Classification Urban Principal Arterial
Purpose of Project: The widening of US 74 is to accomodate present an
future traffic volumes. US 74 serves as the shortest route from I-40
Market St. (downtown) and the commercial/retail/
to Wrightsville Beach. Rapid development of thi
and retail and commercial development to support
on US 74 has already begun. n
s torecas
r
Description of project: Widen US 74 from US 17
Cutoff Rd.), to a five lane 5-lane curb and gut
1409 (Military
acility with 8-f
Type of environmental document to be prepared: Environmental Assessment
and Finding of No Significant Impact ?,?
Environmental Study Schedule: EA January 1996 Lt w
Type of funding:
Will there be special funding participation by municipality,
developers, or other? Yes No X
If yes, by whom and amount: ($) or M
How and when will this be paid?
1
U-2.733
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Type of Facility: 5 lane curb and gutter facility on 150 feet r/w
Type of Access Control: Full Partial None X
Number of: Interchanges 0 Grade Separations 0 Stream Crossings 1
Typical Section: Existing-2 lane shoulder and 3 lane shoulder section
osed-5
t
ect
Traffic Projections: (not available at this time)
Construction Year (19_) vpd Design Year (20_) vpd
% TTST % DUAL % DHV
Design Speed: 60 MPH
Current Cost Estimate:
Construction Cost . . . . . $ 4,600,000
(including engineering and contingencies)
Right of Way Cost . . . $ 40,000
(including rel., util., and acquisition)
Force Account Items . . . . . . . . . . $
Preliminary Engineering . . . . . . . . $ 400,000
Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,040,000
TIP Cost Estimate:
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,450, 000

Right of Way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 40 , 000

Total Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,490, 000
1)
U-2.733
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
List any special features, such as railroad involvement, which could
affect cost or schedule of project:
Construction: COST
Estimated Costs of Improvements:
X Pavement:
Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 816,550
Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Milling & Recycling . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Turnouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Shoulders:
Paved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Earthwork $ 131,790
Subsurface Items $
X Subgrade and Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . $ 348,825
X Drainage (List any special items) . . . . . . . . . $ 432,000
Sub-Drainage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Structures: Width x Length
Bridge Rehabilitation x . . . $
New Bridge x . $
Widen Bridge x $
Remove Bridge x $
New Culvert: Size Length $
Fill Ht.
Culvert Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Retaining Walls: Type Ave. Ht. ft $
Skew
Noise Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • $
Any Other Misc. Structures . . . . . . . . . $
X Concrete Curb & Gutter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 194,480
Concrete Sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Guardrail . . . $
Fencing: W.W. and/or C.L. $
X Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 48,000
Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Traffic Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Signing:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Upgrading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Traffic Signals:
2 New . . . .. . . .. . . . . . $ _ 35,000
1 Revised . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . $ 20,000
RR Signals:
New . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Revised . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
With or Without Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . $
If 3R:
Drainage Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . $
Roadside Safety Enhancement . . . . . . . $
Realignment for Safety Upgrade . . . . . . $
I
U-2433
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
X Pavement Markings:
Paint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
X Thermo & Markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 47 ,520
Delineators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
Other:
X clearing and grubbing . . . . . . . . . $ 60 ,000
X mobilization & misc . . . . . . . . . . $ 926 ,135

Contract Cost: $ 3,060 ,300
Contingencies & Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . $ 600,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs . . . . . . . . . . . $ 400,000
Force Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $
CONSTRUCTION Subtotal: $ 4,060,300
* Includes Preliminary Engineering Costs
Right of Way:
Existing Right of Way Width: 150 feet
Will Exist Right of Way contain Improvements?
Yes X No
New Right of Way Needed:. Width
Easements: Type Width
Utilities: . . . . . . . . . . .
RIGHT
* TIP right
Total Estima
. $
. $
OF WAY Subtotal: $ 40,000
of way estimate
ted Project Cost: $ 4,100,300
Prepared By: Beverly J. Grate Date: October 17, 1994
The above scoping information has been reviewed and approved by:
INIT. DATE INIT. DATE
Highway Design Board of Tran. Member
Roadway Board of Tran. Member
Structure Mgr. Program & Policy
Design Services Chief Engineer-Precon
Geotechnical Chief Engineer-Oper.
Hydraulics Secondary Roads Off.
Loc. & Surveys construction Branch
Photogrammetry Roadside Environmental
Prel. Est. Engr. Maintenance Branch
Planning & Environ. Bridge Maintenance
Right of Way Statewide Planning
R/W Utilities Division Engineer
Traffic Engineering Bicycle Coordinator
Project Management Program Development
County Manager FHWA
City/Municipality Dept. of Cult. Res.
Others Dept. of EH & NR
U-21133
Others Others
Scope Sheet for local officials will be sent to Division Engineer for
handling.
If you are not in agreement with proposed project or scoping, note your
proposed revisions in below and initial and date after comments.
G

II

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
WIDEN US 74 FROM US 17 TO SR 1409
(MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
T.1. P. NO. U - 2733
I FIG. 1 1
,t-.. 4
p,
March 1, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
FROM: Monica Swihart, Water Quality Planning
SUBJECT: ,-Project Review #95-0480; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Proposed Improvements to US 74, New Hanover County
TIP #U-2733
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be discussed in the
environmental documents prepared on the subject project:
A;. Identify the streams potentially impacted by the project.
The stream classifications should be current.
'B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
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 and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
G. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from DEM.
41

Melba McGee
March 1, 1995
Page 2
H. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor" shall obtain a 401 Certification from DEM.
I. Did NCDOT utilize the existing road alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?
J. To what-extent can traffic congestion management techniques
alleviate the traffic problems in the study area?
K. Please provide a conceptual mitigation plan to help the
environmental review. The mitigation plan may state the
following:
1. Compensatory mitigation will be considered only after
wetland impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent possible.
2. On-site, in-kind mitigation is the preferred method of
mitigation. In-kind mitigation within the same
watershed is preferred over out-of-kind mitigation.
3. Mitigation should be in the following order:
restoration, creation, enhancement, and lastly banking.
Please note that a 401 Water Quality Certification cannot be
issued until the conditions of NCAC 15A: 01C.0402 (Limitations on
Actions During NCEPA Process) are met. This regulation prevents
DEM from issuing the 401 Certification until a FONSI or Record of
Decision (ROD) has been issued by the Department requiring the
document. If the 401 Certification application is submitted for
review prior to issuance of the FONSI or ROD, it is recommended
that the applicant state that the 401 will not be issued until
the applicant informs DEM that the FONSI or ROD has been signed
by the Department.
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.
10838.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
?d w..m ma
?? auw vd'?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 15, 1996
Mr. Eric Galamb RECEIVED
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab MAR 2 2 1996
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Dear Mr. Galamb:
SUBJECT: Federal Environmental Assessment for US 74 (Eastwood Road), from
SR 1409 (Racine Drive) to SR 1905 (Military Cutoff Road)
Wilmington, New Hanover County, Federal Aid Project No.
STPNHF-74(13), State Project No. 8.1251101, TIP Project No. U-2733
Attached is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and the Natural
Resources Technical Report for the subject proposed highway improvement. It
is anticipated this project will be processed with a "Finding of No
Significant Impact"; however, should comments received on the Environmental
Assessment or at the public hearing demonstrate a need for preparing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement you will be contacted as part of our scoping
process.
Copies of this Assessment are being submitted to the State
Clearinghouse, areawide planning agencies, and the counties, towns, and
cities involved.
Permit review agencies should note it is anticipated Federal Permits
will be required as discussed in the report.
Any comment you have concerning the Environmental Assessment should be
forwarded to:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
N. C. Division of Highways
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Your comments should be received by May 20, 1996. If no comments are
received by that date we will assume you have none. If you desire a copy of
the "Finding of No Significant Impact," please so indicate.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/tp
Ar t
s ? ? SI
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.G 27611-5201
RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
71 t L-4
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
12 Niay 1995
MEMORANDUM O: Rob Hanson, P.E.. Unit Head
Project Plannin-
FROM: Lane Sauls. Environmental Biolo?-ist y.¢
Environmental Unit
ATTENTION: BeY%er_v Lra7N Arn;r--r,
SvB
fo: ot`OSeC iCF 1_il_ Of I.S
i?Oi'? ?.\ 190 it ti.° ) t0 S: C;
no! 0' C,
:e-
S. 1101. Federal Aid =roject = ST?`;ci _
i.
RI;1'E_CENCE:
c' 1c
natural Resource Technical R
eport
compieted 13 April 1995.
4
As of 28 Nfarch 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
lists the following protected species for New Hanover County
(Table 1).
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species - New Hanover County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Charadrius melodus piping plover T
Falco perearinus peregrine falcon E
Haliaeetus _leucoce)halus bald eagle E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Caretta caretta lo=zerhead sea turtle T
Chelonia mvdas green sea turtle T
Dermocheivs coriacea leatherback sea turtle E
Lepidochelvs kempi kemp's Ridley sea turtle E
Acipenser brevirostrum shortnose sturgeon E
A??araTlth.is umi lus seabeach amaranth T .
?=;rtes: "E" denotes End angered (a species that is threatened
'•?'ith extinc tion throe=bout all or a si
unificant
portion of its range). _
0
.Ar 1.

"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
The referenced Technical report resolved potential conflicts
with 9 of the 10 species listed in Table 1. This report
resolves conflicts associated with the red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis).
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson. Beaufort. Bertie. Bladen,
Brunswick. Camden. Carteret. Chatham.
Columbus. Craven. Cumberland, Dare. Duplin.
Hoke. it de JOnIISIOTI. „ogles. Lee. Lericir.
anover,
Mont Omer"' "ioore. Nash, New
Northhampton. Onslo?;. Orange. Pamlico.
Pender. Percuimans. Pitt, Richinond. Robeson.
Sampson. Scotland. Tyrrell. Wake. t'avne.
<< 1 1 ?Z Otl .
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker.(RCW) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks
on.the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks.
The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the blacir
cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses 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
15.7m (30-50 ft) high. ,They can be identified by a.large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW.=_
lays its eggs in April, May, and June;?the eggs hatch
approximately 3S days later.

3
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
NCDOT biologist Lane Sauls and NCDOT engineers Rob
Hanson and Beveriv Grate conducted surveys for this species
on 4 May 1995. These surveys consisted 'of active searching
in all suitable habitat within 0.8 km (0.5 mi). No nesting
trees occur within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the proposed project.
Therefore. no impacts will occur to the red-cockaded
woodpecker as a result of project construction..
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.. Environmental Unit
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: U-2733

F

« 1
,'- RECEIVED
MAR 2 2 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
771
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
13 April 1995
MEMORANDUM TO: Rob Hanson. P.E.. Unit Head
Project Planning
FROM: Lane Sauls. Environmental Biologist-???"? "]'
Environmental Unit
ATTENTION: Beverly Grate, Project Manager
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed Widening of US 74 to a Five Lane
Curb and Gutter or Shoulder Section from
SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409
(Military Cutoff Road), in New Hanover
County; TIP # U-2733; State Project #
8.1251101; Federal Aid Project # STPNHF-
"4(13).
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected
species is also provided. Please contact me if you have any
questions, or need this report copied onto disc format.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File: U-2733
a
?tgw::*

Proposed Widening of US 74
from SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to
SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road)
New Hanover County
TIP No. U-2733
Federal Aid Project No. STPNHF-74(13)
State Project No. 8.1251101
Natural Resources Technical Report
U-2733
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
LANE SAULS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
13 APRIL 1995
"
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ...........................1
1.2 Purpose .......................................1
1.3 Study Area ....................................1
1.4 Methodology ...................................1
1.5 Qualifications of Investigator ................3
2.0 Physical Resources ..................................3
2.1 Water Resources.. ***'*** ...... : .............. 3
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification............ 5
2.1.2 Water Quality ........................5
2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....... 6
2.2 Soils and Topography.... ....................6
3.0 Biotic Resources .....................................
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ............ .
3.1.1 Pine Flatwood/Savannah ................
3.1.2 Maintained Community .................8
3.2 Aquatic Communities ...........................9
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................9
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics.. .............................10
4.1 Waters of the United States ..................10
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands
and Surface Waters ..................11
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements ..... 11
4.1.3 Mitigation ..........................14
4.1.3.1 Avoidance ..................14
4.1.3.2 Minimization ...............14
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation.... 15
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................15
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ......... 16
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Protected Species ......... 23
5.0 References .........................................24
Appendix A: Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous
Fish Passage.
y
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Mapping Units Found Along the U-2733
Project Area ..................................6
Table 2. Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities .......... 10
Table 3. Federal Listed Species - New Hanover County ...... 16
Table 4. Federal Candidate and State Listed Species -
New Hanover County ...........................24
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map (Project ti-2733) ....................2
Figure 2. Water Resources ..............................:...4
Figure 3. Wetland Locations ...............................12
?..
The following
submitted to assist
Assessment/Finding
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Natural Resources Technical Report is
in preparation of a Environmental
of No Significant Impact (EA/FONSI).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for widening the existing two
lane section of US 74, from SR 1905 (Racine Drive) to SR 1409
(Military Cutoff Road), to a five lane facility (Figure 1).
The project originates at the eastern city- limits of
Wilmington and proceeds southeastward along US 74 to the
insection of Military Cutoff Road. Project length is 3.5 km
(2.2 mi), and proposed right-of-way is 45.7 m (150.0 ft) plus
easements. Project elevation ranges between 6.1 m (20.0 ft)
and 11.3 m (37.0 ft) above mean sea level.
Two alternates are proposed:
(1) Widen US 74 to five lanes with curb and gutter.
(2) Widen US 74 to five lanes with roadside shoulders.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog and describe the various natural resources likely to
be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attemps
to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are
made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the
context of existing preliminary design concepts. Should
design parameters and criteria change, additional field
investigation may be needed.
1.3 Study Area
The study area associated with the proposed project is
primarily disturbed. Commercial and residential development
mixed with pine flatwoods dominate the immediate
surroundings. A public golf course and driving range lies
adjacent to US 74 between SR 1432 (Cardinal Drive) and SR
1419 (Rodgerville Road). A tributary of Bradley Creek
crosses US 74 just east of its intersection with Rodgerville
Road.
1.4 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to the site visit.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of
the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey- (USGS)
quadrangle map (Wrightsville Beach), National Wetland

? ?
?1
1 ?
1 ?
69)

NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HICHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL.
BRANCH
WIDEN US 74 FROM RACINE DRIVE
TO SR 1409 (MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
T.I.P No. U - 2733
FIG. 1
•

3
Institute (NWI) map (Wrightsville Beach). Soil Conservation.
Service soil maps of New Hanover County and NCDOT aerial
photomosaic of the project area (1:2000). Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Department
of Environment. Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR. 1993)
and from the NC Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of New Hanover
County, 1992). Information concerning the occurrence of
federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of
protected and candidate species and the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
A site visit was made on 24 March 1995 by NCDOT
biologist Lane Sauls to evaluate natural resources. General
field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved
using one or more observation techniques including: active
searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars) and
identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat.
tracks and burrows). Organisms captured during these
searches were identified and then released. Jurisdictional
wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.5 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Lane Sauls, Environmental Biologist, NCDOT
Education: BS degree Natural Resources- Ecosystem
Assessment, North Carolina State University
Employment: Worked in biological field since 1992.
Expertise: Section 7 field investigations; wetland
delineations; and NEPA investigations.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area,
are discussed below. The availability of water and soil
composition directly influences composition and distribution
of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Water Resources
Project U-2733 is located within the Cape Fear River
Basin. One perennial stream, a tributary of Bradley Creek,
intersects the proposed project (Figure 2). Bradley Creek
originates from the confluence of three headwaters just south
of the study area and flows southeasterly approximately 3.2
km (2.0 mi) to converge with the Intracoastal Waterway.
The tributary of Bradley Creek exhibits a substrate
primarily composed of sand. Channel width and depth average

FIGURE 2. WATER RESOURCES

1.. m (-.0 ft) and 15.2 cm (6.0 in), respectively. Water
clarity is excellent and flow rates were relatively slow
during the site visit. Benthic algae is present throughout
the stream except in areas of scour.
2.1.1 Best Usage Classification
Most streams have been assigned a best usage
classification by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM). Bradley Creek and its corresponding tributaries are
designated as Class "SC HQW #". Class "SC" waters denote
Tidal Salt Waters with aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife and secondary recreation. HQW denotes High
Quality Waters, which are rated as excellent based on
biological and physical/chemical characteristics through
division monitoring or special studies. Stringent
sedimentation control measures apply to HQW's (15A NCAC
2B.0101(e)(5)). The disclaimer # depicts that discharges of
sewage are prohibited to segments classified SB or SC
according to the provisions of 15 NCAC 2B .0203 and 2H
.0404(a) in order to protect adjacent shellfishing areas.
Bradley Creek and its corresponding tributaries are also
designated as Primary Nursery Areas. Primary Nursery Areas
are defined as areas in which young marine fish or
.crustaceans spend a major portion of their initial growing
season due to favorable food, cover, bottom type, salinity,
temperature or other factors (G.S. 113-132; 113-134).
Neither WS-I or WS-II Water Supplies nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
proposed project. However, Masonboro Sound, a classified
ORW, is located approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi) downstream of
the project study area.
2.1.2 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is
managed by DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends
in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at
fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass are reflections of water
quality. No BMAN information is available for Bradley Creek
nor its tributaries.
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. No permitted
discharges occur into,Brad.ley,,Creek nor its corresponding
tributaries. 2.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
6
Increased channelization and sedimentation are the major
anticipated impacts to water quality as well as. more traffic
resulting in increased toxic compounds. Scouring of the
stream bed, soil compaction and loss of shading due to
vegetation removal are also potential impacts. Increased
sedimentation from lateral flows along with erosion is
expected.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water
resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project.
2.2 Soi.ls and Topography
Two dominant soil associations are found within the
project study area: Murville-Seagate-Leon Association and
Kureb-Baymeade-Rimini Association. The Murville-Seagate-Leon
Association exhibits very poorly drained to somewhat poorly.
drained soils that have a fine sand and sand surface laver
and a fine sand, sand, sandy loam and clay loam subsoil. The
Kureb-Baymeade-Rimini Association exhibits excessively
drained and well drained soils that have a sand and fine-sand
surface layer and a sand, fine sandy loam and loamy fine sand
subsoil or underlying layer. Both associations are found
primarily on uplands. Refer to Table 1 for a complete list
of mapping units associated with the proposed project.
TABLE 1. MAPPING UNITS FOUND ALONG THE U-2733 PROJECT AREA
Map Un it Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
Be Baymeade fine sand 0-5 -
JO Johnston soils 0-5 A
Kr Kureb sand 1-8 B
Ku Kureb-Urban land complex 1-8 B
Le Leon sand 0-5 A
Ly Lynn-Haven fine sand 0-5 A
On Onslow loamy fine sand 0-5 -
Wo Woodington fine sandy loam 0-5 A
NOTES: "A" denotes map units that are all hydric soils or
have hydric soils as a major component.
"B" denotes map units with inclusions of hydric soils
or wet spots.
New Hanover County lies in the Coastal Plain
physiographic province. The topography of New Hanover County
is level to gently sloping and short breaks separate the
uplands from the floodplains and marshes. New Hanover County
is mainly industrial. There has been rapid, widespread
urbanization over most of the county in recent years. Only a
small percentage of the county is used,for farms and pasture.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the existing vegetation and
associated wildlife communities that occur on the U-2733
project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting
these communities as a result of the proposed actions.
3..1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in
the project study area: Pine Flatwood/Savannah and
Maintained Community. Many faunal species are highly
adaptive and may populate the entire range of the two
terrestrial communities discussed, as well as other
communities outside of the project study area. Faunal
species observed during the site visit are noted with an
asterisk (*).
3.1.1 Pine Flatwood/Savannah
The Pine Flatwood/Savannah Community is found throughout
the project area. Before urbanization, this was the dominant
community. The vegetation has a very characteristic
appearance, consisting of an open layer of scattered, large
longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) and a lower layer of scrub
oaks. Fire strongly influences this community, in general
repressing the hardwoods and maintaining the pines.
However, with increased urbanization, fire has been repressed
rather than the hardwoods.
Longleaf pines and scattered loblolly pines (P. taeda)
now dominate the canopy in most areas. The understory, which
at one time was probably very sparse, is now composed
primarily of hardwoods such as sweetgum (Liguidambar
stvraciflua), live oak (Quercus virginiana), water oak (_Q.
nigra), turkey oak (? laevis), blackjack oak (Q_
marilandica) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).,
Other species found throughout the understory are red maple
(Acer rubrum) and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Shrub,
vine and herbaceous layers contain blueberry (Vaccinium
spp.), dwarf huckleberry (Gavlussacia dumosa), sweet
pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera Japonica)-and wire grass (Aristida stricta).
The Pine Flatwood/Savannah Community offers habitat for
a variety of fauna. Reptilian species that may inhabit such
areas include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina),
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) and ground skink
(Scincella lateralis). These species forage on small plants
and insects such as crickets, grasshoppers, beetles and
S
harvestmen respectively. Also, white-tailed deer*
(Odocoileus virginianus) and raccoon* (Procyon lotor)
frequent this area. The black racer (Coluber constrictor)
and copperhead (Aakistrodon contortrix) serve predatory roles
by feeding on numerous small reptiles, birds, mammals and
amphibians.
The presence of vegetative.stratification provides
habitat for species such as the fox squirrel (Sciurus ni er),
gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis), pine warbler
(Dendroica inus), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), red-
bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), northern flicker
{Coiaptes auratus) and downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens).
3.1.2 Maintained Community
The maintained community encorporates all areas along
roadsides and powerline right-of-ways which are dominated by
early-successional vegetation. These areas are regularly
controlled by mowing. In addition, seedlings of canopy trees.
exist sporadically in small areas. Dominant species found
within the proposed project area are herbaceous, and include
fescue (Festuca spp.), clover (Trifolium spp.), henbit
(Lamium spp.), chickweed (Stellaria spp.), wild onion (Allium
spp.) and dandelion (Taraxacum spp.).
This landscape setting provides habitat for the
existence of many faunal species adaptable to urban settings.
Species such as the northern cardinal* (Cardinalis
cardinalis), mourning dove (Zenaidura macroura), northern
mockingbird (Mimus polvglottos) and American robin* (Turdus
migratorius) are found throughout this community. The hispid
cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus), Norway rat (Rattus
norvegicus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) may also find foraging
opportunities and shelter in this community. A major
predator of this community is the red-tailed hawk (Buteo
iamaicensis), which forages mainly on rodents.
Another portion of the maintained community is the
roadside drainage canal. These canals parallel the roadway
in most areas of the proposed project. They exhibit floral
species adapted to wetter conditions. Such species include
black willow (Salix nigra), cattail (Typha latifolia), red
bay (Persea borbonia), sedgegrass (Carer spp.), soft rush
(Juncus spp.), tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and seedbox
(Ludwigia spp.). These species help to stabilize bank
erosion while providing shelter for many types of amphibians.
The roadside drainage canal provides ideal breeding and
foraging opportunities for amphibians. The green treefrog
(Hula cinerea), spring peeper (Hvla crucifer), barking
treefrog (Hvla gratiosa), southern chorus frog* (Pseudacris
nigrita) and green frog (Rana clamitans) are commonly found
9
resting on plant stems and detritus directly adjacent to
water. They feed on small arthropods, insects and worms.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic community types, the coastal plain tidal
creek and roadside drainage canal, will be impacted by the
proposed project. Physical and chemical characteristics of
the water body dictate faunal composition of the aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities and vice
versa.
The coastal plain tidal creek exhibits habitat for
anadromous fish, which forage in salt waters and make annual
spring migrations up rivers, streams and creeks to spawn.
Species that may occur at or near the proposed project are
blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis). American shad (Alosa
sapidissima), white perch (Morone americana) and yellow perch
(Perca flavescens). These fish feed primarily on copepods,
insects, pelagic shrimps, worms and some fishes. They also
provide forage opportunities for piscivorous fish such as
striped bass (Morone saxatilis) and southern flounder
(Paralichthvs lethostigma).
The roadside drainage.canal offers habitat for species
adapted to seasonal conditions. During dry periods, water
may recede from these canals thus offering no habitat for
most fish species. Some fish like the eastern mudminnow
(Umbra pvQmaea) are very hardy and are able to utilize
atmospheric oxygen. Under adverse conditions they reportedly
can survive for short intervals in mud. Other fish including
killifishes may be found in areas with permanent water.
These fishes inhabit fresh, brackish and coastal marine
waters. The male killifishes display striking colors, making
them very popular with aquarists.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. Any construction-
related activities in or near these resources will impact
biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted
and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study
area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic
communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the proposed right-of-way of 45.' m
10
(150.0 ft). Usually, project construction does not require
the entire study area or even right of way: therefore. actual
impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community
Pine Flatwood/Savannah
Maintained Community
Impact
1.9 (4.8)
8.4 (20.8)
Total 10.4 (25.6)
NOTE: Impacts are in hectares (acres).
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the
form of habitat reduction. Since the project area is already
fragmented, relatively little impact will occur to species
that live along the edges and open areas. However, ground
dwellers and slow moving organisms will decrease in numbers.
Mobile species will be permanently displaced. Increased
predation may occur as a result of habitat reduction.
Impacts to aquatic communities will occur in the form of
increased sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss
of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic organisms,
inhibiting feeding and respiration. Removal of stream-side
vegetation may lead to increased water temperatures: which
can be detrimental to freshwater aquatic species.
Anadromous fish are an important and sensitive resource
in North Carolina. Some stream crossing structures,
particularily culverts, have been demonstrated to impede
normal up-stream migrations of various fish species and thus
keeping them from reaching spawnin habitat. Recently an
Anadromous Fish Committee was formed by various members of
NCDOT, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS). Attached (Appendix A) is a draft
copy of these guidelines, which are expected to be finalized
in the near future.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and
impact analysis pertinent to two sensitive issues--Waters of
the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3. are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
11
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters:
One particular wetland system may be impacted by
proposed project construction (Figure 3). The wetland is
described below and rated in accordance with methodologies
recommended by the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM).
This wetland is associated with a small canal flowing
adjacent to US 74. The current project limits skirt the edge
of the wetland. However, a minor change in right-of-way
width may infringe upon this ecosystem. Bottomland hardwoods
including sweetgum, tulip-poplar and red maple are dominant
species in this area. Other flora includes soft rush,
seedbox and cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea). Soils colors
in this community range from 10 YR 2/1 (black) to 10 YR 5/2
(grayish brown). Hydrologic indicators include shallow
roots, buttressed trunks, multiple stems and oxidized
rhizospheres. The Cowardin Classification of this community
is PF01B (palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous,
saturated). The DEM rating of the wetland is 77.0 out of a
possible 100.0 points. Approximate amount of impact is <0.1
ha (<0.1 ac).
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5 (A) 14 (road crossings) is applicable to the
project.
Nationwide Permit r14 authorizes fill for roads crossing
waters of the U.S. including wetlands and other aquatic
sites. Standard conditions include: (1) the width-of the
fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual
crossing; (2) the fill placed in waters of the U.S. is
limited to a filled area of no more than 0.1 ha (0.3 ac); and
(3) no more than a total of 61.0 linear meters (200.0 ft) of
the fill for the roadway can occur in special aquatic sites,
including wetlands.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC k
2745) is also required for any activity which may result
in a discharge and for which a certification is required.
Certifications are administered through the Department of
Environment. Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR).

FIGURE 3. WETLAND LOCATION
13
Encroachment into surface waters and possible
jurisdictional wetlands as a result of project construction
is inevitable. The subject project is located within a
county that is under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA), which is administered by the Division
of Coastal Management (DCM). DCM is the lead permitting
agency for projects located within its jurisdiction.
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. CAMA necessitates a permit if the project meets
all of the following conditions:
- it is located in one of the 20 counties covered by CAMA;
- it is in or affects an AEC designated by CRC:
- it is considered "development" under the terms of the Act,
and,
- it does not qualify for an exemption identified by the Act
or by CRC.

This project will require a CAMA major development IlLL
permit because impacts to AEC' s areN3?likely. The CAMA major l
development permit app lication form serves as an application
for three other state permits and for permits from the COE ?,
required by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and U ''.;
Section 404 of the Cle an Water Act. The state permits
include:
(1) permit to excavat e and/or fill;
(2) easement in lands covered by water, and;
(3) 401 Water Quality Certifi cation.
AEC Information:
Estuarine waters are an AEC which CAMA defines as all
the waters of the Atlantic ocean within the boundary of North
Carolina and all the waters of the bays, sounds, rivers and
tributaries there to seaward of the dividing line between
coastal fishing waters and inland fishing waters. This
definition of estuarine waters was also set forth in an
agreement adopted by the Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC)
and the Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development.
A Public Trust AEC.,incl.udes all waters and submerged
lands in the coastal region where the public has rights of
14
use/or ownership. including rights of navigation and
recreation. This AEC also covers all lands underneath these
waterways and the minerals and biological resources that
these submerged lands contain.
A Coastal Wetland AEC is defined as any marsh subject to
occasional flooding by tides (including wind tides). Tidal
waters may reach the marsh by either natural or artificial
watercourses. Coastal Wetland AEC's, by definition, must
contain certain plant species listed in the CAMA regulations.
An Estuarine Shoreline AEC includes all shorelines
within 23 m (75 feet) landward of the mean high water level.
or normal water level, of estuarine waters has been
designated an AEC.
A meeting has been set with the DCM representative for
New Hanover County in early May to determine if the tributary
of Bradley Creek is an AEC. Information corresponding to
this tributary will be forwarded in the near future.
4.1.3 Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces-the
concept of "no net loss of-wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1505.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
4.1.3.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of
those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. Some unavoidable impacts to surface waters will
result from project construction as well as, possible impacts
to wetlands.
4.1.3.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
15
practicable step% to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of
the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of
the proposed project through the reduction of median widths.
ROT widths. fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
The following methods are suggested to minimize adverse
impacts to Waters of the United States:
1. Use of a curb and gutter section rather than a
shoulder section in the vicinity of the tributary of
Bradley Creek and possible wetland. Curb and gutter
sections require less fill material thus, reducing
impacts.
2. If a curb and gutter section is used, viet
detention ponds should be constructed to manage
storm water.
3. Strictly enforce Best Management Practices
(BMP'S) to control sedimentation during project
construction.
4. Clearing and grubbing activity should be minimized.
5. Decrease or eliminate discharges into streams.
6. Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas,
with judicious pesticide and herbicide management.
7. Minimization of "in-stream" activity.
8. Use responsible litter control practices.
4.1.3.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration.
creation and enhancement of Water of the United States.
specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects issued under Nationwide permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum of Agreement (MOE) between the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are
in. the process of decline either due to natural forces or
their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
16
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 19"3. as
ammended) requires that any action. likely to adversely
affect species classified as federally-protected. be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other
species may receive additional protection under separate
state laws.
4.2.1 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 ammended. As of March 28. 1995, the FWS lists the
following federally-protected species for New Hanover County
(Table 3). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species - New Hanover County
SCIENTIFIC NAME
Charadrius melodus
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Picoides borealis
Caretta caretta
Chelonia mvdas
Dermochelys coriacea
Lepid6chelys kem i
Acipenser brevirostrum
Amaranthus pumilus
COMMON NAME STATUS
piping plover T
peregrin e falcon E
bald eagle E
red-cockaded woodpecker E
loggerhead sea turtle T
green se a turtle T
leatherback sea turtle E
Kemp's Ridley sea turtle E
shortnose sturgeon E
seabeach amaranth T
"E" denotes Endangered (a
extinction throughout
its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a
an endangered species
throughout all or a s
species that is threatened with
all or a significant portion of
species that is likely to become
within the foreseeable future
ignificant portion of its range).
Charadrius melodus (piping plover) T
Animal Family: Charadriidae
Date Listed: 12/11/85
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck,
Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Pender.
The piping plover is a small migratory shorebird that
resembles a sandpiper. 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,
17;
and a black bar across the forehead.
The piping plover breeds along the east coast. This
bird in North Carolina, nesting 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 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
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near
the project. The proposed project is located inland and does
not exhibit any beachgrass nor sand lined with shells and
pebbles (i.e. beaches). Therefore, no impacts will occur to
the piping plover as a result of project construction.
Falco peregrinus (Peregrine falcon) E
Animal Family: Falconidae
Date Listed: 3/0/84
Distribution in N.C.: Avery, Brunswick, Burke, Carteret,
Dare, Hyde,. Jackson, Madison, New Hanover,
Rutherford, Surry, Transylvania, Wilkes,
Yancey.
The peregrine falcon has a dark plumage along its back
and its underside is lighter, barred and spotted. It is most
easily recognized by a dark crown and a dark wedge that
extends below the eye forming a distinct helmet.
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. The preferred prey is
medium sized birds such as pigeons.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near
the project. The proposed project does not exhibit high
cliffs, skyscrapers nor deciduous forests. Therefore, no
impacts will occur to the peregrine falcon as a result of
project construction.

1S
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) E
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Distribution in N.C.: Anson. Beaufort, Brunswick.
Carteret, Chatham, Chowan, Craven, Dare.
Durham, Guilford, Hyde, Montgomery, New
Hanover, Northhampton, Periquimans, Richmond,
Stanley, Vance, Wake, Washington.
Adult bald eagles can be
head and short white tail. The
chocolate-brown in color. In
identified by their flat wing
identified by their large white
body plumage is dark-brown to
flight bald eagles can be
soar.
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 an area, and having an open
view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an
eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other
sources include coots. herons, and wounded ducks. Food may
be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion:. NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near
the project. After extensive field reconnaissance, no large
trees with clear flight paths to open water exist along the
proposed project. Futhermore, with increased human
disturbances occurring throughout the project area, no
suitable nesting habitat exists for the bald eagle.
Therefore. no impacts will occur to the bald eagle as a
result of project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne,
Wilson.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage
that is entirely black and white except for small red streaks
on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
19
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks.
The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black
cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine, 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
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW
lays its eggs in April, May, and June: the eggs hatch
approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: UNRESOLVED
After extensive field reconnaissance, it was determined
that both nesting and foraging habitat exists for the RCW. A
survey for this species was not conducted during the site
visit. Biologists with the NCDOT Environmental Unit will
survey for the RCW in the near future.
Caretta caretta (loggerhead sea turtle) T
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/28/78
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick.
Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck,
Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamilco,
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell,
Washington.
Loggerhead turtles 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 costal plates with the first touching the
nuchal and 3 to 4 bridge scutes.
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. 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.

20
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near
the project. The proposed project is located inland and does
not exhibit any isolated beaches. Therefore, no impacts will
occur to the loggerhead turtle as a result of project
construction.
Chelonia mvdas (green sea turtle) T
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 7/2S/78
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort. Bertie, Brunswick.
Camden. Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck.
Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamilco.
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell.
Washington.
The distinguishing factors found in the green turtle are
the single clawed flippers and a single pair of elongated
scales between the eyes. It has a small head and a strong.
serrate. lower jaw.
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical
oceans and seas. Nesting in North America is limited to-
.small communities on the east coast of Florida requiring
beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for
nesting (they do not nest in NC). 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
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near
the project. The proposed project is located inland and does
not exhibit any beaches with minimal disturbances.
Therefore, no impacts will occur to the green sea turtle as a
result of project construction.
Dermochelys coriacea (leatherback sea turtle) E
Animal Family: Dermochelydae
Date Listed: 6/2/72
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Carteret. Currituck,
Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender.
The leatherback sea turlte is the largest of the marine
turtles. Unlike other marine turtles, the leatherback has a
shell composed of tough leathery skin. The carapace has 7
longitudinal ridges and the plastron has S ridges. The
leatherback is black to dark brown in color and may have
21
white blotches on the head and limbs.
Leatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical
waters of the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans.
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. 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.
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
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near
the project. The proposed project is located inland and does
not exhibit any isolated beaches. Therefore. no impacts-will
occur to the leatherback turtle as a result of project
construction.
Lepidochelys kempii (Kemp's ridley's sea turtle) E
Animal Family: Cheloniidae
Date Listed: 12/2/70
Distribution in N.C.: Beaufort, Bertie, Brunswick,
Camden, Carteret, Chowan, Craven, Currituck,
Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pamilco,
Pasquotank, Pender, Perquimans, Tyrrell,
Washington.
Kemp's ridley sea turtle is the smallest of the sea
turtles that visit North Carolina's coast. 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 costal
plates touching the nuchal plates. Adult Kemp's ridlev sea
turtles have white or yellow plastrons with a gray and olive
green carapace. The head and flippers are gray.
Kemp's ridley sea turtles live in shallow coastal and
estuarine waters, in association with red mangrove trees. A
majority of this sea turtle's nesting occurs in a 24 km (14.9
mile) stretch of beach between Barra del Tordo and Ostioal in
the state of Tamaulipas, Mexico. This turtle is an
infrequent visitor to the North Carolina coast and usually
does not nest here. Kemp's sea turtle can lay eggs as many
1) 1)
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.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near
the project. The proposed project is located inland and does
not exhibit any beach sections that are backed up by
extensive swamp or large bodies of open water. Therefore. no
impacts will occur to the Kemp's sea turtle as a result of
project construction.
Acipenser brevirostrum (short-nosed sturgeon) E
Animal Family: Acipenseridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Distribution in \.C.: Anson. Brunswick. New Hanover.
Richmond.
The short-nosed sturgeon is a small species of fish
which occurs in the lower sections of large rivers and in
coastal marine habitats. 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.
The short-nosed sturgeon requires large fresh water
rivers that are unobstructed by dams or pollutants to
reproduce successfully. 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.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Extensive field reconnaissance reveals that no suitable
habitat exists for the short-nosed sturgeon at or near the
proposed project. The tributary of Bradley Creek is too
shallow to support travelling and spawning activities needed
for this species. Therefore, no impacts will occur to the
short-nosed sturgeon as a result of project construction.
Amaranthus pumilus (sea-beach amaranth) T
Plant Family: Amaranthaceae
Federally Listed:
Flowers Present: June to frost
Distribution in N.C.: Brunswick, Carteret, Currituck.
Dare, Hyde, New Hanover, Onslow, Pender.
Seabeach amaranth is an annual legume that grows in
clumps containing 5 to 20 branches and are often over a foot
23
across. The trailing stems are fleshy and reddish-pink or
reddish in color. Seabeach amaranth has thick. fleshy leaves
that are small, ovate-spatulate, emarginate and rounded. The
leaves are usually spinach green in color, cluster towards
the end of a stem, and have winged petioles. Flowers grow in
axillary fascicles and the legume has smooth, indehsicent
fruits. Seeds are glossy black. Both fruits and flowers are
relatively inconspicuous and born along the stem.
Seabeach amaranth is endemic to the Atlantic Coastal
Plain beaches. Habitat for seabeach amaranth is found on
barrier island beaches functioning in a relatively dynamic
and natural manner. Seabeach amaranth 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
No suitable habitat is found for this species at or near
the project. The proposed project is located inland and does
not exhibit any barrier island beaches. Therefore, no
impacts will occur to the seabeach amaranth as a result of
project construction.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are fourteen federal candidate (C2) species listed
for New Hanover County. Federal Candidate species are not
afforded federal.protection under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject of any of its provisions, including
Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. C2 species are defined as
organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no
sufficient data currently exists to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed
Threatened.- 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 1993
are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists federal candidate species, the species'
state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the
status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
24
Table 4. Federal Candidate and State Protected
Species -New Hanover County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
Rana areolata capito Carolina crawfish frog
Planorbella magnifica Magnificent rams-horn
snail*
NC SUITABLE
STATUS HABITAT
SC Y
E N
Taphius eucosmius Greenfield rams-horn* EX N.
T.riodopsis soelneri Cape Fear three tooth T Y
Problema bulenta Rare skipper SR N
Amorpha georgiana
confusa Savanna leadplant* T iY
Asplenium
heteroresiliens Carolina spleenwort* E :N
Astragalus michauxii Sandhills milkvetch* - Y
Dionaea muscipula Venus flytrap SC Y
halmia cuneata White-wickv E-SC N
Litsea aestivalis Pondspice - N
Stvlisma p. var. Pickering s
pickeringii morning-glory E Y
Tofieldia glabra Smooth bog-asphodel C Y
Trichostema spp. Dune blue curls - -N-
NOTES: "*" No specimen found in New Hanover County in
twenty years.
"EX" Believed to be extinct.
t
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the.
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review.
of the database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program Rare
Species and Unique Habitats revealed two records of golden
crest (Lophiola aurea), a North Carolina Endangered plant,
occurring near the project area. NCDOT biologists and
project planning engineer will visit the site to determine if
golden crest will be impacted by the proposed project. If
impacts are anticipated, NCDOT will coordinate with NHP and
any other interested organizations. Otherwise, no records of
North Carolina rare and/or protected species occur in or near
the project study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual, "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Martof, Palmer, Bailey, Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
f
IC
Menhinick. E.F. 1991. The Fresh Water Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. The
Delmar Company, Charlotte, NC.
National Audubon Societv. Inc. 1980. The Audubon Societv
Field Guide to North American Trees Eastern Region.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
\National Audubon Society.. Inc. 1979. The Audubon Societv
Field Guide to North American Wildflowers Eastern
Region. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Societv
Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians.
Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to-waters of the Cape Fear River
Basin. Raleigh Dept. of Environment. Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Qualitv
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate
Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-
1990.
Radford. A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
l
Robbins, C.S. B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to
Field Identification Birds of North America. Golden
Press. New York.
Schafale..M.P. and A.S. Weaklev. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks
and Rec., NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1984.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil
Survev Maps of New Hanover County, North Carolina. N.C.
Agriculture Experiment Station.
Webster, Parnell, Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas.
Vir2ina and Maryland. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill IBC.