US 701 (7)

r33 S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
AUii 2 B ??`aJJ/?
&/0
s kq
DEPAR'T'MENT OF TRANSPORTATION
131:iVERLY EAVFS PERDUE
GO% I:RICUR
Mr. Rob Ridings
NC DWQ
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Dear Mr. Ridings:
August 24, 2010
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SL1 RE('AR)
SUBJECT: Federal Categorical Exclusion for the Interchange Construction at NC 87 Bypass
and US 701, Bladen County, Federal-Aid Project NHF-87(15), WBS Element
40226.1.1, TIP Project R-4903
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved Categorical Exclusion for the
subject proposed highway improvement. This report records the determination that
implementing the proposed action will not have a significant effect upon the quality of the
natural and human environment.
Sincerely,
? ovC
Er Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Project Development and
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
'PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
,RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWWNCDOTORG
Manager
Environmental Analysis Branch
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Proposed US 701 and NC 87 Bypass Interchange
Bladen County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-87(15)
WBS Element 40226. 1.1
TIP Project R-4903
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
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)
APPROVED:
2/ iv ?---
Da >`° Gregory J Thorpe, h.D., Man
ager,
712g11d
6' . 'v
`OJO
Date John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Proposed US 701 and NC 87 Bypass Interchange
Bladen County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-87{15}
WBS Element 40226. 1.1
TIP Project R-4903
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
.tnRTL,

C
Documentation prepared in the Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
by:
7E,
Kim L. Gillespie, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
Jars A. McInnis, Jr.,
??tHt G A M? o
"s 1 • 1
' 4 SEAk. p?•
0240447?'???
VGI Q?`e
II?G
ect Engineer
-. Ia.. -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

PROJECT COMMITMENTS ..................................................................................... ......... i
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ....................................................... ........ 1
A . Project Purpose ............................................................................................... ........1
B . General Description ........................................................................................ ........ 1
C . Cost Estimates ................................................................................................. ........ 1
II. N EED FOR PROJECT ....................................................................................... ........ 2
A . Description of Existing Facility ............. :........................................................ ........ 2
1. Functional Classification ............................................................................ ........ 2
2. Roadway ..................................................................................................... ........ 2
3. Structures .................................................................................................... ........ 2
4. Right of Way and Access Control .............................................................. ........ 2
5. Intersections ................................................... ........ :.................................... ........ 2
6. Existing Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks ........................................... ........ 3
B . Utilities ............................................................................................................ ........3
C . Airports ........................................................................................................... ........ 3
D . School Bus Usage ........................................................................................... ........ 3
E. Traffic Data ..................................................................................................... ........ 3
1. Predicted Traffic Volumes .......................................................................... ........ 3
2. Level of Service Without Proposed Project ................................................ ........ 3
3. Level of Service With Proposed Project ..................................................... ........ 4
F. Accident Record .............................................................................................. ........ 4
G . Adjacent Projects ............................................................................................ ........5
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................... ........ 5
A . Roadway ......................................................................................................... ........ 5
B. Structures ........................................................................................................ ........ 6
C. Right of Way and Access Control .................................................................. ........ 6
D . Speed Limit ..................................................................................................... ........ 6
E. Design Speed .................................................................................................. ........ 6
F. Anticipated Desibm Exceptions ....................................................................... ........ 7
G. Intersections .................................................................................................... ........ 7
H. Railroad Crossings .......................................................................................... ........ 7
1. Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks .............................................................. ........ 7
J. Utilities ............................................................................................................ ........7
K. Maintenance of Traffic ................................................................................... ........ 7
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ...................................... ........ 8
A. Initial Alternatives Studied ............................................................................. ........ 8
1. Countermeasure Alternatives ...................................................................... ........ 8
2. Directional Crossover ................................................................................. ........ 8
3. Interchange Alternatives ............................................................................. ........ 8
4. "No-Build" Alternative ............................................................................... ........ 9
B. Alternatives Studied in Detail ..........................................................:.............. ...... 10
C. Recommended Alternative .............................................................................. ...... 11
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION ....... ...... 11
A. Cultural Resources ....................................................................... ......................... 11
1. Historic Architectural Resources ............................................ .......................... 12
2. Archaeological Resources ....................................................... .......................... 12
B. Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Resources ............................................ .......................... 12
C. Natural Resources ....................................................................... .......................... 13
1. Biotic Resources ..................................................................... .......................... 13
a. Terrestrial Communities ..................................................... .......................... 13
b. Terrestrial Wildlife ..................... :........................................ .......................... 14
C. Aquatic Communities ......................................................... .......................... 14
d. Invasive Species .................................................................. .......................... 14
e. Summary of Anticipated Effects ......................................... .......................... 14
2. Soils.. ....................................................................................... .......................... 15
3. Waters of the United States ..................................................... .......................... 16
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments ......................................... .......................... 16
b. Wetlands ............................................................................. .......................... 17
C. Summary of Anticipated Effects ......................................... .......................... 17
d. Anticipated Permit Requirements ....................................... .......................... 19
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation ........................... .......................... 19
4. Rare and Protected Species ..................................................... .......................... 19
a. Federally-Protected Species ................................................ .......................... 19
b. Federal Candidate Species .................................................. .......................... 21
D. Floodplains .................................................................................. ..........................21
E. Relocation of Homes and Businesses ......................................... .......................... 21
F. Minority/Low-Income Populations ............................................. .......................... 21
G. Land Use/Zoning ........................................................................ .......................... 22
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning ............................................... .......................... 22
1 Future Land Use ...................................................................... .......................... 23
H. Indirect/Cumulative Effects ........................................................ .......................... 23
1. Prime and Important Farmland ................................................... ..... '..................... 23
J. Traffic Noise Analysis ................................................................ .......................... 24
K. Air Quality Analysis ................................................................... .......................... 24
L. Hazardous Materials ....... :........................................................... ...... .................... 25
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ..................................... .......................... 25
A. Citizens Informational Workshops ............................................. .......................... 25
B. Agency Coordination .................................................................. .......................... 26
C. NEPA/404 Merger Process ......................................................... .......................... 26
VII. BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ............................ .......................... 27

MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
APPENDICES
Project Vicinity Map
Project Aerial with Proposed Improvements
2006 Projected Traffic Volumes without Proposed Project
2030 Projected Traffic Volumes without Proposed Project
Proposed Roadway Typical Section For US 701
Proposed Bridge Typical Section For NC 87 Bypass
Proposed Bridge Typical Section For US 701
Waters of the US in Project Area
Floodplains in Project Area
Appendix A - Comments Received
Appendix B - Relocation Reports
Appendix C - NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process Concurrence Forms
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 - Alternatives Cost Estimates 1
Table 2 - Accident Rates Comparison 4
Table 3 - Proposed Bridge Structures 6
Table 4 - Preliminary Interchange Alternative Comparison 9
Table 5 - Interchange Altemative Comparison 10
Table 6 - Anticipated Effects on Terrestrial Communities 15
Table 7 - Soils Within the Project Area 15
Table 8 - Physical Characteristics of Water Resources in Project Area 16
Table 9 - Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in Project Area 17
Table 10 - Project Effects on Surface Waters in Project Area 18
Table 1 I - Project Effects on Wetlands in Project Area 18
Table 12 - Federally-Protected Species for Bladen County 20
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Proposed US 701 and NC 87 Bypass Interchange
Bladen County
Federal-Aid Project NHF-87(15)
WBS Element 40226. 1.1
TIP Project R-4903
Roadwav Design Unit
Four-foot wide paved shoulders will be provided along US 701 within the project study
area to accommodate bicycles.
Protect Development and Environmental Analvsis
NCDOT will investigate reducing impacts to wetlands WF and WO, and streams SA 6,
SA 7, SA 10, SA 13 and SA 14 during final design.
NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Management of Invasive Plant Species will
be followed for this project.
Hydraulics Unit
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and
subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
Division 6
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics
Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and
roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown
in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Categorical Exclusion - R-4903 Page 1 of 1
July 2010
L DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Project Purpose
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety and capacity of the NC 87
Bypass/US 701 intersection.
The proposed project is intended to address the following needs:
A number of angle and left-turn accidents have occurred at this location. Several of these
accidents have resulted in serious injuries or fatalities. Approximately 35% of these
accidents occurred when a driver on NC 87 failed to stop at the traffic signal (see Section
II-F).
• By the year 2030, the existing signalized intersection will operate at capacity (level of
service E) (see Section II-E-2).
B. General Description
The subject project involves construction of an interchange at the intersection of US 701
and NC 87 Bypass in Bladen County.
The project is included in the approved 2009-2015 North Carolina Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP). Right of way acquisition is scheduled for 2013. Construction is
scheduled for federal fiscal year 2014 in the draft NCDOT Five-Year Work Program.
C. Cost Estimates
The cost estimate included in the 2009-2015 STIP for the project is $9,976,000. Of this
total, $500,000 is estimated for right of way acquisition, $9,400,000 for construction and
$76,000 for mitigation. Current cost estimates are as follows:
Table 1
Alternatives Cost Estimates
Alternative 4
Construction Cost $15,600,000
Right of Way Cost $1,043,000
Wetland/Stream Mitigation $1,216,000
Total Cost $17,859,000
IL NEED FOR PROJECT
A. Description of Existin-, Facility
1. Functional Classification
Both NC 87 Bypass and US 701 in the project area are classified as minor arterials in the
North Carolina Statewide Functional Classification System.
2. Roadway
Within the project area, NC 87 Bypass is a four-lane facility. Travel lanes are
approximately 12 feet wide with a 56-foot median. US 701 has two 12-foot lanes. The posted
speed limit on NC 87 is 55 mph and on US 701 is 45 mph within the study area.
3. Structures
There is one existing bridge in the project area. Bridge Number 3 (see Figure 1) is
approximately 2,000 feet north of NC 87 and carries US 701 over Browns Creek. Bridge
Number 3 is 46.9 feet long and has a clear roadway width of 25.8 feet. This bridge has a
sufficiency rating of 48.9 out of a possible 100 points.
4. Right of Way and Access Control
Right of way varies throughout the project limits for both NC 87 Bypass and US 701.
Control of access and right of way for an interchange was bought at US 701 when NC 87 Bypass
was built.
5. Intersections
The project intersection is signalized, with protected-permitted left-turn phases for each
leg. Other intersections within the project area are controlled by stop signs.
Two intersections exist along NC 87 Bypass on either side of the US 701 intersection.
The intersection of NC 87 Bypass and SR 1145 (Martin Luther King Drive) is located
approximately 2,900 feet west of US 701 and the intersection of NC 87 Bypass and SR 1700
(Mercer Mill Road) is located approximately 3,600 feet east of US 701. Both of these adjacent
intersections were recently transformed from normal full-movement crossovers to directional
crossovers (no left turns onto NC 87 permitted) as part of a safety project (W-5002).
The intersection of US 701 and NC 242 is located approximately 1,060 feet south of
NC 87 Bypass.
6. Existing Bicycle Accommodations/Sidewalks
There are no bike routes within the project area, and neither special bicycle
accommodations nor sidewalks exist within the project area.
B. Utilities
Overhead power lines exist on both sides of US 701. A waterline exists on the west side
of US 701 north of NC 87. South of NC 87, the water line is on both sides of US 701 and runs
along the south side of NC 87 east of US 701. A sewer line runs along the east side of US 701 to
approximately 850 feet south of NC 87. Fiber-optic telephone and cable television lines run on
both sides of US 701 through the project area.
C. Airports
Elizabethtown Airport (Curtis L. Brown, Jr. Field) is a public airport located
approximately two miles east of the subject intersection. No navigation aids or other aviation
facilities are located in the immediate project area.
D. School Bus Usage
20 school buses travel through the subject intersection twice daily. East Bladen Middle
School is located on US 701 approximately 0.5 mile north of NC 87 Bypass.
E. Traffic Data
1. Predicted Traffic Volumes
The 2006 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) ranged from 3,800 to 6,900 vehicles per day
(vpd) on NC 87 Bypass and from 5,500 to 9,400 vpd on US 701. The projected 2030 ADT is
estimated to be between 6,400 and 11,100 vpd along NC 87 Bypass and between 7,800 to 13,700
vpd along US 701. Figures 3 and 4 present the 2006 and 2030 traffic volumes throughout the
project area.
2. Level of Service Without Proposed Project
The effectiveness of a roadway to service traffic demand is measured in terns of level of
service (LOS). Level of service is a qualitative measure describing the ability of a facility to
carry traffic and how individual users perceive traffic conditions. It is based on factors of speed,
travel time, comfort, maneuverability, interruptions, convenience and safety. Levels of Service
range from "A" to "F", with "A" representing free flow (ideal conditions), and "F" representing
forced or breakdown flow (undesirable condition).
The intersection of NC 87 Bypass with US 701 operated at level of service D in the year
2006. By the year 2030, the existing intersection will operate at level of service E (capacity).
3. Level of Service With Proposed Project
A capacity analysis was perfonned for the proposed interchange for the year 2030. In
2030, the proposed interchange ramp terminals on NC 87 will operate at level of service A. The
ramp terminals on US 701 will also operate at level of service A.
F. Accident Record
An accident study was conducted along existing facilities within the project area for the
time period between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005. During this time period, 26
crashes were reported at the project intersection. Forty-six percent of the crashes (12 out of 26)
were angle and left-turn accidents involving vehicles not stopping for the traffic signal. One
fatal crash was reported.
An updated accident study was conducted along existing facilities within the project area
for the time period between February 1, 2006 and January 31, 2009. During this time period, 13
crashes were reported at the project intersection. Approximately 54% percent (7 of the 13) of
these crashes were angle accidents involving vehicles not stopping for the traffic signal.
NC 87 Bypass within the project area was constructed on new location and completed in
2001. Partial control of access exists along this facility. Access is only allowed from public
roads, no direct driveway access is permitted onto the bypass. The US 701 intersection is the
only signalized intersection along the portion of the bypass that was constructed on new location.
The lack of driveways and signals and the design of the bypass seem to lead drivers to expect
this to be a free flowing roadway. In both time periods, all of the angle accidents occurring at
this intersection were due to a driver failing to stop for the signal.
Table 2 below compares the crash rates of the NC 87 Bypass intersection with US 701
with the statewide average and the critical rate.
Table 2
Accident Rates Comparison
Total Accident Rate Fatal Accident Rate
(ACC/100MVM) ACC/IOOMVM
NC 87/US 701 Intersection 169.45 6.52
(1/03 to 12/05)
NC 87/US 701 Intersection 100.52 0.00
2/06 to 1/09)
2003-2005 Statewide
123.91 0.56
Average Four-Lane Rural NC Routes
2005-2007 Statewide
133.47 1.12
Average Four-Lane Rural NC Routes
2003-2005 Critical Rate* 170.74 3.78
2005-2007 Critical Rate* 186.39 6.03
ACC/100MVM - Accidents per 100 million vehicle miles .
* The critical rate is a statistically derived number that can be used to identify high accident
roadway segments. (The critical rate is a 90% confidence level that something else than chance
is causing the accidents.)
4
The table above shows the total accident rate in this location for the time period from
2003 to 2005 was higher than the statewide average and near the critical rate. The table also
shows the fatal accident rate for this intersection for 2003-2005 was over six times the statewide
average and twice the critical rate for this same time period. Table 2 also shows the 2006-2009
total and fatal accident rates were lower than the 2005-2007 statewide average and critical rate
(2005-2007 are the latest statewide rates available). The project purpose and need was
developed based on the 2003-2005 accident data.
The subject project was added to the STIP in 2005. As an interim measure, "Be Prepared
to Stop" signs with actuated flashers were installed in 2005 at this intersection. Although the
number of total accidents reduced for the 2006-2009 time period compared to the 2003-2005
period, the percentage of angle accidents increased from over 46% to approximately 54%. The
angle accidents occurred because a driver failed to stop for the signal. Almost all of the
accidents involved at least one of the vehicles traveling 50 mph or faster, making the potential
for a serious accident greater.
G. Adjacent Projects
Several projects are included in the approved STIP for Bladen County. Information for
other projects in the vicinity of the project intersection is listed below.
TIP Project R-2561 - NC 87 from US 74-76 in Columbus County to NC 87 Elizabethtown
Bypass in Bladen County. This project involves widening existing NC 87 to a multi-lane
facility. Right of way acquisition is scheduled for state fiscal year 2013 and construction is
scheduled to begin after fiscal year 2015 in the 2009-2015 STIP.
TIP Project B-4436 - Replace Bridge No. 31 carrying SR 1700 (Mercer Mill Road) over Browns
Creek. Right of way acquisition for this project is scheduled for federal fiscal year 2012 and
construction is scheduled in federal fiscal year 2013 in the 2009-2015 STIP.
TIP Project W-5002 - NC 87 at SR 1700 (Mercer Mill Road) and NC 87 at SR 1145 (Martin
Luther King, Jr. Road). These intersections are located on either side of the US 701 intersection.
This project involved converting existing full-movement crossovers to directional crossovers at
each intersection. Project construction was completed fall of 2009.
III. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
A. Roadway
The project involves construction of an interchange at the intersection of US 701 and
NC 87 Bypass. NC 87 will be carried over US 701 on a bridge. US 701 will be relocated to the
east in order to allow traffic to be maintained at the existing intersection. US 701 will be
widened to either a three-lane roadway or a two-lane roadway with a 17.5-foot raised median
from approximately 1,800 feet south of the existing NC 242 intersection to north of Browns
Creek. Turn lanes will be provided on US 701 at the proposed interchange ramps and the
relocated NC 242 intersection. NC 242 will be relocated to intersect US 701 approximately 800
feet south of its current location.
Figure 5 shows the proposed roadway typical section for US 701 in the project area.
Figures 6 and 7 show the proposed typical section for proposed bridges on NC 87 and US 701.
B. Structures
It is anticipated the only major structures required for the project will be the bridges to
carry NC 87 Bypass over US 701 at the interchange and a new bridge to replace existing Bridge
Number 3 carrying US 701 over Browns Creek. It is anticipated that no other major drainage
structures will be required for the project. Table 3 below describes the proposed bridge
structures. Figures 6 and 7 present the proposed typical sections on these bridges.
Table 3
Proposed Bridge Structures
Carries/Crosses Clear Roadway Width Length
NC 871US 701 (dual bridges) 46 feet 200 feet
US 701/Browns Creek 44 feet 70 feet
C. Right of Wav and Access Control
A variable amount of additional right of way will be required for the proposed project.
The right of way previously purchased for construction of an interchange did not account for the
eastern relocation of US 701. This adjustment was needed to maintain traffic on US 701 during
construction. Full control of access is proposed along NC 87 Bypass and for approximately
1,800 feet along US 701 both north and south of the proposed interchange ramps.
D. Speed Limit
It is anticipated the speed limit along NC 87 Bypass and US 701 within the project area
will remain 55 mph and 45 mph, respectively. The actual speed limits for the project area will be
determined during final design.
E. Design Speed
The proposed design speed for the NC 87 Bypass is 60 mph. US 701 has a proposed
design speed of 50 mph.
F. Anticipated Design Exceptions
No design exceptions are anticipated to be required for this project.
G. Intersections
All intersections along US 701 within the project limits, including the proposed
interchange ramp terminals, will initially be unsignalized. By the year 2030, it is anticipated the
ramp terminals on US 701 will require signalization. All other intersections are expected to
remain unsignalized. NC 242 will be relocated to intersect US 701 approximately 800 feet south
of its current location. The proposed NC 2421US 701 intersection will be stop sign controlled.
H. Railroad Crossings
There are no railroad crossings within the project area.
1. Bievele Accommodations/Sidewalks
As discussed in Section II-A-6, there are no bicycle routes within the project area. The
proposed 8-foot outside shoulders on the proposed bridge over Browns Creek will accommodate
pedestrians and bicycles.
The proposed four-foot wide paved shoulders to be provided along US 701 within the
project study area will accommodate bicycles.
J. Utilities
The proposed project will likely impact the power lines located on both sides of US 701,
due to the proposed relocation of US 701 to the east with each alternative. Utilities along the
project will be relocated prior to construction. Care will be taken to prevent damage to water
lines and fiber optic cables in the area.
K. Maintenance of Traffic
Traffic will be maintained at all times during construction of the proposed project. Lane
closures may be necessary during project construction, but will not be permitted during periods
of peak traffic volumes.
IV. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
A. Initial Alternatives Studied
Several alternatives to constructing an interchange, including the "no-build" alternative,
were initially considered for the project. Several interchange alternatives were also considered.
Two interchange alternatives (see Section IV-B) were selected for detailed study.
1. Countermeasure Alternatives
Countermeasure alternatives can include warning lights, rumble strips, additional lanes,
turn lanes, etc. Flashers with warning signs reading "Be Prepared to Stop" were installed on
NC 87. (These were not installed on US 701.) It is possible the warning signs have helped some
of the traffic issues at this intersection. The 2006-2009 accident rate was lower than the 2003-
2005 accident rate. However, the percentage of accidents involving drivers failing to stop for the
traffic signal increased between 2006 and 2009. The lack of driveways and signals and the
design of the bypass seem to lead drivers to expect this to be a free flowing roadway. Many of
the vehicles involved in these accidents were travelling faster than 50 mph. These high speeds
make the potential for a serious accident much greater than if these accidents were occurring on a
lower speed facility. An interchange would reduce the likelihood of serious accidents even
more. For this reason, other alternatives are recommended.
2. Directional Crossover
Converting the existing full movement crossover into a directional crossover (superstreet)
would require traffic on US 701 wishing to cross or turn left onto NC 87 to turn right and travel
several hundred feet to make a left turn or u-turn. Due to the amount of traffic at this
intersection, traffic signals would probably still be required, however. This configuration would
provide improvements compared to the existing condition, but the required traffic signals may
still violate driver's expectations on NC 87. For this reason, a directional crossover is not
recommended.
3. Interchange Alternatives
Four interchange alternatives were initially considered for this project. Each of the four
alternatives relocates US 701 east of its existing location in order to allow traffic to be
maintained at the existing intersection. Each alternative also constructs an overpass on NC 87
Bypass. The grade of US 701 would become too steep to construct an overpass on US 701.
Table 4 presents a comparison of the preliminary interchange alternatives.
Table 4
Preliminary Interchan£e Alternative Comparison
Alternative I Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
Residential 6 6 6 5
Relocatees
Business Relocatees 0 0 1 1
Wetlands Affected 1.39 0.89 2.02 1
85
(Acres) .
Stream Impacts 1,349 1,192 2,222 1
510
(Linear Feet) ,
Forested Areas 28.23 29.40 30.71 23.51
Affected (Acres)
Farmland Affected 17.29 21.14 18.14 11
52
(Acres) .
Right of Way Cost $1,155,000 $1,335,000 $2,550,000 $2,195
000
Estimate ,
Construction Cost $15,400,000 $16,200,000 $17,900,000 $15,600,000
Estimate
Wetland/Stream $1,094,000 $925,000 $1,759,000 $1
262
000
Mitigation Cost ,
,
Total Cost $17,649,000 $18,460,000 $22,209,000 $19,057,000
Alternatives 3 and 4 have the most impacts on wetlands, streams, homes and businesses.
Alternatives 1 and 2 take the same number of homes and businesses, but Alternative 2 impacts
the least number of wetlands and streams.
The merger team concurred on the selection of Alternatives 2 and 4 for detailed study.
Alternatives 1 and 3 were dropped from further consideration dud to their anticipated impacts to
wetlands and streams. Alternative 4 was carried forward, although it has higher stream impacts
than Alternative 1, because it has operational and safety advantages over the other alternatives
(see Section IV-C).
Alternative 1 is a partial cloverleaf interchange with loops and ramps only in the
northwest and southeast quadrants of the interchange. NC 242 is relocated approximately 1,000
feet south of its existing location.
Alternative 3 is a diamond interchange. NC 242 is relocated approximately 1,000 feet
south of its existing location. Alternatives 2 and 4 are described in Section IV-B.
4. "No-Build" Alternative
The "no-build" alternative avoids impacts to the project area. However, this alternative
does not address the purpose and need of the project. For these reasons, this alternative was
eliminated from further consideration.
9
B. Alternatives Studied in Detail
Alternatives 2 and 4 were selected for detailed study.
US 701 at Browns Creek would be relocated to the east with all of the interchange
alternatives initially studied. Following the selection of detailed study alternatives, versions of
the detailed study alternatives which would replace the existing bridge in its current location
instead of relocating US 701 at Browns Creek were considered. Not relocating US 701 at
Browns Creek would affect approximately 568 feet less streams than relocating US 701, but
would affect 0.46 acre more wetlands. The cost of the two Browns Creek options are essentially
the same, and each option would affect the same number of homes. The decision was made to
relocate US 701 to the east of its existing location at Browns Creek because doing so would
affect less wetlands and may provide an opportunity for restoring wetlands at the existing
crossing.
Alternative 2 is a partial cloverleaf interchange, with loops and ramps in the northwest
and southeast quadrants. NC 242 would be relocated to the north a few hundred feet to tie into
the southeast ramp in order to avoid wetlands.
Alternative 4 is also a partial cloverleaf interchange, but with loops and ramps in the
northeast and southwest quadrants (see Figure 2).
These two alternatives were presented to the public at a citizens informational workshop
held on August 27, 2009 (see Section VI). However, adjustments were later made to
Alternative 4 to further reduce environmental impacts. The radius of each loop ramp was
reduced to avoid streams, a wetland, and a business. NC 242 was shifted north to avoid
wetlands.
Table 5 presents a comparison of these alternatives.
Table 5
Interchange Alternative Com arison
Alternative 2 Alternative 4
Residential 6 6
Relocatees
Business Relocatees 0 0
Wetlands Affected 1.09 1.44
(Acres)
Stream Impacts 1,295 1
529
(Linear Feet) ,
Right of Way Cost $1,335,000 $1,043,000
Construction Cost $16,200,000 $15,600,000
Wetland/Stream $1027
000 $1
216
000
Mitigation Cost , ,
,
Total Cost $18,562,000 $17,859,000
10
C. Recommended Alternative
Alternative 4 was selected as the recommended alternative for the proposed project.
Alternative 4 is a partial cloverleaf interchange with loops and ramps in the northeast and
southwest quadrants of the interchange.
Although Alternative 4 will affect more wetlands and streams than Alternative 2,
Alternative 2 does not fully meet the purpose and need of the project because specific
components of the alternative do not meet AASHTO design standards related to safety. This
could potentially lead to safety and operational issues. The concern is that with Alternative 2,
entrance ramp traffic will conflict with traffic wishing to turn right at the adjacent intersections.
Alternative 4 provides sufficient distance to meet design standards between the NC 87 entrance
ramps and the downstream at-grade intersections of NC 87 with SR 1700 and SR 1145.
Drivers merging onto NC 87 will require sufficient time and distance to react to traffic
slowing to turn at the adjacent intersections. The Alternative 2 entrance ramp in the northwest
quadrant of the interchange only provides approximately 103 feet of distance between the end of
the taper for the ramp and the beginning of the taper for the turn lane for the nearby intersection.
At 60 MPH, 103 feet provides a driver with only 1.2 seconds of reaction time. The designs value
typically used for reaction time is 2.5 seconds. The Alternative 2 on ramp in the southeast
quadrant would provide 3.7 seconds of reaction time. The alignment of the ramps for
Alternative 2 cannot be modified in order to provide sufficient distance between the ramp taper
and the nearby intersections.
In contrast, the Alternative 4 entrance ramp in the northeast quadrant would provide
approximately 1,636 feet between the ramp taper and the turn lane taper, which would provide
18.6 seconds of reaction time. The Alternative 4 entrance ramp in the southwest quadrant would
provide 21.6 seconds of reaction time. Alternative 4 was selected due to the increased reaction
time and the operational and safety advantages provided.
At the August 2009 citizens informational workshop, a majority of the attendees
preferred Alternative 4. Following the informational workshop, changes were made to this
alternative based on comments heard at the workshop. A retaining wall was added to avoid a
business in the southwest quadrant of the interchange. NC 242 was also shifted to avoid wetland
impacts, and to provide for a full movement intersection outside the controlled access area for
the interchange.
V. PROBABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION
A. Cultural Resources
The proposed project is subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of
their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties listed on or eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a
reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
1. Historic Architectural Resources
NCDOT architectural historians surveyed the Area of Potential Effects (APE) of the
proposed project. Seven properties over fifty years old were found within the project APE, but
based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, none of the
properties are considered eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of them is
necessary. Within this APE, there are no properties less than fifty years old which are
considered to meet Criteria Consideration G, nor are there any National Register-listed or Study
Listed properties. The State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) concurred with this finding on
December 5, 2006.
All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered, and
based upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Therefore, the project will not impact any properties listed on or eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places. The concurrence form is included in Appendix A.
2. Archaeological Resources
According to a letter from the State Historic Preservation Office dated March 28, 2006
(refer to Appendix A), there are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area.
Based on the HPO's knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources that
may be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project. Their recommendation was that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. Therefore, no archaeological investigations have been conducted
for the project and it is anticipated the project will not impact any archaeological sites listed on
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
B. Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Resources
Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that publicly
owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, and all historic
sites of national, state, and local significance may be used for federal projects only if: a) there is
no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land; and b) the project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm to 4(f) lands resulting from such use.
This project will not impact any resources protected by Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of
1966, as amended.
Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 stipulates that
property acquired or developed with the assistance of the Fund may not be converted to a use
other than public recreation unless suitable replacement property is provided. No properties
12
acquired or developed with the assistance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund exist in the
project area.
C. Natural Resources
1. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. Dominant
plants and animals likely to occur in each community are described and discussed.
a. Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities were identified in the project area: bottomland hardwood
forest, mixed pine/hardwood forest, and maintained/disturbed. A brief description of each
community type follows.
Bottomland Hardwood Forest (Blackwater subtype)
.This community is located adjacent to the banks and on the floodplain of Browns Creek.
Most of the area is jurisdictional wetland but the fringes are non-wetland. The plant community
within this area is diverse. Shrub and tree species are prevalent including sweetgum, red maple,
bald cypress, black willow, brookside alder, Chinese privet, river birch, and ironwood. Vines
and herbaceous species present include greenbrier, trumpet creeper, various sedges, gape vine,
and netted chainfern.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
This community is the result of past disturbance and does not match a `natural'
community type. Dominant species include loblolly pine, sweetgum, water oak, red maple,
Japanese honeysuckle, grape, and low bush blueberry. The mixed pine-hardwood community is
located in the southern end of the project area.
Maintained/Disturbed
This community encompasses various types of habitats that have recently been or are
currently impacted by human disturbance. These areas include impervious surfaces (i.e., parking
lots), roadside shoulders, maintained lawns, and utility easements. Herbaceous species within
these communities include fescue, ryegrass, goldenrod, dogfennel, dandelion, poison ivy, and
blackberry. In wetter areas, different species of sedge and smartweed are also expected. Shrubs,
saplings, and trees from surrounding habitats may also be present in these communities.
13
b. Terrestrial Wildlife
Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may utilize all biotic communities
previously discussed. Those species or evidence thereof that were actually observed are
indicated with an asterisk (*). Maintained roadside, agricultural field, and residential
communities adjacent to forested tracts provide foraging and cover areas that support early
successional species. Forested areas provide forage and cover for wildlife dependent on mature
forests with mast producing hardwoods. Many opportunistic species use both habitats to satisfy
nutritional requirements and shelter. Mammals expected in this area include the white-tailed
deer*, gray fox, raccoon*, and the Virginia opossum. Reptiles expected in this area include
yellow-bellied slider, painted turtle, common musk turtle, cottonmouth, five-lined skink*, broad-
head skink, and the redbelly watersnake.
Bird species observed in and around the study area include Carolina wren, red-shouldered
hawk, red-bellied woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, blue jay*, tufted titmouse, and the fish
crow.
c. Aquatic Communities
Browns Creek, an unnamed tributary to Browns Creek, and ten other unnamed perennial
streams are the only permanent aquatic communities within the project area. Fish species likely
to occur within this system include redfin pickerel, bluegill, golden shiner, mud sunfish, and
flier. These fish feed on a variety of living and organic matter including algae, insects, worms,
crustaceans, snails, and other fish. Two intermittent streams are also located in the project area.
Mosquito fish, algae, insects, worms, crustaceans, and snails likely occur in these systems.
Other aquatic species likely to be found here include several of the previously mentioned
reptile and mammal species, as well as amphibians. Amphibians expected in the study area
include eastern mud salamander, marbled salamander, southern leopard frog; and southern
cricket frog.
d. Invasive Species
Two plant species listed on the Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were
observed within the project area. Chinese privet (Severe Threat) and Japanese honeysuckle
(Threat) are listed as threats to habitat and natural areas. NCDOT Best Management Practices
for the Management of Invasive Plant Species will be followed for this project.
e. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area may be impacted by project construction as a
result of grading and paving in portions of the study area. Table 6 on the next page presents the
anticipated effects of the project on terrestrial communities within the project study area.
14
Table 6
Anticipated Effects on Terrestrial Communities
Community Area (acres )
Maintained/Disturbed 15.1
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 23.7
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 13.1
Aquatic Communities
Roadway construction in and adjacent to water resources may result in water quality
impacts. Clearing and grubbing activities near the water will result in soil erosion which may
lead to increased sedimentation and turbidity in streams.
Removal of strcamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality. The
vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating water
temperature. Streatnbank vegetation also stabilizes streambanks and reduces sedimentation by
trapping soil particles.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources increase the potential for toxic
compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to be carried into nearby water resources via
precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
2. Soils
The Bladen County Soil Survey identifies 12 soil types within the study area (Table 7).
Table 7
Soils Within the Project Area
Soil Series Ma Unit H dric Drainage Class
Johnston mucky loam JO Yes Very poorly drained
Wagram fine sand WaB Yes Well drained
Wagram-Urban land
complex WbB No Well drained
Dystrochrepts, steep DyF No Moderately well drained
Udorthents, loamy Ud No Well drained
Gritney fine sandy loam GrB No Moderately well drained
Norfolk loamy fine sand NoB Yes Well drained
Wakulla sand WgB No Somewhat excessively drained
Norfolk loamy fine sand NoA Yes Well drained
Ocilla loamy fine sand Oc Yes Somewhat poorly drained
Woodington loamy sand Wo Yes Poorly drained
Paxville sandy loam P Yes Very poorly drained
15
3. Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"waters of the United States," as defined under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Any action that
proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
(33 U.S.C. 1344).
a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments
The project is within the Cape Fear River basin (sub-basin 03-06-16, HUC 03030005).
Fourteen jurisdictional streams, Browns Creek, an unnamed tributary to Browns Creek, and
twelve unnamed streams were identified in the study area (Table 10). Each stream has a best
usage classification of C and an Index Number of 18-45 by the NC Division of Water Quality.
The location of each water resource is shown in Figure 8. The physical characteristics of these
streams are provided in Table 8.
Table 8
Phvsical Characteristics of Water Resources in the Proiect Area

Stream Name Bank
Height
(ft) Bankfutl
Width
(ft) Water
Depth
(ft)
Channel
Substrate

Flow

Clarity

Classification
Brown's Creek
(SA 1)
2-4
35
3
Sand
Medium
Medium
Perennial
SA 2 2-3 8 1 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Perennial
SA 3 5 3 1 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Perennial
SA 4 5 4 1 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Intermittent
SA 5 1 2 1 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Perennial
SA 6 2 5 1 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Perennial
SA 7 2 3 1 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Perennial
SA 8 3 4 1 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Perennial
SA 9 1 3 1 Sand, Riprap Slow Medium Intermittent
SA 10 2 3 2 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Perennial
SA 11 2 3 2 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Perennial
Ut to Brown's
Creek (SA 12)
3
5
2
Sand, Silt
Slow
Medium
Perennial
SA 13 1 4 1 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Perennial
SA 14 1 3 1 Sand, Silt Slow Medium Perennial
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-L• _
undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), or Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within one mile of the project area. Browns Creek is not
designated as a North Carolina Natural or Scenic River, or as a National Wild and Scenic River.
Browns Creek was included on the 2006 and the 2008 lists, but is not listed on the draft 2010
303(d) list of impaired waters.
Benthic monitoring information is not available for this watershed.
16
b. Wetlands
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". Fifteen wetlands were identified within the project
area (Figure 8). Wetland classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 9. All
wetlands in the study area are within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030005). Wetland sites
A, B, E, F, G, and J are located within the bottomland hardwood terrestrial community. Wetland
sites C, H, 1, K, L, and M are located within the maintained/disturbed community.
Table 9
Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Project Area

Ma ID Cowardin
Classification
Classification DWQ Wetland
Rating Area
(ac)
WA PFOIC Riverine 84 1.6
WB PFOIC Riverine 84 0.1
WC PEMIJ Non-Riverine 17 0.1
WE PFOIC Riverine 51 0.37
WF PFOIC Non-Riverine 38 0.4
WG PFO1C Non-Riverine 33 0.09
WH PEMIJ Non-Riverine 41 9.1
WI PEMIJ Non-Riverine 41 10.3
WJ PFOIC Riverine 73 0.82
WK PEMIJ Non-Riverine 38 0.08
WL PEMIJ Non-Riverine 35 0.43
WM PEMIJ Non-Riverine 44 0.06
WN PEMIJ Non-Riverine 40 0.04
WO PFOIC Riverine 47 0.2
WP PFOIC Riverine 56 0.1
c. Summary of Anticipated Effects
Construction of the proposed project will likely impact streams by pipe installation and/or
existing pipe lengthening. Construction activities are likely to alter and/or interrupt stream flows
and water levels at each aquatic site. Anticipated impacts are shown on Tables 10 and 11.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
•Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
•Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
*Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
°Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation.
-increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
*Increased concentration of toxic compounds' from highway runoff, construction, toxic
spills, and increased vehicular use.
17
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 will be strictly
enforced during construction of the project.
Table 10 presents the estimated impacts to surface waters. Table 11 presents the
estimated impacts to wetlands within the study area.
Table 10
Project Effects on Surface Waters in Project Area
Ma ID Classification Alt.2 Impacts (ft) Alt. 4 Impacts (ft)
Brown's Creek (SA 1) Perennial 0 0
SA 2 Perennial 580 995
SA 3 Perennial 250 242
SA 4 Perennial 0 20
SA5 Intermittent 0 118
SA 6 Perennial 0 42
SA 7 Perennial 0 0
SA 8 Perennial 0 0
SA 9 Intermittent 0 0
SA 10 Perennial 0 58
SA l l Perennial 300 0
Ut to Brown's Creek (SA 12) Perennial 61 0
SA 13 Perennial 0 54
SA 14 Perennial 104 0
Total = 1,295 1,529
Table 11
Project Effects on Wetlands in Project Area

Ma ID Cowardin
Classification
Classification DWQ Wetland
Rating Alt. 2 Impacts
(acres) Alt. 4 Impacts
(acres)
WA PFO1C Riverine 84 0.00 0.00
WB PFO1C Riverine 84 0.07 0.07
WC PEMIJ Non-Riverine 17 0.04 0.00
WE PFO1C Riverine 51 0.26 0.00
WF PF01C Non-Riverine 38 0.00 0.26
WG PFO1C Non-Riverine 33 0.00 0.09
WH PEM1J Non-Riverine 41 0.31 0.36
WI PEM1J Non-Riverine 41 0.00 0.00
WJ PFO1C Riverine 73 0.00 0.62
WK PEM1J Non-Riverine 38 0.08 0.00
WL PEM1J Non-Riverine 35 0.13 0.00
WM PEMIJ Non-Riverine 44 0.00 0.00
WN PEM1J Non-Riverine 40 0.00 0.00
WO PFOIC Riverine 47 0.20 0.00
WP PFO1C Riverine 56 0.00 0.04
Total = 1.09 1.44
18
d. Anticipated Permit Requirements
It is anticipated a Section 404 Individual Permit will be required for this project. The
Corps of Engineers will determine the applicable permit required to authorize project
construction.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 401 Water Quality Individual
Certification will be required prior to issuance of the Section 404 permit. Other required 401
certifications may include a GC 3366 for temporary construction access and dewatering. A state
stormwater permit may also be required. No moratorium has been recommended for this project.
No streams in Bladen County are subject to buffer rule protection by the NC Division of Water
Quality. No water body in the project area has been designated as a Navigable Water under
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
e. Avoidance, Minimization and Mitigation
Due to the location of wetlands and streams in the project area, total avoidance of
wetlands and streams is not possible.
Best Management Practices will be used during construction in order to minimize the
project's effects on wetlands and streams. The following measures will be implemented:
• The maximum slope (3 to 1) will be used through wetland areas.
• US 701 was relocated to the east to avoid wetlands.
• The radius of each loop ramp was reduced to avoid streams, a wetland (wetland WI
(reduced -0.27 ac)), and a business.
• NC 242 was shifted north to avoid wetlands (wetland WJ (reduced 0.10 ac)).
• NCDOT will investigate reducing impacts to wetlands WF and WO, and streams SA 6,
SA 7, SA 10, SA 13 and SA 14 during final design.
NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities. If
on-site mitigation is not feasible, mitigation will be provided by North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), in accordance
with the July 22, 2003 Memorandum of Agreement between NCDOT and the US Army Corps of
Engineers.
4. Rare and Protected Species
a. 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
January 31, 2008, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists six
federally-protected species for Bladen County. These species are listed in Table 12.
19
Table 12
Federally-Protected Species for Bladen County
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
Federal
Status
Biological
Conclusion
Alligator mississippiensis American alligator Yes T (S/A) N/A
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker No E No Effect
Schwalbea americans American chaffseed No E No Effect
Acipenser brevirostrum Shormose sturgeon No E No Effect
Lindera melissafolia Pondberry Yes E No Effect
Lysimachia asperulaefolia Rough-leaved loosestrife No E No Effect
• "T (S/A)" denotes Threatened due to similarity of appearance (a species that is threatened due to similarity of
appearance with another listed species and is listed for its protection).
• "E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range).
The American Alligator is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance (T(S/A)).
T(S/A) species are not subject to Section 7 consultation and a biological conclusion for this
species is not required. Potential habitat for American alligator exists within the study area. No
survey is required for this species.
No suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker, shortnose sturgeon, rough-leaved
loosestrife or American chaffseed was found within the project area. The NC Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats, updated February 2008, showed no
occurrences of these species within one mile of the project. In regard to the shortnose sturgeon,
correspondence with the NC Division of Marine Fisheries indicated that shortnose sturgeon does
not occur in Browns Creek or nearby. Therefore, project construction will have "no effect" on
the red-cockaded woodpecker, shortnose sturgeon, rough-leaved loosestrife, or American
chaffseed.
Wetlands and small ponds that are suitable habitat for pondberry are present in the project
area. Field surveys conducted March 3, 2007 found no individuals within the project area. In
addition, a search of the NHP database, updated February 2008, shows no occurrences of this
species within one mile of the project area. A second set of field surveys conducted April 13,
2009 found no individuals within the project area. Therefore, it may be concluded that the
proposed project will have "no effect" on pondberry.
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was declared recovered, and removed (de-
listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Species effective August 8, 2007.
The bald eagle remains federally-protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668-668d). The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and
provides a statutory definition of "take" that includes "disturb".
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large
bodies of open water for foraging. Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites,
typically within one mile of open water. Surveys conducted on May 10, 2007 found no
nesting or foraging habitat within 660 feet of the project limits.
20
b. Federal Candidate Species
As of January 31, 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service lists no candidate
species for Bladen County.
D. Floodplains
Bladen County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program, administered by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Based on the most current information
available from the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (Figure 9), Browns Creek is in a regulated
100-year flood zone, included in a limited detailed flood study and has a designated
non-encroachment width which is regulated as a floodway.
The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), to
determine status of project with regard to applicability of NCDOT'S Memorandum of
Agreement, or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final
Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit
upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown in the
construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
E. Relocation of Homes and Businesses
Both alternatives will require the relocation of six residences. All of these homes are
minority owned or occupied. No businesses will be impacted.
The relocation program for the project will be conducted in accordance with the Federal
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law
91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-133-5 through 133-18). The
NCDOT relocation program is designed to provide assistance to displaced persons in relocating
to a replacement site in which to live or do business. Appendix B contains additional
information regarding NCDOT relocation programs and includes copies of the relocation reports
prepared for the project.
F. Minority/Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency, to the greatest extent allowed by
law, to administer and implement its programs, policies and activities that affect human health or
the environment so as to identify and avoid "disproportionately high and adverse" effects on
minority and low-income populations.
21
According to the 2000 Census, the percentage of minorities in the project study area was
higher than the county average. In the project study area, 57.7% of residents identified
themselves as racially Black or African-American, 41.2% as racially White, and 1.0% as racially
Hispanic, compared with 38.0%, 57.2% and 3.6%, respectively, for Bladen County.
As discussed in Section V-E, all of the homes to be relocated by the project are minority-
owned or occupied. Newsletters announcing the three citizens informational workshops for the
project were mailed to property owners and the workshops were advertised in local newspapers.
Alternatives 2 and 4 were presented to the public at the August 2009 workshop. None of these
attendees objected to the proposed project, although objections were raised by other area
property owners (see Section VI-A). Residents to be relocated also did not express concerns
they were being disproportionately impacted by the project. Questions from these individuals
were related to the property appraisal and relocation processes.
Although this project will impact minorities, the primary benefit of this project to the
community is improving the safety of this facility. Demographic information shows the majority
of the residents in the immediate project area are minority. These minority residents potentially
drive through the NC 87 Bypass/US 701 intersection on a daily basis. During the 2003-2005
time period, 73% of the total number of accidents involved minorities. Approximately 28% of
the people injured in accidents were minority. Sixty-nine percent of accidents at this intersection
involved minorities during the 2006-2009 time period. Although the percentage of accidents
involving minorities reduced during this period, the percentage of those injured who were
minority increased to 71 %.
As previously discussed in Section IV-A, it was determined that only an interchange
would fully support the purpose and need of the project. Four interchange alternatives were
studied. All the interchange alternatives investigated impacted a similar number of relocatees.
Due to the proximity of the homes affected to the existing NC 87/US 701 intersection, avoiding
all of the homes is not possible with construction of an interchange. Although these homes
cannot be avoided, efforts were made to minimize the impacts of the project on surrounding
properties. The radius of each proposed loop ramp was reduced as a minimization measure.
Based on public involvement conducted and minimization efforts, this project is being
implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898.
G. Land Use/Zoning
1. Existing Land Use and Zoning
Within the study area, the land is mostly wooded. Less than ten single-family homes lie
north of the project intersection. Two businesses lie in the southwest quadrant, and a farm field
lies in the southeast quadrant of the project intersection. The surrounding area has commercial
parcels, businesses, warehouses, a school and a few small neighborhoods.
The project is located within Elizabethtown's Extra Territorial Jurisdiction and subject to
Elizabethtown's zoning ordinances. Land adjacent to the proposed interchange is classified on
the August 2005 Elizabethtown Zoning Map. Parcels to the northeast, southeast, and southwest
22
of the project area are zoned B-C/Bypass Commercial on the August 2005 Elizabethtown Zoning
Map. Several homes are located in the immediate northeast area of the project intersection, in
the area zoned Bypass Commercial. Parcels to the northwest are zoned B-C/ Bypass
Commercial and R-20 Low Density Residential. At the present time, the land surrounding the
proposed project is largely undeveloped. However, development is beginning to occur, with the
recently constructed State Employees Credit Union branch southwest of the intersection.
2. Future Land Use
According to the 1999 Bladen County Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the future land use
map within this plan identifies a large swath of land (shown adjacent to the NC 87 Bypass) as a
high density urban growth area. This high density urban growth area stretches from the town of
Dublin (along NC 87) to the area surrounding Elizabethtown on the south side of the Cape Fear
River (including the project area) and then further to the southeast along NC 87. Local planners
and land development companies have noted the potential for development on the vacant parcels
in the vicinity of the subject intersection.
In 2002, a draft Strategic Plan was presented to the Elizabethtown Town Council. One
recommendation in the plan was the creation of a bypass corridor overlay district. According to
the Strategic Plan, the purpose of the bypass corridor overlay district is to preserve the natural
environment while encouraging responsible commercial development by possibly outlining
standards to govern ingress and egress, signing, parking, and landscaping. This overlay district
is not included in the currently adopted Zoning Ordinance.
H. Indirect/Cumulative Effects
Project construction is expected to result in minimal indirect and cumulative
growth-related effects. It is expected that growth will occur in the area irrespective of the
proposed project. Development activity is already occurring in the vicinity due to
Elizabethtown's planning efforts to direct new growth along the NC 87 Bypass. Land is
available, access is good and there is a high level of visibility at the existing intersection. In
addition, the intersection's proximity to downtown Elizabethtown and the adjacent Bladen
County Industrial Park is a factor in the ongoing modest rate of development.
1. Prime and Important Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. Land which has been previously developed or planned for
development by the local governing body is exempt from the requirements of the Act.
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96 requires all state agencies to consider the
impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by
the US Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Land which is planned or zoned for
urban development is not subject to the same level of preservation afforded other rural,
agricultural areas.
23
Form NRCS-CPA-106 has been completed according to FHWA.guidelines. Since
Alternatives 2 and 4 received a total point value of less than 60 points for part VI, and therefore
cannot score a total of 160 points or higher (which would require NRCS evaluation), this site
falls below the NRCS minimum criteria and will not be evaluated further for farmland impacts.
This project will not have a substantial impact on farmland.
J. Traffic Noise Analvsis
A traffic noise analysis was performed to determine the effect of the proposed
improvements on noise levels in the immediate project area. The 72 dBA and 67 dBA predicted
noise contours are less than 77 feet and 119.4 feet from the centerline of the proposed roadway,
respectively. The noise transmission reduction provided to the interior of the structures located
within the project limits should be sufficient to moderate any intrusive traffic noise. The project
will not substantially increase traffic volumes due to the scope of the project. Based on past
project experience, the project's impact on traffic noise will be limited.
K. Air Quality Analvsis
The project is located in Bladen County, which has been determined to comply with
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.
Mobile source air toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean
Air Act. For the project alternatives, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Because the estimated VMT for the no-build alternative and each
of the project alternatives is nearly the same, it is expected there would be no appreciable
difference in overall MSAT emissions among the alternatives. Emissions will likely be lower
than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control programs, which are
projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between 2000 and 2020.
The proposed ramps contemplated as part of the project alternatives will have the effect
of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes and businesses; therefore, there may be localized
areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher for the build alternatives than the
no-build alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likely be most
pronounced along each of the interchange ramps and/or loops and along any temporary detours.
However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compared to the no-build
alternative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models.
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition or other operations will be removed from the project and burned or
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be performed in accordance with
applicable local ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan for
Air Quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be
done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions are
such as to create a hazard to the public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance.
24
Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction
when the control of dust is required 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.
L. Hazardous Materials
Two potentially contaminated properties were found in the project area. The•Sampson-
Bladen Oil Company property, with an active fleet fueling facility, is located 320 feet south of
the US 70l/NC 242 intersection. The former Bladen County Landfill is located primarily in the
northeast quadrant of the project intersection. NC 87 Bypass bisects the southernmost landfill
parcel 0.3 mile east of the project intersection. This landfill was closed in April 1994.
Assessments of soil and groundwater beneath these sites will be conducted prior to right of way
acquisition if right of way is required from either of these properties.
No properties containing underground storage tanks were found in the project area.
There is the possibility unregulated underground storage tanks, such as farm tanks or home
heating oil tanks, may exist in the proposed right of way. Any unregulated tanks will be
identified during right of way acquisition.
VI. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION
A. Citizens Informational Workshops
Three citizens informational workshops have been held for the project. The workshops
held on August 15 and October 10, 2006 were combined workshops for this project and TIP
Project R-2561. Project R-2561 involves widening NC 87 from the Elizabethtown Bypass to
US 74-76 in Columbus County (see Section II-G). The third workshop was held on August 27,
2009.
Property owners in the area were notified about each meeting with informational flyers
distributed by mail and advertisements in the local paper. An aerial photograph delineating the
study area was displayed and informational handouts were available to workshop participants at
the 2006 workshops. The detailed study alternatives were presented to the public at the 2009
workshop.
Fifty citizens attended the August 15, 2006 workshop (held in the Elizabethtown Town
Hall), and 68 people attended the October 10, 2006 workshop (held in the Acme-Delco
Elementary School). Eight comment sheets about the subject project were received from local
citizens from both 2006 workshops. 28 citizens attended the August 27, 2009 workshop. Six
comment sheets about the subject project were received from local citizens for the August 2009
workshop.
Several property owners attending the August 2009 workshop objected to the proposed
project, due to the amount of property which would be required. None of these property owners
25
who objected would be relocated by the project. A comment was received that the proposed
project is not needed and would not improve safety. There were attendees who agreed with
construction of the project. Most of those attending the workshop who expressed a preference
preferred Alternative 4.
B. Agency Coordination
Comments regarding the proposed project were requested from various federal, state and
local agencies. Copies of the comments received are included in Appendix A. An asterisk
indicates comments were received from that agency.
U.S. Department of the Army - Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service*
N.C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse*
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources*
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Health*
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program*
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Forest
Resources
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Parks and
Recreation
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Soil and
Water Conservation
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality*
N.C. Department of Public Instruction - School Planning
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission*
Bladen County
Town of Elizabethtown*
C. NEPA/404 MerlZer Process
This project has followed the NEPA/404 merger process. The merger process is an
interagency procedure integrating the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act into the National Envirommental Policy Act decision making process.
Representatives of the Federal Highway Administration, the US Army Corps of
Engineers and NCDOT served as co-chairs for the merger team. The participating agencies on
the NEPA/404 merger team for this project are listed below.
US Fish and Wildlife Service
US Environmental Protection Agency
National Marine Fisheries
NC Department of Cultural Resources
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
4
26
The merger team has concurred on the purpose and need, alternatives to be studied in
detail, and the wetlands/streams to be bridged of the proposed project. Copies of concurrence
forms are included in Appendix C.
VII. BASIS FOR CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Based on the studies performed for the proposed project, it is concluded that the project
will not result in significant social, economic, or environmental impacts, and that the categorical
exclusion classification, as defined in 40 CFR 1508.4 and 23 CFR 771.1 17, is appropriate.
27
' iu?rt Al ,
i '
<\`A.n ^ -

NC 41/8
X '`^

_ ELIZABETHTOWN

?
Pp -
x

BRIDGE #3 \
YP Nss
--
N B
TNZOW tic\
BE (9
y NC S? E?17A
/
sP
NC ?42 \ / NP \

CURTIS L. BROWN, JR. FIE D
(ELIZABETHTOWN AIRPORT)

PROPOSED NORTN c OUNA DEPARTMENT OF i
SFOUA?ON
- - INTERCHANGE TROJEC OMEVFLO
LOPM PNO

ENARO
-- !.-1?
NVIRONMFNTAI ANALYSIS BF.W<H
J? INTERSECTION OF NC 87 AND US 701
- BLADEN COUNTY
FEET TIP PROJECT R-A903
0 3000 6000
FIGURE 1

iI ?..
?- .4ov
N
` A
N -Y
Yr
' w1M1,yw L?7 .
R?k r
?? . =y-fit ^M. '?? )' i •' f7.. ? ?'1y

r 1
6
w. +
. 1
.
*' or

/AFr
r - i
` -
?
o
C r-I
?
a??? ? ?Y•
!?? '
i ?i
';? i
?-4
.
^?
r h ?' fJ_'?y,
. -
t
-
tc
.
?
?

N x
f A
N
>? s
•? r

N R-4903
2006 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
SR 1145
(MARTIN LUTHER US 701 SR 1700
KING, JR DRIVE) NC 242 (MERCER MILL RD)
18 ml-
0
d
NC 87
BYPASS
!NC
242
94
94
10 PA 60
(3.0 LANDFILL
ROAD
-I
TO -LM- 10
GRAY MOSS (2,1)
LANE
0
_? Q
94 alN

IO (2.6) 55 LM-
IO (2 6)6) 55 2 12
69 4) C 68 14 r7
O
19 alp 78
alp
0 0
60PM
12 4)4) IO ID ? 55 pM IO 55 PM IO
(24) (24)
40 25 o 25
0
36 ml=
0
PM
3 P"
10 (2.6) 55 1012.6155 NC 87
48 eC(-2 38 BYPASS
0
36 alp
0
° 55 =
2 al dlrv

0 0

LEGEND
a.. IWFC KI S KR O.Y N =a
Y
un o
gun
SR 1144
DHV O GR R. VMW Wp KW US 701
PNI ?, R[Y K( (BALDWIN BRANCH .
D Rp11 cl. pR
K. CHURCH RD)
.
MK."I -cl- C O
(d, t) ma T7-Sn m
SR 1700
(MERCER MILL RD)
FIGURE 3
NOT TO SCALE
R-4903
2030 TRAFFIC VOLUMES
n SR 1145
U (MARTIN LUTHER US 701 SR 1708
KING, JR DRIVE) NC 242 (MERCER MILL RD)
137
IO ) 60
13M
LANDFILL
1 ROAD
)
29
0 136
0
NC 87
BYPASS
NC
242
0
58 a
lb
PAI 0
70
GRAY MOSS (2.0
LANE 1 6
135

4
IO (2 6)55 d 10 (2.6) 55 10 (2.6) 55 11 `5 110 (2.6) 55 NC 87
111 6 Y Y Q 109 2 80 3t F r 64 BYPASS
0 -
27 q 110 aI?
0 0

60Lm-
4
) IO z
(2

SS PM IO 55 (2 4) IO
-M
4
d 2
55 36 2 r2 36
2
0
58 ml-
0
4 ml -
78
aI
0 0
LEGEND
aaa ,x.,,K..u .wv xsn>
w
Pm
-
arv o

DHV oescx iuiw. vnur m. sn
PM w rtu rtwm
D vcu rua ovecsaxu snn m
xac.res demo. v o
(d. t) mus. n-ss>m
SR 1144
(BALDWIN BRANCH US 701
CHURCH RD)
SR 1700
(MERCER MILL RD)
FIGURE 4
NOT TO SCALE
8'
SHOULDER
i *
12'
1
12'

8'
SHOULDER
* i
FROM NC 242 TO NORTHERN INTERCHANGE RAMPS
*4' PAVED SHOULDER **5.5' RAISED ISLAND WITH
LEFT TURN LANE
12' 12' 12'
SHOULDER SHOULDER

i *
4'1
4
* i
NORTH OF PROPOSED INTERCHANGE
*4' PAVED SHOULDER
R-4903
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL
SECTIONS FOR US 701
?I
q
17.5'
RAISED
IEDIAN **
t
OT TO SCALE FIGURE 5
52'
12' 12' 12' 8'
i
i
I
R-4903
PROPOSED BRIDGE TYPICAL SECTION
FOR US 701
NOT TO SCALE FIG(JRE 7

United States Department of the Interior
rn VA_R 14 2006
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office ?ov? H1N?tSbry CF
Post Office Box 33726 y Ays a?
8
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 dr` VEIOPN` ?S
March 7, 2006 q? 1NAL
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
on the potential environmental effects of the proposed interchange at NC 87 and US 701 in Bladen
County, North Carolina (TIP No. R-4903). These comments provide scoping information 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).
The Service does not have any specific comments or concerns for this project. However, we reserve the
right to review, any federal permits that maybe required. for this.project„at.the public notice stage._.
Therefore rt is important that resource, agency, coordination occur ear ly m.the planning process, in,order to
resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in project implementation. We recommend that
the environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a
thorough review. of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project impact area
that maybe directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corns
of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps or Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be likely to
occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also include the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural resources, and how this
and stmilar.proJects,contrihute to cumulative adverse effects;
6 , Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid:9r riummize
impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both,direct and indirect, and including fragmentation and
direct.loss of habitat; .
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would be
employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize impacts to
waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable.wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts."
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their designated
non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological assessment/evaluation may be prepared to
fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-
by-county list of federally protected species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their
life histories and habitats can be found on our web page at httpi//nc-es.fws.sov/eslcountVfrihtml .
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any known
occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not be substituted
for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. The NCNHP database only
indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does.not necessarily. mean that such
species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. If suitable habitat
occurs within the project vicinity for any listed species, surveys should.be conducted to determine
presence or absence of the species.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to
adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the results of your
surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the,action on listed species, including
consideration' of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities that might affect
the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse,
direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then you are not required to contactour.offiice for concurrence.
The, Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions regarding
our response, please contact Mr. Gary. Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
nee
J
Pete-Be tin
Ecolo'I 1 Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson,NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHwA, Raleigh, NC
? Hart
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor
February 28, 2006
Ms. Kim Gillespie
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Gillespie:
Britt Cobb, Secretary
Subject: Seeping - Proposal for interchange construction at NC 87 and US 701 in Bladen County.
TIP 9R-4903
The N. C. State Clearinghouse has received the above project for intergovernmental review. This
project has been assigned State Application Number 06-E-4220-0261. Please use this number with
all inquiries or correspondence with this office.
Review of this project should be completed on or before 03/28/2006 - Should you have any
questions, please call [phone].
Sincerely,

Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
hfailing Address: Telephone: [phone] -
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone]
Raleigh, NC, 27699-1301 State Courier 451-01 .00
e-mail: Chm.Baggen a ncmail.net
Location Address:
116 West Jones Street
Raleigh, North Carolina
An Equal Oppornatiry?.4frtnalive Action Employer

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
April 3, 2006
Ms. Kim Gillespie
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Gillespie:
Re: SCH File # 06-E-4220-0261; Seeping; Proposal for interchange construction at NC 87 and US
701 in Bladen County. TIP 9R-4903
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are the comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region N
Mailing A ddress: Telephone: [phone] Location Address:
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier #51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail Chrys. [e-mail]
An Equal OpportuninlAffirniative Action Employer
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
2
?o0
6

MEMORANDUM ?c Un
of ?? C!`? v

TO: Chrys Baggett l?
? \?
State Clearinghouse ?
/s?6? ?t ?1\\ v
FROM: Melba McGee
Environmental Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: 06-0261 Scoping, Improvements to Intersecti on of NC 87 and US
701 in Bladen County
DATE: March 29, 2006
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources has reviewed the
proposed information. The attached comments are for the applicant's
information.
Thank you for the opportunity to review.
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] \ FAX: [phone] \ Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
An Equal OpportunityIArfrmabve Actbn Employer 50%Recycled110%Post Consumer Paper
Noe Carolina
Naturallry
scnno
e
North Carolina
Department of Administration
Michael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary
April 19, 2006
Ms. Kim Gillespie
NC Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Gillespie:
Re: SCH File # 06-E-4220-0261; Scoping; Proposal for interchange construction at NC 87 and US
701 in Bladen County. TIP #R-4903
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 113A-10, when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law, the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Attached to this
letter for your consideration are additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review.
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, a
C.f,
Ms. Chrys Baggett
Environmental Policy Act Coordinator
Attachments
cc: Region N
Dfading Address: Telephone: [phone] Location A ddress:
1301 Mail Service Center Fan [phone] 116 West Jones Street
Ralc
Raleigh, NC 27699-1301 State Courier k51-01-00 Raleigh, North Carolina
e-mail Chrys.Baggett a nonail.net
An Equal Opportuniry/Affirnudive Action Employer
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Michael F. Easley, Governor \? ';? 17 18 Jr?` William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
APR 2006
MEMORANDUM
A tii
TO: Chrys Baggett sS 4 0l
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
SUBJECT: 06-0261 Interchange Construction at NC 87 and US 70, Bladen County
DATE: April 18, 2006
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
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.enr.state.nc.us/ENR/
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer - 50 % Recycled 1 10 % Post Consumer Paper
N Carolina
oe
Naturally
yTAl[ p
py W?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
}I,., It 5andtvc1,:\dminlavae..
MiduI F. I :,,A v, (;","n,
Id li'rcL 1.m„t Ucpure Cccrcun?
'\'larch 28, 2006
MI.:`IORANDUM
1'0: Greg'1'horpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and E itv ironinental Analysis Blanch
NCDOT Division of 1-Iighwal•s
FROM: Peter Sandbeck
OLlcc of \r, N,rs .uel I
I h...hm of I
D"' M Ilmuk, 1)4....r
SUBJECT Division 6, Intmection of NC 81 and US 101,8-4903, Millen County, ER 06-0019
I'hatik you for Your letter of February 23, 2006, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a >carch of our snaps and files and located the following stt'ucuae of historical or archirccntral
import:mcc syirhin the general area of this project:
• I•nnity NICIlludist Church, NW corner of Broad and Lower Sts., listed in the National Register ill 1787.
We recommend that a Department of 't'ransportation architectural historian identify and evaluatc an4 structures
over fifty pears of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
There are no known archaeological si[eS Ntlthio the proposed project area. BU.,Cd W1 Our knowIctIge of the area, it
is unlikely that any archaeological resources that mat' he eligible. for conclusion in the National lzcgistcr of I listuric
Places will he aflicted by the projee[. We. thcrcfnre, reccvumend that no archacologicd inN cstigation be conducted
in connection with this project.
hhc ahovc cllnmcnu ore made pur wini to Section lo(, of the N;16nal 1-listoric Preservation Act and the.
Advisors Council on I fi,toric ])rescn-arion4 Regu6uions for Compliance 44th Scction IO6 codified at 30 CI'R
Pa rI 800,
Thank you for Your cix,peration and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Rence Gledhill-f{arlev, cncironnimml review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future communication
conccrninr this proje•.et, please cite the atbovc-referctwul n'acking rnunbe-.
cc: %Lli' Popc I-vrr

_ -- L?avlinn _. 4lailind Add,c, Tclchonc/r,..
ADMINI.srwrION 4161,hur', afilr>lol?. -l' I hl Nf.AAW.l':
RESTORATION Sli ]. 114„u}Imtl, Itaklyh\C J61'%\lal], dq 1'. ,:,, rJ. ?,L ?" •e9?9GI- ,)I ):'. :.51: hAWll
SURVEY& PIANNING SIi N. IN.•nm SV«a.lUkinh, ..\l: J,.I_\1fil Sci.e?'bnar, It,i:.gh ..\l;'_-c•1.4n1': ;J I'q:?:avs: r;;aw?l
ARTMENT FIENVIRONOt I AND
MAR 21 AF NATURAL•'RESOURCES.;,, .
,.,r N I....._.,,,.,....:.,_.._.,t.,ei
t. L2?UFIDIVrS!dgr4OF ENVIF20NMENT?L-I?EALTH
rwOFFInter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name NC DOT
Project Number
06-0261
County
Bladen
Type of Project Proposal for Interchange
constriction at NC 87 & US
Comments provided by:
? Regional Program Person
® Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section
? Central Office program person
Name Debra Benoy-Fayetteville RO Date 03/17/06
Telephone number:
Program within Division of Environmental Health:
+ ? Public Water Supply
? Other, Name of Program:
Response (check all applicable):
? No objection to project as proposed
? No comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Comments attached
See comments below

apR'10
4 F. 06

Public Water Supply Section
Environmental Review Coordinator
for the
Division of Environmental Health
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name
NC DOT
Project Number
06-0261
County
Bladen
Type of Project Proposal for interchange
construction at NC 87 & US
70.
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications for all water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Environmental Health prior to the
award of a contract or the initiation of construction (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For information, contact the Public Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
? This project will be classified as a non-community public water supply and most comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section, [phone].
? If this project is constructed as proposed, we will recommend closure of feet of
adjacent waters to the harvest of shellfish. For information regarding the shellfish
sanitation program, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation Section at (252)
726-6827.
? The soil disposal area(s) proposed for this project may produce a mosquito breeding
problem. For information concerning appropriate mosquito control measures, the
applicant should contact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised that prior to the removal or demolition of dilapidated
structures, a extensive rodent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For information concerning rodent control,
contact the local health department or the Public Health Pest Management Section at
[phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et.
sep.). For information concerning septic tank and other on-site waste disposal methods,
contact the On-Site Wastewater Section at [phone].
? The applicant should be advised to contact the local health department regarding the
sanitary facilities required for this project.
? If existing water lines will be relocated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocation must be submitted to the Division of Environmental Health, Public Water
Supply Section, Technical Services Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
® For Regional and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this form.
Jim McRight PWSS 03117106
Reviewer Section/Branch Date
SAPwsV\ngela W%Clearinghouse\Review Response Pgs 1 and 2 for input.doc
R?cH F
r
?1/s
®CNRR 1
4 2006
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resour ?F ft.N4 sF
y??ro Ease
Michael F. Easley, Govemor William G. Ro?ASV%
March 6, 2006
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, DOT Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Y-Z-
FROM: Harry LeGrand, Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: Proposed Interchange Construction - Intersection of NC 87 and US 701;
Elizabethtown, Bladen County
REFERENCE: TIP Project R-4903
The Natural Heritage Program has no record of rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas at the site nor within a mile of the project area. Although our maps do not
show records of such natural heritage elements in the project area, it does not necessarily mean
that they are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not been surveyed. The use of
Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys, particularly if
the project area contains suitable habitat for rare species, significant natural communities, or
priority natural areas.
You may wish to check the Natural Heritage Program database website at
<www.ncsparks.net/nhp/scarch.html> for a listing of rare plants and animals and significant
natural communities in the county and on the topographic quad map. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at 919-715-8697 if you have questions or need further information.
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carollna 27699.1601 NQ One
CaLO)1I13
M Phone: [phone]' FAX [phone]' Internet www.enr.state.nc.us Karola
Equal Opponur y' Alrumative Action Employer -So % Recycled' 10 % Post Coruumer Paper
MEMORANDUM
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
Nicole Thomson, NC Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting
This office has reviewed the referenced document dated February 6, 2006. The Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that
impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential
for multiple impacts to perennial streams and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More
specifically, impacts to:
Name River Basin Stream Stream Index
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the
Division of Water Quality.`iequests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
1. UT to Browns Creek is class C;303(d) waters of the State. UT to Browns Creek is on the 303(d)
list for impaired use for aquatic life due to urban runoff from storm sewers. DWQ is very
concemed with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ
recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce
the risk of nutrient runoff to UT to Northeast Creek. DWQ requests that road design plans provide
treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most
recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. o
No
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] / Internet: htti)'//h2o.enr.state.no.usincwetiands
An Equal OpportuniWAf nativa Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to Intersection of NC 87 and US 701 in Bladen
County, Federal Aid Project No. NHF-87(15), State Project No. WBS 40226.1.1, T1P R-4903.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed
swages, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values.- The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation.
5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ
believes the use of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of
Engineers to determine the required permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks and do not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
10. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed
scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
11. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
12. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or
other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-
vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires incfeased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
15. If foundation test-b'kings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
16. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
17. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and
other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance. (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent

inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
21. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface
waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
22. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted
with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
23. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed. `
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Nicole Thomson at [phone].
cc: Richard Spencer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration, 310 New Bern Ave., Raleigh, NC 27601
Terry R. Gibson, PE, Division 6 Engineer, PO Box 1150, Fayetteville, NC 28302
James J. Rerko, Divisibti 6 Environmental Officer, PO Box 1150, Fayetteville, NC 28302
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
William Gilmore, Ecosystem Enhancement Program
File Copy
' State of North Carolina Reviewing Office' 'az_ --l._J / C7
NCDENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Project Number: 0 Ei -03E Due Date: (z2_31_13 / 06
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW -PROJECT COMMENTS
After review of this project it has been determined that the DENR 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 this form.
All applications, information and guidelines relative to these plans and permits are available from the same Regional Office.
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REQUIREMENTS Normal Processi
(Statutory Time Limit)
Permit to construct& operate wastewater treatment Application 90 days before begin construction or award of construction 30 days
facilities, sewer system extensions & sewer systems contracts On-site Inspection. Post-application technical conference usual. (90 days)
not discharging into state surface waters.
? NPOFS-permit to discharge into surface water and/or Application 180 days be fore begin activity. On-site inspection preapplication
permit to operate and construct wastewaterfacilities 'conference usual. Additionally, obtain permit to construct wastewater treatment 90-120 days
discharging into state surface waters facility-granted after NPDES. Reply time, 30 days after receipt of plans or issue IN/A)
. of NPDES permit-whichever is later.
Water Use Permit Preapplication technical conference usually necessary 30 days
[ (NIA)
L3 Well Construction Permit Complete application must be received and permit issued prior to the 7days
installation of a well. (15 days)
? Dredge and Fill Permit Application copy must be served on each adjacent riparian property owner. 55 days

- On-site Inspection. Preapplication conference usual Filling may require Easement (g0 days)
- to Fill from N.C. Department of Administration and Federal Dredge and Fill Permit.
? Permit to construct & operate Air Pollution Abatement
facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 15 A NCAC N/A 60 days
(2Q.0100, 2Q.0300,2H.0600) ,
Any open burning associated with subject proposal
must be in compliance with 15 A NCAC 2D.1900
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
asbestos material must be in compliance with 60 days
15 A NCAC 2D.1 110 (a) (1) which requires notification N/A (90 days)
and removal prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos
Control Group 919.733-0820. -
? Complex Source Permit required under 15 A NCAC
2D.0800
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing activity. An erosion & sedimentation 20 days
control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed. Plan filed with proper Regional Office (Land Quality Section) at least 30 (30 days)
days before beginning activity. A fee of $50 for the first acre or any part of an acre.
? The Sedimentation Pollution Contra] Act of 1973 must be addressed with respect to the referenced Local Ordinance. 30 days
Sedimentation and erosion control must be addressed in accordance with NCOOTs approved program. Particular attention should be
given to design and installation or appropriate perimeter sediment trapping devices as well as stable stormwater conveyances and outlets.
? Mining Permit On-site Inspection usual. Surety bond filed with DENR. Bond amount varies with
type mine and number of acres of affected land. Any are mined greater than 30 days
one acre must be permitted. The appropriate bond must be received before (60 days)
the permit can be issued.
? North Carolina Burning permit On-site Inspection by N.C. Division of Forest Resources if permit exceeds 4 days `l day
(N/A)
?j Special Ground Clearance Burning Permit-22 counties On-site inspection by N.C.Division of Forest Resources required SfmorethanFee
d 1
(N/A)
in coastal N,C. with organic soils. acres or ground clearing activities are involved. Inspections should berequesce
at least ten days before actual burn is planned.'

N/A 9D-120 days
? Oil Refining Facilities - (N/A)
-PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES Of REQUIREMENTS (Statutory Tme Umit)
? Dam Safety Permit if permit required, application 60 days before begin construction. Applicant
must hire N.C.qualified engineer to: prepare plans, inspect construction, certify
construction is according to DENR approved plans. May also require permit under 30 days
mosquito control program, and a 404 permit from Corps of Engineers. (60 days) .
An Inspection of site is necessary to verify Hazard Classification. A minimum
fee of $200.00 must accompany. the application. An additional processing fee
based an a percentage or the total project cost will be required upon completion.
? Permit to drill exploratory oil or gas wall File surety bond of $5,000 with DENR running to State of N.C. conditional that any
upon abandonment, be plugged according
erator shall
drill o
d b
ll lO days
(N/A)
,
p
y
opene
we
to DENR rules and regulations.
?
Geophysical Exploration Permit. A hca[ion filed with DENR at least 10 days prior to issue of permit Application
f 70 days
(N/A)
orm.
byetter. No standard application
? State Lakes Construction Permit
-
Application fees based on structure size is charged. Must include descriptions
ert
i
i
o
hi
f 15 - 20 days

(N0
y.
r
par
an pr
p
p o
& drawings of structure & proof or owners
55 days
© 401 Water Quality Certification N/A (730 days)
60 days
? CAMA Permit for MAJOR development $250.00 fee must accompany application 130 days)
22 days
? CAMA Permit for MINOR development $50.00 fee must accompany application (25 days)

ts are located in or near the project area. Ifany monument needs to be moved or destroyed, please notify.
? Several geodetic monumen
N.C. Geodetic Survey, Box 27687 Raleigh, N.C.27611
? Abandonment of any wells, if required must be in accordance with Title 15 A. Subchapter 200100.

? Notification of the proper regional office it requested if "orphan* underground storage tanks(USTS) are discovered during any excavation operation.
45 days
5 day
? Compliance with.l SA NCAC 2H 1000 (Coastal Stormwater Rules) Is required.
i
)
h
8 or
ty
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment aut
N. 31

D

lj?
i
REGIONAL OFFICES
Or la5tions reaardincl these permits should be addressed to the Regional Office marked below.
? Asheville Regional Office
59 Wooditn Place
Asheville, N.C.28801
[phone]
\
X Fayetteville RegionalOffce
?" 25 Green Street Suite 714 _
Fayetteville, N.C.28301
[phone]
? Mooresville Regional office
919 North Main Street
Mooresville, N.C.28115
[phone] ,
? Raleigh Regional Office
3800 Barrett Drive, P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C.27611
[phone]
? Washington Regional Office
943 Washington Square Mail
Washington, N.C. 27889
[phone]
? Wilmington Regional office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Wilmington, N.C.28405
.[phone]... _ ,..... ....._...._.
? Winston-Salem Regional office
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, N.C.27107
[phone]
03/21/2006 17:30 9195289839
PAGE 03
?200fy
P North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
MEMORANDUM RichndB.Hamilton, ExccutivcDi ccor
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator
/?%?---
Habitat Conservation Program ;
DATE: . March 21, 2006
SUBJECT: Response to the start of study notification from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the
interchange construction at NC 87 and US 70 tin Bladen County, North
Carolina. TIP No. R-4903, SCH Project No. 06-0261.
This memorandum responds to a request from Gregory J. Thorpe of the NCDOT
for our concems regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewedthe proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(e)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
We do not have any specific concerns at this time. To help facilitate document
preparation and the review process, our general informational needs arc outlined below:
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 for 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
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
I W W W.ncsparks.net/nhg
and,
03/21/2006 17:30 9195289839
Memo
PAGE 04
March 21, 2006
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
escop ono any s eams or we an s a ec DYTU- rolect-The-r
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. 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 (COT). 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
fzagmentation 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 quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects 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. I f we can further assist your office, please contact meat [phone].
TOWN OF
805 West Broad Street E L I Z A B E T fiT 0 W [phone]
Post Office Box 716 ??®e Fax [phone]
www. cl i zabethtownncorg
6lizabe[htown, N.C. 28337 [e-mail]
Kenneth Kornegay Sylvia Campbell Patrick nevane Scoff Ussery Herman Lewis Rufus Lloyd Russell Priest
Mayor \ Mayor Pro Tem Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member
March 27, 2006
3
,
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re.: Bladen County, Intersection of NC 87 and US 701, NCDOT Division 6,
WBS Element 40226.1.1, Federal Aid Project NHF-87(15),
TIP Project R-4903
Mr. Thorpe,
In reference to your February 23, 2006 correspondence, no permits or approvals are
required by the Town of Elizabethtown concerning the above-referenced project.
The NC DOT has been very good in the past about sharing information about projects in
and around Elizabethtown with town officials, and we simply request this same
professional courtesy on this project.
We look forward to the construction of this project in fiscal year 2012.
Sincerely,
Kenneth R. Komegay
Mayor
cc: David B. Bone, Town Manager
Robert Crumpler, PE, DOT District 3 Engineer
Kenneth Clark, PE, DOT County Maintenance Engineer
"The mission of the Town of Elizabethtown is to deliver cost effective services
that promote public health and sa/ct i and enhance the quality of fife of all clti,?ens.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS RELOCATION PROGRAMS
It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure comparable replacement housing will be
available prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the
North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
As part of the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacces with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartments, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program provides for payment of actual moving expenses
encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase
or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in case of
ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program
will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and qualify and up to $5,250 to
tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance
with the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act
(GS-133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe and
sanitary standards. The displacces are given at least a 90-day written notice after
NCDOT offers comparable replacement housing. Relocation of displaced persons will be
offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement property will be within the financial means
of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places
of employment. The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations and farm operations in searching for and moving to replacement
property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee
for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit
organizations and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the
Replacement Program for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental
purchase payments for replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals,
and other closing costs and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest
expenses for replacement dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for
replacement housing payments, increased interest payments and incidental purchase
expenses may not exceed $22,500 (combined total), except under the Last Resort
Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to
rent a replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses,
on the purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the
state determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the State that no person will be displaced by NCDOT's state or
federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social
Security Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is
not available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitude in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not believed this
program will be necessary on the project, since there appear to be adequate opportunities
for relocation within the area.
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
W13S ELEMENT: 40226.1.1 COUNTY Bladen Alternate 2 of 4 Alternate
T.I.P. No.: R-4903
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Proposed Interchange @ NC 87 Bypass & US 701

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 2 4 6 5 0 2 2 2 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20m 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20m 0 $ 0-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40m 0 150-250 0 20-40m 1 150-250 0
Ye,, No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70m 0 250-400 2 40-70m 4 250-400 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100m 1 400-600 2 70-100m 8 400-600 2
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 1 600 up 0 100 up 30 600 up 18
- displacement? TOTAL 2 4 43 20
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by Number)
after project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? ,
' 6. Source for available housing (list). 6. & 14. MLS, Local Realtors, Newspapers, etc.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 8. As mandated by law.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 11. Bladen Co.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. '

_ families?
E 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
4
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list

15. source).
Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 18-24 Months

4-3-09
/'" 4-6-09
R.M. Abbott, Jr. Date
Right of Way Agent Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
® E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS ELEMENT: 40226.1 .1 COUNTY Bladen Alternate 4' of 4 Alternate
T.I.P. No. : R-4903 MAY 20 10 REVISION OF ALT 4
DESCRIPTI ON OF PROJECT: Proposed Interchange @ NC 87 Bypass & US 701
h
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-SOM
50 UP
Residential 1 4 5 5 0 2 2 1 0
Businesses 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20m 0 $ 0.150 0 0.20m 0 so-150 0
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS - 20-40m 0 150-250 0 20-40m 2 150-250 0
Yes No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70m 0 250-400 2 40-70m 6 250.400 0
X 1. Will special relocalim services be necessary? 70-100m 1 400-600 2 70-100m 8 400-600 5
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 up 0 600 up 0 100 up 40 600 up 20
displacement? TOTAL 1 4 56 25
X 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (Respond by Number)
after project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so,
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc..
3. No businesses are being affected.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list). 6., 12., & 14. MLS, Local Realtors, Newspapers, etc.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? 8. As mandated by law.
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 11. Bladen Co.
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly; etc. 14. No business relocations, so no need for suitable s
they are available. ites, although
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15.. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 18-24 Months

/.f`tlifa=r_?.-. 7-1-10 F° 7/2/10
R.M. Abbott, Jr. Date
Right of Way Agent Relocation Coordinator Date
FRM15-E
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGRE 1,MENT f '
Concurrence Point No. 1: Purpose and Feed A[) ? 1.Of)u
.Yy
PROJECT No./TIP NO./ NANtEiDESCRIPTION:
Federal Aid Project Number: NI1F-87(15)
State Project Number: WBS Element 40226.1.1
TIP Project Number: R-4903
TIP Description: Interchar ,e Construction at the NC 87 Bypass/US 701 intersection,
Bladen County
The Project Team concurred on this date of April 21, 2009 with the purpose of and need
for the proposed project as stated below and the project study area as described below and
shown in the attached exhibit.
Puroose and Need of Proposed Project
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve the safety and capacity of the NC 37 Bypass/
US 701 intersection.
NAME
r. ? u rl c. ' r.
AGENCY
/Cwh C,
i? S Fw5
0St,: r"R
fF
tvc- -DoT
l/rS?G
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT'
Concurrence Point No. 2: Alternatives to be Carried Forward for
Detailed Study
PROJECT NO./TIP NO./ NAME/DESCRIPTION:
Federal Aid Project Number: NI-IF-37(15)
State Project Number: W13S Element 40226.1.1
TIP Project Number: R-4903
TIP Description: Interchange Construction at the NC 37 Bypass/ S 701
intersection, I3laden County
Alternatives to be studied in detail in the NEPA Document:
The Section 404[N EPA ivlerger Project Team has concluded that the following Build
Alternatives are to be studied in detail in the NEPA document:
_ Alternative 1
V" Alternative 2
_ Alternative 3
Altemative 4
The Project Team concurred on this date of April 21, 2009 with the alternatives to
be studied in detail in the NEPA Document as stated above.

/ AGENCY
US 1-Ws
F H Vl?
N C awl"

,4
kz-w?Z
NEPA/404 MERGER TEAM MEETING AGREEMENT
Concurrence Point No. 2A: Bridging Decisions
-- -PROJE(-F NO:/TIP-NO:/ NAiV E/DESCRlVl:lON:-------
Federal Aid Project Number. NI-IF-87(15
State Project Number: WBS Element 40226.1.1
TIP Project Number: R-4903
TIP Description: Interchange Construction at the NC 87 Bypass/US 701 intersection,
Bladen County
Bridging Decisions: The merger team concurred on the following minimum bridge length and
culvert replacement for the project:
Bridge #3, which is 46.9 feet long, will be replaced with a new structure 55 feet long.
The project team has unconditionally concurred on this date of April 21, 2009-
AGENCY
.p/c-?Zn
5 FU!
e ??- ?l' LX ! L"

U, SAP

NC ?DD-T

Section 404/NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3: beast Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
Federal Aid Project Number: NHF-37(15)
State Project Number: WRS Filement 40220. 1,1
TIP Praject'Number: R-4903
11P Description: Interchange Construction at the NC 87 Bypass/JS 701 intersection,
Bladen County
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative: The alternative marked with a check has been
selected by the merger team as the least damaging practicable altemativc (LEDPA) for the proposed
interchange construction at the NC 37 RypassTS 701 intersection. Alternatives with a line drawn
through the alternative name have been dropped from further consideration.

M/Altemative 4
The project team has unconditionally concurred on this date of July 13, 2010 on the LFDPA for
the interchange construction at the NC 97 Bypass/ JS 701 intersection, as shown on the attached figure
and as dcseribed above.
Concurring_ Agencies
NAME
Cz_Ee'?,?;? rte.
AGENCY

US17 C i
-NryC-1)0r" J
./_l!t-L
/V C.D r? --
? 11 i1, o_..nv IDZ,conI' q
FAu'E 01 22 A'?
Section 40VNEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 3: Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
Federal Aid Project Number: NBF-87(15)
State Project Plumber: WBS Element 40226.1.1
TIP Proiect Number: 84903
TIP Description: interchange Construction at the. NC 87 Bypass/US 701 intersection,
Bladen County
Least Env ranmentallLamatn e_?_Practicable Alternative: The alternative marked with a check has been
selected by the merger team as the (east damaging practicable alternative (1 BDPA) for the proposed
interchange construction at the NC 87 BypasslUS 701 intersection. Alternatives with a line drawn
through the alternative name have been dropped from further consideration.
;A4@m „4:, e-2_ Alternative 4
The project team has unconditionally concurred on this date o£Jnly 13, 2010 on the LEDPA for
the interchange construction at the NC 87 Bypass/US 701 intersection, as shown on the attached figure
and as described above.
Concarritiirt A encies
NAME • AGENCY
IJ S ? If If
PJ(2-I)L7-j

Section 4041ftiEPA Merger Project Team Meeting Agreement
Concurrence Point 4A- Avoidance and Minitniaation Measures
Project Title: Interchange Construction at the NC R7 Bypass/US 701 intersection,
Bladen County, TIP Project R-4903, Federal-Aid Project NHF-87(15), WBS Element 40226.1
404 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The preliminary design for the project will only affect 6 of the wetland sites and 7 of the streams
tier Alternative 4,
In an effort to avoid and minimize impacts to Jurisdictional wetlands and streams associated with
the LEDPA, NC'DOT has proposed to implement one or more of the following measures:
• Tile maximum slope (3 to 1) will be used through wetland areas.
• US 701 was relocated to the east to avoid wetlands. LO:y
• The radius of each loop ramp was reduced to avoid streams, a wetland (wetland VX
(mduc(A -0.27 ac)), and a business.
NC 242 was shifted north to avoid wetlands (wetland VX(reduced 0.10 ac)).
Wx
Additional Avoidance and Minimization Measures
The Section 404/NrPA Merger Project 'l'ean concurred on the 13`x' day of July 2010 with the
.Avoidance/Minimization measures listed above for TIP Project R-4903.
Agmey
J UEFW3
A1C17

?- IJC'?k?rl? t1

PF16E 02 02,
The Section 404INEPA Merger Project Team concurred on the 13`x' day of July 2010 with the
Avaidance/Minimization measures listed above for TIP Proj ect R-4903.
XT-- -
A enc
U 5-GA15

?W
Ls}?
WnC-