The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130472_Coordination Plans_20100920Beverly Eaves Perdue . _ Governor __— ___ ._.. ._ MEMORANDUIII To: From: 4�� , . NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources DivisionofWater�uality � Coleen H. Sullins __.___.. _,,;,,,,,,,,, ,,,,—._..__ ___ ____ _ .._.._.--_.. April 19, 2011 Kristine, O'Connor, Project Development and Environmental Analysis, NCDOT David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality, Central Office � Dee Freeman ��- Secretary � �� Subject: ' Comments on the Categorical Exclusion related to proposed widening of US 17-74-76 from the NC 133/SR 1472 interchange to the US 421/NC 133 interchange, Brunswick County, Federal Aid Project No. NHS-0017(68), TIP R-3601 This office has reviewed the referenced document dated September 2010. The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality CeRification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project as presented will result in impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. NCDWQ offers the following comments based on review of the aforementioned document: Project Specific Comments: The Brunswick River is class SC; 303(d) waters of the State. The Brunswick River is ori the 303(d) list for impaired use for aquatic life due to low dissolved oxygen. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NCDWQ recommends that the most protective sedimen[ and erosion control BMPs be implemented in accordance with Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds to reduce [he risk of nutrient runoff [o the Brunswick Rivec The NCDWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the stoRn water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the mos[ recent version ofNCDWQ's StormwaterBest Management Practices. 2. Table 9, "Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wate� Resources in the Study Area," indicates that feature SB (UT to Brunswick River) is perennial, to which impac[s for Alternative B are estimated [o be 55 feet. It is indicated that no compensatory mitigation is required for impacts to this feature. Currently, the NCDWQ requires mitigation for impacts to perennial streams, provided impacts are equat to or greater than 150 feet. As proposed, impacts do not exceed L50 feet; however, should impacts exceed 150 feet, the NCDWQ may require compensatory mitigation. General Comments: 3. Environmental assessment altematives shall consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives shall include road designs that allow for treatment of the s[orm water runoff [hrough best management practices as de[ailed in [he most recent version of NCDWQ's Stormwater Bes[ Management Prac�ices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc. Transportalion Permitting Unit � , � 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NoAh Camlina 27699-7050 location: 512 N, Saiisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone�,919b07-63011FAX:919-807-6494 " ' IntemeC http:llpoRai.ncdenr,orglweb/wq � . . �: . . � � � An Equal Opportuniry 1 AffirmaGve Action Employer Nnrth Carol i na ��atur�rlly ��4. � ABei the selection of�the prefemed alternatiJe and prior fo an issuance of the 401 Water Quality � Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded Iha[ [hey will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wedands (and streams) to ihe maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (ISA NCAC 2H.0506[h]), _.._ mitigation will be required for impac[s of greate[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. . [n accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506[h]), mi[iga[ion will be required for impac[s of greater than 150 linear feet to any single stream. In [he event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan shall be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. 6. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should wntinue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping. 7. NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including bu[ not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, and rip rap tojurisdic[ional wetlands, s[reams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the final impact calcula[ions. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application. 8. Sediment and erosion control measures shall not be placed in wetlands or streams. 9. The 401 Water Quality CeRification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for s[ormwater management. More specifically, stormwater shall not be permit[ed to discharge directly into s[reams or surface waters. 10. Bridge deck drains shall not discharge direcdy into the stream. Storntwatec shall be directed across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before en[ering [he stream. Please refer to the mos[ current version of NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices. i l. 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. . NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Shall you have any questions or require any addi[ional information, please contact David Wainwrigh[ a[ (919) 807-6405. . . . ,., -' .e�._ _,.._ , . _: . ,... - -... , _ .. .--- cc: Brad Shaver, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only) Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy only) Steve Sollod, Division of Coastal Management Mason Hemdon, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office File Copy .. , , .. .. Widening of US 17-74-76/NC 133 from the NC 133 (River Road)/SR 1472 (Village Road) Interchange to the US 421/NC 133 Interchange Brunswick County Federal Aid Project NHS-0017(68) WBS No. 38868.1.1 TIP No. R-3601 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION , AND N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c) APPROVED: �i 20 !0 /G�r�� *'"ttiY�'_. ate %� regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager Project Development and Environmental Malysis Branch, NCDOT `1 ?, � 10 Date ,�!� b John F. Sullivan III, P. E, Division Administraror Fedcral Highway Administration Widening of US 17-74-76/NC 133 from the NC 133 (River Road)/SR 1472 (Villagc Road) Interchange to the US 421/NC 133 Interchange Brunswick.County Federal Aid Project NHS-0017(68) WBS No. 38868.1.1 TIP No. R-3601 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION North Carolina Department of Transportation September 2010 Documentation Prepared in Project Devclopment and Environmental Analysis Branch by: 9-20_IO Date -2/)--/D Date Project Engineer Charles R. Cox, P. E. Project Engineer SEAL fr: _ 50438 _,�_ PROJECT COMA�TMENTS Widening of US 17-7476/NC 133 from the NC 133 (River Road)/SR 1472 (Village Road) Interchange to the US 421/NC 133 Interchange Brunswick County Federa}Aid Project NHS-0017(68) WBS No. 38868.1.1 TIP No. R-3601 Division 3 The Brunswick River and Alligator Creek have been identified by_ 1he NC Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) as anaclromous fish habitat and Inland Primary Nursery Areas. Therefore, NCDOT will implement an in-water conshucrion moratorium from February 15 to September 30 in these waters. When doing in-water work, the NCDOT will adhere to "Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the ' West Indian Manatee: Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters" to avoid harm to this species. R-3601 Categorical Exclusioa September 2010 Page 1 of 1 I. SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................I A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. Trrr: or AcTioN ............................................................. DESCRIPI'ION OF ACTION ................................................ SUMMARY OF PURPOS� AND N�GU ................................. ALTERNAT[VES CONSIDERED .......................................... NCDOT RECOMMENDED ALTERNATNE ........................ SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMtNTAL EFTGCCS ...................... PERMiiS RGQUIRED ......................................................... COORDIIJATION ............................................................... CONTACT INFORMA'1'ION ................................................. IL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION .........................................................1 .........................................................1 ......................................................... I ........................................................11 ........................................................II ......................................................II ...................................................... III ..................................................... rv ...................................................... IV 1 A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................1 B. SCHEDULE AND COS'1' ................................................................................................................. I III. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT ............................................................................2 A. PURPOSEOFPROIECI' .......................................�..........................................................................2 B. NEED FOR PROJECT ....................................................................................................................2 l. Description of Existing Conditions ..........................................................................................2 a. Functional Classification ......................................................................................................2 b. Physical Description of Existing Facility .............................................................................2 1. Roadway Cross-Section ................................................................................................2 2. Horizontal and Vertical Alignment ..............................................................................2 3. Right of Way and Access Control ...............................................................................3 4. Speed Limit ...................................................................................................................3 5. IntersectionsMterchanges ............................................................................................3 6. Railroad Crossings ........................................................................................................3 7. Structures ......................................................................................................................3 8. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ..................................................................................3 9. Utilities ..........................................................................................................................4 c. School Bus Usage .................................................................................................................4 d. Capucity Analysis (No Build Scenario) ................................................................................4 l. ExistingTrafficVolumes .............................................................................................4 2. Existing Levels of Service ............................................................................................4 3. Future Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................5 4. Future Levels of Scrvice ...............................................................................................6 e. Airports .................................................................................................................................7 f. Other Highway Projects in the Area .....................................................................................7 2. Transportation and Land Use Plans ..........................................................................................8 a. NC Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) .................................................................8 b. Local Thoroughfare Plans .....................................................................................................8 c. Land Use Plans ......................................................................................................................8 C. BENEFITS OF PROPOStiD PROJECT ..............................................................................................8 IV. ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................................9 � A. PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTHILNAT[VES .......................................................................................9 1. No-Build Altemative .................................................................................................................9 2. Altemative Modes of Transportation ........................................................................................9 3. Transportation Systems Management .......................................................................................9 4. BuildAlternatives ...................................................................................................................10 B. ALTERNAT[VE DROPPBD FROM CONSIDERAI'ION ..................................................................... I O C. DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATNES ........................................................................................... I O D. CAPACITY ANALYSIS (BUII.D SCENARIO� ................................................................................11 1. Future Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... l l 2. Future Levels of Servicc .........................................................................................................12 E. NCDOTRECOMMENDEDALT[:RNAi'IVE .................................................................................13 V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................................................14 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. ROADWAY CROSS-SECTION ANU ALIGND RIGHT OF WAY AND ACCESS CONTROL.. DESIGN SPEED & SPEED LIMIT ................ ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCL'P7'IONS ........ INTERSECTIONS/INTERCHANGES ............. SERVICti ROADS ...................................... RAILROAD CROSSINGS ............................ S7RUCNREs ........................................... BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ... U7'ILCCIES ................................................. NOISE BARRIERS ..................................... WORK 70NF._ "iY2AFFIC CON7ROL AND C( �:NT .........................................................................14 ..............................................................................14 ..............................................................................14 ..............................................................................14 ..............................................................................14 ..............................................................................15 ..............................................................................15 ..............................................................................15 ..............................................................................15 .............................................................................. I $ ..............................................................................15 ISTRUCfION PHASMG ...........................................16 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION .........................................17 A. NATURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... 1. Biotic Resourccs ................................................................................ a. Terrestrial Communities ............................................................... 1. Riverine Swamp Forest ................................................. :..... 2. Tidal Freshwater Marsh ........................................................ 3. Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest .............................................. 4. Mixed Hazdwood Forest ....................................................... � 5. Maintained/Disturbed ........................................................... 6. [mpacts ........................................................:......................... b. Terrestrial Fauna ........................................................................... c. Aquatic Communities ................................................................... d. Invasive Species ............................................................................ 2. Waters of the United States ...........:................................................... a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments ................................................... b. Wetlands ........................................................................................ a Swnmary of Mticipated EtTects .................................................. d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation ................................... 1. Avoidance ............................................................................. 2. Minimization ........................................................................ ....................................17 ....................................17 ....................................17 ....................................17 ....................................17 ....................................17 ....................................18 ....................................18 ....................................18 ....................................19 ....................................19 ....................................19 ....................................20 ....................................20 ....................................21 ....................................22 .................................23 ....................................23 ....................................23 � 3. Compensatory Mitigation ...........................................................................................23 e. Anticipated Permit Requirements .......................................................................................23 f. Construction Moratoria ..............................:........................................................................24 3. Rare and Protected Species .....................................................................................................24 4. Soils .........................................................................................................................................31 5. Coastal Zone [ssues .................................................................................................................32 B. CULTUItAL RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................32 1. Compliance .............................................................................................................................32 2. HistoricArchitectural Resources ............................................................................................33 3. Archaeological Resources .......................................................................................................33 C. SECTION 4(F�/6(F� RESOURCES ................................................................................................33 D. FnEuvt[.nND ...............................................................................................................................33 E. SoC�n� Eer�crs ......................................................................................................................34 1. Demographics .........................................................................................................................34 2. Neighborhoods/Communities .................................................................................................36 3. Relocations of Residcnces and Businesses .............................................................................36 4. Environmental Justice .............................................................................................................36 5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ............................................................................................36 6. Recreational Facilities .............................................................................................................37 F. EcorroMicEF�crs .................................................................................................................37 G. LnN� Use ................................................................................................................................37 1. Existing and Future Land Use .................................................................................................37 2. Project Compatibility with L.ocal Plans ..................................................................................37 H. INDIILECT AND CUMULATNE EFPECTS .....................................................................................38 I. FLOOD HAZP.RD EVALl1A'f'ION ........................................:........................................................38 J. Tita.eF�C Notse ANn[,vsiS ........................................................................................................39 1. Ambient Noise L,evels .............................................................................................................39 2. Malysis Results ......................................................................................................................40 3. Construction Noise ..................................................................................................................40 4. Summary ..................................................................................................................................40 K. AIR QUAL1lY ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................................41 1. Background CO Concentrations .............................................................................................41 2. Av Quality Analysis Results ...................................................................................................41 3. Construction Air Quality Effects ...........................................................................:................41 4. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) ......................................................................................41 L. HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ...........................................................................................................43 VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION ............................................................................44 A. PUBLIC INVOI.VEMEN"C .............................................................................................................44 B. PUBLIC HEARING ........................................:............................................................................44 C. NEPA/404 Mrxcex Pxocsss .................................................................................................44 D. O7'HER AGENCY COORDPIATION ..................................................................:..........................45 TABLES TAI3LE S-1: SUMMARY OF' RkiSOURCES AIYD IMPACTS ...........................................................................III TABLE 1: EXISTING HYDRAULIC STRUC'I'URES ..................................................:....................................3 TABLE 2: 2007 NO BUILD SCL•TIARIO DELAYS & LEVELS OF SERVICE ...................................................5 TABLE 3: 2035 NO BUfLD SCENARIO DELAYS & LGVELS OF SERVICE ...................................................6 TABLE 4: OTHGR HIGHWAY PROJECTS IN THG AREA ..............................................................................7 TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF RESOURCES AND IMPAC"IS .............................................................................1 1 TABLE 6: 2035 BUILD SCENARIO DELAYS AND LEVELS OP SERVICE (ALTIiRNATIVE B ON[.Y) ...........12 TAI3LE 7: COVERAGE OF TERRGSTRIAI. COMMUNITIES WITHIN PROJECT STUDY ARrA* ....................18 TABLE 8: INVASIVE SPECIES THREAT LEVELS W[THIN PROIECT ARL•.A ...............................................20 TABLE 9: IURISDICTIONAL CHARACTERIST[CS OF WATER RESOURCES IN"I'HE S7UDY AREA .............20 TABLE 1 O: WATER RESOURCE CLASSIFICATIONS .................................................................................20 TABLE11: S"PREAM IMPACTS ................................................................................................................21 TABLE 12: JURISDICI'IONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WETLANDS IN TF�IE STUDY AREA .........................22 TABLE13: WETLAND IMPACTS ............................................................................................................22 TABLE 14: FEDERALLY LISTED SPBCIIiS FOR WASHMGTON COUN'I'Y .................................................25 TABLE 1 S: SOII.S IN 7'HE PROJEGT STUDY AREA ..................................................................................32 I Tna[.E 16: AMB1r:rrrNotSE Lsve[s (LeQ) ........................................................................................39 TANI.E E1: KNOWN AND POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STCES .........................................59 APPENDICES Appendis A Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figures 4A-4B Figure 5 Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendiac E Figures Project Vicinity Map Aerial Map Regional Vicinity Map Traffic Forccast 2007/2035 Typical Section Comments from Federal, State, and Local Agencies Relocation/Displacement Policies & Rclocation Reports Concurrence Form for Assessment of Historic Effects Known & Potential Gcoenvironmental Impact Sites Widening of US 17-74-76/NC 133 from the NC 133 (River Road)/SR 1472 (Village Road) Interchangc to the US 421/NC 133 Interchange Brunswick County Federal Aid Project NHS-0017(68) WBS # 38868.1.1 TIP # R-3601 I. SUMMARY A. Type of Action This Categorical Exclusion (CE) has been prepazed to evaluate the potential impacts of this proposcd transportation improvement project. From this evaluation, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO"1� and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) do not anticipate that significant impacts to the environment will occur as a result of this proposed project. A final determination will be made in supplecnental documentation, likely an addendum to the CE or the right of way consultation. B. Description of Action The North Carolina Deparhnent of Transportation (NCDOT), in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to add an auxiliary lane to US 17-74-76/NC 133 (hereafter referred to as US 17-74-76) from the NC 133 (River Road)/SR 1472 (Village Road) interchange (hereafter reFerred to as the NC 133 interchange) to the US 421/NC 133 interchange (hereafter referred to as the US 421 interchange) in Brunswick County (see Figure 1). Improvements will be made at the intersection of US 17-421/NC 133 and SR 1352 (USS North Cazolina Road) consisting of adding a dedicated left tum lanc, revising the concrete island to accommodate truck traffic, and restriping the pavement mazkings. The project is approximately two (2) miles in length. This project is included in the approved 2009-2015 North Cazolina State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The total cost in the STIP is $18,559,000, which includes $20Q000 for rigltt of way, $1OQ000 for utilities, $359,000 for mitigation and $17,90Q000 for construction. The current estimated total cost ranges from $15,637,615 to $33,151,335. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2012 and construction in FFY 2013. C. Summarv of Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed project is to improve traffic operations between the interchanges on the existing facility. i D. Alternatives Considered There are two (2) alternatives under consideration for this project, Alternative A and Altemative B. Alternative A will add an additional 12-foot auxiliary lane in each direction from thc NC 133 interchange to the US 421 interchange by extending the existing acceleration lanes. Currently, there aze two (2) 12-foot through lanes in each direction. The improvcments will bring the total number oFlanes from four (4) to six (6), including the two (2) new auxiliary lanes. As part of this project, Bridge # 107 (northbound over Alligator Creek) will bc rcplaced. In order to accommodate the heavy volume of traffic Vaveling northbound on US 17-74-76, Bridge # 107 will be the starting point of an additional fourth lane that will continue on US 17-74-76 into Wilmington. Altemative B will include the improvements of Alternative A, but also proposes loop and ramp extensions at the NC 133 interchange, which will nccessitatc the relocation of SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street). E. NCDOT Recommended Aiternative No preferred alternative has been selected at this time. Comments received from the public will be reviewed and additional coordination with other federal, state and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made. A supplemental document will be prepazed once NCDOT determines the most practicabie alternative for this project In the case of either alternative, NCDOT and FHWA do not expect the level of impacts to exceed that which would be considered appropriate for a CE. F. Summarv of Environmental Effects Adverse impacts to the human and natural environment were minimized tluough thc development of altematives. No adverse effect on the air quality of the surrounding azea is anticipated as a result of the project. No properties listed the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by this project. None of the alternatives will encroach upon any known archaeological sites or those eligible for listing i� the National Register. Although no relocations are an[icipated for Altemative A, four (4) business rclocations will be required for Alternative B. Further information can be found in Table S-1. The United States Fish and Wildlife Scrvice (USFWS) lists fourteen federally protected species for Brunswick County. All but three (3) of these species have a biological conclusion of No Eft�ect for this project. A biological conclusion was not requireci for the American alligator since Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance [T (S/A)] species are not afforded full protection under the Endangered Species Act. Both the shortnose sturgeon and the West Indian manatee have biological conclusions of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affcct givcn that the presence of both thesc species, while rare, has been documented in this area in the past. Table S-1 �ves a summary of the resourccs and impacts due to the recommended altemative. Figure 2 shows the alternatives cwrently under consideration. ii Table S-1: Summary oT Resources and Impacts ' This projeIX may allect, but is rwt likdy to adversely aflect the shortrase sturgeon ard the West Indian manatce. G. Permits Repuired At this timc, it is Iikely that an Individual Section 404 permit will be necessary due to the amount of potential impacts. If wetland and stream impacts can be reduced below the necessary thresholds during the planning & design phase, NCDOT may be able to obtain a Nationwide permit. However, a final permitting strategy cannot be developed until a design alternative is selected. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) holds the final discretion regarding the permit required to authorize project construction. In addition to the 404 permit, other required autliorizations include a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Cazolina Department of Water Quality (DWQ), a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) permit, a State Stormwater permit, and a Navigable Waters permit from the United States Coast Guazd (USCG) as iii a result of the reduced clearance of Bridge 105 over the [3runswick River, which has been desig�ated by the United Statcs Army Corps of Engincers (USACE) as a Navigable Water under Section 10 of the Rivers and Hazbors Act. H. Coordination Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the prepazation of this Categorical Exclusion. Written comments were received and considered from agencies noted with an asterisk (*) during the preparation of this document. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency * U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nationa] Marine Fisheries Service * State Clearinghouse * N.C. DepaRment of Cultural Resources * N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources * N.C. Deparhnent ofPublic Instruction * N.C. Wildlifc Rcsources Commission * N.C. Division of Coastal Management N.C. Division of Environmental Health N.C. Division of Forest Resources * N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries N.C. Division of Parks and Recreation * N.C. Division of Water Quality * Town of Leland I. Contact Information Additional information concerning the proposal and assessment can be obtained by contacting either of the following: John F. Sullivan III, P. E. Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration 310 New Bem Avenue, Suite 410 Ralcigh, NC 27601 Telcphone: (919) R56-4346 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch North Carolina Department of Transportation 1548 Mail Scrvice Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1548 Telephone: (919) 733-3141 iv WideninR of US 17-74-76/NC 133 from the NC 133 (River Road)/SR 1472 (Village Road) Interchange to the US 421/NC 133 Interchange Brunswick County Federal Aid Project NHS-0017(68) WBS # 388681.1 - TIP # R-3601 II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION A. General Description The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), in consultation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to add an auxiliary lane in each direction on US 17-74-76 from the NC 133 interchange to the US 421 interchange in Brunswick County (see Figure 1). The project is approximately two (2) miles in length. The proposed improvements will add 12-foot auxiliary lane in each dircction from the NC 133 interchange to the US 421 interchange by extending the existing acceleration lanes. Currently, there are two 12-foot through lanes in each direction. The improvements will bring the total number of lanes from four (4) to six (6), including the two (2) new auxiliary lanes. As part of this project, Bridge No. 107 (northbound over Alligator Creek) will be replaced. In ordcr to accommodate the heavy volume of traffic traveling northbound on US 17, Bridge 10'J will be the starting point of an additional fourth lane that will continue on US 17 into Wilmington. Loop and ramp extensions are also proposed at the NC 133 interchan�e, which will necessitate the relocation of SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street). Additionally, improvements will be made at the intersection of US 17-421/NC 133 and SR 1352 (USS NoRh Carolina Road) consisting of adding a dedicated left tum lane, revising the concrete island to accommodate truck traffic, and restriping the pavement markings. B. Schedule and Cost This project is included in the approved 2009-2015 North Carolina State Transportation [mprovement Program (STIP). The total cost in the STIP is $18,559,000, which includes $200,000 for right of way, $]OQ000 for utilities, $359,000 for mitigation and $17,900,000 for constnaction. The current estimated total cost ranges from $15,637,615 to $33,151,335. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in Federal Fiscal Yeaz (FFY) 2012 and consVuction in FFY 2013. III. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR PROJECT A. Purpose of Proiect The pwposc of this project is to improve tra�c operations between the interchanges on the existing facility. B. Need for Proiect 1. Descriation of Existin¢ Conditions a. Functional Classification US 17-74-76 from the NC 133 interchange to the US 421 interchange is designated as a freeway/expressway on the North Cazolina Statewide Functional Classification System. US 17/NC 421 neaz the U.S.S. North Carolina battleship is designated as a pnncipal arterial. NC 133 south of Leland is designated as a minor arterial, while SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street) is designated as a collector. b. Phvsical Descriation of Existina Facilitv 1. Roadwav Cross-Section US 17-74-76 is currendy a four-lane, median divided faciliry with 12-foot lanes, 10-foot outside shoulders and 4-foot inside shoulders. The median width varies from 68 to 200 feet. US 17-421/NC 133 in the vicinity of the batHeship is also a four-lane median divided facility with a dedicated left tum lane onto SR 1352 (USS North Carolina Road) in the southbound direction. NC 133 vazies from four (4) 12-foot lanes in Leland to two (2) 12-foot lanes as it travels south into the Town of Belville. Existing SR 1551 (Blackwell ftoad/Main Street) is currently a two-lane facility with 12-foot lanes and no paved shoulders. 2. Horizontal and Vertical Alianment Although the existing horizontal alignment of US 17-74-76 is in accordance with NCDOT and AASHTO standards, there is an issuc with the vertical alignment. Due to the condition of thc underlying soil, there have been settlement problems over thc years. NCDOT has resurfaced this roadway twice in order to level out the settled areas. 3. Rieht of Wav and Access Control The cxisting right of way along US 17-74-76 varies between 350 and 600 feet through the project limits. The existing right of way along NC 133 varies between 120 and 210 feet, while the existing right of way limit on SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street) is 60 feet. 4. Speed Limit The posted speed limit along US 17-74-76 is 55 miles per hour (mph). The current posted speed limit is 45 mph on NC 133 and 35 mph on SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street). 5. Intersections/Interchanees There are two existing interchanges on this project: the NC 133 interchange and the US 421 interchange. There aze also two existing intersections on this projcct, the US 17-421/NC 133 intersection with SR 1352 (USS NoRh Cazolina Road) and the NC 133 intersection with SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street). 6. Railroad Crossines There are no railroad crossings on the project. Structures There aze four (4) existing major hydraulic structures on this project. Table 1 gives fur[her detail on these existing sWctures, while Pigurc 2 shows the location of cach. Table l: Existing Hydrautic Structures Site Stream Location Existin Structure Brunswick Bridge #] 03, 13 spans 1 R�� 0.5 mile E of NC 133 interchange Built in 1977 Brunswick Bridge #105, 13 spans 2 0.5 mile E of NC 133 interchange River Built in 1977 Alligator Bridge #107, 5 spans 3 Crcek � 4 miles E of NC 133 interchange guilt in 1948 Alligator Bridge #] O8, 6 spans 4 Creek �•4 miles E of NC 133 interchange guilt in 1968 8. Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities There are no bicycle or pedestrian facilities located within the project comdor. As part of project R-4002 (Village Road Widening), 5-foot sidcwalks arc being included on NC 133 undemeath the US 17-74-76 bridge in the northbound direction. 9. UtiliNes Fibcr optic cables have been located along the outside shoulders of US 17-74-76 throughout the project limits. There is also an overhead sign bctween the Brunswick River and Alligator Creek on the south side of the eastbound lanes of US 17-74-76. A telephone line to control the si� runs west along the shouldcr. There are also fiber optic cables, sanitary sewer lines, and water lines that run parallel to NC 133 and SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street) c. School Bus Usaee There are no school buses that run on US 17-74-76 east of the NC 133 interchange. However, the Brunswick County Schools Transpodation Department does have ten school buses that travel twice daily on NC 133 south of US 17-74-76 and ninc (9) school buses that travel twice daily on SR I551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street). d. Capacitv Analvsis INo Build Scenario) Existine Traffic Volumes According to the 2007 traftic counts, the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on US 17-74-76 between the NC 133 interchange and the US 421 interchange was 70,000 vehicles per day (vpd). US 421 (as it approaches US 17-74-76) experienced a traffic volume of 22,700 vpd, whilc NC 133 carried approximatcly 18,900 vpd. SR 1352 (USS North Cazolina Road) and SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street) had AADTs of 1,000 and 4,700 vpd, respectively. 2. Existina Levels ot Service Both intersection and freeway capacity analyses were performed following the NCDOT Congestion Management Sectiods Capacity Analysis Guidelines for TIP Projects. Simulations were completed for both the build and no-build scenarios using the 2007 and the 2035 (design year) traffic forccasts. Under 2007 traffic volumes, the freeway movements and operations along the 1.5-mile section of US 17-74-76 operates at Level of Service (LOS) F. This includes all merging, freeway, and diverging segments in this area. This area operatcs over capacity as a four-lane section because of the high volume of US 76 mainline traffic combined with US 17, US 74, and NC 133 merging together within this freeway segrnent. Table 2 provides geater dctail on the current traffic conditions at five (5) intcrsections in the project study area. 4 Tablc 2: 2007 No Build Scenario Delays & Levels of Service Intersection Time Period Delay Level of Service seconds/vehicle) OS) US 17-74-76 SB Ramp & NC 133 '�M 22•4 C PM 27.4 C US 17-74-76 NB Ramp & NC 133 AM 139.1 F PM 50.7 D NC 133 & Blackwell Road � � 34•7 F PM 208.3 F US 17 NB & USS NC Road AM 19.1 C PM 35.0 D US 17 SB & USS NC Road � 16.5 C PM 12.9 B Under wrrent traffic conditions, the US 17-74-76 noRhbound ramp/NC 133 signalized intersection operates at LOS F with lazge queues and delay due to the heavy volume of on-ramp traffic from NC 133 northbound right tums and southbound left turns. In addition, the unsignalized four-leg intersection movements of SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street) operate at LOS F in the AM and PM peaks with lazge queues and delay. The proximity of the SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street) intersection with NC 133 to the US 17-74-76 northbound ramp also wntributes to its poor operation as adjacent intersection queues can block SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street). At the intersections of US 17 and SR 1352 (USS North Carolina Road), operational and safety concems were noted by NCDOT Division staff. At this intersection, Vaffic must slow down for northbound left tums, although no northbound exclusive left turn lane is provided. Currently, the US 17 northbound approach has a shared left-through, a through, and an exclusive right tum lane. By adding an exclusive left tum lane, left turn movements could be more safely removed from high speed through traffic. At the US 17-42]/NC 133 southbound intersection with SR 1352 (USS North Carolina Road), traffic from vehicles accessing US 17-74-76 southbound back up and block this intersection during pcak hour traffic. Vehicles diverging on US 76-421 wcre observed bypassing traffic yueues on US 17-74-76 by traveling southbound in the exclusive left tum lane dcsignated for SR 1352 (USS Nodh Cazolina Road), which presents both operational and safety concerns. 3. Future TrafTic Volumes According to the 2035 haffic forecast, the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on US 17-74-76 between the NC 133 interchange and the US 421 interchange is forecasted to bc approximately 107,000 vpd. US 42I as it approaches US 17-74-76 is predicted to experience a traffic volume of approximately 39,600 vpd, while NC 133 will carry approximately 33,400 vpd. SR 1352 (USS North Cazolina Road) is predicted to have an AADT of 1,600 vpd. 4. Futurc Levels of Service In the 2035 No Build scenario, the freeway movements and operations along US 76/421 to the east, the 1.5 mile section of US 17-74-76, the segment of US 17-74-76 and US 17 to the south all operate at LOS E or F. This includes most &eeway, weaving, merging and diverging segments in the project study area. All other freeway movements and operations in the study comdor are expected to operate at LOS D or better. This overall poor level of service is due to the existing four- lane section not being able to provide adequate capacity for 2035 forecasted traffic volumes. Many of the freeway segments operate well over capacity and require additional laneage. Table 3 shows the predicted LOS and dclays for five (5) major intersections and turning movements in the design yeaz (2035) for the No Build scenario. Table 3: 2035 No Build Scenario Delays & Levcls of Service Intersection Time Period Delay Level of Service seconds/vehicle LOS US 17-74-76 SB Ramp & NC 133 �M 62.3 E PM 275.7 E US 17-74-76 NB Ramp & NC 133 AM 218.5 F PM 122.6 F NC 133 & Blackwell Road '� 147.3 F PM 4,010.5 F US 17 NB & USS NC Road AM 72.2 F PM 315.8 F US 17 SB & USS NC Road AM 41.7 E PM 19.9 C For the 2035 No Build scenario, all five (5) of the signalized and unsignalized intersections operate at LOS F with excessive queues and dclays in the AM and PM peak hours. All signalized intersections operate well over capacity without any future roadway or intersection improvements. Traffic volumes cannot be adequately processed at the signalized intersection duc to the lack of additional capacity and laneage along NC 133, the US 17-74-76 ramp tcrminals, and at SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street). Heavy volumes of NC 133 north-south through traffic, heavy volumes of US 17 traffic to and from the north accessing NC 133, and the close intersection spacing (approximately 375 feet) of NC 133/SR 1551 (Blackwell Road) to the interchange all contribute to the overall poor level of service at the NC 133 interchange. Under 2035 traffic conditions, all intersections experience insufficient capacity and storage to accommodate projcctcd traffic volumes, which are expected to result in breakdown conditions along NC 133 due to the excessive US 17-74-76 ramp queues and delays. All unsignalized side strects in the study corridor are cxpected to experience failing operations. This is duc to hcavy volumes and queuing along the major streets, preventing minor side street vehicles from finding acceptable gaps to exit onto the major streets. This poor side street level of service and delay is not uncommon for low-volumc minor street approaches accessing major arterials and thoroughfares such as US 17-74-76 and NC 133. e. Airaorts The nearest airport to the project azea is Wilmington International Airport, located approximately eight (8) miles away in Wilmington. f. Other Hiehwav Proiects in the Area Table 4 provides information on several othcr TIP projects located near the proposed project: Figure 6, located in Appendix A, provides a graphical representation of the location of these projects. Table 4: Other Highway Projects in the Area TIP Project Description Right of Construction Number �ya Wilmington Bypass; US 17 South of NC 87 gegment A: Design-Build R-2633 in Brunswick County to I-40 in New Hanover � progress Contract Award - FFY 2010 county; Four-lane divided &eeway on new Segment B: FFY 2013 location. Widen SR 1472 (Village Road) from SR R-4063 1435 (South Navassa Road) to SR 1438 FFY 2013 FFY 2015 (Lanvale Road). Widen SR 1472 (Village Road) from the R-4002 southem termini of R-4063 at SR 1435 Completed In Progress (Navassa Road) to east of the US 17-74-76 interchan e ram . Convert grade separation of US 74-76 and SR U-3337 1437 (Old Fayetteville Road) to an FFY 2019 Unfunded interchan e Cape Fear Skyway; US 17 to the intersection of SR 1209 (Independence Boulevard) and U-4738 US 421 (Cazolina Beach Road), including a Unfunded Unfunded new bridge over the Cape Fear River; New location. B-4928 Replace Bridge No. 28 on SR 1432 (Old Mill Unfunded Unfunded Road) over Mill Crcek 7 2. Transportation and Land Use Plans a. NC Transportation Improvement Proaram (TIP) This project is currently includcd in the 2009-2015 TIP. Right of way acquisition is scheduled to begin in FFY 2012 and construction in FFY 2013. b. Local Thorouahfare Plans The 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan for the Wilmington Urban Area was adopted in March 2005. This transportation plan includes this project as a recommended improvement to the roadway network. c. Land Use Plans The Brunswick County CAMA Core Land Use Plan was adopted by the Brunswick County Board of Commissioners in October 2007 and certified by the Coastal Resources Commission in November 2007. In this land use plan, the R-3601 project is included as a proposed transportation improvement in the "Plan for the Futurd' scction. C. Benefits of Proaosed Proiect The proposed R-3601 project will improve traffic safcty and operations along the facility by modifying the weaving/merge/diverge area between the interchanges and making intersection improvements at the intersection of US 17-421/NC 133 and SR 1352 (USS North Cazolina Road). The addition of an auxiliary lane will make it easier For drivers to merge into freeway tra�c and to diverge onto the exit ramps. This not only improves weaving/merging/diverging operations for drivers, but it also reduces ramp congestion. Additionally, the improvements at US 17-421/NC 133 and SR 1352 (USS North Carolina Road) will remove motorists who wish to tum left from out of the main flow of traffic, thereby reducing the risk of reaz-end collisions at this location. IV. ALTERNATIVES A. Preliminarv Studv Alternatives 1. No-Build Alternative The No-Build Altemative offers no improvements to thc project area. This altcmative will not allow for the consGvction of additional lanes or interchange loops along US 17-74-76 from thc NC 133 interchange to the US 421 interchange. As a result, there will be no additional increase in traft'ic capacity or reduction in congestion. Since the No-Build Altemative does not address the purpose and need of the proposed action, it is not recommended. However, this Categorical Exclusion utilizes the No-Build Altemative as a basis for comparison of the other alternatives. 2. Alternative Modes of Transnortation Altemative modes of transportation, including transit options, would not meet the purpose and need of this project since they do not provide any increase in capacity and would not afford an adequate reduction in congestion along this facility. There are limited transit options currently available in this section oF Brunswick County. The Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority operates the Brunswick Connector, a WAVE transit fixed route that crosses the causeway 11 times a day between the Brunswick County municipalities of Leland, Belville, and Navassa and Wilmington in New Hanover County. The shuttle operates Monday-Friday from 6:30 AM to 630 PM. Once the improvements aze complete, the R-3601 project will benefit the WAVE transit system by providing improved travel times for travelers utilizing this service. 3. Transaortation Svstems Manasement The Transportation Systems Management (TSM) altemative includes those types of limited construction activities desi�ed to maximize the utilization and energy e�ciency of an existing roadway. A possible TSM improvement option with this altemative includes adding additional Closed Circuit Television (CCT� c;ameras along this facility to improve response times for accidents and help with the routing of emergency vehicics to cicaz these accidents. Another possible TSM improvement that was considered was adding ramp metering for thc on-ramp leaving SR 1472 (Village Road) onto US 17-74-76. Ramp metering would regulate the flow of traffic onto this facility based on the traffic conditions. However, given that this facility is heavily congested, these measures alone would not adequately address the purpose of the project. CurrenNy, neither of these measures arc in place on this facility. 9 4. Build Alternatives Thcre azc two (2) build altematives under consideration for this project, Altemative A and Altemative B. Alternative A— This altemative will add an auxiliary lane in each direction from the NC 133 intcrchange to the US 421 interchange by extending the existing acceleration lanes. The widening will be done to the inside median to reduce additional wetland and right of way impacts. As part of this project, Bridge No. 107 (northbound over Alligator Creek) will be replaced with a new bridge that can accommodate up to four (4) lanes. 'Che other three (3) bridges on US 17-74-76 will be widened to three (3) lanes, including thc proposed auxiliary lane, and the outside lane on the ramp cazrying traffic from NC 133 to US 17-74-76 northbound will be extended and dropped just prior to Bridge No. 103. Additionally, in order to improve safety near the intersection of US 17-74-421/NC 133 northbound and SR 1352 (USS North Carolina Road), NCDOT will add a left tum lane to US 17-74-421/NC 133 northbound at this intersection, revise the concrete island in the mcdian crossover to accommodate truck traffic, and restripe the pavement mazkings. Alternative B— This altemative will include the improvcments of Altemative A, but will also involve loop and ramp extensions at the NC 133 interchange for southbound [ravelers heading norih onto US 17-74-76. SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street), a service road that intersects NC 133, will need to be relocated to inwrporate the loop and ramp extensions. B. Alternative Drooned from Consideration A previous altemative that considered adding auxiliary lanes to the outside shoulders was dropped from further consideration because of the impacts associated with it. Due to the proximity of sensitive waterbodies and the presencc of wetlands, it was determined that widening to the outside would have geater environmental consequences. Additionally, widening to the outside would have resulted in much more long-term settlement of the roadway than either Alternative A or Altemative B, due to the nature of the existing soils. C. Detailed Studv Alternatives Two (2) of the altematives that were considered during the preliminary study were carried forward for detailed study (Alternatives A and B). The impacts associated with each altemative are noted in Table 5. lU Tablc 5: Summary of Resources and Impacts ' This project may aflecl, bul is not h'kdy to adversely aHect the shoAnose sWrgeon and the West Indian manatce. D. Capacitv Analvsis Build Scenario) i. Future TrafTic Volumes Future yeaz (2035) traffic volumes for the Build Scenario are the same as the No Build Scenario since the traffic pattern is not bcing changed. According to the 2035 traffic forecast, thc Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) on US 17-74-76 behveen the NC 133 interchange and the US 421 interchange is forecasted to be 107,000 vpd. US 421 as it approaches US 17-74-76 is predictcd to experience a traffic volume of 39,600 vpd, while NC 133 will carry approximately 33,400 vpd. SR 1352 (USS North Carolina Road) is predicted to have an AADT of 1,600 vpd. 11 2. Future Levels of Servicc A capacity analysis was performed for the 2035 Build scenario for this project. Despitc the addition of an auxiliary lane in each direction on US 17-74-76 between thc NC 133 interchange and thc US 421 intcrchange, the LS mile segment of US 17-74-76 will be operating at LOS E or worse by the design yeaz (2035). Whilc the 2035 LOS is considered undcsirable, the purpose of this project is to improve traffic operations by adding an auxiliary lane for improved weaviny,/mer�ng/diver�ng movcments on US 17-74-76 between the above interchanges. Table 6 shows the predicted LOS and delays For the major intersections and tuming movcments in the design yeaz (2035) for Alternative B. For Altemative A, predicted LOS and delays for the major intersections and tuming movements in the design year (2035) aze the same for the Build scenario as the No Build scenario (Table 3). The capacity analysis for Altemative B in the design yeaz (2035) indicates that the NC 133 interchange will operate at LOS E or worse, although it will generally experience a reduction in delays compared to the 2035 No Build scenario. This is primarily due to a lack of through capacity along NC 133. Without additional through lanes on NC 133, the NC 133 interchange is expected to begin experiencing unacceptable delays and queuing in 2019. A majority of the congestion occurs from commuter traffic traveling into Wilmington in the AM peak hour and out of Wilmington in the PM peak hour. While the proposed improvements do not address future capacity deficiencies, the improvements will improve merging and diverging operations on US 17-74-76 between the interchanges. Additional travel lanes and other improvements will be needed along US 17-74-76 and at the NC 133 interchange to address future identified capacity deficiencies; howcver, those improvements aze beyond the purpose and scope of this project. Table 6: 2035 Build Scenario Dclays and Levels of Service (Alternative B only) Intersection Time Delay Levcl of Service Period seconds/vehicle OS US 17-7476 SB Ramp & NC 133 AM 65.2 E PM 78 E US 17-7476 NB Ramp & NC 133 AM 30.6 C PM 20.8 C AM 153.4 F NC ]33 & Blackwell Road pM 132.7 F US 17 NB & USS NC Road AM �Z.Z F PM 315.8. F AM 41.7 E US 17 SB & USS NC Road PM 19.9 C 12 E. NCDOT Recommended Alternative No preferred altemative has been sclected at this time. Comments received from the public will be reviewed and additional coordination with other federal, state and local agencies will occur before a final decision is made. A supplemental document will be prepazed once NCDOT determines the most practicable altemative for this project. In the casc of either alternative, NCDOT and FHWA do not expect thc level of impacts to exceed that which would be considered appropriate for a CE. 13 V. PROPOSEDIMPROVEM ENTS A. Roadwav Cross-Section and Alianment The proposed typical section for US 17-74-76 from the NC 133 interchange to the US 421 interchange will have six (6) 12-foot lanes (threc (3) in each direction) with 10-foot inside shoulders (6-foot paved). The outside shoulders will remain at 10-feet. For Altemative B, the proposed typical section of NC 133 will have four (4) 12-foot lanes with 8-foot shoulders (4-foot paved) within the NC l33 interchangc and three (3) 12-foot lanes bctween the interchange and the relocatcd SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street), two (2) of which will allow travel in the southbound direction. This second southbound lane ends at the intersection with SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street) and NC 133 retums to a two (2) lane section just beyond this intersection. The relocated SR I551 (Blackwell Road) will have two (2) 12-foot lanes and 8-foot shoulders. B. Right of Wav and Access Control There may be a stnall amount of additional right of way.needed for US 17-74-76 from the NC 133 interchange to the US 421 interchange. However, the proposed loop and the relocation of SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street) will definitely require additional right of way acquisition. The existing right of way along NC 133 will be converted to full wntrol of access from the NC 133 interchange to the intersection with SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street). The proposed right of way width along the relocated SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street) will be 100 feet. C. Desian Saeed & Speed Limit The design spccd for US 17-74-76 will be 60 mph and the posted speed limit is expected to remain at 55 mph. The design speed for NC 133 and SR 1551 (Blackwcll Road/Main Street) will bc 40 mph and the posted speed limit is anticipatcd to be 35 mph. D. Anticipated Desten Exceotions Design exceptions may be rcquired for shoulder and bridge widths on US 17-74-76. E. Intersec tions/In te rchanaes As part of Altemative B, new intersections will be createcl with NC 133 at the ramp terminal of US 17-74-76 nodhbound and at the relocated SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street). Improvements wil] be made ro the existing NC 133 interchange in the form of a loop and ramp extensions that will allow southbound travelers on NC l33 free-flow access onto US 17-74-76 14 nodhbound. Additionally, the ramp that currently carries traffic from NC 133 onro northbound US 17-74-76 will only be accessible by vehicles heading north on NC 133. At the intersection of US 17-74-421/NC 133 northbound with SR 1352 (USS North Cazolina Road), a dedicated left tum lane will be added. F. Service Roads Existing SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Strcet), which serves as a service road for US 17-74-76, will be relocated south of its current location in order to accommodate a new loop from NC 133 southbound onto US 17-74-76 northbound. G. Railroad Crossines There aze no railroad crossings on this project. H. Structures T}tree (3) of the existing major hydraulic structures on this project (Bridges # 103, 105, and 108) will be retaincd and widened to three (3) lanes. Bridge #107 will be replaced and widened to accommodate four (4) lanes. I. Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities Though the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the local municipalities have expressed an interest in pedestrian and bicycle accommodations on the US-17-74-76MC 133 causeway, the design and full control of access of the roadway prohibit thc locating of bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on the facility. However, on NC 133 through the interchange, 5-foot sidewalks aze being included on NC 133 through the interchange in the northbound and southbound directions as part of project R-4002 (Village Road Widening). NCDOT will replace any existing sidewalks disturbed by project construction as long as the facility remains safc for pedestrian travel. J. Utilities Major utilities on this project includc a power transmission feeder line that would cross all altematives and would need to be rclocatcd. There aze other, minor utilities that run parallel to US 17-74-76, NC 133/SR 1472 (Village Road) and SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street) that could possibly be affected by this project. K. Noise Barriers No noise barriers are proposed as part of this project. 15 L. Work Zone, Traffic Control and Construction PhasinQ During construction of the project, the improvements to US 17-74-76 will be implemented as "phased construction", a process in which the widening into the median will occur bchind barriers in phases. This will allow traffic to be maintained on the existing roads and bridges throughout the length of construction. Due the heavily congested nature of this facility, night and weekend construction is recommended to prevent further impact to daily commuters traveling to and from Brunswick and New Hanover Counties at peak times. No detours aze currently expected. 16 VI. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION A. Natural Resources The project study azea lies in the Mid-Atlantic Floodplains and Low Terraces ewregions in the Coastal Plain physiographic province. Elevations in the study azea are approximately five (5) to 25 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The topography in the project vicinity is generally flat, with greatcr changes in elevation occucring azound water courses. The land use surrounding the towns of Lcland and Belville is mainly residential and industrial, although most of the remaining study corridor remains in mazsh and forest land. 1. Biotic Resources a. Terrestrial Communities Five (5) terrestrial communities were identified within the project study azea: Riverine Swamp Forest, Tidal Freshwater Marsh, Mixed Pine-Hazdwood Forest, Mixed Hardwood Forest, and Maintained/Disturbed. 1. Riverine Swama Forest This community is mostly comprised of a large beaver impoundment. [ts canopy is dominated by bald cypress, red maple, sweetgum, and black willow. The understory, where present, is dominated by saplings and shrubs of these same species in addition to wax myrtie, tag aldcr, and Chinese privet. The vine and herbaceous layer is dominated by various sedges, lizazd tail, smooth rush, cinnamon fem, marshpennywort, false nettle, greenbrier, supplejack, Virginia creeper, and trwnpet creeper. 2. Tidal Freshwater Marsh This community borders thc Brunswick and Cape Fear Rivers. There are scattered specimcns of bald and pond cypress throughout this community, but it is dominated mainly by herbaccous vegetation. Dominant species include common reed, na�row-leaved cattail, sedges, and green arrow arum. 3. Miaced Pine/Hardwood Forest This community is found upslope of the riverine swamp forest and in drier, more developed sections of the study area and is the result of past disturbance. The canopy and shrub layer is comprised mainly of loblolly pine, sweetgum, red maple, water oak, Chinesc privet, and wax myrtle. The herbaccous layer is scarce to absent, but the vine layer is diversc, including saw grecnbrier, trumpet creeper, crossvine, and Virginia creeper. 17 4. Mixed Hardwood Forest This community gades into tidal freshwatcr marsh throughout much of the study azea, with the vegetation reflecting the generally wet conditions. In the majority of this community type, dominant tree species include red maplq swcet gum, black willow, and bald cypress. However, in upland azeas typical tree species include black cherry, live oak, water oak, and red cedar. Throughout this community type, dominant shrubs include wax myrtle, Chinese tallow tree, and Chinese privet. Dominant herbs and vines indude lizard tai►, netted chain fern, royal fern, grape, Virginia creeper, poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, and trumpet creeper. 5. Maintained/Disturbed This community encompasses various types of habitats that have recently been or aze currently impacted by human disturbance. These include impervious surfaces (i.e., parking lots), roadside shoulders, maintained lawns, utility casements, and undeveloped land maintaincd in an early successional state. Herbaceous species found in these communities include fescue, ryegrass, lespedeza, Eastem baccharis, goldenrod, dogfennel, various species of dock and aster, wild asparagus, poison iry, and blackberry. Shrubs, saplings, and trees from surrounding habitats are also prese�t in these communities. In wetter areas, species such as smooth rush, hibiscus, and elderberry were found in addition to different sedge and smartweed species. On this project, utility easements also cut through the tidal freshwater marsh community. 6. Impacts Terrestrial communities in the study area may be impacted by project conshvction as a result of grading and paving in portions of the study area. Table 7 presents the community data in the context of total coverage of each type within the study azea. Table 7: Coverage of Terrestrial Communities within Project Study Area* ' Does not indude 65.3 acres of road suAace and open water. 18 b. Terrestrial Fauna Many faunal species aze highly adaptive and may utilize all biotic communities previously discussed (those species or evidence thereof that were actually observed aze indicated with *). Maintained roadside and residential communities adjacent to forested tracts provide foraging and cover areas that support eazly 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 include the white-tailed deer*, gay fox, raccoon, and the Virginia opossum. Reptiles expected in this azea include river cooter, eastem mud turtle, brown watersnake, copperhead*, rough geen snake, five- lined skink, and green anole*. Bird species observed in and around the study area include red-winged blackbird, red- bellied woodpecker, boat-tailed gackle, geen heron, great blue heron*, anhinga, indigo bunting, prothonotary wazbler*, summer tanager*, tufted tit-mouse, Cazolina wren*, yellow-billed cuckoo*, and the common yellowthroat. c. Aquatic Communities The study area contains two (2) large river systems, three (3) small creek systems, and beaver impounded wetlands. Fish species likely to occur within the Brunswick River and Alligator Crcek include American shad, Atlantic menhaden, mazked goby, southem stazgazer, white catfish, and American eel. Fish species likely to occur in the small streams found in the study area include redbreast sunfish, banded sunfish, golden shiner, mosquitofish and pirate perch. Other aquatic species likely to be found in the study area include the southern leopazd frog*, carpenter frog*, yellow-bellied slider*, bullfrog*, southern cricket frog, and southem dusky salamander. d. Invasive Species Six (6) plant species listed on the Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Cazolina were observed within the study area. The species identified were Chinese privet, common recd, Japanese honeysuckle, Chinese tallow tree, Japanese knotweed, and lespedeza. Invasive species aze ca[egorized into one (1) of three (3) threat levcls: L.evel 1(Severe Threat), I.evel 2(Threat), and Leve13 (Watch List). Tlveat levels for the observed invasive species aze shown in Tablc 8. NCDOT will follow the Departme�t's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the management of invasive plant species as appropriate. 19 Table 8: Invasive Species Threat Levels Within Project Area 2. Waters of the United States a. Streams, Rivers, Impoundments Five (5) jurisdictional rivers and streams were identified in the study azea (Table 9) and their locations are shown on Figure 2. Water resources in the study area are part of the Cape Fear River basin (USGS Hydrologic Unit 03030005). The physical chazacteristics and water quality designations of each jurisdictional stream aze shown (Table 10) and the project specific impacts are listed by altemative (Table 11). All jurisdictional streams in the study azea have been designated as warm water streams for the purposes of stream mitigation. Table 9: Jurisdictional Characteristics of Watcr Resources in the Study Area 'This stream was ddeimined to be'not important' by the USACE Table 10: Water Resource Classifications 20 Table 11: Stream Impacts Impact calculations are based on a 25doot dlsel fran ihe proposed slope slakes. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQVI�, Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the study area. Neither the Brunswick River nor Alligator Creek are designated as North Carolina Natural or Scenic Rivers, or as a National Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Draft 2010 303(d) list of impaired waters lists the Brunswick River (and its unnamed tributaries) for low dissolved oxygen, but not for sedimentation or turbidity. A benthic monitoring station is located at the southem c;onflucnce of the Brunswick and Cape Fear Rivers, but it has not been rated. b. Wetlands Sixteen jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study azea (Figure 2). All wetlands in the study azea aze within the Cape Fear River Basin (HUC 03030005). Wetland classification and quality rating data are given (Table 12) and project specific impacts are listed by altemative (Table 13). Descriptions of the terrestrial communitics at each wetland site are presented in Section V1.A.l.a. 2l Table 12: Jurisdictional Charactcristics of Wetlands in the Study Arca Ma ID Cowardin Classification ClassiGcation DWQ Ratin Area ac WA PF06C Ri arian 36 1.0 WB PF06B Ri arian 24 0.1 WC PEMIV Tidal 69 0.6 WD PEMIV;PF06V Tidal 85 3.8 WE PFO1F Ri arian 68 0.8 WF PEM2C;PF06C Ri arian 45 03 WH PEM2F;PF01/4F Ri arian 68 0.9 WI PEM1V Tidal 85 52.6 WJ PEMi/2V;PF06C Tidal/Ri arian 85 14.4 WK PEM1 V; PF06C Tidal/Ri arian SS 20.6 WL PF06A Ri arian 22 2.1 WM PEMI V; PF06C Tidal/Ri arian 85 9.2 WN PEM1V Tidal 85 6.2 WO PEM1V Tidal 45 0.6 WS PEM1A; PF06A Non-ri arian 18 14.9 WT PEM1A Non-ri arian 18 03 WU PF06F/PEM2F Ri arian 68 1.1 'Acreage within the study area boundaries onty Table 13: Wetland Impacts Impacl calalaGais are based on a 2SIoo� oNset fran ihe proposed slope stakes. c. Summarv of Anticipated Effects Stream and wetland impacts have becn tabulated using preliminary desibms; therefore, impacts were calculated from slope stake limit to slope stake limit, plus an additiona] 25-foot offset from each slope stake. Stream impacts have bcen rounded up to the nearest lineaz foot, while wetland impacts have been rounded up to the nearest hundredth of an acre. The anticipated impacts for streams and wetlands arc gven in Tables I 1 and l3, respectivcly. 22 d. Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitieation 1. Avoidance Due to the location of wetlands, streams, and surface waters on both sides of US 17-74-76 and NC 133, avoidance of all jurisdictional impacts is not possible. Avoidance of some wetlands and streams within the project study area has been accomplished by widening to the inside median. Additionally, the proposed loop for the NC 133 interchange considered under Altemative B was desi�ed with the smallest radius possible in order to minimize wetland and stream impacts, yet still remain safe and compliant with current design standards. l. Minimization Severa] efforts were made to reduce the effect of the project upon wetlands and streams by widening to the inside median instead of to the outside shoulders where more environmentally sensitive azeas were present. Mother minimization effort included using 3:1 side slopes in wetland azeas instead of 4:1 side slopes. Additionally, Blackwell Road was relocated only 750 feet (rather than the full 1,000 feet) from the NC 133 interchange in order to minimize impacts to existing wetlands and streams. 3. Compensatorv Mitisation Compensatory mitigation will likely be required for all unavoidable losses after all practical avoidance and minimization options are utilized. A specific mitigation plan cannot be developed until final design is completed and actual impacts determined. NCDOT will evaluate the potential for on-site mitigation once a final decision has been rendered with regazd to the location of the preferred alternative. NCDOT will use thc Ecosystem Enhancement Progam (EEP) to meet mitigation requirements provided there is no suitabie on-site mitigation available. ln accordance with the "Memorandum of Ageement Among the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District" (MOA), July 22, 2003, the North Cazolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources EEP will be requested to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal CWA wmpensatory mitigation requirements for this project. e. Anticiaated Pcrmit Reauirements While a Nationwide permit may be applicable for this project, it is likely that an Individual Section 404 permit will be necessary due to the amount of potcntial impacts. A final pennitting strategy cannot bc developed until a design altemative is selected. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) holds the final discretion as to what pennit will be required to authorize project construction. In addition to the 404 permit, other rcquired authorizations include a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the North Carolina Department of Watcr Quality (DWQ), a CAMA permit, a State Stormwater permit, and a Navigable Waters permit from the United States Coast Guard (USCG) as a result of the reduced clearance of Bridge l05 over the Brunswick River, 23 which has been designated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as a Navigable Water under Section 10 ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act. f. Construction Moratoria The Brunswick River is considered a joint watcr and has been identified by the NC Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) as anadromous fish habitat. In addition, the NCWRC identified both the Brunswick River and Alligator Creek as Inland Primary Nursery Areas and has requested a longer in-water construction moratorium from February 15 to September 30 in thesc waters. Given that this moratorium was not extended to any of the Brunswick River's unnamed tributaries, neither Stream B nor Stream C will require a moratorium. 3. Rarc and Protected Saecies a. Federallv Protected Saecies As of January 31, 2008, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists fourteen federally protected species for Brunswick County (Table 14). A brieF description of each species' habitat requirements follows, along with the Biological Conclusion rendcred based on survey results in the study area. 24 Table 14: Federally Listed Species for Washington County Common Namc Scientific Name Federal Habitat Prescnt B�ological Status Conclusion American alligator Alli ator mississi iensis T S/A Yes N/A Eastem cou az Puma concolor cou ar E No No Effect Kemp's ridley sea �pidochelys kempii E No No Effect turtle L,eatherback sea Dermochelys coriacea E No No Effect turtle Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T No No Effect Loggerhead sea Carelta caretta T No No Effect turtle Pi in lover Charadrius melodus T No No Effect Red-cockaded p�coides borealis E No No Effect wood ecker Shottnose stur eon Aci enser brevirostrum E Yes MA-NLAA West Indian Trichechus manatus E Yes MA-NLAA manatee Wood stork M cteria americana E Yes No Effect Cooley's 77ialictrum cooleyi E Yes No Effect meadowrue Rough-leaved Lysimachia asperulaefolia E No No Effect loosestrife Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus umilus T No No Effect E- Entlangered; T- Threatened; T(S/A) - Threatened due to similarily ot appearance MA•NLAA - May Affect•Not Likdy to Adversely AAect �- Histaic record (the spedes was last observed in Ihe county more than 50 years ago) American alligator In North Carolina, alligators have been recorded in nearly every coastal county and many inland counties to the fall line. The alligator is found in rivers, streams, canals, lakes, swamps, bayous, and coastal mazshes. Adult animals aze highly tolerant of salt water, but the young are apparently more sensitive, with salinities grcater than 5 parts per thousand considered harmful. Biological Conclusion: Not Applicablc The American alligator remains on the protected species list Jue to its similarity in appearance to the Endangered American crocodile. Spccies listed as thrcatened due to similarity of appcazance do not require Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. 25 Eastern cougar Records of eastem cougar occur across the statc of North Cazolina with most sightings in coastal swamps and thc southern Appalachian Mountains. This nocturnal predator is found in lazge remote wilderness azeas where there is an abundance of their primary food source, white-tailed deer. A cougar will usually occupy a range of 10 to 20 square miles, varying in size with age, sex, and food availability. Biological Conclusion: No Effect The region surrounding the study azea is sigmificantly developed and would not provide a large, undisturbed home range for the eastem cougaz. Therefore, this project will have no effect on this species. Kemp's ridley sea turtle Kemp's ridley sea twtle is the smallest of the sea turtles that visit North Cazolina's coast, and has been sighted in most coastal counties. While the majority of this sea twtle's nesting occurs in Mexico, the species is known to nest on North Cazolina beaches infrequently. Kemp's ridley sea turtle can lay eggs as many as three times during the April to June breeding season. Kemp's ridlcy sea tuRles prefer beach sections that aze backed up by extensive swamps or large bodies of open water having seasonal narcow ocean connections and a well defined elevated dune azea. The species prefers neritic (nearshore) azeas with sandy or muddy bottoms. Biological Conclusion: No Effect This project will not affect ocean beach habitat or waters where adult and juvenile sea turtles may be found; therefore, it will have no ef�ect on this species. Leatherback sea turtle L,eatherbacks are distributed world-wide in tropical waters of the AUantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans. They are generally open occan species, and may be common off the North Cazolina coast during certain times of the year. However, in northem waters leatherbacks are reported to enter into bays, estuaries, and other inland bodies of water. Major nesting azeas occur mainly in tropical regions. In the United States, primary nesting areas are in Florida, however nests aze known from Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina as well. Nesting occurs from April to August. Leatherbacks need sandy beaches backed with vegetation in Hie proximity of deep watcr and generally with rough seas. Beaches with a relatively steep slope are usually preferred. Biological conclusion: No Effect This project will not affect ocean beach habitat or waters where adult and juvcnile sea turtles may be found; therefore, it will have no effect on this species. 26 Green sea turtle The green sea tuRle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and seas. Nesting in North America is limited to small communities on the east coast of Florida requiring beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do not nest in NC). The green sea turtle can be found in shallow waters. They are attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays, mangove swamps and inlets where an abundance of marine gasses can be found, as this is the principle food source forthe geen turUe. Biological conclusion: No Effect 1ltere was no habitat for thc green sea turtle found in thc study azea. They require, and are therefore attracted to, areas with abundant beds of sea grass, which are not present in the Brunswick River or Alligator Creek; thercfore, it will have no effect on this species. Loggerhead sea turtle The loggerhead turtle is widely distributed within its range, and is found in thrcc distinct habitats during their lives. These turtles may be found hundreds of miles out in the open ocean, in neritic (nearshore) azeas, or on coastal beaches. In Nocth Cazolina, this species has been observed in every coastal county. Loggerheads occasionally nest on North Carolina beaches, and are the most common of all the sea turtles that visit the North Cazolina coast. They nest noctumally, at two to three year intervals, between May and September, on isolated beaches that are chazacterized by fine-gained sediments. In nearshore areas, loggerheads have becn observed in bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large rivers. Coral reefs, rocky places, and shipwrecks aze often used as foraging azeas. Biological conclusion: No Effect This project will not affect ocean beach habitat or waters where adult and juvenile sea turtles may be found; therefore, it will have no effect on this species. Piping plover The piping plover brecds along the entire eastem coast of the United States. North Carolina is uniquely positioned in the species' range, being the only State where the piping plover's breeding and wintering ranges overlap and the birds aze present yeaz-round. They nest most commonly where there is little or no vegetation, but some may nest in stands of beachgrass. The nest is a shallow depression in the sand that is usually lined with shell fragments and ligltbcolored pebbles. Biological conclusion: No Effect This project will not affect ocean beach habitat, which provides nesting and foraging habitat for thc piping plover. Therefore, this project will have no effect on this species. 27 Red-cockaded woodpeckcr The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupics open, mature stands of southem pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus pa[ustris), for foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. Thc RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trecs, aged 60 yeazs or older, and which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 yeazs of age to provide foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW is normally no more than 0.5 miles. Biological conclusion: No Effect Nesting and/or foraging habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker is not present in thc study azea. In addition, the NC Natural Heritage Progam (NCNHP) database (updated May 1, 2008) shows no occurrcnces of the RCW within the project vicinity. Therefore, this project will have no effect on this species. Shortnosesturgcon Shortnose sturgeon occurs in most major river systems along the eastem seaboard of the United States. The species prefers the nearshore marine, estuarine, and riverine habitat of lazge river systems. It is an anadromous species that migates to faster-moving freshwater azeas to spawn in the spring, but spends most of its life within close proximity of the river's mouth. Large freshwater rivers that are unobstructed by dams or pollutants arc imperative to successful reproduction. Distribution information by river/waterbody is lacking for the rivers of Norlh Cazolina, howcver records aze known from most coastal counties. Biological Conclusion: May Atfect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect A search of the NCNHP database found three records oF shortnose sturgeon from the Brunswick River within the project vicinity, all from 1993. Correspondence with the NC Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) also confirmed that shortnose sturgeon has been documented from this area. Therefore, it is possible that sturgeon still exists within this reach of the Brunswick Rivcr. Given that the NCDOT will take measures to lessen disturbance to the aquatic environment through a February 15 to September 30 in-water work moratorium during the sturgeon's breeding season, the biological conclusion of `May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect' is appropriate. West Indian manatee Manatees have been observed in all the NoRh Carolina coastal counties. Manatecs are found in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine habitats, salt water bays, and as far off shore as 3.7 miles. They utilize freshwater and marine habitats at shallow depths of five (5) to 20 feet. In thc winter, between October and April, manatees concentrate in arcas with warm water. During other times of the year habitats appropriate for the manatee are those with sufficient water depth, an adequatc food supply, and in proximity to freshwater. Manatees require a source of freshwater to drink. Manatees are primarily herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic vegetation present, but they may occasionally feed on fish. 28 Biological conclusion: May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect The West Indian manatee, although uncommon, is considered to be a seasonal inhabitant of the coastal waters of North Cazolina; with most occurrences being reported between Junc and October. Therefore, the manatee could be a seasonal visitor to the study azea. When doing in-water work, the NCDOT will adhere to `Guidelines for Avoiding Impacts to the Wcst Indian Manatee: Precautionary Measures for Construction Activities in North Cazolina Waters' to avoid harm to this specics. Given these precautionary measures, thc biological conclusion of `May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect' is appropriate. Wood stork Wood storks aze not known to breed in NoRh Carolina. However, they may be observed in North Carolina's coastal areas after nesting has concluded in more southerly states, primarily from June to Septembec Wood storks typically construct their nests in medium to tall trecs that occur in stands located either in swamps or on islands surrounded by relatively broad expanses of open water. In many azeas, bald cypress and red mangove trees aze preferred. During the nonbreeding season or whife foraging, wood storks occur in a wide variety of wetland habitats, including freshwater mazshes and stock ponds, shallow, seasonally flooded roadside or agricultural ditches, narrow tidal creeks or shallow tidal pools, managed impoundments, and depressions in cypress heads and swamp sloughs. Because of their specialized feeding behavior, the most attractive feeding azeas aze swamp or mazsh depressions where fish become concentrated during dry periods. Biological conclusion: No Effect Currently, the only known post-breeding colony of wood storks in North Carolina occurs at Sunset Beach in Brunswick County. Foraging habitat, in the form of depressions in marshes or swamps as well as fresh or brackish ponds where fish may become concentrated during dry periods, is found in the study azea. However, no individuals wcre observed in the study area or in fly-over during field visits in June and July 2008, nor were any nests observed during the late-winter breeding season. [n addition, the NCNHP database does not show any occurrences of wood stork in the project vicinity. Therefore, it can be concluded that this projec[ will have no effect on this species. Cooley's meadowrue Cooley's meadowrue, documented in the Pine Savanna natural community, occurs in circumneutral soils in sunny, moist to wet grass-sedge bogs, wet-pine savannas over calcareous clays, and savannah-like areas, often at the ecotones of intermittent drainages or non-riverine swamp forests. This rhizomatous perennial herb is also found along plowed firebrcaks, roadside ditches and rights-of-way, forest cleanngs dominated by gass or sedge, and power line or utility rights-of-way. The species requires some type of disturbance (e.g., mowing, cicaring, periodic fire) to maintain its open habitat. The plant typically occurs on slightly acidic (pH 5.8-6.6) soils that aze loamy fine sand, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam; at least seasonally moist or saturated; and mapped 29 as Foreston, Grifton, Muckalee, Torhunta, or Woodington series. Atlantic white cedar, tulip poplar, golden sedge, and bald and pond cypress are a few of its common associate species. Biological conclusion: No Effect There is limited habitat for Cooley's meadowrue within the study area, mainly along road clearings that border wetlands on NC 133. A survey was conducted on June 19, 2008 for meadowrue in these areas, but no individuals were found. In addition, the NCNHP database does not show any occurrences of Cooley's meadowruc in the project vicinity. Therefore, it can be concluded that this project will have no effect on this species. Rough-leaved loosestrife Rough-leaved loosestrife, endemic to the Coastal Plain and Sandhills of North and South Carolina, generally occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins in dense shrub and vine �owth on moist to seasonally saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand (spodosolic soils). Occurrences are found in such disturbed habitats as roadside depressions, maintained power and utility line rights-of-way, firebreaks, and trails. The species prefers full sunlight, is shade intolerant, and requires areas of disturbance (e.g., clearing, mowing, periodic buming) where the overstory is minimal. It can, however, persist vegetatively for many yeazs in overgrown, fire-suppressed azeas. Blaney, Gilead, Johnston, Kalmia, Leon, Mandarin, Murville, Torhunta, and Vaucluse aze some of the soil series that occurrences have been found on. Biological conclusion: No EffeM Soil series associated with rough-leaved loosestrife at other sites aze mapped in the study area; however, no characteristic longleaf pine/pond pine pocosin `edge' habitat was found during wetland and community surveys or during a loosestrife habitat survey conducted on June 19, 2008. In addition, the NCNHP database does not show any occurrences of rough-leaved loosestrife in the project vicinity. Therefore, this project will have no effect on this species. Seabeach amaranth Seabeach amaranth ocwrs on bazrier island beaches where its primary habitat consists of ovcrwash flats at accreting ends of islands, lower foredunes, and upper strands of noneroding beaches (landward of the wrack line). In raze situations, this annual is found on sand spits 160 feet or more from the base of the neazest foredune. It occasionally establishes small temporary populations in other habitats, including sound-sidc beaches, blowouts in foredunes, interdunal areas, and on sand and shell material deposited for beach replenishment or as dredge spoil. The plant's habitat is sparsely vegetated with annual herbs (forbs) and, less commonly, perennial herbs (mostly grasses) and scattered shrubs. It is, however, intolerant of vegetative competition and does not occur on well-vegetated sites. The species usually is found growing on a nearly pure silica sand substrate, occasionally with shell fragments mixed in. Seabeach amazanth appears to require extensive areas of barrier island beaches and inlets that funetion in a relatively natural and dynamic 30 � � manner. These characteristics allow it to move around in the landscape, occupying suitable habitat as it becomes available. Biological conclusion: No Effect This project will not impact barrier island beach habitat. Therefore, this project will have no effect on this species. b. Bald Ea¢le Protection Effective August 8, 2007, the bald eaglc (Halieaeetus leucocepha[us) was delisted &om the Endangered Species Act. A biological conclusion is no longer necessary for this species. The bald eagle is still protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines restrict disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 330 to 660 ft outwazd from a nest tree, which is considered critical for maintaining acceptable conditions for bald eagles. Accordingly, bald eagle occurrences and nesting habitat were surveyed. Habitat for the bald eagle primarily wnsists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies of open water for fora�Ging. Lazge, dominant trees aze utilized for nesting sites, typically within one (I) mile of open water. Suitable nesting or foraging habitat for the bald eagle exists within the study azea; however there were no observations of individual eagles or their nests witMn 660 feet of the study area during the field evaluations performed between January and June 2008 and May 2010. This project will therefore have no adverse effects on the bald eagle. In addition, the NC Naharal Heritage Progam (NCNHP) database (updated April 2010) does not indicate any occurrences of bald ea�;les within 1.0 mi(e of the study azea. c. Endaneered Saecies Act Candidate Saecies As of January 31, 2008, the USFWS lists no Candidate species for Brunswick County. 4. Soils The Brunswick County Soil Survey identifies twelve soil types within the project study azea (Table 15). 31 Table 15: Soils in the Project Study Area 'Soils which are primarity ran-hydric, lwl which contain hydric inclusions 5. Coastal Zone Issues a. Coastal Area Manaeement Act (CAMA) The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) provides for jurisdictional review of impacts af�ecting Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC) in 20 designated coastal counties, including Brunswick County. Additionally, both the Brunswick River and Alligator Crcck are likely to be , designated as Public Trust Waters. A CAMA major permit from the NC Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM) will be required for all impacts to designated AECs within the study area. b. Essential Fish Habitat Assessment While this project is in a county subject to Essential Fish Habitat, the Brunswick Rivcr and Alligator Creek are not identified ns waterbodies that require an cssential fish habitat assessment. As such, the proposed project will result in a negligible net effect on available Essential Fish Habitat. B. Cultural Resources 1. Compliance T7tis project is subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended, 36 CFR Part 80Q requires Federal agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings on properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Regster of Historic Places (NR) and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. 32 2. Historic Architectural Resources Therc is one (1) historic property on this project, the USS North Cazolina Battleship, which is listed on the National Regster of Historic Places. The North Cazolina Histonc Preservation Office (NCHPO) stated that there would be no cffect on this historic property since construction will be limited to thc intersection of SR 1352 (USS North Carolina Road) and US 17-421/NC 133 (see concurrence form dated 5/I2/10, Appendix D). 3. Archaeoloaical Resources In a letter dated April 3, 2007, the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) and the SHPO did not recommend that an azchaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project (see Appendix B for a copy of this letter). C. Section 4(�!6(fl Resources Section 4(� of the USDOT Act of 1966 protects the use of publicly owned pazks, recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historic properties from USDOT actions. The proposed project will not impact the boundaries of the U.S.S. North Cazolina battleship, a National Register listed historic property which is protected under Sections 4(� of the United States Departrnent of Transportation (USDOT) Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303). Section 6(� of the Land and Water Conservation Act applics to the conversion of certain recreatio� lands to non-recreational purposes. The act applies to recreation lands that have received Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) money. Any land conversions on property that has received LWCF money must be approved by the US Deparqnent of the Interior—National Pazk Servica Section 6(� also requires that any applicable land conver[ed to non-recreational uses must be replaced with land of equal or greater value, location, and usefulness. No Section 6( fl protected properties will be impacted by this project. D. Farmland North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Preservation ofPrime Agricultural and Fores! Lands, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime fazmland soils, as designated by the US Natural Resources Conservation Servicc (NRCS). These soils aze determined by the Natural Resource Conservation Service and based on criteria such as crop yield and level of input of economic resowces. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) rcquires that applicable environmental dowments evaluate farmland impacts and comply with FPPA guidelines to minimize impacts. A soil survey of the proposcd project study azea did not show any soils which are designated as prime farmland soils. However, there was an area neaz the NC 133 interchange that has been designated as Statewide Important Farmland. However, since the project is located in a currently 33 built out and developcd urban area, no further invcstigation of these Statewide Important Farmlands will take place. E. Social Effects 1. Demoeraphics a. Population The dcmogaphic study area is generally the smallest statistical area of the 2000 Census derived from and generally shaped around the Direct Community Impact Area (DC1A). The data for the demographic study area provides approximate demographic characteristics for the community surrounding the project. The demographic study area is comprised of Census Tract 201, Block Groups 3 anJ 4 and Census Tract 202, Block Group 1. The demographic study azea includes portions of the Towns of Leland, Belville and Navassa north and west of the proposed project. The information obtained by the Census may not reflect the exact aspects of the area surrounding the project, but should provide accurate information on the area trends. According to the 2000 Census, the population in the demographic study azea was 5,618. This represented a 243% increase from the population in 1990. The population growth in the demographic study azea contributed to the overall population growth of Brunswick County, which gew 43.5% during the same period. According to the 2000 Census, the majority of the population gowth from 1990 until 2000 occurred in the Belville azea, southwest of the project. Projections from thc NC O�ce of State Budget and Management suggest that the population gowth in the area has spread to the other two (2) c;ommunities in the area, Leland and Navassa, since 2000. These projections note that from 2000-2005, Navassa likely gew by 207%, Leland by 171% and Belville by 59%. Based on the state's projections, the population in all of these areas is expectcd to continue to increase in the future. b. Race & Ethnicity The race and ethnicity of the demogaphic study area is predominately Caucasian, with 69.2% of the people in the demogaphic azea identifying themselves in the 2000 Census as White racially and 23.6% identified themselves as Black or Afiican-American racially. However, thc census numbers suggest that the arca was more diverse racially than Brunswick County overall, where 823% of residents identified themselves as White racially. The census numbers note that the Black or Afi-ican American population was particularly large in Navassa and the southem area of Belville. Additionally, according to the 2000 Census, 8.5% of the people in the demographic study area identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino ethnically. This percentage is higher than Brunswick County overall, where 2.8% of the population identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino ethnically. Thc census numbers noted that the Hispanic and Latino population was particularly high in the Navassa area. 34 c. Emplovment In the demogaphic study area, the median household incomc in 2000 was approximately $35,815, which was roughly equivalent to the median household income in 2000 of Brunswick County at $35,888. The income Icvels were not consistent across the demogaphic azea. The median income in the demogaphic area in the Leland azea was low at $29,411 whilc the median income in the Belville area was $55,265. The higher median income in the Belville area likely reflects the presence of employees who work at higher paying jobs in the Wilmington area and commute to Brunswick County. The median income in the demographic study area overall has likely increased as more homes have been constructed. According to the 2000 Census, the unemployment rate for the demographic study area was 3.9%, which was lowcr than the overall rate oF Brunswick County at 4.6%. The census numbers reflect the same trend that was observcd with the median income numbers; i.e., the population of Belville experienced less unemployment at 2.0% than other areas, particularly the Town of Navassa, which experienced an unemployment rate of 6.7% in 2000. As documented by the North Cazolina Employment Security Commission, the five (5) " lazgest employers in Brunswick County are the Brunswick County Boazd of Education, Brunswick County govemment, Progress Energy, Wal-Mart, and Food Lion. In addition, the top five (5) employment sectors in this area are retail trade (14.6%), accommodation and food services (10%), construction (9.8%), health care and social assistance (9.1%), and education services (8.9%), according to the North Cazolina DeparUnent of Commerce. The average weekly wagc in the counry is $588, compazed to $744 statewide. d. Housin2 The median home value in the demogaphic azea was $113,700, according to the 2000 Census. This value is lower than the median overall home value of $127,400 in Brunswick County. The 2000 Census reported that over 746 of the homes, or 32%, were built in the demographic study area between 1990 and 2000, whereas in Brunswick County, 19,302 homes, or 38%, were constructed during that same period. According to the 2000 Census, 69% of housing units in Belville have been built since ] 990. Likewise, 77% of Belville residents live in a different house than they did in 1995, compazed to 52% of I,eland residents, 30% of Navassa residents, and 46% of Brunswick County. The population growth in the area since 2000 is readily appazent, with newly constructed subdivisions along NC 133 (River Road) such as Olde Towne Wynd and Jackeys Creek Plantation that have home values at or around $250,000. Many new homes in Leland are in riverfront communities and range in price from $500,000 to $700,000; however, these properties tend to be Icss expensive than similar waterfront properties in Ncw Hanover County. The median homc values in Belville and L.eland are in thc $114,000 range, but in Navassa, they average only $62,000. Media�� rent in Navassa is $563 per month, compared to $475 and $508 per month, respectively, in Belville and Leland. In Bntnswick County, the median home value is 35 $127,400 and rent is $535. In Leland, 26% of vacant units arc for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. By comparison, 78% of vacant units in Brunswick County are for seasonal or recreational use. 2. Neiahborhoods/Communities The nature of the land use in the project shzdy azea (commercial and undeveloped) reduces thc potential for and magnitude of displacement-related community impacts for this project. This project will not create a barrier effect, split, disrupt or isolate the community. It is expected that neighborhood cohesion will remain intact and the project will not interrupt social interaction among residents. 3. Relocations of Residences and Businesses For Altemative A, there are no residential or business relocations anticipated. Alternative B is expected to have four (4) business relocations. The relocation reports for each altemativc, as well as more information on NCDOT's Relocation and Displacement Policies can be found in Appendix C. 4. Environmental Justice Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects individuals from discrimination on die grounds of race, age, wlor, religion, disability, sex, and national origin. Executive OrJer 12898 requires that Environmental Justice principles be incorporated into all transportation studies, programs, policies, and activities. The three envirorunental principles are: 1) to ensure the fiall and fair participation of all potentially affected communities in the transportation decision making process, 2) to avoid, minimize or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority or low income populations, and 3) to fully evaluate the benefits and burdens of transportation programs, policies, and activities upon low-income and minority populations. Impacts to minority and ]ow-income populations do not appear to be high and adverse. Though one of the four (4) property owners that will be affected by right of way impacts is Asian, the property is not currently developed and hc has expressed in[erest in NCDOT acquiring this property as soon as possible, as have two (2) of the other three (3) Caucasian property owners. Benefits and burdens resulting from thc project are anticipated to be equitably distributcd throughout the community. Public involvement and outreach activitics must ensure full and fair participation of all potentially affected communities in the transpoRation decision-making process. 5. Bicvcle and Pedestrian Facilities Though the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Plannins Organization (MPO) and the Town of Leland have expressed an interest in seeing pedestrian and bicyc►e accommodations on the US-17-74-76/NC 133 causcway, the desi�m and full control of access of the roadway prohibit the locating of bicycic and pedestrian accommodations on the facility. 36 On NC I 33 through the intcrchange, a 5-foot sidewalk is included underneath the US 17-74- 76 bridge in thc southbound direction as part of project R-4002 (Village Road Widcning). NCDOT will replace all existing sidewalks disturbed by project construction as long as the facility remains safe for pedestrian travel. 6. Recreational Facilities There are no recreational facilities that will be impacted as a result of this project. F. Economic Effects If Altemative B is recommended, the proposed project will have an economic impact on che four (4) businesses that are being required to relocate. These include Southeastem Casting, Inc., a concrete plant that will be physically affected by the relocation of SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street), and the Scotchman Gas Station, the Belville Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Store, and the Jumpin' Joe's Coffee Shop that will be affected by a loss of access to NC 133. These four (4) businesses employ a total of 28 employees. Relocation assistance will be provided as deterrnined by NCDOT's Relocation and Displacement Policies found in Appendix D. As noted in these reports, suitable business sites aze available in the event of relocation. Additionally, constrvction of the project could delay some trips of workers commuting between Brunswick arid New Hanover Counties, but those effects should be negligible based on the proposed nighttime and weekend construction times, and will be temporary. G. Land Use 1. Existina and Future Land Use Since the majority of project study azea, with the exception of Eagle Island, is currently developed or planned for development, land use changes as a result of this project azc expected to be minimal, as residential and commercial development are likely [o continue in the project study azea with or without this project. 2. Praicct Compatibilitv with Local Plans The Town of Belville has been in discussions with devclopers, engineers, and property owners for several years regazding a proposed redevelopment of their riverfront downtown area, part of which would involve the relocation of SR 1551 (Blackwell Road/Main Street). NCDOT has coordinated with the town officials and local property owners concerning the R-3601 project to insure that thcir proposed redevelopment and this project are planned in a compatible manner. 37 H. Indirect and Cumulative Effects The proposed project does not have an explicit economic development purpose, nor is it planned to serve a specific development. Residential and commercial development are likely ro continue in the Future Land Use Study Area with or without this project, due to the azea's forecasted population and employment growth. Thc Future Land Use Study Area is the area surrounding a construction project that could possibly be indirectly affected by thc actions of others as a result of the completion of the project. This project is anticipated to improve travel times during peak hours. No new transportation and/or land use nodes will be created by this project. Consequently, thc proposed project alone is unlikely to influence intraregional land development-location decisions. Indirect effects as a result of this proposed project alone are expected to be low or minimal. The cumulative effect analysis considers past, present, and reasonably foresecable future actions within the Future Land Use Study Area. The current action is the proposed project itself (R-3601). Past manmade actions include previous development, such as existing subdivisions off of SR 1472 (Village Road). Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the azea include TIP No. B-4437 (Replace decks on Bridges # 107 and # 108 over Alligator Creek), TIP No. R-4063 (Widen Village Road), and the Town of Belville's desire to create a town center per its Master Plan. Indirect effects in the fonn of land use changes as a result of this project ue expec:ted to be minimal, as residential and commercia] development aze likely to continue in the Future Land Use Study Area with or without this project. Thcrcfore, impacts on stormwater runoff and downstream water quality are not expected as a result of this project. Direct natural environmental impacts occurring as a result of NCDOT projccts would be addressed by avoidance, minimization, or mitigation and would be further evaluated by NCDOT Natural Environment Unit during project permitting. Because minimal indirect impacts are anticipated, the cumulative effect of this project, when considered in the contcxt of other past, present, and future actions, and the resulting impact on notable human and natural features, should be minimal. Therefore, any contributions of the project to cumulative impacts resulting from current and planned development pattems are expected to be minimal. I. Flood Hazard Evaluation Brunswick County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Progam (NFIP) administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Based on the most current information available from the North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Progam (FMP), there is no regulated floodway at any of the strcam crossings. NCDOT's Hydraulics Unit will ensure compliance with applicable floodplain management ordinances. 38 J. Traffic Noisc Analvsis In accordance with Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise (Title 23 CFR 772), each Type I highway project must be analyzed for predicted traffic noise impacts. Type I projects are proposed Federal or Federal-Aid highway projects for construction of a highway on new location or improvements of an existing highway which significantly changcs the horizontal or vertical alignment or increases the vehicle capacity. Traffic noise impacts aze determined from the current procedures for the abatement of highway traffic noise and construction noise found in Title 23 CFR 772, which also includes provisions for traffic noise abatement measures. When traffic noise impacts aze predicted, examination and evaluation of alternative noise abatement measures must be considered for reducing or eliminating these impacts. A copy of the unabridged version of the full technical report entitled Traffic Noise dnalysis — US 17-74-76 from NC !33 to US 17-74-76-421/NC 133 Interchange can be viewed in the Transportation Building, 1 South Wilmington Street, Room 462, Raleigh, North Carolina. 1. Ambient Noise Levels An ambient noise measurement was taken in the vicinity of the project to determine the ambient (existing) noise level for the identified land uses (see Table 16). The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of noise ]evel increases. The �existing Leq noise level in the project azea, measured 50 feet from the edges of pavement was found to be 73 dBA. A background noise level of 50 dBA was determined to be used in azeas where traffic noise is not the predominant source. The existing roadway and traffic conditions were used with the most current traffic noise prediction model to calculate existing noise levels for comparison with noise levels actually measured. The calculated existing noise levels averaged less than 1 dBA difference &om the measured noise levels for the location where noise measurements were obtained. Hence, the computer model is a reliable tool in the prediction of noise levels. Differences in dBA levels can be attributed to "bunching" of vehicles, low traffic volumes, and actual vehicle speeds versus the computer's "evenly-spaced" vehicles and single vehicular speed. Table 16: Ambient Noise Levels (Let�' ' Ambient rwise level sAes were measured at fitty fcet from ihe edge of pavement of the nearest lane of iraffic. 39 2. Analysis Results A land use is considered impacted by highway traffic noise whcn exposed to noise levels approaching or exceeding the FHWA noise abatement criteria and/or predicted to sustain a substantial noise increase. The NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy defines a traffic noise impact occurs when the predicted traffic noise levcls either: Approach or exceed the FHWA noise abatement criteria (with "approach" meaning within 1-dBA of the value found in Table 2 of the full Traffic Noise Analysis), or • Substantially exceed the existing noise levels as shown in the lower portion of Table 2(in the full Traffic Noise Analysis Repori). Based on this analysis and under Title 23 CFR Part 772, one business is preclicted to be impacted due to highway traffic noise in the project azea. However, there are no substantial noise level impacts anticipated due to this project. 3. Construction Noise The major wnstruction elements of this project aze expected to be earth rcmoval, hauling grading, and paving. General construction noise impacts, such as tcmporary speech interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can be expected particulazly from paving operations and from the earth moving equipment during grading operations. However, considering the relatively short-term nature oF construction noise, these impacts are not expected to be substantiaL Thc transmission loss charactcristics of nearby natural elements and man-made structures aze believed to be sufficient to moderate the effects of intrusive construction noise. 4. Summarv 'fraffic noise impacts are an unavoidable consequence of transportation projects especially in azeas where there are no previous traffic noise sources. All traffic noise impacts identified in this analysis were considered for noise mitigation. Based on these preliminary studies, traffic noise abatement is not reconunendcd, and no noisc abatement measures aze proposed. This cvaluation completes the highway traffic noise requiremcnts of Titic 23 CFR Part 772. Unless a major project change develops, no additional noise reports are necessary for this project. In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State governments aze not responsible for providing noise abatement mcasures for new developments for which building permits are issued aftcr the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge of the proposed highway project will be the approval date of the final environmental document, which is anticipatcd to be a either an addendum to this Categorical Exclusion or a Right of Way consultation. For development occumng after this date, local governing bodies are responsible to insure that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility. 40 K. Air Oualitv Analvsis Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and intemal combustion engines are thc most prevalent sources. The impact resulting from highway construction ranges from intensifying existing air pollution problcros to improving the ambient air quality. Changing traffic pattems aze a primary concem when determining the impact of a new highway facility or the improvement of an existing highway facility. Motor vehicles emit cazbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (HC), particulatc matter, sulfur dioxide (SOZ), and lead (Pb) (listed in order of decreasing emission rate). 1. Backeround CO Concentrations Automobiles aze considered the major source of CO in the project azea. In order to determine the ambient CO concentration at a receptor neaz a highway, two (2) concentration components must be used: local and background. The local concentration is defined as the CO emissions from cars operating on highways in the neaz vicinity (i.e., distances within 400 feet) of the receptor location. The background conccntration is defined by the North Carolina Deparhnent of Environment, Health and Natural Resources as"the concentration of a pollutant at a point that is the result of emissions outside the local vicinity; that is, the concentration at the upwind edge of the local sources." 2. Air Oualitv Analvsis Results The project is located in Brunswick County, which has becn determined to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. The proposed project is located in an attainment area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 aze not applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment azea. 3. Construction Air Oualitv Effects During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting &om clearing and grubbing, demolition or other operations will bc rcmoved from the project, burned or otherwise disposed of by the Contractor. Any buming done will be done in accordance with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care will be taken to insure burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not when atmospheric conditions aze such as to create a hazard to the public. Buming will be performed under constant surveillance. Also during construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of motorists or azea residents. 4. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made 41 sourc:es, including on-rond mobile sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners) and stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. The MSATs are compounds emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. Some toxic compounds aze present in fuel and aze emitted to the air when the fuel evaporates or passes through the engine unburned. Other toxics aze emitted from the incomplete combustion of fuels or as secondary combustion products. Metal air toxics also result from engine wear or from impurities in oil or gasoline. The EPA is the lead Federal Agency for administering the Clean Air Act and has certain respoe�sibilities regazding the health effects of MSATs. The EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources in 66 FR 17229 (Mazch 29, 2001). This rule was issued under thc authority in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act. In its rule, EPA examined the impacts oF existing and newly promulgated mobile source control progams, including its reformulated gasoline (RFG) program, its national low emission vehicle (NLEV) standazds, its Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions sta�dards and gasoline sulfur control requirements, and its proposed heavy duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur control requirements. Between 2000 and 2020, FHWA projects that even with a 64 percent increase in VMT, these programs will reduce on-highway emissions of beruene, formaldehyde, 1,3-butadiene, and acetaldehyde by 57 percent to 65 percent, and will reduce on-highway diese] PM emissions by 87 percent. As a result, EPA concluded that no fiu-ther motor vehicle emissions standards or fuel standards were necessary to further control MSATs. The agcncy is preparing another rule under authority of CAA Section 202(I) that will address these issucs and could adjust the full 21 and the primary six (6) MSATs. The au�ciliary lanes contemplated as par[ of the project alternatives will have the effect of moving some traffic closer to nearby homes, and businesses; thcrefore, under each alternative, there may be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could be higher under the Build Altematives than the No Build Alternative. The localized increases in MSAT concentrations would likcly be most pronounced along the auaciliary segments and along the sides of existing roadways whcre syrmnetrical widening occurs. However, the magnitude and the duration of these potential increases compazed to the No Build altemative cannot be accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of cucrent models. In sum, when auxiliary lanes are added and, as a result, thc highway movcs closer to receptors, thc localized level of MSAT emissions for the Build Altematives could be higher relative to the No Build Alternative, but this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will bc lower in other locations whcn tra�c shifts away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations, coupled with fleet tumovcr will, over time, cause substantial reductions that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than today. 42 L. Hazardous Material Based on the Geogaphical Information Systems (GIS) technology and a field reconnaissance study conducted in June 2010, the GcoEnvironmental Section determined that therc aze nine (9) sites that may contain petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) within the project limits (see Table 17). No hazazdous waste sites ar landfills were identified within the project limits; however, four (4) other geoenvironmental concems were found to bc located within the project limits, including one (1) junk yard, (1) one automotive repair, and two (2) pazcels with monitoring wells were identified within the project limits. Low monetary and scheduling impacts aze anticipatcd from the nine (9) possible UST facilities and the four (4) other geoenvironmental concems that were identified within the proposed project comdor. As a result, NCDOT will determine if the proposed right of way limits will impact these sites. If there aze right of way impacts, a preliminary site assessment will be conducted to test for contamination of the sites during the right of way phase of the project. Approximately six (6) months prior to letting, if there is any contaminated material remaining on these sites, NCDOT will remove it as neccssary. 43 VII. COMMENTS AND COORDINATION A. Public Involvemcnt On Octobcr 8, 2007, a Local Officials Mccting was held at the Town of L,eland's office in order to discuss the project with local municipal leaders from Brunswick County, thc Towns of L,eland and Belville, and the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). A Citizens Infonnational Workshop was also held later that day at Belville Elementary School in Leland to introduce this project to the public and obtain their comments and suggestions about improvements. Approximately 112 people attendcd. Eight (8) written comments were received during and after this workshop, most of which were in support of the project and stated a desire for the schedule to be accelerated. In August 2010, several meetings were held with potentially affected property owners so that they could determine how this project mig}tt impact their property and discuss their options with NCDOT personnel. The majority of the property owners understood the necd for the project and were in favor of it. B. Public Hearin¢ A public hearing will be held following the circulation of this document. This public hearing will provide more detailed information to the public about the proposed improvements. The public will be invited to make additional comments or voice concerns regarding the proposed project. C. NEPA/404 Mereer Process The Merger Process is a system used to streamline the project development and permitting processes, agreed to by the USACE, NCDENR-DWQ FHWA, and NCDOT, and supported by other stakeholder agencies and local units of govemment. To this effect, the Merger Process provides a forum for appropriate agency representativcs to discuss and reach consensus on ways to facilitate meeting the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act during the NEPA/SEPA decision-making phase of transportation projects. Duc to its limited scope and lack of substantial environmental consequences, this project does not meet thc criteria for the NEPA/404 Merger Process. 44 D. Other Aecncv Coordination Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted during the preparation of this Categorical Exclusion. Written comments were received and considered from agencies noted with an asterisk (*) during the preparation of this assessment. U.S. Army Corps of Engneers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency * U.S. Fish and Wildlifc Semce National Marine Fisheries Service * State Clearinghouse * N.C. Department of Cultural Resources * N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources * N.C. Deparhnent of Public Instruction * N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission * N.C. Division of Coastal Management N.C. Division of Environmental Health N.C. Division ofForest Resources * N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries N.C. Division of Pazks and Recreation * N.C. Division of Water Quality * Town of Leland These comments and related issues, included in Appendix B, have been addressed in this document. 45 APPENDIX A MAPPING & FIGURES ��I { _ �__ I ° E ' yrc N I' I �4/ x . I / f 'm ,�y C I � � ry ni P I n n � � ' m w ms i a � n � J a � /�n e � n� _ V O Z e .. _ e 7 - W � W � 5 u n ^ � m n en � � m z m E' m W �? �� 3 � m= �e a � ` rn � v5i q V11 OVw m.. v I..L �_ � d � M � � • cz � � C �^ p3s j � �� y V G F 6 \ � � � P - � m O y d �� ! U' w � a n � � � � � �s �/ .. �� wi►. �v r _, m .� _ � . ,. �" � €1° � 0 : ° Q � f o - z w T m�o Q 0 ri} m a� � w r ! � N W 0 0 N f S �J 2 �� 6 �� O �°.t�� FO � p->�F� ?cF X�Y z�zzf oiJ�75� i�i F¢�6� aUC�u,�f 'U'�'>"�,{ Y ozii�<c ,O.]�6o `FYOV� p�OZ e �e�N�ri �£F� c�=o�y u�i > > a�x p cc c � �� = I o q Y � � /�� z g o ,.. N o W eV n o j r y � � R .�. L' .�O'w, U " � u � ws � �� x �/ n _ � � r. e � LL _' Z w F vai ! � a_ m iy U U � 2� m� � EE <> � a3 z y�„.,n - a . UI ^ 3 ` m, ��"' � =r �s 9 � �S q � •� ` � zuy �� ^o � $ ` O � � E- _ ' j: .,, .�On � ° V E� F � C � �t ^ <� � " z .. _ o V� 3s � > � �� a� a v U o F � `m _ N� r a m � O - � � _ s n � ;�� , y y o E � n _ N mm N K a n I m �^�. o R �'� j o ��" � `� S _ � m m a o E $ �+ � � n � � ¢ yz � • z i � R � z � �� j� t t'� � w� � \ U m X � � � z .z � � e ¢ � p � N � d � I �� /yt M �l� Q _ � 1 Q � � Q +�� O r — r F � S d � O c p � m � 0 � (n 6 O �� % w N y w N 1+1 O $ N 'R m n 'i-° ZK n N� W � �x N N q n �,� 7 m 3 � i � � � a - � Q E t�� m� � �� _ �1 ' �� $ L�L� , bz �. . � y � m n �+ � '�'�, 1 i � �� -� � � F S x> o : c z z 4`° f'c ° cSWY �� X-x OyB�m .]� t_� �u�oF rs doFX c �s'�io:' sc4='`��'^ RI�J��d Cx`��F ,"x:%� i��C°3K � V>� V � . 2�i� S'EFC �]ZiG •G 1 ' Y :� •..% '�i '� Y� i � �ose �a i�3road dii Y � � � H�Ntltl9SISAltlNtlltllN3WNOtl1AN3 A1Nf10�N�IM$Nf1bB U am m � d O dNtl1N3Wd013A301J3fONd 3 r(C SAVMH'JIH i0 NOISIAIO 3llIAl39 Z � J �� HoimlaoasNwleo �4Ntll3l-NOl�JNIWIIM 1N3W1iftld30tlNIlOtlVOH1tlON ££L �N/9L'4L'L� $(i �m `" � LL N dtlWN011�3Sltl�IdAl � i� � �ose�ai�3roaadu x � � � NONtltlBSISAtlNtlltllN3WNOtlI�N3 U ..! w A1Nf100N01MSNf1218 g�'+ ` o ONtl1N3WdO13�341�3fONd 3 pK H SAtlMH`JIH �O NOISI�IO 3llIAl38 rn � � �� rvouviaodsHvaieo -UNtll3l-NOl`JNIWIIM _� m � LL L 1N3W1Xtld30tlNIl08tlON1NON £ELONI9t4L-LLSfI .. dtlWN011�3S1tl01dAl �m �� g� � N APPENDIX B COMMENTS FROM FEDERAL, STATE, & LOCAL AGENCIES °` United States Department of the Interior 9 -- . _._.. � $ FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Raleigh Pield Office .y + �o Post O�ce Box 33726 j0 Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726 March 22, 2007 Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. North Cazolina Department of Transportation Project Development and Environmental Malysis 1548 Mail Service Center Faleigli, Ncrth Carol'via 27G99-:54E Deaz 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 widening of US 17-74-76/NC 133 from the NC 133/SR 1472 Interchange to the US 421-17-74/NC 133 Interchange in Wiimington, Brunswick County, North Cazolina (TIP No. R-3601). These comments provide information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) aad section 7 oCthe Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). The Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources: 1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent practical. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland areas; 2. Crossings of streams and associated wetlaud systems should use existing crossings and/or occur on a bridge stn�r.!��re whereve:r Fea<ihl.e. Brideec should he long enough to 21?etv for sufficient wildlife passage along stream comdors; 3. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming or constriction of the channel or flood piain. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the bank-full width o£ the stream. If spanning the tlood plain is not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters within the affected area; 4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow Uuough a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affecte�3 stream. This buffer shou]d be large enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants; _._ .. _._ _ .... . ... _ __ 5. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory mi[igation to offset unavoidable impacts should be_provided early in [he planning process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusis or by other meansshould,he explored at the outset; 6. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive azeas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons. In watenvays that may serve as travel corridors for fish, in-water work should be avoided during tnoratorium periods associatcd wilh migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30; and 7. Best Management Prnctices (BMP) for Construction and Maintenance Activities should be implemented. Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires thal 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 assessmenVevaluation may be prepared to fulfill the sec.tion 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 Cazolina and information on their life historics and habitats can be found on our web page at http'//nc-es fws eov/es/countvfr.html . If suitable habitat occurs within thc project vicinity for any listed species, surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species. The West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) is one federally listed species which, during part of the year, could be present in the project area. 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 spccies, including consideration of direct, indircct, 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 adversc, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then you are not requircd to contact our office for concurrence. We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the public notice stage. Therefore, it is impoRant that resource agency coordination occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, 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 puipose and need for the proposed project, supported by tabular data, if available; 2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered; __ _ _ _. _. 3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project impact area that may be 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 Coros of En�ineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of 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 residt in indirect and cumulative effects to natural resources; 6. Design features and construction teclmiques which would be employed to avoid or minimize 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 mi[igation 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 unavoidab(e wetland or stream impacts aze proposed, project planning should include a compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts. The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us during the progression of the planning process, including your o1'ficial determination of the impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-4520, ext. 32. Sincerely, � � J � � Pete Benjamin ^ Field Supervisor cc: Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC aruv�e �.�� North Carolina ��. ,.r-e1/`•` --(.<L:� v l_l; :..:rt.i ' '. ..,:.. , � f::l'L ii;if�r - ..... ..... _... . .— V.It'f �I �! 71�1,11 „: � � Department of Administration ,,,;�;,;� ,��F, ��:; ...:rll0�irp.,,;•.. F,qr I\SI.. G.elli;I� Michael F. Easley, Governor Britt Cobb, Secretary May 4, 2007 Mr. Gregory Thorpe N.C. Dept. of Transportation Program Dev. & Env. Anatysis 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1534 Dear Mr. Thotpe: Re: SCFI File # 07-E-4220-0298; Scoping; Widening of US 17-74-76/NC 133 fi•om NC 133/SR 1472 Interchange to US 421-17-74/NC 133 Interchange in Brunswicic County; TIP No. R-3601 The above ceferenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the Slate Clearinghouse under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. According to G.S. 1] 3A-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 Statc Environmental Policy Act. Att�ached to [his letter for your consideration are additional comments made by agencies in the course of this rcview. If any further envicaunental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwv ded to tl�is office for intergovernmental review. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, �. �' L _ :�.: ,'� . .. i. ; ,': . ; `i'. Ms. Chrys Baggett Environmental Policy Act Coordinator A[tactuncnts cc: Region O MailingAdAretr: Telepba�e: f9/9f807-2l15 LorntlonAAAress: 1301 Mail Servicc Cenmr Fax (919)733-9571 I 16 West Jona Streei Raleig6,NC 2)699�U01 SInleCourie�H51-01-00 Ralcigh.NorthCaroiina eanai! Chryr. Bogga!l�ncmail.nel An Equa( Opparlwiiq•iA(JinnoOve Action hlnpfoyer Mich�d F. Easicy, Govcmo� LisLah C Evans, Sccm�nry )effay J. Crow, Deputy $aatary April 3, 2007 MEMORANDUM �ro: FROM: North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office r.�� e. s.�dn��k, na.Nw�.m� Gcegory Thorpe, Yh.D., Director Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch NCDO'C Division of Highways Peter Sandbeck �� -� Office o( Acclti�es ond History Divisian o[ Nisro�icd Resoucca D�•id Brook, Duccro� rr. .1 � .� � � ; SUBJECT: Widening of US 17-74-7G/NC 133/SR 1472Interchange to US 421-17-74/Nc ]33 Interchange, R-3G01, Brunswick Counry; CH 07-0622 Thank you Cor your letter of March 14, 2007, concexcung the above projcct. We have conducted a search of oui maps and files and locared the following suvcture of historical or architectuxal importance within the general area of this projecr. * Wilmington Historic District, including the U.S.S. Batdestup North Cazolina, Gsted in the Nadonal Register of HIstoric Plates. We cecommend that a Depaztment of Transportauon architectural historian idenufy and evaluate any suuctures over fifty years oF age within the project aiea, and repoct the findings to us. The above commencs are made pursuant to Section 106 of the Nauonal Hiscoiic Pcesetvation Act and the Advisory Council on Histoiic Preservation's Regulations for Compfiance with Secdon 106 codified at 36 CFR Pact 800. Thank you fox your coopecation and consideradon. IF you have quesdons concerning the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Euley, enduonmental review coordina[or, a[ 919/733-4763 ext. 24G. In all fu[ure communication conce�ning this pcoject, please cice the above reEecenced n�acking nur_iber. cc: Mazy Pope Fure ADMINISfMTION SO7N.BIwmSvice�.RakighNC 161]MylServimCemeqlhleigANC2)499.1411 RESTOM710N 5f 5 N. Blam� Svca, Raleigh NC 4GI7 MulScrvice (:enteq IWdgh NC 3)499-1611 S(1RV6Y h PIANNING 515 N.Olom� Svcq Raleigb, NC 4617 Mul &rvac Ccnrcq Ilnicigb NC 30499��4❑ NBDI __ _.__� North Carolina_Wildlife Resources_Commission _� _ . Rldiy��1 �. Hamiltun. Exccutiw llirecror MEMORANDTJM T0: Melba McGae Office of Legislative and Intergoverrunental Afiairs, DENR �FROM: Travis Wilson, Hip6way Project Coordinato�� /J/ �� ~ � Habitat Consarvahon Program iv QATE: . Apri19, 2047 SUB7ECT: Rasponse to U�e start of study notification from the N. C. Depazhnent of. ,` Transportation (NCDOT) regurding fish and wildlife conee�ns for the proposed widening of US 17-74-76 from the NC 133/5R 1472 interch�,ge to the US 421-17-74/NC 133 lnterchange in WiLnington, Bnmswick County, North Carolina. TIP Nu. R-3601, SCH Project No. 07-0298. This memorandum rasponds to a request from Gre;ory J. Thorpe of the NCDOT tor our conoorns regarding impacts on Hsh and wildlife resources resul[ing from tlie sub'ect project. Biologists on the staff of tUe N. C. VJi(dlife Reso�u•ces Commission (N�WRC) hava rariewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in accordance with certain provisions of lhe National Enviromnental Policy Act (42 U.S.C., 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish a�id W ildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amcnded; 16 U.3.C. 661-667d). NCDOT is proposing to add an additional travel lane in each direction on US 17- 74•76 between tha NC 133/SR 1472 interehenge and the US 421-17-74/NC 133 intecchuigc. Anadromo�s fish species are present in this portion of the Brunswick R.iver and Alligator Creek; furthermore this area is utilized as a nurs�ry area for many species. Therefore NCDOT should adhere to an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to September 30 to minimize these impacts. These waters ar� classified as Ioint Fishing Waters; consequontly NCDOT should also coordinate with the NC Divisio» of Marine Fisherics. To halp facihtate document prepaza�ion and the review procoss, our general infocmational needs are ou8ined below: E0 39tid 1. D��scriplion of fish�ry and wildlife resources within the project xrea, including a listing of federally or state dpsignated threatened, endangered, or special concem species. Potential bonow areas lo be usad for projeet 6E8687.S6i6 bL�9I L00L/60/CO Momo 2 Apri19, 2007 construction should ba included in d�e inveutories. A listing of desionated plant species can be developed through consultation with: The Natural Heiitage Program N. C. Division of Pazks and Recreation I6I5 Mai] Service C�nter Raleigh, N. C. 27G99-1615 (919)733-779� WWW.ncsparks.neUnhp and, NCnA Plant Conservation Progam P. 0, Box 27647 Raleigh, N, C. 276t 1 (911)733-3610 ?. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the projecl. The need for cha�melizing or ralocating poitions of saeams crossed and the e;ctenf of such activities. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impucted by the project. Wetland acrosges ahould include all project-related areas thut mny undergo hydrologic chan�e as a result of di tching, other drainage, or &]ling for projoct consWet�on. WeUazid identifiestion may be accomplished ttuough coordination wit6 the U. S, Anny Corps of Engineers (COE). If the CO& is not consulted, the person delineating weUands sJiould be identified and criteria listed, 4. Cover type maps showing acreagzs of upland wildlifc habitat impactzd by the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included, 5. The extant to which the projecl will result in loss, degradarion, or fragmentation of wildlife l�abitat (wetla��ds or uplands). 6. Mitigation for avoiding; minnniaing or compensating for direct and indirect degradation in Labitat quality as wcll as quantitative lossas. 7. A Cumulative impact assessment seclion which analyzes the enviravnental eftects pf highway construction and quaruifies the contribution of this individual project to enviro�miental degradation. 6. A discussion ofthe pmb�ble impacts ai natural resources which witl result from socondary devalopment Pacilitated by tha improved road access. 9. If construction of this facility is to be eoordinated wiUi odter state, municipal, or private devalopmant p�ojects, a description of these projecls should be included in the environme❑tai document, and all project sponsors should beidentified. Thank you for tha opportunity to provide input in the early planning sYages for this project. If we can fluther assist your office, please contact me at (919) 528-9886. Cc: Jennifer Frye, USACE b8 39Cd 6E866Z56i6 DZ�9i L00Z/60/b0 A,� �� . .�....,. ► - -- -N�DENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Coastal Management Michael F. Easley, Govemor Charles S. JolteS, Dlrector Wiltiam G. Ross Jr., Secretary MEMORANDUM TO: Melba McGee, NCDENR FROM: Steve Sollod, DCb1 �y DATE: April 3, 2007 SIJI3JECT: Proposal to Widen US 17-74-76lNC 133 from NC 133/SR 1472 Interchange to US 421-17-74lNC 133 Interchange in Brunswick County, TIP No. R-3601, Project Review No. 07-0298 The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has reviewed the scoping letter regazding the above referenced project, which was submitted to the NC S[ate Clearinghouse for intergovemmental review. We appreciate the opporwnity to provide information relevant ro the potential pernvtting of the proposed projec[ by our agency and offer the following comments, which should be considered in preparation of an environmental document. Based on the information provided in the scoping letter, it appeazs that the project will impact CAMA Public Trust Areas of Environmental Concem (AECs). Therefore, a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Major Development ancUor Dredge & Fill Permit will likely be required for the project. A formal DCM review of the project to determine consistency with the state's Coastal Management Program will not occur unti] a CAMA major pertnit application is received. At that time, the CAMA Major Development Permit application wil] bc placed on public notice and circulated [o state agencies with an in[erest in the proposed project for review and comment. We hope that you find these comments helpful and that they will be addressed during planning and preparation of the environmental document for this project. During future interagency project coordination and review, DCM may have additional comments on the project. The information provided in this letter shall no[ preclude DCM from requesting additional informa[ion throughout the interagency project coordination and review process, and following normal consistency review procedures. If you have any questions or concems, p]ease contact me at (919) 733-2293 x 230, or via e-mail at stevesollod@ncm�il.nel. Thank you tbr your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. 400 Commerce Avenue, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557-3421 Phone: 252-808-28081 FAX: 252-247•3330 \ Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net M Equal Oppodunily 1 Allirmalive Aclion Employer- SOY Recycled \ 10h Post Consumer Paper _. ... _. -- . � �'q� �� _ -- .,:�, �'ic��R Nortb Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Michael F. EasleY, Govemor Division of Marine Fisheries Dr. Louis B. Oaniel III, Director Winiam G. Ross Jr„ Secretary MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Melba McGee Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs Mike Str April 17, 2007 �-, SUBJECT: Project Number: 07-0298 Widening of US 17-74-76/NC 133 from NC 133lSR 14721nterchange to US 421-17-74/NC 133 Interchange in Srunswick County Attached is the Divisions' reply for the above referenced proJect. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me..,. � M31jj� � 3441 Arendell Straet, P.O. Box 769, Morehead City, North Carolina 28557 One Phone: 252 72E70211 FAX: 252 727-512� I Intemet www.ncdmf.net Nao�rth,C2r�Oflu'lla ME9��CW�unily7AdrmntiveAclbnEmpbyer-50%RecyckdltaApostConwmsrPaper • '��`µ��✓ IO'd OZ:Si L0. 8i �dH LZiSZ%LLSL:XE� S-1HH3ddH/SQNtilHflS �WQ `OapF W ATF9vG h r � � T__ Michael F. Easley, Govemor William G. ROss Jr., Secretary NOAh Carolina Depatlment of [nvironment and Natural Resources Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director aPq 2 20�ky,Yi• ; March 27, 2007 1✓ , MEMORANnirM Lroa�,v�F�r,E pFµ{TUR� �riPO: ��dEn1 To: Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Yroject Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT Through: John Hennessy, Supervisor, NC Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Uni�r� � From: David Wainwright, NC Division of Water Qualiry, Transportation Permitting Unit ;• �J Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening to US ] 7/74/76/NC l33 from the NC I33/SR 1472 interchange to the US 42UI7/74lNC 133 interchange in Brunswick County, Federal Aid Project No. NHS-0017(68), State Project No., TIP R-3601. 'This is in reference to your correspondence dated March 14, 2007 in which you requesfed comments for the aforementioned project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts ro perennial sVeams andjurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to: Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undcrtaken to verify the presence of other st�eams and/orjurisdictional wetlands in thc area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, ihe Division of Water Qualiry requests [hat NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed projecC Project Specific Comments: The Brunswick River is ciass SC; 303(d) waters of the State. The river is on Ihe 303(d) list for impaired use for aquatic life due to low DO and low pH. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impac[s that could resul[ from this project. DWQ recommends [hat the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff [o [he Bruunswick River. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the stortn water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwa[er Best Management Practices. 2. The DWQ is coneemed a6out potential impacts to wedands. The lenglh of US 17/74/76MC 133 proposed to be widened spans a large quantity of wetlands. Transpo0ation Permitling Unit 1650MaIISaviceCenfer,Ra@igh.NoMCarolina 27699�1650 2321 CrabUee 8oulevard, Suile 250, Ralelgh, Notlh Camlina 27604 Phone: 919-7 37-1786 1 FAX 919-773�689711ntemeC hltoY/h2o enr state nc uslncwetlantls An Equal OppoAuniryl0.lGrmalive AClion Employer - 5096 Recytle0110 % Posl Consumer Paper �hc�o'j� aturn 3. The NCD07' is respectfully reminded [hat other improvemeut projec[s in the general area, such as the Cape Pear Skyway Bridge, should be considered in future planning of this project. General Project Comments: 4. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to weUands and streams with corresponding mapping. ITmitigation is necessxry as reyuired by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), i[ is preferable to present a conceptual (if no[ finalized) mitiga[ion plan wi[h the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans wiil be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. 5. Environmental assessment attematives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts ro streams and wedands from srorm water runofE 'Phese alternatives should include road designs that ellow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Monageneent Practices, such as grassed swales, buffer areas, prefortned scour holes, retention basins, etc. 6. After the selection of the preferred altemative and prior ro an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDO"C is respectfully reminded that they will need to demons[ra[e the avoidance and minimization of impacts to weUands (and streams) ro the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 1 SA NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of grea[er than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event Ihet miti�ation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropria[e lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program muy be evailable fot use as wetlend mitiga[ion. 7. In accordance with the Environmen[al Management Commission's Rules { I SA NCAC 2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts grca[er than 1501inear feet ro any single perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, Ihe mitigation plan should be designed [o replace appropriate Iost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation. 8. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC DOT should address these concems by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts. 9. ff the old bridge, or any part thereof, is removed then no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless otherwise authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to [he Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification. ' 10. Bridge supports (bents) should nol be placed in the stream when possible. 11. F3ridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the river or streams. Stormwater should be directed across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grasscd swales, pre-fomied swur holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the sVeam. Please refer ro thc most current version of NC DWQ Stormwater Besr Managemen[ Practices. 12. lf concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevcnt direct contact between curing concrete and stream watec Water that inadvertendy contacts uncured concrete should not be discharged to surCace waters due to the potential for elevated pH and possible aquatic life and fish kills. 13. [f [emporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconshuction contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and appropria[e native woody species should be planted. When using temporary swctures 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-vegeta[e naturelly and minimizes soil dislurbance. 14. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Pertnit No. 6 for Survey Activities. I5. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protec[ water resources must bc implemented and maintained in accordance with the most recent version ofNorth Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250. , 16. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams. 17. Bortow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent prac[ical. Impacts to wetlands in bortow/waste areas could precipita[e compensatory mitigation. 18. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of WeUand Significance (NGCREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccurncies require that qualified personnel perform onsite weNand delineations prior to permit approval. 19. Heavy equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contemination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic tluids, or other toxic materials. Thank you for reques[ing 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 IosL [f you have any questions or requirc additional infortnation, please contact David Wainwright at (919) 715-3415. cc: Jennifer Frye, US Army Corps ofEngineers, Wilmington Field Officc Clarence Coleman, Federal Highway Administration Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency Travis Wilson, NC Wildiife Resources Commission Gary Jordon, US Fish and Wildlife Service Steve Sollod, Division of Coastal Management Ken Averitte, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office File Copy Department of F.,nvironment and Natural Resources Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs _,. ____Project Rev.iew I+orm Project Number: 07-0298 County: Brunswick Due Datc: 04/lU/2007 Date Received: 03/15l2007 Project Description: Widening of US 17-74-76MC 133 from NC 133/SR 1472 Interchange to US 421-17-74/NC 133 Interchangein Brunswick County;'CIP No. R-3601 This Projecl is being reviewed as indicated below: Regional Office Regional Oftice Area In-House Iieview Asheviile � Air _ Soil & Wnter � Marine Fisheries _ Fayetteville � Water ..jZ, CoastalManayement _ WaterResources _ Mooresville � Groundwater _ �✓��dlife � Emironmental Health _ Raleigh SolidWasteMgmt � Land Quality F.ngineer � W�]diife - DOT — Washinglon Rediation Protcc[ion � Wilmingmn Q Forest Resources Other _ Winsron•Salem Land Resources � Parks & Recreation _ Water Qualiry �, Water Quality- DOT Air Qualiry Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: � In-House Reviewer/Agency: Response (check all applicable) _ No objection to project as proposed. _ lnsufficient inFormation to complete review _ No Cotrunent Other (specify or attach comments) Regional Office Only: Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application, SEPA module. ]f you have any questions, please contact: Melba McGee, Environmental Com�dinator at mclba.mcgee@ncmail.net ",'r:�,.- . 04�192007 15�08 NFICS TRRNSPORTGiT1�l DEPT a 919198073558 p�� up I�YyM��O�1i11 W111�1� SCNOOLS N0.179 D01 DA. D. JOkN MORR19, Jq. - SuppHnlenEenl MICHAEL WAYNE Fis.^utNB Oiritl0� 7qnrpeiMllM MEMORANDUM �ri110,20� � To� S�aven Taynton Prom: Mick Wayne SubjCct: Widening of US 17 — 74 — 76/NC133 &om r]�c NC133 ISR 1472 Tnterchanga to the US421 — 17 — 74/NC133 Interchange, TIP Project NO. R— 36D1 As requested in your letter dated March 19, 2007, the following information is provided. TTP project No. R— 3601 has no impact on any existing or propased school sites of school bus routes. (�,f'I', i i ?.i�!�7 2811 C.peuu 0mc� Rw� . Wiwunreu, Noqr� C.noi«.n 2�412 � PrnnE (810) 251d080 • F� (9t0) 25`�3BB I � ) 1 wzi�« o. F�«n��. BrenAa Boz<man �[eyar Pro 7'em R. GorJon Hohbs Cnuncdman �� i�� co��di� Thortns L Wallacc 11 Councilm�n March 16, 2007 _ �'own of Leland 102'Cown Hall Drive Leland, Nocth Cazolina 28451 Telephone (910) 371-0148 Fax (910) 371-1073 Mr. Scott Gentry, Project Planning Engineer NC Department of TranspoRation Project Development and Environmental Ana]ysis 1548 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699-1548 Dear Mr. Gentry: We reviewed the scoping information sheets for the proposed widening of US 17-74- 76MC l33 in Leland and Brunswick County. It appcars to be complete. Please feel free to contact us if you need any local infortnation. Sincerely, , /u� �F��l�� v� Walter B. Futch, Jr., Mayor APPENDIX C RELOCATION/DISPLACMENT POLICIES �.• . RELOCATION REPORTS NCDOT's Relocation/Displacement Policies NCDOT's policy regarding relocations involves providing assistance to those affected by transportation improvements per the Fedcral Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Policies Act. All altematives under evaluation will result in the displacement of homes and/or businesses. Some residents in the DCI Study Area appear to be low-income. If so, and if thcy are displaced, the Last Resort Housing Program established by the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policics Act (PL 91-646) may be used. 71�e Division of Highways offers a Relocation Assistance Progam to help minimize the effects of displacement on families and businesses. The occupants of the affected residences or businesses may qualify for aid under one or more of the NCDOT relocation progams. It is the policy of the NCDOT to ensure that compazable replacement housing will be available prior to construction of state and federally assisted projects. Furthermore, the North Carolina Board of Transportation has the following tluee programs ro minimize lhe inconvenience of relocation: Relocation Assistance Relocation Moving Payments Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement The Relocation Assistance Program provides experienced NCDOT staffto assist displacees 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 re]ocation. Where displacement will force an owner or tenant to purchase or rent property of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing arrangement (in cases of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who aze 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 Federa] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-646), and the North Cazolina 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 busincss. At least one relocation officer is assigned to cach highway project for this purpose. The relocation officer will determine thc nceds of displaced families, individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, and fann operations for relocation advisory services without regazd 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 that meets decent, safc, and sanitary standazds. The displacees aze given at least a 90-day written notice after NCDOT purchases the property. 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 financial means of the families and individuals displaced, and will be reasonably accessiblc 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 (I) purchase of replacement housing, (2) rental of replacement housing, either private or pub(ic, or (3) moving existing Owner-occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply infonnation conceming other state or federal programs offering assistance to displaced persons and will provide other advisory services as nccded in order to minimize hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location. The Moving Expense Payments Progam is designed to compensate the displacec for the costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations, and fann 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 attomey'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), exccpt 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 the policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or federally assistcd construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time before displacement. No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the purposes of the Intemal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining cligibility 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 federaUstate legal limitation. The purpose of the program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by thc state so that dccent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. Last Resort Housing may be used if necessary. EIS RELOCATION REPORT � E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN WBS ELEMENT: 3H868.1.1 COUNTY Brunswick T.I.P. No.: R-3601 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Widening of US 17-74-76/NC 133/SR 1472 Interchange (WITH LOOP) North Carolina Department of Trensportation RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM B of 2 Alternate erchanae to the US 421INC 133 ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL Type of Displacees Owners Tenanls Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-SOM 50 UP Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BUSIfI@SS2S 4 O 4 O VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent x X x X X x �fit 0 0 0 0 o-2oM p So-tso p azon, p Sa�so p ANSWERALLQUESTIONS 20-4�ht p 150-250 p 20-40M Q 150-250 p No Exp/afn all "YES" answef5. 40-70M p 250d00 p 40-70M p 250000 Q X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-t00M p 400-600 p 70.100M 2 400-600 Q X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 10o uP p 60o ur p 10o ur g 600 ue p displacement? roTru 0 0 8 � 3. Will business services still be available REMNxKs Res ond b Number after project? 3. There is an ample supply of similar busnesses not 4. W ill any business be displaced? If so, affected by this project. indicate size, type, estimated number of employees, minorities, etc. 4. Four businesse5 x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? - Southeastern Casting, Inc. (10 employee's) (concrete) 6. Source tor available housing (list). - Scotchman Gas StationlStore (8 employee's) X 7. Will additional housing programs be - ABC Store (Belvllle) (6 employee's) needed? X 8. Should �ast Resort Housing be - Jumpin Joe's Coffee Shop (6 employee's) considered7 X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 6 8 14. MLS Services, local realtors, newspapers, etc. families? x 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 11, B�unswick County. 1 �. Is public housing available? 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing 12. Or bullt if necessary. housing available during relocalion period7 x 13. W ill lhere be a problem of housing within financial means? 74. Are suitable business sites available (list source). 15. Number months estimaled to complele RELOCATIONi iS . 06I07I2010 6115I10 Date EIS RELOCATION REPORT � E.I.S. ❑ CORRIDOR ❑ DESIGN WBS E�EMEtvr: 38868.1.1 CouNTY Brunswick T.I.P. No.: R-3601 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: W idening of US 17-74-76/NC 7; Interchange (WITHOUT LOOP) North Carolina Department of Transportation RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM � Alternate A of 1472 (Village Road) Interchange ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL „�„N,a..,:es Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 2535M Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 BUSIne55e5 0 0 0 0 VALUE OF DWELLINO Farms 0 0 0 0 Ownere Tenan� Non-Profit 0 0 0 0 a•Zon+ p So-tso ' ANSWERALL�UESTIONS 20-40M Q 150.250 Yes No Exp/aln all "YES"answers. 4o-70M p 250-400 x x 1, Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M � 400-600 X 2. W ill schools or churohes be affected by 100 ur p 800 uv displacement? 70TA1 0 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS after project? THIS IS A NEGATIVE EI: x 4. W ill any business be displaced? If so, indicate size, type, estimated number of employees, minorities, etc. x 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortageT 6. Source for available housing (list). X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? x 8. Should Last ResoR Housing be considered? x 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. families7 x 10. W ill public housing be needed for project? 11. Is public housing available? 12. Is il felt there will be adequate DSS housing housing available dunng relocation period? x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within financial means? 14. Are suitable business sites available (lisl source). 15. Number months estimated to completa RELOCA7IONi O . � 5-E of 06/07/2010 � Dale Reloc DSS p o-zorn p 20-0OM � 40.70M p �a�ooM Q 100UP 0 to the US 421/NC 133 35-SOM 50 UP 0 0 NELLING AVAILABLE de For Rent 0 S 0-150 Q p iso-zso p 0 250-400 Q Q 400•600 Q p 800 uv Q 0 0 6l15/10 Date APPENDIX D CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF HISTORIC EFFECTS FederalAid#: NHS-0017(68) TIP#: R-3601 Covnry: 13runswick COIVCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS Project Descrrption: Widening of US 17-74-76/NC 133 from NC 133/SR 1472 interchange to the US 421/NC 133 interchange On 12 May 2010, representatives of the � North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDO'I) � Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) � North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) ❑ Other Reviewed the subject project and agreed on the effects findings listed wilhin the table on [he reverse ofthis signeture page. Signed: L,� FHWA fo -� - Representetive, HPO Administrator, or other Federal Agency . —,...._` , ,,,.��,u,.,tx _ �State Historic Preservation Officer 'R 20�0 Date �-10 Date Date s��a�i, Date � '�. a N C Qa ] U � � a 4 � � � r O � � a � a a` w � � � a _ U � C u �3 « Y �y O ,3 a 3 4 � � � � Q 3 �" u C C u u � G E .M U � �r � N .� �t � N •V C N � �e �4 � ? 0. y N � bz.Q y3'. ��4 �.�, � .. „ � � •c �ox ac � �� • � � � V � � � i� .� u o 5 00 = o10o�c 3 3'v� m _o "" - OI C V C LL' U � W W z i « A c w � .°3 � Q d N � ,� a y �x � � �� L 0. d O N o z � n' N oa J � � � ['� ¢ w � t• 0 Ca z u A ^ APPENDIX E KNOWN & POTENTIAL GEOENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SITES Table El: Known and Potential GeoEnvironmental Impact Sites Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Fonncr Motel Urban Smar[ Growth 100 Main Street Belville, LLC N/A N/A Belville, NC 28451 This property was formerly the site of a moteL It is located 400 feet east of the Main Street and River RoaJ intersection on the southeast side of Main. Street. At least four (4) goundwater monitoring welis with PVC stickups were noted surrounding the former structure platform. This pazcel does not appear on the UST Section registry or Ground Water Incident database. This site is antici ated to resent low eoenvironmental im acts to the ro'ect. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Former Gas Station Approx 165 Main Street Odell and Claudia N/A N/A Belville, NC 28451 Evans A former gas station operated at this location. It is located at the Main Strcet and Belvillc Road intersection. The structure has been removed since the previous GeoEnvironmental 2007 investigation. The store front was 45 feet north of the Main Street centerline. There is no evidence of UST excavation or removal. This parcel does not appeaz on the UST Section regislry. T6is site is anHci ated to resent low eoenvironmental im acts to the ro'ect. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Former Residence Blackwell Road Belville Properties, Inc. N/A N/A Belvillc, NC 28451 This vacant pazcel was previously a residential property. [t is located in the west quadrant of the NC 133 (River Road) and Blackwell Road intersection. A review of the past 40 years of NCDOT aerial photogaphy found no indication of a commercial enterprise. However, as all other quadrants within the intersection aze developed, this prime location should be investigated as a precaution. This pazcel does not appeaz on the UST Section registry. This site is anticipated to present low eoenvironmental im acts to the ro'ect. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facilily ID # Former Trailer Park 3] River Road Sandeep Kapoor N/A N/A Belville, NC 28451 This vacant parcel was previously a trailer park as seen on 1972 NCDOT aeria] photogaphy. It is located in the south quadrant of the NC 133 (River Road) and Blackwell Road intersection. A number of concrete pads and foundations aze all that remains on this site. One (1) monitoring was located just across the westem property boundary. This parcel does not appear on the UST Sec6on registry or Ground Water [ncident database. This site is anticipated to present low eoenvironmental im acts to the ro'ect. � Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Gloryland Baptist Church Urban Smart Growth Approx 152 Main Street Dural Guyton 0-024039 Belville, NC 28451 Belville, LLC The western half of this vacant parcel was previously a trailer park, � with a� gas station, and convenience store (Belville Mini Mart) as seen on 1972 NCDOT aerial photography. It is located on the south side of Main Street and 650 feet northeast of the NC 133 (River Road) and Blackwell Road intersection. A number of concrete pads and foundations are all that remains on this portion of the site. A former restaurant now serving as a church is situated on the northeastern portion o this parcel. According to the UST Section registry two (2) tanks were removed in 1989 from the center of tfie parcel. No monitoring wells were noted on site. There is no ground water incident associated with this property. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the ro'ect. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facil�ity ID # Former Gas Station Approx 155 Main Street Brick Investment Corp. N/A � N/A. Belville, NC 28451 . A former gas station operated at this location. It is located north of the fork of Main Street and Belville Road. The structure has recently been removed. The pump island and pazking area are still intact. The pump island is 55 feet south of the exisring US 74, 76, 17 right of way and 40 feet north of the Belville Road centerline. There is no evidence of UST excavarion or removal. This parcel does not appear on the UST Section registry. This site is anticipated to present low eoenvironmental im acts to the ro'ect. � Property Location Property Owner UST Owner � Facility ID # Former Gas Station 171 Main Street Urban Smart Growth N/A � N/A Belville, NC 28451 . Belville, LLC A gas station property formerly owned by Mazathon Corporation operated on the westem half o this parcel. Small residences and trailers covered the eastern half of this site. The former pump canopy was 55 feet north of the Main Street centerline according to the 1972 NCDOT aerial photography. 'There is no evidence of UST excavation or removal. Three (3) monitoring wells and the remnants of a pump island were noted on site. This parcel does not appear on the UST Section registry. This site is antici ated to resent low geoenvironmental impacts to the project. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Scotchman 115 Worsley Operating 36 River Road Virginia Browning. 0-U22777 Belville, NC 28451 Corp. This facility currently operates as a convenience store & BP gas station. It is located in the east quadrant of the NC 133 (River Road) and Main Street intersection. The tank bed is located approximately 45 feet from the Main Street centerline. According to the UST Section registry tliere are four (4) tanks currently in use. Five (5) tanks were removed in 1983. There were monitoring wells on site. Ground Water Incident #19493 has been assigned to this facility. This site is antici ated to resent low eoenvironmental im acts to the ro'ect. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Former Motel Urban Smart Growth 105 Main Street Belville, LLC N!A N/A Belville, NC 28451 This property was formerly a motel. It is located 350 feet east of the Main Street and River Road intersection on the northwest side of Main Sheet. In 2007 this parcel was being used as an automotive salvage yazd. Although the structures and automobiles have been removed, numerous small parts are scattered throughout the site. This parcel does not appear on the UST Section regis . This site is antici ated to resent low eoenvironmental im acts to the roject. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID # Former Gas Station 135 Main Street T.M. Rich, Jr. N/A N/A Belville, NC 28451 A former gas station operated at this location. It is located at the fork of Main Street and Belville Road. The structure has been removed since the previous GeoEnvironmental 2007 investigation along with an AST. The AST containment sfructure is 55 feet northwest of the Main Street centerline. There is no evidence of UST excavation or removal. This parcel does not appear on the UST Section registry. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the roject. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID# Former Gas Station Urban Smart Crrowth 172 Main Street Belville, LLC N/A N/A, Belville, NC 28451 A gas station property formerly owned by Marathon Corporation operated at this location. T`he shucture has been removed since the previous GeoEnvironmental 2007 investigation. The pump canopy was 55 feet south of the Main Street centerline as shown on the 1972 NCDOT aerial photography. There is no evidence of UST excavation or removal. There are at least four (4) monitoring wells across the front half of the site. This parcel does not appear on the UST Section registry. This site is anticipated to resent low geoenvironmental im acts to the ro'ect. Property Location Property Owner UST Owner Facility ID# East Coast Auto Sales �chard & Rene 186 Main Street Sullivan N/A � N/A Belville, NC 28451 This facility currently operates as an automotive sales, repair and towing business. It is located on the south side of Main Street and 225 feet west of the Old River Road and Main Street intersection. The owner indicated that this was the site of a gas station (Exxon?) several yeazs prior. The main structure is located 70 feet from the Main Street centerline. There is no evidence of UST excavation or removal. This pazcel does not appear on the UST Section registry. This site is anticipated to resent low eoenvironmental im acts to the ro'ect. Property Location Property Owuer UST Owner Facility ID # Former Gas Station Urban Smart Growth Approx 191 Main Street gelville, LLC N/A N/A Belville, NC 28451 A former Phillips 66 gas station operated at this location according to local residents. It is located across from the Old River Road and Main Street intersection. The structure has been removed since the previous GeoEnvironmental 2007 investigation. Two (2) pump islands were seen on site and are 180 feet south of the existing US 74, 76, 17 right of way and 70 feet north of the Main Street centerline. There is no evidence of UST excavation or removal. This parcel does not appear on the UST SeCtion registry. This site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts to the ro'ect. � I � ��2ia��s,�; � II� _� �� ... �I l .. _, . � � /� � `\ _—� i i 1� ov J.TORTORELLA� � � . � � NORTH CAROLINF DEPAR I MLNT ' OFTRANSPORTATION �. DIVISION OF HIGHWHVS � PROJECTDEVELOPMENTANO "�h o` � ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS BRANCH r 0 2500 5,000 10,000 ! , Feet VINYCITY MAP counry BRUNSWICK us �� us �ai Fi ure US 76/ NC 133 0��. 3 riaa R-ssoi g LELAND-WILMINGTON WdS 3886811 1 BRUNSWICK COUNTY 11P PROJECT R-3601 Date�. MARCH 2O07 �ose-r�ioarord.+u yl I � I � HJNtltl9515AltlNVltl1N3WNOelAN3 U A1Nl10� N�iMSNf1NH d ONV1N3WdO13�30 1J3fOtltl 311��39 � K I SAtlMlI'JIH j0 NOISIMO � T pi N Hoiromodsrcvaido -aNVl3l-NOl`JNIWIIM - iHawiavd�avNnoav�HiaoH ££l�N/9L-4L-LLSfI �,.' _ , dVW 1VR13V _ , . _ � _ � \ ' .. �"yr.E'¢.t._ ,l<_, 119Ut /\/!ll )l�l ;l a. �i` h � Yy M _ � ��- � 3' t�,`3 � y . � ` ��,T, . = 1'� �y'. �. � ��-,.4,�1 I �E t - 'z �' I'�;� � ..�..r" [�;I� -�i �i ��r ' .. �' � �' 'i'` . �' ]%`lb I�-r�:,t _ � ` � ` � „ � : � �_sx'�' __ . �`Z'`ri ,�Y,' � �I 1 V �� '� - � ��' ` �� _ F ),y ( � �:�I �t�� "�� rC � �� ?�. � � C � �� u�iP �4. . '� �,� . �� t� .+. .� A � ��..� ..�'F�;>'�� r,�¢-,. f . �"'°° � , �.� �, t � ^ 5 � � l � `� � ��'� ..,� . J ��/O m: .' 1 'i � i Ri .i 4 � � �✓" �.'�',i.' d=. .: � � � , �u�' � y� �y �, 1 ' � �ya• �6'� .y� ' I � F �!� ` �4 �� 16 a �.'�+M i �N ' t �� ,.. � �`:. ', 1 � � �� ,�� L4�� i � i 1. 4 " -' .Ft . � �, ^Y ��.�. , i"' t � � ` � � f.� , �^ fi �,�, � ! �� , �" � �� /,� q �'� � � .��"'`;•.�. j� , , �, �, ��., 1 �a, � � � �,.�� F�`� � _ .� r�� i � � '°' �'h!:?$ ,1 4�` —� _�� \Y� ��j� , , �" ~ ` ` � � .�- �" � � " Q� ' ` �,; , ,,.� ,,_ , * �I, �,i , , i" T ,�— �. � �. �y[�^� ' � ; �� j'.:�. q � � °� �:'S� r ,�':; i .'�.> ;�` � .�tn. ' � ' �' . .-t .: .r, . R 1 � �, �„" E „�` �$ r . ' � � � �I'; ,� %�� ` "�'"�` �,��J � � � �'i . .y � .l , j � f , . � i. � 4 '�"�b �y.3i.4� � u _.9 i( :,_. , � d'�. i �fa ,\ �' Vt :' . ,� ��6 . � Tr .;E4 � t� �f j�. ,P� - �`.r+ �, �y�. �J . ' A ' ail 1 . ,yL �� ilj'�,I�' ) � � �}.�' ,�'�i1 ��LI � . . . � .. ♦ � €il%r .. jIi=��'. A� N �}�Y � K. `z ,� :� °� ' � , r . � � `� � _ t:� , . ai. �'. i � `. `' � M - � �� ' . � i �� , � � ��d�^ .�� r o z . , —„C, �1 , � i �^; � ♦ — � � 1 �^� ^ � �,/'� f�� "• - � �f � i� '' .' .. i 'S _ . �g Q � •:� P ." r — w � -G�'r � . � '� 4 r �a'i�'� ;. . y . ->a: . . .,; � �, �3� �� re. -..� '� �lr � F ,� . x . � j1 � , , t. ��r ,.A �; ;�,s s �",1 r .�>�nM-�R \ �• . 4"- . .. . _ �' . ` R-.v +� r ' r.e..-. �, b �' fr� � ��°t�i , � �a�� ^ 4 ' � 1 } � c �� ' ae� 0 � :.• �:i'�, .� � ' 1 \ ' r� '} �� 3 aNfi ��, ? ,",�,�. � �� `'�1. r � � � �' �� i r � r.,._i,A �r. . � � , r ro � ' I . y �.S':4 r" '�'..�. : sr� _ , ` ' �_ t , S � � ,_ � � 0 U m '! y O y � N C rC d E N y y � > O J W r) >d A J � N O N O Q�> a i G d�� y p d d � Z y O 2 O 2 O N a�i O m p1 C � C C C- E F I W U K U U S O C Q I ` \ . - � � l dC-a1'llfO�d�ll r '^ HONbtl9515AlVNtlltl1N3WNOtlIpN3 AINl107NqIMSN':4H ` m O i�� aruviH3wdo�3n3ai�3road 3llIAl38 � � z � "' SAVMH'JIH10N0151�10 p� N I ` rvouviaoasrvveido -�NVl3l-N01`JNIWIIM�� rl LL � ��__,�� inawiaveaavnnoavoHiaoH E£L9N/9t4L-LlSfl _� - y dVW lVRl3V d !M n{ L 9/ {f J Z' 'c E o -{.. � .. !% i7 1 : � 3.. � i > 1a'� � N 3 � y .�"!/�,' � � a� e a m m . _ C,., � / � i . � ,.( �. d ! � ° m m � �' _ - r � � C C � � I' � I 1l w 0 0 � �� + �V. � f � //x � � y.� . . . >��r� ~ yy�. ,� MS n - - � `� '� � ... i ,�Y� ��tiyMq . � i d! � � / � . f af�� ++ r � f � � �Y t�4 � 3e �T � � � i ��y,� 4 t �• �v i '� ' e 4 � �� rx'^';�t. 3� i. � � .� e . z�� d%` /) ��et'15�i1��. 4 ' 3 i ' '_.111 I g� _ �i/ .�.J ) � W ' �4.��,��B��i'� _ a � ', �� ' � ..�ul �_ -- � Y � `�';�@�K�S�'�� ; t �� / i �� -# (y i: , a � :. ", , 4r�� ; 2 � i . ��:�' � � ,.. ^. .� k �. :. . �y � �� l�;� . `L,:��igs -' � aw:.. ",— ,.�' ��£r,' � . . ' y ' r; i .�f� § ' i�' . ��'�� . v � y . �°;; x'� °N c, �e t" f.�. 4 � � a �� " �' ' a ,..L l �.�7- � � . T _ �� .. ,I a 4 d � G � w � . �, �� ,, � � I •, r�+.� ., .� �� +. X ii a � I � ? Il1 I� ' �F �.. :� U' ^I I �y . � . . � �➢? ,' T L'l�r f�'J �� I..:Aeti „y I �Yx. ' I � Y ' ,,, :� IL z "« � • K �U^ � v ( � ' �`. � � �� . . � I "` - . ^;. . . '^S � !��. 'i . . � ' � I . .. :i��-,�1 - . . .. �+ . � �� - �� '. � F %' �� ` tl ♦ .� Y � h� ' � � ~ �� _ry � � � - � � � � � 1 �, a ' � `�.�,�� i� � •i� � CagA, �i ��i� Y r � � � � � �� i�`� �� w � ' i 1y��` �� Ib l — � �i Yi � I� ��+ � �� ., ��m- � � •- '�/ �� `C�l� . Y .. ` .. _Y -�f_ e L t,�r ,.... .tl II�{ � ;`.. � �, �"� . � � ^ � 1[l�IK HY I IOJC-tJlplfOJddlf �/ Y '� /��^"h,. H9Ntltl9515AltlNtllV1N3WNOtlIAN3 / / �' AlNlIO� NDIMSNf121B � ( � m C ONtl1N3WdOl3�3O1�31'Otld 31�1A138 � S � II � r SAtlMH91N d0 NOIS�NQ \ pi N Houviaoasrvdaieo '4NV13� - N019NIWlIM \ I LL ^y "'�.. ��,J,,.,i lH3wlavaaavHnoavouiaorv EEl�N19tbCLLSf7 � s dVWlVlil3tl , I.'� � .__ . - . -'�.�, i', I. . . . . tJ73FlS)�A/7N.)Jl7C w m m � � ;i' � � � . • � . Em �, � � . � . . > � s '� �, 'L'�' �. . . 7 m a , _ �� . � . c a d m ' �' °n � � � } � , ,. �I d d , .� — � w o c . . � "' � ' . '� � � .�n' .. :.'�r � . ... .. � � j : � t " �r � yi �- ` a .w. r �. J ,� � � � � � ' . r . x f..� n' k,� 'k �' . - . i+ FV � f r � t:ti � .+ J � � � ,' i/ '�a ' � � 1 ��r e�, 4 . �� , I _ /4 Yt � ��i A' G G Y+,; � M � i - � . ` af .A,:� F,� f..� 1� F�N i�, �_ :.,� �,. . �,.� k ,.K A.�, �,: � � ry u ... 4' v ��:",�'',�.,1"r t*�r ''4�i" �'�_ ,, . 0 �� T y� �, F' �H i I ` . . . . �s�,.� � n' f, t 1' N.�b � ,4.��i C� a-;i u.-� iq. � ,� ; � j., �' �,��3y �'Tfr.,�� i-a i� I �� , . r�y�c}��. iv�� n R• v�� j�� S � rn " �. 1'1 � • �. y i"L� i'r �, � � �� + °"i 1" A'" . . . � c s ) ki ' r . %i K`.t�'�ta '.N R y.:t.:� ti�.1�3��'"�I � �l.. ..h"zw��i�,, �,��. _.u� t � Y",,,.. �I � i`�y�. :'� :�. � f M�6'�,. �, {� T �G B�� • 1 b� � � � q .i � �� F -�: �4+ q � P � � �� u � .I '�� u�. f . Y� ��lil�y�' t�,^'" g I'.il �.� J w % � y ��' S. �4 C � � � � � � .-_ � b'1,. . t N. �. � ` \ .,� f .�y . ; •4 . N�.i}.. � ( � � c� f�6 I � , I � .,' . . 1r.', ��. l r " "y ' � ^+i � i * 4 .., r�� > _ ~ . � i ,. � xr. R� �' � I � i�i I . . �.. _ l�+•" �•�' ?�"A .' � � - s :l; .. . � '1 � =.. I In - �d'� � . y. _ !; . .. <. •. �"i / s v I ; � �' �� _ .. � .y. r�.�,�YY � .�� ,. I s � \ . . fI' -`er �"`P,y�r �;� , �d;.�_ . , � �.;:,. .I �W4. . �, I I . .. �1.��.,-� . _ . . � �: � � . •r . • . � - i 3a'E y �� . . .K 1 ,�L ' i � :.�' . � i r+ !ip� � � rrG �' I�I � �. �r/ "t r�,; iK'�' ' � �,I'�al I - - �ru ' ' + ^ � � � 4 . k « ' " , ,.�^� �. f �� • �: �" F ,�� i �� . , � .. t <.�y, � �. ,, ,- < . ��- -- ti_ � � �� . �W `1 ..: �er. � ^7,. i l � � ,. ' i I � I il ' .i: ?�: . .� I 'y �'� `l i� i-+ . � � � Y1 �L i .•_i�° � .�i Yhr^ . � ��'� , . : ... � -. �?�, � � . '� � ,nr�� ..d115`I>I�III>I�1� - �.. i �.1 � � i N�,, _ � � A� c �P ��.,�� o � ��< �, °'�' _ � '� � i ' f'' r. ` � � � � 1 0 ..,v ' yf .. � - i � 3 _ id a�'. i J�I �� i�i''�`;' w �� /r m N / > H�NVtl8515AltlNblV1N3WNOtl1�N3 AJNf10JNpIM5Nf121N V 1 � � ~ �[�4t 2i1�3POtldd11 m P 1 QNtl1N3Wd0'13�3019]fOtld 7 S tt ' � o I�� SAVMHDIH30NOI51�10 3llIA�38 ... ` p � � N � �� HoitvtaodsHvaiao -ONtl�3l-NOl`JNIWIIM� r - y LL y iHawtava�avnnoavnivaon f£LDN/9t4L-LLSfI � y dtlWIVIEi3V �� . � a � ; m _ > ,^. " w 3 � , c a aai v i=' k, o m m �+ . :� d c � YA�• r w O O � , r _ 1� 1 M)/!, i�l: �y' .. i �}� �i �f ti IV � � '��/ . :c." '- vevi� �yw' r. - i i�: :. ,�..ti4 ;� , . k r bi �� b�n�� j ��" f ' �.0 1 s y, �' . �,; r � � � ek � ,.'�?r. ��:�� '.P � u,i ,y�af �"� -''� i°�� Y� �,. ' :, . rF v. ^�'7 � �,; � f .. . r`., �V �;� � y��i f� IJ�t�� . Ty� � :y� � "r�j� �,[ `_ F i/� `� � 'R..p `�iy , y �' � iV F �� , . ' � � � . � �,'. i ., � M � �. `%. � ` �,ro'��Kw: -.; y�j s � e:�� Tai. 9 .�' Y �� ,. ��i� w. � �. s�:i`�,'a.' iJy' r[ �:;Y Jli ' Q. . I � �3it �. . �. � ' ,r ,r "� awy � e'��' � �. �` F -: X , k, " � � c r� � p �I��.,' M �5'W .�• ,r ��y.� • u�. . � � � �.r� Zf�Td � ' V� �� I ��• 1 ��. �'.' •tyy.� . `. � �� j j ". { • d.�~ I''.. . +�' � I � y 3 �.: "k'^ �� ' .�+ � i i 'L. _ y � � � �i j t r +" �w� _ ;� .. 9�,�� '1 � : ; � ' I' � . . � f ..� s.', 4 . K I �y . �' ,I I, � � � , � , � �"� I� � �� '�. ,�° •� tl A II� , i `� j � � a� .'11 � � � ih�Y �� * t , Ty4 j- ir +� k;!I � . I �+c.;.� a a., , �::;,� ' 1,�. ..'�' �I � � - T �M..• � 1 I �� y� � . �'�+, �y, - M "F �} .y� . , il I .... �Y' � p i 'r::� '�!I i�.�:.� A � Y � .. � I' ,' �i � n 1�,;' �� `� � ,: �, J: � s � jl ;'uAk � {� �, ,.� �� _ r, ; s..` �. ..,. � IY�. �o�c-ai��roaadu ' r� � � � ��"}, H�NtlL851SA'iVNVltl1N3WNONI�Nd A1Nf10'JN�1MSNfiN9 7 � I d O �� UNtl1N3WdOl3A3� 1J3fOtld 3llIAl38 ` �� I SAbMH'JIH f0 NOI51�10 p� N \` ' NOI1V1tlOd5NtltlliO "Q%id13�"�`1�1�N�W��M I=� I '�' jy L 1N3W1tltld30tlNllOtltl9VI180N [EL�N/9CbL'LL$(1 � N dvw ivia�v 1 ' I,. �VF�y . _ �.A } i ' Y �' a ,� .,�� , � s� � . :e^ h 1 ^ K j h � � : ' �;�, , _ . 1' f { � y�;�'^� t;.- �u+' x , ',.=y. . A: �.x ,Nx �d'^ ..�, �' � _, k �Y, ,� ,r, _ � � � � b � � � �.+ �. � � .� � "' � �I� ��P� �Yn 1 �S � � �l�M' y.' � � // q�' ��' � '� /iyyiF � �� / _ r _�� .(. ` � A� 41 �"C i� �i:;' . �� , " +.;;:f'� .� . .. 'I. . .. :._'� . , � . �.� _'. y °�. �F v v S a` c 0 � l _ N � = � N N L d — _ y � :i q '� �' m � d y � K i v c � o �� m w O p Z / J ,�1.'yt �„Ra �,� �'�r, � h,.'¢'+f` � >✓' :, � ? � �, � �,: � � � .5.. *�� ,-� � r�' 4�4" � tq.v� � ;� _ F 1%� .i3'\ T''yS`, . ._ :. � . .f.4 T/��' ti,* lY' '��/ �(n��:'.�iL �� 'C� P .N' Y� e l� i _ •')' .fi ,. „'_ R � Y i � ,� �` ��y 'w.:' � � .. � C ,� �r�.ic.::..:.. -+...�ky..i�;L�� _i �i .��M1 � �lylqqj�. . s�a' .. : � r� . ! `�"'..' �'v `Y��P-r A � �. , ��A'i U ��+' � �, " r� �"�� -... '�: -� I � . I� n .J .r��, '-. 3 � i � . . i i , $ � Y �,.''�� i � 'Yn: b.�� 'u - i �� I I .: �',-, k: � . � . � ��. i %� j� � .� I � ��a,�.� � �� . � '' � li i� i i � -i 'd �'9rc ,�,E �R.*�nAE d ��' 1 � � � , �' . �. ' " � K i _ a I i 'y. ty� i 6 1 i_, i �� j i ,'� .�< e u...1 r „ :,, l� � �Y , ' � _ ,� I � A-'�r�.il �� ' i . � � ,�� . � ;- :. ,� � � i a Y_ y .- ' _ u:.;� '�/ q � . �n; fr _ ' I � � �lT ; r � � �� .� '- . � � t � -' I �- �1 �-¢� _. 1 � � � t 4 a -h� � ��e1��. ,r/t '�''� � . �V i � " ��. E.= I ..''��' �ii: y ``. �T'_ • q.¢ ��.p,,�Y',.AF � T �I r I' I ��i, �� a� h4 �j� A r I _� .� f � tlxK J'�;� ��. h,m ^C ��, E � '_ / � .,� . � � �� ' i ,�� ' f � � � r "° � g , ,.� i �� ' �� !'s ��e^��.-;�+�-�s � �'�. \ . � L� .r ^�n � 'Sj� ! r �i � �jy k � s �\ ( �' �'`s) �W �, 1 i i R. . � �y� _ 6� }�� -YK� , ..M'^ rt , f '"�� `��"'�.�. s ,• ��• �-,11.13� � �! t b ,yA^c,� .:: fi.r �w �: ii �. � , , I7I1.1 1A7l/IJ117t �oee-a ioaroad dii x� � I, HprvvtlBSiSn�vNb'tV1N3WNOtlInN3 A�N(100NJIM5Nf1NFl // U g�;+ I � m (1'I� ONtl1N3WdOl3A3O193fOtld �� I :� � SAtlMN91H10NOIS1�10 `n y q M C� HouviaodsHvalao 4NVl3l-NOl`JNIWIIM �i � LL 1N3W1YVd30tlNllOtltl9H180N EfL�N/9L-btLLSfI =,o dVW 1VN01'�321 � � I -'�