The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20181598_Att. 55 - FHWA Reevaluation of DEIS (Jun_20160222Attachment 5 5 U5 7� Ha�ela�k Bypass Cra�en County. NC Federa! Aid Prajeci Na. NHF-7Q{q9J WBS No. 3436d S.T.I.P, lD No. R-i015 REEVALUAi14N 4F DRAFi ENVIRQN111��NiAL IMPACi S�AT�N�ENT �� ,� Apfe ot Rpproval (p Z� 1 � []ota App �al L1.S. ��pprtment of Transpartati�n, �ederr�l �lighway Administr�iian North Carolina depprtmeni of 7ransportativn � John F. 5ulli�an.1ll. PE Owision Administrptar Federal Highway Admirisstra#ion �f �'��r � �4 Richard Nanctick, PE, Managar � � Norih Carolina peportment of Trar-�porfation Projsct �evelopment and �rrvitanmental Arialys[s Unit l�5 7� Ha�eloek Bypass Cra�en County, NC Federal Ald Pro�ct Na. NHF-70�49) WBS Np. 3436Q .S.i.LP I� No. R-1fl25 • R��VAI.IJATiON DF ORAFT ENVIR4N�IAENTAL IN�PACT SYAiFM�NT G�z3-�15 oate I.i� r �� r �� d�� p 2 3 �� ❑at � • 2 3 • ��5 o�t8 V � /� � � �� Dpte ll.5. Qepartmeni af Trcanspartafiio�. Federal Highway Administration North Caralinu Department of Transport�tion Documer�ation Prepared hy: STANTf�C C�NSUL1'1NG $�RYICES IHC. Paul R. Koch, PE, AICP Principal Praject Manager �ocum��aHan Prepared f�r. NQRTN CARaLINA dEPAlT11AENF �� Ti�AHSP�RiA71QN Prcjeci �e�elapment ctnd Enviranmental Annly�is I�nft nuuv� � r. n�r u�i i. r� Eastem Pr��ecf Devslvpment Se�tivn Head Projec# Planning �ngine�r US 7'� Ho�eloek Bypass Crv�en County. NC Federal Aid Project No. NWF-7'Q�49j WBS Nv.3�436� S.7.I.P. I� 1Ja. R-iDTS RE�VALIJATION QF DRAFi �NVIRONNLENrAI �MPACT STATF,AI�ENT � z51� �-- ❑ate of A}aprovol CP z� '� D�t of Ap rfl�ul U.S. Depr�rfinent at Trpnsp�rtation, Federol Highway Administration Narth Corolina Deparfinent ot Transparfation rr � _ ..�;ft�..dohrt F. Sulli�an, [ll, P� ❑wls9on RdminisFrator Fsderal Higitiwoy Adminls#r�tion �on-Richarc! iicsncack, P�, Manager Nv�th Caraifnsx �epor#ment of Transportpf3vn Praje�# �e�el��ment and ��ironmenial Analysis ll�it L!5 70 Ha�e�ock Sypas� Cra�en Gvunty, NC Federa� Aid Project No. NHF-iQj49y W85 No. 3435fl S.i.I.P IO No. R-1015 • RE�YALLIAT1qN �F DRAFT ENVl�tflNMENTAL 1A�lPACT STA1'EN{�Nr �-Z3�1� oat� �-��r �� Q�t� � z3 �� oot � • � 3 • 1-S n�t� � y / � � � �� afe 11.�. �eportmenfi of 1'ransportation. Feder�l Flighwpy Admini�trption North Carvlfna O�:par�ment of Tran:portption Dacumer�talion Prepared hy: S'I'ANTEC C�NSULTING S�RYICES 1HC. Paul R. Koch, P�, AiC� Principal �roject Manager Dacvme�afilan Preppred for. NqRTIi CARflE1NA DEPAiiTMENT �F TRANSPQRTATiON Profeci De�efo�ment and Environmental Analysis �IniF Roberf P. Hansan. PE � �astem Projecfi Devei�pment 5ection He�d Thomas E. �e�ens, P� Project Planning �ngineer TABLE QF C4NT�HTS CNAPTER PAGE �.v iNrRon�c��vw ....................................................................................................................T 1.1 Propased Action ....................................................................................................... ] 1.2 Purpose of a Ree�al�aation ....................................................................................... i 1.3 Exp[anation af Documenf Timing and Camrr�ent Respanses .............................. i 1.4 History of Prvjecf �ocumen#otian ...........................................................................2 Z.A N�W INFORlI14ATI�N........... ..................................................................................................4 2. T Changes in Prvle�t Setfing ....................................................................................... 4 �.I.T l.and Use and Demagraphic Chonges ......................................................�4 2.T.2 Transpvrtotion System Changes ..................................................................5 2. T.3 5umrrtary of Projecf Setting Changes ........................................................ 7 2.2 Recenfi Agency Covrdinativn Since ❑EIS Appro�al .............................................7 2.2. T linifed 5tates Forest Ser�i�e ......................................................................... 7 2.2.2 NEPA1404 Merger Te�m ...............................................................................8 2.2.3 llnifed 5tafes FiSh and Wildiifs 5er�i�e ........................................................8 2.3 R�gulatary Changes and New En�ironmertfal 5fudies ........................................9 2.3.1 �e�enf En�ironmenta[ Studies .....................................................................9 2.3.2 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act ..............................................1 a 2.3.3 Summary af Regulotary Chonges 8� ReGent �n�irvnmenta[ 5tudies..... l2 2.4 Changes in Arojecf Design .............................................................................•-•-----12 2.5 Updated Project lmpacfs .......................................................................................13 2.5.1 llpdoted Weflar�d Irnpacf Calcula�ions ...................................................13 2.5.2 lipdated Streom Impact Calculafions ............:.........................................14 2.5.3 �Ipdated Riparian Buffer Impacts .............................................................. ] 5 2.5.4 Lipdated [mpacfs Based an th� Refined LEDPA Desigrt .........................15 2.6 l�pdafed Project Cammitments ................................................................. ........17 3.4 C�NCLUSI�N ....................................................................................................................23 APP�NDIC�S Appendix A Agency Caardination Beginning No�ember 2D11 Appendix B Camments on the 2Dt 1 DEIS Appendix C Respon5e5 to Cammenis on ihe 20i t D�IS Appendix D Loca[ Gv�emmenf Resol�tions i.o iNrRooucnoN 1.7 PROPOSED ACTION The Norih Carolina DeparimeM of Tronsportafion �NCDOI� proposes to cons�ruct a new US IO bypass of Hovelock, North Carolina in Craven County. This hansporiaiion improvemeM project is idenfified in ihe Sfate Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) as Projed No. R-1015. � 7.2 PURPOSE OF A REEVALUATION Depending on f�nding availability and/or ihe , c��.��co��a complexily o( a project, projeci developmenf can span a number of years, during which time fhere is ihe poieMial for ihe initial NEPA documeMation to become o�f o( dale. In ihese cases, ihe Federal Highway Adminisiration (FHwA) requires preparpfion of a "reevaluaiion" of planning and design efforis lo enwre fhe projecPs NEPA document reflecis wrrenf information. The reevaluation eiiher tlocumenis why exisiing NEPA documentation remains valitl or it idenfifies ihe need for s�pplemenfal analysis. A reevaluation is a decision document ihai ideniifies new information and assesses whether thai new information wo�ld resufl in substanlial chonges in environmental impads. The purpose of the reevoluation is to determine wheiher or not a supplemeni }o the initial NEPA document is needed. In this instance, the document being reevaluafed is a draff environmental impaci statemeni (DEIS). FHwA regulaiions staie thaf wriflen evaluation of a DEIS shall be prepared if a final environmentol impact sfatemeN �FEIS) is not prepared within ihree years �23 CFR 771J29�a�). ABhough project development activities have been ongoing since ihe DEIS was approved in 201 I, ihe FEIS has noi been approved. As such, ihis reevaluaiion has been prepared to meet FHWA requiremeNs. FHwA regulotions state fhat an EIS shall be wpplemenied whenever the Administrafion determines that �l) Changes io the proposed aciion woWtl resuB in significant environmental impacis ihai were not evaluated in ihe EIS; or �2) New information or circumstanws relevant to environmenlal concems and bearing on ihe proposed adion or its impads would resuli in significani ernironmental impacis nof evaluated in the EIS �23 CFR 771.130�0�). The regulotions also state thot o supplemental EIS is not necessary where changes resuB in a lessening of adverse environmenial impacis �23 CFR 771.130�b)�. 1.3 EXPLANANTION OF DOCUMENT TIMING AND COMMENT RESPONSES The DEIS was signed in Sepfember 20ll. AFter ihe DEIS commcnt period antl public heanng were compleied. all commenis from ihe public, state and federal ogencies, and non- governmenial oryanizafions were reviewed and considered. Follow-up studies soon began Yo fulflll projecf commitmenis identified in ihe DEIS, as well as to address comments received subsequent to Ihe DEIS. Interagency coordinalion continued as well. It should be notetl that ihe etudies have not identified any new issues of significance in the overall coniexf of fhe project. Based on fhe resWts of ihe stutlies, NCDOT began io assemble the follow-up NEPA doc�ment in �he format of a Final EnvironmeMal Impocf Siatemeni in 2012 A preliminory FEIS was compleled by NCDOT on April 15, 2015. The decision to proceed with a Final EIS is made by FHWA based on fhis reevaluaiion. Any FEIS references mpde in ihis Reevaluation specifically refer io ihe April 15. 2015 preliminary FEIS. 1.4 HISTORY OF PROJECT DOCUMENTATION The proposed bypass was initially included in the 1979 Hnvelock Thoroughfare Plan, and ihen included in ihe NCDOT State Transportaiion ImprovemenY Program �STIP) in 1983. Environmenial studies began in 1992 and were documenled in an Environmenial Assessmeni (EA�, approved in January 1998. The EA also induded NCDOT's recommendation of Alternaiive 3 as ihe Nreferred Nternative. i� —,(. J h �� ! . .�_:a's>��,,.o_,:.��_ �.. �� x n��y�a B Bwna� pdp �:N'llLaoiRJ . �+nA�'1� �w°° _ '�i2YS� �� "C` J -- `.. I 4Pa YM� ne�lves J ilivo3 � 1 Yw_ �I �� BYVmcAlininalvu] � j -:: ByVu"e�lm�nwirc l Exhibi! 7.3.I: Defoiled Sludy Alfema�ives \ �W "T vs �we 4mnJaryRmJs Lo�Pwh -- RIDIe(N46 SueamfenaGttb I In the eady siages o( Ihe projecPs development, o sieering �wm me� commiflee, composed of state and federal resources and regulatory ��,� agencies, was assembled �which Iaier evolved into the NEPA/404 c��„Po��rnc� merger Team�. Concurrence from ihese agencies res�tled in ihe �°�i. �,o,�,,,,,,;��,�ra�,� approval of Alternative 3 as ihe Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable AI}ernative �LEDPA�. Altemaiive 3 was presented as ihe Preferred Altemative at a Corridor Public Hearing in May 1798. The NCDOT Corridor Selection Committee endorsed ihe seledion of Alfernative 3 as }he Prefercctl Altemativc on Augusi 27, 1998. 2 ❑uring ongoing discus5ions subsequent to preporativn of fhe NEPA decisian doGument: the combinatian of additional notural en�ironment 5tudies, en�irvnmental regulation cansiderafivns, and ongaing negotiations with USFS concerning the monagement af the Croatan Wetland Mitigafiivn Bank jCwMBj resulted in a decision that natural and human en�iranmental impacts callecti�ely rv5e to a le�el of signi�cance. In December 2�3, FHWA directed thv# an EIS he prepared for the project under the ariginal Federal Regisfier Notice of Intenf, pursuanf tv 23 CFR 771.123. ft was determined that much vf the documenfiation develaped for the EA was suitable for inclusian in �and updated farj the DFIS. Eariier decEsians t� eliminate impra�ing the exisfing LIS 7D corridor from detailed study were re�iewed by the interagency Merger Team and confirmed. The three new Ivcati�n oplions original�y de�eloped and assessed in detail in the �A were re�isited by the NEPA1404 Merger Team during fhe DE15 de�elopmen#. ihe feam agreed that ❑n ❑dequate range af altemati�es had been de�eioped for the EA and na additional altemati�es beyvnd #he three opfions originakly cansidered were brought Farward by the team members. The DEI5 was apprv�ed on September b. 2�i 1, which identifies Alternati�e 3 os NC��T's Preferred Altemoti�e. A Natice of Availabilify wc�s published in the Federal Regisfier vn September 3fl. 2a11 �76 FR b0822j. The c�mment period ended on Na�ember 14. 2011. A number of federal and state regulatory and resource ❑gencie5 pro�ided comments on the DEIS. A Cflrridor Pubiic Hearing was held on �ecember 6, 2�11, fvllvwed by a P�st-Hearing Meeting an February 2. 2�12 to re�iew public camment5 re�ei�ed during the Corridor Public Hearing far �onsideration during subsequent des9gn pha5e5. PrelEminary designs for the Preferred Altemati�e were fur�her refined, using the NEPA14a4 Merger Process, to include bridge length decisionr. Affer re�iewing pubfic ❑nd agency comments vn the D�IS, the NEPA14�4 Merger Team met on Apri[ 10. 2a12 and re-affirmed Altemati�e 3 as the LE�PA. Meeting minutes are ❑ppended to this ree�aluation. A5 defiailed in the project• commitments, it was determined fhat the footprint vf a 5,55D-faat secfion of the Preferred Altemative wvuld be reduced io a width of 24D-feet in the �icinity �f Red Cockaded Woodpecker {RCWj habitat. This design change, shvwn in Exhibit 1.3.2, would reduce o�eraq proje�t impacfis and mainiain contiguous habitat ia the east and a�oid a"fake" under E5A reguEativns. The N�PA14p4 �vlerger Team alsv revi5ited CvnGurren�e Ppint 4A �A�oidance ar�d Minimization], vn August 2D. 2D14. A NEPA14a4 Merger Team meefing far Canc�rrence Point 4B [Hydraulic ❑esign Re�iewj was alsv held on August 2�, 2014. The team re�iewed the lacat�on and design vf all propased majar drpinage structures, equrzlizer pipes, ditches, and other drainage feotures that were included on updated design plans. The team revched agreement on the prvposed stru�Sures as defailed in meeting minutes appended to thi5 dvcumenfi. At Cvncurrence Point 4B meetings, the Merger Team pro��des direcfi feedback on design drawings; therefare a conc�rrence form is noi presented.j 3 - D � <,t� '. �� 7� 'a'„"r �y h� � -�i."'�'i_`�`_'iC'!�%�:�� ..�'�:. .��i,:_ �� Designs were revised accordingly, and environmental �� 'il �� Impads were recalculated for presentafion in ihe ��' ��I FEIS. There decisions were fully coordinated with ihe � �d State and Federal review agencies thai remain ,."'°°'"',..o.��".:7""" '--�` �.��. involved in ihe reviews of ihe wrvey updaies and �r, �" design refinemeni. Since thai time and in ��, .. i(��',�—_-i,:, Ezhibif 1.3.z: Pre/erred alremative �onformance with ihe Endangered Species Acf, (Re�netl LEDPA OesignJ USFwS has determined thai 'Yhe proposed project may affect, bui is not likely to adversely affecL the red-cockaded woodpecker," qnd USFS has also deiermined ihat ihe projecf ineefs fhe USFS requirements under the RCw Recoveiy Plan and ihat mitigation for loss of foraging habitat acres is nof needed as a result of ihe imppcis from ihe projed. 2.0 NEW INFORMATION The following sectione desaibe changes antl updafes since the 201I DEIS publication. These updates demonsirate ihat ihere are no new iswes of significance associated with ihe proposed projed. 2.1 CHANGES IN PROJECT SETTING 2.1.1 Land Use and Demoaraohic Chanaes There have been no subsianiial changes in the project setting in receni years. As shown in Exhibit 1.3.1, existing and future land usee are largcly influenced by operations at ihe Chcrry Point U.S. Marine Corps Air Sio}ion �MCAS) and ihe presence of the Croaian National Forest �CNF). There have been no large-scale population changes or other demographic shiffs fhat would affect ihe proposed project 7he FEIS will include detailed informafion on the project stutly area's land use and demographic irends. 4 On a regional level. ihe faciors fhai shape ihe project's purpose and need a�so remain consistent. US 70 provides connectivity wiih ihe Porf of Morehead City. Global TransPark, industries in New Bem and Craven Couniy, Cherry Poini US Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Lejeune and oiher military facilities, and it functions as a primary route for seasonal beach iraffic. US 70 is also part of ihc US Depariment of Defense Sirafegic Highway Nehvork for moving miliYary personnel and equipmenL The FEIS will indude updated information on ihe roadway's regional and statewide significance, as evidenced in recenf reporfs. Resolutions of local supporf for the proposed projecf are appended to this reevaluation. 2.7.2 Transoorfa}ion Svsfem Chanoes There have been no changes to the region's air, rail, or mass iransii services ihaf would have a nofable effect on system linkages. In 2012. NCDOT completed an approxima�ely 1.5-mile median and signol improvement projeci along US 70 from Foniana Boulevard south fo Forest Hill Dnve to complete ihe roadway's conversion fo a fouo-lane, median divided roadway (STIP Projeci No. w-5101). Mosf of ihe existing route is now a four-lane, median-divided roadway wilh service roads and consolidated signalized intersections. 7he iraffic capacity analysis for fhe proposed bypass was �pdafed in 2014 and fakes into account the recently-compleled median improvemenis. A level-of-service analysis was conducted for the existing US 70 roadway network with 2035 AM and PM peak hour iraffic volumes. As shown in Table 2.1.1, eight of ihe thirteen signalized intersections on exisfing US 70 ihrough Havelock will operaie at LOS E or f- during ihe AM and/or PM peak hours in ihe design year. Of ihose intersecfions ihat do nof opera�e a� an overall intersection LOS F, each of ihem has approaches that are LOS F or F. In general, it was found ihat ihe highesi travel tlelays woultl be experienced on fhe side sireet approaches. TABLE 2.1.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND DELAY FOR U5 70 2008 EXISTING AND 2035 NO-BUIL� TRAFFIC CONDITIONS EXISTING2008 NO-BUILD2035 INTERSECTION �OS (DEWY IN SECONDS) LOS (DEIAY IN SECON US 70 af Chafham Streef I1S 10 af MCCoifer 81vtl x ( i.a� A iuu) wu �� IODI Nf C (22.I) C I(�UII `Nli c125.i�nie n iE.a;i: 5 M (OJ) N (35.3) n fo.o� w� n �ao� w� p �n,(q �aE � 10,01 N'o � I I?.'. F� I 03_ � i�-1. BIV.Sj'. � i(140.8). BPV,21 WL I-If��I W0 11�Ia.7�PIN F�7UJJJNu H�I;:I�SH RIIE�II68 n lo ol we. I rJ:. F(102A) I-IIAESJI WH C I�'i.%� PIO r I ic�u.<� sii es o'o v es o�o v as o�o v es o�o rr 9N 10'01 V 9N (0-0� V 5N (0'0� tl 9N 10'01 B 9M IIIEI :J UM IS'I I) fl �M Il'011B 9M (f Ol) 9 pM9 �au�aNlo OL 50 831CSZ10 93(Z-61d 931fQt19 9310-[I)J (9'0& (9'U8 i9'0)N (e'0)N �ioil a6ppqauo�5 7� OC Sfl BSIOOIN 9SIOOIN 9SIOOIV BSIO'0)A l9N (;'OZl � lBN L'L;1 i l9N (0' I I I 9 9N lS'611 9 pooa 4�in4� Io OL SO 93 (v'BLI 0 931£'L61� d 83 (6'£L) fl 9319'61) � (h'Uk (l'9)# (CO)H (0'U# --9STfhZ�— 9S 6'991] 4liIG>li:l-.. -';�:1 A API�/'V6�C7 9N�£'SI� I fINIF':IIfl flN�l' i1P {"} ^.� (C/_91I I AM (6fR� I �M �S'F;I -I flM (0'�JI l �{ ,�` anuantl h��mpny) �o OL SO �II'.'Rlll l fRll'//�l 6lIH'Rlll 419lCillli "�"- (4ECJ (i (S'BV) d (f'6l) 9 (Z'9L) H 0$ I-9 v flS 19 ZF) �� flS 18-S) �/ 9S If�911 A en 15 ��cl u �N le-u I a eN I[ d v eni Is 6) v �(�7 anuany iapwi dbIZ�61) 9MIoG/_I)J 3M1;-uPl-I 9M14`1)11 ��I: �anpp611�H7opLSf1 di(�lUlli ddl9�l6�1 9dIL'Oo1J 51J191VIJ t (9'6L) J (6'L£) J (B'OU 9 1L'91) 8 V7S IY�91 V 'dS i�)I J 9S (9�vI V 5S 11-E: V iini Iccal � �d�a Iv cil ri eN Ictl v AN (� vl �M(69NI� I dM�(�66�J JM(1�9G�J JM�C�/)� I 2�I1Q1105�JDf1O0L$� l] IL'L! LI J 9] II•'�Ll 3 41] 16L8� 1 t�] ((� i)� � _* _ (S'bL) J (b'L4) 0 (8'6) tl (9'91 tl 9S C�RS l 9S It) I01 : f15 Z,�CCI U q$ �;�GI fl Ow 16 vd l Wa I v Gv) %l 9ia (0 EGI J qi�i U' ��ZI � – anuantl ouoryo� .mi[�oiu iMlsss)� nMliro�1� emfo i)�i �1�: .�a (� ial i :ia fv�cvl � a� Is ial d si� la-i,l d l�'I: / v�is ian�w io ot sn (5'69) i �6�9L) i �6'Bf) 4 (S LL) � I!�:, v sIS iL�U£ J fIS (L' v AS L' V �il�v�v iNlv'Elv tINIG��Iv flN14Fiv �� p��9V1anasooylo0[S11 ,�nl�tsli n�le�n6le 9r+ls��'1� an�l�- lu (s�ai)e (e�ee>o (ra)v (s�eUe __..__— __ _ asli��z,l� aslrrocil� Hs'fcelv asl<ziln iW�I�OLIIJ iJll-Scll] VIVIpZIIJ ilN10(II anpOwoy6uryun��o0LS0 dM 19�081 J P.f� iGM� 7 IM lS�, 61 J;d �';' Il I ;�'. iE'78)d (Cl6)d I6'9U9 If'9118 -. � Y�III dsll�l h;l/i1V '�� I IIII�G)J "I5 I! I�:IL t -�il (."G/_) �dl[7811 LI(I'` 17 '�;_ P^IBPoo^��II�Hlo0Li11 (956) 4 (£ L6)d (0�9) V (6�f) tl bf�`;�I �,SJ��°51)i ili17VE � NSiC61 N n ��1 J 0 1' �� LII J GN �b'0 � J +Ila ISl II 51 �l� 1'SF1� I 9� i �021 J ]r,� 10 l6) � ilna Iv 91 I .� ,p {aai{S uunN lo OL 50 .�azsia �.;�� urllci,lu �l�luu)u 4� (sra)d (s�ve0d (e'ie)o fv�oile AV3d Wd Atl3d Wtl Ntl3d Wd Mtl3d Wtl (SONOJ35 NI AV130) SOl (S4NOJ35 NI Atl134) SOl NOI1J3Stl31Nl SEOZdlifl9-ON 800Z:JNIISIX3 SNOI114N0] JIi3tlN1011f19�ON SEOZ ONtl 9NI1SIX3 900L OL 5f1 NO� AV134 4NV 3JIAi13S-i0-13�31 NOIIJ3SN31NI I' L'Z 3l8 Vl TABLE 2.1.1 INTERSECTION LEVEL-OF-SERVICE AND DELAY FOR U5 70 2008 EXISTING AND 2035 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC CON�ITIONS E%ISTING2008 NO-BUILD2035 INTERSECTION lOS (DEtAY W SECONOS) LOS (DELAY IN SECON�S) AM PEAK PM PEAK AM P[AK I PM PEAK D(36.9) �(390) F(103J) i(109./) IlS 70 at Catawba Road / E(55.7� EO D �5991 I 13 I �I fil9) i=9 P � 113,/� E!i Greenfieltl Helghts Blvtl D I51 81 �'�'6 D �593� WL �(YO n� wly i� ;G2/I WP, c 13n.p Nn o(a� �1 n�is [ Isi.ilran r �iai,i��a�t i.l.+iril" ( i_I' PIIeUp�2IC Ui'.l.i_)_2__ 8118.]) C(21.9)� DI55.0J F(106.8) U5 70 af Sbcum Roatl �� -�� w� C�3a.51 �' i,. .. F(I I,_3) we (� (:�S G� Nd C 1��261 �h :-: J _ F(IJ£3.fsJ NG � GII301'I e�178 `. . D142n�58 9(18.1) B(145) F(101J) C�3�.1) U5 70 af Pine Gmve Roatl / U IS i.�l � I� �n3.(� L F(l,2,Y.� f_fi E ps.r7 [e Hickman Hill Loop r� � I°-•v� nb � nJ,�3l wis r �es.i� wr, ��IS�.I � w� i�lii.i�n i�i,.zuc r��,v�r-iiv CI�znINe e.�i8.<.�sG �n��.1IS[� ��I�:,3.01(;�°. nii?.q5f, NOIES: lhe voWes In boltl lndimte Ihe overa I i u on le .f se -e an , alc � .:'�ic.c-. I'::ecen�s. ihe sobsequenl volaes show �he level o� servicc antl uveiuge ceWy fo� each oFP�oach o� il�e ��tersectlon. Syncnro doos not provitle an overoll Intersection le�ei o( servica for unslgnollzetl Intarsectlons. iherolore, only ihe overall tlelay Is reporied lor ihese interzeclions. 2.7.3 Summarv of Proiect Settinq Chanaes The only notable change in project setting is ihe recently-completed metlian improvemen}s on exisiing US 70 through H�vebck. NCDOT performed a iraffic analysis to assess how these improvemenis affect ihe proposed project and found fhai ihe projecf's needs related to fraffic operaiions remain valid in lighf of ihese improvemenis. The median improvemeNs would noi change the projed's environmen}al impacts. 2.2 RECENT AGENCY COORDINATION SINCE DEIS APPROVAL 2.2.1 United States Forest Service During ihe projeci progression, NCDO7 has coordinaied extensively wiih ihe Croaian National Foresi Ranger and ihe USFS headquarters in North Carolina. A November 2014 leiier is appended to ihis documeni, which deialis ihe many adtlifional studies }hat were conducfed on behalf of USFS. The letter conclutles ihat NCDOT had complied wiih all USFS requests. In January 2015, NCDOT received a letYer from USFS �appended) which agreed ihat NCDOT had saiisfied all USf-S concems excepi for iwo: compliance with Croatan National Forest obligalions under Ihe RCw recovery plan, and USFS sfandartls, and mitigation for longleat pine impacfs. A shori email from USFS in February 2015 Ihen confirmed ihat "ihe project meets ihe USFS requiremeNs under ihe RCW Recovery Plan antl ihai miYigaiion for loss of foraging hobitat acres is noi nectletl as a resuB of the impacis from ihe prqect." Thus, NCDOT and USFS are presenFly disc�ssing Ihe sole remaining concem identified by USFS, which is potential miligafion for longleaf pine habifaf. 7 RCW studies higY�lighted #he imporfance af cvntinued RCW habitat management by the Croatan National ForeSt, which includes periodic burning fiv maintain proper RCW habitat. Be�aus� smoke impairs highway �isihiiity and affeGts safety, a caordinafiiot� meefing was heid vn March 17, 201 1 where representati�es from the USFS, IJSFws, and NCOn�' de�elop�d a plan to periodicalfy close the proposed bypass to �onduct prescribed burns. In c�rresponden�e dated January 9. 20i2, the NC�qT 5tate Highway Administratar agreed to a[Ivw periodic closures af thE bypass in order fivr the USFS to conducf prescribed burns. This �orrespondence and fihe prescribed burn plan ❑re appended to this document. T�e pian pro�ides general des�riptians af logistical issues suCh a5 public notification and coardination of traffic signols an exi5ting US 7D during bypass clasure. �.�.� NEPA14Q4 Nlerger Team an Aprif ]a. 2032, a N�PA14Q4 Merger Feam meetir�g was �eld to reinifiiate the Merger process. Fhe Merger Team reaffirmed the selectivn af Altemoti�e 3 as the Least �n�ironmentally f7amaging Procticable Affiemafii�e {L�DPAj bo5ed on updated studies (2�13j and the updpted [2003j -Red-cvckaded Woodp�cker �RCWj R�co�ery Plan. Because thE 5teering Cammittee results from the December 18, 1996 decision had not been rescinded and the recommendation fvr LEDPA was unchanged, the arigir�al CP3 memorandum, cantained in ❑EIS Appendix 8, stilE dacuments that decision. The NEPA1444 Merger Team ❑15o re�isifed Concur�en�e Paint 4A (A�oidance ❑nd M�nimixativn], on August 2Q, 2014. ��his Merger pvinf was vriginplly discussed and agreed upan on January 18, 2001.j The NEPA1404 Merger Team re�iewed and agreed-to a�oidance and mir�imizatian measuTes, incl�ding those identified ❑n the 2001 CP4A signature form, ond reached concurrence on an updafisd signature form, appended to this dflcument. The re�ised CP4A form reflects the most current hydrauli� recommendations. which will be detviled in the FEIS. A NEPA1404 Msrger Team meeting for ConcuRence Point 46 (Hydraulic Design Re�iewj was vEso held on August 2fl, 2014. The team re�iewed the lacafion and design of aEl proposed majvr drainage 5tructures, equvlizer pipes, ditches, ❑nd ather drainage features. The team reached ❑greemeni on the proposed structures as detailed in meetirrg minutes appended to this dac�m�nt. 2.2.3 Uniled Slates Fish and Wildlife Sen+ice In 2a13, NCD�T completed addifional design studies to reduce the propoSed rvadway crvss sectivn to a 200-favt cleared width wh�re the ❑lignment passes in close praximity to red-coGkpdsd woodpecker hobitot (CNF 12-44Rj. The reduced highw�y footprint in thi5 section, in conjunctian with the Pre�cribed Burn Plan, was part of the basis of a No�ember 2D13 letter fram fihe US Fish and wifdlife 5er�iGe, which stated that under #he Endangered Species Act, th� prapo5�d praject may affect, but is naf iikely to ad�ersely affect, ihe red- cockaded woodpecker. 7he refinement of tt�e PreferrEd Alternati�e is discussed fur�her in Chapter 2.�4. a 2.$ �tEGULATnRY CHANG�S AN� NEW ENVIRONNLENTAL STUDIES After the L.�i7PA was reaffirmed, NC�OT pro�ided a Biolagical Assessmenfi far fhe 1.�17PA {No�ember 2�13j and the LISFWS concurred with ❑ 6iofogical Conclusivn far the RCw vf "N[ay Affecf - Not Like�y to Ad�ersely Aifiect"- ihereby resal�ing Endangered Species Act coardinotivn far RCW. A detailed 5ummary of fihe Bivlagica[ Assessmenf �6Aj and its �onclusian related to the RCW wil! �e included in the FEIS. fn additivn. NCi]C]T also cvordinated wifh the USFS to prepore new and upda#ed analyses to address cancems thafi the Preferred Alternati�e wo�ld restr�ci management af RCW habitat. At the IJSFS�S fEC�UBSf, NC�OT completed the "CNF RCW Territory Anafysis," an addifiona[ st�dy specific tv management needs of the Croatan National Fvrest. The results of fhe BA ❑nd RCW territory analysis concfude thaf no RCW �a�ity trees will be "taken" by the proposed praject, fihaf fhe design wi�l no� came within 2Q� feef of any known RCW ca�ity trees, and thaf cvnstruction of the Ha�elock BypasS wi�l nvt prvhibi� the USFS frvm managing wif�in the individual territories for acti�e clusters or recruitment clusters in fhe f�ture. This daGument pro�ided t}�e basis for USFS'S determination fhafi fhe CNF wiq meet ifis ❑bligafions �nder the RCw re�o�ery plan withouf requiring mitigativn far the Ivss vf RCW habifaf. 2.3.1 ReceRt �n�tranmer�al 5fudies Since selection af fhe Least En�irvnmental[y �amaging Praclicahle Altemafi�e {LEDPAj in i998 and the pub4icativn o€ t�e 2Q11 D�IS. NCDC�T hQ5 COf1�1C1UBCi tp G�f1CIUCf StUCt[@5 bf many species ❑nd hobifats. (Embedded in the lisf are specific NGDDi' studies vr eommitments for R�W impact assessment �nd m�nogemenf, in Gvardinafian with USFWS and l�SFS.j NCDOT alsv cvnducfsd field 5liNG'y5 tv update sfream and wefland delineatian5 and perFarmed ❑ sife assessment far the Cra�en County Waste Transfer Facilify: �he ftilEawing list includes a[i studies conducted in recenS years: • Prescribed Burn P[an Agreement �Jan. 2� 12j ■ Spring species (Solidago �ernaj report �Sept. 2Q12j � RCw Managemenf Plan for CWMB �No�. 2[]12j ■ Geoen�irvnmental As5es5menf far W aste Trc�nsfer Facility ��ec. 2fl � 2j ■ llpdafed rare specieslPEf5 reporf {Jan. 2�T 3j • 5tream and Wetic�nd de[ineafian update {2Q�3j • Summer 5pecies report �Aug. 2�13j • Fall species [Paspa[um} report (Aug. 2D13j � Indireet and Cumuloti�e Impacts Ass�ssment (5ep. 2�] 3j • Rare Plant Mitiga�ionlNon-noti�e �n�psi�e Ana[ysis �4ct. 2fl13] • Bryophyte reporf {No�. 2D13y • RCW B9ological AssesSmenfi {No�. 2�33j • U5 7Q Ha�elack 6ypas5 Bialagical E�a[uaiion {Jan. 2[31 �4j • Bio[ogical E�aluafion �epvrt {Jan. 24] 4j ■ Migratvry Bird ��a[ua#ion �.lun. 2014j • CNF Management indiGators 5pecies �eport (Jul. 2n1�4j • CNF RCW ierritory Anaiysis �Aug 2�14j L7 2.3.2 Secfion 7 of the Endanqered Soecies Act The US Fish and wildlife Service �USFwS) lisis o( federally-proiecled species for Craven and Carierei Counties have been regulady checked for updaies throughoui ihe projed developmenf process. Table 2.3.1 shows }he fetlerally-proteded species listed for Craven and Carteret Couniies. TABLE 2.3.7 FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES IN CRAVEN AND CARTERET COUNTIES o FEndonpered;i-ihreotaned;l�5/A�-ihreote.netltl�atoSlmiloriryolAppeownce:P-proposedforolllclollkiing. b Cr- Cwven Coonly. Ca- Caiteiel Coonty C As o( March 25. 2015. Ihis species was Indoded in Ihe USFWS's list ol prOtefted species for Craven ond lones Counties bosetl on acaos�ic evitlence: however, i� is not correnlly on �he USFWS lis� br Craven Counfy �optlatetl April 20.2015�. As disc�ssed above, fhe US Fish and wildlife Service sfated Ihat under ihe Endangered Species Act, the proposed projeci may affect, bui is nof likely to adversely affed, ihe red- cockaded woodpecker. On January 12, 2015. Ihe ru(a red knoi �Calidns cantus rufo) was added as a ihreaiened �T) species for Craven qnd Cprterei Couniies. The rufa red knot uses a variety of mqnne habitats, especially those associated with inlets, induding sandy beaches, tidol flats, moufhs of bays and esfuaries, peat banks, and occasionally rocky subsirates. The project study area does not confain ocean beach or other open sand habitals ihat would provide suitable habiiat for fhis species. A review of NCNHP records indicaies no known red knot occurrence within 1.0 mile of the siudy area. Norihem Long-eared Bat �NLEB) �Myotis septentrionalis) is not on ihe current USFS lisf of rare onimals for }he CNP, but was consideretl in ihe Havelock Bypass Biological Evaluaiion based on its recent status change and anticipoted addition to the USFS lisi. A USFWS proposal for 10 lisiing fhe NLE6 as a protecied species was published in fhe Federal Register in October 2013. The (inal lisling and interim rule for protection of Ihe NLEB was published in the Federal Regisier on April 2, 2015 and ihe rule wenf inio effecf on May 4, 2015. As of Morch 25, 2015, thie species was includetl in fhe USFWS's lisi of protected species for Craven and Jones Co�nties based on aco�siic evidence: however, it is no� currently on the USFWS list for Craven CounfyJ The nearest verified records are from New Hanover, Washing}on, and wake Couniies �USFwS 2014J. On Mprch 25, 2015, the USFwS issued a programinatic conference opinion �PCO) in conjundion wiih ihe Federal Highway Administration �FHWA), the US Army Corps of Engineers �USACEJ, and NCDOT for NLEB in easiern Nor}h Carolina. The PCO covers ihe entire NCDO7 program in numerous counties, incl�ding Craven County and ihe proposed Havebck bypass. The programmatic deiermination for NLEB for the NCDOT progrom is "May Affect Likely fo Adversely Affect". Per an April 10, 2015 letter from USFWS to FHWA and NCDOT, effective May 4, 2015, fhe USFWS officiplly pdopfed iheir PCO as ihe Programmatic Biological Opinion �P80) for the NI.F.R. Under the PBO, NLFB for the eniire NCDOT program in Divislons 1 ihrough 8, fhe programmatic determination for the NLEB is "May Affed, Likely fo Adversely Affeci." This deiermination applies to ihe Havebck Bypass Projed. The PBO provides incidental take coverage for NLEB and will ensure compliance with Sedion 7 of the Endangered Species Act for five yeaa for all NCDOT projects with a federql nexus in Divisions 1 Yhrough 8, which includes Craven County where ihe Havebck Bypass Project is located. Sincc fhe P80 tloes nof inclutle fhe USFS, ihe following survey results are provided. NLE6 surveys were conducted in ihe summer of 2014 on ihe wesf side of CNF by NCDOT. The acouslic suroey resulis �(rom 39 acouslic monibring nighis) were analyzed by fwo sofiware programs. Several calls were identified as NI.ERs from both aufomated itlentification programs, BCID and EchoClass. MuBiple calls were also identified as Indiana bais and gray bais by BCID and EchoClass, although neither species' range extends inb cenfral or easlern Norih Carolina: ihe resulis were (alse positives. In conjunction with ihe software analysis, manual anarysis was conducted to seleci calls with ihe mosi NLEB characterisfics. Subsets of these calls were sent to iwo acouslic experis (Chris Corben, Ttley Scien�ific, and Dr. Joy O'Keefe, Indiana State University) for furiher analysis. Neither experf saw conclusive evitlence ihat ihe calls could be attribufed to NLEB. According b these experis, a few calls had poiential lo be (rom NLEBs, bui most were determinetl io be from Southeasfem Bafs �Myotis austroripanus�. I USFwS list of pwtedetl sopceis for Craven Counly. Updoled nprii 20. 2DI5. rito9/wwwiwsaov/oleianvoecies/o�W6sVca enY�tr.l 11 As a fvllaw-up tv the acvusfic sur►reys. � 4 nights vf misl-netting w�re �onducted by NC�DT in and adjacent fo we5tern CNF buf no NLE65 weTe captured. In pddition io the negati�e mist-neffing resuffs from 2fl 14, the fvllowing negative surveys resuits were ❑Iso ❑bfiained in ❑nd adjacent to CNF: • 5ix night5 of mist-netting in CNF along propo5ed Ha�elack Bypass in 2DD5 (NCDQTj. • Five nights of mist-netting adjacent to CNF at the NCDQT CWMB frvm 2QQ7-2�1Q �NC�OT}. • �ne n�ght of mist-netting in Carferst C�uniy at southern edge of CNF in 2�D9 jNC00Tj. Based on limited and inconclusi�e e�iden�e to suggest that NLEBs are prssent within the study area and CNF, if the species is added to the U�FS list vf rare species, the propased project will nofi affect the �ivbility af NL�B on CNF. 2.3.3 Summarv of Re�ulartorv Chan4es 8 Recent �n�iranmer�tal Studies The recent addition vf the rufa red knot (Calidris car�vtus rvfa] to the federolly-pratec#ed species list for Cra�en and Carferet Countie5 would nat change en�ironmental impacts associoted wit1� the prapvsed project. The study area does nat include ocean beach or other ❑pen 5and hobitats that pra�ide s�itable hai�ifat fpr this species and a re�iew of NCNHP records indicvtes n❑ knawn red knof occurrence within 1.D mile of the study area. The propased project wauld ha�e Nv Effecf vn fihe rufa red kna#, NCDOT will continue tv cvvrdinate appropriafely with LJSFWS tv defiermine if the praj�ct has the paiential to affect the praposed-listed Endangered Northem lang-eored bat (Myvf+s sepfentrra+�vl+sj and how to address these potential effe�t5, if n�cessary. 5ince the publicafion of the [7�IS, cvardinatian with fihe USFS has resulted in additivnal ❑naEyses that e�aluated the �arious pofiential impacts to protectedlrare species habiiat and pro�ided ❑dditianal details relat�d to ihe management af these habitats. NCDnT's ❑greement tv close the bypass fio facilitate prescrik�ed bums, commitment to a reduced carridar width through RCW habitat with creation ❑f 13 U5F5 access points aivng the bypass to faciiitate hobitat management, cambined with the transfer of the CWMB to the USFS. serve to mitigate impa�ts su�h fihat fuiure management activities will nof be hindered. Recent en�ironmenfc�l studie5 did not re�eal any factors that wauld increa5e ar otherw9se change the en�ironmental impact5 associated with the praposed prvject. 2.�4 CHANG�5 fN PROJ�CT DESfGN NC��T's Preferred Alternati�e tAiternati�e 3j was first identified as the Least En�ironmentally Damaging Practicable Alfernoti�e (L�DPAj in 1998 (see �gency correspor�dence contained in ❑�!S Appendix Aj then reaffirmed by the NEPA1404 Merger Team in 2Q12. Although the harizantal afignment af the current preliminary design ha5 nat cho�ged since the N�PAl4Q4 Merger 7eam reached concurrence on a�oidance and minimization measures in 2[lUl. NCD�T has cvnd��ted further design studies #o reduce project impact5. 1� As preparafion for Endcrngered Species Act �oardinafion fvr the red-c�ckaded woodpecker and to meel L1SF5 requirements far CNF and RCW management, the NCoOT NaSural �n�ironment 5ecfion cvnducted field in�esfiigations and hcrbifat e�aluation. After coordinoting with natural resa�rce agencies, NCa�i determined that ❑rt attempt shvuld be made to reduce the cleared width of the proposed project far a 1.T-mife sectian of highway that posses thraugh RCW habitat. Design revisions red�ced the praposed highway cro5s section frvm a 25a-foaf cleared widfh tv a 20Q-foot cleared width, frvm Stativn 338�-� to 5tafion 393+Oa (a5 shawn in Exhibit 1.3.2j. The reduced widfh was accampli5hed by steepening fhe fill 5ide-slvpes, while rrzaintaining fhe median and shvu[der widths req�ired by design criteria for this facility. This min�mization effort reduced impacts to natural resvurces such as RCW habitat and we#lands. Tv date, the additional m9nimizatian of impacfs due to the re�ised design includes impacts to wet[ands jreduction of 9 acresj, #arested area (reducfiivn vf 5.5 �cres], ❑nd the 5authwest Prong Flafwovds Natural Heritage Area (reducfion vf 1.S acresj. lJpdated impaci q�antities ore discussed in Chap#er 2.5. 2.5 UPDATED PR�JECT IMPACTS As a generafity, updoted projecfi impacts based on design reWisions are in characler wifh the expectations reporfed in the ❑El5. wetland ❑nd stream buff�r impacfs are decreased. as are impacts to fragmented hc�bitats and o�erall CNF acreage. [Habitat fragmeritafion is the process by which �abitat Ioss results in fhe di�ision af large, continuous hpbitais into smaller, mare isolated remnanf5.j E�en though the pra�ect fovfprinf is decreased, stream impacts ore increased due ta newly-deEineafed stream5 and cvrrecfion �alc�lafions (as defoiled belvwj. Similarly, fihe n�mber af noise re�eptors has increased due fv an updated method af deterrnining receptors. This informotian was shared with the interagency Merger Team a# the Concurrence Point 4A meeting on A�g�st 2�, 2�14. Team members agreed thaf the wetland c�lc�lation err�r was not substanti�e such that an additional re-�isit vf the selected I.�DPA was necessary. 2.5.1 �dated Wetland lmpact CalGulc�fiions ❑esign minimizativn a#ter L�IJPA se[ecfian is ❑ narmal project flcc�rrence; therefvre impoct recalcufations are gensrally updated immediately afier camplefiian of design revisions. The fallowing paragr�pns describe impact quantity changes sincs the p�blicotion of fihe ❑EIS. A systemafic errar in the Gaiculation of wetland impacts was disco�ered subsequenf to fhe publicafian af the ❑E1S. Therefore priar tv reporfing any updafed impact calcu[a#ivns based on fhe re�ised design, ii is imperati�e io reporf the "corre�ted" LEDPA impacfs and then use those as a hoseline by wt�ich to �ompare any updafed impacts. The error resulted from con�ersionJs�aling issues in transferring dato Eae�veen GIS ❑nd Microstation (highway design softwarej. The mis�alculation resulted in reporting ihe wetland impacfs for eoch of the Preliminary Alternoti�es [ower than octuol meas�red areas. 'me can�ersion error anly applied to wetlaRd impacts. Z3 iable 2.5.1 shows ihat the reported impacfs for each of Ihe altemaiives increased by 25-31 acres based on ihe updaie. It ehould be noted ihai Aliemaiive 3 showed ihe highesi wefland impacis when originally selected as fhc LEDPA. This has not changed; however Altemotive 3 now exhibils a lower differential of impact ihan previously reported as it exhibits ihe lowesi fotal �and percenfage) increase o( any correcied acreages. At ihe time LEDP� was selecfed, Alfernative 3 impacied 47% more weilands than the Altemafive 2 and G% more wetlands than Alfemafive I. Afier ihe impact correcfion, Aliemotive 3 impach 28% more wetlonds ihan Altemative 2, and 4%more fhan ABemative 3. TABLE 2.5.7 WETLAND IMPACT UPDATES AFTER 2011 DEIS PUBLICATION Correcting for Ihe conversion/scaling error resulted in 140 acres of wetlond impact for the Preferred Alternative. Since 201 l, NCDOT has further re(ined ihe preliminary design of the Preferred Altemative, identifying areas where the tlesign could reduce impads. In 2014, project impacis were updated b refleci delineation updates and fhe most recenf preliminary designs. wetland impacts based on ihe current design are shown in Table 252. The 1.1-mile refined design reduced wctland impacis by I J-acres. Combined with design changes since 2011. a lo�al of nine acres of wetland impacts have bccn furihcr avoided. TABLE 2.5.2 WETLAND IMPACTS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 2.5.2 Updated Stream Impaci Calculations Since ihe pu�lication of fhe DEIS in ZOl I, total s�ream impacis for ihe LEDPA increased by 433 feei as a result of stream and wetland delineations conducted in 2013. Areas adjaceni to Siream % �57) and Sirearn 9 �S9J were originally considered part of Wetlantls 10 and 13, respecfively; however, ihe siream lines were extended in 2013 to reclassify areas previously categorired as wetlands. These changes added 4731inear feel to S7 and 5931inear feei to S9. A1 the same time new siream and weilantl tlelineaiions were being conducted, NCDOT 14 was also working on fhe preliminary design of Ihe Preferred ABernotive, identifying areas where the design could reduce stream and wetland impacis. In 2014, stream and weHond impacfs were upda�ed to reflect delineation updates and ihe mosf recent pieliminary tlesigns. The resuBs are shown in Table 2.5.3. Alihough qn additionol 1,067 linear feet of stream impacts were added io ihe Preferred Aliemative, minimizalion measures since 2011 red�ced stream impacis such ihat ihe net change is limited lo an addiiionql 433 linear feet. With regard to NFS lands, siream impacis increasetl by 593 feef along S7; however, minimization measures reduced ihis to a nef increase of A38 feet. TABLE 2.5.3 STREAM IMPACT UPDATES fOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE minimization measures were not tleveloped for Ihe other iwo boild alfemalives. As soch. ihe optlated 9ream Impqc�s for Ihc Prcfcrzod Apema�ivc mnno� be mmporcd �o q�antilles In �he DEIS br nitemalives 1 antl 2 tl can be nolatl, howevec Ihai S] woultl be on addifional Impocl for Altemative 1. ihese upda�es woultl nof aftec� ihe LEDPA tlecision. as sheom impocis were secondory to othcr tlecislon-moking foctors, patliNlatly habilal ira9menbtion_ 2.5.3 Uodafed Rioarian Buffer Imoacis As stated above, fofal stream impacis for ihe LEDPA increased by 433 feet as a result of updnted sfream ond wetland delineafions. S9 did not affed buffer calculations; however, ihe extension of S7 added 21,094 sq�are feei of impact �Zone 1: 12,748; 2one 2: 8.346) to ihe bfal bu((er impads. Alihough siream impacts increased �due to reclassificaiion as discussed above�, overall buffer impacis were reduced due to minimizaiion mcasures ihat retluced fhe project footprint �area�. Ta�le 25A shows updated buffer impacts for }he PreFerred Aliemative. TABLE 2.5.4 BUfFER IMPACT UPDATES FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE tlispropotliona�ely larger ihan �he �olol retluciion. 15 2.5.4 Uodated Imoacis 8ased on fhe Retined LEDPA Desian The conlinued minimizaiion of impacis and refinetl design reduced impacis �o: wetlands �reducfion of 9 qeres); foresied area I�ed�ction of 22 acres), and ihe Souihwesi Prong Flatwoods Natural Hentage Area �reduction of I.5 acres). Table 25.5 shows }he updated imppds based on this tlesign revision. Mosi notably, ihe re(ined design mifigates RCw habifai fragmentation effects on a 165-acre contiguous poriion of fhe CNF befween existing US 70 and fhe proposed bypass. 7able 2.5.5 also shows updafed consiruciion cosis for }he Preferretl Alternative. TABLE 2.5.5 COMPARISON OF BYPASS ALTERNATIVES ..�� — �� REFINEDALT.3 ALT.3 ALT.7 AlT.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES (PREFERRED) � (at LEDPA in �'� (2014) 2011) I� (2011) (2011) Len th mlies 103 10.3 � 10.85 9.91 Relocofions Residenfial Ib Ih� 13 133 Business 1 I 7 3 NonproBt � I 1 I 1 Minoriiy/low Income Populations - No No No No Dis ro odionatc Im od Historic Pro edies (adverse eHecf) No No No No Communi Facilifies Im acfetl' No No Na No Sedion4! Im acfs No No No No NoiseRece forlm ach 43= 31 31 31 PdmeFarmlantls �I ]I 66 112 NFSLands-acres' 240 240 189 225 Foresfed Acres NFS lands ° 332 204 354 244 343 I88 258 213 CNF Habitaf Fra mentation 5 534 699 L412 240 WeHand Acres(NFSlands ^ 131 93 ' I40 102 135 96 109 87 Sireams(NFSlantls)-Ilneorieeta 2.9380 2,505 2,Sf31 3,094 1,825 1,387 1,012 1 J64 RiparianBufler-sqfeef(NFSlands)" 729,402 135.930 124.823 V2,705 Zonel �54,BB4� �69,698� �46,344� �9I.341) 81.142 79.168 75.232 106,019 Zone 3 133.524� �36,949� (23.190) �50.684� 210.544 215,09i1 200,055 280,I2A Toial BuHer Im ads 88,408 106.647 69.534 142.025 100 Yeor Floodplain and Floodway 1.6 I.G I 3 1.3 Im acts-acres Fetlewlly Pmfec}ed Specles �° May AffeCS Nof Likely To llnresolved: RCW Adversely Moy Affecf, Nof Llkaly To Ativarsaly Ahfecf'. Affed II Bald Eagle s ecier RCw Ri hfofWa Gost I $IIA25,000 11,425.000 $9.800,000 $28.975.000 Ulili RelocationCost � $951.440 $951,440 $1,649200 $2,]]3.G80 GonshuctionCost�� $160.000.000 $161.�00,000 I56,400.000 $738.800.000 TotalCost Inmilllons ^ $172376.440 $V3.376.440 $167,849280 $ll0.548,680 rvuin: I. NCDOi wlll compensate Cwven Cowry foi rebwllon exprnses asrociatetl with ihe displacemenl of Ihe wos�s iransfer Focility; M1owever it is ihe Coontys dedsbn whether lo builtl a new lacllily. ihos, ihe Coon�y occep�s responslbillly to loca�e and obtain o new site. conqoci any appropriafe environmenlai stotlies, and obtain permits for o new focility. ihe Cmvan Coonty Solitl Waste A Reryclln8 Depatlment Inbrmed NCDOi iha� il Is piesently coordinailn8 wiih �he Coonty Plonning Depailment b scarch br o new repbcemeN (acilitY locafion br ihe canfer. � DENR 5olid wasfe �lanogement is atsa aware of the planning effvrt. In toordination wiih U5F5. ihB County must de�elop recorrsrrzendations for a"site resf�ration plan" tv return fihe current sife to preexisting cvnditions. Caordinotion an fhis effort is ongaing and the results will �e documented in the RDO. 2. The noise anpfysis prasented in the f?EIS was prepared in 2006, prior to the 2U11 update of NCQ�T's Tra(fic Naise and Abatement ►vtanual. 7hs updafed rrsanual requ'ues a more sophisficated "�alidation rrsodel" and noise cantours are nd l�nger ussd fio determine impacts. These more detailed models oFten pick up addilional receptars as impacts os comp�red ta the noise contous method. As such, naise imp�cts Far the Refined Preferred Aliernati�e in�repsed Cue tq the new methadology. It is noted that the new r�nolysis indicates that the number oF build-condition imppcts is lower than the numbe► ot no-buifd conditivn impacts ;49J be�ause the proposed bypass wi[I reduce saund le�els in some locativns c�nd some residences wtll be faken For right af wc�y. This topic is discussed in Cha�ter 4.8.2 of the preliminary draff FEI5. 3. trrtpacts to NF5 larsds are bpsed on propased right�f-way limits. The NCo�T wiil poy the U5F3, or their appro�ed Coniractar, to measure to U5F5 specifiCafions, fhe �olume af timher on E1SF5 fdnd wifhin the right-of-woy limits. The U5F5 and NCpQT w71 determine the precise moneiary �a�ue vf the timber througf� appraisal af rotes eFfecti�e at 1he time of ihe timber sale contract. 4. Impact guantities for the Refined Preferred Alterncali�e ore taased on the proposed right-vf wvy. Impacts far the build altemati�es at LEQPA selection are �osed an the constructivn limits of ihe PrBfereed Altemati�e plus an ddCitionai 35- f�t buffer. Dire�t Em�acts ore projeeted fa be less than thvse shown in the toble. 5. The amount oF NF5 t�nds disconrsecfed from cantigvous NFS lands based on fhe detaited study altemafi�e cvrridas. Fvr Aliernati�re 1, this tota[ alsp includes the isolated portion of the NF5 parcel remdining west qf the comdar, just nvrth of the 5R 1756 (Lake Raaci} inter�hange. These acreages da noi include areas that would be the same #or ali a�temati�es. 6. Impacf quantities are taased on the proposed conslrucfion limiis plus an additional 25 feet, in aecvrdarsce wiih �urrent NCDOT imppcl pnr�lysis guidernas. 7. A systempfiic errar �n the calculation of welEand impacts was clisco�ered subsec�uent to the puk�tication at Ihe DE15. The error resulfed from �on�ersianlscaling issues in trnnsferring datp beiween GI5 and Micrvstation. The miscalculption resulled in reporiing the wetland im}�vcis fDr epCh pf the preliminary Alternpti�es lawer ihan Qctual measured areas. 7he �on�ersivn errar vnly apAlied tv wetland impocts. 8, Im�oct quanfities are based on ihe proposed canstruction limits plus rsn addiiiorsal 25 feet, in pccordance with current NCDaT impac# analysis guideiines. 9. Becouse the Preferred Allemot��e was further re�ined oFter its selection as ihe LE[]PA, sim�lar a�oidance and minim¢ation measures were not de�eloped For Altemati�es 1 and 2. It can be noted, howe�er, that S7 would be an oddifionol hrtpact for Aitemali�e 1. These updates wauld rsvi pffeci Ihe LEDPA decision, as stream impacts were secondary to other decision-making foctors, parlicularly habitat fragmeniation. ld. A# the time the DEIS wos finalized in 2Q1 1, the biolvgical conclusivns for federaGy-prvtecfed species were unresol�ed. 5ince ihat iime, it has been confirmed that a bialogi�rai conc�usion For the Bald Eag1e is not required since its ofFci�l [lefisiing pnd reCBnt CpardindfiGn with ihe USFWS resulted in the bialpgi�al conctusivn for the RCW shown aFa4�E. 11. The diflerence beiween the constructian cast estimates in ihe 2{ll l❑EIS and fhe current cvnslructivn cvst esfimate for the Refined PreFerred Altemati�e is dve to re�ised utility construction cost, �.6 UP[]AT�D PR�lECT C�MMITARENiS The fvllawing praject commitments are either updat�d ar newly-added since distribution vf the D�15. Any clarifyir�g ar 5tatus comments are ir�dicated by text in bald ❑nd itafics. Pro��ct D�v�loament ornd Fnviior�mental,Ar�alyals �lnit (P�EA) 1. Af#er the selecfian of the I.eas1 Envirvnmentally Damaging Pra�ticable Alterna�i�e (LEi]�Aj, NC�Q� will refine the preliminary design for the selscted altemati�e and complefe a Biologi�al Assessmeni (BAj conceming the red-co�kaded woodpecker �RCWj. 7he BA will he submitted ta the USFWS tv inifiote fvrmal consultofiivn regarding Se�fion 7 of the Endangered Species AGt. The USFWS may requesfi additivnal information andlor subsequent sur�eys tfl amend the BA befare issuing their Bivlvgical �pinion (BOj ta conclude fvrm�l Gvnsu[iativn under 5ectivn 7. If an fncidental Take occurs, the USFW5 will also issus an inifiial take stotement. indicating terms ❑nd conditions, andlvr rea�vnable and prudent meosures it be�ie►.es necessary to minimize the impacts to RCWs. Any such term5 and cvnditions, andlor rea5onable and prudent measures to minirr�ize impacts to RCWs wilf be includ�d in the Final En�irvnmental lmpoct 5tatement (F�ISy. An RCW assessmenf wps perforr�ned Fr� cor�junctTvr� ta a NCD�T/�SFS ogreemenf of o Prescribed 13crrning Pfan thai wauld bene�if RCW habifat. Ir� additiion, the highway t7 ioofprinf was redviced fo less �han Z��-feef for i.04 mile the area af RCW habiiat. As a resulf. USFlNS defe�m�ned thot a formal �nnsulFation wQs not necessr�ry. Approprlale coordinafiorr ensued wi�h t1S�lA1S Tn accwdarnce �o Seciion 7 af fhe Fndangered Species A�f, ond fhe 11SFWS concuned with the bFalagicv! cnnclusiona of "May Affect Not likely to Ad�eraeiy Affecf" for fhe red-eoekaded woadpecker and rotrgh-lewed �oosestrife and thaf fhe prajecf wovjd have "Na Effecf" o� any other federally-llsfed Endangered. Th�eafer►ed ar Propvsed planf species. Ar�y future cvordir�atiort with fhe USF5 on red-cvckaded waodpecker {RCWj w�rr be dact+mented in fhe Recvrd af aec�sien (R�Dj. 2. Privr to Gvnstructivn, NCDOT will coordinate with the U. 5. Forest Ser►�ice �USFS} ta caflect spring flvwering goldenrad seeds firam areas to be affected by the praje�t and distribute them in an area of the Croafian Nafional Farest �CNFj where there is ❑ppropriate habitot but the species dfles nat currently oGcur, in cvardinatian with the lJSFS. Seed cvllectlon begv� in 2Q1U and will conf�nue up to construcfiQn. Miligafion wif� lr�rlude pfonflr�gs eifher iram seed andlor plugs as well as manifaring far succesaful survl►ra1. Plan#ng foilvres will be replunfed until f1SF5 and NCODt staff con�ur th�t further planfings would r�at be ber�eficial. 3. NCDQT will collect seed from existing le�onte's thi5tle populcrtions and coordinate with ihe [JSFS to de�elop ❑ seed increase bed for augmentation in occupied or pre�iausly occupied habifiot. 4. S��d cvlle�tion began in 2�13 and will cvntinue thrvugh 2Qlb. Miiigation wil� be through grawing plugs frpm callected seeds then plan#ing at lo�ations identified by tne LISFS. Mitigation will alsa include mor�itoring for 5uccessful survival. Planting failures will be replanted until USFS and NCDC)T staff cancur that further plantings wvuld not be beneficial. 5. NC[3C]T will collect seed from existing awned mountain mint popula#ions and covrdinote with the U5F5 to iden�ify sites to seed tv establish new populations. 6. Seed cvllecfian began in 2a� 4 and w�ll continue up tv cvnstructivn. Mitigation w�ll be thrvugh planting seeds at locations identified by the U5FS. 7. The final Memorandum of Understanding (MDUj between the Federal Highway Adrrzinistrafion �FHWAj, NCD�T, USAC�, and 11S�S regarding the Croatan Wefilond Mitigativn Bank {CWMBj will be included in the RQD. 8. NC�DT will cantinue to caardinafe apprapriately with U5FW5 to determine if the project has the potential fo affect the prop�sed-listed Endangered Norfhern long- eared bat �Myotis septer�tr�onc�lis] and how to addres5 these pvtential effeGts, if necessary. 9_ Privr to right-af-woy ocquisitivn, NCDOT will prvmpt caordination with Cro�en County go�emmenfi ta refocate th� Cra�en Covnty Waste Transfer Site tv a new site. In caordinafion with LJSFS, the Caunfy must de�elop reGammendations for a"site restoration plan" tv return the currenfi site to presxisting canditiQns. Goordination on this eifart is ongaing �snd the results will b� dvcumented in the RDD. m 1D. Priar to construction. NCDDi wiil coardinate with fihe lJSFS tv identify USFS Rare Plant Specie5 an NFS lands occurring near the project's cvnstruction limitt and insta[I high �isibility protecti�e fencing fiv be remo�ed after camplefiion of construction. 11. During final design. NC�aT will caordinate with t1�e U5F5 on fhe location of any staging ❑reas an NFS lands to a�vid impacts ta U5F5 Rare Plant 5pecies. Where practicable, NCDDT wi�1 require cantractvrs to place staging areas 25a feet away from USFS Rore Plant 5pecies occurrences. Tv ❑void unintentivnai impacts tv USFS Rare Plant Spe�ies within pawerline corridars vn NFS lands, specification5 wilf prohibit the �onfi�actvr frvm placing hea�y equipment outside the praject's constru�tian I�m�ts withaut prior appro�ol fram fihe U5F5. ADFA Nurriar� En�iror�mer�f Sec#on. Archaea�nr,�y Grvup Archaeo�vgicaf 5ifie 31 CV3�2 is approximately 3�fl feet away from the project iimits and; howe�er, as added measures to ensure prvtectivn af the site during prvject �anstructivn, the NCDOT will: 1. Before final de5ign is comp[eted, Rvadway Design will �erify that 5ite 3 i CV3a� is a�vided by any right-af-way or easemenf. If final design plans chonge, thereby �ausing an ❑d�erse impact to 1he site, then Roadway Design wili immediately nvtify the PDEA proj�ct manager and the NC�aT Archaeologis# ta initia#e additianal �oordination to comply with �istoric preservatian laws. 2. Finol design plans identify the installatian vf high-visibility fencing arflund Sife 3lCV3D2, which is to be labeled as: "PROTECTE❑ AREA." Final desigr� plons wifl indicate the fence boundary ❑nd also pra�ide an adjacent #able vf Nortning and Easting coordinates. Project specificafiivns s�vuld indicofie that high-�iSibility fencing will be installed afang the site bvundary, privr tv ❑ny clearing and grukak�ing vperations. 7F7e contra�tor must pre-�aordinate with NC��T Archaeology (tel. 919- 7�7-bQt]�j sa that an archasalogi5t field-�erifie5 fence I�caiion or is on-sife when the fence is installed. Fhe fence will be mainfained far fihe construction durafiion, and will be remo�ed by the HES Archaealogy Graup only just befvre final prvject inspectivn. Nv canstrucfivn equipmen# ar personnel shall enfer tne fenced area. Rvad�rn+ �esi4r� 8 PDEA !� Sirticfures Management llnif 1. The Preferred Alternati�e incl�des a grr�de-separated crossing vf the Camp Lejeune Railroad an NF5 lands (operated by the Norfofk Southern Corparatianj. Final design will be de�eloped ta prvvide a 23favt �ertiGal clearance ❑nd adequate horiaonfial cEearonces; howe�er, shvuld the railroad desire additianal ciearances. NCD�T will coordinote with the U5FS, L!S Gv�emment, ❑nd NorFolk-Svuthem regarding the re�iew of fihe fnal design plans for this crossing. Ri ht-of W I1nif 81.a�atTon and Surve s 8 Roadwa �esi n 8 ConatrucHon 1. NCDDT will pay the USFS, vr their ❑pprv�ed cvnfiroGtar, to measure to ll5FS specifications, tY�e �oEume of fiimber on NFS lands within the prapased right-of-way limits. NCD�T will then pay the U5F5 far the measured timber �olume when the righf- af-way easemeni is granted at which fime t�e fimt�er will b�Gvme property of the NCD�T. The USFS ❑nd NCI]D7 will agree on the precise moneiary �alu� of fhe timber fihraugh an appraisal at rates effecti�e at the time af the right-af-way transfer. � 11ti1iHes g Riqhf-of-Wov [leaii 1. NC[3QT wii! coardinate encountered during the prvject. with the 1lSF5 if pre�iausly undisclvsed uti�ities are right-af-way acquisition ❑nd CDf15tR1Cti011 pi1G5�5 of the Roadw Desl n 8 H drae��ics Un�f 8 PDFA S Consfruc�iar� $ �ivlsian 2 1. As agreed upvn kay the NEPA14g4 Merger Team [ConGurrence Meeting for Cvrridvr Selecf��ri (Concurrence Point 3 Re�isrtedJ Meeting S�►mmary, 1Q123120�2], the Easf Prong of Slpcum Cr�ek will be crvssed with a 1,62�-foat bridge. The iucicer Creek tributary wiil be crossed with a dvuble ]�-#vat by 8-fovt r�infvrced concrete box cul�erf that is 4�Q feet in length perpendicular ta the proposed roadway. The Sauthwesi Prong of 5locum Creek wiq be crossed wifih a 9�5-foat E�ridge. Existing triple 9-foat by 7-foat reinforced concrete bvx c�l�ert on Tucker Creek will be extended ❑pprvximately 25 feet upstream and 78 feet downs#reom with ❑ iriple 9- foat by 7-fovt reinforced cancrete box cul�ert. Temporary wark taridges will be required to Gonstru�t the prapvsed bridge structures, which will he addressed in the Permit Application Package. 2. !n arder to minimize the #ragmentation af red-cvckaded woodpe�ker (RCwj habitat, plan sheets will show that fhe right-of-way limits (and clear+ng limitsj dv nat exceed 200-feef wide for the 5,500-foot j] .04-milej section from 5tc�tion 338+00 fio 5fiafian 393+4d. In additian and tv a�oid cleoring trees vut5ide fhe 2�p-fivat lirrtits, vnly hand clearing will vccur at the edge of the righfi-of-way lirrtits of tF�is secfron. 3. Project special provi5ions should indicate ❑n in-water wark moratorium far February 15 iv June 15 for �ast Prvng Slocum Creek, Saufhwest Prong 5locum Creek, and Tucker Creek at #he prapased extensian vf fhe existing cul�ert at U5 7�. The unnamed trik�utarie5 within the project study alignments are not considered ❑nadromovs fish habitat and are nvt subject to anadromous fish m�ratoria. Design of fhese strvctures will adhere to Stream Crossing Guid�r+r�es for Anadromvus Frsh Passoge (NCDOT, 2D12]. Rood ide Lnvironmental UnFt 8 Roadwa Des� n 1. NCE7C7T will continue to coordinate with the U5F5 ta address landscaping, fencin�, ❑nd aGcess needs on NFS lands. � Detailed plans for these design elements will be included in the R��. The Landscaping Plon will, Qmang other normal aspects, detail appropriafis nati�e seeding mixes for erosion cantral and site specific c�ntrol methads far NNIS, including a suite of acceptable herbicide5 for the carridar and adjacent notural habitat5. • The Landscaping Plan will al5o ovlline a plan far ongoing cvardination befvveen NCDOT ond U5F5 personnel to mQintpin �egetafiion di�ersily and en5ure nv long- fierm impacts to rare species olang #he bypass �orridor. 2. NCDOT will utiliie rolled matting or weed-free mulch for ervsion control and re�egetatian ❑n NF5 lands. If �rosion becomes prablemotic in any area past- can5truction, turfgrass may ha�e to be judicivusly u#ilized ta limit sail disturbance. 20 3. N❑ barrow vr disposa[ sifies related ta this prvject are to be located an NFS lands wifhaut express written permission from the USFS ❑nd completion of a11 �equired en�ironmenfiaf re�iews. Contracfors wif{ cvordinate with reg�fatory and resvurce agencies during #h� fina[ permitting stage to ensure fhat aff�er area5 of nor�- disfurbance (i.e., horrow pits, temporary pccess rvads, staging areas, etc.] are set to minimize impacts ta natural and cukturai resvurces. Roadside �n�iranmenfa� U�i� 8 Divisior� 2 1. Management of Nvn-Nati�e In�asi�e Species 4NNISj: NCD�T will wark within adjacent NC��T right-af-way fo pre�ent the encroachment of NNIS onto Nf5 [ands �nd commit5 to tY�e foklvwing rrtea5ures: ■ Nati�e vegefation wiil be retained as much as passible. Exposed svils wau[d be prvmptly re�egetated fo a�oid re-calonization by NNIS vr pvtential soil erasian. ❑nly ❑ppro�ed seed mixtures and weed seed-free mulch wauld be used. In consultation with the USFS, NCDQT will use sesd mixes af nati�e grasses and farbs ar ather nan-aggressi�e. NN15 on NFS land� far erasion cvntrfll and re�egetafian. To pre�ent the spread of NNlS an NFS [ands. NCT�QT wili require coRfractors to pressure w�rsh all vff-rvad eq�ipment, incl�ding cranes, gr�dsrs, pans, exco�atars, and looders, privr to being brvughf infia the CNF cons#ruction areas. �quipment wou[d be cfeaned fharough[y befvre mo�ing frvm treatmeni sites ta ensure that sesds ar ath�r prvpagu[e5 are nof transparted to other sifes. To control fhe spread of NNIS on NFS Ipnds, NC��T, in coordination with the USFS, wil[ locate ond flag ❑reas of fargeted NNIS. ]f any afi these areas are within areos vf proposed fil1, #hase areas will be cfeared and grubbed, ❑nd #he materiaf dispv5ed af outside the fimits of fhe CNF. lf NNIS ar� located in areas af proposed cUts, then the mater�a[ and actual thickness vf root mat or other defined amount wil[ be dispvsed vf outside #he Eimits af fhe CNF. � Use of mowing a5 a cvntrol rr�efihod far NN15 shau[d be timed tQ a�aid spreading seeds (e.g. before seed set� ta the exfenf pvssibke. • Merbicide 7reatment5: - NCI]�T will ❑r�ly use herbicides in specific areps an Notivnv[ ForeSf 5ystem lands in cansu[fation wifh the US�S. All guidelines and mitigatian mEasures presented in Fvresf Monual 2150. Pesticid�-1lse Monagement and Coardination, and Forest SeNice Handbvvk �1 Q9.14, Pesticide Lise Monogement ❑nd Caordina#ion Handboolc, wou�d be fvl�awed. lf any new herbicides came onfa the market, NCI]�7 will coordinafe with USFS bEfore using on NFS Ionds. - NCDOT wifl c�ntact the USFS far non-raufine maintenan�e ❑nd use of herbicides vn NFS lands. - Prior to treatment, propvsed actions wiil b� re�iewed by fore5f reso�r�e speciali5fis in fhe area5 af wildlife biolo9Y, botany, aquatics, sv�l5, re�reation, and heritage resourGes. 21 - NCDaT will not use broad�ast sprays for herbicides ❑nd peslicide5 vn NF5 lands. Wertaicides and pe5fiicides will only he used in 5�]BClfIC areas ❑n National Farest System Eands in consultativn wifh fihe 115FS. In addifiivn. NCOnT will coordinafie with tf�e U5F5 on ❑ny mechonical methads that would be a�iowed. -- Alvng stream edges and bcrr�ks, wide-angle cone tip naale guards w�ll be used an the end of herbicide applicator wands. All h�rbi�ides wil! b� sprayed away from any water in ephemeral and perennia� streams, �ernol pvals, vr lakes. Aquatic-labeled herbicides will be used when wifihin 15D feet of any li�e wa#er. C]nly surfacfantsladjuvanfs with law toxicity to aquotic species, such as Agri-dex, will be used in these area5. - when conducting chemical c�ntrol af fargeted NNIS within lfl feet vf any identified U5F5 Rare P�ont �pecies populations, the following guidelines apply: o All th� rare plant speci�s oc�urrences would be fiagged or marked prior to treatment fo a�aid ❑ny vff-target effect5. o No chemical treatment wi[I accur within 1 fflot of fihe rare plant. a Prior tv ❑pplying herbicide wifhin 1-10 fest of these plants �v�er the rare planfs ar place an appropriate barrisr adjacenf tv them. o�ar �ining species, pu11 the vines vutside one foot vf adjacent rare plants. o For larger woody stems, diameters 1 inch ar greater, ❑pply herbicide tv cut 5tem surFoces. Apply herbicides ta the cut 5tems with a small wick ❑pplicator if possible or wiiF� a smoll spray bottle to minimize drift. o For smoller wvody NNIS slems, if broadcasfi treatment is fihe only feosible treatment. �ut the stems ❑nd oniy trsot after re-sproufing fram f,-inches tn 1 favt in height. o Whiie spraying the re-sprouting folioge, ploce a taarrier (such as ❑n apprvpriately sized cardboard sheetj next ta t}�e rare plar�f species vr co�er the rare plant species wifih an appropriate cantainer. a NCDUT will past "No Treafinent" 51QC15 at rare plant sites along the CpQC�WGy. When cvnducting mechanicai control by hand, NN15 capable af storting new plant5 (seeds, r�izomes, raot mafs, efc.j req�ire praper disposal ❑utside the IimitS af the CNF. Plants shauld be bagged and mo�ed off site. Bagged plants will receive siandord garbage disposal. Far large woody bushes fhat wauld tae di�fieult ta ma�e, treafiments will be scheduEed prior ta 5eed set as practi�al. NCDaT will coardinate with tFte 11SFS an any mechanical methads that would be ❑I[owed for NNIS. • NC�OT camrt�its tv trevting rvpdside N�IS in the CWMS prior to turning o�er fhe site to USFS. An initial trea�ment, followed hy a 5econd spvt application, wilf address NNES grvwing alvng or adjacent to ihe existing raads within fhe CWMB and will �o�er 5pecies an the [JSFS �iSt af NNIS. NGD�i ❑i�ision 2 will wark with U5FS s#aff on a periadic basis #o cantrof #he pre5ence af priprity NNIS along the NC�OT right-�f woy �n NFS lands. ln turn, 22 U5F5 will woric cvoperati�ely with NC��T to idenfify and e�fecti�ely control prioritized NNiS. The current list of prioritized NNlS species follvws; it is suE�ject ta change as new plpnt threats are ident'sfied. • Lespedeaa cuneara, 5ericea Lespedeza • Lespedeza 6i�odvr, Bicolor Lespedex� ■ A16izia judi2�r�issi�r, Mimosa • Lrgusrnrm srne�rse, Pri�et • Rvsa mult�vra, Multiflora Rose ■ Aila►rdhus altissrma, Tree-of-Hea�en • Miscunthus sinensis, Chinese Sil�er Grass • Lanicera muacki or marrowir, Amur or Marrow's Haneysuckle • Lanrcera japonica, .Tapanese Honeysuckle • Sorghum halepense, ]o}�nson Grass ■ .4rthraxon hispidus, Baslcet Grass ■ Elaeagnus umbellata, Autumn 91i►+e • Pueroria monlana var. lobata, K.udau • Hedera hefix �ar. helix, English Trry Geofechnical �nainee�inq lJni� ■ d'rnca minar, Periwinkle • Kummerowia strrata, ]apanese-clo►+er ■ Yourrgia japonica, Asiatic Hawk's-beard • Wisferia sinensis, Chinese Wisteria • Yer6erra brasrIiensis, Braxilian �er�ain • In2perada cylindrica, Cogongrass • PersirQria perfaliatu, Mile-a-minute • Cayratia japonica, Bushkiller • Pyrr�s calleryana, Bradfard Pear • Salanum viurum, Tropi�al Soda Apple • CentaureQ stoel�e ssp. micranihns, Spatted Knapweed • Commelina communis, Cammon Dayt7ower • Bucchorrs hamlrrnifolia, �astern bac�haris* * Natsve bui considerrd imasi�e 1. If exca�ativn wark is required afi the Cra�en County Waste iransfer Site, NCD07 will callecf and analyce k�acfcground 5oil samples to con�irm fihe presence ar absence of 5oil impact from arsenic, in accardance with NCDOT Policy on hazardous materials. Hvdraufics ilnit 1. The NC��T Hydraulics Unit will coardinate with the NC Floadplain Mapping Pragram (FMPj, t❑ deiermine the statu5 of the project with regard tv applicabilify of NC��T's Memvrandum af Agreement, vr appro�al af ❑ Canditianal L�tfer of Map Revisian (CL�MR� and subsequent final l.etter af Map Re�isivn (LpMRj. Hvdraulics Unif 8 Conslruclior� 8 Divisian 2 i. As this project in�ol�es construction acti�ities an or adjacent ta FEMA-regulated streams. the Di�ision snall 5ubmit sea[ed �s-built construction plans to the Hydroulics Llnit upan fihe �vmplefion of project con5tructian, Gerlifying that the drainage stru�tur�s and rvadway embankment that are �acated within the 1�0-year fioadplain were built as shawn in the constructian plans, bath horizontally and �erfically. 2. Fveling or oiling a# mechanical eq�ipment would accur away firam aquati� habifats. Di►�ision � 1. NCDQT Di�ision 2 staff will �vardinate in future years with the USFS to allvw for prescribed burns on NF5 lands during canstructian and in fhe future, as detaiied in Appendix A of the FEIS. 3.0 C�NClIJSI�N This ree�aluation was prepared to rr�eet FHWA regulatians requiring a written e�al�ation afi a❑�E5 if a final en�ironmental impacfi statement (FEISj is not prepared within three years t23 CFR 77 ].l 29 (aj j. Althaugh praject de�elopment ac#i�ifiies fvr the propo5ed prvject ha�e been ❑ngoing since the D�15 wos appro�ed in 2{ll l. a F�IS w�s n�t ❑pprv�ed w+fihin the 23 three-year timeframe. The time IQpse since the DEIS appro�al i5 primari[y due to the de�elopment af ❑dditianal studies. Notable changes reparted in ihese studies, and their rssultant ei�ect andlar outcame ❑re summarixed in Toble 3.�.1. Although there is new inform�tion relafied to the propo5ed projec�, these additionslchanges are typical of ❑ngoing work that occurs between the draff and final EIS and ha�e ultimately led tv �urth�r reduction of impacts. The new in�ormation �ummarized in this ree�aluation includes: • Campletion af ❑ Biological A55e5sment �BA� conceming the red-cockaded wo�dpecker {RCWj affer l.�[]PA selectian jreaf�rmvtivnj consis#ent with ❑ D�IS proje�t commitment. • 5ubstantial coardination with the L15F5 since fhe 241 ] D�15 ❑ppra�ol, re5ulting in the de�elopmenf of new en�iranmental sfudies specific fia National Farest 5ysfiem �NFSj lands, sv the USFS could ensure compliance wi#h its 2��2 Fvrest Managemenfi P[an. • DeWelopment of new project cammitments, i� coordinotion with USFS, related to rare plant species pratection, nan-nati�e, in�asi�� plant species management, herbicide use, and lJSFS acce5s maintenan�e alang fihe prapvsed roadway. • Cantinued caordination with the interagency team under the �mbrell❑ vf the NEPA1�40�A Merger Process. • Cvordination resulting in the de�e[opmenf of a commitmenf ta close the bypass fio allow for prescribed burns. • Design refinements thaf include a reduced clearing widfh for a 1.1-mile length, minimixing effects vn RCW h�bitot. The F�IS wi1! describe this new infarmation and associated effects. The FEIS will incarpvrafie fhe ❑EI5 with changes made a5 appropriat� #hroughout the documenf to reflect: the selection {reaffirmotivnj vf ❑ Preferred Alternati�e, rnodifications ta the praje�t, updated informatian an the affected enWir�nment, changes in the asse5smenf of impact5, the selectian vf mifigotion measure5, wetland and fbvdplain findings, the results af covrdinafian, comments recei�ed an the DEI5, and response5 tv these cvmmenis. Comments on fihe DEIS were considered during the preporation af this ree�aluativn, including comment5 from the Soufhern Envirvnmentpl Law Center jSELC} requesfing the preparation af a supplemental ❑EI5 (in se�eral letters: Nv� 21, 241 l and Mar 20. 2�12, and �ct 30. 2Q12. See appendixy. As naied in fhis ree�alu�tion, studiss ha�s been updated andlor expanded fiv include addifianal details but fhere ❑re nv substanfiia[ changes tv the proposed actian nor are there signifi�ant new circumsiances or infvrmation reie�r�nt to enr►ironmental �oncems. The alternati�es far the prvpvsed aGtion ha�e not undergone any substantial changes and while en�ironmentol Studies have taeen updoted thraughout the cour5e of the pivnning pracess, the project study area has nat been expanded vr vtnerwise alfiered to indicate that there is signifi�ant new informativn rele�ant ta ernironmental 2�4 �on��ms. As pre�iausly noted, fhese additianslchanges are typical of angoing wark tnat o�curs between th� draft and final EiS. Additianally and from its incepfiivn, the proposed praject has b�en de�elaped in caordinativn wifih ❑ fiederal and sfate interagency teom ❑nd subsequent{y through the 5ection �4�41NEPA lnteragency Merger Process, which reqe�ires ❑ sy�fiemaiic evatuation of en�irvnmental impac#s #hrvughout the prflject de��l�pment prpcess. 7he C]E!S was signed in Sep#�mber �Ql 1. After fhe ❑E15 comment periqd ❑nd public hearing were cvmpleted, all camment5 fram the puk�lic, state and federal agencies, and non- go�emmental vrganizativns were reviewed and cansidered. Follaw-�p 5tudies soon began to #uEfill project �ammitmenfs identified in the I��IS, as well as to address �ommenis recei�ed subsequent to the ❑EIS. Infisragency caardination cvnfiinued as well. It shauld be nvted that the studies ha�e not idenfified any new issues of significance in the o�erall confiext of tF�e project. Based on the results of the studies, NCDDT began tv assembls fhe folfaw-up NEPA do�umeni in the formot af p Final �n�ironmental Impa�t Statement in 2Q12. A preliminary FEfS was c�mpleted by NCD�T vn Apr�l 15, 2015. The decision ta proceed with ❑ Final EIS is made by FHWA based an this ree�aluation. Any FEIS references made in this Ree�aluation specifiically refer to the Apri] l5, 2Q15 preliminory F�1S. Summary - 1'he vpdotes and changes demonstrate thaf there are no new issues of significance associa#ed with this praj�cf. Canclusions reached in fhis ree�aluafiian considered a{1 comments on the ��IS that were recei�ed, including fihose fram the public, go�emment of#icial5, and nan-ga�emmental organiiativns. A suppfemental EI5 i5 not required beca�►se there are nv substantial chan�e5 in the propased action nvr ❑re there significont new circumstances vr infarmafivn rele�ani fo en�ironmenfial �ancerns �4p CFR 1502.9�c]�1 jj• 25 iABIE 3.1.1 SUMMARY Of NEW INFORMAiION/CNANGES SINCE DEIS APPROVAI � SIIBSiAN11Al SIGNIFlCANi �, CHANGEIO ENVIRONMENIAI I NOIABIECHANGFIDEVEIOPMENiSINCE�EISAPPROVAUNY011 pROPOSED IMPACiSN01 AC110N? EVAtUAiE�IN7HE DfIS? I Metlian improvements on US 70 � �'CCOi performed a fraE1c analysis io assess how ihe medlan improvemenis a�fed No No ihe proposed orojec; and found that fhe projeci's neetls relaietl fo imffic operations remain valld In II M of fhese improvemenfs. Ongoing coordinafion with USFWS 8 USFS related to RCW impacts and habitat managemenf � NCDOi's agreemeni io close fhe bypass io facili�ate prescribed bums, commiimeni fo a reduced comdar widih ihrough RCW, and creation of 13 USfS access poinis No No along ihe bypass, combined wiih fhe iransfer of fhe CwMB to ihe USFS, serve fo miii aie im acfs such ihai future mana emenf activifies will nof be hindered. Ongoing coordinafion with ihe NEPA(4D4 Mergei ieam � The Merger Team revisiied Concurrence Point 310 reaffirm Aliemafive 3 as the �EDPA Na No and revised the Concurrence Poinf 4A form io refleci the mosi cunent hydraulic recommendaiions. Regulatory changes and new environmenfal studies � The receni addifion of the rufa retl knot to ihe federally-proiecied species lisi for Craven and Carferei Caunties woultl noi change environmenial impads associatetl with ihe proposed projecf as there is no suifable habiiat for fhis species. . NCDOi will continue fo coordinate appropriaiely wifh USFwS to determine ii ihe projecf has fhe pofential io affect ihe proposed-listed Endangered Norfhern long- eared baf (Myofis septenfrionalis� and how to address these potenilal eifecis, if No No necessary. � Since fhe publicafion of ihe DEIS, coordination with ihe USFS has resulfetl in addiilonal analyses of poienilal impads fo profecfetllrare species habiiaf and providetl addiiional tleiails related to ihe managemeni of these habiiafs. � Receni environmenfal sfudies tlitl noi reveal any faciors thai would increase or othemvise change ihe environmental impads associafed wifh fhe praposed project. fABIE 3.1.1 cont. SUMMAPY OF NEW INFORMAiION/CHANGES SINCE DEIS APPROVAI --. ._.,— _ — -- -- SUBS1ANilAI SIGNIfICANi ��I CHANGEiO ENVIRONMENfAI NOiABIECNANGE�DEVEIOPMENiSINLEOEISAPPROYAlIN2011 PROPOSEO IMPACi1N01 ACfION? EVAIUAfEDINiHE DEIS? Refined IE�PA design and updatetl Impads � Design revisions reouced fne proposetl highvray cross section Iram a 250-foof clearetl wiofh to a 2C0-icoi cleared wid;h. ihis refinement mifigates RCW habiiat fragmentation effecis on a 165�acre contlguous portlon of the CNF between ezisfing �S70andfheCNf. No No � The refinetl tlesign and coniinued minimizafion of Impacfs retluced impacis to, wetlands �reducfion oi 9 acres�; foresied area �reduction of 22 acres�, and fhe Souihwesf Prong Flatwoods Natural Heotage Area �reduction of LS acresJ � Changesassociafetlwithfhedesignrefnemeniwoultlnotincreaseorothen�ise change fhe enviranmenial impacts associafed wifh fhe proposed projed, Updated projecf commifinenis � New projecf commiimenis were developed affer fhe appraval of fhe DEIS, largely In coordinafion wifh ihe USFS. � In adtlitlon to commitments relaied to RCW habiiaf managemeni (i.e., prescribetl No No burn plan, reduced highway deanng witlih�, ihe project commifinenis include measures adtletl in coordinailon wifh the USfS relafed to ihe management of invasive species, ihe proiedian of rare plan� populaiions, and specificailons relaied ta the use of herbicides on ihe CNF.