19920625 Ver 1_COMPLETE FILE_19920101

NC 24
From Kenansville to Beulaville
Duplin County
Federal-Aid Project No. FR-8-3(16)
State Project No. 8.1240801
TIP No. R-2211B
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
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:
ate J. Ward, P. E., Manager
lanning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
r-31-?z
Date Nicholas L. r , E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 24
From Kenansville to Beulaville
Duplin County
Federal-Aid Project No. FR-8-3(16)
State Project No. 8.1240801
TIP No. R-2211B
Finding of No Significant Impact
January, 1992
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
.9._
S. Eric Midki f z??=J
Project Planning Engineer
J
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
,???++++? a u•hA
C A R0?•''..
-Pei ss%n
SEAL =
6976
r
•? V. PR ..?
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

N
1. Summary of Special Project Commitments . . . . . . . . . . F-1
2. Type of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
3. Project Status and Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-2
4. Description of Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-2
5. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . F-2
6. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment . . . . F-3
7. Comments Made During and Following the Public Hearing F-7
8. Revisions to the Environmental Assessment . . . . . . . . F-8
a. Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-8
b. Extended Project Limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-9
C. Wetlands F-9
d. Revised Traffic Volumes F-9
e. Cover Types of Impacted Land . . . . . . . . . . . . F-10
f. Rel ocatees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-11
g. Estimated Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-11
9. Only Practicable Alternative to Wetland Findings . . . . . F-11
10. Basis for Finding of No Significant Impacts . . . . . . . F-12
TABLES
Table 1 - Wetland Impacts
* F-10
Impacts
Table 2 - Approximate Acreages W Potential
According to Vegetative Community Type . . F-11
MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure F-1 - Typical Section of the Revised Segment
Figure F-2 - Aerial Mosaic of the Revised Segment
Figure F-3 - Aerial Mosaic of the Extended Section
Figure F-4 thru F-10 - Map of Wetland Areas
Figure F-11 - Revised Traffic Volumes
Figures F-12 thru F-15 - 100-Year Floodplain Limits
APPENDIX
Written Comments on the EA . . . . . . . . . . . FA-1 through 11
Public Hearing Press Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FA-12
Updated Relocation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .FA-13
Finding of No Significant Impact
Prepared by
The Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
in consultation with the
Federal Highway Administration
1. Summary of Special Project Commitments
a. Wetlands
The anticipated loss of up to 41.4-" acres of wetlands will be
mitigated in accordance with mitigation protocols identified in the
1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. The loss of
wetlands will be mitigated through the possible mitigation measures
such as enhancement of degraded wetland systems that occur adjacent
to the project area. The potential to possibly restore ditched and
recently clear cut hardwood bottomland and pocosin exists. Also,
many areas with hydric soils that are presently under cultivation
have the potential for restoration. These on-site, in-kind
mitigative options will receive first consideration prior to debits
from the NCDOT Company Swamp Bank. Wetland mitigation measures are
discussed in Section 9 of this report.
b. Special Permits Required
A U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Section 404 permit will be
required for this project.
C. Geodetic Survey Markers
The North Carolina Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to
construction regarding the relocation of survey markers.
d. Restriction of Construction Activities In and Adjacent To
Wetlands
Construction activities will be restricted in and adjacent to
wetlands from March 1 to June 15 so as not to interfere with the
migration of anadromous fish species as concurred with the US Fish
and Wildlife Service on September 4, 1991.
2. Type of Action
This is a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Finding of No
Significant Impact.
The FHWA has determined that this project will not have any
significant impact on the human environment. This Finding of No
Significant Impact is based on the attached Environmental Assessment which
has been independently evaluated by the FHWA and determined to adequately
and accurately discuss the environmental issues and impacts of the
F-2
proposed project. It provides sufficient evidence and analysis for
determining that an Environmental Impact Statement is not required. The
FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the
attached Environmental Assessment.
3. Project Status and Cost
The 1991-1997 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) calls
for right of way acquisition to begin in Fiscal Year 1991 and construction
to begin in Fiscal Year 1992. The total estimated cost for the project is
$21,645,000 including $16,900,000 for construction, and $4,745,000 for
right of way).
4. Description of Action
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen
NC 24 to provide additional travel lanes. The project begins at the
Kenansville eastern corporate limits and ends at the Beulaville western
corporate limits. The.proJect i:s 10.,01 miles im-:length:.'
The recommended improvements will provide a 4-lane, median-divided
highway. The only exceptions to this will be at the project terminals at
Kenansville and Beulaville. The widening ; s to= uti142e -the` existing
alignment and pavement to the extent poss.ibile'to minimi the potential
environmental impacts resulting from this action. This is to be achieved
by constructing a 60-foot median, and 28-foot pavement (to accommodate two
12-foot lanes, plus 2-foot paved shoulders) parallel, and adjacent to the
existing pavement. The existing 22-foot pavement is to be widened to 28
feet, and its outside shoulder, and side slopes are to be rehabilitated to
current standards where needed. A five-lane, 64-foot face-to-face, curb
and gutter section is proposed for 1350 feet at the beginning of the
project. This five-lane section will transition down to three lanes in
order to tie into the existing three-lane section at the Kenansville city
limits. The proposed median and pavement are to be located on the south
side of existing NC 24 from 0.2 miles east of the Kenansville city limits
to SR 1701. From SR 1701 to approximately 1600 feet east of SR 1726 the
proposed construction of the median and pavement will transition to the
north side of NC 24. From approximately 1600 feet east of SR 1726 to SR
1962 a symmetrically widened, five-lane shoulder section consisting of 64
feet of pavement with two- foot paved shoulders is proposed. The last
segment of the project from SR 1962 to the east terminal of the project at
Beulaville, is to be widened symmetrically to a 64-foot, face-to-face,
curb and gutter section to tie-in to the existing 64-foot section through
Beulaville.
5. Circulation of the Environmental Assessment
The approved Environmental Assessment was circulated to the following
federal, state, and local agencies:
*U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
*U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources -
Division of Land Resources
F-3
*U. S. Department of the Army - Wilmington District Corps
of Engineers
*N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
*N. C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
N. C. Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
Neuse River Council of Governments
Duplin County Commissioners
Mayor of Kenansville
Mayor of Warsaw
Mayor of Beulaville
Written comments were received from the agencies denoted with an
asterisk. The Environmental Assessment was also made available to the
public.
6. Comments Received on the Environmental Assessment
Written comments on the Environmental Assessment were received from
several agencies. Copies of the letters received are included in the
Appendix (see pages FA-1 through FA-11). After the comments regarding the
Environmental Assessment were received, additional biological and
ecological studies were performed in order to address those comments. The
following is a summary of the comments which required responses:
(a) U. S. Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
"...The document describes adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
habitats and acknowledges wetland loss and alteration of
approximately 43.2 acres resulting from actual road construction, but
fails to present details on the location of potential borrow pits and
the resulting potential adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources at those sites. Specific actions should be taken to avoid
impacts to stream water quality from ditch and borrow pit drainage."
Response - The location of potential borrow pits cannot be detailed
at this time. The location of borrow pits is subject to the
proximity of the fill areas, results of soil tests, and cooperation
of property owners. Sedimentation from borrow pits, if not
controlled, could result in increased turbitity, dissolved solids and
nutrients, and a temporary reduction in the density of benthic
organisms in area streams. However, siltation of stream water in the
vicinity of the project from ditch and borrow pit drainage shall be
minimized through the use of silt fence, silt basins, and rock silt
check dams. Borrow pits and waste areas shall be seeded, mulched,
1 and sloped to effectively control siltation.
"...Additionally, the document does not: 1) accurately identify
all stream and wetland crossings and the wetland acreage that will be
impacted at each crossing; and 2) describe the value of specific
valuable wildlife upland habitats that may be adversely impacted and
the acreage of each."
Response - A description of all stream and wetland crossings and the
wetland acreage that will be impacted at each crossing is given in
F-4
Table 1, while the location of each wetland crossing is given in
Figures F-4 through F-10. Approximate acreages of potential impacts
according to vegetative cover type is given in Table 2.
"...Additionally, because the document did not outline a specific
mitigation plan that addresses unavoidable project-related wetland
loss and alteration, we recommend that any further environmental
document on this project detail the mitigation measures that will be
employed to reduce and minimize any adverse environmental effects to
fish and wildlife resources.
Response - This comment is addressed in Section 6(b) and Section 9 of
this report.
"...Based on the information presented in the document, it does not
appear that adequate surveys were conducted to determine the presence
or absence within the project impact area of the red-cockaded
woodpecker. If the proposed project will be removing pine trees 30
years or older in pine or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be
conducted for active red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees within a
112 mile radius of project boundaries."
Response - Field surveys for the federally-endangered red-cockaded
woodpecker were conducted by trained field biologists from August 14
through August 18, 1990. Methodologies advocated by Henry (1989) in
"Guidelines for Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations
for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker" were employed in these
investigations. Wooded sites within the project area consist
primarily of bottomland hardwood and upland hardwood forests. No
strands of mature pines or pine-hardwood forest suitable for
red-cockaded woodpecker colony sites or foraging habitat exist within
the project area.
"...Based on the information presented in the document, it does not
appear that adequate surveys were conducted for the three candidate
species: riverbank sand grass; Lewis' heartleaf; and wireleaf
dropseed."
Response - A field survey was performed to determine if any of the
three status review plant species are located in the project area.
The survey was performed by professional environmental scientists
trained in botany, dendrology, and plant identification. During four
days of field effort, no specimens of any of the species in question
were discovered in the project area.
"...A map should be developed that delineates habitat cover types
within the project impact area and indicates the areas to be impacted
a by the project."
Response - This comment is addressed in Section 8(c) of this report.
"...The revised assessment should include such information as: the
length of the specific stream(s) to be channelized; measures taken to
minimize the amount of channelization required."
F-5
Response - No major stream rechannelization is anticipated. If major
rechannel ization of larger streams is required, it will be
coordinated with appropriate natural resource agencies in compliance
with the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as
amended; 16 USC et seq.).
"...We have no objection to the issuance of a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) document, provided the FONSI includes: ..
2) a commitment to avoid construction in and adjacent to wetlands and
streams during the period from March 1 to September 1"
Response - Division of Highways personnel coordinated with the Fish
and Wildlife Service on the subject of restricting construction
activities in and adjacent to wetlands during times of anadromous
fish migration. It was agreed with the Fish and Wildlife Service on
September 4, 1991 construction will be avoided in and adjacent to
wetlands during the period from March 1 to June 15.
(b) U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
"...In order to assess the significance of the impacts of the
project, the discussion on wetlands in the project area needs to be
improved. First, the method that was used to determine the presence
of wetlands has not been revealed in the document. Current wetland
delineation procedures must follow those outlined in 'The Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands'. A description
of each wetland area that may be impacted should be provided. This
description should include the total acreage of each potentially
impacted wetland area and the type and vegetation of the wetland."
Response - The Routine-onsite method of wetlands determination was
used to assess these areas. This method, as described in the Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands
(January, 1989), was selected because of the nature of the project (a
linear highway corridor), and the fact that the majority of the
wetlands were anticipated to be less than five acres in size. The
description of each wetland area expected to be impacted by this
project is addressed in Section 8(c) of this document.
"...To allow an accurate assessment of the significance of the
environmental impact of the project, the EA should contain specific
mitigation proposals for each potentially affected wetland area."
Response - Wetland mitigation measures are included in Section 9 of
this report. Mitigation for potential impacts to wetlands will also
1 be addressed in a detailed mitigation plan which will be submitted to
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, along with the Section 404 Permit
Application.
"...The section on water quality impacts should be expanded to
include information about area surface streams and groundwater that
could be impacted by runoff from the project. The types and
concentrations of pollutants that may enter the surface water from
F-6
highway runoff should be discussed. Potential impacts of these
pollutants upon the aquatic resource should also be discussed. The
possibility of the runoff entering groundwater and contaminating area
wells should also be examined. Methods that will be used to control
the pollutants from non-point source highway runoff should also be
included in the discussion."
Response - The three waterways located in the project area (Northeast
Cape Fear River, Limestone Creek, and Tea Swamp) are classified by
the NRCD-DEM water quality classifications as waters of lower quality
(Class C, Sw). Class C waters are suitable for fish and wildlife
propagation, secondary recreation, and other uses requiring waters of
low quality. "Sw" indicates designated swamp waters with slightly
different dissolved oxygen and pH standards. Potental-impacts on
the;, waterways fn the vicinity of the proposed project are: (1) the.2
runoff of highway pollutants into the waterways and (2) the potentiav
of hazardous materials reaching the waterways from. accidental highway,
spills. Run-off 'pollutants could include oil; gasoline, and deciding,
agents These impacts Will be minimized through the'filtering-o-P
roadway drainage pollutants by grassed shoulders, ditches, and slopes
and other vegetated areas. No major water degradation impacts 8re
expected, to result from the project.
Duplin County, in conjunction with the North Carolina Department
of Crime Control and Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management,
has established an emergency response plan to contain and clean up
hazardous material spills. That plan will further minimize potential
contamination of the project area as a result of hazardous material
spills.
(c) North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
resources - Division of Land Resources
"...We have reviewed the above referenced project and find that
16 geodetic survey markers will be impacted. The N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted ... prior to construction."
Response - The N. C. Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to
construction regarding the relocation of the survey markers along the
project.
(d) Department of the Army - Wilmington Corps of Engineers
"...The Environmental Assessment should state that the hydraulic
effects of stream crossings and flood plain encroachments will be
evaluated and designed so as not to cause a significant increase in
flood heights or flood hazards."
Response - The subject project, as proposed, will not have a
significant effect, as defined by 23 CFR 650.101(q), upon the project
area floodplains. The 100-year floodplain limits for the project
area are shown in Figures F-12 through F-15.
F-7
The project was evaluated to determine potential impacts to
floodplains. These potential impacts include displacement of
floodplains due to filling, water quality degradation, reduction in
flood storage capacity, and effects on floral and jaunal communities.
Given the proximity of existing floodplains to the project, it is not
anticipated the proposed project will not adverse effects on natural
and beneficial floodplain values. The project should not increase
the risk of flood loss. Also, no increase in flood related risks to
human safety, health, or welfare should occur as a result of this
project. Stream crossings will be designed so as not to cause a
significant increase in flood heights.
(e)
N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
"...We would like for the crossing of the Northeast Cape Fear
River to be adjusted to the opposite side than that shown in the EA.
There was previously a crossing of the river on this side and we
believe it would be much less costly from a wildlife standpoint to
use a former road alignment than to create a new one."
Response - Widening on the south side of the Northeast Cape Fear
River, as shown in the EA, would reduce impacts to existing
development resulting in two fewer relocatees. Also, the curve
located just east of the river provides the best opportunity to
transition to north side widening in order to minimize impacts to the
East Duplin Memorial Gardens and other existing development. Only a
small portion of the old roadbed would be able to be utilized because
of its alignment resulting in an insignificant amount of wetland
savings.
"...There is a loss of 43.2 acres of wetlands associated with
this widening. We recommend preparation of a detailed mitigation
package outlining specific plans for wetlands lost. We are
especially concerned over the loss of a large amount of botttomland
hardwoods."
Response - This comment is addressed in Section 6(b) of this
document.
(f) Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
"...Also, before this project proceeds into final stages, this
department would like to know how DOT intends to mitigate this
wetland loss."
Response - This comment is addressed in Section 6(b) of this report.
7. Comments Made Durinq and Followinq the Public Hearin
Following the circulation of the Environmental Assessment, a corridor
public hearing on the project was held on August 22, 1991 at East Duplin
High School near Beulaville. A copy of the press release for the hearing
is included in the Appendix (see page FA-12). Approximately 75 citizens
attended the hearing, and several made comments for the record.
F-8
The following is a summary of questions asked at the hearing:
(a) What is the purpose of a 60-foot median?
Response - The main reason a 60-foot median is recommended for this
project is to allow for adequate drainage that will reduce costly
maintenance measures in the future. Also, a facility with a 60-foot
median would require flatter slopes and create greater distances
between opposing vehicles resulting in a safer facility.
(b) How long do relocatees have to vacate their homes after a
settlement has been reached?
a
Response - After a settlement has been reached property owners will
have at least 90 days to vacate their homes.
(c) Will there be fences along the new highway?
Response - Access will not be controlled along the new highway;
therefore, fences will not be erected.
(d) Which end of the project will construction start and how long
will it last?
Response - Construction will begin at the west end of the project and
last approximately 2 years.
(e) How many contracts will be awarded for this project?
Response - This project will be constructed under at least two
contracts.
(f) Will homes be accessible during construction?
Response - Access to homes will be open during construction.
(g) Will any work be done on the side opposite of the proposed
widening?
Response - Right of way will not change on the side opposite of the
proposed widening, but there will be some work such as shoulder and
ditch construction.
(h) What is the possible minimum distance between median crossovers?
Response - Spacing median crossovers less than 1500' apart is not
generally desirable.
8) Revisions to the Environmental Assessment
(a) Cross Sections
In order to reduce the amount of wetlands impacted by this
project, a five-lane shoulder section with 64 feet of pavement
F-9
including 2-foot paved shoulders is proposed from the start of the
64-foot curb and gutter section to approximately 0.5 miles east of
that point (see Figure F-1 for Typical Section and Figure F-2 for
location). A four-lane median facility was proposed for this section
in the Environmental Assessment. This cross section revision will
result in the saving of approximately 3.9 acres of wetlands.
In the Environmental Assessment it was stated that the
recommended cross section of the four-lane, divided facility would
• consist of a 56-foot median, and 28-foot pavement (to accommodate two
12-foot lanes, plus 2-foot paved shoulders). In order to provide
better drainage, the Division of Highways recommends constructing a
60-foot median. The 60-foot median is proposed in order to achieve
the minimum recommended 18" below subgrade needed to adequately drain
the subgrade. This revised cross section should help reduce future
maintenance costs due to poor drainage of the roadway subgrade.
(b) Extension of Project Limits
The proposed project limits have been extended 1350 feet
westward towards Kenansville. In the Environmental Assessment it was
stated the proposed improvements would begin 0.2 miles east of the
Kenansville city limits. Current recommendations would provide a
five-lane, 64-foot face-to-face, curb and gutter section
transitioning down to a three lane section in order to tie into the
existing three-lane, curb and gutter section at the Kenansville city
limits. This 1350-foot, three- to five-lane section would not
require any additional right of way and should have no impact on the
quality of the environment or existing development. The extended
section is shown in Figure F-3.
(c) Wetlands
Additional environmental studies performed after the
Environmental Assessment was written revealed approximately -43-136
acres 'of wetlands will''be impacted by this project, This approxi akate
wetland acreage inc3udes<the 3.9 acres of wetlands which are to
.saved as a result of the use of a five-lane "section near Beulavil e
instead of the four-lane divided section as discussed in part 8(a) of
this document. The amount of impacted wetlands stated in this
document is based on the right of way limits of the project. Only
those wetlands located within the construction limits will be
affected by the project; therefore, the impacted wetland acreage
stated above should be reduced when more detailed design information
is known. Adescription of each potentially., impacted wetland area vs
given in Jabl,e 1. A map delineating the specific.wetl,and'areas that
will be impacted i given in Figures `F- 4 thru F-1R
(d)
Revised Traffic Volumes
Since the Environmental Assessment was written, additional
traffic volume studies have been performed. The revised traffic
counts for this project are given in Figure F-11.
F-10
Site Number
1 - Tea
' Swamp
2
3
4
5
6
7 - NE Cape
Fear River
8
9
10
11
12 - Limestone
Creek
Table 1
Wetland Impacts
Bottomland Hardwood
Acres
1.97
0.91
1.21
2.12
9.70
4.55
11.36
1.36
2.58
2.12
3.48
2.00
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Clear Cuts
X-partial
X-partial
X-partial
Total Acreage 43.36
Of Wetlands
*These sites are shown in Figures F-4 thru F-10 of this document
(e) Cover Types of Impacted Land
Additional environmental studies were performed after the
Environmental Assessment was written. Approximate acreages of
potential impacts according to vegetative cover type are listed in
Table 2.
F-11
Table 2
Approximate Acreages of Potential Impacts
According to Vegetative Cover Type
Cover Type Acres
Agricultural Land 45.91
Forested Land 54.24
Urban/Suburban 18.94
Disturbed Habitats/Scrub-shrub 5.91
Open Water 3.03
128.30
(f) Relocatees
The proposed improvements will displace thirty residences and
seven businesses. All relocations will be in accordance with the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Acts. An
updated relocation report is given on page FA-13 of the Appendix.
Nine of the residential displaces are living in mobile homes which
can easily be moved to remaining land or residential home sites. At
the present time there is a shortage of available residential housing
in the project area. However on rural projects past history
indicates that many displacees retain their dwellings and move them
on remaining land or construct new homes. Residential homesites are
plentiful in the area. It is felt that decent safe and sanitary
housing will be available to the displacees and if necessary last
resort housing will be implemented.
(9)
Estimated Cost
Updated project costs are as follows:
Construction: $ 16,900,000
Right of Way: $ 4,745,000
Total: $ 21,645,000
(9) Only Practicable Alternative To Wetland Findings
Executive Order 11990 established a national policy to avoid, to the
extent possible, adverse impacts on wetlands and to avoid direct or
indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a
practicable alternative.
The project will impact approximately 43.36 acres of wetlands (see
page F-10). Impacts on wetlands will be minimized by the use of "best
management practices" throughout the project during construction. An
effective erosion and sedimentation control program will be required of
the contractor. Mitigation of potential impacts on wetlands will include:
F-12
1) The implementation of best management practices (33 CFR 330.6)
will minimize adverse effects of construction activities.
2) The Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan established by NCDOT
and in cooperation with NCDNRCD will be implemented.
3) Degrad'ed' wetland systems that occur within the project l irrts
will 'be enhance(f. If such systems do not exist within the
project limits, a search will be conducted adjacent to the
project area to find degraded wetland systems that can be
restore'a. Ditched and recently clear cut hardwood bottomland
and pocosin that are located within the project area will be
restored. Also, areas of hydric soils presently under
cultivation will be prime candidates for restoration. As with
any restoration efforts off NCDOT Right of Way, specific plans
will depend on negotiations with owners of these areas.
Mitigation measures will result i;n' at Teast a' one-to-li ratio
of restored or created wetland areas to wetland losses due to
this project.
4) In the event mitigation measures mentioned above do not
completely offset the loss of wetlands due to this project,
acreage of. bottomland hardwood losses will be debited from the
MOOT, Company Swamp Bank in order to obtain at least a
one-to-one ratio.
It is determined that there is no practicable alternative to the
proposed new construction in wetlands and that the proposed action
includes all practical measures to minimize harm to wetlands which may
result from such use.
(10) Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact
Based upon environmental studies and comments received from federal,
state, and local agencies, it has been concluded that the proposed action
will have no significant adverse affect upon the quality of the
environment. The following are the bases for this conclusion:
a) The project is not controversial on environmental grounds.
b) No adverse impacts on natural, ecological, cultural, or scenic
resources of national, state or local significance are expected.
c) No Section 4(f) or Section 106 properties are involved.
d) Relocation of the 30 residences will cause a housing shortage.
However, land for residential homesites is plentiful in the
area. Displacees may build, relocate in mobile homes or retain
and move. Tenants may become owners. Also, last resort housing
will be considered.
F-13
e) No detrimental impact on air or water quality or on ambient
noise levels of adjoining areas is expected.
f) The project is consistent with local plans and will not divide
or disrupt a community.
y In view of the above, it has been determined that a Finding of No
Significant Impact is applicable to this project.
SEM/plr

?
"
?? ^^
H

V ?D
W O
v, x
U)
J
Q w
? z
Q

F- Ln
s:
0
0
r 0
N
K ?
4
? O
? N
e'
0
10 b
F
? •' .N
4 j
y
a? 2
b F
9 T ?
Nt T W
` O
Q
t7
O
U
O
Z
Z
o p
W
Cf)
n
= J
a
g- I s
W }
o ?
o

a
10
N
7
O
•C
• o
0
M
O _? N
N Q
LL.
w
o:
C7
LL.
UUPLIN COUNTY
R-2211 B
,- d
0 feet 600 '
9191 1 1 1 FIG F2 ?"
.?

?'?"
i
=?
4

? =?
.,
"
?
,? ?
?
,A:?
. s ..?_;
Y?

4
?Y0
BEGIN NC 2 4
PROJECT
d G{i i O
s,Q
r
TEA 9S9
SWAMP
LEGEND
WETLAND MAP
r
O? WETLAND AREA
Q?D ? Yri•:ti:• hi:i'.?
WETLAND AREAS rtuuKt r-q
4 CD
N
tAC 24
3
2 \
N
LEGEND
WETLAND MAP
O WETLAND AREA ((rr'`•'>'''•'?'•
ono
WETLAND AREAS FIGURE F-5

q
h
M
h
t

M

•:!.•'r

4C 2-4 6

:::•,;•

NCDOT WILDFLOWER
RESEARCH AREA
4
• N
LEGEND

WETLAND MAP
,

v• WETLAND AREA ''?•T?+?'?'4+"`•
rT:{++
WETLAND AREAS FIGURE F-6

2
O
a M S
m
co
n
9?0
T
NC 24
?i
N
LEGEND
WETLAND MAP
+y+•'{+
WETLAND AREA
WETLAND AREAS FIGURE F-7
O
p
d
o
a
ti
oc v
°
`? b n g.
a NC 24 n
N
LEGEND
WETLAND MAP
WETLAND AREA pp??fiyti "•:'#
NS.tiCw.ua:r
WETLAND AREAS FIGURE F-8

1
°
°i
•o ?
d
O N N
O t?
Q f? 4 r
II a NC 24 ° Ito p
? O
G
N
LEGEND
WETLAND MAP
WETLAND AREA
WETLAND AREAS FIGURE F-9

V
2
O
co
v
END
PROJECT
d oQ
12.
NC 24 ci
.g.W ?• -- Q o n
o .
,A o ° d
O N
N
O
LEGEND
WETLAND MAP
WETLAND AREA,,,{ ?"•
78G6:C:v:•L:.•.
WETLAND AREAS rlUUML r-lv
r . A. I Ir
N
N J
Q J
d H

aO Y
Z
?
~ 41
TTST= 2%
n
. 68
TO DOWNTOWN DUAL= 3 %
=3 `ENANSVILLE DHV =10%

40 14 15
79 21 25

N 16
m 23
39 48
98
a
CL

co
w 0 TTST = 7 %
J 85 I DUAL = 8 %
?
H DHV =10%
>
V' NC- 24

z o
a
z
w
x
5
11
A
2
2
3 3
1- 1
12
Q
2
8
SR- 1702 TTST = I%
DUAL = 2 %
DHV =10%

5
11
1 2 44
2 3 90
A
2
46 1- 1- 46
95 T T 9
3 1
5 2
TTST= I %
4 DUAL= 2 %
7 DHV =10%
SR-1959
SR-1126
4 TTST = I %
7 DUAL=2%
DHV =10%
1 I 4' 1
2 2 8 2
TTST =12
TTST= I°/
2 DUAL =2 0 7 DUAL = 2°o
a DHV =10% 16 DHV =10%
SR-1737 SR-1701
41 m 77
1
2 3 47
5 94 49 1
97 2 1
2 26
R 22
T4 74
Ida
1
2 3 79
5 153 9
, IT
Yee 25
19-
4 8
IT 52
00
SR-1962 TTST = I % $R 1724
DUAL =2 /o NC-41 TTST = 2 %
DUAL = 3%
DHV =10% DHV =10%
R-2211 B
EST. 1991/2011 IN HUNDREDS
NC 24 FROM KENANSVILLE TO BEULAVILLE
A
FIGURE F-11
.w
FIGURE F-12
1101

at
11-01
kl_19It
.;..•::•. SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS
`•••?''?:'' INUNDATED BY 100-YEAR FLOOD
ZONE A NO BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS DETERMINED
11111111181 PROJECT R2211-1
APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
2000 0 2000
FLOOISPLAIN MAP
SOURCE:
NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
PROGRAM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
COMMUNITY PANEL NUMBER
370083 §115 1
EFFECTIVE DATE: JULY 4. 1969
FIGURE F-13
FIGURE F-14
FIGURE F-15

United States Department of the Interior wm=ar
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726 ??a!
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
. M
April
90

Mr. L. J. Ward, Manager
'
Planning and Research Branch ???
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
r
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201-
Subject: Environmental Assessment for NC 24 from Kenansville to
Beulaville, Duplin County, Federal-Aid Project FR-8-3(16),
State project 8.1240801, T.I.P. #R -2211B
Dear Mr. Ward:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the subject
document and we offer the following comments for your consideration.
This report is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 State. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. et
seq.) and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
General Comments
The Service believes that, in general, the document adequately
describes the majority of the fish and wildlife resources within the
project area. However, the document fails to adequately support its
finding that the federally listed endangered red-cockaded woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) does not occur within the proposed project
impact area.
The document describes adverse impacts to fish and wildlife habitats
and acknowledges wetland loss and alteration of approximately 43.2
acres resulting from actual road construction, but it fails to present
details on the location of potential borrow pits and the resulting
potential adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources at those
sites. Additionally, the document does not: 1) accurately identify
all stream and wetland crossings and the wetland acreage that will be
impacted by each crossing; and 2) describe the various habitats, by
cover type, that may be adversely impacted and the acreage of each.
Because the document did not outline a specific mitigation plan that
addresses unavoidable project-related wetland loss and alteration, we
recommend that any further environmental document on this project
detail the mitigation measures that will be employed to reduce and
minimize any adverse environmental effects to fish and wildlife
resources. If the mitigation plan includes a proposal to debit
credits from the NCDOT Company Swamp Mitigation Bank for bottomland
hardwood losses, the plan should include documentation that: (1)
project impacts to wetlands are unavoidable; (2) on-site mitigation is
FA-1
unavailable; and (3) mitigation use of the bank will be in compliance
with the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding.
Specific Comments
Threatened and Endangered Species: page 14: Based on the
information presented in the document, it does not appear that
adequate surveys were conducted to determine the presence or absence
within the project impact area of the red-cockaded woodpecker. If the
proposed project will be removing pine trees 30 years or older in pine
or pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active
red-cockaded woodpecker cavity trees within a 1/2 mile radius of
project boundaries. If red-cockaded woodpeckers are observed within
the project area or if active cavity trees are found, the project has
the potential to adversely affect the red-cockaded woodpecker, and you
should contact this office for further information.
In addition, based on the information presented in the document, it
does not appear that adequate surveys were conducted for the three
candidate species: riverbank sand grass; Lewis' heartleaf; and
wireleaf dropseed. Lewis's hea rtlea f is known to occur within the
area of the project in pine-oak woods adjacent to NC 24.
Wetlands; page 14: A map should be developed that delineates
habitat cover types within the project impact area and indicates the
areas to be impacted by the project.
Mitigation of Potential Impacts; page 16: If project designs
include the need to channelize, all appropriate environmental review
agencies should be notified and a revised environmental assessment
developed to address the channelization. The revised assessment
should include such information as: the length of the specific
stream(s) to be channelized; measures taken to minimize the amount of
channelization required; measures that will be taken to minimize loss
of aquatic fish and wildlife habitat; specific erosion control
measures that will be taken to maintain or enhance water quality
within the stream; and measures proposed to mitigate the expected
adverse impacts to the ecology of the stream.
9_._ Construction Impacts; page 27: Specific actions should be taken
to avoid impacts to stream water quality from ditch and borrow pit
drainage.
Summary Comments
The Service finds that the document adequately describes the fish and
wildlife resources present within the project area and the general
adverse impacts to these resources that will result from the
construction of the proposed project. However, the Service finds the
Environmental Assessment inadequate in its assessment of impacts to
specific habitat areas and federally listed species and candidate
species.
FA-2
We have no objection to the issuance of a Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) document, provided the FONSI includes: 1) the results
of surveys indicating that the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker is
not likely to be adversely impacted by the project; 2) a commitment to
avoid construction in and adjacent to wetlands and streams during the
period from March 1 to September 1; and 3) a plan to mitigate
unavoidable project-related wetland losses and adverse alterations.
Such a plan should include a map delineating the specific wetland
areas and acreages that will be impacted. If the mitigation plan
includes a proposal to debit from the NCDOT Company Swamp Mitigation
Bank for bottomland hardwood losses, the plan should include
documentation that project impacts are unavoidable and that on-site
mitigation is unavailable. Inclusions of the above measures in any
Department of the Army permit application for this project will
expedite the Service's review of the application.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments and
encourages your consideration of them.
Sincerely yours, /
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
FA-3
Ja`[ED St,?TFS
o ?
s_
1114` PR01E0`
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET. N.E.
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365
Apra 2 G 1990
4PM-FAB/DM

'APR
Mr. L . J . Ward, Manager QI v7;;,`
Planning and Research '?Q,` :?llq??,'? `' ' ?''
North Carolina Department of Transportation Axc ?,T;
P.O. Box 25201,1 ,w
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Subject: Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Improvement of
NC 24 four Kenansville to Beaulaville; Duplin Co., NC;
TIP # R-2211B; Federal Aid Project FR-8-3(16)
EPA Log No.: 9000031
Dear Mr. Ward:
We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the above
referenced project. Based on our review we have the following
comments and questions that should be addressed before the
determination of the significance of the impacts of the project is
made.
A major concern with this project involves the proposed destruction
of 43.2 acres of area wetlands. The loss of forested wetlands in the
Southeast is a major concern to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). Additionally, Pocosin wetlands are ecosystems of
worldwide importance that, due to destruction by anthropogenic
activities, have been identified as a threatened resource. The
destruction of these areas, as well as other wetlands, must be
avoided. In order to assess the significance of the impacts of the
project, the discussion on wetlands in the project area needs to be
improved. First, the method that was used to determine the presence
of wetlands has not been revealed in the document. Current wetland
delineation procedures must follow those outlined in "The Federal
Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands". A
description of each wetland area that may be impacted should be
provided. This description should include the total acreage of each
potentially impacted wetland area and the type and vegetation of the
wetland. To allow a comparison between the impacts of the
alternatives, this information should be provided for each
alternative route. If wetland areas are found to be unavoidable then
mitigation of the damage will be required. Mitigation may be
acceptable only after it is conclusively demonstrated that the
selected design represents the least environmentally damaging
alternative possible. This documentation is not presented in the
EA. To allow an accurate assessment of the significance of the
environmental impact of the project, the EA should contain specific
mitigation proposals for each
J r'
vv
x
FA-4 Printed on Recycled Paper
-2-
potentially affected wetland area. EPA encourages the use of
bridging where possible to minimize adverse wetland impacts. In the
event that mitigation is required, EPA policy is that wetlands be
replaced with in kind wetland types and that no net loss occurs as a
result of construction projects. Since the project will likely
require Section 404 permits, we suggest close coordination with our
wetlands staff to ensure that environmentally acceptable highway
alignments or acceptable mitigation alternatives that offset
unavoidable adverse impacts exist for the project. If you need
further information or have questions regarding EPA wetland policy,
Mr. Lee Pelej of EPA's Wetlands Regulatory Unit should be contacted
at [phone].
The section on water quality impacts should be expanded to include
information about area surface streams and groundwater that could be
impacted by runoff from the project. The types and concentrations of
pollutants that may enter the surface water from highway runoff
should be discussed. Potential impacts of these pollutants upon the
aquatic resource should also be discussed. The possibility of the
runoff entering groundwater and contaminating area wells should also
be examined. Methods that will be used to control the pollutants
from non-point source highway runoff should also be included in the
discussion.
The air analysis is generally satisfactory. However, a new revised
computer model, Mobile 4, is available for use and should be used in
the air analyses.
Since overall environmental impacts associated with improvement of
the existing roadway corridor can be much less environmentally
harmful than constructing a new corridor, we encourage you to
continue to give serious consideration to utilizing the current
roadway alignment. In utilization of the current roadway, we
encourage you to select the alignments which, on balance, have the
least adverse environmental impacts.
We appreciate the opportunity to review this document and provide
comments to you in the NEPA review process. Please keep us advised
of activities related to this project. If you have any questions
regarding our comments, please contact me or David Melgaard of my
staff at [phone] or (FTS) 257-3776.
Sincerely,
%,;? 9,%JV
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
Environmental Policy Section
Federal Activities Branch
FA-5

"-111 lr-. L I Ur'.rlr. I

1'J,:• Fub
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
,James G, Martin, Governor Stephen G. Conrad
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director

MEMORANDUM
Date,: April 12, 1990
To : Melba McGee
FrQui: Pal1%ijy cottelt\.
Thr_ i : Gar'y Thompson,
S i-bje.c:t: Diupliii Couiit:y, NC.- ,24 from Kc--:oliuvlile to
Beulaiivilic_, 3'-'-ate Prc,jeCt 7•t05•7! 7'Ia
R-2211B, Fed.el:bl-Aid Project FR-8- 116)
we have revi_,wt=d t ie clbi?ve ref:7'e: +-t7.-t 11ect R?iCt -41? 3.sl0,
that -16 ci, c?odetic siil: Vey rnaZ keys will ;bi-e imp•?.cted.
The. 1!.C. yur e;y s!iould cor,'_acted at P.n.
Ei(„ ?7:327, REL-Ie _h, N.C. 2-7612, (919) prior tc)
".0:1 t•] 6i;_.i.li)l?. Zll?__.4i<j:iiC'?1 dim ;tlvo.- .ion .1j _i2C:.?if_•,ri:
moilumen'..• is a v_o - at ::}i_ N. C. Genei'a.i St a""iite 102-4.
GWT /rajs•
cc. 7: Joe Creech, N( DOT
P.O. Box 27657, Raleigh, north $alitt 276.,11-7687 Telephone 9;9-733.383:
An Equal OPP)rwnigy Affirmative Action Employer
IN REPLY REFER TO
Planning Division
April 23, 1990
Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E. , Manager
Planning and Research Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:

9
?a

4P

ti
\A11
A
We have reviewed the "Environmental Assessment for Federal
Aid Project: NC 24 from Kenansville to Beulaville, Duplin
County, Federal-Aid Project FR-8-3(16), State Project 8.1240801,
T.I.P. #R-2211B" and offer the following comments.
The Environmental Assessment should state that the hydraulic
effects of stream crossings and flood plain encroachments will be
evaluated and designed so as not to cause a significant increase
in flood heights or flood hazards.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project and
ask that you send us a copy of the Finding of No Significant
Impact when it becomes available. If we can be of further
assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
Sincerely,
fL
awrenee W. Saunders
Chief, Planning Division
FA-7
1-1.l r- VI"
North. Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, l?ahi?h, North C:arolimi 27611, 919-733.339I
Charles R. Fullwo d, Executive Director
April 25, 1990
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Environmental. Assessment Section
Department of DEH&NR
FROM: Richard B. Hamilton } J_
Assistant Director
SUBJECT: Request for information from the N.C. Department
of Transportation concerning the widening of
NC 24 between Kenansville and Beaulaville,
Duplin County, North Carolina.
The Wildlife Resources Commission has reviewed the
subject document and professional biologists from our staff
are familiar with habitat values of the project area. An
onsite investigation was conducted on April 22, 1990 for the
purpose of further assessing construction impacts on
wildlife and fisheries resources. Our comments are provided
in accordance with certain provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the North Carolina Environmental Policy
Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as amended; 1 NCAC 25), and the
Coastal Area Management Act (G.S. 113A-100 through 113A-
128).
This correspondence responds to a request from NC
Department of Transportation for our concerns regarding
widening of NC 24 between Kenansville and Beaulaville.
We have read the document Environmental Assessment and are
relatively satisfied that most of our concerns for fish and
wildlife resources were addressed. However, there are
several areas which we feel need clarification. They are as
follows:
FA-8
=1 W, favi. L.iOrnr,1
193 POS
Memo Page 2 April 25, 1990
1. We would like for the crossing of the Northeast
Gape Fear River to be adjusted to the opposite side than
that shown in the EA. There was previously a crossing of
the river on this side and we believe it would be much less
costly from a wildlife standpoint to use a former road
alignment than to create a new one.
2. There is a loss of 43.2 acres of wetlands
associated with this widening. We recommend preparation of
" a detailed mitigation package outlining specific plans for
wetlands lost. We are especially concerned over the loss of
a large amount of bottomland hardwoods.
w
Thank you for the opportunity to review the
environmental assessment for this project. If we can be of
further assistance, please call on us.
RAH/lp
cc: The Honorable R.G. Sowers, III
Bobby Maddrey, District Wildlife Biologist
FA-9
111'11 LJ?? JJ 1??•GI LLI 11 `II'ti L1LJ1 ?I"II?1
SuT(
avw + f
i ?.:? rum
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

James G. Martin, Governor Douglas G. Lewis
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Planning and Assessment
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chrys Baggett
State Clearinghouse
FROM., Melba McGee
Project Review Coordinator
RE: 90-0749 - Widening of NC 24 between
Kenansville and Beaulaville
DATE: April 27, 1990
The Department of Environment, Health, & Natural Resources
has reviewed the Department of Transportation's (DOT)
Environmental Assessment (EA) concerning the widening of N.C. 24
between Kenansville and Beaulaville.
This department's primary concern is that DOT has chosen the
alternative that will impact approximately 43.2 acres of
wetlands. On page 12 of the EA , DOT has stated that "impacts to
wetland areas will be avoided or minimized when possible (i.e.
alternative selection, alignment readjustment.)" Since it is
evident that this project will affect wetlands, this department
agrees with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission that
every effort should be made to use as much of the existing road
alignments, as possible. Also, before this project proceeds into
final stages, this department would like to know how DOT intends
to mitigate this wetland loss.
As stated before, fully addressing matters, such as wetland
loss and detail mitigation measures, early on, would not only
improve the environmental review but would give greater assurance
that impacts would be avoided or minimized.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond. We recommend that
DOT consult with our divisions throughout the planning stages and
that we be advised of the progress of this project.
MM:bb
FA-10
f'& Ri?x 276,y7, Ucip.h, North C:afc ina 276H.76S7 Telephone [phone]

Wilimington Regional Office
90-0749

A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit needed and Storinwater Certification is
needed.

FA-11
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
ON THE PROPOSED WIDENING OF NC 24
FROM KENANSVILLE TO BEULAVILLE
Project 8.1240801 R-2211B Duplin County
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will hold
the above public hearing on August 22, 1991 at 7:30 p.m. in the
East Duplin_ High School Cafeteria.
4 The hearing will consist of an explanation of the proposed
design, right of way requirements and procedures, relocation
advisory assistance, and state-federal relationship. The
hearing will be open to those present for statements,
questions, comments and/or submittal of material pertaining to
the proposed design. Additional material may be submitted for
a period of 15 days from the date of the hearing to: C. B.
Goode, Jr., P.E., P.O. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611.
The project will widen the existing NC 24 to a four lane
divided highway with a 60 ft. median except for an
approximately 0.9 mile section entering Beulaville which will
be five lanes with curb and gutter.
A map setting forth the location and design and a copy of
the Environmental Assessment is available for public review at
the D.O.T. Duplin County Maintenance Yard on NC 11, one mile
south of Kenansville.
Anyone desiring additional information regarding the
public hearing may contact Mr. Goode at the above address or
919/250-4092.

FA-12

R E 1._ O C A+ T 1 0 N R E P O R T North Carolina Department of Transportation
X E.I.S. _ CORRIDOR _ DESIGN RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROJECT= 8.1240601 COUNTY= DU'LIN Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. N0.= R-2211B F.A. PROJECT: FR-8-3(16)
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: NC 24 FROM KENANlSVILL.E TO BEU_AVILLE
ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
f
Type of
Di
splacee Owners Tenants Total M i nor-

ities

0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 LP
Individuals
Families 24 6 30 5 8 15 6 1
Businesses 7 0 7 0 VALLE OF DWELLING OSS DWELLINGS AVAILABLE
Farms Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 0-20M $ 0-150 0-20M $ 0-150
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 9 150-250 4 20-40M 1 150-250
YES NO EXPLAIN ALL "YES" ANSWERS 40-70M 12 250-400 2 40-70M 7 250-400 1
X 1. Will special relocation 70-100 2 400-600 70-100 2 400-600
i
b

X e necessary
serv
ces
2. Will schools or churches be
ff
d b
di
l
100 UP
1
600 UP
100 UP
1 1
600 UP
acement
ecte
y
a
sp
X 3. Will business services still
b
il
bl
ft
j
t TOTAL 24 6 11 1
er pro
ec
e ava
a
e a
4. Will any business be dis- REMARKS (Respond by Number)
X placed. If so, indicate size ALL RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEES TREATED AS FAMILIES
type, estimated number of
l
i
iti
t BUSINESS SERVICES WILL BE AVAILABLE AFTER PROJECT SIN
3
emp
oyees, m
nor
es, e
c. .
X 5. Will relocation cause a THERE ARE SIMILAR BUSINESSES UNAFFECTED BY THIS PROJEC
h
h
i
t
ous
ng s
or
age
X 6. Source for available hous- 4. CAROLYN'S VARIETY CENTER-"ANTIQUES"-SP'L-2 EMP.
i
(li
)
X ns
st
7. Will additional housing PLANT HAVEN GARDEN CENTER AND THE VILLAGE CON ECTIOP
b
d
d PLANTS AND GIFTS-SNL-2 EMP
programs
e nee
e .
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing
b
id
d GRAHAM'S BARBER SHOP-1 CHAIR-SML-1 EMP
e cons
ere .
X 9. Are there large, disabled,
ilies
ld
l
t
f CONNIE'S COUNTRY CORNER-HANDCRAFTS-SML-1 EMP; NORTH
er
y, e
c.
am
e
ANSWER THESE ALSO FOR DESIGN EAST GROCERY-SNL-3 EM'; TARTS AUTO SALES-SNL-1 EMP
.
10. Will public housing be
d f
j
t
d TRAVELING GLASS SERVICE-SNL-1 EMP
or pro
e
ec
nee .
11. Is public housing avail-
bl IS PLENTIFUL IN ARE
FOR RESIDENTIAL HOlvESITES
LAND
5
a
e ,
.
,
Z
° 12. Is it felt there will be ad-
equate DDS housing available DISPLACEES MAY BUILD, RELOCATE IN MOBILE HOMES OR RETAI
AND MOVE. TENANTS MAY BECOME OWNERS.
ti
e
iod
i
l
d
ur
on p
r
ng re
oca
13. Will there be a problem of 6. REALTORS, CLASSIFIED ADS, SECTION 8 HOUSING AND FHA.
Housing within financial
n d AS MANDATED BY STATE LAW
8
r means
14. Are suitable business sites .
.
available (list source) NOTE: 6 MISC CLAIMS, 2 ABANDONED MOBILE HOMES AND
n 15. Number months estimated to 1 CHICKEN HOUSE NOT COUNTED IN ABOVE FIGURES.
complete RELOCATION
. -- -_..- ._------- . __.
CE
T.
A.
N
Mary I_ou Susg` " )W 9/5/91 _
Relocation Agent Date Approved Date
Form 15-4 Revised 5/90 Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy: Area Relocation File
FA-13
sr-M
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
512 North Salisbury Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
James G. Martin, Governor
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary March 27, 1992
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba
Through: John
From: Eric
Subject:
McGee
Dorne
Ga 1 amb L'C
George T. Everett, Ph.D.
Director
FHWA FONSI NC 24 from Kenansville to Beulaville Road
State Project DOT No. 8.1240801, TIP #R-2211B
Duplin County
EHNR # 92-0637, DEM WQ # 4899
The subject document has been reviewed by this office. The
Division of Environmental Management is responsible for the
issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for
ctivities which may impact waters of the state including
wetlands. The following comments are offered in response to the
FONSI prepared for this project which will impact 39.5 acres of
wetlands.
1. Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification
may be required for this project. Applications
requesting coverage under our General Certification 14
will require written concurrence.
2. Please address the measures that will be taken to
attenuate the impact of stormwater runoff and spills on
surface waters (and wetlands) after project completion.
Who will maintain the special holding basins?
3. NCDOT should require that the contractor not impact
additional wetland areas due to the disposal of excavated
spoil material, as a souce of borrow material or other
construction related activities.
4. Endorsement of the FONSI by DEM does not preclude the
denial of a 401 Certification upon application if wetland
impacts have not been avoided and minimized to the
y REGIONAL OFFICES
Asheville Fayetteville Mooresville Raleigh Washington Wilmington Winston-Salem
704/251-6208 919/486-1541 704/663-1699 919/571-4700 919/946-6481 919/395-3900 919/896-7007
Pollution Prevention Pays
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer

maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding the 401 Certification should be directed
to Eric Galamb in DEM's Water Quality Planning Branch.
cc: Eric Galamb
q97?
A -.-
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
? Project located in 7th floor library
Division of Planning and Assessment
Project Review Form
Project Number: County: Date: T te Response Due (firm deadline):
1 13 vC/7 (1 'JJ -.- 9z . ?? - c am
317
This project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office/Phone Regional Office Area In-House Review
?Asheville ?All R/O Areas ?Soil and Water Marine Fisheries
? Fayetteville Air Coastal Management Water Planning

? Mooresville Water Water Resources Environmental Health

Raleigh Groundwater
Land
Quality Engineer
dfe Solid Waste Management
tFres
t Resources ? Radiation Protection
Washington Recreational Consultant nd Resources ? David Foster
? Coastal Management Consultant Parks and Recreation ? Other (specify)
Wilmington °
? Others
Environmental Management
Winston-Salem
?' `k`¢`» `
a >?
?T e-?
?x ?
`
r
i
ft
kl4,R 4 1992

Manager Sign-Off/Region: WA TER QU i. y Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
SECTION
Response (check all applicable)
Regional Office response to be compiled and completed by Regional Manager
? No objection to project as proposed
? No Comment
? Insufficient information to complete review
? Approve
? Permit(s) needed (permit files have been checked)
? Recommended for further development with recommendations for
strengthening (comments attached)
? Recommended for further development if specific & substantive
changes incorporated by funding agency (comments
attach ed/au thority(ies) cited)
In-House Reviewer complete individual response.
? Not recommended for further development for reasons
stated in attached comments (authority(ies) cited)
?Applicant has been contacted
? Applicant has not been contacted
? Project Controversial (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement needed (comments attached)
? Consistency Statement not needed
? Full EIS must be required under the provisions of
NEPA and SEPA
? Other (specify and attach comments)
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
, Division of Planning and Assessment by Due Date shown.
PS-1UI
.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
January 9, 1997
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Branch
Action ID No. 199302882, TIP R-2211A, Kenansville Bypass
Mr. Frank Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
I
Reference the October 22, 1996, meeting between Mr. Scott McLendon of my
staff and Mr. Jimmy Royal, Mr. Ken Batchelor, and Mr. Steve Elmore of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation. The purpose of this meeting was
to discuss a modification to the Department of the Army (DA) permit issued
June 12, 1995, to construct the Kenansville Bypass, Duplin County, North
Carolina.
Specifically, Mr. Batchelor has requested that the permit be modified to
reflect an additional 400 ft2 of excavation in Tea Branch (STA 326+00) to
alleviate scour at the base of the fill slope. We have reviewed your proposal
and due to the minor nature of the proposal have modified the DA permit to
reflect the following changes:
a. The excavation shall be confined to the area encompassed by points 9,
10, 11, and 12 on the enclosed drawing.
b. Excavation shall not be any deeper than the adjacent stream channel.
All other conditions of your DA permit remain in full force and effect.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Scott McLendon, Wilmington
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Terry R. Youngbluth
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
District Engineer
Enclosure:

-2-
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. Ken Batchelor, Jr., PE
Resident Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
228 North Boulevard
Clinton, North Carolina 28328-1812
Mr. John Dorney
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687