20161268_Alternatives Report_20111215 (2)

GP �
LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING
PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSED SR 1 409 (MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD) EXTENSION
AND PROPOSED US 1 7 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES
a
STATE PROJECT 401 9 1 1 2
NCDOT TIP PROJECTS U 4751 AND R 3300
CORPS ACTION 10 2007 1 386
�d
DECEMBER 1 5, 201 1 AT 1 0 00 A M
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STRUCTURES CONFERENCE ROOM, NCDOT CENTURY CENTER BUILDING A
1 000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE, RALEIGH, NC 276 1 0
Prepared By
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
6750 Tryon Road Cary NC 27518
919 851 1912

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Meeting Agenda
10 Introduction and Project Description
1 1 Purpose of Today s Meeting
12 Project Description
13 Purpose of the Proposed Action
14 Project Status
20 Detailed Study Alternatives
21 Hampstead Bypass Alternatives
21 1 Alternative E H
2 1 2 Alternative O
2 1 3 Alternative R
2 1 4 Alternative U
22 Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives
2 2 1 Alternative M1
2 2 2 Alternative M2
30 Hydraulic Recommendations
li
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
40
Corridor Public Hearings & Agency Comments on the DEIS 6
41
Public Hearings 6
42
Agenc} Comments on the DEIS 6
50
Environmental Evaluation 7
5 1
Streams Ponds and Wetlands 7
52
Historic Architectural Resources 7
53
Gamelands and Preservation Areas 8
54
Federally Protected Species 8
Appendix A — Figures
Appendix B — Reference Tables from the DEIS
Appendix C — Agency Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
a

NEPA /Section 404 Merger Meeting
Concurrence Point 3
Proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension
and Proposed US 17 Hampstead Bypass
New Hanover and Pender Counties
NCDOT TIP Projects U 4751 and R 3300
s R State Project 4019112 W Army Corps
Corps Action ID 2007 1386 of Engineers
Wiitmingtcn District
December 15 2011
Meeting Agenda
1 Introductions and Sign in
2 Purpose of Meeting
3 Project Review
Overview & Project Status
Purpose and Need (Concurrence Point 1)
Detailed Study Alternatives (Concurrence Point 2)
Hydraulic Recommendations (Concurrence Point 2a)
Public Involvement Summary
Comments on the DEIS
Environmental Impacts Evaluation of Detailed Study Alternatives
4 LEDPA Discussion (Concurrence Point 3)
11

10 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
11 Purpose of Today s Meeting
The purpose of today s meeting is to review the project status and discuss items related to the
selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) (Concurrence
Point 3)
12 Project Description
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects U 4751 and R 3300 involve the
construction of Military Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover County and the US 17
Hampstead Bypass in New Hanover and Pender Counties respectively These projects are
included in the 2012 2098 STIP
For project U 4751 the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) proposes to
extend Military Cutoff Road as a six lane divided roadway on new location from its current
terminus at US 17 (Market Street) in Wilmington north to an interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass (John Jay Burnes Jr Freeway) Limited and full control of access is proposed
For project R 3300 NCDOT proposes to construct the US 17 Hampstead Bypass as a freeway on
new location The US 17 Hampstead Bypass may connect to the proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension at the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass and extend to existing US 17 north of
Hampstead Full control of access is proposed for the US 17 Hampstead Bypass The project area
is shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A
Project U 4751 is programmed for right of way acquisition in State Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 with
construction in FY 2017 Project R 3300 is programmed for right of way acquisition in 2017
Construction of R 3300 is not currently funded Current anticipated costs vary by alternative and
range from $356 2 million to $404 8 million
13 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the US 17 Corridor Study project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and
safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area
14 Project Status
The Section 404 /NEPA Merger Team for the US 17 Corridor Study agreed on the purpose of and
need for the project at their September 21 2006 meeting
The NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team reviewed project alternatives at three meetings between
February 2007 and August 2007 During these meetings the merger team dropped alternatives
from further consideration added alternatives for evaluation and combined some alternatives
The merger team concurred on alternatives to be studied in detail at their August 23 2007 meeting
The current detailed study alternatives are reviewed in Section 2 0

The NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team reached concurrence on Bridging and Alignment Review
(CP 2a) on May 27 2010 A summary of Hydraulic Recommendations for the proposed project is
included in Section 3 0
The US 17 Corridor Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was signed on July 28
2011 Comments received on the DEIS and during the public hearing comment period are
summarized in Section 4 0
20 DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
There are four new location build alternatives for the Hampstead Bypass (R 3300) and two new
location build alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension (U 4751) still under consideration
The current detailed study alternatives for Hampstead Bypass include E H O R and U (see
Section 2 1) The current detailed study alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension include
M1 and M2 (see Section 2 2) The current detailed study alternatives are shown in DEIS Figure 9
and Figures 10A through 10K included in Appendix A Typical sections are shown in DEIS
Figures 11 and 12 in Appendix A
As a result of comments received during the public hearing process modifications to the
northernmost Hampstead Bypass interchange design are being evaluated and may be implemented
during final design It is expected that any changes would take place within the existing corridor
alternatives Revisions to the northernmost Hampstead Bypass interchange would be applicable
for all alternatives Therefore increases or decreases in impacts to the human and natural
environments would be the same for each of the detailed study alternatives
21 Hampstead Bypass Alternatives
2 1 1 ALTERNATIVE E H
Alternative E H begins in New Hanover County at a proposed interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass approximately midway between 140 and Market Street The alternative
extends northwest past Sidbury Road into Pender County Land use between the bypass and
Sidbury Road is mostly undeveloped property Alternative E H turns to the northeast and
continues to a proposed interchange with NC 210 east of Island Creek Road
From its interchange at NC 210 Alternative E H extends northeast across several minor roads that
include lightly developed residential areas and through undeveloped forested areas Alternative E
H crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School and continues northeast
through undeveloped property to a proposed interchange with realigned US 17 approximately 0 7
mile west of Grandview Drive Alternative E H continues north behind the Topsail School
complex and then turns east to tie into existing US 17 near Leeward Lane Alternative E H
continues north on existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road
2 1 2 ALTERNATIVE O
Alternative O begins in New Hanover County at a proposed interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile west of the Market Street interchange It extends
north from the bypass through undeveloped land and crosses Sidbury Road at the New Hanover

County /Pender County line The alternative continues north through predominantly undeveloped
land to a proposed interchange at NC 210
From its interchange at NC 210 Alternative O extends northeast across several minor roads that
include lightly developed residential areas and through undeveloped forested areas It continues
through farmland crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School and continues
northeast through undeveloped property to a proposed interchange with realigned US 17
approximately 0 7 mile west of Grandview Drive Alternative O continues north behind the
Topsail School complex and then turns east to tie into existing US 17 near Leeward Lane
Alternative O continues north on existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road
2 1 3 ALTERNATIVE R
Alternative R begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington
Bypass approximately midway between 140 and Market Street Alternative R extends northeast
from the bypass across undeveloped land and crosses Sidbury Road at the New Hanover
County /Pender County line The alternative continues north through predominantly undeveloped
land to an interchange at NC 210
From its interchange at NC 210 Alternative R crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail
Elementary School and continues northeast through undeveloped property to a proposed
interchange with realigned US 17 approximately 0 7 mile west of Grandview Drive Alternative R
continues north behind the Topsail School complex and then turns east to tie into existing US 17
near Leeward Lane Alternative R continues north on existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road
Typical Sections Alternatives E -H, O and R
From the proposed interchange at the US 17 W ilmangton Bypass to the proposed interchange at NC 210 Six 12
foot lanes (three in each direction) with 14 foot outside shoulders (12 foot paved) A 46 foot
median is proposed
From the proposed interchange at NC 210 to existing US 17 Four 12 foot lanes (two in each direction)
with 14 foot outside shoulders (12 foot paved) A 46 foot median is proposed
Access and Right of Way Alternatives E -H, O and R
Full control of access is proposed for Hampstead Bypass For Alternatives E H O and R access
is proposed at interchanges with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass NC 210 and existing US 17
approximately 0 7 mile west of Grandview Drive Interchange locations are shown on Figure 9 A
total right of way width of 200 feet to 350 feet is proposed for Hampstead BS pass Alternatives E
H O and R
2 1 4 ALTERNATIVE U
Alternative U begins in New Hanover County at a proposed interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass The interchange location will vary depending on the selected preferred
Military Cutoff Road Extension alternative (M1 or M2) Alternative U follows the Wilmington
Bypass through the existing interchange at Market Street The alternative runs along existing
US 17 to a proposed interchange with realigned Sidbury Road Alternative U continues north on

existing US 17 for approximately two miles to where it transitions to new location at a proposed
interchange with existing US 17 Alternative U continues north on new location to intersect with
NC 210 at a proposed interchange approximately 0 5 mile west of existing US 17
From its interchange at NC 210 Alternative U continues north parallel to existing US 17 and
crosses Hoover Road south of South Topsail Elementary School The alternative continues
northeast through undeveloped property to a proposed interchange with realigned US 17
approximately 0 5 mile west of Grandview Drive Alternative U continues north behind the
Topsail School complex and then turns east to tie into existing US 17 near Leeward Lane
Alternative U continues north on existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road
Typical Sections Alternatives U
From the proposed interchange at the US 17 WIdmington Bypass to the proposed interchange with existing US 17
south of Hampstead Ten 12 foot lanes (five in each direction) with 14 foot outside shoulders (12
foot paved) A 22 foot median with ten foot inside shoulders -ind a two foot concrete barrier is
proposed
From the proposed interchange with existing US 17 south of Hampstead to the proposed interchange at NC 210
Six 12 foot lanes (three in each direction) with 14 foot outside shoulders (12 foot paved) A 46
foot median is proposed
From the proposed interchange at NC 210 north to existing US 17 Four 12 foot lanes (two in each
direction) with 14 foot outside shoulders (12 foot paved) in each direction and a 46 foot median
Access and Right of Way Alternative U
For Alternative U access is proposed at interchanges with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass the
existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange at Market Street Sidbury Road the proposed
interchange with existing US 17 where Hampstead Bypass transitions to new location south of
Hampstead NC 210 and existing US 17 approximately 0 5 mile west of Grandview Drive To
provide access to adjacent properties service roads are proposed for the sections of Alternative U
that travel along existing US 17 from Market Street to where Hampstead Bypass transitions to new
location A variable right of way width of 200 feet to 520 feet is proposed for Alternative U
22 Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives
Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 are new location alternatives extending
Military Cutoff Road from Market Street to the US 17 Wilmington B� pass
2 2 1 ALTERNATIVE M 1
Alternative M1 begins at a proposed interchange at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street The
alternative extends north through vacant Counts property between the two sections of Ogden
Park and residential areas Alternative M1 turns northwest and ends near Plantation Road and
Crooked Pine Road at a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass approximately
midway between I 40 and Market Street
4

2 2 2 ALTERNATIVE M2
Alternative M2 begins at a proposed interchange at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street
Alternative M2 follows the Alternative M1 alignment for approximately two miles Alternative M2
then turns northeast and extends through mostly undeveloped property to a proposed interchange
with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile west of Market Street
Typical Sections Alternatives M1 and M2
From the proposed interchange at Market Street to approximately 0 9 male north of Torchavood Boulevard Six
lanes (three in each direction) with a 30 foot median and curb and gutter Two 12 foot inside lanes
and one 14 foot outside lane (to accommodate bicycles) with two foot curb and gutter and a ten
foot berm are proposed in each direction
From approvviately 0 9 male north of Torrbwood Boulevard to the proposed interchange at the US 77 lYlilmangton
Bypass Six 12 foot lanes (three in each direction) with 14 foot outside shoulders (12 foot paved)
A 46 foot median is proposed
The Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has requested a multi use path be
constructed along proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension The multi use path would tie into an
existing multi use path along Military Cutoff Road The construction of a multi use path as part of
the proposed project will be dependent upon a cost sharing and maintenance agreement between
the NCDOT and the Wilmington MPO The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the
Wilmington MPO on the inclusion of the multi use path along Military Cutoff Road Extension
Access and Right of Way Alternatives M1 and M2
Military Cutoff Road Extension is proposed as a full/limited control of access facility Access to
Military Cutoff Road Extension is proposed at interchanges at Market Street and Military Cutoff
Road and the US 17 Wilmington Bypass Additional access along Military Cutoff Road Extension
is proposed at directional crossovers with Putnam Drive Lendire Road and Torchwood
Boulevard Only right turns will be permitted onto Military Cutoff Road Extension from these
roads U turn lanes will be provided to accommodate left turns A variable right of way width of
150 feet to 350 feet is proposed for Military Cutoff Road Extension
30 HYDRAULIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Table 2 5 from the DEIS in Appendix B lists the proposed major hydraulic structures for the
current detailed study alternatives The NEPA /Section 404 merger team concurred on the size
and location of the structures on May 26 and 27 2010 The locations of the structures are shown
on DEIS Figure 10A in Appendix A

40 CORRIDOR PUBLIC HEARINGS & AGENCY COMMENTS ON THE DEIS
41 Public Hearings
Two Corridor Public Hearings were held for the protect
• Monday October 17 2011 at Noble Middle School in Wilmington 118 citizens registered
their attendance at the meeting
• Tuesday October 18 2011 at Topsail High School in Hampstead 266 citizens registered their
attendance at this meeting
Fifteen individuals provided verbal comments after the formal presentations As of November 28
2011 a total of 92 written comments have been received Twenty two of the written comments
submitted included concerns related to Military Cutoff Road Extension The remainder of the
written comments pertained to Hampstead Bypass Most of those comments were related to the
location of the northernmost interchange for the Hampstead Bypass Most commented that the
lack of direct access to existing US 17 from Hampstead Bypass at the northern end of the protect
is unacceptable
The public hearing comment form provided the opportunity for commenters to rank the order of
their corridor preference(s) from among the five Current Detailed Study Alternatives Several
respondents stated their preferred alternative(s) within their written comments instead of
numbering the alternatives on the comment form Preference by alternative as indicated by
commenters is shown below
Alternative
1 ` Choice
2nd Choice
3 d Choice
4`h Choice 51h Choice
M1 +E H
15
1
2 1
M2 +0
15
3
4
M1 +R
11
4
1 1
M1 +U
5
2
3
M2 +U
10
3
2
42 Agency Comments on the DEIS
Comments on the DEIS were received from the U S Fish and Wildlife Service U S
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) the U S Department of Interior Office of the
Secretary and the N C Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Comments from the
agencies included concerns regarding right of way width impacts to preservation areas and
protected species impacts to farms and forests water supply wetland and stream impacts wildlife
habitat fragmentation and human environment impacts EPA requested that several of their
concerns be addressed prior to the selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative Copies of the comments are included in Appendix C Comments from the agencies
will be discussed at today s meeting

50 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
DEIS Figures 10A through 1 O in Appendix A show environmental features in the project area
A summary of potential environmental impacts is provided in Table 5 on page 10 Details of
impacts to jurisdictional resources lustoric architectural resources gameland and preservation
areas and federally protected species are described below
51 Streams, Ponds and Wetlands
Water resources in the study area are part of the Cape Fear River basin (U S Geological Survey
[USGS] Hydrologic Units 03030007 and 03020302) A total of 59 jurisdictional streams 17 ponds
and 108 jurisdictional wetlands are located within the current detailed study alternatives study
corridors
Impacts to Waters of the U S would occur at various locations throughout the length of the
project at stream crossings wetland areas and ponds Anticipated impacts by type of stream are
presented for the detailed study alternatives in Table 1 Total stream wetland and pond impacts
for each alternative are shown in Table 5 on page 10 Anticipated impacts for each stream pond
and wetland are presented for the detailed study alternatives in DEIS Tables 4 11 4 13 and 4 15
located in Appendix B
Table 1 Total Stream Impacts
Delineated Stream
Impacts (linear feet)
Alternative
M1 +EH
M2 +0
M1 +R
M1 +U
M2 +U
Perennial
17 987
11 486
18 634
11 755
7 687
Intermittent
3 487
1 346
2 553
997
486
Other 1
3 057
1 010
3 384
2 698
613
Total
24,531
13,842
24,571
15,450
8,786
I Tnbutar} waters determined to be jurisdictional based on the presence of an ordinary high water mark
(OHWiI4) These waters are classified as Waters of the US (impacts calculated in sq ft) and will not regwre
compensatory mitigation
52 Historic Architectural Resources
There is one property within the Area of Potential Effect listed on the National Register of
Historic Places and four properties eligible for listing The potential effect of the proposed project
on historic architectural resources is summarized by alternative in Table 2 The State Historic
Preservation Office concurred with these effect determinations at a meeting held on March 8
2011 Avoidance measures have been incorporated into the design at Poplar Grove Mount Ararat
AME Church Wesleyan Chapel United Methodist Church and Scotts Hill Rosenwald School A
review of the effects determination will be requested from the State Historic Preservation Office

Table 2 Historic Architectural Resource Effects
53 Gamelands and Preservation Areas
All of the detailed study alternatives will impact preservation areas as shown in Table 3 below
Table 3 Gamelands and Preservation Area Impacts
Gamelands and Preservation
Area Impacts (acres)'
Alternative
M1 +EH
M2 +0
M1 +R
M1 +U
M2 +U
Historic Property
058
000
058
No
Ad-, erse
Ad-, erse
355
No Effect
No Effect
285
000
Plantation Road Site
Poplar Grox e
1328
030
Effect
Effect
Effect
000
Adverse
Ads erse
Adverse
Adverse
Ad-, erse
Mount Ararat AME Church
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Effect
Wesleyan Chapel United Methodist
4294
501
No
Ad-, erse
Ad-, erse
No Effect
No Effect
Church
Effect
Effect
Effect
No
Adverse
Adverse
No Effect
No Effect
Scotts Hill Rosenwald School
Effect
Effect
Effect
No
No
No
No Effect
No Effect
Topsail Consolidated School
Effect
Effect
Effect
53 Gamelands and Preservation Areas
All of the detailed study alternatives will impact preservation areas as shown in Table 3 below
Table 3 Gamelands and Preservation Area Impacts
Gamelands and Preservation
Area Impacts (acres)'
Alternative
M1 +EH
M2 +0
M1 +R
M1 +U
M2 +U
Corbett Tract Mitigation Site
058
000
058
008
000
Corbett Tract Residual Strip
355
027
355
285
000
Plantation Road Site
030
1328
030
031
2203
34 Acre Residual Site
000
2881
000
000
1237
Blake Savannah
0 00
058
058
000
000
TOTAL
443
4294
501
324
3440
i The project does not affect Hollj Shelter Game Land or the 22 acre Residual Site in the vicimt5 of the US 17
Wilmington Bypass
54 Federally Protected Species
As of September 22 2010 the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 11 federally protected
species for New Hanover County and 12 federally protected species for Pender County Table 4
summarizes the federally protected species listed for New Hanover and Pender Counties and the
biological conclusion for this project s likely effect on each species

Table 4 Federally Protected Species Effects
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal
Status
County
Biological
Conclusion
Alternatives
Alligator
mississippiensu
American
alligator
T(S /A)
New Hanover
Pender
Not Required
Chelonza mydas
Green sea
turtle
T
New Hanover
Pender
No Effect
Caretta caretta
Loggerhead
sea turtle
T
New Hanover
Pender
No Effect
Charadnus
melodus
Piping plover
T
New Hanover
Pender
No Effect
Pzcozdes borealis
Red cockaded
woodpecker
E
New Hanover
Pender
May Affect Likely
to Adversely Affect
E H O R U
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Shortnose
sturgeon
E
New Hanover
Pender
No Effect
Tnchechus
manatus
West Indian
manatee
E
New Hanover
Pender
No Effect
Scbwalbea
amencana
American
chaffseed*
E
Pender
No Effect
Thahctrum
coo/q/
Cooley s
meadowrue
E
New Hanover
Pender
May Affect Likely
to Adverselv Affect
O R
Carex lutea
Golden sedge
E
New Hanover **
Pender
May Affect Likely
to Adversely Affect
O R
Lysimachia
a erulae olza
Rough leaved
loosestrife
E
New Hanover
Pender
May Affect Likely
to Adversely Affect
E H O R U
M1 M2
Amaranthus
umilus
Seabeach
amaranth
T
I
New Hanover
Pender
No Effect
E — Endangered T — Threatened T(S /A) Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance
* Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago)
** Listed as Probable/ Potential
Protected species surveys will be updated in the spring of 2012 The USFWS has indicated the
biological conclusion for golden sedge remains to be determined If adchtsonal and appropriately
timed surveys do not reveal any specimens of golden sedge the USFWS has noted they would
concur with a no effect conclusion for this species NCDOT will continue to coordinate with
the US Fish and Wildlife Service on red cockaded woodpecker Cooley s meadowrue golden
sedge and rough leaved loosestrife A handout of the location of known occurrences of Cooley s
meadowrue and rough leaved loosestrife will be made available at the meeting

NTA 5 Summary of Current Detailed Study Alternatives Impacts
Current Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative
M1+ E H
M2 +0
M1 +R
M1 +U
MIL/ U
1 ry Cutoff Road Ext Segment
Segment West of NC 210
ent East of NC 210
FEATURI�
Length (miles)
175
[ 6�
171
180
--16-8 �
Delineated Wetland Impacts ace
2461
3844
297 4/
':::2-18-41
2838
Delineated Stream Impacts (linear fe t)
24 531
13 842
V11
15 450
S8 786)
Delineated Pond Impacts acres
39
43
4 2
�3 7;,
3-7-)
Residential Displacements
61
60
59
93
95
Business Displacements
84
84
84
106
106
Red cockaded Woodpecker Future Potentiall
Suitable / Potentially Suitable Habitat (acres)
867/
739
8 �7
/1 9
8 67/
739
867/
739
867/
739
Other Surveyed Federal / State Threatened
and Endangered Species Habitat Pres ent
Yes
es
Yes
Yes
Yes
Natural Heritage Program SNHA, Managed
Areas and Wetland Mitigations Sites acres
\ /
4 v
42 94
501
`: 34
3440
Prime Farmlands /Farmlands of Statewide
Importance (acres)
6 4\\\506
58
58
<=50
r,5 03
Forest (acres)
512
466
-406-
455
100 Year Floodplain and Floodway
Impacts(acres)
1173
88
X30
X301
Historic Properties (no)
1
1
1
4
4
Noise Receptor Impacts
257
%z:236�
248
310
304
Recorded Archaeological Sites no
0
0
0
1
1
Wildlife Refuge/Game Lands (acrew
0
0
0
0
Recreational Areas /Parks (no)//
0
0
0
0
0
High Quality Waters (HQW) ORW, WS
Protected or Critical Area) (acres)
96
96
9 6
\ 124
124
Cemeteries (no)
2
2
2
5
Potential UST / Hazma Sites (no)
5
5
5
5
Total Cost (in milhori),
$3620
5G2�
X40
X398 4
Notes 'ImpaA alculations are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus an additional 25
2Includes non rofit displacements
10
fee

Rev. 12 -15 -11
Table 5. Summary of Current Detailed Study Alternatives Impacts.
Current Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative
M1+ E -H
M2 +0
M1 +R
M1 +U
M2 +U
Military Cutoff Road Ext. Segment
Segment West of NC 210
Segment East of NC 210
FEATURE'
Length miles
17.5
16.6
17.1
18.0
16.8
Delineated Wetland Impacts acres
246.1
384.4
297.4
218.4
283.8
Delineated Stream Impacts linear feet
24,531
13,842
24,571
15,450
8,786
Delineated Pond Impacts acres
3.9
4.3
4.2
3.7
3.7
Displacements
Residential
61
60
59
93
95
Business
76
76
76
91
91
Non-profit
5
5
5
11
11
Red - cockaded Woodpecker Future Potentially
8.67/
8.67/
8.67/
8.67/
8.67/
Suitable / Potentially Suitable Habitat acres
7.39
7.39
7.39
7.39
7.39
Other Surveyed Federal / State Threatened
and Endangered Species Habitat Present
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Natural Heritage Program SNHA, Managed
Areas and Wetland Mitigations Sites acres
4.43
42.94
5.01
3.24
34.40
Prime Farmlands/ Farmlands of Statewide
68
58
58
50
50
Importance acres
Forest acres
512
506
466
406
455
100 Year Floodplain and Floodway
Impacts(acres)
11.73
8.8
8.8
3.0
3.0
Historic Properties no.
1
1
1 1
3
3
Noise Receptor Impacts
257
236
248
310
304
Recorded Archaeological Sites no.
0
0
0
1
1
Wildlife Refuge/Game Lands acres
0
0
0
0
0
Recreational Areas /Parks no.
0
0
0
0
0
High Quality Waters (HQW, ORW, WS
Protected or Critical Areas (acres)
9.6
9.6
9.6
12.4
12.4
Public Water Supply Wells
2
4
2
2
4
Cemeteries no.
2
2
2
5
5
Potential UST / Hazmat Sites no.
5
5
5
5
5
Total Cost in millions
$362.0 1
$359.3
$356.2
$404.8
$398.4
Notes: 1Impact calculations are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus an additional 25 feet.

Appendix A
Figures

No \N `'fie \cer Rd kSR `621
gdDo'l Rd.lSR �gg61
,_ h
Wllmingtor
1 ;
II,
I
Hill
Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U -4751 and R -3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
OE NORTH Cq9
At yP 0<
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
P
P
9e�OF TRPt\SQOA
Holly Shelter Gamelands
es
ampstead
rrJ 5La
fl �e61
flc ,
STUDY CORRIDORS
V ac
- \O
b`
�a
P
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles N
la H 41
I
�
s
n;nwk i wlnar
5
�.
�
PanaerlRa ii 'R'
\ �.�ci
I!
W . 6
'rS
I$ 7H,11
VIII
, y
,
as
Wards
+
corm.
s�rc•w o
\l5D
A1klnfOn li 63
1
e
Saint
,
Helena s 10
Hoay fla;
X, 8nirl
IN ."i. Rocky Point
1
ro
no c 1 v
: ne
C
x 177
azl
HRmpstc�A
a I -
u
nII I ` IS
1
` SMi11T
r r�i7 l,rl.r
He o
7 177
1
_
`
17,- 10, •.,, .
yC i
O
LH
on
ToYn�,e y� -
m— -
PROJECT
1YInna Caw " - 5) \�
MwSONRpRO
VICINITY
-
157 +
S W 1 C ; K atl
ISLAND
I Ir L.0
9rieze carA in7rt
�a�/
178 e to L Carolina Beach
j ao�ling O p p 1
Dtial{.Lihisl
7 S mllh
rILASURa
L lan
7 Hons it 211
va, Imo arhor l37ro 137.
p 711 '
1 \ $wth[art �orncake folot Id ..d!
_
1'C6n k171and a.fII_ -^ '- SMPTH ISIAND
ar_h BFa: rl
EALD MEAD
N4
n y sLArva
ay
c"t FEAR
No \N `'fie \cer Rd kSR `621
gdDo'l Rd.lSR �gg61
,_ h
Wllmingtor
1 ;
II,
I
Hill
Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U -4751 and R -3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
OE NORTH Cq9
At yP 0<
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
P
P
9e�OF TRPt\SQOA
Holly Shelter Gamelands
es
ampstead
rrJ 5La
fl �e61
flc ,
STUDY CORRIDORS
V ac
- \O
b`
�a
P
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles N

I lf�7
16
411
.6 z
-g ji
Z- CL xs
14 0>
'f j = u) 2 �
D D- co
cu
o.
6
z
E
2)
LL
6
Z6
E E
22
i
CF
V1,
0
R
'T
411
.6 z
-g ji
Z- CL xs
14 0>
'f j = u) 2 �
D D- co
cu
o.

!§\
ƒ
\ \ {/
Ile
m
n
\$
\ \\
§ /$
~
)ƒ
_ \
`
CD
�
7 /
�
/ \6
G-
�3} \
\
� k\
2 6 CL
{5
\
2\
m2�
ƒ
CD
■:D })
_
2 p«
o �
o
� !
ƒ •
U
o
_ |
`
�
-
q
| !
�
I
�
�
{
�
cu
�
ƒ ��\
�

r
I �
y
C
y 41 c
^11
It
a
c
m
O
2
W
Q
6
d a
r
rn
LL
d
V
y �
O
O
Z
N
C
t0
�11
j. 1►+
►� ji
r
W
Y
J:
a
d
N N
a` a`

a
i:;.-
0
'E
0
0
m
y
N
O >
f G
5 I
ti
I
� N
I
O >
Q
o�
c
5
X
W
(6
N
C
c6
L
U
N
C
y
INO
d
cc
N
N
a
E
m
2
cn
N
X
W
E
0
c
a�
IZC
6
z m
d
7 T
� T
LL
y a
m
O n
Z
T
LL
d'
C
cC
M
Cl
y o
O M
Z 10
C od z
r a�i
0
N in wU
V a E c
Q, `o - a
F�+UZo6
n U �
y
m �z
'C p
� U
C.
E
tm
2
W
Y'
J:
7;
4 `a
a
`m `m
a a
m m
a` a`

.Mlko� 1111M
4
6
z
N
m
LL
m
R
V
y d
O LL
2
LL
N
C
R
U) O
O
z
c °?
O U
; op z
y � m
v a -moo
c E d
N Uz,d
.d ncu�
X > p O
W a`R
cc a=
O P:
O
0 0
U
z
R
2
W;
Y'
J
a
`w `m
�i
a` a`

4
'�
,� /
y � � � {
�.. /
� � ../ y
` � j�`
� - '' � +�
f�..
O` �. �- .�
��
..
` `_
� � � �
/; �,,.�
`�R Q__
.y
�. � -� . .
..
,.
.�
,�
,,�
7A .�
1 M- ' �\
_ s
• f
� ..
;-• ` � _
• / _ `,
.���Di �� f ���
` \k ��
��
�:' / / ' / ,
• I � ,�..
f
.�+� / � �
� �
.t^• � �, • fy.f
u- // ;��
/ a-
'f w
� Fd,
�'
//:'
- �'.�
�`F�:. /i �.�.
� `

i
p`a
�- �f11
s'
•
•
.
CD •
•
.I
�I

!1
• • t nJf � s � �.
O \
♦ V . \
000
r
/ ;rI
I /

a \
. . . .... ........... ... .

Appendix B
Reference Tables
from the DEIS

Table 2 5 Proposed Hydraulic Structures
Site
Wetland
Corridor
Existing
Recommended
Stream ID
No'
ID
Alternative
Structure
Structure
U at Ml
1 @12 x8
Retain and Extend
1
ZSB
EWF
U at M2
RCBC2
Existing Culvert
U at M1
2
KWD
1 @9 x8 RCBC
U at M2
3
BSP
BWI
M1 M2
2 @7 x12 RCBC
4
DWC
M2
1@9 x8 RCBC
5
G\X/A
O R
3 @12 x7 RCBC
Dual 100 Long
6
ISA ISB
IWN
O R
Bridges
7
ISD
IWF
O R
3 @11 x8 RCBC
LSC LSCC
8
LWD
E H O R
3 @48 CMP3
2 @6 x5 RCBC4
LSCF
10
CSA FSA
E H O R U
1@72 RCPS
Retain existing and
at M1
add two 1@ 72 RCPT
11
FSI
E H R
1 @12x9 RCBC
HBSF
Dual 230 Long
15
HBSH
HBWK
EH
Bridges
16
HBSD(2)
HBWD
E H
Dual 200 Long
Bridges
17
HSX
HWB
E H
3 @10 x9 RCBC
21
FSA
FWB
E H R
2 @11 x9 RCBC
22
FSE
FWC
E H R
2 @12 x7 RCBC
23
LSD
LWI
E H O R
2 @9 x7 RCBC
25
HBSC
HBWF
E H
1 @9 x8 RCBC
i Site numbers correspond to the project s PrehmmarS H) draulic Studs s site numbers Some preliminary
hydraulic sites were avoided during design and are therefore not included in the table
2 Reinforced concrete box culvert
3 Corrugated metal pipe
4 Preliminary design also includes dual 135 foot long bridges to maintain neighborhood access
Reinforced concrete pipe
G Retain existing 72 RCP pipe under Wilmington Bypass and add 72 RCP at two interchange ramps
Supplementation of existing 72 pipe or enlarging of proposed ramp pipes will be investigated during final
design
LIM

Table 4 11 Individual Stream Impacts
I:
Stream
Compensatory
Comp
Stream
Figure
Corridor
Stream
Stream Name
Impact
Mi igation
ID
No
Alternatives
Determination
(feet)*
Required
BSA
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
29471
Yes
Perennial
BSJ
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
153 12
Yes
Perennial
BSK
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
60943
Yes
Perennial
BSL
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
Ml M2
28765
Yes
Perennial
BSM
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
Ml M2
73216
Yes
Perennial
BSN
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
Ml M2
97020
Yes
Perennial
M1
BSO
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
232925
Yes
Perennial
2 321 95
M1 398 21
BSP
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
Yes
Perennial
M2 328 11
M1 83 23
BSQ
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
Yes
Perennial
M2 82 13
Noe
BDITCHI
UT to Howe Creek
10 C
M1 M2
61325
OHWM1
No3
EH R
1 949 14
EH U1
CSA
UT to Island Creek
10D
Yes
Perennial
ER
2 079 61
M1
2 079 15
EHR
10 C
E H R U1
257 70
CSB
UT to Island Creek
Yes
Perennial
10 D
M1
M1 U1
27064
CSC
UT to Smith Creek
M1
94308
Noz
10 D
OHWMI
Yes
Intermittent
CSD
UT to Smith Creek
M1
90239
Yes
Perennial
10 D
CSE
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
Ml
23916
Noe
OHWM'
CSG
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1
28066
Yes
Intermittent
CSH
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1
23000
Yes
Intermittent
CSI
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1
231 87
Yes
Perennial
EH R
E H R U1
1 289 61
CSJ
UT to Island Creek
10D
Yes
Perennial
M1
U1 MI
93220
I:

Table 4 11 Individual Stream Impacts conimued
Stream
Figure
Corridor
Stream
Compensatory
Stream
ID
Stream Name
No
Alternative-
Impact
Mitigation
Determination
Required
CSK
UT to Island Creek
10D
E HER U1
39956
Yes
Perennial
035929
DSA
UT to Island Creek
10 C
O U2 M2
M2 U2
Yes
Perennial
44432
ESA
UT to Mill Creek
10 G
U1 U2
84871
Yes
Perennial
ESB
UT to Mill Creek
10 G
U1 U2
13043
Yes
Perennial
EH R
EH OR
213171
FSA
UT to Island Creek
10D
01603
Yes
Perennial
U1 M1
M1 U1
52014
05286
FSC
UT to Island Creek
10D
0 l
�i M2
Yes
Intermittent
l X122
3742
FSE
UT to Island Creek
10D
E H R
331 14
Yes
Perennial
o z
FSF
UT to Island Creek
10 F
R
28951
OHWMI
No3
Noz
OHWM1
—
NO3
FSH
UT to Island Creek
10 D
E H
49465
Yes
Intermmttent
Yes
Perennial
EH
FSI
UT to Island Creek
10D
E H R
273 54 R
Yes
Perennial
[=FS
26668
UT to Island Creek
10D
E H R
85861
Yes
Intermittent
FSK
UT to Island Creek
10 F
R
8102
Yes
Intermittent
GFSE
UT to Island Creek
10 E
O
301 99
Yes
Perennial
GSA
UT to Island Creek
10 F
O R
41782
Yes
Perennial
GSG
UT to Island Creek
O
19025
Yes
Intermittent
10 F
Yes
Intermittent
HBSAA
UT to Island Creek
10 F
E H
14144
Yes
Perennial
Yes
Intermittent
HBSC
UT to Island Creek
10 F
E H
36856
Yes
Perennial
Yes
Intermittent
HBSD(1)
UT to Island Creek
10 F
E H
26934
Yes
Perennial
HBSH
UT to Island Creek 1
10 F
E H
31990 1
Yes
Intermittent

Table 4 11 Inchvidual Stream Impacts continued
I
Stream
Compensatory
Stream
Figure
Corridor
Stream
ID
Stream Name
No
Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
Determination
(feet)*
Required
HSB
UT to Harnsons
10H
E H
26208
Yes
Intermittent
Creek
HSC
UT to Harrsons
10 F
E H
40372
Yes
Perenrual
Creek
10H
HSX
UT to Harrsons
10H
E H
30558
Yes
Perennial
Creek
Yes
Intermittent
ISA
UT to Island Creek
10 F
O R
72575
Yes
Perennial
UT to Harrsons
10H
O R
Yes
Intermittent
ISC
27696
Creek
Yes
Perennial
ISD
UT to Harrsons
10 H
O R
4249
Yes
Perennial
Creek
IDITCHI
UT to Harrsons
10 F
O R
39701
Noe
Creek
OI 1WM1
LSB
UT to Harnsons
10H
E H O R
1 397 92
Yes
Perennial
Creek
LSC
Harrsons Creek
10H
E H O R
65551
Yes
Perennial
UT to Harnsons
10H
E H O R
Yes
Intermittent
LSCA
44154
Creek
Yes
Perennial
LSCAA
UT to Harnsons
10H
E H O R
20886
Yes
Perennial
Creek
LSCB
UT to Harrsons
10H
E H O R
30707
Yes
Perennial
Creek
LSCC
UT to Harrsons
10
E H O R
13065
Yes
Perennial
Creek
LSCF
UT to Harrsons
10H
E H O R
11960
Yes
Intermittent
Creek
LSD
Godfrey Creek
10
E H O R
28451
Yes
Perennial
I
LSDA
UT to Godfrey
10I
E H O R
19473
Yes
Intermittent
Creek
E H O R
Yes
Intermittent
NSA
UT to AIWW4
10 K
441 60
U1 U2
yes
Perennial
E H O R
Yes
Intermittent
NSF
UT to AIWW4
10 I
104 83
U1 U2
Yes
Perennial
ZSB
UT to Futch Creek
10E
U1 U2
38587
Yes
Perennial
UT to Prince
ZSK
10D
E H R
84912
Yes
Perennial
George Creek
I

Table 4 11 Individual Stream Impacts continued
Stream
Figure
Corridor
Stream
Compensatory
Comp
Stream
ID
Stream Name
No
Alternatives
t
Determination
(feet)*
Required
UT to
ZSL
George Creek ree
10D
E H R
4023
Yes
Perennial
Impacts are for all alternatives unless otherwise noted Individual impacts calculated for Military Cutoff Road
Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 utilize the corresponding Hampstead Bypass Alternative U interchange
configuration
i Resource determined by USACE to be a jurisdictional tnbutary based on the presence of an ordinary high
water mark (OHWM) during field verification
2 Tributar} feature exists within the boundaries of an adjacent wetland and therefore does not require
mitigation independent of the wetland
3 Tributary feature does not require stream mitigation but may require mitigation by the USACE as a Water of
the US dependent upon the type of impact proposed at the time of permit application
4 Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway
U1 is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass at Mihtar}
Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M1 U2 is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with
US 17 Wilmington B5 pass at Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M2
i

Table 4 13 Individual Pond Impacts
Pond
Figure
Corridor
Connected
Pond Impacts
ID
No
Alternative(s)
Appearance
Feature Map ID
(acres)
BPE
10 C
M1 M2
Stormwater Pond
BSL
075
BPF
10 C
M1 M2
Stormwater Pond
BSO
041
BPJ
10 C
M1 M2
Stormwater Pond
No Connection
Oil
BPK
10B
M1 M2
Stormwater Pond
No Connection
001
GPA
10 F
O
Stormwater Pond
GWA
009
GPB
10 F
O R
Stormwater Pond
GWA
007
O Oil R
GPC
10 F
O R
Stormwater Pond
GWA
006
GPD
10 F
O R
Stormwater Pond
No Connection
001
IPA2
10 F
O R
Stormwater Pond
IWT
014
IPE
10 H
E H O R
Stormwater Pond
No Connection
027
E H O R-
E H O R U1
Cypress /Gum
JPD
101
No Connection
1 68 U1 U2
U2
Depression
165
E H O R
KPB
101
E H O R U1
Cypress /Gum
KWA /KWG
0 31 U1 U2
U2
Depression
055
KPC
10I
U1 U2
Manmade /Maintained
KWF
018
LPD
10 H
E H O R
Manmade /Maintained
LWA
002
LPE
10H
E H O R
Manmade/ Maintained
No Connection
023
EH O R U1
NPC
10 I
U2
Stormwater Pond
No Connection
006
E H O R U1
Water Treatment
NPE
101
U2
Pond
No Connection
005
'Impacts are for all alternatives unless otherwise noted Individual impacts calculated for Military Cutoff Road
Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 utilize the corresponding Hampstead B) pass Alternative U interchange
configuration
U1 is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass at Military
Cutoff Road Extension Alternative Ml U2 is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with
US 17 Wilmington Bypass at Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M2
C

Table 4 15 Individual Wedand Impacts
Wetland
Figure
Corridor
Cowardin
Hydrologic
DWQ
Wetland
ID
No
Alternative(s)
Classification'
Classification
Wetland
Impacts
Rating
(acres)
BWB
10 C
M1 M2
PFO4B
Non riparian
27
023
BWC
10 C
M1 M2
PFO
Non riparian
25
018
BWD
10 C
M1 M2
PFO
Non riparian
34
190
BWI
10 C
M1 M2
PFO1 /3/4B
Non riparian
34
M1 1 66
M2 189
CWA
10 C
M1 M2
PFO3 /4A
Non riparian
34
M1 6 37
M2 4 80
10 C
M1 H R
EH R111
CWB
10D
U
PSS3 /4B
Non riparian
36
M1 12 52
U1 106
CWD
10D
E H R U1
PSS3 /4Bd
Non riparian
36
EH R 7 51
U1 9 82
CWE
10 D
E H R U1
PFO3 /4Bg
Non riparian
36
E H 36 83
R 36 83
Riparian
U1 23 89
EH R
10C
EH O R U1
2152 O
CWF
PFO3 /4B
Non riparian
36
211
10D
U2
U1 7 23
U2 105
EH R013
10 C
EH M2 O
09265
DWC
10D
PSS3 /4B
Non riparian
36
U1 0 12
10 E
R U1 U2
M2 92 50
U2 77 36
EWF
10 E
U1 U2
PFO
Riparian
14
037
EWH
10 G
U1 U2
PFO
Non riparian
20
118
EWH1
10 G
U1 U2
PFO
Riparian
20
123
EWI
10 G
U1 U2
PFO
Riparian
37
053
EWK
10 G
U1 U2
PSS1C
Non riparian
25
006
EWM
10 G
U1 U2
PF01C
Riparian
19
526
10 C
0067
FWA
O U1 U2
PFO
Non riparian
30
U1 0 45
10D
U2 0 48

Table 4 15 Individual Wetland Impacts continued
Wetland
ID
Figure
No
Corridor
Alternative(s)
Cowardin
Classification'
Hydrologic
Classification
DWQ
Wetland
Rating
Wetland
Impacts
(acres)
FWB
10D
E H R
PFO
Riparian
20
501
FWCZ
10D
10 F
E H R
PFO
Non riparian
48
E H 146
R 824
Riparian
FWD
10 F
R
PSS313
Non riparian
28
736
FWF
10 F
E H
PFO
Non riparian
37
689
Riparian
FWHB
10 F
E H
PFO
Non riparian
24
004
FWI
10 F
E H
PFO
Non riparian
17
038
FWL
10 F
E H
PFO
Non riparian
19
003
FWY
10 D
E H R
PFO
Non riparian
20
018
GWA
10 F
O R
PEM /PSS
Riparian
61
O 605 R
794
GWC
10 C
10 D
10 E
O U1 U2
PFO
Non riparian
32
07581
U1 0 68
U2 27 17
GWD
10 E
10 F
O
PFO
Non riparian
32
453
Riparian
HBAA3
10 F
E H
PSS /PFO
Riparian
32
006
HBAB
10 F
E H
PSS /PFO
Non riparian
27
109
HBWD
10 F
E H
PSS /PFO
Riparian
83
114
HBWF
10 F
E H
PEM /PSS
Riparian
32
076
HBWK4
10 F
E H
PFO /PSS
Riparian
83
147
HBWT
10 F
E H
PSS
Non riparian
14
039
HWB
10 H
E H
PFO
Riparian
50
236
HWD
10 H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
21
035
HWG'
10H
E H
PFO /PSS
Riparian
15
088
Non riparian
HWH
10 H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
015
HWH1
10 H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
009
HWH2
10H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
003
HWH3
10 H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
007
HWH4
10 H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
002
HWH5
10 H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
023
HWY
10H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
023
HWAA6
10 F
E H
PFO
Non riparian
40
1540
M arian
HWEE
10 F
E H
PFO
Riparian
25
0 15
..

Table 4 15 Individual Wetland Impacts continued
Wetland
ID
Figure
No
Corridor
Alternative(s)
Cowardin
Classification'
Hydrologic
Classification
DWQ
Wetland
Rating
Wetland
Impacts
(acres)
HWHH
10 F
E H
PFO
Non riparian
34
024
HWMX
10 H
E H
PFO
Non n arian
40
005
IWA
10 H
E H O R
PFO
Riparian
80
003
IWA_MM
10 H
O R
PFO
Non riparian
39
481
IWB
10H
E H O R
PFO
Riparian
25
009
IWC
10H
E H O R
PFO
Riparian
20
013
IWD
10 H
E H O R
PFO
Non riparian
31
OR 17 43
E H 18 64
Riparian
IWE
10 H
E H O R
PFO
Non riparian
13
016
IWF7
10 H
O R
PFO
Riparian
69
761
Non riparian
IWH$
10 H
O R
PFO
Non riparian
53
767
Riparian
IWK
10 F
O R
PFO
Riparian
77
730
Non riparian
IWN
10 F
O R
PFO
Riparian
79
489
IWQ
10 F
O R
PFO
Non riparian
7
048
IWTI
10 F
O R
PFO
Non riparian
41
1457
Riparian
IWU
10 F
O R
PFO
Non riparian
13
029
IWV
10 F
O R
PFO
Non riparian
42
481
IWW
10 F
O R
PFO
Non riparian
45
1038
KWA
101
U1 U2
PFO3 /4B
Non riparian
30
227
KWC
10I
U1 U2
PFO1 /2C
Non riparian
17
447
KWD
110 I
U1 U2
PFO4A
Non riparian
26
473
KWF
101
U1 U2
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
45
601
KWG
101
EHORUI
U2
PFO1 /2G
Non riparian
43
EHOR
0 57 U1 U2
288
KWH10
101
U1 U2
PF01 /2C
Non riparian
42
570
KWI
10G
U1 U2
PFO1 /3/413
Non riparian
49
3218
KWN
10 G
U1 U2
PFO4B
Non riparian
46
2401
KWO
10G
U1 U2
PFO4B
Non riparian
37
1802
KWS
10I
U1 U2
PFO1 /413
Non ri arian
33
U1 U2 0 52
LWA
10 H
E H O R
PFO
Riparian
70
013
LWB
10H
E H O R
PFO
Riparian
72
781
LWD
10H
E H O R
PFO
Riparian
83
586
LWD1
10 H
E H O R
PFO
Riparian
48
008
LWE
10 H
E H 0 R
PFO
Non riparian
29
822
EM

Table 4 15 Individual Wetland Impacts continued
Owl
DWQ
Wetland
Wetland
Figure
Corridor
Cowardin
Hydrologic
Wetland
Impacts
ID
No
Alternative(s)
Classification'
Classification
Raring
(acres) �
LWG
10H
E H O R
PFO
Non riparian
46
017
LWH
10H
E H O R
PFO
Non riparian
23
020
LWI
11 off
E H O R
PFO
Riparian
80
250
LWJ
101
E H O R
PFO
Non riparian
40
526
M, M(2)
10 H
E H O R
PFO
Riparian
68
270
Non riparian
NWB
10K
E H O R U1
PEM /PFO
Non riparian
13
002
NWE
10K
E H O R U1
PEM /PFO
Non riparian
12
003
NWF
10K
E H O R U1
PEM /PSS
Non riparian
12
004
EHOR
NWJ
10K
EH O R U1
PSS /PFO
Non riparian
12
0 02 U1 U2
U2
002
NWK
10K
U1 U2
PSS
Non riparian
12
002
EHOR
NWM
10 K
EH O R U1
PFO
Non riparian
22
0 68 U1 U2
U2
068
NWO
101
EHOR
PFO4
Non riparian
17
311
EHOR
NWP
101
EH O R U1
PSS
Non riparian
17
2913
U2
U1 U2 1138
ZWJ
10 E
U1 U2
PFO
Non riparian
26
137
ZWK
10 E
U1 U2
PEM
Non riparian
16
008
ZWL
10 G
U1 U2
PFO
Non riparian
20
024
ZWM
10 G
U1 U2
PFO
Non riparian
20
004
ZWY
10 C
M1 M2
PFO
Non riparian
10
004
ZWCC
10K
E H O R U1
PFO
Riparian
28
003
ZWDD
10 D
E H R
PFO
Non riparian
26
116
Riparian
PD 01"
10 C
M1 M2
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
007
PD 03
10 C
M1 M2
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
721
PD 04
10 C
M1 M2
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
642
PD 15
101
E H O R U1
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
048
PD 16
101
E H O R U1
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
058
Owl

Table 4 15 Individual Wetland Impacts continued
Wetland
Figure
Corridor
Cowardin
Hydrologic
DWQ
Wetland
ID
No
Alternative(s)
Classification'
Classification
Wetland
Impacts
Rating
(acres)
EH O R U1
EHOR
PD 29
101
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
8 58 U1 U2
CJ2
856
PD 31
101
E H O R U1
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
291
PD 33
101
E H O R U1
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
082
Riparian
PD 34
101
E H O R U1
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
108
PD 35
101
E H O R U1
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
308
t Cowardm classifications are based on characteristics of each wetland at the specific time and location of
observation Wetlands having No ID were not characterized due to impacted appearance at the time of
obsen ation
2 Includes wetland FEW 7 Includes wetland IWG
3 Includes wetland HBAC 8 Includes wetland IWI
4 Includes wetland HBWP 9 Includes wetlands IWR
Includes wetlands HWM HWN HWO 10 Includes wetlands KWJ KWK and KWL
6 Includes wetlands HWBB HWII HWLL 'I Delineation data previousl) verified no DWQ
wetland rating forms completed for these wetlands
U1 is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass at Military
Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M1 U2 is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with
US 17 Wilmington Bypass at Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M2
Impacts are for all alternatives unless otherwise noted Individual impacts calculated for Military Cutoff Road
Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 utilize the corresponding Hampstead Bypass Alternative U interchange
configuration
Bll

Appendix C
Agency Comments on the
Draft EIS

.J60 s7-'q'
A
Y UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
o low, Q ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
�+I�� 61 FORSYTH STREET
3� "`q` PA01toO2 ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303 8960
November 15 2011
Dr Gregory J Thorpe, Ph D Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1548
SUBJECT Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the US 17 Hampstead
Bypass and Military Cutoff Road Extension New Hanover and Pender Counties North
Carolina CEQ No 20110322, TIP Project Nos R 3300 and U 4751
Dear Dr Thorpe
The U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 has reviewed the
subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The U S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation ( NCDOT) are proposing to extend Military Cutoff Road on new location
for several miles (approximately 3 5 miles) as a 6 lane median divided facility and
connect to a 12 to 15 mile new location multi lane median divided bypass facility of US
17 Highway in New Hanover and Pender Counties North Carolina Both multi lane
facilities are expected to tie m with I 140 Wilmington Bypass (Also known as US 17
John Jay Burney Jr Freeway) I 140 currently connects to US 17 (Market Street) with an
interchange at Futch Creek. Road
EPA has been participating in the proposed project under the NEPA/Section 404
Merger process since 2005 and before the NCDOT proposed to combine the two facilities
into one proposed project According to EPA s records the Purpose and Need
(Concurrence Point CP 1) for the combined roadway facilities was concurred on
September 21 2006 On August 23, 2007 EPA concurred on the Detailed Study
Alternatives to be carried forward (Concurrence Point 2) Another CP 2 meeting was
held on April 20 2010 that further narrowed down the Detailed Study Alternatives EPA
concurred on CP 2A Bridging and Alignment Review on May 27 2010 EPA s
technical review comments on the DEIS are attached to this letter (See Attachment A)
Internet Address (URL) http / /www spa gov
Recycled/Recyclable Printed wAh Vegetable 00 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mintnum 309' Postconsumer)

It should be noted that EPA and the U S Fish and Wildlife Service are listed on
the DEIS cover as Cooperating Agencies Section 15016 of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations should be further explored by the USACE and
NCDOT for specific requirements of Cooperating Agencies
EPA has rated the DEIS alternatives E H +M1 O +M2 R +M1 U +M1 and U +M2
as Environmental Objections (EO 2) EPA has rated detailed study alternative (DSA) U
as Environmental Concerns (EC 2) Those DSAs rated as EO 2 are those alternatives
where there is a potential for significant environmental impacts to water supply wells and
high quality waters of the U S that cannot be addressed without significant project
modification or the development of other feasible alternatives The DEIS fails to address
the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act with respect to
current and future water supplies and the Military Cutoff Road extension impacts (i e
DSA M1 and M2) The DEIS fails to identify avoidance and minimization measures and
compensatory mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for significant
impacts to high quality waters of the U S
The rating of 2 indicates that DEIS information and environmental analysis is
not sufficient and that additional information is required EPA has substantial
environmental concerns with respect to wetland and stream impacts and appropriate
avoidance and minimization measures and compensatory mitigation In addition, EPA
also has environmental concerns for potential impacts to wetland mitigation and
preservation sites prime farmland impacts, impacts to threatened and endangered
species wildlife habitat fragmentation, and human environment impacts EPA
recommends that all of the technical comments in the attachment be addressed prior to
the issuance of a Final EIS (FEIS) Furthermore all relevant environment impacts that
have not been disclosed in this document should be addressed in additional
documentation prior to the next Merger decision point
EPA has rated DSA U as having environmental concerns (EC 2) because it has
significant environmental impacts to human and natural resources that have not been
fully or accurately addressed in the DEIS and additional information is required EPA
believes that strictly combined with other transportation alternatives such a
Transportation System Management (TSM) and Travel Demand Management (TDM)
DSA U can possibly help meet the purpose and need However additional avoidance and
minimization measures would be needed for DSA U to prevent degradation to protected
and jurisdictional resources EPA is requesting a conceptual mitigation plan prior to the
selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
EPA will not be able to concur on the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LEDPA) until the significant environmental issues identified in the
attachment are satisfactorily resolved
Mr Christopher Militscher of my staff will continue to work with you as part of
the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team process EPA will continue to work with your staff
and other Merger Team agencies on modifications to the DSAs and developing

alternatives that can potentially meet the stated purpose and need for the project study
area Should you have any questions concerning these comments please feel free to
contact him at Militscher chns(@ega goy or [phone] or [phone] Thank
you
Sincerely
Heinz J Mueller
Chief NEPA Program Office
Cc S
McClendon USACE
B
Shaver USACE
P
Benjamin USFWS
B
Wrenn NCDWQ
D
Wainwright, NCDWQ
M
Herndon, NCDWQ
D
Cox NCWRC
S
Sollod NCDCM

/:11 *rTy010101"W.1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
US 17 Hampstead Bypass and Military Cutoff Road Extension
New Hanover and Pender Counties
TIP Proiect Nos R -3300 and U4751
Detailed Technical Comments
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project
The NEPA/Section 404 Merger Concurrence Point (CP) 1 Purpose and Need
statement is included in Appendix B of the DEIS The stated purpose and need that
Merger team representatives agreed to is as follows The purpose of the project is to
improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor
in the project study area The DEIS includes an elaboration on the purpose and need on
Pages 1 3 and 1 4 The discussion concerning safety is not fully examined EPA
believes that the severity of accidents and potential fatalities within the project study area
may increase with a new location highway speed freeway While overall minor traffic
accidents may be expected to decrease along US 17 /Market Street with a new multi lane
bypass facility FHWA and National Safety Council studies have shown that new
location, high speed freeways in rural areas can potentially increase the severity of
accidents NCDOT safety studies also indicate that the total crash rate for US 17 between
US 17 Wilmington Bypass (I 140) and Sloop Point Loop Road is below the 2005 2007
statewide crash rate for rural U S routes Most of the proposed Hampstead Bypass is
located substantially north of where the traffic and accident problems are located along
existing US 17 /Market Street
This section of the DEIS includes an additional need concerning transportation
demand U S Census Bureau population data for New Hanover County and Pender
County is provided The DEIS states that with the population increase there is a
corresponding growth in tourism and supporting services that resulted to a mixed
purpose traffic on US 17 This section of the DEIS does not specifically identify the
correlation between population growth and the growth in tourism and supporting
services The population growth trends presented in Table 1 4 by decade for the periods
of 2010 2020 and 2020 2030 are not reflective of more recent socio economic trends
The large number of annual visitors for tourism does not specifically translate into
increased population growth for the project study area Considering the extensive
wetland systems present in the project study area and that most upland areas have already
been developed for retirement and seasonal second homes future trends in permanent
population growth are believed to be over estimated to justify new location facilities
Figure 2 of the DEIS includes the 2008 Levels of Service (LOS) along some of
the mayor routes in the project study area including 1 140 /Wilmington Bypass US
17/Market Street and US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road at the northern project terminus
This figure is confusing as it only provides LOS from A to C and then breaks out LOS
D E and F Twenty four (24) intersections are also provided with a LOS EPA notes

that a majority of existing Military Cutoff Road within the project study area shown is
LOS A C Additionally EPA estimates that based upon peak hour NCDOT traffic
estimates approximately 66 500 feet of 123 375 total feet of existing roadways operate at
a satisfactory LOS of A C Mayor sections of the existing multi -lane US 17 highway in
Pender County and I 140/Wilmington Bypass show no current traffic capacity issues
Eight (8) of the 24 intersections also operate at LOS A C
EPA also notes the issue of local traffic versus regional through traffic From
Figure 2 it can be seen that while the 1 140 /Wilmington Bypass operates at an acceptable
LOS US 17 from College Road to Futch Creek Road (approximately 7 miles) operates at
LOS F Apparently 1 140 /Wilmington Bypass is not drawing sufficient through traffic
from downtown Wilmington roadways The interchange of I- 140/Wilmington Bypass
and US 17 north of Porters Neck Road is rated with a LOS A C Similarly the traffic
problems (LOS F) south of the proposed extension of Military Cutoff Road would not
expect to be improved with a new location 6 lane freeway connecting to 1 140 with a
new interchange EPA is uncertain how the new location US 17/Hampstead Bypass of
approximately 12 to 15 miles will improve traffic carrying capacity south of the proposed
connections and new interchange with I 140 /Wilmington Bypass Except for one small
area south of Scotts Hill Loop Road and a similarly small area by Topsail High School
US 17 between the I 140 interchange to the northern terminus operates at LOS D or
better
Figure 5 includes the projected 2035 LOS No build Nearly all multi lane
roadways and intersections operate at LOS F based upon projected growth The DEIS
does not include the 2035 LOS in the project study area with the proposed new facilities
(Build Scenario) This information is necessary to determine if after the 16 to 18 miles of
new facilities are constructed that there will be any observable improvements to the
existing facilities in the future The project need appears to be based solely upon past
population growth numbers in the two counties from 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010
Section 3 Table 3 1 of the DEIS provides Population Characteristics for North Carolina
New Hanover County Pender County Wilmington and Demographic Area The DEIS
defines the demographic area as the area in and around the study area The DEIS does
not separate seasonal peak traffic numbers from the Average Annual Daily Traffic
(AADT) The DEIS does not provide a break down by year of population growth rates
within the demographic area EPA would not anticipate that population growth ratcs
from 2008 to present are at the same substantial percentage levels as was seen earlier in
the decade These 2035 population projections do not appear to take into account the
project setting and the availability of other necessary infrastructure
Overall the information contained in the DEIS does not adequately support the
purpose and need for multi lane (6 lanes for Military Cutoff Road Extension and 4 lanes
for the Hampstead Bypass) new location roadways including a 12 to 15 mile freeway
and a 3 5 mile 6 lane boulevard Other transportation initiatives such as widening
existing roadways providing interchanges and improved intersection movements adding
turn lanes providing traffic calming measures and other Transportation Systems
Management and Travel Demand Management measures could meet current and possible

future traffic problems Regional traffic plans do not fully address the existing traffic
conditions of the I- 140 /Wilmington Bypass and why the northern terminus was selected
at its current location if it was not expected to draw regional and seasonal traffic from
more congested local routes Based upon NCDOT studies I 140 /Wilmington Bypass and
its interchanges operate successfully at LOS A C
Recent purpose and need guidance by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) indicates that safety issues on existing facilities cannot always be addressed by
the construction of new location facilities Safety improvements along existing US 17
could be accomplished through a multiple of enhancements including the addition of
auxiliary turn lanes restricting driveway access improved signal timing reducing the
posted speed limit increased signage etc Considering the rural and suburban nature of a
majority of the protect study area new location and multi lane facilities combined with
existing safety concerns along US 17 will potentially increase the number and severity of
accidents
Preliminary and Detailed Study Alternatives
The DEIS includes discussions in Section 2 2 regarding Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) Alternative Travel Demand Management (TDM) Alternative and
Mass Transit Alternatives These transportation alternatives were not given full
consideration and were eliminated from detailed study because they did not meet the
purpose and need for the proposed new location projects These alternatives were given
only cursory consideration as individual alternatives and were never considered in
combination along with other select improvements to existing roadways and
intersections Under the Mass Transit Alternative EPA notes that NCDOT has concluded
that there is a potential lack of demand EPA requests a copy of the public survey and
other traffic studies that support this conclusion The DEIS also cites a diversity of trip
origins and destinations EPA requests a copy of the origin/destination (O/D) study that
was prepared to support this position
The DEIS discusses the N C Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) vision plan
adopted by the N C Board of Transportation in 2004 as part of the purpose and need for
the project The SHC was not included in the purpose and need that Merger team
representatives concurred on in September of 2006 The extension of Military Cutoff
Road is designated as a boulevard in the SHC plan The Hampstead Bypass is depicted in
the 2004 SHC vision plan as a new location freeway that follows the most westerly routes
of some of the Detailed Study Alternatives (DSAs) Without fully examining other
transportation alternatives or knowing the full extent of traffic problems on US 17/Market
Street it was determined in 2004 that new multi lane routes would be the vision for the
corridor The DEIS does not explain the correlation between the traffic problems on
existing US 17/Market Street and the need for additional traffic carrying capacity new
multi lane routes of travel that are at a substantial distance from the poor LOS areas and
intersections and areas with higher accident rates shown on Page 2 -2 EPA does not
believe that other non new location transportation alternatives either singly or in
combination were given full consideration in the DEIS

The DEIS includes a comparison of 23 preliminary corridor alternatives
(Alternatives A through W and Z) for the Hampstead Bypass and 2 preliminary corridor
alternatives (Alternatives M1 and M2) for the Military Cutoff Road Extension Many of
these preliminary study corridors were apparently identified by NCDOT to strictly avoid
residential relocations within the proposed 300 foot corridor without any context
sensitive regard to natural system impacts (e g Alternative W 501 5 acres of wetland
impacts and 63 residential relocations) The original list of preliminary study alternatives
were narrowed down to 13 DSAs on August 23 2007 at a Concurrence Point (CP) 2
Merger meeting The list of 13 DSAs was further narrowed down on April 20 2010 to 6
DSAs at a second CP 2 meeting The current list of DSAs includes Alternatives E -H O
R U and M1 and M2 Alternatives E H O R and U all share the same northern terminus
by Sloop Point Loop Road and US 17 Alternatives M1 and M2 share a common
southern terminus at the intersection of Military Cutoff Road and US 17 Combining the
freeway alternatives and Military Cutoff Road extension alternatives represents 5 DSAs
Alternatives E H O and R are located more than a mile to the west of the existing
multi lane US 17 facility for a majority of their length Alternative E -H appears at its
most westerly point to be located more than 3 miles from the existing US 17 corridor
Alternative U is considered to be a shallow bypass and utilizes the existing corridor for
approximately half of its length Alternative U does not require a new location
interchange along I- 140 /Wilmington Bypass The DEIS design for DSA U indicates a
250 to 350 right of way required for this DSA The DEIS does not provide a specific
justification for this proposed width compared to the other alternatives under
consideration This right of way width is also contradictory to the environmental
commitment included on page 1 of 2 of the Green Sheets
Alternatives M 1 and M2 follow the same alignment for more than half of its
length and then tie in two future I- 140 /Wilmington Bypass interchanges that are
approximately one mile apart The current DSAs combinations are included in the
summary comparison in Table S 1 The 5 DSAs under consideration in the DEIS do not
necessarily meet the requirements under 40 CFR Part 1502 14 Traffic carrying capacity
and accident issues are located south of the I 140 /Wilmington Bypass interchange along
US 17 These issues were discussed during previous Merger team meetings and agencies
were informed that the NCDOT would evaluate a full range of alternatives that would
singly or in combination meet the purpose and need The initially proposed project study
area was expanded at the request of the USACE and other agency representatives to
insure that a full suite of reasonable alternatives would be explored during the NEPA
process
Human Environment Impacts
Relocations
Residential and business relocations for the DSA E H +MI O +M2 R +MI, U +M1
and U +M2 are shown in Table S 1 and are as follows 61/84, 60/84 59/84 93/106 and

95/106 The business relocations include non - profit displacements (i a Relocations)
There are no large business employers identified within the demographic area (Pages 3 2
and 3 3 of the DEIS)
EPA compared residential and business relocations for the DSAs to similar multi
lane facilities identified and analyzed under the 2010 Merger Performance Measures
Environmental Quality Indicators (Baseline and 2009 data) For residential relocations
impacts per mile for the five DSAs were comparable in range to the Baseline and 2009
impact numbers (2 0 to 4 2 residential relocations per mile for Eastern new location
projects respectively) Business relocations are higher for all 5 DSAs compared to the
Baseline and 2009 impact numbers The DEIS included non profit organizations in the
business relocation totals This is not a common NCDOT practice nor consistent with
current NEPA/Section 404 Merger guidance In addition NCDOT also included a
church cemetery graves and a 0 employee daycare in the Appendix C business
relocations for U 4751 Alternatives M 1 and M2 According to this report 63 business
relocations will result from either DSA M 1 or M2 Appendix C appears to double count
certain business relocations For DSA U the report includes the relocation of 9 non profit
organizations including 7 churches Another 32 displaced businesses are identified for
DSA U Also included in the list of 32 business relocations for DSA U is a seasonal
produce stand a small business with name unknown and a new business under
construction (no name) This report identified a cell tower will be isolated by this
alternative as well as water tanks for the Belvedere Plantation subdivision However this
relocation report does not identify at least two existing water supply wells operated by
Cape Fear Public Utility Authority that will be impacted by both DSA M 1 and M2 (Page
4 22 of the DEIS) EPA requests that a consistent and accurate analysis of residential and
business relocations be provided to EPA and other Merger team agencies prior to the CP
3 LEDPA meeting and included in the FEIS
Minority and Low Income Populations Environmental Justice
Table 4 1 identifies minority owned residential and business relocations,
including the following DSA EH +M1 13 out of 61 residential and 11 out of 84
businesses DSA O +M2 11 out of 60 residential and 11 out of 84 businesses DSA
R +M1 13 out of 59 residential and 11 out of 84 businesses DSA U +M1 36 out of 93
residential and 22 out of 106 businesses DSA U +M2 36 out of 95 residential and 22 out
of 106 businesses The Environmental Justice impacts based upon 2000 Census data are
described on Pages 4 4 to 4 -6 of the DEIS The DEIS concludes that the proposed project
is not expected to have disproportionately high and adverse human health and
environmental effects on low income or minority populations
Community Resources
Access to Prospect Cemetery is expected to be eliminated by either DSA M 1 or
M2 Page 4 2 of the DEIS states that access to Prospect Cemetery will be evaluated
during final roadway design EPA believes that this is a known impact resulting from the
Military Cutoff Road Extension and access road options and associated impacts should

have been identified in the DEIS including potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
and streams The DEIS identifies an impact under DSA M1 and M2 to a driving range
(golf) under community facilities and services This is a commercial business ( #57 under
Business Relocations) and not a public or non profit community facility The DEIS does
identify that Holly Shelter Game Land is located in the project study area However
unlike the driving range it is a public and community facility as well as a gameland and
preservation area It is used extensively by the public EPA requests that inaccuracies
contained in the DEIS be addressed in the FEIS
Mount Ararat AME Church a historic property, is also expected to be impacted
by DSA Ml or M2 In addition the DEIS also indicates that grave sites in this cemetery
could also be impacted but does not quantify the potential number of grave sites In the
Appendix C relocation report, it is provided that DSA U will reportedly impact 647 + /
grave sites Wesley Chapel United Methodist Church (395 +/ graves) McClammy and
King Family Cemetery (17 +/ graves) and Pollock s Cemetery (235 +/- graves) The
number of grave sites in the relocation report for DSA M 1 and M2 under TIP project
number U 4751 is not provided Potential cemetery impacts for DSAs E -H O and R are
not identified in the report
Ogden Park is described on Page 4 -2 of the DEIS and discusses the park boundary
that was designed to accommodate a future transportation corridor through the middle of
the county park In addition Pedestrian access to existing multi -use path facilities and
Ogden Park would be unproved if pedestrian facilities are constructed There is no
identification of any proposed pedestrian facilities between the two sections of the park
Additional details concerning non profit relocations are provided in Section 4 12
of the DEIS DSA E -H O and R will impact 3 churches including St John the Apostle
Catholic Church Angel Food Ministries and Topsail Baptist Church
Hampstead is an unincorporated community in Pender County and is an area
characterized as a home to four golf courses that are centered in large residential
developments The northern area of the project study area is characterized as being rural
with natural areas preserved for recreation and education The N C Wildlife Resources
Commission manages Holly Shelter Game Land and North Carolina State University
manages its blueberry research station There are numerous other public and private
mitigation sites and preserved lands in the pioject study area Notably there are several
NCDOT mitigation sites (associated with the I 140/US 17 /Wilmington Bypass project)
including but not limited to the Plantation Road Site Corbett Strip Residual Site and the
Corbett Tract Mitigation Site
Farmland Impacts
Impacts to prime farmlands are described in Section 4 3 on the impacts to the
physical environment Farming and agricultural practices are a human activity and
represent businesses In addition to N C Executive Order 96 on the Conservation of
Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands the Lead Federal Agency (i e USACE) is required

to comply with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 for those NEPA
actions impacting prime farmland as defined under 7 CFR Part 658 Please see
http Hwww nres usda g_ov for more information
Prime farmland impacts are quantified for each DSA in Table 4 5 Impacts are
very specifically quantified as follows DSA E H +M1 67 48 acres DSA O +M2 58 10
acres DSA R +M 1 58 12 acres DSA U +M 1 49 88 acres and DSA U +M2 49 88 acres
Section 4 3 3 does not reference the required AD 1006 forms EPA is unable to locate the
forms in the DEIS appendices EPA requests how these x ery exact impact numbers were
calculated and if the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) completed AD
1006 forms for the DSAs The DEIS does not provide any further information
concerning potential N C Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VADs) or what measures to
minimize farming impacts might be appropriate (e g Equipment access across dissected
fields) According to the N C Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
Pender County in 2008 was working towards establishing VADs
Sections 3 3 3 and 4 3 3 of the DEIS fails to provide the relative importance of
farming and other forest products for the Pender County economy and its employment
contribution Prior to the issuance of a FEIS EPA recommends that supplemental
information and analysis be provided regarding prime farmland and other agricultural
land impacts resulting from the proposed project
Noise Receptor Impacts
Impacts to noise receptors are described in Section 4 3 on the impacts to the
physical environment Human environment impacts are described in Section 4 1 Noise
impacts are based upon receptor criteria to the human environment Total noise receptor
impacts are shown in Table 4 4 However design year 2035 traffic noise levels that are
expected to approach or exceed the NAC are different than from the table Table S 1
includes the actual noise receptor impacts for each DSA DSA E H +M 1 257 receptors
DSA O +M2 236 receptors DSA R +M1 248 receptors DSA U +M1 310 receptors and
DSA U +M2 304 receptors
Based upon the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy potentially 9 noise wall
barriers are expected to meet the NCDOT s current feasibility and reasonableness criteria
as identified on Page 4 11 The decision on the construction of the cost effective noise
barriers to provided needed noise abatement is being deferred by NCDOT until final
design more in depth Traffic Noise Modeling (TNM) and additional public
involvement
Historic Properties and Archaeological Sites
DSA U has 4 historic property adverse effects including Poplar Grove Scott s
Hill Rosenwald School and Wesleyan Chapel united Methodist Church and Mount Ararat
AME Church The Mount Ararat AME Church impact (adverse effect) is associated with
DSA M1 or M2 Thus all of the DSAs have at least one adverse effect on a historic

property There is no identified avoidance alternative The impacts to historic properties
from DSA U are based upon using a freeway design along portions of existing US 17
and including parallel service roads Some of the impacts to historic properties may be
avoided or mmimized if other reasonable designs are pursued during final design
Archaeological surveys have not been conducted for the DSAs and they are not proposed
to be conducted until after the selection of the preferred alternative
Hazardous Materials
Section 3 3 5 on hazardous materials is not accurate and should be corrected in
the FEIS Hazardous materials are regulated by the U S Department of Transportation
(USDOT) under 49 CFR Parts 100 185 This section of the DEIS does not conform to
other NEPA documents prepared by the NCDOT and reviewed by the EPA Hazardous
materials are identified in the Impacts to the Physical Environment section and not in
the Human Environment Impact section
Hazardous wastes are regulated under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act
(RCRA) of 1976 as amended Hazardous substances are regulated under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of
1980 as amended The NEPA/Section 404 Merger Guidance provides additional details
concerning these laws and requirements Some of the identified geoenvironmental sites
described in this section may meet the cleanup requirements of more than one Federal
statute Only 5 of the 28 sites referenced in Section 3 3 5 are described in Section 4 3 5
These 5 sites are associated with DSA M1 and M2 There is no qualifying description of
the phrase low geoenvironniental inipacts Details concerning the other 23 hazardous
material sites is not provided in the DEIS Supplemental information and analysis should
be provided to EPA prior to the issuance of the FEIS This future geotechnical
investigation and evaluation should include the potential for existing hazardous material
sites and underground storage tanks to contaminate shallow groundwater resources
Natural Resources Impacts
Groundwater Impacts and Water Supply Wells
Sections 3 5 3 and 4 5 3 of the DEIS discuss impacts to the project area water
supply Groundwater aquifers are generally described in Section 3 5 3 1 The Cape Fear
Public Utility Authority ( CFPUA) is reported to have several existing and proposed well
sites associated with the Nano Water Treatment Plant (NWTP) Section 4 5 3 1 1
identifies that DSA M1 and M2 cross two existing well sites operated by the CFPUA
Additionally DSA M2 would also impact two additional existing CFPUA well sites (to
total 4) and a proposed well site DSA M2 is anticipated to impact a raw water line and
concentrate discharge line that provides a connection to several anticipated well sites
The DEIS states that estimates provided by CFPUA include the loss of up to 6 million
gallons per day (mgd) of anticipated future water supplies for the project study area The
DEIS lacks any specificity as to what the loss of the existing water supplies might be

what the potential to feasibly relocate the wells might be or what the costs might be
should either DSA M1 or M2 be selected
DSA U is also expected to impact 3 existing transient non - community water
supply wells in the vicinity of the proposed US 17 interchange at Sidbury Road and Scott
Hill Loop Road Transient non community wells are described as being ones that serve
25 or more people at least 60 days out of the year at facilities such as restaurants and
churches The DEIS does not provide any additional information regarding these impacts
including current withdrawal rates the availability of alternative drinking water supplies
the costs to owners to relocate wells etc
The DEIS does not address what the potential for contamination to existing well
fields will be The depth and distance of CFPUA well sites is not provided with respect to
the alternatives under consideration The potential threat from hazardous material
accidents to other existing wellheads is not evaluated in the DEIS Section 5 3 1 4
identifies 33 CFR 320 4(m) with respect to water supply impacts EPA has provided the
following specific USACE citation
Water is an essential resource basic to human survival economic growth and the
natural environment Water conservation requires the efficient use of water resources in
all actions which involve the significant use of water or that significantly affect the
availability of water for alternative uses including opportunities to reduce demand and
improve efficiency in order to minimize new supply requirements Actions affecting water
quantities are subject to Congressional policy as stated in section 101(g) of the Clean
Water Act which provides that the authority of states to allocate water quantities shall
not be superseded abrogated or otherwise impaired
The full impacts to water supplies are not detailed in the DEIS EPA believes that
the construction of either DSA M1 or M2 will potentially violate this Clean Water Act
requirement NCDOT should also refer to the Safe Drinking Water Act for additional
requirements The DEIS fails to provide any potential avoidance or minimization
measures or mitigation to address the loss of current and future water supplies in the
project study area
Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
Surface water impacts are included in Sections 3 5 3 2 and 4 5 3 2 of the DEIS A
total of 134 streams were identified in the project study area Four (4) streams within one
mile downstream of the project study area have been designated as High Quality Waters
(HQW) and one stream within one mile downstream has been designated Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) These five streams are Futch Creek Old Topsail Creek Pages
Creek an unnamed tributary to the Atlantic Intercoastal Waterway (AIWW) and Howe
Creek respectively There are no Section 303(d) listed impaired waters in the project
study area The physical characteristics of all of the streams in the project study area are
provided in Table 3 -7

Jurisdictional stream impacts for the DSAs are as follows DSA E H +M1 24 531
linear feet or 4 6 miles DSA O +M2 13 842 linear feet or 2 6 miles DSA R +M1 24 571
linear feet or 4 6 miles DSA U +M1 15 450 linear feet or 2 9 miles and DSA U +M2
8 786 linear feet or 1 7 miles EPA compared stream impacts for the DSAs to similar
multi lane facilities identified and analyzed under the 2011 Merger Performance
Measures Environmental Quality Indicators (Baseline and 2010 data) Stream impacts
per mile for four of the DSAs were a magnitude or more above the 2004 -2009 Baseline
of 410 linear feet/mile and the 2010 Eastern new location value of 200 linear feet/mile
Except for DSA U +M2 of 523 linear feet/mile the other 4 DSAs had impacts per mile as
follows 1 402 linear feet/mile (Greater than 3 times the Baseline) 834 linear feet /mile
(Greater than 2 times the Baseline) 1 437 linear feet/mile (Greater than 3 times the
Baseline) and 858 linear feet /mile (Greater than 2 times the Baseline) EPA does not
believe that impacts to jurisdictional streams will be substantially reduced from these
DEIS values following the selection of a LEDPA due to constructability issues within the
project study area
A total of 85 ponds and 286 jurisdictional wetland systems were identified in the
project study area The physical characteristics of these surface waters are detailed in
Tables 3 8 and 3 9 of the DEIS By EPA s estimate as many as 43 of the 85 ponds are
classified as stormwater ponds NCDOT provided the DWQ Wetland rating for each of
the 286 wetland systems The DEIS did not provide wetlands ratings using the multi
agency accepted North Carolina Wetlands Assessment Methodology (NCWAM)
Jurisdictional wetland impacts for the DSAs are as follows DSA E H +M 1 246 1
acres DSA O +M2 384 4 acres DSA R +M1 297 4 acres DSA U +M1 218 4 acres and
DSA U +M2 283 8 acres Impact calculations were based on preliminary design slope
stake limits plus an additional 25 feet EPA does not anticipate that final impact numbers
to jurisdictional wetlands will be reduced from these specific impact estimates
Conversely recent highway projects in the Coastal Plain of N C have shown an increase
in wetland impacts following the selection of the LEDPA due to constructability issues
brought forward by NCDOT (e g R 3620 Poorly drained soils requiring that the road
bed be raised by 4 to 6 feet above natural ground elevation) EPA compared wetland
impacts for the DSAs to similar multi -lane facilities identified and analyzed under the
2011 Merger Performance Measures Environmental Quality Indicators (Baseline and
2010 data) Similar to the stream impact comparisons, wetland impacts per milc for each
DSA greatly exceeded the Baseline and 2010 Eastern new location project values of 2 1
acres /mile and 1 5 acres /mile respectively EPA estimates the following DSA E H +M1
14 1 acres/mile DSA O +M2 23 2 acres /mile DSA R +M1 17 4 acres /mile DSA U +M 1
12 1 acres /mile and DSA U +M2 16 9 acres /mile These wetland impacts per mile range
from 6 to 10 times the 2004 2009 Baseline for an Eastern new location project EPA does
not believe that impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be substantially reduced from
these DEIS values following the selection of a LEDPA due to possible constructability
issues and potential NCDOT safety concerns regarding 3 1 side slopes and the use of
guardrails along a future high speed facility

Section 4 5 4 1 contains a discussion on avoidance and minimization of impacts to
Jurisdictional resources Minimum hydraulic bridges are recommended at Site #6 UT to
Island Creek (Wetlands ISA and ISB) and Site #15 and Island Creek and UT to Island
Creek (Wetlands HBSF and HBSH) Dual 200 foot bridges are recommended at Site #16
UT to Island Creek (Wetland HBSD2) Seventeen (17) major hydraulic crossings were
identified during the CP 2A field meeting Thirteen (13) structures are various sized
reinforced concrete box culverts (RCBC) and one existing RCBC is proposed to be
extended The DEIS does not identify any additional avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce impacts to junsdictional streams and wetlands such as reduced
median widths increased side slopes the use of single bridges and tapered medians
retaining walls reduced paved shoulders etc
Compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional resources is
very generally discussed in Section 4 5 4 12 of the DEIS NCDOT proposes to seek on
site mitigation opportunities and utilize the N C Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
for off site mitigation needs Considering the magnitude and severity of the impacts to
high quality streams and wetlands EPA requests a conceptual mitigation plan prior to the
selection of a LEDPA and the issuance of a FEIS There are no details as to what
mitigation opportunities are available on site and what credits or mitigation assets are
available through the EEP Considenng the location of the proposed project and the
presence of high quality waters of the U S the conceptual mitigation plan should be
sufficiently detailed and provide for full compensation for lost functions and values to
high quality resources
During the Merger process EPA also learned that several NCDOT mitigation
sites associated with the I 140/Wilmington Bypass might be impacted from the proposed
project including the Plantation Road Site From Figure IOC of the DEIS it appears
that the 34 acre Residual Site might also be impacted from several of the DSAs From
Figure l OD it appears that the Corbett Strip Residual Site is probably going to be
impacted from several of the DSAs Discussions in the DEIS regarding the potential
impacts to these NCDOT mitigation sites is included in Section 3 3 8 3 Impacts to these
sites are not specifically identified in the summary table S 1 but are addressed Table
4 3 8 3 Additional information including credit/debit ledgers restrictive covenants and
easements and other property records is being requested by EPA prior to the selection of
a LEDPA and the issuance of a FEIS NCDOT should avoid impacting approved
mitigation sites that were required for compensation for previous highway project
impacts (i e I 140/US 17 Wilmington Bypass)
Terrestrial Forest Impacts
Terrestrial forest impacts include Table S 1 summary of impacts for the DSAs are
as follows DSA E -H +M1 518 acres DSA O +M2 512 acres DSA R +M1 472 acres
DSA U +M1 406 acres and DSA U +M2 455 acres These impact numbers do not match
the terrestrial community impacts shown in Table 4 9 Eliminating the impact estimates
to maintain and disturbed communities still does not provide for an accurate estimate of
terrestrial forest impacts The FEIS should identify how the terrestrial forest impacts

were calculated for each DSA and what natural communities were included in the
estimates EPA notes the comment concerning Executive Order 13112 on Invasive
species and NCDOT s Best Management Practices (BMPs) EPA acknowledges the
NCDOT invasive plant species list in Section 3 5 2 12 of the DEIS The FEIS should
identify specific BMPs to be followed to minimize the spread of invasive plant species
following construction and provide detailed environmental commitments on how these
BMPs are to be implemented It would be useful to the public and decision makers if
NCDOT could provide previous project examples where these invasive species BMPs
have cost effectively resulted in the long term elimination or reduction in invasive plant
species following roadway construction activities There are numerous Significant
Natural Heritage Areas that are present in the project study area and the proposed new
location alternatives represent a significant long term threat to these unique habitats
resulting from the introduction of aggressive and persistent roadside invasive plant
species
Threatened and Endangered Species
Sections 3 5 4 3 and 4 5 4 3 address protected species including Federally listed
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Considering the potential impacts to
NCWRC s managed Holly Shelter Game Land the DEIS should have also identified any
State listed species under their jurisdictional and within the project study area Twelve
(12) Federally listed threatened or endangered species are shown on Table 3 10
According to a copy of the U S Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) letter dated October
5 2011, there are numerous unresolved issues concerning threatened and endangered
species including Red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and issues associated with the
endangered plants and NCDOT mitigation sites that will be impacted from DSAs E H O
and R EPA s defers to the NCWRC and USFWS concerning specific requirements
involving Section 7 of the ESA and other wildlife issues Generally EPA has significant
environmentally concerns regarding wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation resulting
from most of the DSAs including E H O and R Potential animal /vehicle collisions
involving new location multi lane high speed facilities in rural areas in close proximity
to game lands and other preservation areas need to be analyzed and studied prior to the
issuance of a FEIS
Other Environmental Issues
EPA notes the other DEIS comments and issues concerning Air Quality including
transportation conformity Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) FEMA floodplain
impacts socio economic issues land use plans pedestrian and bike path issues
gameland and preservation area direct impacts and indirect and cumulative effects (ICE)
resulting from the proposed project
Regarding socio economic issues, EPA acknowledges the following DEIS
comment It is anticipated that the proposed project will enhance long -term access and
connectivity opportunities in New Hanover and Pender County and will support local
regional and statewide commitments to transportation improvement and economic

viability Enhanced long term access and connectivity are not part of the purpose and
need for the proposed project that EPA and other Merger Team agencies agreed with in
2006
Impacts to Holly Shelter Game Land Corbett Tract Mitigation Site Corbett Tract
Residual Strip Plantation Road Site 34 Acre Residual Site 22 Acre Residual Site and
Blake Savannah are detailed for the different DSAs in Table 4 7 Impacts to Holly
Shelter Game Land and the 22 Acre Residual Site should be removed from the table as
all of the impacts are zero to these two areas The total impacts for the DSAs are as
follows DSA E H +M 1 4 43 acres DSA O +M2 42 94 acres DSA R +M 1 5 01 acres
DSA U +M 1 3 24 acres and DSA U +M2 34 40 acres Most of the impacts are
associated with DSA M2 and are to the Plantation Road and 34 Acre Residual mitigation
sites These significant impacts should be included in Table S I and future impact tables
EPA does not agree with the assumptions and conclusions in the indirect and
cumulative effects section of the DEIS The analysis cites travel time benefits without
providing the specific travel time savings or other traffic analyses required to make such
a claim The analysis ignores a critical component water supply within the project study
area and the importance it may have on current and future development and land uses
Furthermore the qualitative ranking in Tables 4 18 and 4 19 are not supported by actual
data or facts These ranking appear to be very subjective and based upon past trends and
not upon more recent socio- economic factors The relationship of the information
contained in Table 4 -20 compared to the proposed project is not made clear in Section
4 6 Considering the significant impact predicted for the project study area watersheds
EPA is requesting a review copy of the indirect and cumulative quantitative water quality
impacts analysis that was requested by the NCDWQ and prior to the issuance of a FEIS

°f F, United,States Departine>mt ofthe Interior
e y�
-` FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
4
'Raleigh I",eld Office
Post Office Box 33726'
ARCH 3 "%1 Rahigh North Carolina 27636 3726
October 5, 2011
Gregory J Thorpe PhD
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
North Carolina Department,of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1548
Dear Dr Thorpe
RECEIVE®
61vlslon of Aghways
,pC,T 0 7 2011
oreconstruct +or,
Project 6eveloprAP -1 a +a
Environmental Artalysls aranch
This letter is in response to your August 29, 2011 letter which requested +comments from the U S
Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the Draft EnVlronmeiltal Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
proposed,SR 1 +409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and proposed US 17 jHampstead`Bypass
New Hanover and Pender'Counties, North Carolina (TIP No U,4751 and R -3300) These
conunents are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U S C 4332(2)(c)) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended
(16 U,S C 1531 -1543) r
For U 4751, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCI DOT) proposes toj extend
Military Cutoff ,Road as a six -lane divided roadway on new location from its current terminus 'at
US 17 (Market Street) in Wilmington north to an interchange,withFthe US 17 Wilmington
Bypass For R 3300 NCDOT pfoposes to construct th&US 17 Hampstead Bypass as a freeway
,on new location The US 17 Hampstead Bypass may connect to the proposed Military,Cutoff
Road Extension at the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass,and extend to existing US 17 north of
Hampstead There are currently five remaining alternatives under consideration
The Service has been actively involved for several years, in early4coordmation on this project
through the combined NEPA/404 Merger Process, and many of our previous comments, and
rec6mmendations are reflected in the DEIS The Service has helped narrow the range of
reasonable alternatives and assisted iii refining remaining alternatives
The cover page of the DEIS incorrectly state`s that the Service is a Cooperating Agency
Although the�Serviee has,; paihq'iipated in early coordination through thelMerger Process for years
the Service was not fortnally requested tolbe a Cooperating Agency (as pef 40 CFRISection
15016 nor lias the Service participated in the preparation of the DEIS
Page 2 -29 states,thatia total, nght of way width of 250`to 350 feet is proposed for Hampstead
Bypass Alternatives E H 10 and R, and that a total right of way width of 250 to 520 feet is
proposed fortAlternative U� This statement,appears mconsistent awith the Green Sheet project
commitment "Roadway wtdeningimprowerrients associated with Hampstead Bypass along
existing US 17)in this area [in the vicinity of Holly Shelter Game Land]' will not exceed a width

of 200 feet m order to maintain connectivity between red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat
partitions This commitment also appears on page 4 37 For red cockaded woodpecker (RCW,
Picoides borealis) habitat east of US 17 to be counted towards the total habitat acreage within
foraging partitions EC and 17, it is imperative that the total cleared area not exceed 200 feet
Page-3 49 incorrectly states that green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) do not nest in North
Carolina Green sea turtles do sporadically nest in North Carolina in small numbers Page 3 49
also states LoggerheadsIoccasionally nest on North Carolina beaches Actually loggerhead
tsea turtles (Caretta Caretta) consistently nest in North'Carolina
Table 4 7 on page 4 17 displays the impacts;to certain preservation areas Especially
problematic are the impacts to the Plantation Road Site This site contains several stems of the
federally endangered rough - leaved loosestnfe (Lysimachia asperulaefoha) Page 3- 16jcorrectly
states that the Plantation Road Site was, as per the conservation measures in the January 2002
'NCDOT Biological Assessment,(BA) and May 22, 2002 Service Biological Opinion (BO) for
the 140 Connector,(R 2405A), to be maintained as,a preservation area for rough- leaved
lodsestrife Alternatives M2 +0 and M2 +U would,impact a large portion of the preservation site
,as well as a significant number of rough- leavedlloosestnfe stems The Service iopposes these two
alternatives Although the other alternatives would have much smaller impacts to this
preservation area and may not directly impact rough - leaved loosestnfe stems, the designs should
be modified to furthef'avoid or minimize impacts
The Corbett Tract Mitigation Site as per the aforementioned BA and BO, was, in addition to
providing wetland mitigation to also serve asla preservation site for rough- leaved loosestnfe At
the time of the 20025Section 7 consultation for the I -40 Connector, this site had over 100 stems
of rough leaved loosestrfe Although the M1 altematives would only have small impacts Ito this
site (0 08 — 0 58 acre) the Service strongly recommends refining the designs to further avoid or
minimize these impacts
Four,of the five remaining alternatives would impact the Corbett Tract Residual Strip to some
degree (0 27 — 3-55 acres)' As per the conservation measures in the aforementioned BA and BO
this area was to be utilized "as a buffer between the 1'4-0 Connector and adjacent rough - leaved
loosestrfe clusters - Although rough- leaved loosestnfe�is not known to occur witlun this area,
impacts should be avoided or minimized in accordance with the intent of the conservation
measures within the BA and BO
Table 4 17 on page 4 35 lists federally protected species by county Golden sedge (Carer lutea)
is now listed Sin New Hanover County with a record status of probable /potential American
chaffseed (Schwalbea amerccana) is incorrectly listed in New Hanover County +It is actually
only listed in Pender, County as a histonc)occurrence
Page 4 37 states It is anticipated that the LTSACE will request of the USFWS that formal
consultation for red 'cockaded woodpecker lie initiated after the least environmentally,friendly
damaging practicable alternative for the proposed project 'has been identified The'Service
believes it would be prudent to delay formal Section 7 consultation until at least after
`Concu"rrence Point 4A (CPWA in the Merger Process when more refined design information is
available fff consultation were to begm pnorjto CP4A it is likely that the RCW foraging habitat
removal ilocatior sand extent would need Ito beirepeatedly revised, thus,necessitating re- initiation

of Section 7 consultation Due to encroaching private development, the habitat for kCWs in the
project area and,the status of the RCW groups have changed significantly in the last few years
and will likely continue to change As such, the Service strongly recommends that the timing of
formal Section 7 consultation be carefully planned so as to avoid multiple re initiations It is
very possible that biological conclusions may change within the next few years`
Page 4 39 and Table 4 17 state that (the biological conclusion for golden sedge (Carex lutea) is
'May Affect Likely to Adversely Affect The Service believes that this remains to be
detennined As stafed in the NEIS, no specimens of golden sedge have been observedfwithm the
project area Although habitat is present, and the clo "sely associated Cooley's�meadowrue
(Thalictrum cooleyi) is present, tthe Service believes that more surveys are warranted If
additional and appropriately timed surveys do not reveal any specimens of golden sedge, the
Service would concur with a no effect' conclusion fortthis species
Pages 4 -38 through 4 41 address the effects to Cooley s meadowrue (Thalictrum cooleyi) and
rough leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefgha) Given the disparate degree of effects to
these species depending upon the alternative selected graphics depicting the location of the
known locatibifs of these species in relation to thei'different alternatives woufd;be helpful
The Service would like to emphasize the,senous and complex issues regarding the effects of this
project to RCWs As the DEIS points out, the RCW§ located in the adjacent Holly Shelter Game
Land are part of the Coastal North Carolina Primary Core Recovery Population within the Mid -
Atlantic Coastal�Plain'Recovery Umt The Service has diligently worked with NCDOT to refine
the alternative designs to minimize the level of take on RCWs We acknowledge the efforts put
forth by NCDOT to reduce the level of take on this species Based on current information it
appears that the project will still result in a take of at least one active RCW group Given the fact
that the Coastal North Carolina Primary Core Population is still far from achieving its minimum
size required fordelisting (350 potential breeding groups), the loss of evefipne potential
breeding group is significant Additional coordination is needed to resolve this issue
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project If you shave any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr Zary, Jordan at [phone],+ext 32
Sincerely
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Electronic copy" Chris Mihtscher USEPA; Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC� Creedinoor, NC

��Nr of r
United States Department of the Interior TAKE PRIDE*
3'9p� OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY INAMERICA
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
Richard B Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street S W
Atlanta Georgia 30303
ER 11/881
9043 1
November 22 2011
Mr Brad Shaver
U S Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington NC 28403 1343
Re Comments and Recommendations for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for Improvements to U S 17 Hampstead Bypass New Hanover and Pender Counties
NC
Dear Mr Shaver
The U S Department of Interior (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for the proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and proposed US
17 Hampstead Bypass located in New Hanover and Pender Counties North Carolina (TIP No
U 4751 and R 3300) These comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U S C 4332(2)(c)) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973 as amended (16 U S C 1531 1543)
For U 4751 the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) proposes to extend
Military Cutoff Road as a six lane divided roadway on new location from its current terminus at
US 17 (Market Street) in Wilmington north to an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington
Bypass For R 3300 NCDOT proposes to construct the US 17 Hampstead Bypass as a freeway
on new location The US 17 Hampstead Bypass may connect to the proposed Military Cutoff
Road Extension at the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass and extend to existing US 17 north of
Hampstead There are currently five remaining alternatives under consideration
The Department has been actively involved for several years in early coordination on this project
through the combined NEPA /404 Merger Process and many of our previous comments and
recommendations are reflected in the DEIS The Department has helped narrow the range of
reasonable alternatives and assisted in refining remaining alternatives
The cover page of the DEIS incorrectly states that the Service is a Cooperating Agency
Although the Service has participated in early coordination through the Merger Process for years

US 17 Hampstead Bypass Project
the Service was not formally requested to be a Cooperating Agency (as per 40 CFR Section
1501 6) nor has the Service participated in the preparation of the DEIS
Page 2 29 states that a total right of way width of 250 to 350 feet is proposed for Hampstead
Bypass Alternatives E H O and R and that a total right of way width of 250 to 520 feet is
proposed for Alternative U This statement appears inconsistent with the Green Sheet project
commitment Roadway widening improvements associated with Hampstead Bypass along
existing US 17 in this area [in the vicinity of Holly Shelter Game Land] will not exceed a width
of 200 feet in order to maintain connectivity between red cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat
partitions This commitment also appears on page 4 37 For red cockaded woodpecker (RCW
Picoides borealis) habitat east of US 17 to be counted towards the total habitat acreage within
foraging partitions EC and 17 it is imperative that the total cleared area not exceed 200 feet
Page 3 49 incorrectly states that green sea turtles (Chelonia mydas) do not nest in North
Carolina Green sea turtles do sporadically nest in North Carolina in small numbers Page 3 49
also states Loggerheads occasionally nest on North Carolina beaches Actually loggerhead
sea turtles (Caretta caretta) consistently nest in North Carolina
Table 4 7 on page 4 17 displays the impacts to certain preservation areas Especially
problematic are the impacts to the Plantation Road Site This site contains several stems of the
federally endangered rough leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) Page 3 16 correctly
states that the Plantation Road Site was as per the conservation measures in the January 2002
NCDOT Biological Assessment (BA) and May 22 2002 Service Biological Opinion (BO) for
the 140 Connector (R 2405A) to be maintained as a preservation area for rough leaved
loosestrife Alternatives M2 +0 and M2 +U would impact a large portion of the preservation site
as well as a significant number of rough leaved loosestrife stems The Department opposes these
two alternatives Although the other alternatives would have much smaller impacts to this
preservation area and may not directly impact rough leaved loosestrife stems the designs should
be modified to further avoid or minimize impacts
The Corbett Tract Mitigation Site as per the aforementioned BA and BO was in addition to
providing wetland mitigation to also serve as a preservation site for rough leaved loosestrife At
the time of the 2002 Section 7 consultation for the 140 Connector this site had over 100 stems
of rough leaved loosestrife Although the M 1 alternatives would only have small impacts to this
site (0 08 — 0 58 acre) the Department strongly recommends refining the designs to further avoid
or minimize these impacts
Four of the five remaining alternatives would impact the Corbett Tract Residual Strip to some
degree (0 27 — 3 55 acres) As per the conservation measures in the aforementioned BA and BO
this area was to be utilized as a buffer between the 140 Connector and adjacent rough leaved
loosestrife clusters Although rough leaved loosestrife is not known to occur within this area
impacts should be avoided or minimized in accordance with the intent of the conservation
measures within the BA and BO
Table 4 17 on page 4 35 lists federally protected species by county Golden sedge (Carex lutea)
is now listed in New Hanover County with a record status of probable /potential American
2

US 17 Hampstead Bypass Project
chaffseed (Schwalbea americana) is incorrectly listed in New Hanover County It is actually
only listed in Pender County as a historic occurrence
Page 4 37 states It is anticipated that the USACE will request of the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) that formal consultation for red cockaded woodpecker be
initiated after the least environmentally friendly damaging practicable alternative for the
proposed project has been identified The Department believes it would be prudent to delay
formal Section 7 consultation until at least after Concurrence Point 4A (CP4A) in the Merger
Process when more refined design information is available If consultation were to begin prior to
CP4A it is likely that the RCW foraging habitat removal locations and extent would need to be
repeatedly revised thus necessitating re initiation of Section 7 consultation Due to encroaching
private development the habitat for RCWs in the project area and the status of the RCW groups
have changed significantly in the last few years and will likely continue to change As such the
Service strongly recommends that the timing of formal Section 7 consultation be carefully
planned so as to avoid multiple re initiations It is very possible that biological conclusions may
change within the next few years
Page 4 39 and Table 4 17 state that the biological conclusion for golden sedge (Carex lutea) is
May Affect Likely to Adversely Affect The Department believes that this remains to be
determined As stated in the DEIS no specimens of golden sedge have been observed within the
project area Although habitat is present and the closely associated Cooley s meadowrue
(Thahctrum cooleya) is present the Department believes that more surveys are warranted If
additional and appropriately timed surveys do not reveal any specimens of golden sedge the
Department would concur with a no effect conclusion for this species
Pages 4 38 through 4 41 address the effects to Cooley s meadowrue (Thahctrum cooleya) and
rough leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) Given the disparate degree of effects to
these species depending upon the alternative selected graphics depicting the location of the
known locations of these species in relation to the different alternatives would be helpful
We would like to emphasize the serious and complex issues regarding the effects of this project
to RCWs As the DEIS points out the RCWs located in the adjacent Holly Shelter Game Land
are part of the Coastal North Carolina Primary Core Recovery Population within the Mid
Atlantic Coastal Plain Recovery Unit The Department has diligently worked with NCDOT to
refine the alternative designs to minimize the level of take on RCWs We acknowledge the
efforts put forth by NCDOT to reduce the level of take on this species Based on current
information it appears that the project will still result in a take of at least one active RCW group
Given the fact that the Coastal North Carolina Primary Core Population is still far from
achieving its minimum size required for delisting (350 potential breeding groups) the loss of
even one potential breeding group is significant Additional coordination is needed to resolve
this issue
We appreciate the opportunity to review this project If you have any questions regarding our
response I can be reached on [phone] or via email at Ioyice stanley(a�ios doi gov

US 17 Hampstead Bypass Project
cc Jerry Ziewitz — FWS
Gary Jordan FWS
Brenda Johnson USGS
David Vela — NPS
Tommy Broussard — BOEM
OEPC — WASH
Sincerely
Joyce Stanley MPA
Regional Environmental Protection Assistant
for
Gregory Hogue
Regional Environmental Officer
11

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue Governor
November 15 2011
Ms Olivia Farr
N C Department of Transportation
Transportation Building
1548 Mall Service Center
Raleigh NC
Dear Ms Farr
Moses Carey Jr, Secretary
Re SCH File # 12- E4220 -0061, DEIS, Military cutoff extension from US 17 (Market Street) to
the proposed I -140 in New Hanover County & US 17 bypass of Hampstead in New
Hanover & Pender counties
The above referenced environmental impact information has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act According to G S 113A -10 when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act Attached to this
letter for your consideration are additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this protect they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call
�Sincerely
William EH Creech
Attachments
cc Region O
Mailing Address Telephone [phone] Location Address
1301 Mail Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh NC-27'699 1301 State Couner #51 -01-00 Raleigh North Carolina
e-mail state, clearinghouse@doa nc goti
An Equal Opportunity /Afftrmative Action Employer

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY NEW HANOVER
PENDER
MS SUSAN DECATSYE
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
1001 MSC - AGRICULTURE BLDG
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
F02 HIGHWAYS AND ROADS
CAPE FEAR COG
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR - COASTAL MGT
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT N C Department of Transportation
TYPE National Environmental Policy Act
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
STATE NUMBER
DA'C'E RECEIVED
AGENCY RESPONSE
REVIEW CLOSED
12 -E- 4220 -0061
09/07/2011
10/25/2011
10/30/2011
DESC Military cutoff extension from US 17 (Market Street) to the proposed I -140 in New
Hanover County & US 17 bypass of Hampstead in New Hanover & Pender counties
CROSS- REFERENCE NUMBER 06 -E- 4220 -0107
The attached pro3ect has been submitted to the N C State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review Please review dnd submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center Raleigh NC 27699 -1301
If additional review time is needed please contact this office at (919)807 -2425
AS A RESULT OF T IS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED ❑ NO COMMENT [:] COMMENTS ATTACHED
i
SIGNED BY DATE
i.

E w 3
ti
Steven W Troxier North Carolina Department of Agriculture
Commissioner and Consumer Services
Agricultural Services
Ms Sheila Green October 31 2011
State Clearinghouse
N C Department of Administration
1301 Mall Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699 -1301
Vernon Cox
Ln ,,ironmental Programs
Specialist
State # 12 E-4220 -0061
RE Proposed extension from US 17 to the proposed 1 -140 in New Hanover County and US 17 bypass of
Hampstead in New Hanover and Pender Counties
Dear Ms Green
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed extension from US 17 to the proposed 1 140
in New Hanover County and US 17 bypass of Hampstead in New Hanover and Pender Counties The
North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) is concerned about the
conversion of North Carolinas farm and forest lands to other uses Due to the importance of agricultural
activities in the area as well as the economy of the entire state NCDABCS strongly encourages the
probed planners to avoid conversion of agricultural land to other uses whenever possible When
avoidance is not possible all reasonable efforts to minimize impacts to farming operations and
agricultural land should be implemented
e tfully
Vernon Cox
Environmental Programs Specialist
N G � 311
his
A
E-mail vemon cox @ncagr gov
1001 Mad Service Center Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1001 [phone] • Fax [phone]
TTY 14MO -735 2962 Voice 1 877 735 -8200
An Equal Opportundy Aff'rmatnre Action Employer