20161268_Alternatives Report_20111215

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
STATE PROJECT 401 91 1 2
NCDOT TIP PROJECTS U 4751 AND R 3300
CORPS ACTION ID 2007 1 386
4�X
DECEMBER 15, 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 2761 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 Toda3 s Meeting
12 Project Description
13 Purpose of the Proposed Action
14 Project Status
20 Detailed Study Alternatives
21 Hampstead 135 pass Altelnati-, es
21 1 Alternate-, e E H
2 1 2 Alternati-, e 0
2 1 3 Alterniti-, e R
2 1 4 AlteinatiN e U
22 Mihtar3 Cutoff Road Extension Alteinau-, es
2 2 1 AlteinatiN e M1
222 Alternati-, e M2
30 Hydraulic Recommendations
40 Corridor Public Hearings & Agency Comments on the DEIS
41 Public Hearings
42 Agenc3 Comments on the DEIS
50 Environmental Evaluation
51 Streams Ponds and Wetlands
52 Historic Architectural Resources
53 Gamelands and Preservation Areas
54 Federa113 Protected Species
Appendix A — Figures
Appendix B — Reference Tables from the DEIS
Appendix C — Agenc) Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
1
u
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
41
�0
6
6
7
7
7
8
8

10 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
11 Purpose of Today's Meeting
The purpose of todly s meeting is to reN iew the project status and discuss items related to the
selection of the Least Lnvironmenvill) Damaging Piacticable Alteinate e (LEDPA) (Concuiience
Point 3)
12 Project Description
State 1 ransportation Impro-N ement Program (S 1 IP) projects U 4751 and R 3300 111N oh e the
construction of Militar) Cutoff Road Extension4n New Hanoi er Count) and the US 17
Hampstead B) pass in New Hano-, er and Pender Counties iespecti,% ely i hese projects are
included in the 2012 2018 STtP
For pioject U 4751 the North Caiohna Depaitinent of 1 ransportation (NCDO 1) proposes to
extend Mihtai) Cutoff Road as a six lane di-, ided roadwa) on new location fiom its current
terminus at US 17 (Market Street) in Wilmington north to an interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass Qohn ]a) Burnes Jr Freewa)) Limited and full control of access is proposed
For project R 3300 NCDO 1 proposes to construct the US 17 Hampstead Bypass as a freewa) 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 iight of way acquisition in State Fiscal Year (hY) 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 -, ary 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 impro-, e the traffic carrying capacity and
' safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area
14 Project Status
' 1 he Section 404 /NEPA Merger Team for the US 17 Corridor Stud) agieed on the purpose of and
need for the project at their September 21 2006 meeting
' The NEPA /Section 404 Merger 1 earn reviewed project alternate es at three meetings between
February 2007 and August 2007 During these meetings the merger team dropped alternatives
' from further consideration added alternate es for eN aluation and combined some alternatives
1 he merger team concurred on alternati-, es to be studied iii detail at their August 23 2007 meeting
The current detailed study alternate es are reviewed in Section 2 0

�1
Count} /Penden County line The alternate-, e continues north through predominantly undo eloped
' land to a proposed interchange 1t NC 210
From its interchange at NC 210 Alternative O extends northeast across seN eral minor roads that
' include hghtl� dex eloped residential areas and through unde-, eloped forested areas It continues
through farmland crosses Hoo-, er Road north of South I opsail Elementary School and continues
northeast through undo-, eloped pioperty to a proposed interchange with realigned US 17
approximately 0 7 mile west of GlandN iew Dre e Alteranatn e O continues north behind the
Topsail School complex and then twins east to tie into existing US 17 near Leeward Lane
Alternate e O continues north on existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road
2 1 3 ALTERNATIVE R
Alternate-, e R begins in New Hanoi er County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington
B) pass approximately midway between I 40 and Market Street Alternati-, e R extends northeast
from the bypass across undeN eloped land and crosses Sidbury Road at the New Hanover
Countl /Pender Count} line The alternate-, e continues north through predominantly under eloped
land to an interchange at NC 210
From its interchange at NC 210 Alternati-, e R crosses Hoo-\ er Road north of South Topsail
Elementary School and continues northeast through undeveloped propert} to a proposed
interchange with realigned US 17 approxinatel) 0 7 mile west of Grandview Drive Alternati-\ e R
continues north belund the Topsail School complex and then turns east to tie into existing US 17
near Leeward Lane Alternates e R continues north on existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road
Typical Sections Alternatives E H, O and R
From the proposed inteic ban
ge at the US 77 Vilmal�gton Bypals to the propo ed intercbange 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 thepropoled ailtei change atNC 270 to etiastzng US 17 Your 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 Alternati-, es 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 mule west of Grand-, new Drive Interchange locations are shown on Figure 9 A
total right of way ivedth of 200 feet to 350 feet is proposed for Hampstead Bypass Alternate-, es E
H O and R
2 1 4 ALTERNATIVE U
Alternate e U begins in New Hanoi er 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 alternate e (M1 or M2) Alternative U follows the Wilmington
Bypass through the existing interchange at Market Street 1 he alternate e runs along existing
US 17 to a proposed interchange with realigned Sidbury Road Alternate e U continues north on

2 2 2 ALTERNATIVE M2
Alteinati-, e 1\42 begins at a proposed mteichange at Military Cutoff Ro-id and Market Street
Alteinati-, e M2 follows the Alternati-, e 1\41 ahgnment foi approximately two miles AlteinatiN e M2
then turns northeast and extends through mostly unde-, eloped pioperty to a proposed interchange
with the US 17 Wilmington Byp iss appioximatel} one mile west of Market Street
Typical Sections Alternatives M1 and M2
From thepiopofed znteicban,ge at 117aiket Street to appiommately 0 9 mile nwb of Tonblvood Bonkmid Six
lanes (three in each direction) Nx ith a 30 foot median and curb and gutter rwo 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
Flom appio -,zmately 0 9 mile noitb o/ fonbnvood Bonlewrd to the plopo +ed intenbange at the US 17 Illilmngton
Byparr Six 12 foot lanes (three iii each direction) with 14 foot outside shoulders (12 foot pa-, ed)
A 46 foot median is proposed
The Wilmington Metiopohtan Planning Orgam7ation (MPO) has requested a multi use path be
constructed along proposed Miht iry Cutoff Road Extension The multi use path would tie into an
existing multi use path along Mihtan Cutoff Road 1 he 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
Wilmiington 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/united control of access facihty 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 Mihtar} Cutoff Road Extension
is proposed at directional crosso-, ers with Putnam DriN e Lendire Road and Torchwood
Boule-, and 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 -, ariable 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 alternatiN es The NEPA /Section 404 merger team concuired on the size
and location of the structures on Mai 26 and 27 2010 1 he locations of the structures aie shown
on DEIS Figure 10A in Appendix A

50 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
DIMS Figuies 10A through 1 OK in Appendix A show en-, uonmental features in the project arc i
A sumtnarj of potential en-, ironmental impacts is pro-, ided in 1 able 5 on page 10 Details of
impacts to jurisdictional resources historic architectural resources gameland 'Ind preset-\ 'ttion
,ireas and federallj protected species ate described below
51 Streams, Ponds and Wetlands
Water resources ti the stud) area ire piit of the Cape Fear RiN et basin (U S Geological Sur\ e)
JUSGS] H) drologic Units 03030007 Ind 03020302) A total of 59 jurisdictional streams 17 ponds
and 108 jurisdictional wetlands are located within the current detailed stud) alternate-\ es stud)
corridors
Impacts to Waters of the U S would occur at -\ arious locations throughout the length of the
project at stream crossings wetland are is and ponds Anticipated mnpacts by type of stream are
piesented for the detailed stud) alternatiN es in 1 able 1 Total stream wetland and pond impacts
for each alternati-\ e are shown m "I able 5 on page 10 Anticipated impacts for each stream pond
and wetland are presented for the detailed study alternatives in DEIS 1 ables 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
1 24,531
13,842
24,571
15,450
8,786
Tnbutar) waters determined to be )unsdictional b-ised on the presence of an ordinary lugh x -, ater marl.
(Ol- WNl These waters are classified as Waters of the US (impacts calculated in sq ft) and will not require
compensator} mitigation
52 Historic Architectural Resources
There is one property xxithin 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 resouices is summarized by alternate-, e in 1 able 2 The State Hsstoiic
Presern ation Office concurred with these effect determinations at a meeting held on March 8
2011 AN oidance measures have been incorporated into the design at Poplar GroN e Mount Ararat
AME Church Wesleyan Chapel United Methodist Church and Scotts Hill Rosenwald School A
re-, new of the effects deternunation will be requested from the State Historic Piesen ation Office

fable 4 Federall} Protected Species Effects
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Federal
Status
County
Biological
Conclusion
Alternatives
�Ilagalor
MIJUMPPienus
American
alh atot
1(S /A)
New HanoN et
Pendel
Not Requited
Chelonra >rtyda,
Green sea
turtle
T
New I I1no-, et
Pender
No Effect
Caretla ca�etta
Loggerhead
sea turtle
T
New I- Ianovet
Pender
No Effect
Cha)adnur
melodu,
Piping ploy et
I
New Hano -, er
Pender
No Effect
Puoido boieabi
Red cockaded
wood eckei
E
New Hano-, et
Pender
Ma} Affect Like1}
to Ad-, ersel Affect
E 1-I O R U
Aupen,er
broworlrum
Shortnose
sturgeon
E
Ne,,x HanoN er
Pendel
No Effect
Tiubedwi
manalus
West Indian
manatee
E
New Hano-\ er
Pender
No Effect
Schwalbea
ameranana
American
chaffseed*
E
Pender
No Effect
Tbahamm
cooleyz
Cooley s
meadowrue
E
New HanoN et
Pender
Ma} Affect Likely
to AdN ersel Affect
O R
Ca�el lutea
Golden sedge
E
New Hanover **
Pender
Ma} Affect Likel}
to Ad -, ersel Affect
O R
Lyfimachia
a, erulaefoha
Rough lea-\ ed
loosestrife
E
New HanoN et
Pender
Ma} Affect Likel}
to Advetsel Affect
E H O R U
M1 M2
Amaranthin Seabeach T New Hano-, er No Effect 11 pumdu.r amaranth Pender
E — Endangered T — Threatened T(S/ -1) Threatened due to Similant} of Appearance
' Historic record (the species was last obser-, ed in the county more than 50 ) ears ago)
'" Listed as Probable /Potential
' Protected species sun eys will be updated in the spring of 2012 The USFWS has indicated the
biological conclusion for golden sedge remains to be determined If additional and appropriately
tuned sun e} s do not re-, eal 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 Sen ice on red cockaded woodpecker Coole} s meadowrue golden
sedge and rough lea-, ed loosestrife A handout of the location of known occurrences of Cooley s
' meadowrue and rough lea-, ed loosestrife will be made a-, ailable at the meeting

Appendix A
Figures

Qc
9,6.",g 13361
IN
Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
i 7
0
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Holly Shelter Gamelan&
olly Shelter C—elands
\40
_0
STUDY CORRIDORS
Srdbury ac
O
ac
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles k
witr,a 15 Maps
-?"P
E N'°
E R
no 3
+
C--
Alk- 53
11 s
64
Helena 1 '.G
K,11y Rck,
N.1 —f .)d 4
u rne
11 i 210 3
210
4 k, i
50
e'4
4
10
4
*5
PROJECT
VICINITY
,C
ISLAND
87
Lasnlirtu B—A
+
Carchn a Beach
ft,�AlUkk
Puy
?SLIND
Qc
9,6.",g 13361
IN
Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
i 7
0
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Holly Shelter Gamelan&
olly Shelter C—elands
\40
_0
STUDY CORRIDORS
Srdbury ac
O
ac
0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Miles k

a
JO
J
\ G
n
o °Q \
Qc
�Q
y\
eat Dr.
• � X91
••• .° C� .
••• ewale
1. t0
••cµ��ay 9\ \gQ`1 �\ �
\ • dv \eve . i- ,
,W,ver Rd.
4
e � \
°
for ` .I
v tea.
° Q
'
_ oQ of J J
C CO \
1
ry� �
/ °�
y
i
Q° O� a
� � d
Churchhouse
Bay Ln.
` fs N v
41zi
'J
,�o my tea.
\ Pa • vC �aF
r= Iv �a peHOOiO Qom .or (60>L MS) pu
'
m y Mea
O G N a °C
d D �
dv aN
'PM 0B." D
'= n
�C
A
6
z
a�
C2�
O
°oU-
,It
Y O
N
� O
° Q N
° U a
z
.. a
° U N
O
� 7 �
(h O LL
U)
2
m
0
°
O
_ M
i 06 z
>+ ~ C
W L^`U
L
♦//�)
L Q%
U Z 06
ai ti U N
U O 0
Qi Da_
a
= O Z
0
z
U
W
Y
J _
� o
4) N
cu m
CL CL
a) m
a- L
L, c
c
wa'Z)
_ E_
N >
>
>
m
Z c
c
c
c O
a N
Q
N
Q
N
Q
0
o
U U
W
f --
co
N I
S
Y
Q)
w
m
L
C
s
Q
o
U �
a�
J
°
rn o
m
CD
U m C
C
`
m
2 O
LL
N
m
`m
O
m
a�
C
�
Q
Q
Q
W
d
�
o °Q \
Qc
�Q
y\
eat Dr.
• � X91
••• .° C� .
••• ewale
1. t0
••cµ��ay 9\ \gQ`1 �\ �
\ • dv \eve . i- ,
,W,ver Rd.
4
e � \
°
for ` .I
v tea.
° Q
'
_ oQ of J J
C CO \
1
ry� �
/ °�
y
i
Q° O� a
� � d
Churchhouse
Bay Ln.
` fs N v
41zi
'J
,�o my tea.
\ Pa • vC �aF
r= Iv �a peHOOiO Qom .or (60>L MS) pu
'
m y Mea
O G N a °C
d D �
dv aN
'PM 0B." D
'= n
�C
A
6
z
a�
C2�
O
°oU-
,It
Y O
N
� O
° Q N
° U a
z
.. a
° U N
O
� 7 �
(h O LL
U)
2
m
0
°
O
_ M
i 06 z
>+ ~ C
W L^`U
L
♦//�)
L Q%
U Z 06
ai ti U N
U O 0
Qi Da_
a
= O Z
0
z
U
W
Y
J _
� o
4) N
cu m
CL CL
a) m
a- L

m = = m
17:71
m
m
m
m
m

■ w\
tea•
,a
I �
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
'j0 deW
lk.-
,� Map 10D
r
w >,
d
� ►W _ I
SRIti� I
I
a 1
4 � f
I
�aN
01'0 11 04 w
w �
w r
w:
S
vor �y
pas
%q
ov
OS
f
0�`
JSd
'E aEF
Z 0 o_ z�6
m
j V N CN 0 ma
r 3
_ pppEE
m V (n Q > > > O ° 4$
.� N o a: m m zg
'a E m cc m
C 'o m P= m m d E
m gs
G7 v n. a° a '° w 3 3 3 g
I—, E y l l N
o �

m m � m
m
m m
m

m m

= m = = m = = = m = = m m m = m = = =

= = = m = = = m = m = m = = m m = m m

= m = m = m = m = = m m m = = m = m m

m m m m m m m r m m m m m m m m m m

m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m

CD CD
CD CD
Q- CL
o�
c
r
m
O
>y
Q
C
O N
3 0
O
0
CA)
O O cn O
Q
2 7D
O
3 O
� N
CD v
v
C
v �
N O
:3 T
CD C
CD
I r
!y
O
(Q
CD
o;
m
a-
0
3
m
o.
N
S
d
a
N
S
N �
O
(Z
N_
V
N
O`
ti
O
>y
Q
C
O N
3 0
O
0
CA)
O O cn O
Q
2 7D
O
3 O
� N
CD v
v
C
v �
N O
:3 T
CD C
CD
I r
!y
O
(Q
CD
o;
m
a-
0
3
m
o.
N
S
d
a
N
S
N �
O
(Z
N_
N
O`
O
Oil
m
V
X
9
a
h
�
O
N
S
CL
(fl
D
'C
V I
15;
v
v
(D
a
CD
� o
,y
CD
C �
O 0
3 3
o -01 0
-0 -0
O O
O (n
CD CD
Q Q
2 =
3 3
-0 -0
cn
rn
M cD
v
Q
Q
v �
O O
(n O
CCD
� CD
0
0
(o
CD (D
w
M c
x C/)
c
c
cn
J �.
(Q
O �
co
0 .�
O
N
(D N
Q ,
= O
v
1� O
CD cn
CD
Q �
CO
3
cn cn
CD
C Q
(D
0
O �
� !y
(Q O
CD O
w O
CD
Z
C7 =r
o (D
v
Z
N_
O
V`
C
C A a N
O
Q z
N
CA)
O �
0
W H N
Ln S_
X
O�
03
m CD
v?
0
G�
--I -oil
O
n � V„ N
S
a
N
14 O
c W
� d �
G�i ESN
a a
0
2

-n
v v
CD CD
CL o.
0 6
- C
r
m
i = m m m m = m = m m m m = = m
i
CD
v
C�
CD
C
-n
O
3
m
X
cn
co
C
cn
54
cQ
O
Cn
CD
I
3
SU
D
cc
CD
su
iv
X,
CD
cn
CD
CD
O
3
CD
m
0
O
Cn
CD
Q
su
3
CD
w
C1
co
(n
rh
CD
I
0
cc
CD
CD
m
X
c
ca
C
cn
v
D
�o
cD
v
i o
CJ <
o
Tj o- s
a a
O =
3 0 0
O N
O
CD o
c J
m N
CD
I
n
� � N
� D
CC] 70
CD
r: o
cn o
v X
.'v
O N
0
M
v
O X N
:3 G7 N
W �3
v O n.
-n
< 3
o y
m
X
O N
Z
cn �
c
, O
�
J
y
O N
T
_ D
:3 tm/f N
O
c O
Cl) m N
M
CD o O
CD
0 O J
CQ V c
CD <
G �
J d iJ
C S
d d
1
CD
w
CD
CD
n
0
n
1
CD
CD
3
CD
CL
a
W
O

CD m
v v
CD m
CL CL
o °'
r
m
GJ
O
O
O`
C�
CD
v
Q
N
T
O
CCD
V
CD
CD
r-«
O
O
L<.
3
a�
CD
`G
O
CD
Z
O
O
44
O
n
O
O
O_
co
O
C
CD
Q
C
d
0
D
(Jt
O
N
(J7
O
-o
O
O
N
m
v
X
G�
2
O
D
c
0
a
O
V
C
`
D
co
Aar
C"'D
D
a
�
N
v
Q
N
N
TI
O
D
N
X_
O
`
o
(D
W
Ln
s
`<
O
O
X
A
a
a
m
W
OZ
0
v
Q
X
3
O
o
0
O
�a_
C
T
N
O
CL
D
O
�
N
CD
v
Q
O
.�
C
N
v
(Q
O
v
n
O
S
d
d
�
cn
O_
(a
O
O`
C�
CD
v
Q
N
T
O
CCD
V
CD
CD
r-«
O
O
L<.
3
a�
CD
`G
O
CD
Z
O
O
44
O
n
O
O
O_
co
O
C
CD
Q
C
d
0
D
(Jt
O
N
(J7
O
-o
O
O
N
m
v
X
G�
2
O
D
c
0
a
O

Appendix B
Reference Tables
from the DEIS

I -ible 2 5 Proposed H) diauhc Structures
Site
Stream ID
Wetland
Corridor
Existing
Recommended
No i
ID
Alternative
Structure
Stricture
• at 1\71
1 @12 x8
Retain and Extend
1
ZSB
Ewr
• -it M2
RCBC
Existing Culp ert
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
GWA
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
LA/D
E H O R
3 @48 CMP
2 @6 x5 RCBC4
LSCF
10
CSA FSA
E H O R U
1 @72 RCP5
Retain existing and
at M1
add two 1@ 72 RCPT
11
I SI
E H R
1 @12 x9 RCBC
HBSF
Dual 230 Long
15
HBSH
HBWK
E H
Bridges
Dual 200 Long
16
HBSD(2)
HBWD
E H
Bridges
17
HSX
HWB
E H
3 @10 0 RCBC
21
FSA
FAT
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(a-)9 x7 RCBC
25
HBSC
HBWF
E H
1 @9 x8 RCBC
Site numbers correspond to the project s Prehminar} Hi drauhc Stud) s site numbers Some prehrmnar5
h} drauhc sites were 1, oided during design and are therefore not included in the table
2 Reinforced concrete box cul-, ert
3 Corruglted metal pipe
4 Preliminan design also includes dual 135 foot long bridges to maint'iin neighborhood access
Reinforced concrete pipe
G Retain existing 72 RCP pipe under Wilmington B� pass and add 72 RCP at two interchange ramps
Supplementation of existing 72 pipe or enlarging of proposed ramp pipes will be inN estigated during final
design
NEW

Table 4 11 Indi-, idunl Stream Impacts continued
Stream
Figure
Corridor
Stream
Compensatory
Stream
ID
Stream Name
No
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Determination
(feet)*
Required
CSK
U f to Island Creek
10D
L H R U1
39956
Yes
Perennial
M1
035929
DSA
UT to Island Creek
10 C
O U2 M2
M2 U2
Yes
Perennial
44432
ESA
U I to Mill Creek
10 G
U1 U2
84871
Yes
Perennial
ESB
UT to Mill Creek
10 G
U1 U2
13043
Yes
Perennial
E H R
213171
1 SA
U1 to Island Creek
10D
r I-I OR
01603
Yes
Perennial
U1 1\71
M1 U1
52014
05286
FSC
UT to Island Creek
10 D
O U1 U2
U1 U2
Yes
Intermittent
M1 M2
M1 M2
3742
FSE
UT to Island Creek
10D
E H R
331 14
Yes
Perennial
FSh
UT to Island Creek
10 F
R
28951
OH \ \TN41
No
No
OH \ \Wl
No
FSH
UT to Island Creek
10D
E H
49465
Yes
Intermttent
Yes
Perennial
EH
FSI
UT to Island Creek
10D
E H R
273 54 R
I es
Perennial
26668
FS
UT to Island Creek
10D
E H R
85861
Yes
Intermittent
FSK
U 1 to Island Creek
10 F
R
8102
Yes
Intermittent
GFSE
UT to Island Creek
10 L
O
30199
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
U1 to Island Creek
10 F
E H
14144
Yes
Peienmal
Yes
Intermittent
HBSC
U1 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
10 F
E H
31990
Yes
Intermittent

Table 4 11 Indio idual Stream Impacts continued
Stream
Figure
Corridor
Stream
Compensatory
Stream
ID
Stream Name
No
Alternative
Impact
Mitigation
Determination
(feet)*
Required
7SI
UT to Prince
10 D
E H R
4023
Yes
Peiemuwil
Geoi e Cieek
Impacts are for all altern -itiN es unless otherwise noted Inch-, idual impacts calculated for Nhhvii� Cutoff Road
Extension Alternati,, es \I1 and \I2 utilize the corresponding Hampstead B)Tpass 1lteinatn e U interch inge
configuration
Resource determined b) US \CE to be i jurisdictional tributar) based on the presence of an oidmar} high
water mark (OHWN\ during field,, erificltion
2 Tribuvir} feature exists within the boundaries of an adjacent wetland and theiefore does not require
mitigation independent of the wetland
31 ributar- featuie does not requite stream iiitigation but ma} require mitigation b) the USACE is a Water of
the US dependent upon the tN pe of impact proposed -it the time of permit application
I \tlannc Intracoastal Waterwl�
5 U1 is Hampstead Bj pass llternatn e U starting at an interchange with US 17 Wilmington B3 pass at \hhvir}
Cutoff Road Extension Alternate, e \I1 U2 is Hampstead B� pass -klternatt\ e U starting at an interchange,,a ith
' US 17 Wilinington Bj pass at '\hhtar} Cutoff Road Extension 3lternati-, e 1\I2
� : J
pit
I=

Table 2 5 Proposed H) diaulic Stiuctutes
Site
Stream ID
Wetland
Corridor
Existing
Recommended
No i
ID
Alternative
Structure
Stricture
1
ZSB
I1 \ \Jl
U at M1
1 @12 x8
Retain and Lxtend
U it M2
RCBC
Existing Cul-, ert
U at M1
2
K \VD
1 @9 a8 RCBC
U at MZ
3
BSP
BWI
M1 M2
2 @7 x12 RCBC
4
DWC
M2
1 @918 RCBC
5
GWA
O R
3 @12 x7 RCBC
6
ISA ISB
IWN
O R
Dual 100 Long
Biid es
7
ISD
IWl~
O R
3 @1118 RCBC
LSC LSCC
8
LWD
E H O R
3 @48 CMP
2 @6 x5 RCBC4
L scl
10
CSA FSA
E H O R U
1 @72 RCP5
Retain existing and
at M1
add two 1@ 72 RCPT
11
FSI
E H R
1 @1219 RCBC
15
HBSF
HB \ \�Ii
E H
Dual 230 Lon g
HBSH
Bridges
16
HBSD(2)
HB \UD
E H
Dual 200 Long
Brtd es
17
HSX
H \wB
E H
3 @10 x9 RCBC
21
FSA
F\VB
E H R
2 @11 x9 RCBC
22
FSE
FWC
E H R
2 @12 x7 RCBC
23
LSD
LWI
EH O R
2 @9 x7 RCBC
25
HBSC
HB \VF
E H
1 @9 x8 RCB�C�—J
' Site numbers correspond to the project s Prehminais H) drauhc Studs s site numbers Some prehmtnar)
h5 drauhc sites were a,, oided during design and are therefore not included in the table
2 Reinforced concrete box culvert
3 Corrugated metal pipe
+ Prehmmar} design also includes dual 135 foot long bridges to maintain neighborhood access
Reinforced concrete pipe
Retain existmg 72 RCP pipe under Wilmington B) pass 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
PON

Table 4 11 IndiN idual Stream Impacts
Im
Stream
Compensatory
Stream
Stream Name
Figure
Corridor
Impact
Mitigation
Stream
ID
No
Alternative
(feet)*
Required
Determination
BSA
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
1\11 M2
29471
1 es
Perennial
BSJ
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
1\41 M2
153 12
Yes
Perennial
BSK
U T to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
60943
Yes
Perennial
BSL
U T to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
28765
1 es
Perennial
BSM
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
73216
1 es
Perennial
BSN
U T to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
97020
Yes
Perennial
M1
BSO
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
1\11 M2
2 3�2I9 25
Yes
Perennial
2 321 95
BSP
U r to Smmth Creek
10C
1\11 M2
1\41 398 21
1 es
Perennial
M2 328 11
BSQ
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1 M2
M1 83 23
Yes
Perennial
M2 82 13
No'
BDITCHI
UT to Howe Creek
10 C
M1 M2
61325
OH\VM1
No
EH R
1 949 14
CSA
UT to Island Creek
10 D
EH R U1
Yes
Perennial
2 079 61
M1
2 079 15
EHR
CSB
U1 to Island Creek
10C
E H R U1
25770
Yes
Perennial
10D
M1
M1 U1
27064
CSC
U T to Srrrith Creek
10 D
M1
94308
Noe
OH \UI`7'
10 C
Yes
Inter mittent
CSD
UT to Smith Creek
10 D
M1
90239
Yes
Perennial
U1 to Smith Creek
10C
M1
23916
No
OHWM'
UT to Srnith Creek
10C
M1
28066
Yes
Intermittent
UT to Smith Creek
10 C
M1
23000
Yes
Intermittent
rSH
UT to Smith Cree k
10 C
M1
231 87
Yes
Perennial
EH R
UT to Island Creek
10 D
E H R U1
1 289 61
Yes
Perennial
M1
U1 M1
93220
Im

I able 4 11 Indi-, idu11 Stream Impacts conliniied
Stream
Figure
Corridor
Stream
Compensatory
Stream
ID
Stream Name
No
Alternatives
Impact
Mitigation
Determination
(feet)*
Required
E HER U1
CSK
UT to Island Creek
10D
39956
Yes
Perennial
O 35929
DSA
UT to Island Creek
10 C
O U2 M2
M2 U2
Yes
Perennial
44432
ESA
U f to Mill Creek
10G
U1 U2
84871
Yes
Perennial
LSB
UT to Mill Creek
10 G
U1 U2
13043
Yes
Perennial
EH R
213171
FSA
U l to Island Creek
10D
EH OR
01603
Yes
Perennial
U1 1\41
M1 U1
52014
05286
FSC
UT to Island Creek
10 D
O U1 U2
U1 U2
Yes
Intermittent
M1 M2
M1 M2
3742
FSE
UT to Island Creek
10 D
E H R
331 14
Yes
Perennial
No 2
FSF
UT to Island Creek
10 F
R
28951
OH \VM1
No
No
OHWMI
No
FSH
UT to Island Creek
10D
E H
49465
Yes
Intermittent
Yes
Perennial
EH
FSI
UT to Island Creek
10 D
E H R
273 54 R
Yes
Perennial
26668
FS
UT to Island Creek
10 D
E H R
85861
Yes
Intermittent
FSK
U 1 to Island Creek
10 F
R
8102
1 es
Intermittent
GFSE
UT to Island Creek
10E
O
30199
Yes
Perennial
GSA
U 1 to Island Creek
10 F
O R
41782
Yes
Perennial
GSG
UT to Island Creek
F
O
19025
Yes
Intetinittent
10
Yes
Intermittent
HBSAA
U 1 to Island Creek
10 F
E H
14144
I es
Perennial
Yes
Intermittent
HBSC
U1 to Island Creek
10 F
E H
36856
I es
Perennial
Yes
Interrruttent
HBSD(1)
UT to Island Creek
10 F
E H
26934
Yes
Perennial
HBSH
U1 to Island Creek
10 F
E H
31990
Yes
Intermittent

Table 4 11 Indn idual Stream Impacts 6onli fired
rem
Stream
Compensatory
Stream
Stream Name
Figure
Corridor
Impact
Stream
ID
No
Alternatives
Determination
(feet)*
Requi uired ed
Req uired
HSB
U1 to Haitisons
1011
L H
26208
es
Intermittent
Creek
HSC
U1 to Harrrsons
10 F
L H
40372
I es
Perennial
Creek
1011
HSX
UT to Harrrsons
10 H
E H
30D 58
Yes
Perennial
Creek
Yes
Intermittent
ISA
UT to Island Creek
101
O R
72575
Yes
Perennial
U 1 to Harrrsons
10 H
O R
Yes
Intermittent
ISC
27696
Creek
Yes
Perennial
ISD
U1 to Harrrsons
1011
O R
4249
Yes
Perennial
Creek
IDI1 CH1
U1 to Harrrsons
10 F
O R
39701
No
OH \ \m4'
Creek
LSB
UT to Harrrsons
10 H
E H O R
1 397 92
Yes
Perennial
Creek
LSC
Harrrsons Creek
10 H
E H O R
65551
Yes
Perennial
U1 to Harrrsons
10 H
E H O R
Yes
Intermittent
LSCA
Creek
441 54
Yes
Perennial
LSCAA
UT to Harrrsons
10 H
E H O R
20886
'1 es
Perennial
Creek
LSCB
UT to Harrrsons
10 H
I- H O R
30707
Yes
Perennial
Creek
LSCC
UT to Harrrsons
10
E H O R
13065
Yes
Perennial
Creek
LSCF
UT to Harrrsons
10 H
E H O R
11960
Yes
Intermittent
Creek
LSD
Godfre} Creek
�oH
E H O R
28451
Yes
Perennial
LSDA
UT to Godfre)
101
E H O R
19473
Yes
Intermittent
Creek
Yes
Intermittent
E H O R
Yes
Perennial
NSA
UT to AI \X/\\J4
10 K
U1 U2
44160
E H O R
Yes
Intermittent
NSF
UT to AIM \J4
101
104 83
U1 U2
Yes
Perennial
ZSB
UT to Futch Creek
10 E
U1 U2
38587
Yes
Perennial
ZSK
UT to Prince
10D
E H R
84912
Yes
Perennial
George Creek
rem

Table 4 11 Inds-, idual Stream Impacts conlinited
Stream
Figure
Corridor
Stream
Compensatory
Stream
ID
Stream Name
No
A1ternatwe3
Impact
Mitigation
Determination
(feet)*
Required
ZSL
U 1 to Prince
10 D
E H R
40 23
Yes -T
Perennial
Geor e Creel
1
1
Impacts Ire for all alternan -, es unless otherwise noted Indi -, ndual impacts calculated for Ahhtary Cutoff Road
t Extension rllternatn es All and '\12 utilize the cortespondmg Hampstead B) pass Alternati -, e U interchange
configuration
Resource determined b1 US ACE to be i jurisdictional tnbutan based on the presence of in ordinary high
' water mail, (OHRAI) during field , enfication
2 Tnbutar� feature exists w ithin the boundaries of an adjacent wetland and therefore does not require
mitigation independent of the wetland
3 Tnbut iij feature does not require stream mitigation but maj require nutngauon b) the US ACE is a Water of
' the US dependent upon the type of impact proposed at the tune of pernnit ipphcation
d - Wantic Intracoastal Waterw rj
U1 is Hampstead B} pass -llternatn e U starting at an interchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass at '\hhtarS
' Cutoff Road Extension rllternattt e All U2 is Hampstead B) pass MternatiN e U starting at an interchange with
US 17 Wilmington B) pass at '\hhtai) Cutoff Road Extension AlternatiA e 1\12
IL

I able 4 13 Indi-, idual Pond Impacts
Pond
Figure
Corridor
Connected
Pond Impacts
ID
No
Alternative(s)i
Appearance
Feature Map ID
(acres)*
PE
10 C
M1 M2
Stormwater Pond
BSL
0 75
PI'
F
10 C
M1 M2
Stormwatet Pond
BSO
0 41
PJ
10 C
M1 M2
Storm-,i ater Pond
No Connection
0 11
K
10B
M1 M2
Stormwatet 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 h
O R
Stormwatet Pond
GWA
006
GPD
10 F
O R
Stormwatet Pond
No Connection
001
IPA2
10 F
O R
Storm« atet Pond
IW'I
014
IPE
10H
E H O R
Stormwater Pond
No Connection
027
E H O R-
JPD
10 I
E H O R U1
C) picss /Gum
No Connection
1 68 U1 U2
U2
Depression
1 65
E H O R
KPB
101
E H O R U1
Cypiess /Gum
KWA /KWG
0 31 U1 U2
U2
Depression
055
KPC
10I
U1 U2
Manmade /Maintained
KWF
018
LPD
10H
E H O R
Manmade /Maintained
LWA
002
LPE
10H
E H O R
Manmade /Mamtanied
No Connection
023
EHORUI
NPC
10 I
U2
Stormwater Pond
No Connection
006
E H O R U1
Water Treatment
NPE
10 I
U2
Pond
No Connection
005
1Impacts are for all ilternatn es unless otherwise noted Individual impacts calculated for Military Cutoff Ro-id
Extension -1lternati,, es \I1 and N12 utilize the corresponding Hampstead Bypass Mternattt e U interchange
configuration
U1 is Hampstead By pass A- hernatn e U starting at an mterchange -,i ith US 17 Wilmington By pass at Nhhtary
Cutoff Road Extension Mternative N11 U2 is I Iampstead Btipass Uterniti -, e U starting at an interchange with
US 17 Wilmington By pass at Military Cutoff Road Extension -�lternatiN e T\12
IM

1 able 4 15 Indi-, idual Wetland Impacts
Wetland
Figure
Corridor
Cowardin
Hydrologic
DWQ
Wetland
ID
No
Alternative(s)*
Classification'
Classification
Wetland
Impacts
Rating
(acres)
BWB
10 C
1\11 1\42
PFO4B
Non a arian
27
023
BWC
10 C
M1 M2
PFO
Non a arian
25
018
BWD
10 C
M1 M2
PFO
Non a arian
34
1 90
BWI
10C
M1 M2
PF01 /3/4B
Non riparian
34
M1 1 66
M2 1 89
CWA
10 C
1\11 M2
PFO3 /4A
Non riparian
34
1\11 6 37
M2 4 80
M1 R
EH R111
CWB
PSS3 /4B
Non riparian
36
1\41 12 52
10D
U1�
U1 106
CWD
10D
E H R U1
PSS3 /4Bd
Non riparian
36
EH R 7 51
U1 9 82
CWE
10D
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
R U1 U2
10E
M2 92 50
U2 77 36
EWF
10E
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
EW1
10 G
U1 U2
PFO
Riparian
37
053
EWK
10 G
U1 U2
PSS1C
Non ri aiian
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
10 D
U2 048
B7

Table 4 15 Indi -, idual Wetland Impacts continued
Wetland
ID
Figure
No
Corridor
Alternative(s)
Cowardin
Classification'
Hydrologic
Classification
DWQ
Wetland
Rating
Wetland
Impact s
(acres)
FWB
10D
1: H R
PFO
Riparian
20
501
FWC
10D
E H R
PTO
Non rt aitan
48
E H 146
R 824
Riparian
FWD
10 F
R
PSS3B
Non riparian
28
736
FWF
10 F
E H
Pro
Non riparian
37
689
Riparian
FWHB
10 F
E H
PFO
Non a arian
24
004
FWI
10 F
E H
PFO
Non a arian
17
038
FWL
10 F
E H
Pro
Non riparian
19
003
FWY
10D
E H R
PFO
Non a arian
20
018
GWA
10 F
O R
PEM /PSS
Riparian
61
0605 R
794
GWC
10C
10D
10E
O U1 U2
Pro
Non riparian
32
07581
U1 0 68
U2 27 17
GWD
10 E
10 r
0
PTO
Non riparian
32
453
Riparian
HBAA3
10 F
E H
PSS /PFO
Riparian
32
006
HBAB
101,
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 T
E H
PFO /PSS
Riparian
83
147
HBWT
10 h
E H
PSS
Non riparian
14
039
HWB
10H
E H
P170
Riparian
50
236
HWD
10H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
21
035
HWGS
10H
E H
PFO /PSS
Riparian
15
088
Non riparian
HWH
10H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
015
HWH1
10H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
009
HWH2
10H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
003
HWH3
10H
E H
Pro
Non riparian
26
007
HWH4
10 H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
002
HWH5
10H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
023
HWY
10H
E H
PFO
Non riparian
26
023
HWAA`
10 F
E H
PFO
Non riparian
40
1540
Riparian
HWEE
I 10 F
EH
I Pro
I Riparian
25
015
LOOM

I able 4 1D India idual Wethnd Iinpncts 6oWinued
Wetland
ID
Figure
No
Corridor
Alternative(s)
Cowardin
Classification'
Hydrologic
Classification
DWQ
Wetland
Rating
Wetland
Impacts
(acres)
HWHH
10 r
L H
PFO
Non it aiian
34
024
HWMZ
10H
E H
PFO
Non ri anin
40
005
IWA
10H
E H O R
PFO
Rt auan
80
003
IWA_MM
10H
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
10H
E H O R
PFO
Non riparian
31
OR 1743
E H 1864
Riparian
IWE
10H
E H O R
PFO
Non ii aiian
13
016
IWF'
10H
O R
PFO
Riparian
69
761
Non riparian
IWH'
10H
O R
PFO
Non iiparian
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
IWT'
10 F
O R
PFO
Non it arian
41
1457
Riparian
IWU
10 F
O R
PFO
Non riparian
13
029
IWV
10 F
O R
PFO
Non riparian
42
481
1WW
10 F
O R
PFO
Non riparian
45
1038
KWA
101
U1 U2
PF03 /4B
Non ri atian
30
227
KWC
101
U1 U2
PF01 /2C
Non riparian
17
447
KWD
1 0 I
U1 U2
PI-04A
Non riparian
26
473
KWF
101
U1 U2
PFO /PSS
Non riparian
45
601
KWG
101
EH O R U1
U2
PF01 /2G
Non riparian
43
EHOR
0 57 U1 U2
288
KWH'°
101
U1 U2
PF 01/2C
Non riparian
42
570
KWI
10G
U1 U2
PFO1 /3/4B
Non riparian
49
3218
KWN
10G
U1 U2
PF04B
Non riparian
46
2401
KWO
10G
U1 U2
PF04B
Non riparian
37
1802
KWS
101
U1 U2
PFO1 /4B
Non riparian
33
U1 U2 0 52
LWA
10H
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
10H
EH O R
PFO
Riparian
48
008
LWE
10H
EH 0 R
PFO
Non riparian
29
822
IM

table 4 15 Indi -, idual Weiland Impacts colilnwed
B 10
DWQ
Wetland
Wetland
Figure
Corridor
Cowardin
Hydrologic
Wetland
Impacts
ID
No
Alternative(s)
Classification'
Classification
Rating
(acres)
LWG
10H
E H O R
Pro
Non riparian
46
017
LWH
10H
E H O R
Pro
Non riparian
23
020
LWI
100II
E H O R
Pro
Riparian
80
250
LWI
101
E H O R
Pro
Non riparian
40
526
MWM(2)
10H
E H O R
Pro
Riparian
68
270
Non riparian
WB
10K
E H O R U1
PEM /PFO
Non riparian
13
002
10K
E H O R U1
PEM /PFO
Non riparian
12
003
FNW
WF
10 K
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
10K
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
EHORUI
PSS
Non riparian
17
2913
U2
U1 U2 1138
ZWJ
10E
U1 U2
PFO
Non riparian
26
137
ZWK
10 E
U1 U2
PEM
Non ri Irian
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
Pro
Riparian
28
003
ZWDD
10D
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
10C
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
B 10

Table 4 15 Indtxidull Wetlind Impacts contanited
B11
I Cowaidin clissifications -ite based on chatactenstics of each wetland at the specific time and locltion of
obsen anon Wetlands having No ID were not characterized due to impacted appearance at the time of
DWQ
Wetland
Wetland
Figure
Corridor
Cowardin
Hydrologic
Wetland
Impact s
ID
No
Alternative(s)
Classification'
Classification
Rating
(acres)
Cutoff Roid Extension Allternatn e All U2 is Hampstead B) pass -kltern -iti\ e U starting at an interchange with
US 17 Wilmington B) pass -it Ahhtar� Cutoff Road Extension -Uternati-, e M2
Impacts are for all alternati -, es unless otherwise noted Individual impacts calculated for ithhtan Cutoff Road
EHOR
PD 29
101
EH O R U1
PFO /PSS
Non up irtan
N/A
8 58 U1 U2
U2
856
PD 31
101
E H O R U1
PTO /PSS
Non riparian
N/A
291
PD 33
101
E H O R U1
PFO /PSS
Non rip-man
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 npauan
N/A
308
B11
I Cowaidin clissifications -ite based on chatactenstics of each wetland at the specific time and locltion of
obsen anon Wetlands having No ID were not characterized due to impacted appearance at the time of
obsen ation
2 Includes « etland FEW Includes wetland IWG
3 Includes wetland HB AC 8 Includes wetland IWI
4 Includes Nxedand HBWP ) Includes wetlands IWR
Includes w elands HWM I-IWN HNK /O 0 Includes wetlands KAJ KWK Ind KAIL
G Includes netlands HWBB I-M711 HW ,I Delineation data previousl) -, enfied no DWQ
«eland rating forms completed for these wetlands
U1 is Hampstead B� pass Alternatn e U stirtmg at an mterchange -,with US 17 Wilmington Bti pass at Nhhtan
Cutoff Roid Extension Allternatn e All U2 is Hampstead B) pass -kltern -iti\ e U starting at an interchange with
US 17 Wilmington B) pass -it Ahhtar� Cutoff Road Extension -Uternati-, e M2
Impacts are for all alternati -, es unless otherwise noted Individual impacts calculated for ithhtan Cutoff Road
Extension Alternatives All and Al2 utilize the corresponding Hampstead B) pass alternative U interchange
configuration
B11

n
C!
Ii
1 Appendix C
1 Agency Comments on the
Draft EIS

Ja�1Q0 ST�l�
s
a w
o
P
vaoj�o102
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303 8960
November 15 2011
Dr Gregory J Thorpe, PhD 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 in with 1 140 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)
1
' Internet Address (URL) o http 11www epa gov
Recycled/Racyciabte Printed with Vegetable on Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30°/ 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 +MI 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 Ml 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

I'
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 chnsPel2a gov or [phone] or [phone] Thank
you
Sincerely
1 IV
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

ATTACHMENT A
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
US 17 Hampstead Bypass and Military Cutoff Road Extension
New Hanover and Pender Counties
TIP Project 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 in 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 major 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 I 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 rates
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 project 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 MI 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 M1 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 +M 1 O +M2 R +M l P U +M 1
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 M1 and M2 According to this report 63 business
relocations will result from either DSA Ml 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 t
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 M1 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

1
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 protect 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 M1 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 M1 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 improved 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 project 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 gov 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 +M1 58 12 acres DSA U +M1 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 very 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
fanning 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 +M1 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
bamers 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
Histonc 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

1
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 minimized 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 matenals 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 impacts 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 Well
' 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 protect 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 +MI I5 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)
Juiisdictional wetland impacts for the DSAs are as follows DSA E H +MI 246 1
acres DSA O +M2 384 4 acres DSA R +M1 297 4 acres DSA U +MI 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 mile 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 +M1
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 IS B) 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) mayor 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 jurisdictional 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 seventy 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 Considering 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 a I- 1401US 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 1 2 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 0,
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 +M1 4 43 acres DSA O +M2 42 94 acres DSA R +M1 5 01 acres
DSA U +M1 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 1 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

' 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
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 Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and proposed US 17 Hampstead Bypass,
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 Wihnington
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 These are currently five remaining alternatives under consideration
The Service has been actively involved for several years in early coordination on this project
uu-ough the combined NEPA/40,+ Meiger Piouesb, and many of our previous comments and
recommendations are reflected in the DEIS The Service 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,
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
ptoposed 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
RECEIVED
Division of Highways
United States Department of the Interior
OCT 0 1 2011
Preconstruction
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Project DevelopnIer a
Raleigh Field Office
Environmental Analysis aranch
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh 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
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 Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the
proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and proposed US 17 Hampstead Bypass,
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 Wihnington
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 These are currently five remaining alternatives under consideration
The Service has been actively involved for several years in early coordination on this project
uu-ough the combined NEPA/40,+ Meiger Piouesb, and many of our previous comments and
recommendations are reflected in the DEIS The Service 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,
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
ptoposed 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,
Picocdes 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 loosestnfe (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
loosestrfe Alternatives M2 +0 and M2 +U would impact a large portion of the preservation site
as well as a significant number of rough leaved loosestnfe stems The Service opposes these two
alternatives Although the other alternatives would have much smaller impacts to this
preservation area and may not directly impact rough leaved loosestrfe 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 loosestnfe At
the time of the 2002 Section 7 consultation for the 140 Connector, this site had over 100 stems
of rough leaved loosestrfe Although the M1 alternatives would only have small impacts to 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 140 Connector and adjacent rough - leaved
loosestrfe clusters Although rough leaved loosestnfe 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
chaffseed (Schwalbea amerccana) 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 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 Service
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- mitiations 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
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
(Thalictrum cooleyi) is present the 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 for this species
Pages 4 38 through 4 41 address the effects to Cooley s meadowrue (Thahctrum cooleyi) and
rough leaved loosestrife (Lysimachca 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
The Service 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 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 Nor th Carolina Primary Core Population is still far from achieving its minimum
size required for delistnig (350 potential breeding groups), the loss of even one potential
breeding group is significant Additional coordination is needed to resolve this issue
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project If you have any questions
regarding our response please contact Mr Gary Jordan at [phone] ext 32
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Electronic copy Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC

iy
United States Department of the Interior TAKE PRIDE
4RCH 3 18 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY �NAMERIGA
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 Anny 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 fonnally 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 boi eahs) 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 (Cal ex lutea)
' is now listed in New Hanover County with a record status of probable /potential American
2

US 17 Hampstead Bypass Project
chaffseed (Schwalbea amei icana) 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
forinal 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 forinal 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
(Thalictrum cooleyi) 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 (Thalictrum cooleyi) 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 delistmg (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 atloyice stanle(i,ios doi gov

US 17 Hampstead Bypass Project
cc J --rry Ziewrtz — FWS
Gary Jordan FWS
f renda Johnson USGS
David Vela — NPS
7 ommy Broussard — BOEM
OEPC — WASH
Sincerely
Joyce Stanley MPA
Regional Environmental Protection Assistant
for
Gregory Hogue
Regional Environmental Officer
0

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue Governor
November 15, 2011
Ms Olivia Farr
N C Department of Transportation
Transportation Building
1548 Mail 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 1 -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 CIearinghouse
under the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act According to G S 113A -10 when a
state agency is required to prepare an environmental document under the provisions of federal law the
environmental document meets the provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act Attached to this
letter for your consideration are additional comments made by agencies in the course of this review
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to call
Sincerely
William E H Creech
Attachments
cc Region O
Wading Address Telephone [phone] Location Address
1301 MaiI Service Center Fax [phone] West Jones Street
Raleigh NC 27699 1301 State Courier #51 -01 00 Raleigh North Carolina
e marl state clearinghouse @don nc gov
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
' INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
COUNTY NEW HANOVER F02 HIGHWAYS AND ROADS STATE NUMBER
PENDER DAVE RECS IVED
' AGENCY RESPONSE
REVIEW CLOSED
' MS SUSAN DECATSYE
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
1001 MSC - AGRICULTURE BLDG
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
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
12 -E- 4220 -00(
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 project has been submitted to the N C State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review Please review and 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 F] NO COMMENT
' fSIGNED BY
DAT
ElCOMMENTS ATTACHED
E
trti f,�`r 2��1
✓;�
r
�

Steven W Troxler North Carolina Department of AgnculWre Vemon cox
commbsloner and Consumer Services Enkironmental Programs
Agricultural Services speaalrst
Ms Sheila Green October 31 2011
State Cleannghouse
N C Department of Administration
1301 Mad Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699 -1301
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 Pander Counties The
North Carolina Department of Agnculture and Consumer Services (NCDA&CS) is concemed about the
conversion of North Carolina a farm and forest lands to other uses Due to the importance of agnculturaal
activities in the area as well as the economy of the entire state NCDA&CS strongly encourages the
project planners to avoid conversion of agncultunal 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 lly
Vemon Cox
Environmental Programs Speclallst
f / ♦.
1
�' t1Cd 211 �
E -mall. Vemon cox®ncaw go„
1001 Mail Serv= Cerrter Raleigh North ceroWa 27699.1001 [phone] • Fax (919) 716 -o105
TTY 1-80x735 -2962 Voice 1- 877 7354200
An Equal Opportundy Affim'sWe Action Employer

North Carolina
Department of Administration
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor Moses Carey, Jr , Secretary
November 7, 2011
Ms Olivia Farr
N C Department of Transportation
Transportation Building
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC
Dear Ms Farr
Re SCH File # 12- E4220 -0061, DEIS, Nblitary cutoff extension from US 17 (Market Street) to
the proposed 1 -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 the comments made by agencies in the course of this review
If any further environmental review documents are prepared for this project, they should be forwarded to
this office for intergovernmental review
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call
Attachments
cc Region O
Sincerely
G'
William E H Creech
' Malling Address Telephone [phone] Looadon Address
1301 Mail Service Center rax [phone] 116 West Jones Street
Raleigh N( 27699 1301 StateCouner #51 -01-00 Raleigh NorthCaroltna
e-mil statexleartnghouse@a doa nc,gov
An Equal Opportundy/Affirmative Action 8mployer

A "'
, 0 0
Lv o-2 w4j
NCDENR
Norrh ( ,rt)itit ixi),itminr of rnwonnu ni lnd Nacuril Rtr%()tli(t,
6 %ell\ i tt,e P 1111 i )s J rLti in
( if$ 1711+ '%l�i r.n
I El DRj-- D,7
TO zeke Crcech
State Clearira -ouse
FROM Melba McGee �
Pio7ect Pevlcw Coordinator
PE 12 0061 DEIS propo-crd SF 1409 Ertens_on and US .7
Imp -o ements it Pie% Hanoaei and Pender counties
D, "-E Octooer 26 2011
'rhe Department of En-, ironment and Natutal Resources has ieviewed the
proposed pro)ect
The department asks that the Department of Transportation continue to
work directly with our commenting agencies during the NEPA Merger Process
a ^a take all practicable measures to minimize e- vironmental impacts This
will help a oid delays at the permit phase
Trark ,c- for the op>vcrt3ni,,4 to ccnmcrt on this oro,ect
Attachments
b01 Mail Semice C-nte Ralcig+- Nogl C irotina 27699 160, 'n t. CaI'012na
Phont 9 9 707 -8G, 4 i interret rti(' 1 port it ncden C o ���j������ p�,
-R. Fau0,'I 7 , — � S -,-, r w i l/ sJj/

10/19/2811 16 51 9195289839
PAGE 63
10 Norffi Carolina Wildlife Resources Comnussion
Gordon Myers, Excamive Durctor
M MORAMUM
TO Melba McGee
Wee ofLeglsU&e and Intergovernmental Airs, DENR
FROM Trams Wilson, Highway Project Coordmatorr
Habitat Conaavation Program -�'-
DATE October 19, 2011
SUBJFCT North Carolina Department of TrarSpo =on (NCDOT) State Draft
BWAMnmental Impact Statematt (DW for the proposed SR 1409 extensw a and
the proposed improvenwO to US 17 m New Hanover and pander Countie$,
North Carobna. 'ZIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300 SCH Project No 12-0061
Staffbiologrsts with the N C Wildlife Resources Comau don have renewed the subject
DEIS and are famthar with babitat values to the project anm The purpose of this review was to
assess projoct impacts to fish and wildlife resources Our cone cuts are provided in accordance
with certain provisions of the National Eavh*nmenW Policy Act (42 U.S C 4332(2Xc)) and the
Fah and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended, 16 U S C 661 -667d)
Two protects }nave been combined and are included m the DEIS For project U-4751 the
NCDOT as proposes to extend Mihtmy CatoffRoad from Market Street to the US 17 Bypass,
and R -3300 coast of unprovrmen to US 17 fibm the axial US 17 Bypass north to mchide a
bypass of Hampstead. The projects are bemg plamied under die NEPA/Sectrou 404 Meier 01
process WRC is represented m thus process and comments provided in conjuacdon with this
process have been docurnented. However the impacts associated with the remammg alternatives
WO sobMa tiai OW ccntuuied efforts to avoid and minimize impacts are necessary Specuic
nupects of conom are
Impacts to the Corbett and Plan tJon Road imtigabon saes, these sites and aanoaiate
tracts provide compensatory tmtigabon as weU as serve as ewwarvatwn area= for
sensitive plants species. Not WY &M duect impacts to tike sites aconcern, but"
indnccc impacts resulting ftom road sad development ptnigadty that may ft fter lent the
Nwft Adduss Dn-Won of I4tnd FiAAAi nes • 1721 Mail Sua N7699 -1721 evCr gel,
Telaplroaie• (919) 707 -0720 • Fax [phone]

10/19/2011 1s 51 9195289839
11-4751 and R 3300 Page 2 00mber 19 2011
ability to mame these saes. impacts to the areas should be avoided or fm*a
mini =C&
PAGE 04 1
a DHW unpam to Holly Shelter Game lod have best avoided, however in&u mspacts
as a result of conch uctung these tmproveinents in dose pmxrauty to Holly Sheltar may
re ma the ability for WRC to manage portcons of this area with prombed burmng, this
issue is not mationed in the mdjcw and cumtdative effects section of the docwnea►t.
e impacts to the Ra coobded Woodpecker gUoulm borealis) continue to be assessed,
co=uad coordmat m should halt in the further redtit tm of unpacts to RCW habitat
• Stream and wetland tmpwa with all nmaium WWmodve:a are uyn fimt, howe:m We
anttcipate fbrthar svokiam and nanr m zetion of those tasomm
This pm *a will a=tmue to go &=Sb the NFPA/Section Merger process, and
additional agency coordumon vnU occur through the remammg cone Lure ce pouots Thank you
for the opporttmity to commemt. if we can be of further asaistame please call me at (919) 528-
9886
W Gary Jardan, USFWS
David Wafin mA DWQ
Brad Shaver, USACB
Chas Mthud ier, EPA

PdCDEMR
t A C i olyn -i Oc -)aif 1f et f Ennui niw nt and PC-'-U?,-b"
G s say ^r C r'
J 13 it r
OLtober 13 2011
N11 NIORANDUNl
C &� rf° ors
To Nltlba Md wm. I ns lroniritntal ( ixvdinakor Of1iLt of I t6glo- 1a11M. and (nitrgaVLrnmtntal
Adair%
From DiN id 1t ainw rto ht Di% twin of %t attr Qualit% ( Lntrrrl Ofiite'l j`�
Subjeu Ct)itlmLitt, Lin tit- Draft Ln� imnmLittal Impact %tatLlitent rLl ttLd to proposed SR 1409
NIIit 1rs ( uto11 Road) Lktt i ion and thL propo,Ld I lamp-it. id Bxp Iss WS 17) Nems
' Hano%Lr 1lul PLndLr C oirnllLS %tatL Prof Let No 4091 1 2 11 I's It 0 +00 ind 11 47:) 1
SlatL C ItaringhousL Pru_jttt No 12 0061
This of Iict has rcN It%Ntd tht rehrented dos. uint.ni d ited JuI\ 301 1 l ht NC Di\ i%ion of \%,itLr Qualit%
(M DWQ) is ri sponsihlL for thL issuanLt of tht Scttion 401 Wattr Qualit-, ( ertification for 74.tt. sites ill it
impact WAILrs of thL t % includi%. ntildnds it Isom undLrstandin,p ilia( ills pro iLu as prc,Lnttd u ill
' result in impaLts to juri,diLtlon tl \sttlands stre aria Ind od1Lr surfau .caters N(D11 Q ofTLr, thL
tollo%%ivi. Lomments hasLd on rtt ittt of thL ifort-ntntioned dotumuit
ProJtct Specific Comments
I This project is being planned a, pdri of ill,. 404; NEPA MLrgLr ProLL,e As a part it. tpating tram
mtmbtr NC D%VQ %s ill continuL to work ►\ ith (lie it, tin
Rt\ tea of tht proJLLi rt%eals thL prtst.nce of surtaLt % %,IlLr, Llas-.i iLd a. SA Huh Qualm
«aters of tilt Stan in the pr(IJLLt Stud% area I his I, ont of the IIIgh0.%1 Llas,rhLltions for waiLr
quaht% Pursu~1nt to 1)A N( A( 211 1006 and 15A 1~C AC 213 0224 v( DO r s, if ht %gUiNd to
obtain -i State %tor mNattr N mut prior to wnstrucaon s wLpt ni `north Carolina Loa,tal
Lountics
RL%IC" of the projeo the prLstncL of surfaLL staters cla %,ifiLd as S \ Outstanding
RLsource It atLrs of tht State Ili thL project stud\ arty i Inc ,.%attr quaht\ classification of SA
QRW is onL of thL highest cla,sl(itauons In thL StatL 1 he NC DWQ is Lxtrtinels concerned it ith
an) inipatis that nias OLrUr to strt -ams %% ith this classification It is pmfttrcd that three rtsource%
tit- a%oidtd if at all possiblL 11 it Is not possihlt to void thLSc rtsourtts tilt impact, should he
ininlm17ed to tlic itrtattst LVtiti passiblL (it%L n tilt patLniiaf for intpactti to thLSt rL,otirLes
luring dat projtLi mpltnlLm 111011 C 1)1� (l rL tµlLits sn9t fsiChOT striL % -idhtrL to lonh
Carolina meulatit ns tnitilLd I )Lsti; i Stand trds m Ser.itis t 11' utr,hcds 0 `ANC 1C OIL'
0134) throughout ilesic:n .and uonsit ILUOn of tilt projt _t Pursu ant to I { \ NCAC 2I l I(P)and
15A NCAC -11 (122.1
ra is z aWr a °a 1. 'Ytr
' IVi0 M i� Sevre N r 1110 yn Nvv Qv On ci " Xi %51
P'mme k t� & i U+ 15 fn
i^ irr
' LdtL nk'bZ�27 FYPr " trz, tips?pt
One
NarthCarohna
,,,1J7f't11ra1J1f

4 It is stated that there are no waters in the project area that are listed on the 303(d) list However, it
is not stated from which 303(d) list this mformation was derived This should be based on the
most recent list, which would be from 2010 The 2010 303(d) list has all waters in the state listed
as impaired based on a statewide fish consumption advisory die to elevated mercury levels. If the
2010 list was not used there may be other listings that are not included in the document, this
information should be verified
5 Section 31 (Human Environment) makes reference to a Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative
Effects Assessment dated June 2009 The NCDWQ has not had a chance to review thts
information and requests a copy of the Assessment
6 The NCDWQ encourages the NCDOT to investigate any potential for onsite mitigation to offset
the impacts of the project
The "Travel Demand Management" (TDM) section concludes by stating that "TDM
improvements would not add new lanes or provide alternative routes or means of travel to
existing roadways " The Purpose Statement for the project does not specifically state that adding
new lames, providing alternative mutes, or adding means of travel within the project area are the
purpose of the project With respect to TDM the focus would be reducing traffic, especially
dunng weekday peak travel times With a reduction in traffic, the safety should increase on
Market Street and the reduction in traffic would also reduce the need to increase the carrying
capacity ofthe street. However TDM is based on enough employers allowing such flexibility in
work schedule combined with enough employees partaking of the flexibility It is doubtful that
the combination of the two would reduce traffic enough such that a noticeable decrease in crashes
and traffic would occur
General Comments:
8 Appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification
9 Environmental impact statement alternoves should consider design cntena that reduce the
impacts to streams and wetlands from storm water runoff These alternatives should include road
designs that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as
detailed in the most recent verston of NCDWQ's &ormwater Best AfanMeasem Practices
U n =4 July 2007, such as grassed swales, buffer wcas, preformed scour holes, retention basins,
etc
10 After the selection of the preferred alternative and pnor to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they anll steed to demonstrate the
avoidance and mmunaawn of impacts to wetlands and streams to the maximum extent practical
In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (I SA NCAC
2H 0506[h]), mitigation will be required for impacts greater than 1 acre of wetlands or impacts to
more than 150 fed of any single junsdnctonal stream In the event that mitigation is required,
the mingatioan plan should be designed to replace appropnate lost functions acid values. The NC
Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation
1 I >'utun documentation, including the 401 Water Quality C lifieaton Aliplicattun. should
continue to include an stemmed h9mg of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with
corresponding mapping
12 The NCDWQ is %cry concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this
project The NCDOT should a ldress these concerns by descnbmg the potential unpat is that may
occur to the quit c cnviro nmi. its at d any mthp mg I ►clots that a +uld educe the in«act

13 The NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to bridging, fill
excavation and clearing, and np rap to junsdictional wetlands streams, and riparian buffers need
to be included in the final impact calculations These impacts, in addition to any construction
impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality
Certification Application
14 The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters
15 Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and
streams may require an Individual Permit (iP) application to the Corps of Engineers and
corresponding 401 Water Quality Certificatton Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality
standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lest. Final permit authorization will require
the submittal of a formal application by the NCDOT and written concurrence from NCDWQ
Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization
of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical the development of an
acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where
appropriate
NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project Should you have any questions
or require any additional information, please contact David Wainwright at (919) 907 -6405
cc Brad Shaver US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Chns Mditscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy only)
Steve Sollod, Division of Coastal Management
Mason Herndon, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
File Copy

Seveerly Eaves Peitiae
Governor
M1
FROM
ccENtt
North Carolina Department of Ent and Natural Resources
1M Won of Coastal Menegsniffii
MEMORANDUM
Melba McGee, Environmental coordinator
NCDENR Office of Legislauve & IniagovunineaW Affairs
Steve Sollod, DCM 'Transportation Project Coordinator *'
CC Doug Fiuggett, DCM
Brad Shaven, USAGE
Gregory J Thorpe, NCDOrT
DATE October 19, 2011
SUBJECT State Clearinghouse Review
Dee Frtserrian
smhvp
Draft Euvuvnn ntal Impact Stater umt. Comments
proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and Proposed US 17 Hampstead
Bypass, New Hanover and Pender Counties. TIP Projects U-4751 and R -3300
Project Review No 12-0061
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) teas reviewed the Draft Envwomneatal
impact Statement of the above rGferenc ed project, which was submitted to the NC State Clearinghouse for
tntagoveruietital review Cosimem on this envuoamett, - document were also requested by the NC
Department of Transportation (NCD= and the US Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) DCM is
responding to the NCDOT and USACE by copy of this rac morandum. we appr+ecute ft opportunity to
review this doci aunt and provide continents retative to the NC Coastal Management Program
Upon review of the document we offer the following comments
DCM has concluded that the proposed project will not impact a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
Area of Environinuital Concert (ABC) as defined by the roles of the NC Coastal Resources
Commission. Therefom the proposed project will not require a CAMA Permit. It is correctly stated
that the project will require a Federal Consistency Detacminatioa As a point of clariftcatmm the
appliew (NCDOT) is required to evaluate the proposed project and certify to DCM and USACE that
the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Mamgeme t Program 'This Consistency Certification
includes a review of the state's coastal program (mcludmg the applicable CAMA >L. and Use Plans) and
contains an analysis desmibmg how the proposed project would be consistent, to tic maxim= extent
feasible, with the state's enforceable coastal policies as mandated by the requirements of Federal
Consistency (15 CFR 930). No federal house or permit shall be issued by a fedesl agency until the
requireamats of Federal Consistency have been satisfied. DCM, wdl issue a public notice and cirwlate

U4751 and R 3300 2
Draft EIS Comments
the Consistency Certification with its accompanying supporting documentation to state agencies with
potential interest in the project. Upon an internal review of NCDOT's written analysis of how the
piojea is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program and the comments rem ved, DCN will
etcher concur with NCDOT's Consistency Determination or find that the project is riot consistent The
Final EIS should include an analysis of the project under Federal Consistency (15 CFR 930)
4J.%I.l Wells
Alternative M2 would impact an additional two existing CVe Fear Public Utility Authority well sites
than alternative MI M2 would also impact sevexel anticipated futum Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority well sites The future well sites were selected based upon aquifer aocd:.s6, anticipated ytelds,
and areas which protect well heads from contamination R Is estimated that up to six million gallons Per
day of future New Hanover, County water capacity could be lost if ahetmative M2 is selected. Perhaps
Table 2 -3, Comparison of Currant Detailed Study Alternatives, should include the "Public Water Supply
Wells" feature to reflect the difference in alternatives M 1 and M2
M"I = uialeasl Bvoaas TJeal Sedtlossa
' DCM is concerted with the large amount of wetland impacts of the project The proposed alternatives
E-H, O, and R, from the US 17 Wilmington Bypass to NC 210, ale configured with six 12 -foot lames
Based upon NCDOT's traffic projections, six laces are required to accommodate future traffic volume in
' this section. Them is no indication whether these projections accounted for seasonal fluctuation due to
beach traffic. Only fwu lanes ace proposed for the section from NC 210 to the extatmg US 17, in order
to minimize RCW habitat impacts Both of than sections are proposed with a 46 -foot median and 14-
foot outside shoulders. The proposed design includes 14 -foot inside shoulders for alternatives E-H, O,
and R, from the US 17 Widmizigton Bypass to NC 210 N six lanes coma be reduced to four lance to
reduce wetland impacts, perhaps the medium and/or shoulder widths could be reduced Aecw%Wg to
NCDOT'a Roadway Design Manual, it appears that die use of a 22+ width median with concrete barrier
on new location or widening projects shay be used for those freeway projects that have sipifieant
environmental constraints that prohibit or restrict the use of the 461 or wider median NCDOT's
Roadway Design Manual also appears to indwite that freeways may use 10 -Foot shoulders or 12 -foot
shoulders when tau& DHV exceeds 500 Perhaps the shoulder widths could be reduced. The reduction
in median and/or shoulder widths can go a long way to reduce wetland impacts
4A2 -yidus" of CumHktft" Effects
Refers is made that the use of Best Management Practices will minimize advese effects in areas of
' envb+onntental concern. Rather than the term "arm of environmental concern", the term "surface
waters" or "water bodies ", should be used as a more actuate term, as "areas of environniental concern"
is terminology used by DCM as specially designated areas not occurring in this project s study area»
' = Md Smte Crawl Rddlk NC VOWIGN iV �rAiO /;
Phone 9iA�33��l831fAx. tH9a33�1�96 N�aC +eWw �.�� =��1��
MEgW4pWj AMmWxAdW V ##

U-4751 and R -3300 3
Draft EIS Comments
er Agmc!v 92Lr—dIOxdQA
A list of federal, state. and local agencies indicates vnth an asterisk (*) which agencies provided
comments to the project scopmg letteL DCM is not indicated as having provided scoping comments It
should be noted that DCM provided scoptng comments in response to the request for comments from the
NC State CWritghouse for Intergovernmental Revww Those comments are attached to this document
and should be included in the Final EIS
We hope that you fund these comments helpful If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me
at (419) 733 -2243 x 230, or via e-maeH at a-m siib odOno eov Thank you for your consideration of
the North Carolina Coastal Management Program.
I= Ma11 Sa%ft CoW Raley, W x OW1638
PW* 919?33=%FAX. 9W334495 IBM* wwwJto M
ft" opparal�r1A10roeI�wllcfoaEa +pease
ria&W `

i NCDENR
North Carofina Dent of Environment and Natural Resources
' Division of Coastal Management
WWI F E.adey Gocemor Charles & Joint:, Dlr WIfle n a Ross Jr Serelwy
MEMORANDUM
TO Melba McGee. NCDENR
FROM Steve Sollod, DCM
DATE October 18, 2005
' SUBJ= Military Cutoff Road Extension from US 17 (Market Street) to the Proposed I.140
in New Hanover County and the US 17 Bypass of Hempstead m Now Hanover
and Pander Counties, WBS Element 4019111 and 40237, TIP Projects 0-4751
' and R-3300, Project Review No 06-0107
The North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM) has reviewed the scoping letter of
the above refta+enood project, which was 3ubtmtted to the NC State Clearinghouse for
' intergovernmental review We offer the following comments, which should be considered in
preparation of an environmental document.
i 1 A determination of consistency with the North Carolina Coastal Management Program may
be required for ties project Because North Carolm's Coastal Management Program is
Fedemlly approved, a number of activities are required to comply with the program's
enforceable policies even if those activities do not require Coastal Area Mannomnent Act
(CAMA) permits under State law This "Federal Consistency" authority exists under the
federal Coastal Zone Management Act, It applies to any activity that is in the coastal zone,
' or affects any hard use, water use or any natural resource within the coastal zone (even N the
activity occurs outside of the coastal zone), if the aeuvity- is a Federal activity; requires a
Federal license or permit, receives Federal money, or is a plan for exploration, development
or production from any area leased under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Such
projects must comply with the key elements of North CaroloWs Coastal Mkt
Program. Federal Consistency requires that the applicant certify to tine federal agency and DCM
' that the proposed aubvity will be condthcted in a meaner that is consistent with the State s cowl
merit programm, Ibis coansterrey certification includes a review of the State's coastal
program and contains an analysis dombing how the proposed project would be consistent,
' to the mmumum extent feasible, with the State's enforceable coastal policies as mandated by
the requirements of Federal Consistency (15 CM 930) and North Carolina Executive Order
#I5 Information pertaining to the consistency should be included in the
errvmm�mentai document
' 400 Came= Avme, Idomhead qty, Pandit Ctuolita 28557 -X21
Raw 262 - 808.2$081 FAX 262-247-M 1 Internet. awrw =own rang mectt.r*I
An tlppalr*tAFIafW aA*ftF.mOgw -60% lt0%PastCOIw Paper

Page 2
2. All applicable CAMA Land Use Plans should be reviewed and the project evaluated against
the enforceable policies of these plans This evaluation is a part of the Federal Consistency
requirements and this information should be included in the environmental document
3 The proposed project may impact CAMA Areas of Envsmnmcntal Concern (AECs) in the
project study area In this case a LAMA Major Development and/or Dredge & Fill Permit
may be required for the project. A fornial DCM review of the project to determine
consistency with the State's Coastal Management Program will not occur until a CAMA
Major Development Permit application is received At that tune, the CAMA Major
Development Past application will be circulated to the State agencies with an interest in
the proposed projed for review and comnient. 7be consideration and incorporation by
NCDOT of the comments received during the NEPA/4W MagW Process into the final
project design should help to expedite the CAMA Major Development Permit application
review process
4 DCM's GIS -based wetland inventory and mapping program provides wetland data that can
be used to improve wetland avoidance~ minimization, alternatives analysis, impact
assessment, and mitigation site searches DCM's GIS -based wetland maps and data may be
included by DOT within the environmental document. for this project. The GIS based
wetland maps and data are available through DOrs Geographic Information Systems Unit
located at the C ntury Center on Birds Ridge Road in Raleigh DCWs GIS based wetland
mve:trtory and mapping program includes three wetland inventory and assessment tools
available for the coastal area.
a. Wtdmd tvoc dwL This data can be used early in the planning process to avoid and
minimize impacts to wetlands and specific wetland types to estimate project impacts,
and to estimate nudgation needs
b Wetland BMILONLOWUMM data (NC &A—MM . This data can be used to refine
the road digntnetit to avoid the most ecologically significant wetlands that contribute
most to their wateislied's health.
c This data can be used to
locate mitigation sites
We hope that you find these comments helpful and that they will be addressed during planning
and preparation of the environmental document for this project. During future interagency
projecx coordination and review, DCM may have additional comments cm the project, and may
place conditions an the consistency determination or CAMA permit to minimize any impacts to
exiMW resoureos The won provided in this letter shall not preclude DCM from
r.p.W.g additional sdwination throughout the interagency prajed coordination ad. review
prooeess, and following normal consistency review procedures.
If you Have any questions or concerns please contact me at [phone] x 230, or via e-mail
at gM QeltodRnamaii.net Thank you for your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal
Mmtiagemeizt program.

COUNTY NEk HANOVER
IPENDER
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
F02 HIGHWAYS AND ROADS STATE NUME.SR 12 -E- 4220 -0061
DATE RECEIVED 09/07/2011
AGENCY RESPONSE 10/25/2011
` REVIEW CLOSED 10/30/2011
t
MS RENEE GLEDHILL - EARLEY t 4 e
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES _...• -� L k-
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICF
MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING tx�1�j4
RALEIGH NC
iREVIEW DISTRIBUTION � / �s loll
CAPE FEAR COG tt � "�
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR - COASTAL MGT
DENR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE �) f
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCESy C1
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
' PROJECT 1IMfMTION
APPLICANT N C Department of Transportation
TYPE National Environmental Policy Act
' Draft Environmental Impact Statement
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 project has been submitted to the N C State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review Please review and submit your response by the above
' indicated date to 1301 Wail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -1301
If additional review time is needed, please contact this of ce at (919)807 -2425
AS A RESULT 0 HIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING IS SUBMITTED NOICENT � COMMENTS ATTACHED
SIGNED BY y t DATE V-1—Z
0 1
A ^mot
' SE' 12 211

NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and (natural Resources
Office of Conservation, Planning, & Community Affairs
Be erly Eaves Perdue Governor Linda Pearsall, Director Dee Freeman Secretary
OL►nhLr ltd 2011
NIENIOR kNQ1 NI
TO tvlelha ylcGee- Dl NR I n%rronmt.nt it ( oordinatur
1 ROM I i Irr. I LY►r u1d N-itur tl I Icrltagi, 11rogr tai
V 13.11 ( I [hilt i ii Propo,Ltl tiR 1409 (\I1111 LA ( UlOITI(ChId) I VLn -0 ion tnd Propow d lI� 17
11 imp %w--id Bypa.. NL'A I l inoxtr Ind Kridur eounut-s
Rl I I RI NIcF 124)(lftl
1 his proJCLt IIkLh 'A Ill LUNI, e-on.rckr ihlL Lm irtlnnlLnt ll impacts to xwl -inds %%IldliIL habitat r-irL
SPLLiL. Ina pouthlc natural art a. \11m ai thLSt. imp ILt.'A111 RON bi SLLondir} IN -I result of habit it
fr►gmLitt toon through placLML111 n1 1 I1111IILd 9CLLS, hIl_hctily 111roUgh undevLlopLd I Inds It 1s
unlortuivitc that our Proprim and pLrh 1p% most othLr. In the- Mli-trimem his not IXLn euntACILci for
Nwpmt, LonlmLnts no %Mh ILI[Lr. Ippt. 1r to ht. tnclutkd in thL dot.urtlLnl
I nclom-d �tret%%o III ili „ho'Aingthc.rgnifiL-lnt t1-iturll rt- WLITCLS n1 the. proJLLI ant 111E northcTn h Ill of
thL prolL0 from -About I mile norths iSt of Sudbury Ro id to the Lonne-e'tian'A uh (I's] 7 northt.-im of
Hinipmt,ad — appear• io avoid sign IIit. Int natural rLsourccs MI. %vc,,(Lrn of OIL t'AO hligninews (red on
11l: tirL ti 1) -IppLrir% to lx it..r acid Ill tl.t. %ac 7nna (tires -n polygon north of Sidhun Ro-id) and Sidburc
Road %a, inns (bl -t,.k poht on bourh of Sidbur% Ro -id) I his red iltLrn tti% - also lxttt.r -I, oids thL V
DO mitigation iwis (n1 uoon -hro«n pol %Loris 11onut OIL «llmington B pass) pa %sing just to Ili,- 1
Of than 1 IIC Lotltntt1111on of thL rLd route- south of Ili,. Wilmington 13�pass (blue NIL on FigurL S I )
11so doe. -I better lob of -tvolding %ignilic int natur it rL,ourct.s th-in doe-w IN. mart. L 1s1Lrn purpiL mutt. on
OIL IlgurL
in Stinlmin the mo.i ccLuLrn of thL Lombmt d roulLs ippcars to do thL IL'itit ImpaLt'- In ,Ignttic int
nituril hLritagc ;trLa. r-irt. .peeit s Intl Lon.Lmitlon irt.3c Ha1lc%Lr 11 r, %Lrc important that thL N(
rx)1 continuo. to Londuet Section 7 t,oneultation5 with ate- t JS 11Sh Intl Wildltfc `%Lrc wt, %garding
F"Lmml impacts to I LdLrllly lisiLd ,pLtiic. such t. 1114. RLd Loci. idLd Woodpeckt r (Pi cities host alts)
roul_h1Lat loo,estri ft. I i 1 srrncrt hru uspt iWilaha) Ind ( oo1Lv s nit. ida'Aru,- (Thaht ti unr t oolet r) 1.
mdit.ated in the IN 1t,
PIL ISL do not hesitltL to Lontact nit. It 919 715 9097 if vent have yutr tl Ions or ncul turtliLr intorm won
Fnclo.urc,
1601 Mad Service Center, Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1601 NOne Carolina
Phone [phone] FAX [phone] Internet www oneNCNaturally org �����,, //�
A+i Equal Opporwity I Affirmative Action Employer - Ur/ Recycled 1 10°o Post Consumer raper � A Bewares f'1vrig ad (ai1Y-A

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SECTION
Inter - Agency Project Review Response
Project Name t S 4rmN Corps of Lneint t rs Type of Project
Wilnunion Distrit.t
m�nsn rrrr
Comments provided by
MrRegional Program Person Lit J L tf if (,I
Lr Regional Supervisor for Public Water Supply Section
L Central Office program person
Project Number
County
New Hanover
Pender
Dr,t t Fn irunmcntat
Impart Statement
Proposed SR 1409
(Militan Cp(of7Rd)
Extension and nrotmsed
4S 17 liamosteill BNPisc
Name DLbr► Bcnu,%— %%dmu gton RU Date 09 109 /2(110
Telephone number 1(+ !Q
Program within Division of Water Resources
* Public Water Supply
❑ Other Name of Program
Response (check all applicable)
❑ No objection to protect as proposed
❑ No comment
❑ Insufficient information to complete review
Comments attached
See comments below
) f
U.cLt....i J 0 tvuticC t tLc rLLk n (`It'CLt t-t '- r-tLi f4-f- 'tic &r ,f L, �t c - i
4bl►f Llttbi .i_�Cc� t �(, ti i�Cj ,urtlfv # {t_ LLCt LCL��.i= 4�N.f�l�`(i rt.4 DLit- +tLA_S 113
t� S1/."Sv� S tirtt�i ;t A IN iC...., L A A (,mac
�� lL.rjt CC �- �'Y.aC�`t4sf-r tt(il-> I
(LL%,C (tC # t kt_( It: (L � t � ��s)c � d � � i L n A 1aLUAK u. {� � � Sa_i� �"�jJ
iL I L� t{ t3 k �At.cw (L C- L+L,fl -erl l f l L+ lit I4 � k.JL 4(t.. .`sL� M
q, -t CL+[ia iY.ti 1>,xt►.� ct c.�'G4Lxt ,sic. C- liuvlxyr)t ,I{ L-L4S
t5 + +�{ C�IILw.r� �t il.rt:r• (:,� f 4,_ t r lrt. vN4 wluk.Cit X19 -,L �rctr�.� tltr �
- ,tC�- " Ltjk2.[1( W- 1t rij aik(L rjC,l dC YJtZV t
C+.mt 1i.�C f (i.l L)LIS ir.r 1C1JA-ir-bt,-rr
2" ' d ' rin - 9 1 +.� t QA (I.A f Y.0 r I
IVi ;(�i14*f\ H e rV i t V1 kif Return to
Public water Suppty Section
Environmental Review Coordinator for the
Dtvision of Water Resources

DEPARTMENT Of ENVIRONMENT AND i Project Number —
NATURAL RESOURCES 1 12 0061 _
DIVISION! OF WATER RESOURCES i County +
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SECTION I New Hanover,
LPender
Inter - Agency Project Review Response
Project Name t S %rml J orns of 6ngiLL rs Type of Project Ur a t I m irunmcntat 1m m t
Wilniln ,ton District y tttcmtnr - Eamaced SIi
� �n 1 409 01tbtar% Cutoff Rd)
E,xtenaton and nrupowd 4'S
17 Ljoin2stead Bypass
❑ The applicant should be advised that plats and specif cations for all water system
improvements must be approtied by the Division of Water Resources /Public Water
Supply Section prior to the award of a contract or the Initiation of construction (as
required by 15A NCAC 18C 0300et seq ) For information contact the Public Water
Supply Section (919)
733 2321
Ci This project will be classified as a non community public water supply and must comply
with state and federal drinking water monitoring requirements For mo a information the
applicant should contact the Public Water Supply Section [phone]
existing water lines will be relocated during the construction plans for the water line
jJ relocation must be submitted to the Division of Water Resources Public Water Supply
Section Technical Services Branch 1634 Mad Service Center Raleigh North Carohna
27699 1634 [phone]
(] For Regional and Central Office comments see the reverse side of this form
Jim McRrght PWSS 09/09/2011
Review Coordinator Section /Branch Date

i�.
`•r Vw
i
K'
L. .� . +�•i- �'_�ts•C� �.'��:C�' .��� -rte'
. w+
i

Ir
w�l �h � � r'!, • 'a
r
ct
t•. '
4
e
is
�t