The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20161268_Meeting Minutes 01172011_20120117® MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS L MEMORANDUM To Meeting Participants FROM Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey Engineers and Consultants DATE January 17 2011 SUBJECT Merger Team Concurrence Point 3 Informational Meeting Proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and Proposed US 17 Hampstead Bypass New Hanover and Pender Counties NCDOT TIP Project Nos U 4751 and R 3300 A NEPA /Section 404 Merger informational meeting was held on December 15 2011 for the subject project in the NCDOT Structure Design conference room The purpose of the meeting was to review detailed study alternatives and discuss agency comments in preparation for Concurrence Point 3 (CP 3) Meeting participants are listed below and a summary of the CP 3 informational meeting follows MEETING PARTICIPANTS Johnny Banks Mulkey Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT — NES Jay Bissett Mulkey Heather Causey NCDOT Marissa Cox NCDOT NES Jason Elliott NCDOT NES Mary Pope Furr NCDOT HES Kim Gillespie NCDOT PDEA Renee Gledhill Earley NC Dept of Cultural Resources SHPO Phil Harris NCDOT NES Herman Huang NCDOT HES/ Public Involvement & Community Studies Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service Drew Joyner NCDOT HES Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey Gary Lovering NCDOT Roadway Design Jay McInnis NCDOT PDEA Scott McLendon US Army Corps of Engineers Art McMillan NCDOT Hydraulics Mark Mickley Mulkey Chris Militscher US En-, ironmental Protection Agency Tara Murphy Wilmington MPO W M Petit NCDOT STIP Allen Pope NCDOT Division 3 Jackson Provost NCDOT Division 3 Ron Sechler NOAA National Marine Fisheries Brad Shaver US Army Corps of Engineers Amy Series NC Dept of Environment & Natural Resources Caleb Smith NCDOT ArchaeoloM MUL E IN 6750 T ON RD 0 CA INC 27518 PO BO 33127 R E GN NC 27636 PH 919 851 19 2 A 9 9 85 9 8 W.. U N OM Steve Sollod NC Division of Coastal Management Mark Staley NCDOT Roadside Environmental Tom Steffens US Army Corps of Engineers Sarah Schwarzer NCDOT PDEA Greg Thorpe NCDOT PDEA Jay Twisdale NCDOT Hydraulics David Wainwright NC Division of Water Quality Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission Stephen Yeung NCDOT Congestion Management Shane York NCDOT TPB MEETING SUMMARY Jay McInnis opened the meeting and introductions wer6made around the room Mr McInnis stated the meeting was an informational meeting and not a concurrence meeting Liz Kovasckitz began the presentation by noting meeting handouts were available on the table near the sign in sheet The materials included a project summary packet two figures illustrating the location of Cooley s meadowrue and rough leaved loosestrife and an update to Table 5 in the packet PRESENTATION Ms Kovasckitz reviewed the agenda for the meeting and noted the purpose of the meeting was to review the project status and discuss items related to the selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) (Concurrence Point 3) for the US 17 Corridor Study Ms Kovasckitz then provided an overview of the project The current project schedule includes a Final En-, ironmental Impact Statement (FEIS in August 2012 with a State Record of Decision in December that same year Ms Kovasckitz described the current project alternatives There are two Current Detailed Study Alternatii es (DSAs) for Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 There are four Current DSAs for Hampstead Bypass Alternati-, es E H O R and U Ms Kovasckitz noted the Hampstead Bypass alternatives evol-, ed during the project development process in response to concerns from USFWS and other merger team members and the results of a red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat analysis Incorporated design options minimize impacts to RCW foraging habitat by moving the northern interchange near the project s terminus away from existing US 17 to south and west of the Topsail School complex for Alternatives E H O R and U Proposed typical sections for the Hampstead Bypass were described Ms Kovasckitz explained that typical sections are influenced by the t} pe of facility required to fulfill the project s purpose and need The number of proposed lanes included in the typical sections is based on providing capacity for existing and future traffic volumes as well as minimizing impacts to sensitive natural resources such as RCW in the area Traffic operations analyses show that six lanes are required to accommodate future traffic volumes along the proposed bypass from the US 17 Wilmington Bypass to the proposed interchange with NC 210 for Alternatives E H O and R and for Alternative U from the proposed interchange with existing US 17 to the proposed interchange with NC 210 The typical section includes a 46 foot grass median From the proposed interchange at NC 210 to the northeastern project terminus at existing US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternatives E H O R and U are each proposed as a four lane roadway with a 46 foot grass median Four lanes will accommodate future traffic volumes along the portion of the proposed bypass between NC 210 and the proposed interchange with existing US 17 Traffic volumes along the bypass increase again from the interchange with existing US 17 to the end of the project Howe-, er in order to minimize RCW habitat impacts only four lanes are proposed along this section of the bypass Ms Kovasckitz further explained that in the section of the proposed b5 pass where RCW minimization was incorporated into the project design (proposed interchange at realigned US 17 to the northern end of the project) traffic demand will exceed capacity (Level of Service [LOS] F) in 2035 using the proposed four lane typical section However the traffic carrying capacity of US 17 in this area will be improved meeting purpose and need Until the proposed Hampstead Bypass ties into existing US 17 near Leeward Lane the amount of traffic on the bypass will be less than the amount of traffic on existing US 17 under the No Build condition In addition traffic service on existing US 17 in the area will be impro-, ed Ms Kovasckitz described other factors that contributed to the decision to propose the use of a four lane typical section including • The construction of a four lane freeway for the preceding segment will result in an acceptable LOS (D) and rruninize construction costs • Maintains connectivitj (less than 200 feet) between RCW foraging habitat partitions • Hampstead Bypass must transition to four lanes to meet the typical section of existing US 17 at the northern terminus US 17 where the project will tie in is projected to exceed capacity (LOS F) in 2035 • Using a six lane typical section between two four lane typical sections would create a traffic bottleneck • Because it is at the end of the project it makes more sense in terms of the project as a whole to transition to four lanes earlier in order to minimize impacts to a protected species This would not be effective in the middle of the proposed project where driver expectancy issues would arise and increased congestion would result from traffic bottlenecks For Hampstead Bypass Alternative U two additional typical sections are proposed for other segments Between the proposed interchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass and the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange at Market Street a ten lane roadway with a 22 foot median would be constructed Frontage roads would be needed in addition to the main travel lanes where Alternative U travels along existing US 17 These service roads would provide access to businesses residences and community facilities along existing US 17 Several considerations factored into the proposed typical section for this segment of Alternative U • Year 2035 traffic projections for Alternative U in this area are comparable to traffic found on the busiest roads in the most populated areas in North Carolina including Charlotte and Raleigh Traffic analyses show that the number of lanes required between the proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass and the proposed interchange at NC 210 are higher for Alternative U than for Alternatives E H O and R between the same points This is because Alternatives E H O and R provide northbound travelers the option of either using the proposed Hampstead Bypass or existing US 17 while all traffic is directed along one route with Alternative U More lanes are required to process this increased traffic on Alternative U US 17 Wilmington Bypass and existing US 17 each with four lanes come together along this section of Alternative U With their combined traffic ten lanes are needed to accommodate projected 2035 traffic -, olumes NCDOT proposes a freeway facility with full control of access for the Hampstead Bypass because in addition to increasing safety it would provide greater benefit in terms of traffic service than the partial or no control of access options An expressway or non freeway option with direct access from the bypass to adjacent properties would require 14 travel lanes to provide adequate traffic carrying capacity The signals required for an expressway reduce the capacity from approximately 2 200 passenger cars per hour for a freeway lane to approximatel 450 vehicles per hour for an expressway lane In addition there would be driver expectancy and safety concerns associated with the Hampstead Bypass making the transition from a freeway to a 14 lane expressway with signahzation and turning mo-, ements and back to a freeway • Utilizing service roads minimizes impacts b) reducing relocations and right of way costs Ms Ko-, asckitz explained that the same two t5 pical sections are proposed for Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 The first typical section is a six lane roadway with a 30 foot grass median and curb and gutter which is proposed for Alternatives M1 and M2 between Market Street and approximately one mile north of Torchwood Boule-, and NCDOT is coordinating with the Wilmington MPO on the inclusion of a multi use path that would tie into the existing multi use path on Military Cutoff Road From approximately one mile north of Torchwood Boulevard to the US 17 Wilmington Bypass the proposed typical section for both alternatives is a six lane roadway with a 46 foot median Ms Kovasckitz stated that Corridor Public Hearings were held for the project on October 17 and 18 2011 One hundred eighteen citizens attended at Noble Middle School in Wilmington and 266 citizens attended at Topsail High School in Hampstead Fifteen verbal comments were made after the formal presentations As of November 28 2011 92 written comments have been received Twenty two of the written comments submitted related to the Military Cutoff Road Extension The remainder pertained to the Hampstead Bypass Most of these comments expressed concern with the location of the northernmost interchange for the Hampstead Bypass and the lack of direct access to existing US 17 from Hampstead Bypass at the northern end of the project The public hearing comment form provided the opportunity for those commenting to rank the order of their corridor preference(s) from among the fi-, e Current Detailed Study Alternatives Ms Kovasckitz noted that with the exception of Alternative M1 +U the alternatives ranked fairly closely when looking at first and second choices combined A summary of impacts to jurisdictional streams ponds and wetlands was then discussed by the merger team Total stream impacts by Current DSA were presented Detailed stream impacts were included in Table 4 11 in Appendix A of the informational packet Alternatives M1 +EH and M1 +R have the highest stream impacts Alternatix e M2 +U has the lowest stream impacts Mitigation opportunities were then discussed From a procedural standpoint NCDOT does not typically extensively investigate on site mitigation opportunities until LEDPA has been chosen The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Ecos) stem Enhancement Program (EEP) defines on site mitigation to be limited to mitigation adjacent to and contiguous with the roadway corridor Therefore NCDOT can only pursue sites adjacent to the chosen ( LEDPA) corridor and not on any of the others Existing opportunities included in the EEP Asset Debit Ledger were presented in table format to the merger team Wetland and pond impacts were summarized at the meeting with detailed tables available in Appendix A of the informational packet Ms Kovasckitz noted that Alternative M2 +0 has the highest wetland impacts Alternatives M1 +EH and M1 +U have the lowest wetland impacts Pond impacts are fairly comparable between the Current DSAs Ms Kovasckitz then referred to Table 2 in the packet which showed effects to historic properties The State Historic Preservation Office provided effects determinations at a meeting held on March 8 2011 Avoidance and minimization measures have been incorporated into the design at properties with effects A review of these additional measures took place on December 13 2011 The effects determination at Scotts Hill Rosenwald School was revised Mary Pope Furr clarified the determination is now No Adverse Effect at Scotts Hill Rosenwald School for Alternative U Alternatives M1 and M2 will have an adverse effect on one historic property and Alternative U will have an adverse effect on two historic properties None of the other alternatives will affect historic properties Ms Kovasckitz reviewed Table 3 from the informational packet NCDOT purchased five sites (a total of 27 parcels) for wetland and T &E impact mitigation associated with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass Corbett Tract Corbett Strip Plantation Road 34 acre Residual and 22 acre Residual NCDOT purchased all land in fee simple and there are no easements on the properties All sites contain wetlands but only the Corbett Tract has been used for wetland mitigation and its alteration is prohibited by the USACE s permit for the US 17 Wilmington Bypass All five sites contain rough leaf loosestrife habitat but only the Corbett Tract and Plantation Road sites have documented populations at this time Alternatives M1 +EH M1 +R and Ml +U have considerably lower overall impacts to preservation areas However they have higher impacts to the Corbett Tract Mitigation Site and Residual Strip Ms Kovasckitz showed a slide illustrating that impacts to the Corbett Tract and Plantation Road site from Alternatives M1 +EH M1 +R M1 +U are predominantly a result of the additional 25 feet added to the slope stake boundary when calculating impacts Earthwork in this area is within the existing ROW with the exception of a very tiny piece where the Corbett Tract and Corbett Strip come together This is a similar situation at the Corbett Strip for Alternative M2 +0 Ms Kovasckitz then summarized information related to federally protected species All of the alternatives may affect and are likely to adversely affect at least one protected species Protected species surve) s 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 timed surveys do not reveal any specimens of golden sedge the USFWS has noted the) would concur with a "no effect' conclusion for this species Ms Kovasckitz noted the two figures provided with the handout that showed the location of known occurrences of Cooley s meadowrue and rough leaved loosestrife Cooley s meadowrue stems were found in 2009 and 2010 in very close proximity to the right of way for Alternatives M2 +0 and M1 +R Rough leaved loosestrife stems were found on the Plantation Road Mitigation Site A number of stems were found within the right of wa) for Alternative M2 which would affect Alternatives M2 +0 and M2 +U Ms Kovasckitz indicated the DEIS stated three transient non community wells would be impacted by Hampstead Bypass Alternative U Modifications to the design at the Sidbury Road interchange to avoid direct impacts to historic sites resulted in reducing impacts to these wells to two wells Ms Kovasckitz then described how the proposed Military Cutoff Extension project is located in a wellhead protection area for a water treatment plant and associated infrastructure operated by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority ( CFPUA) Each CFPUA well is also assigned an individual wellhead protection radius within that larger area Both alternatives have impacts to CFPUA infrastructure M1 less so Alternatives M1 and M2 are within a 100 foot buffer for two existing well sites at Site B (one is located in the Peedee aquifer and one in the Castle Hayne aquifer) Ms Kovasckitz relayed that CFPUA indicated finding a site for the relocation of those wells with suitable replacement yields could be challenging The alignment of both Alternatives M1 and M2 can be adjusted to avoid the 100 foot buffer for these wells Alternative M2 is also within a future expansion area and could result in the relocation of two additional wells Ms Kovasckitz referred meeting attendees to the updated Table 5 in the handout which showed a comparison of all of the Current DSAs She reviewed several impact categories • Relocations The revised table listed business and non profit relocations separately Updated numbers for business relocations reflected corrections made for Alternatives M1 and M2 In the DEIS two business displacements were already counted as non profits and a cemetery was included The revised table also removed one Alternative U business displacement that was in Scotts Hill Rosenwald School as design revisions now avoid impacts at that site • Farmlands Farmland impacts were coordinated with the Natural Resources Conservation Service No Voluntary Agricultural Districts will be impacted • Forest Impacts shown in the table were updated from the DEIS because one six acre polygon was double counted for three of the alternatives • High Quality Waters The table shows impacts to HQW /ORW zones in acres The associated HQW /ORW streams are located south of US 17 Ms Kos asckitz noted the basin divide ran fairly close to existing US 17 Chris Militscher indicated that should be shown in the FEIS • Cemeteries Alternatives M1 +U and M2 +U impact five cemeteries The remaining alternatiN es impact two cemeteries The DEIS noted access to Prospect Cemetery off of Market Street would not be permitted from either of the Military Cutoff Road Extension alternatives This was resolved and access is now provided to the cemetery by both alternatives Ms Kovasckitz stated that comments on the DEIS were received from a number of agencies and were included in Appendix C of the packet Comments from the agencies included concerns regarding right of wa) width impacts to preservation areas and protected species impacts to farms and forests water supply wetland and stream impacts wildlife habitat fragmentation and human en,, ironment impacts Purpose and Need and Detailed Study Alternatives Ms Kovasckitz noted she hoped that man) of the concerns had been addressed in the presentation She requested that the discussion begin with comments and concerns that needed to be resolved before the selection of a LEDPA DISCUSSION Gary Jordan asked if a 200 foot corridor would be maintained along US 17 in the vicinity of Holly Shelter Game Land Liz Kovasckitz noted she had intended to clarify in the presentation that through the RCW foraging habitat for clusters on Holly Shelter Game Land the clearing will be held to less than 200 feet Mr Jordan asked if a 46 foot median is proposed through RCW foraging habitat Jay McInnis explained that it is David Wainwright asked if traffic was seasonal or average annual daily traffic (AADT) Liz Kovasckitz explained that it is AADT not seasonal Steve Sollod asked if the transient wells are associated with businesses we are taking It was explained one of the two affected wells ma) be associated with a relocation Scott McLendon asked why a 46 foot median is proposed Mr McInnis explained that although a six lane facility is needed north of the northern interchange for the bypass only four lanes are proposed as a minimization measure for the RCW foraging habitat and because the bypass is tying into an existing four lane road A 46 foot median is proposed in order to allow widening into the median in the future Mr McInnis said between NC 210 and the northernmost interchange the proposed 46 foot median will allow for a future widening to the inside median if houses and businesses are built close to the proposed right of way He also explained that a 46 foot median reduces the chance of head on collisions He mentioned a graph of the number of head on collisions versus median widths would show a spike in the number of head on collisions with a median width of less than 46 feet Art McMillan also mentioned that a 46 foot median helps with drainage Mr McLendon wondered why a 22 foot median was not provided now if it is acceptable in the future Mr McInnis explained the wider median will provide the safety benefits until such time additional lanes are needed Brad Shaver noted concerns about traffic coming from the north to the schools in Hampstead and through the neighborhoods southeast of existing US 17 Mr McInnis noted NCDOT is evaluating other configurations to the proposed northernmost Hampstead interchange to try and address that issue Mr Jordan stated USFWS cannot concur with alternatives that include the Military Cutoff Road Extension M2 alignment due to impacts to rough leaved loosestrife and the Plantation Road mitigation site The Plantation Road site was part of the Section 7 Consultation for the US 17 Wilmington Bypass and is addressed in the Biological Assessment / Biological Opinion issued for that project It was noted that if Alternative M2 was selected as LEDPA Section 7 Consultation would need to be reinitiated Travis Wilson stated the indirect impacts of not being able to manage the mitigation sites are a concern Rachelle Beauregard asked if the sites were not being burned because of the soil type It was noted that management has been limited because of concerns associated with deep peat soils and fires reemerging Conditions would need to be lust right for a burn Mr Wilson noted peat soils can be burned in some areas However with the close proximity of the proposed road in relation to the site it would be less likely There was agreement that micro managing the site would be a possibility Mr Shaver noted no score or ratings are provided in the tables for streams Mr Shaver indicated he would like a better evaluation of stream type to help determine magnitude versus quantity of streams impacted Mark Mickley stated the quality assessment information was included on the DWQ and USACE stream forms prepared for the project It was determined this information would be added to the detailed streams table In regard to the information pertaining to available mitigation from the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) Scott McLendon noted the White Oak HUC extends all the way into Onslow County so the mitigation shown on the table for that HUC may not be near the project Mr McLendon remarked that it is important to make sure there is mitigation available near the project He indicated an adjacent HUC in the Cape Fear basin should not be discounted Marissa Cox clarified the EEP mitigation table included in the presentation shows what NCDOT has available at this time and this information may change as the project progresses She noted EEP mitigation information does not provide details about specific sites within the HUCs Chris Mihtscher noted he cannot concur on LEDPA until he and people above hire at EPA in Atlanta further review the effects of the project on public water supplies Mr Militscher stated people are guaranteed a right to water and the proposed infrastructure does not supersede their right to clean water He is concerned the project could set a precedent and was unable to find similar project impacts in his research of the issue Mr Mihtscher indicated threats to the public water supply need to be further investigated and evaluated by NCDOT He stated concurrence would not occur if the 100 foot well buffers are not avoided Mr McInnis stated NCDOT can adjust the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension design to avoid the 100 foot buffer at well site B Mr Mihtscher said he would review the new design and give Ills assessment of the revision A meeting attendee asked if NCDENR provided comments on the wells Ms Kovasckitz replied that the Public Water Supply Section did provide comments Liz Kovasckitz and Jay McInnis discussed the relocation reports and explained that non profit relocations are included with business relocations in the DEIS They reiterated that an error found in the relocation report for M1 and M2 decreased business relocations by three for both Military Cutoff Road Extension alternatives Mr Militscher noted that over half of the ponds impacted bI the project were stormwater ponds He indicated NCDOT needs to identify ponds that are permitted Mr Sollod asked what needs to happen when a stormwater pond is removed David Wainwright stated the pond would need to be replaced He stated any design changes can be discussed at Concurrence Points 4B & 4C If a permitted stormwater pond is impacted the pond (or replacement) will still need to function and be in compliance with the permit It was noted that calculations in the permit may be offset by a reduction in impervious surface if nearby lots are being acquired Mr Mihtscher stated stormwater runoff impacts to retention basins and impacts of a new roadway will also need to be included in the assessment of impacts to the water supply Mr Jordan was asked about the potential for a jeopardy call related to RCW impacts He noted formal Section 7 consultation will begin at Concurrence Point 4A It is possible that RCWs could be equally impacted by all alternatives Other species have different impacts by alternative He noted there was still a lot of ongoing activity on the project associated with protected species and he did not want to be pre decisional Mr Mihtscher stated he didn t think the project was meeting the defined purpose and need which is to impro-, e the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area He noted none of the alternatives appear to raise the level of service on US 17 even with the Wilmington Bypass project completion Ms Ko-, asckitz stated that the project meets purpose and need Roadway capacity is improved as depicted on Figures 14A through 14D of the DEIS The figures show level of service in 2035 build conditions Those improvements should be compared to Figure 5 of the DEIS which shows level of service in 2035 for the No Build condition Mr Mihtscher stated he did not have those figures in his copy of the DEIS Ms Kovasckitz indicated she would send a copy of the figures to hum Mr McInnis noted there are differences in traffic service associated with a level of sern ice F that can range from varying degrees of congestion to complete gridlock The project improves capacity in the design year The project reduces delays on those sections of US 17 where traffic service demand exceeds capacity Mr Shaver noted a lot of time was spent looking at this issue during the preparation of the DEIS The traffic operations anal sis section of the DEIS was expanded to include additional explanatory / clarifying text and tables Mr McLendon noted traffic projections for the US 17 widening project were reviewed Existing traffic conditions were compared to what was estimated Mr McLendon noted the numbers for actual versus estimated were very close Mr Jordan asked if NCDOT was considering a change in the design of the project north of Topsail Schools Jay McInnis explained the majority of the comments heard at the Hampstead corridor hearing were related to the location of the northern interchange Those commenting are concerned that businesses will suffer due to the lack of access to existing US 17 from the bypass north of the school Mr McInnis explained alternatives are being explored that would provide access while not increasing impacts to RCW foraging habitat Any changes to the project in this area will affect all of the alternatives in the same way since all the alternatives have the same design at the northern tie in with existing US 17 Mr Jordan requested updated mapping after any revisions to the northern Hampstead Bypass interchange have been incorporated Mr McInnis summarized the information the merger team indicated would be needed prior to concurring on the LEDPA • Additional information related to public water supply impacts Mr McInnis reiterated that the design can potentially be shifted to miss the 100 foot well buffers at the water treatment plant • Relocations Mr Militscher indicated he would review the information provided at the meeting and determine if his concerns had been addressed • Stormwater ponds (identify which impacted stormwater ponds are permitted) • Stream quality information Brad Shaver asked for a copy of the slide presentation Jay McInnis responded that a copy of the slides would be sent to the merger team The meeting was adjourned CORRECTIONS & OMISSIONS This summary is the writer s interpretation of the events discussions and transactions that took place during the meeting If there are any additions and /or corrections please inform Kum Gillespie at klgillespie(Incdot gox or the writer in writing within seven (7) days I I f I Proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension (U -4751) and Proposed US 17 Hampstead Bypass (R -3300) New Hanover and Pender Counties Introductions and sign -in 1 Military Cutoff Road Extension (U -4751) mq Six -lane divided roadway on new location Hampstead Bypass (R -3300) m Generally a four- to six - lane freeway mostly on new location -For Military Cutoff Road Extension, NCDOT is proposing to extend Military Cutoff Road as a six -lane divided roadway on new location from where it currently ends at Market Street in Wilmington north to an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass. - NCDOT is proposing to construct the US 17 Hampstead Bypass as a generally four- to six -lane freeway mostly on new location. The US 17 Hampstead Bypass DSA's connect to the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension at the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass and extend to existing US 17 north of Hampstead. 9 Cost Estimate ranges from $356M to $405M m Current Schedule: m FEIS, August 2012 m ROD, December 2012 m U -4751 ROW 2014, Construction 2017 m R -3300 ROW 2017, Construction is not currently funded Current anticipated costs vary by alternative and range from about $356 million to about $405 million. The Draft EIS was signed on July 28, 2011, FEIS — 8/12, ROD 12/12 Right of way acquisition is tentatively scheduled for fiscal year 2014 for Military Cutoff Road Extension and fiscal year 2017 for the Hampstead Bypass. Construction of Military Cutoff Road Extension is tentatively scheduled for fiscal year 2017. Construction of Hampstead Bypass is not currently funded. U -4751 ROW 2014 and Construction 2017, R -3300 ROW 2017 and Construction is currently unfunded 5 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 area. The merger team reached concurrence on Purpose and Need at their September 21, 2006 NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team meeting. Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 ` ~ee 17 b 7 ywr+y LLe°end C-7f Detailed Study ABemalives Weil I Eesl of NC 210 W:sl l East al NC 21a Alternative Mi — — Alternative E -H Alternative M2 — — Alternative R Ajternative O Ahernative U Interchange Locations County Boundary Major/Minor Rods City of Wilmington Water FeWu- The NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team discussed project alternatives at four meetings between February 2007 and April 2010. The Merger Team concurred on alternatives to be studied in detail at their August 23, 2007 meeting and refined those in April 2010. Two citizens informational workshops held in April 2007. There are two new location alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension being considered for this project. The current detailed study alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension are Alternative M1 and Alternative M2. 7 Current Detailed o Study 1' E -H Hampstead Bypass •-- �.. " H Alternatives f =� Leoend �H R Cunent Detailed Study Altematiives �°6 - Nl511 Eesl of NC 110 Nbsl l Easl or NC 1te J and " "` ~' Alternative M1 = A l-1 — E,H �''*'` — Alternative M2 — Alternative R +. Alternative O Alternative U Interchange Locations 't_ _l� County Boundary Malot[Whor Roads City of Wfl—gton S =F Water Features Hampstead Bypass Alternatives extend from the US 17 Wilmington Bypass in New Hanover County to existing US 17 north of Hampstead near Sloop Point Loop Road in Pender County. The current detailed study alternatives for the Hampstead Bypass include Alternative E -H, Alternative O, Alternative R, and Alternative U. A portion of Alternative U extends along existing US 17. The project alternatives were evaluated for ways to minimize impacts to RCW habitat. Minimization options were developed for Hampstead Bypass Alternatives. The interchange with US 17 near Long Leaf Drive was shifted to the south, away from the RCW foraging habitat. Military Cutoff Road Extension (U -4751) 0 Full /Limited Control N Access to Military Cutoff Road Extension would be F, provided at interchanges at Market Street and the US 17 Wilmington Bypass''' t� �E Right turn access and directional crossovers at `y Putnam Drive, Lendire Road, and Torchwood Boulevard. • R'V l . -Access to Military Cutoff Road Extension would be provided at interchanges at Market Street and the US 17 Wilmington Bypass. Directional crossovers, or left turns, would provide additional access at Putnam Drive, Lendire Road, and Torchwood Boulevard similar to those currently located on Market Street near Scotts Hill. Only right turns will be allowed onto Military Cutoff Road Extension from these roads. U -turns will be provided to accommodate left turns. 9 Hampstead Bypass - Full control of access iLm Interchanges for \ ; Alternatives E -H, O & R: • US 17 Wilmington Bypass ,( • NC 210 • Existing US 17 approximately 0.7 mile west of Grandview /- Drive For the Hampstead Bypass Alternatives E -H, O, and R, access would be provided at interchanges with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, NC 210, and existing US 17 just west of Grandview Drive. 10 Hampstead Bypass - Full control of access Interchangesfor Alternative U *• N US 17 Wilmington Bypass /• = 0 Market Street at US 17 - Wilmington Bypass Sidbury Road �., 0 Existing US 17 approximately 2 miles north of Sidbury Rd. 'A' NC 210 - :• 1; Existing US 17 approximately 0.5 mile west of Grandview Drive * Service Roads are included along the section of Alternative U utilizing Market Street and existing US 17 For Hampstead Bypass Alternative U, access would be provided at interchanges with the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass, the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange at Market Street, realigned Sidbury Road near the southern leg of Scotts Hill Loop Road, existing US 17 approximately 2 miles north of Sidbury Road where the alternative will leave the existing road and go on new location, NC 210, and existing US 17 just west of Grandview Drive. To provide access to adjacent properties, service roads would be provided for the sections of Alternative U along existing US 17 from Market Street to where the US 17 Hampstead Bypass transitions to new location. 11 The typical sections used for the proposed Hampstead Bypass and Military Cutoff Road Extension are influenced by the type of facility required to fulfill the project's purpose and need. The number of proposed lanes included in the typical sections is based on providing capacity for existing and future traffic volumes, as well as minimizing impacts to sensitive natural resources, such as RCW in the area. The Hampstead Bypass will be constructed as a freeway facility; therefore, no bicycle lanes or sidewalks will be provided. Traffic operations analyses show that six lanes are required to accommodate future traffic volumes along the proposed bypass from the US 17 Wilmington Bypass to NC 210 for Alternatives E -H, O, and R - between the proposed interchange at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass and the proposed interchange @ NC 210 and for Alternative U - from the proposed interchange with existing US 17 to the proposed interchange with NC 210. The typical section includes a 46 -foot grass median. 12 Alternatives E -H, O, R and U - `°°�o. from the proposed interchange at NC 210 to the project end at existing US 17 rAlt (%' ro IIId T,nif Hampstead Bypass -E -H, O, R, and U- four -lane roadway with a 46 -foot grass median from the proposed interchange at NC 210 to the northeastern project terminus at existing US 17. Four lanes will accommodate future traffic volumes along the portion of the proposed bypass between NC 210 and the proposed interchange with existing US 17. Traffic volumes along the bypass increase again from the interchange with existing US 17 to the end of the project. However, in order to minimize RCW habitat impacts, only four lanes are proposed along this section of the bypass. 13 P T J.:rYJ I)71 -- �� :i! "I iJ �L�:, "i!1 �Iir.11 ��IS '� / r s4 reA �r- _ �J� -�-'.! ep�' •'Ain_ 210 - Oq . '. _ t/II T.y��nil Where RCW Minimization Incorporated: • Traffic demand on bypass will exceed capacity • Traffic carrying capacity will be improved • Traffic service on existing US 17 improved In the area where impacts to red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat were minimized (proposed interchange at realigned US 17 to the end of the project) traffic demand will exceed capacity (Level of Service F) in 2035 using the proposed four -lane typical section. However, the traffic carrying capacity of US 17 in this area will be improved, meeting purpose and need. Until the proposed Hampstead Bypass ties into existing US 17 near Leeward Lane, the amount of traffic on the bypass will be less than the amount of traffic on existing US 17 under the No Build condition. In addition, traffic service on existing US 17 in the area will be improved. 14 Other factors that contributed to the decision to propose the use of a four -lane typical section in this area include: • The construction of a four -lane freeway for the preceding segment will result in an acceptable LOS (D) and minimize construction costs. • Maintains connectivity between red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat partitions. • Hampstead Bypass must transition to four lanes to meet the typical section of existing US 17 at the northern terminus. US 17 where the project will tie in is projected to exceed capacity (LOS F) in 2035. • Using a six -lane typical section between two four -lane typical sections would create a traffic bottleneck. • Because it is at the end of the project, it makes more sense in terms of the project as a whole to transition to four lanes earlier in order to minimize impacts to a protected species. This would not be effective in the middle of the proposed project where driver expectancy issues would arise and increased congestion would result from traffic bottlenecks. 15 �y x / Alternative - from the 0 proposed interchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass to Existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass Interchange at Market Street Two additional typical sections are proposed for other segments of Alternative U. Between the proposed interchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass and the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange at Market Street, a ten -lane roadway with a 22 -foot median would be constructed. ii[: / Alternative - from Existing /US 17 Wilmington Bypass Interchange at Market Street to the proposed Hampstead ``° �• Bypass interchange at Existing US 17 �i Frontage roads would be needed in addition to the main travel lanes where Alternative U travels along existing US 17. These service roads would provide access to businesses, residences, and community facilities along existing US 17. Several considerations factored into the proposed typical section for this segment of Alternative U: 17 Contributing Factors • Traffic conditions • All traffic directed on one route • US 17 Wilmington Bypass and existing US 17 merge Year 2035 traffic projections for Alternative U in this area are comparable to traffic found on the busiest roads in the most populated areas in North Carolina, including Charlotte and Raleigh. Traffic analyses show that the number of lanes required between the proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass and the proposed interchange at NC 210 are higher for Alternative U than for Alternatives E -H, O and R between the same points. This is because Alternatives E -H, O and R provide northbound travelers the option of either using the proposed Hampstead Bypass or existing US 17, while all traffic is directed along one route with Alternative U. More lanes are required to process this increased traffic on Alternative U. US 17 Wilmington Bypass and existing US 17, each with four lanes and poor traffic service, come together along this section of Alternative U. With their combined traffic and an additional 70,000 cars, ten lanes are needed to accommodate projected 2035 traffic volumes. im As noted previously, the NCDOT proposes a freeway facility with full control of access for the Hampstead Bypass because in addition to increasing safety, it would provide greater benefit in terms of traffic service than the partial or open control of access options. An expressway, or non - freeway option, with direct access from the bypass to adjacent properties would require 14 travel lanes to provide adequate traffic carrying capacity. The signals required for an expressway reduce the capacity from approximately 2,200 passenger cars per hour for a freeway lane to approximately 450 vehicles per hour for an expressway lane. In addition, there would be driver expectancy and safety concerns associated with the Hampstead Bypass making the transition from a freeway to a 14 -lane expressway with signalization and turning movements, and back to a freeway. Utilizing service roads minimizes impacts by reducing relocations and right of way costs. 19 Alternatives M1 and M2 - from Market Street to about one mile north of Torchwood Boulevard The same two typical sections are proposed for Military Cutoff Road Extension alternatives M1 and M2. The first typical section is a six -lane roadway with a 30 -foot grass median and curb and gutter, which is proposed forAlternatives M1 and M2 between Market Street and approximately 1 mile north of Torchwood Boulevard. NCDOT is coordinating with the WPMO on the inclusion of a multi -use path that would tie into the existing multi -use path on Military Cutoff Road. NEI Aft. M1 �4 AIL N2 �.nn a� Atta. M1 R M2 Alternatives M1 and M2 - from Market Street to about one mile north of Torchwood Boulevard The same two typical sections are proposed for Military Cutoff Road Extension alternatives M1 and M2. The first typical section is a six -lane roadway with a 30 -foot grass median and curb and gutter, which is proposed forAlternatives M1 and M2 between Market Street and approximately 1 mile north of Torchwood Boulevard. NCDOT is coordinating with the WPMO on the inclusion of a multi -use path that would tie into the existing multi -use path on Military Cutoff Road. NEI I ,qea. ee„ro�wnpe Alternatives M1 and M2 - from about one mile north of Torchwood Boulevard to US 17 Wilmington Bypass From approximately 1 mile north of Torchwood Boulevard to the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, the proposed typical section for both alternatives is a six - lane roadway with a 46 -foot median. The median would include 12 -foot paved shoulders in each direction. 21 J ' -1 J ."-J 1J J _ -� J -- J _ '-J J _— J a Concurrence on 17 Hydraulic Structures on May 27, 2010 Site 15 Site 16 TIP Project Nos .,. j U -4751 & R -3300 0 NEPAlSection 404 Merger Meeting CP 3 012-15-11 The merger team reached concurrence on Bridging and Alignment Review at their May 27, 2010 NEPA/Section 404 meeting. Proposed Hydraulic Structures are shown in Table 2 -5 in Appendix B. 22 At& North Carolina Departnient TWIS 17 Corridor 1 1 N October 17th and 18th in Wilmington and Hampstead ® 366 citizens registered their attendance ■ 15 speakers and 92 written comments Ranking feedback: Altemative 1'` Choice 2 "d Choice 3rd Choice 4h Choice 5" Choice M1 +E -H 15 1 2 1 M2 +0 15 3 4 M1 +R 11 4 1 1 M1 +U 5 2 3 M2 +U 10 3 2 Two Corridor Public Hearings were held for the project in October: 118 citizens attended at Noble Middle School in Wilmington and 266 citizens attended at Topsail High School in Hampstead. 15 verbal comments made after the formal presentations. As of Nov. 28th 92 written comments have been received. 22 of the written comments submitted related to MCRE. The remainder pertained to Hampstead Bypass with most concerned with the location of the northernmost interchange for the Hampstead Bypass and the lack of direct access to existing US 17 from Hampstead Bypass at the northern end of the project. The public hearing comment form provided the opportunity for commenters to rank the order of their corridor preference(s) from among the five Current Detailed Study Alternatives. 23 rces !� Tables 4 -11, 4 -13 and 4 -15 in Appendix B show specific impacts to streams, ponds and wetlands Delineated Stream Impacts (linear feet) Alternative M1 +EH M2 +0 M1 +R M1 +U M2 +U Perennial 17,987 11,486 18,634 11,755 7,687 Intermittent 3,487 1,346 2,553 997 486 Other 1 3,057 1,010 3,384 2,698 613 Total 24,531 1 13,842 1 24,571 1 15,450 1 8,786 'Tributary waters determined to be jurisdictional based on the presence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). These waters are classified as'Waters of the US' (impacts calculated in sq. ft.) and will not require compensatory mitigation. :_ TIP Project Nos. U -4751 & R- IOP 0 NEPAISe4_ dlkl Merger Meeting CP 3 J 12 -1 Water resources in the study area are part of the Cape Fear River basin (USGS Hydrologic Units 03030007 and 03020302). Futch Creek, Old Topsail Creek, Pages Creek, and a UT to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway have been designated High Quality Waters. Howe Creek is designated ORW. These are receiving streams south of US 17. 59 streams, 17 ponds and 108 jurisdictional wetlands in the DSA study corridors Total stream impacts by DSA are shown on the slide. Detailed stream impacts are in Table 4 -11 in Appendix A. M1 +EH and M1 +R have the highest stream impacts. M2 +U has the lowest stream impacts. "Other streams are jurisdictional but not included in mitigation. [There are No EFH, No AECs, No Anadromous FH, No 303(d) streams, No WSWS, No Shellfish Growing Areas, No PNAs, No streams designated by USACE as Navigable Waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.] 24 From a procedural standpoint, NCDOT does not typically extensively investigate on -site mitigation opportunities until LEDPA has been chosen. The MOA with the EEP defines on -site mitigation to be limited to mitigation adjacent and contiguous with the roadway corridor. Therefore, NCDOT can only pursue sites adjacent to the chosen ( LEDPA) corridor and not on any of the others. Existing opportunities included in the EEP Asset Debit Ledger are presented in the table- state totals. 25 Stream Riparian Nonriparian (linear Wetland Wetland HUC River Basin Status feet acres acres In the ground 582 528 3030007 Cape Fear Under construction 6797 3030001 (now White 1 In die ground 3065 4 3 Under 4000 4 03020302) Oak (now Onslow Bay) construction Total 13862 590 531 From a procedural standpoint, NCDOT does not typically extensively investigate on -site mitigation opportunities until LEDPA has been chosen. The MOA with the EEP defines on -site mitigation to be limited to mitigation adjacent and contiguous with the roadway corridor. Therefore, NCDOT can only pursue sites adjacent to the chosen ( LEDPA) corridor and not on any of the others. Existing opportunities included in the EEP Asset Debit Ledger are presented in the table- state totals. 25 IrTIP ProjecfNos. U-4751 - &R -3300 0 NEPFJSection 404 Merger Meeting CP 3 0 12 -15 -11 Total wetland and pond impacts by DSA are shown on this slide. Detailed wetland and pond impacts are in Table 4 -13 and 4 -15 in Appendix A. M2 +0 has the highest wetland impacts. M1 +EH and M1 +U have the lowest wetland impacts. Pond impacts are fairly comparable between the DSA's. 26 Alternative M1 +EH M2 +0 M1 +R M1 +U M2 +U Delineated Wetland 3.90 4.32 4.18 3.68 3.68 246.05 384.42 29 7 ?4 31S.35 283.7 Impacts (acres) IrTIP ProjecfNos. U-4751 - &R -3300 0 NEPFJSection 404 Merger Meeting CP 3 0 12 -15 -11 Total wetland and pond impacts by DSA are shown on this slide. Detailed wetland and pond impacts are in Table 4 -13 and 4 -15 in Appendix A. M2 +0 has the highest wetland impacts. M1 +EH and M1 +U have the lowest wetland impacts. Pond impacts are fairly comparable between the DSA's. 26 Alternative M1 +1;H N12+0 M1 +R M1 +U M2 +U Delineated Pond Impacts (acres) 3.90 4.32 4.18 3.68 3.68 IrTIP ProjecfNos. U-4751 - &R -3300 0 NEPFJSection 404 Merger Meeting CP 3 0 12 -15 -11 Total wetland and pond impacts by DSA are shown on this slide. Detailed wetland and pond impacts are in Table 4 -13 and 4 -15 in Appendix A. M2 +0 has the highest wetland impacts. M1 +EH and M1 +U have the lowest wetland impacts. Pond impacts are fairly comparable between the DSA's. 26 Table 2 from packet. Poplar Grove is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and four additional properties are eligible for listing. With the exception of the calls shown in italics, The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with these effect determinations at a meeting held on March 8, 2011. Avoidance and minimization measures have been incorporated into the design at Poplar Grove and other properties with effects. A review of additional measures took place earlier this week and no adverse effects are expected at Scotts Hill Rosenwald School. M1 +U and M2 +U affect 3 properties. All DSA's affect MountAraratAME Church. Note: Table has been updated to note Scotts Hill Rosenwald School would have "No Adverse Effect" (instead of "No Effect" as included in original presentation). 27 Gamelands and Preservation Area Impacts (acres)' Alternative M1 +L;II M2 +0 M1 +R M1 +U M2 +U Corbett Tract Mitigation Site 0.58 0.00 0.58 0.08 0.00 Corbett Tract Residual Strip 3.55 0.27 3.55 2.85 0.00 Plantation Road Site 0.30 13.28 0.30 0.31 22.03 34 -Acre Residual Site 0.00 28.81 0.00 0.00 12.37 Blake Savannah 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.00 TOTAL 4.43 42.94 5.01 3.24 34.40 ' The project does not affect Holly Shelter Game Land or the 22 -acre Residual Site in the vicinity of the US 17 Wilmington Bypass. Table 3 in document. NCDOT purchased five sites (a total of 27 parcels) for wetland and T &E impact mitigation associated with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass- Corbett Tract, Corbett Strip, Plantation Road, 34 -acre Residual and 22- acre Residual. DOT purchased all land in fee simple, and there are no easements on the properties. All sites contain wetlands, but only the Corbett Tract has been used for wetland mitigation and its alteration is prohibited by the Corp's permit for the US 17 Wilmington Bypass. All five sites contain rough -leaf loosestrife habitat, but only the Corbett Tract and Plantation Road sites have documented populations at this time. M1 +EH, M1 +R and M1 +U have considerably lower overall impacts, however they have higher impacts to the Corbett Tract Mitigation Site and Residual Strip. This slide is showing Alternative M1 +EH in the vicinity of the Corbett Tract on top and Plantation Road on the bottom. The slope stakes for Alternatives M1 +EH, M1 +R, M1 +U are within the existing ROW with the exception of a very tiny piece where the Corbett Tract and Corbett Strip come together. Impacts are resulting from the " +25 feet ". M2 +0 Corbett Strip same situation. 29 •... sit This slide is showing Alternative M1 +EH in the vicinity of the Corbett Tract on top and Plantation Road on the bottom. The slope stakes for Alternatives M1 +EH, M1 +R, M1 +U are within the existing ROW with the exception of a very tiny piece where the Corbett Tract and Corbett Strip come together. Impacts are resulting from the " +25 feet ". M2 +0 Corbett Strip same situation. 29 Scientific Common Federal County Biological Alternatives Name Name Status Conclusion Piroides boreafis Red - cockaded E New Hanover May Affect, Likely E -H, O, R, U woodpecker Pender to Adversely Affect Thafirtnmz Cooley's E New Hanover May Affect, Likely O, R roof i meadowrue Pender to Adversely Affect Caret bttea Golden sedge E New Hanover ** May Affect, Likely O, R Pender to Adversely Affect Lyamachia Rough - leaved New Hanover May Affect, Likely E -H, O, R, U, a, endae olio loosestrife E Pender to Adversely Affect M1, M2 E — Endangered T — Threatened T(S /A) - "1 "lireatened due to Sunulanty of Appearance * *Listed as Probable/Potential Subset of Table 4 from your packet shown. As of September 22, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) lists 11 federally - protected species for New Hanover County and 12 federally - protected species for Pender County. All of the alternatives may affect and are likely to adversely affect at least one protected species. Protected species surveys will be updated in the spring of 2012. The USFWS has indicated the biological conclusion for golden sedge remains to be determined. If additional and appropriately timed surveys do not reveal any specimens of golden sedge, the USFWS has noted they would concur with a "no effect" conclusion for this species. Handout of the location of known occurrences of Cooley's meadowrue and rough - leaved loosestrife. [ Cooley's, and Golden sedge b/c of close association @ Alts O &R - Potential indirect effects; RILL directly impacted by Alts M2 +0 and M2 +U, indirectly by remaining alts; RCW all] ME Figure shows where Cooley's meadowrue stems were found in 2009 and 2010 in very close proximity to the right of way for Alternatives M2 +0 and M1 +R. 31 Figure shows where Rough - leaved loosestrife stems were found on the Plantation Road Site. A number of stems were found within the right of way for Alternative M2, which would affect Alternatives M2 +0 and M2 +U. 32 i 1 _ -_ --------- --- - -- - - -- II J I I II I I I II I Ij 11 I I 1 _ I 1 I I � I 1 I i I I I I I � I I I I ' I I I II' j I I 1 I f I i I I I I I II II I I I I I I I 1 I I I III � I With design modifications at Sidbury Road interchange (Poplar Grove and Wesleyan Chapel) two transient, non - community wells instead of three will be in the M1 +U and M2 +U ROW ( #'s 1 and 6). 33 Public Water ' Supply 1 •s'•••,t�1 � itll r V1 J r jJ � jjII M7U - 7/ • Ntin <t • ; : q 1U7� I4 �jNlrr Ji �A ■ ■ The proposed project is located in a wellhead protection area for a water treatment plant and associated infrastructure operated by the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Individual wells are also assigned individual wellhead protection radii within that larger area. Both Alternatives have impacts to CFPUA infrastructure, M1 less so. Alternatives M1 and M2 are within a 100 -foot buffer for two existing well sites at Site B (one in Peedee aquifer and one in the Castle Hayne aquifer). CFPUA has indicated finding a suitable site for replacement the relocation with replacement yields could be challenging. Both will impact potable and raw water lines. 34 n lu Alternative M2 is also within a future expansion area and could result in the relocation of two additional wells at Site H. Raw water lines are shown in blue and concentrate discharge lines are shown in pink. The Authority indicates that future well sites were selected based on aquifer access, anticipated yields, and because the area is undeveloped, which protects the well heads from contamination. Estimates by the Authority indicate impacts to these future well sites could result in a loss of up to six million gallons per day of anticipated future New Hanover County water supply resources. 35 e¢rmnt lktdl#S,.dy tati.m Table 5. S.-- ofl:urrrnr Ueudrd Sludy At—l—, Impacts. M2 +O M1 +A M1 +U nLliury < :uwlf Raad F_zs. SegmenSegment Wesr of NC 710 Segment East of NC 210 FEA'RIRF - -' 1G.G 17.1 IB iI lm a alinea sleet 384:1 ?97.4 218:1 783.8 Detinmred Ssmam Im acu 74 531 l3 84' 241,571 7 5,150 8,784 DclinmteJ Pont Im a 3.9 •13 4.2 3.7 3.7 DispWcemrnu Rcsidmti¢I 4i GO 57 91 95 ISusincss 7G 7G ]G 71 91 Non- mfrs 5 See Table 5 5 11 11 ReJ- cock¢ded Woodpecker Fuwre Potrnti¢Ily B.G]/ gA7/ g.G7/ B.G7/ 8.47/ Suitable / Potentially SuimMe Habitat ¢c s 7.39 739 739 7.37 ].39 Handout yes Yes Yes 1'es Yes Nnwrol Hvisage Prolrrnm SNFIM Mnnared Arms and Wetland Miu a ns Sites ¢ 4;13 42.94 S.OI 3.74 3.1.•10 Prime Pnrmlands /Fwmlanda ofSrascwide Im GB SB 58 50 50 Famn a< 51 ^_ SW 4GG 4W 455 100 Year Floodplain end Floodavay Im ocu ¢ 11.73 8.8 8.8 3.0 3.0 H'noric Pme n 1 1 I 3 Noise Race for lm nc 757 ^_34 ^_48 310 104 RemrdeJ Mehaeolo 'ml Sites n 0 0 0 1 1 Wildlife Refu a /Gnme IanJe a 0 U 0 U U Reomsional Ar... /Packs n 0 0 0 U D High Q.. 4Y Wmen (IiQWaOli \G, \VS Protmted or Cdtiml Amm a qA 7.G 9,G I7.4 I2.4 Public W¢ser 9u I Wells 2 4 4 Cemaerics 5 5 Potential UST / Hazmat Si— n 5 5 5 5 5 ToW Cmt G. miNons) $3620 $J593 $354.7 $404.8 $378.4 Nnn.. �Impaes kW.,, are W—i an pr<limixty Arilryt Jnpr s taler 4min plsu an addinonal_'5 feel e¢rmnt lktdl#S,.dy tati.m .41rem¢tive M2 +O M1 +A M1 +U nLliury < :uwlf Raad F_zs. SegmenSegment Wesr of NC 710 Segment East of NC 210 FEA'RIRF - -' 1G.G 17.1 IB iI lm a alinea sleet 384:1 ?97.4 218:1 783.8 Detinmred Ssmam Im acu 74 531 l3 84' 241,571 7 5,150 8,784 DclinmteJ Pont Im a 3.9 •13 4.2 3.7 3.7 DispWcemrnu Rcsidmti¢I 4i GO 57 91 95 ISusincss 7G 7G ]G 71 91 Non- mfrs 5 5 5 11 11 ReJ- cock¢ded Woodpecker Fuwre Potrnti¢Ily B.G]/ gA7/ g.G7/ B.G7/ 8.47/ Suitable / Potentially SuimMe Habitat ¢c s 7.39 739 739 7.37 ].39 Other Surveyed Fedcrd /State Thrcntrncd and Endan red S cam IIabiut Re +rnt yes Yes Yes 1'es Yes Nnwrol Hvisage Prolrrnm SNFIM Mnnared Arms and Wetland Miu a ns Sites ¢ 4;13 42.94 S.OI 3.74 3.1.•10 Prime Pnrmlands /Fwmlanda ofSrascwide Im GB SB 58 50 50 Famn a< 51 ^_ SW 4GG 4W 455 100 Year Floodplain end Floodavay Im ocu ¢ 11.73 8.8 8.8 3.0 3.0 H'noric Pme n 1 1 I 3 Noise Race for lm nc 757 ^_34 ^_48 310 104 RemrdeJ Mehaeolo 'ml Sites n 0 0 0 1 1 Wildlife Refu a /Gnme IanJe a 0 U 0 U U Reomsional Ar... /Packs n 0 0 0 U D High Q.. 4Y Wmen (IiQWaOli \G, \VS Protmted or Cdtiml Amm a qA 7.G 9,G I7.4 I2.4 Public W¢ser 9u I Wells 2 4 4 Cemaerics 5 5 Potential UST / Hazmat Si— n 5 5 5 5 5 ToW Cmt G. miNons) $3620 $J593 $354.7 $404.8 $378.4 Updated Table 5 handout - Comparison of all alternatives. Note the impact categories not yet discussed. Displacements — corrected relocations for M1 /M2: two business displacements were already counted as non - profits, a cemetery was included and removed, also removed one Alternative U business displacement that was in Scotts Hill Rosenwald School as we now avoid impacts at that site. Non - Profits listed separately. RCW — informal coordination is ongoing Farmlands — were coordinated with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, no Voluntary Agricultural Districts will be impacted Forest — impacts updated from DEIS — one six acre polygon was double counted for three of the alternatives. Floodplains —Alt M1 +EH has the greatest impacts and Alts M1 +U and M2 +U have the least Noise Receptors —Alts M1 +U and M2 +U have more noise impacts Archaeology — will be studied after the selection of LEDPA, no known impacts HQW /ORW drainage areas impacted for streams south of US 17 (U1 /U2 923 If HQW; EH, O, R 546 If HQW; M1 /M2 613 If ORW) Cemeteries: Alt M1 +U and Alt M2 +U impact 5, other alternatives impact 2. Access has been provided to Prospect cemetery, affected by Alt M 1 /M2. [Alt U- 647 graves; EH, O, R — 0; M1 /M2 not identified at this time, would equally impact all alternatives]. Hazmat — anticipated impacts severity of potentially contaminated sites on the 36 r m Four sets of comments received ® Comments covered a variety of topics among which included: • Protected Species and Preservation Areas • Water Supply • Wetland and Stream Impacts • Farmland, Historic and other Human Environment Impacts • Purpose and Need • Detailed Study Alternatives ® Copies included in Appendix C ® Discussion of Comments Comments on the DEIS were received from a number of agencies and are included in Appendix C of your packet. Comments from the agencies included concerns regarding right of way width, impacts to preservation areas and protected species, impacts to farms and forests, water supply, wetland and stream impacts, wildlife habitat fragmentation and human environment impacts, Purpose and Need and Detailed Study Alternatives. We'd like to discuss comments and concerns today. I hope I've addressed some of them as I've gone through the presentation. I would like to prioritize the discussion of the comments and focus on those that need to be resolved before we can come together on the selection of a LEDPA. 37 Discussion -- M- - IL- TIP Project Nos: -U -4751 8 ...R-.3300 0 NEPA/Section 404 w Reference Slides TIP Project Nos. U -0751. & R- .3300.0: NEPH /Section 404 Merger Meetl " Introductions and sign -in 39 Wint on 2035 Lowl of Semi- Allemattves III and MI-R N.. U 'J117 14A 41 wAllm oton rnuucc S 17 co—, St,dy Fig —N.. 151-1— uarsrm 41 42 - ♦ NN �o A\ '�-.` 1 • ,vii � ,1� � <,s._- ♦moo ��o, an Rm.�e ev - MU�Kev xoUM— flI..Sfl.V M1�U .® vw � a.q,.neror 'L T- US1 COVa 11517 N —m5W0yy NCDOT PP Pmjecl NUmoem W7516 RJ300 ww wow. a n� cwmw, we �m w�q wre, �. a �4C 42 ps' �\ 1 f i Mint on V, vw�n„ M��KEy I 2035 Level of Service Flynn No Altema —MNU rou I usncomamsmay NDDOT TIP Pmpct NumEen 03151 6 R -3300 gars, a 14D ow rvm.. xfaoroneuwos m.nans www.a.+wrmwa _� , New Reirovw6Pantlr Gainllaa. NC rW.M1wn�,u - L_ -_ 43