HomeMy WebLinkAbout20120068 Ver 1_Email_20120221STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 2
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AAOs� Ak'7}
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE EUGENE A CONTI JR
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 1 2012
Heinz J Mueller
Chief NEPA Program Office
Region 4
United States Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta Georgia 30303 8960
Dear Mr Mueller
SUBJECT NCDOT Response to EPA Comments on the DEIS for Proposed Military
Cutoff Road Extension /US 17 Hampstead Bypass New Hanover and Pender
Counties TIP Projects U 4751 and R 3300
Thank you for your November 15 2011 letter providing comments on the draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS) for Projects U 4751 and R 3300 We have
reviewed your agency s comments and offer the following responses
Comment It should be noted that EPA and the U S Fish and Wildlife Service are listed
on the DEIS cover as Cooperating Agencies Section 1501 6 of the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations should be further explored by the USACE and
NCDOT for specific requirements of Cooperating Agencies
Response The FEIS will note the DEIS cover incorrectly included the EPA and USFWS
as Cooperating Agencies
Comment EPA has rated the DEIS alternatives E H +M1 O +M2 R +MI 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
MAILING ADDRESS TELEPHONE 919 707 6000 LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX 919 - 250 -4224 CENTURY CENTER BUILDING A
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WESSITE WWW NCDOT ORG/DOH/PRECONSTRUCT /PE/ RALEIGH NC 27610
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1548
U 475l/R 3300
March 1 X20 h Letter to Heinz Mueller
Page 2 of 3
\1
minimization measures and compensatory mitigation under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act for significant impacts to high quality waters of the U S
,t
Response EPA s above comments were further expanded upon in Attachment A to the
letter NCDOT s response is included with those additional comments
Comment "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
Response EPA s comments will be addressed prior to the issuance of the FEIS
Additional information requested by EPA prior to Concurrence Point 3 will be addressed
with the merger team prior to the selection of the LEDPA
Comment "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
U 4751/R 3300
March l 2012 Letter to Hemz Mueller
Page 3 of 3
Response EPA s above comments were further expanded upon in Attachment A to the
letter NCDOT s response is included with those additional comments
I hope the information presented here and in Attachment A is useful If you have
additional questions regarding these projects please feel free to contact Jay McInnis
Project Engineer at (919) 707 6029 or by e mail at lmcmms@ncdot gov
Sincerely
Grego J horpe, PhD, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Unit
cc Scott McLendon USACE
Brad Shaver USACE
NEPA/404 Merger Team Members
U 4751/R 3300 Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page I of 18
Attachment A
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project
Comment 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 [sic] 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 (1 140) 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
Response Statewide crash rates do not support EPA s belief that the severity of
accidents and potential fatalities will increase with a new location freeway NCDOT
requests copies of the FHWA and National Safety Council studies EPA is citing While
future crash rates for a specific facility cannot be predicted a comparison of statewide
crash rates shows that rural freeways (such as the proposed Hampstead Bypass) have
lower fatal and injury crash rates than urban facilities with no control of access (such as
portions of existing Market Street/existing US 17) The 2007 2009 statewide fatal crash
rate for rural US route freeways is almost half the fatal crash rate for urban five lane US
routes with no control of access The injury crash rate for rural US route freeways is over
five times lower than the injury crash rate for urban five lane US routes
Comment This section of the DEIS includes an additional need concerning
transportation demand 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 overestimated to justify new location facilities
Response The DEIS does not assert there is a correlation between population increase
and growth in tourism Rather these are two distinct variables which are both causing
increased demand on area roadways The population growth trends were taken from data
compiled by the North Carolina Office of Budget and Management (OBM) This data will
be updated in the FEIS using the most current statistics available from the OBM
U 4751/R 3300— Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 2 of 18
Additional data sources were consulted to support the projections obtained from
the OBM The Cape Fear Commutes 2035 Transportation Plan prepared by the
Wilmington Urban Area MPO (December 2010) projects that by 2035 the population for
Pender County will more than triple (from its 2008 level) and the population for New
Hanover County will grow by approximately 67 percent for the same period The MPO
data will be included in the FEIS and the text will be revised for clarity
Comment Figure 2 of the DEIS includes the 2008 Levels of Service (LOS) along some
of the major routes in the project study area This figure is confusing as it only provides
LOS from A to C and then breaks out LOS D E and F
Response Figure 3 not Figure 2 presents 2008 level of service for existing conditions
The designation of levels of service A through C as a single color is intended to simplify
the figure as these levels of service are considered acceptable
Comment 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 Major 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
Response The project is intended to address capacity issues on Market Street and the US
17 corridor not existing Military Cutoff Road It should be noted that the existing
Military Cutoff Road /Market Street intersection operated at level of service F in 2008
Also existing (2008) conditions show that most of Market Street and two thirds of all
intersections analyzed either approach or exceed an acceptable level of service Figure 5
presents 2035 no build levels of service Virtually all of Market Street and existing US 17
within the project limits will be operating at level of service F in the year 2035 without the
proposed projects
Comment "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 I 140/ Wilmington Bypass is not
drawing sufficient through traffic from downtown Wilmington roadways The interchange
of I 140 /Wilmington Bypass and US 17 north of Porters Neck Road is rated with a LOS A
C Similarly the traffic problems (LOS F) south of the proposed extension of Military
Cutoff Road would not expect to be improved with a new location 6 lane freeway
connecting to 1 140 with a new interchange EPA is uncertain how the new location US
17 /Hampstead Bypass of approximately 12 to 15 miles will improve traffic carrying
capacity south of the proposed connections and new interchange with I 140 /Wilmington
Bypass Except for one small area south of Scotts Hill Loop Road and a similarly small
U 4751/R 3300 Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 3 of 18
area by Topsail High School US 17 between the 1 140 interchange to the northern
terminus operates at LOS D or better
Response It should be noted that EPA is citing 2008 levels of service from Figure 3 of
the DEIS Figure 5 of the DEIS presents 2035 no build levels of service for the project
area while Figures 14A through 14D present 2035 levels of service for the project area
with construction of the projects Comparison of these figures shows that the proposed
Hampstead Bypass will improve the level of service of portions of existing US 17 Much
of existing Market Street will operate at level of service F even with proposed Military
Cutoff Extension However Table 2 7 of the DEIS shows that with the proposed projects
average intersection delay will decrease at almost all of the intersections in the project
area At many intersections the intersection delay will be less than half of what it would
have been without the projects
Comment 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)
Response 2035 level of service in the project study area for the build alternatives is
depicted on Figures 14A through 14D and discussed in Section 2 5 3 of the DEIS In
addition Table 2 7 of the DEIS presents average intersection delay and level of service
along existing Market Street and US 17 for the no build and the detailed study
alternatives
Comment 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
Response The needs to be addressed by the proposed project are detailed in Section
1 3 1 of the DEIS These include traffic carrying capacity safety and transportation
demand EPA concurred with the project purpose and need at a NEPA /404 merger team
meeting held on September 21 2006
Traffic forecasts for the base year (2008) and horizon year (2035) were prepared
for the project in June 2008 using output from the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning
Organization s Travel Demand Model The Travel Demand Model uses various
socioeconomic data to forecast growth in order to predict demands on a transportation
network Regional growth expectations help to determine projected traffic in a horizon
year Assumptions about future development activity and changes in distribution of
population and employment in the forecast study area are implicit in the model It is
anticipated there will be periods where housing and employment market trends will
fluctuate up and down through the horizon year
U 4751/R 3300— Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 4 of 18
Comment The DEIS does not separate seasonal peak traffic numbers from the Average
Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)
Response Traffic analysis for this project was based on peak hour analysis as a
percentage of the average annual daily traffic Seasonal peak traffic numbers would likely
be higher than the average annual daily traffic numbers presented in the DEIS
Comment "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
Response September 2011 annual population projections for New Hanover and Pender
Counties obtained from the NC Office of State Budget and Management show
fluctuating growth rates between 1990 and 2030 The annual rates vary between one
percent and five percent from 1990 to 2000 between one percent and four percent for the
period 2000 2010 and between one percent and two percent for 2010 2030 Ten year
trends and projections through the horizon year show growth rates for both counties that
are consistently above the state rate even though the rates have declined or are projected
to decline for each decade since 1990 2000 The overall growth rate for the period 1990
2030 is approximately 108 percent for New Hanover County and 128 percent for Pender
County In addition the Pender County Water Master Plan (McKim and Creed July
2006) which takes into account available infrastructure such as water and sewer projects
a growth rate for Pender County of 153 percent between 2000 and 2030 For those
projections a moderate growth model developed in consultation with Pender County was
used
Comment 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 1 140 /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
Response NCDOT disagrees with EPA s assertion that the DEIS does not adequately
support the purpose and need Much of the information presented in the DEIS is updated
information to what was presented at the 2006 NEPA /404 merger team meeting to discuss
purpose and need EPA concurred along with the rest of the NEPA /404 merger team on
the project purpose and need in September 2006
U 4751/R 3300 Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 5 of 18
Figure 5 presents the 2035 levels of service in the project area for the no build
scenario As Figure 5 shows the entire length of Market Street and existing US 17 will
operate at level of service F in the design year
Traffic volumes along Market Street and existing US 17 far exceed the existing
roadway s capacity With the exception of widening the existing roadways the other
transportation initiatives EPA lists in their comment would not appreciably increase the
traffic capacity of the existing facility Traffic calming measures would degrade the
capacity of the facility Widening the existing facility (Alternative Z) was studied in detail
for this project EPA concurred along with the rest of the NEPA /404 merger team to drop
Alternative Z from consideration at a merger team meeting held in April 2010
Based on 2008 traffic volumes the existing Wilmington Bypass does operate at an
acceptable level of service as shown on Figure 3 of the DEIS However by the year
2035 the Wilmington Bypass will operate at level of service F as shown on Figure 5 of
the DEIS
Comment 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 [sic] 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
Response The addition of turn lanes improving access control etc would likely
improve safety along the existing roadway However these improvements would not
address the capacity issues along the existing roadway as well as the proposed alternatives
As discussed previously statewide crash rates do not support EPA s contention that new
location roadways will potentially increase the number and severity of accidents
Statewide total fatal and injury crash rates for rural freeways are much lower than the
crash rates for urban and rural facilities with no control of access or partial control of
access
Prehmmary and Detailed Study Alternatives
Comment 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
U 4751/R 3300— Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 6 of 18
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
Response TSM TDM and Mass Transit Alternatives were considered to the extent
necessary to determine whether or not they would meet the project purpose and need
None of these alternatives would meet the project purpose and need even if combined
Traffic volumes along existing Market Street and existing US 17 greatly exceed the
capacity of the facilities
The conclusion that there is a potential lack of demand for mass transit is based on
observation of the project area As discussed in the DEIS there are a number of origins
and destinations in the area However if one was to assume that there is sufficient
demand for transit such that increased transit would reduce traffic volumes along Market
Street and existing US 17 by 20 percent eight lanes would still be required along portions
of existing US 17 It would require approximately 479 buses to carry enough passengers
to reduce traffic on the highest volume sections of the existing facility by 20 percent
Increased transit will not meet the purpose and need of the project
Comment 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
Response Section 1 3 5 of the DEIS recognizes the proposed project has been designated
by NCDOT as a Strategic Highway Corridor The DEIS does not include the language
related to the SHC Vision in the purpose statement or in the summary of need for the
proposed action However NCDOT recognizes the location of this discussion could be
confusing and will move this discussion to Section 3 2 (Land Use and Transportation
Planning) in the FEIS
Comment 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
U 4751/R 3300 Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 7 of 18
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
Response Section 1 2 of the DEIS explains the purpose and need of the project and lists
several benefits of the project The purpose and need of the project is to improve the
traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the study
area The projects will reduce congestion and increase safety on existing Market Street by
reducing traffic volumes on portions of that roadway The proposed Hampstead Bypass
will provide a freeway with much greater traffic carrying capacity for the US 17 corridor
than the existing roadway
Comment EPA does not believe that other non new location transportation
alternatives either singly or in combination were given full consideration in the DEIS
Response NCDOT gave consideration to all non new location alternatives identified in
the DEIS in particular their ability to meet the proposed project s purpose and need As
discussed previously the improve existing alternative (Alternative Z) was eliminated
from further study at the April 20 2010 NEPA /Section 404 meeting EPA concurred with
the decision to eliminate Alternative Z
Comment 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)
Response During the development of the preliminary study alternatives efforts were
made to avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams wherever practicable
Preliminary build alternatives (Section 2 2 4 of the DEIS) were established through an
evaluation of suitability mapping based on available socioeconomic cultural and
environmental resource data Potential corridor alternatives were screened for suitability
based on several criteria including meeting the purpose and need for the proposed project
minimizing impacts to natural resources and consideration of community features
Roadway alignments which meet design criteria were developed and placed within the
1 000 foot corridors to minimize impacts to resources
Alternative W is one of the few preliminary alternatives developed outside of this
process The Alternative W alignment was prepared in response to a request from the
merger team at the May 9 2007 alternative screening meeting
Comment The DEIS design for DSA U indicates a 250 to 350 [foot] 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
U 4751/R 3300 — Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 8 of 18
width is also contradictory to the environmental commitment included on page 1 of 2 of
the Green Sheets
Response There is a typographical error in Section 2 4 2 3 and on Figures 11 A and 11 B
of the DEIS A variable right of way width of 200 to 350 feet is proposed for Alternatives
E H O and R not 250 to 350 feet as stated in the DEIS A variable right of way width of
200 to 520 feet is proposed for Alternative U not 250 to 520 feet as stated in the DEIS
NCDOT is committed to maintaining a maximum right of way width of 200 feet in the
vicinity of Holly Shelter Game Land as noted in the DEIS in the `Project Commitments
section and page 4 37 The FEIS will update the right of way width noted for Hampstead
Bypass alternatives in the text and on the typical section figure
Wider right of way is proposed for Alternative U because ten lanes and service
roads are required along the portion of Alternative U which follows existing US 17 north
of the Wilmington bypass Alternative U typical sections are presented in Section
2 4 2 2 l of the DEIS This section includes a discussion of other typical sections which
were considered for this portion of Alternative U
Comment The 5 DSAs under consideration in the DEIS do not necessarily meet the
requirements under 40 CFR Part 1502 14
Response The NCDOT believes the DEIS meets the requirements under 40 CFR Part
1502 14 Chapter 2 of the DEIS presents the environmental impacts of the proposal and
the alternatives in comparative form All reasonable alternatives are explored and
evaluated Reasons leading to the elimination of alternatives from detailed study are
discussed Each alternative considered in detail is fully described so that reviewers may
evaluate their comparative merits Reasonable alternatives are discussed The No Build
or No Action alternative is included NCDOT did not elect to identify a preferred
alternative prior to receiving additional public and agency input therefore no preferred
alternative was identified Discussion of measures taken to minimize impacts to the red
cockaded woodpecker is presented Additional discussion regarding mitigation is
included in other sections of the DEIS After a LEDPA is identified, a mitigation plan
will be developed
Comment 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
Response Over the course of four meetings alternatives were discussed with the merger
team Detailed study alternatives were selected and concurred on by the merger team
including EPA based on their ability to meet purpose and need and minimize impacts
U 4751/R 3300 Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 9 of 18
The detailed study alternatives address traffic carrying capacity and safety issues on
Market Street and US 17 in the project study area
Human Environment Impacts
Relocations
Comment 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
Response NCDOT does not have a standard way of presenting non profit organization
relocation information in impact tables It varies as to whether non profit organizations
are listed separately or included in the business totals Merger meeting information
guidance does not address listing non profit organization relocatees on impact tables The
FEIS will update Table 4 1 of the DEIS to include a separate line item for non profit
relocations
Comment In addition NCDOT also included a church cemetery graves and a 0
employee daycare in the Appendix C business relocations for U 4751 Alternatives M 1
and M2 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 This
report identified a cell tower will be isolated by this alternative as well as water tanks for
the Belvedere Plantation subdivision However this relocation report does not identify at
least two existing water supply wells operated by Cape Fear Public Utility Authority that
will be impacted by both DSA M 1 and M2 (Page 4 22 of the DEIS) EPA requests that a
consistent and accurate analysis of residential and business relocations be provided to EPA
and other Merger team agencies prior to the CP3 LEDPA meeting and included in the
FEIS
Response The relocation reports for Alternatives M 1 and M2 incorrectly included Enoch
Chapel Enoch Chapel Graveyard and Ogden Volunteer Rescue in the business relocation
totals Enoch Chapel and Ogden Volunteer Rescue were also listed under non profit
organizations The DEIS listed 65 business relocations (including non profit
organizations) for Alternatives M1 and M2 The correct number is 62 (including non
profit organizations) Relocation reports for the project will be updated for the FEIS As
stated previously non profit organizations will be listed separately on impact tables in the
FEIS
The information regarding cell tower and water tanks in the relocation reports were
included as notes to the project engineers of items the right of way agent observed during
the field review The relocation report is not intended to present utility impacts of the
project
U 4751/R 3300— Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 10 of 18
Community Resources
Comment Access to Prospect Cemetery is expected to be eliminated by either DSA MI
or M2 Page 4 2 of the DEIS states that access to Prospect Cemetery will be evaluated
during final roadway design EPA believes that this is a known impact resulting from the
Military Cutoff Road Extension and access road options and associated impacts should
have been identified in the DEIS including potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
and streams
Response Access to Prospect Cemetery has been provided in the preliminary design for
the project by a break in the proposed control of access at the existing driveway for the
cemetery No wetland or stream impacts are associated with the provision of this access
Comment The DEIS identifies an impact under DSA M 1 and M2 to a driving range
(golf) under community facilities and services This is a commercial business ( #57 under
Business Relocations) and not a public or non profit community facility The DEIS does
identify that Holly Shelter Game Land is located in the project study area However
unlike the driving range it is a public and community facility as well as a gameland and
preservation area It is used extensively by the public EPA requests that inaccuracies
contained in the DEIS be addressed in the FEIS
Response The driving range will be removed from the list of community facilities and
Holly Shelter Game Land will be added to the list of community facilities in the FEIS
Comment Mount Ararat AME Church a historic property is also expected to be
impacted by DSA M 1 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
Response The FEIS will note that no graves are expected to be relocated for the portion
of the detailed study alternatives that include Hampstead Bypass Alternatives E H O and
R The number of grave sites that may be impacted by the portion of the detailed study
alternatives that include Military Cutoff Road Extension will be included in the FEIS The
number of affected grave sites affected by Military Cutoff Road Extension (Ml and M2)
will be added to the total number of grave sites associated with the Hampstead Bypass
alternatives (E H O R and U) and summarized by detailed study alternative
Comment 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
U 4751/R 3300 Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page I 1 of 18
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
Response This statement was made in reference to the Wilmington MPO s request for
the inclusion of a multi use path along the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension As
noted in the Project Commitments section and in Sections 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 3 and 5 3 13
of the DEIS the multi use path would tie into an existing multi use path along Military
Cutoff Road NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the Wilmington MPO on the
inclusion of a multi use path along Military Cutoff Road Extension
Farmland Impacts
Comment Prime farmland impacts are quantified for each DSA in Table 4 5 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 (MRCS) completed AD 1006
forms for the DSAs The DEIS does not provide any further information concerning
potential N C Voluntary Agricultural Districts (VADs) or what measures to minimize
farming impacts might be appropriate (e g Equipment access across dissected fields)
According to the N C Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Pender County
in 2008 was working towards establishing VADs Sections 3 3 3 and 4 3 3 of the DEIS
fails to provide the relative importance of farming and other forest products for the Pender
County economy and its employment contribution Prior to the issuance of a FEIS EPA
recommends that supplemental information and analysis be provided regarding prime
farmland and other agricultural land impacts resulting from the proposed project
Response Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS) CPA 106 forms were
completed for this project The forms are located in Appendix B of the DEIS A
reference to these forms will be added to the farmland impacts discussion in the FEIS
Prime and other important farmland soils were identified for New Hanover and Pender
Counties Impacts presented in Table 4 5 were calculated by overlaying the detailed study
alternative s impact boundary on the soil information The FEIS will round the impacts
The FEIS will note there are no Voluntary Agricultural Districts in the project area As
noted in the DEIS the NRCS has indicated the detailed study alternatives in New Hanover
County and portions of the study area in Pender County are exempt from evaluation of
prime farmland impacts The relocation reports provided in Appendix C of the DEIS note
that the proposed project will not result in the relocation of any farms
Section 3 3 3 of the DEIS will be updated for the FEIS to describe the agricultural
economy of Pender County Section 4 3 3 of the DEIS will be updated for the FEIS to
note the proposed interchange at US 17 where Alternatives M1 +U and Alternative M2 +U
would go on new location is zoned as Agriculture However this area is classified as an
Urban Growth Area in the Pender County CAMA Land Use Plan and Mixed Use in
the Coastal Pender Small Area Plan
U 4751/R 3300— Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 12 of 18
Noise Receptor Impacts
Comment 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
Response The text preceding Table 4 4 presents the number of receptors impacted due
to traffic noise levels either approaching or exceeding the NAC while Table 4 4 includes
both receptors impacted due to noise levels approaching or exceeding the NAC and
receptors impacted due to a substantial increase in exterior noise levels The FEIS will
simplify the wording of this section for clarity
Historic Properties and Archaeological Sites
Comment Thus all of the DSAs have at least one adverse effect on a historic
property There is no identified avoidance alternative The impacts to historic properties
from DSA U are based upon using a'freeway' design along portions of existing US 17 and
including parallel service roads Some of the impacts to historic properties may be
avoided or minimized if other reasonable designs are pursued during final design
Response Two of the historic properties along Alternative U Poplar Grove and
Wesleyan Chapel United Methodist Church are directly across from each other on
existing US 17 Any widening of the existing road would affect at least one of these
properties Section 2 4 2 2 1 provides an extensive discussion regarding the proposed
typical section for Alternative U and presents alternative typical sections that were
examined NCDOT has coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office on effects
to historic architectural resources Additional minimization efforts have resulted in
eliminating adverse effects to the Scott s Hill Rosenwald School by Alternative U After
selection of the LEDPA NCDOT will evaluate additional avoidance and minimization
efforts within the corridor of the selected alternative
Hazardous Materials
Comment Section 3 3 5 on hazardous materials is not accurate and should be corrected
in the FEIS Hazardous materials are regulated by the U S Department of Transportation
(USDOT) under 49 CFR Parts 100 185 This section of the DEIS does not conform to
other NEPA documents prepared by the NCDOT and reviewed by the EPA Hazardous
materials are identified in the 'Impacts to the Physical Environment section and not in the
'Human Environment Impact section
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 geoenvironmental
impacts" Details concerning the other 23 hazardous material sites is not provided in the
U 4751/R 3300 Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 13 of 18
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
Response The wording of Section 3 3 5 will be modified in the FEIS for clarity The
DEIS includes the discussion of hazardous materials in the Physical Environment
Characteristics and Impacts to the Physical Environment sections in accordance with
NCDOT EIS guidance The 28 sites referenced in Section 3 3 5 and shown on Figures
I OA I OK will be described in table format in the FEIS Section 4 3 5 of the DEIS
includes information related to those sites that may be impacted by the project Site
assessments to identify the nature and extent of any contamination will be performed on
these sites after the selection of the LEDPA and before right of way acquisition The FEIS
will clarify the term low geoenvironmental impacts to indicate the anticipated impacts
severity of potentially contaminated sites on the detailed study alternatives is low and little
to no impacts to cost or schedule are anticipated
Natural Resources Impacts
Groundwater Impacts and Water Supply Wells
Comment 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 M 1 and M2 cross two existing well sites
operated by the CFPUA Additionally DSA M2 would also impact two additional
existing CFPUA well sites (to total 4) and a proposed well site DSA M2 is anticipated to
impact a raw water line and concentrate discharge line that provides a connection to
several anticipated well sites The DEIS states that estimates provided by CFPUA include
the loss of up to 6 million gallons per day (mgd) of anticipated future water supplies for
the project study area The DEIS lacks any specificity as to what the loss of the existing
water supplies might be what the potential to feasibly relocate the wells might be or what
the costs might be should either DSA Ml or M2 be selected
Response Since completion of the DEIS the preliminary designs of both Alternatives
M I and M2 have been modified to avoid existing and proposed well sites Neither
alternative will require the relocation of a public water supply well Any water lines
crossed by the project will be relocated
Comment 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
U 4751/R 3300— Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 14 of 18
Response The FEIS will note that now only two non community water supply wells are
being impacted by Alternative U due to minimization measures incorporated into the
Alternative U interchange at Sidbury Road
The FEIS will also explain that during the right of way process NCDOT will compensate
property owners for the expense of drilling a new well or connecting to a public water
system If an alternate water supply is not available for a property NCDOT will purchase
the property and provide relocation assistance
Comment 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
The full impacts to water supplies are not detailed in the DEIS EPA believes that the
construction of either DSA Ml 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
Response The FEIS will address the potential for contamination to existing wells and
identify the distance of the wells from the detailed study alternatives in proximity to the
wells NCDOT will request well depth information from the CFPUA The FEIS will
discuss measures that were and /or could be taken to avoid minimize or mitigate impacts
to the CFPUA water supply wells A qualitative assessment of the project impacts to
public water supply wells was provided to the EPA and merger team by a mail on
February 9 2012
Jurisdictional Streams and Wetlands
Comment 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)
Response NCDOT is not yet rating wetlands using NCWAM
Comment Section 4 5 4 1 contains a discussion on avoidance and minimization of
impacts to jurisdictional resources 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
U 4751/R 3300 Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 15 of 18
Response After selection of the LEDPA NCDOT will evaluate additional avoidance and
minimization efforts within the corridor of the preferred alternative Additional measures
to reduce impacts will be reviewed at NEPA /Section 404 Merger Concurrence Points 4A,
4B and 4C
Comment Considering the magnitude and severity of the impacts to high quality
streams and wetlands EPA requests a conceptual mitigation plan prior to the selection of a
LEDPA and the issuance of a FEIS There are no details as to what mitigation
opportunities are available on site and what credits or mitigation assets are available
through the EEP 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
Response NCDOT does not typically extensively investigate on site mitigation
opportunities until the LEDPA has been chosen NCDOT s memorandum of agreement
with the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program limits on site mitigation to sites adjacent
and contiguous with the roadway corridor Therefore NCDOT can only pursue sites
adjacent to the LEDPA corridor and not on any of the others
Comment During the Merger process EPA also learned that several NCDOT
mitigation sites associated with the I 140 /Wilmington Bypass might be impacted from
[sic] the proposed project including the Plantation Road Site From Figure l OC of the
DEIS it appears that the 34 acre Residual Site might also be impacted from several of
the DSAs From Figure l OD it appears that the Corbett Strip Residual Site is probably
going to be impacted from several of the DSAs Discussions in the DEIS regarding the
potential impacts to these NCDOT mitigation sites is included in Section 3 3 8 3 Impacts
to these sites are not specifically identified in the summary table S 1 but are addressed
Table 4 3 8 3 Additional information including credit /debit ledgers restrictive covenants
and easements and other property records is being requested by EPA prior to the selection
of a LEDPA and the issuance of a FEIS NCDOT should avoid impacting approved
mitigation sites that were required for compensation for previous highway project impacts
(i e I 1401US 17 Wilmington Bypass)
Response At a merger team meeting held on December 15 2011 additional details were
provided regarding these mitigation properties This information will be included in the
FEIS
Terrestrial Forest Impacts
Comment `Terrestrial forest impacts mclude[d in] Table S 1 summary of impacts for the
DSAs are as follows DSA E H +M 1 518 acres DSA O +M2 512 acres DSA R +M 1 472
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 maintam[ed] and disturbed communities still does not provide for an
accurate estimate of terrestrial forest impacts The FEIS should identify how the terrestrial
U 4751/R 3300— Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 16 of 18
forest impacts were calculated for each DSA and what natural communities were included
in the estimates
Response An error exists in the forest impacts shown on Tables S 1 2 3 and 4 10 of the
DEIS These tables will be corrected in the FEIS
Comment EPA notes the comment concerning Executive Order 13112 on Invasive
species and NCDOT s Best Management Practices (BMPs) EPA acknowledges the
NCDOT invasive plant species list in Section 3 5 2 12 of the DEIS The FEIS should
identify specific BMPs to be followed to minimize the spread of invasive plant species
following construction and provide detailed environmental commitments on how these
BMPs are to be implemented It would be useful to the public and decision makers if
NCDOT could provide previous project examples where these invasive species BMPs
have cost effectively resulted in the long term elimination or reduction in invasive plant
species following roadway construction activities There are numerous Significant Natural
Heritage Areas that are present in the project study area and the proposed new location
alternatives represent a significant long term threat to these unique habitats resulting from
the introduction of aggressive and persistent roadside invasive plant species
Response Additional discussion on best management practices to be followed regarding
invasive species will be included in the FEIS
Threatened and Endangered Species
Comment 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
Response NCDOT does not survey for state listed species as the state law does not
apply to NCDOT activities As noted in Table 4 7 of the DEIS the proposed project will
not have any direct impacts to Holly Shelter Game Land
Comment "Generally EPA has significant environmental 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
Response The potential for crashes involving animals along the proposed project will be
discussed in the FEIS
U 4751/R 3300 Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 17 of 18
Other Environmental Issues
Comment 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
Response This statement is included in DEIS Section 4 9 Relationship Between Long
Term & Short Term Uses /Benefits This information is being presented as a project
benefit not as a part of the purpose and need It is not included in the Purpose and Need
chapter
Comment 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 +MI 4 43 acres DSA O +M2 42 94 acres
DSA R +MI 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
Response We do not agree with EPA s comment to remove Holly Shelter Game Land
and the 22 Acre Residual Site from Table 4 7 as it is important for the reader to know
that none of the alternatives will affect these sites As noted in EPA s comment this table
provides details associated with the detailed study alternative s impacts to game lands and
preservation areas similar to the way Table 4 11 details individual stream impacts or
Table 4 17 details federally protected species impacts The impacts to the mitigation sites
are currently summarized in Table S l of the DEIS Table S 1 in the FEIS will also
provide a summary of this information
Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Comment 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
U 4751/R 3300— Response to EPA DEIS Comments
Page 18 of 18
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
Response Section 4 6 1 of the DEIS states the Hampstead Bypass will result in more
than ten minutes in travel time savings The DEIS further explains that this time savings
is because the proposed bypass will not have the traffic signals and congestion of the
existing facilities
The ICE screening matrices used in the DEIS are not the most current quasi
quantitative matrices used in ICE analysis The Relative Rating of Indirect and
Cumulative Effects matrices (Tables 4 18 and 4 19 of the DEIS) are the version that was
in effect at the time the combined Community Impact Assessment and Qualitative Indirect
and Cumulative Effects Assessment was prepared Since that time the screening matrix
has been updated to include additional categories and a quantitative component
A revised Indirect and Cumulative Effects analysis including an updated ICE
Screening report and an ICE Land Use Scenario Assessment will be prepared for
incorporation into the FEIS The new ICES will include information about water and
sewer In addition the cumulative effects summary in the ICE will be expanded to more
fully document past present and future actions by all parties
Table 4 20 presents baseline wetland and stream data for the project area Changes
to the wording of this section will be considered for the FEIS to make this clearer EPA
will be provided a copy of the quantitative indirect and cumulative impacts analysis
which is not prepared until after the FEIS is complete