20161268 Ver 1_Draft Environmental Impact Statement_20111115

J�JED SPq,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
o Q ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
Z�F o2 61 FORSYTH STREET
ti�q( PRO -IEG' ATLANTA GEORGIA 30303 8960
November 15 2011
Dr Gregory J Thorpe, PhD Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh North Carolina 27699 1548
SUBJECT Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the US 17 Hampstead
Bypass and Military Cutoff Road Extension New Hanover and Pender Counties North
Carolina CEQ No 20110322 TIP Project Nos R 3300 and U 4751
Dear Dr Thorpe
The U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 has reviewed the
subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The U S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation ( NCDOT) are proposing to extend Military Cutoff Road on new location
for several miles (approximately 3 5 miles) as a 6 lane median divided facility and
connect to a 12 to 15 mile new location multi lane median divided bypass facility of US
17 Highway in New Hanover and Pender Counties, North Carolina Both multi lane
facilities are expected to tie in with I 140 Wilmington Bypass (Also known as US 17
John Jay Burney Jr Freeway) 1 140 currently connects to US 17 (Market Street) with an
interchange at Futch Creek Road
EPA has been participating in the proposed project under the NEPA/Section 404
Merger process since 2005 and before the NCDOT proposed to combine the two facilities
into one proposed project According to EPA s records the Purpose and Need
(Concurrence Point CP 1) for the combined roadway facilities was concurred on
September 21 2006 On August 23 2007 EPA concurred on the Detailed Study
Alternatives to be carried forward (Concurrence Point 2) Another CP 2 meeting was
held on April 20 2010 that further narrowed down the Detailed Study Alternatives EPA
concurred on CP 2A, Bridging and Alignment Review on May 27 2010 EPA s
technical review comments on the DEIS are attached to this letter (See Attachment A)
Internet Address (URL) http llwww epa gor/
Recycled/Recyclable Pdnled with Vegetable 00 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30°/ Postconsumer)

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

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

ATTACHMENT A
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
US 17 Hampstead Bypass and Military Cutoff Road Extension
New Hanover and Pender Counties
TIP Protect Nos R -3300 and U -4751
Detailed Technical Comments
Puroose and Need for the Proposed Proiect
The NEPA/Section 404 Merger Concurrence Point (CP) 1 Purpose and Need
statement is included in Appendix B of the DEIS The stated purpose and need that
Merger team representatives agreed to is as follows The purpose of the project is to
improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor
in the project study area The DEIS includes an elaboration on the purpose and need on
Pages 1 3 and 1 4 The discussion concerning safety is not fully examined EPA
believes that the severity of accidents and potential fatalities within the project study area
may increase with a new location highway speed freeway While overall minor traffic
accidents may be expected to decrease along US 17 /Market Street with a new multi lane
bypass facility FHWA and National Safety Council studies have shown that new
location high speed freeways in rural areas can potentially increase the severity of
accidents NCDOT safety studies also indicate that the total crash rate for US 17 between
US 17 Wilmington Bypass (I 140) and Sloop Point Loop Road is below the 2005 2007
statewide crash rate for rural U S routes Most of the proposed Hampstead Bypass is
located substantially north of where the traffic and accident problems are located along
existing US 17 /Market Street
This section of the DEIS includes an additional need concerning transportation
demand U S Census Bureau population data for New Hanover County and Pender
County is provided The DEIS states that with the population increase there is a
corresponding growth in tourism and supporting services that resulted in a mixed
purpose traffic on US 17 This section of the DEIS does not specifically identify the
correlation between population growth and the growth in tourism and supporting
services The population growth trends presented in Table 1 4 by decade for the periods
of 2010 2020 and 2020 2030 are not reflective of more recent socio economic tiends
The large number of annual visitors for tourism does not specifically translate into
increased population growth for the project study area Considering the extensive
wetland systems present in the project study area and that most upland areas have already
been developed for retirement and seasonal second homes future trends in permanent
population growth are believed to be over estimated to justify new location facilities
Figure 2 of the DEIS includes the 2008 Levels of Service (LOS) along some of
the mayor routes in the project study area, including I 140/Wilmington Bypass US
17/Market Street and US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road at the northern project tenninus
This figure is confusing as it only provides LOS from A to C and then breaks out LOS
D E and F Twenty four (24) intersections are also provided with a LOS EPA notes

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

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

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

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

have been identified in the DEIS including potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
and streams The DEIS identifies an impact under DSA M1 and M2 to a driving range
(golf) under community facilities and services This is a commercial business ( #57 under
Business Relocations) and not a public or non profit community facility The DEIS does
identify that Holly Shelter Game Land is located in the project study area However
unlike the driving range it is a public and community facility as well as a gameland and
preservation area It is used extensively by the public EPA requests that inaccuracies
contained in the DEIS be addressed in the FEIS
Mount Ararat AME Church a historic property, is also expected to be impacted
by DSA MI 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
numbei U 4751 is not provided Potential cemetery impacts for DSAs E H O and R are
not identified in the report
Ogden Park is described on Page 4 2 of the DEIS and discusses the park boundary
that was designed to accommodate a future transportation corridor through the middle of
the county park In addition Pedestrian access to existing multi use path facilities and
Ogden Park would be improved if pedestrian facilities are constructed There is no
identification of any proposed pedestrian facilities between the two sections of the park
Additional details concerning non profit relocations are provided in Section 4 1 2
of the DEIS DSA E H O and R will impact 3 churches including St John the Apostle
Catholic Church Angel Food Ministries and Topsail Baptist Church
Hampstead is an unincorporated community in Pender County and is an area
characterized as a home to four golf courses that are centered in large residential
developments The northern area of the project study area is characterized as being rural
with natural areas preserved for recreation and education The N C Wildlife Resources
Commission manages Holly Shelter Game Land and North Carolina State University
manages its blueberry research station There are numerous other public and private
mitigation sites and preserved lands in the project study area Notably there are several
NCDOT mitigation sites (associated with the 1140/US 17 /Wilmington Bypass project),
including but not limited to the Plantation Road Site Corbett Strip Residual Site and the
Corbett Tract Mitigation Site
Farmland Impacts
Impacts to prime fannlands are described in Section 4 3 on the impacts to the
physical environment Farming and agricultural practices are a human activity and
represent businesses In addition to N C Executive Order 96 on the Conservation of
Prime Agricultural and Forest Lands the Lead Federal Agency (i e USACE) is required

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

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

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

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

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

,;Acre calculated for each DSA and what natural communities were included in the
estimates EPA notes the comment concerning Executive Order 13112 on Invasive
species and NCDOT s Best Management Practices (BMPs) EPA acknowledges the
NCDOT invasive plant species list in Section 3 5 2 12 of the DEIS The FEIS should
identify specific BMPs to be followed to minimize the spread of invasive plant species
following construction and provide detailed environmental commitments on how these
BMPs are to be implemented It would be useful to the public and decision makers if
NCDOT could provide previous project examples where these invasive species BMPs
have cost effectively resulted in the long term elimination or reduction in invasive plant
species following roadway construction activities There are numerous Significant
Natural Heritage Areas that are present in the project study area and the proposed new
location alternatives represent a significant long term threat to these unique habitats
resulting from the introduction of aggressive and persistent roadside invasive plant
species
Threatened and Endangered Species
Sections 3 5 4 3 and 4 5 4 3 address protected species including Federally listed
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Considering the potential impacts to
NCWRC s managed Holly Shelter Game Land the DEIS should have also identified any
State listed species under their junsdzctional and within the project study area Twelve
(12) Federally listed threatened or endangered species are shown on Table 3 10
According to a copy of the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) letter dated October
5 2011 there are numerous unresolved issues concerning threatened and endangered
species including Red cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and issues associated with the
endangered plants and NCDOT mitigation sites that will be impacted from DSAs E H 0,
and R EPA s defers to the NCWRC and USFWS concerning specific requirements
involving Section 7 of the ESA and other wildlife issues Generally EPA has significant
environmentally concerns regarding wildlife habitat loss and fragmentation resulting
from most of the DSAs including E H O and R Potential animal /vehicle collisions
involving new location multi lane high speed facilities in rural areas in close proximity
to game lands and other preservation areas need to be analyzed and studied prior to the
issuance of a FEIS
Other Environmental Issues
EPA notes the other DEIS comments and issues concerning Air Quality including
transportation conformity Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) FEMA floodplain
impacts socio economic issues land use plans, pedestrian and bake path issues
gameland and preservation area direct impacts and indirect and cumulative effects (ICE)
resulting from the proposed project
Regarding socio economic issues, EPA acknowledges the following DEIS
comment It is anticipated that the proposed project will enhance longterm access and
connectivity opportunities to New Hanover and Pender County and will support local
regional and statewide commitments to transportation improvement and economic

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