CP3 Meeting Packet (2)

NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting
Concurrence Point 3
US 64 Improvements Project
From 0.9 mile east of Columbia to US 264
near Manns Harbor
Tyrrell and Dare Counties, North Carolina
State Project No. 6.049002T
TIP No. R -2544 & R -2545
US Army Corps
of Engineers,
December 11, 2012

NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting
Concurrence Point 3
US 64 Improvements Project
From 0.9 mile east of Columbia to US 264
near Manns Harbor
Tyrrell and Dare Counties, North Carolina
State Project No. 6.049002T
TIP No. R -2544 & R -2545
LAS Army Corps
of Engineersw December 11, 2012
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Bill Biddlecome
(910) 251 -4558
william.j.biddlcome@usace. army. mil
NCDOT
Project Development Engineer:
Ted Devens, PE
(919) 707 -6018
tedevens @ncdot.gov
Agenda
1. Introduction and project description
2. NEPA /404 Merger History
3. LEDPA decision approach
4. Detailed study alternatives (Sections 2 to 4 —East Lake)
5. Public Hearing and Agency Comments
6. Discussion of LEDPA /Preferred Alternative at East Lake
7. Comments and Questions
S. Next Steps

Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................. ..............................1
1.1 Purpose of Meeting .................................................................... ............................... 1
1.2 Project Description ..................................................................... ............................... 1
1.3 Purpose and Need ..................................................................... ............................... 1
1.4 Review of Human and Natural Resources ............................. ............................... 2
1.5 Additional Information Since DEIS ......................................... ............................... 8
2.0 NEPA/404 MERGER HISTORY ..................................................... .............................12
2.1 Concurrence Point 1: Purpose and Need and Study Area Defined ................ 12
2.2 Concurrence Point 2: Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward .............. 12
2.3 Concurrence Point 2A: Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review ............... 13
3.0 CONCEPTUAL APPROACH TO LEDPA ................................... .............................14
4.0 DETAILED ALTERNATIVES (SECTIONS 2 TO 4) .................. .............................15
4.1 East Lake Alternative Sections and Subsections .................. ............................... 15
4.2 East Lake Alternatives ............................................................. ............................... 18
5.0 PUBLIC HEARING AND AGENCY COMMENTS ................. ............................... 20
5.1 Public Involvement During DEIS Preparation .................... ............................... 20
5.2 Public Hearing and Comments .............................................. ............................... 20
5.3 Non - Governmental Organization (NGO) Comments ........ ............................... 22
5.4 Agency Comments ................................................................... ............................... 25
6.0 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON .............................................. ............................... 33
6.1 Consideration of the Northern Bypass (Sections 2 to 4) .... ............................... 34
6.2 Consideration of a Bridge Over the Alligator River (Dare North 1
versusDare North 2) .............................................................. ............................... 34
6.3 Consideration of How the Project should Pass Through or
Around East Lake (Southern Bypass, South -Side Widening,
and North -Side Widening) ..................................................... ............................... 42
6.4 Consideration of the East End of the East Lake Alternatives
(Subsection 4 -3) ........................................................................ ............................... 46
7.0 NCDOT PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ..................................... ............................... 49
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) m Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

Table of Contents (concluded)
APPENDIX A: FIGURES FROM DEIS AND NRTR ........................ ............................... A -1
Figure S -4.
Tyrrell County Built and Managed Resources
Figure S -5.
Dare County Built and Managed Resources
Figure 2 -14.
Detailed Study Corridors and Station Numbers Section
2, 3 and 4 - Tyrrell County
Figure 2 -15.
Detailed Study Bridge Replacement Corridors Sections
2 and 3 - Tyrrell County
Figure 2 -16.
Detailed Study Bridge Replacement Corridors Sections
3 and 4, Dare County
Figure 2 -17.
Dare North 1 and Dare North 2 Bridge Alignments Dare County
Figure 2 -18.
East Lake Alternatives Sections 2, 3 and 4
Figure 3A.
Terrestrial Communities — Tyrrell County
Figure 3B.
Terrestrial Communities —Dare County
Figure 5A.
Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas by Wetland Functional
Assessment Area — Tyrrell County
Figure 5B.
Section 404 Jurisdictional Areas by Wetland Functional
Assessment Area —Dare County
Figure 7 -6.
Concurrence Point 2A Bridge Corridors
APPENDIX B: DEIS COMMENTS .......................................................... ............................B -1
Post - Hearing Minutes .................................................................... ............................... B -1
AgencyLetters ................................................................................... ...........................B -16
APPENDIX C: NCDOT RESPONSE TO USEPA COMMENTS ON THE DEIS....... C -1
List of Tables
Table 1. East Lake Alternatives .............................................................. ............................... 19
Table 2. Comparison of East Lake Corridor Alternatives .................. ............................... 35
Table 3. Highlighted Comparison of East Lake Corridor Alternatives ........................... 39
Table 4. Comparison of Dare North 1 and Dare North 2 ................... ............................... 40
Table 5. Highlighted Comparison of Dare North 1 and Dare North 2 ............................ 43
Table 6. Comparison of Dare South -Side Widening, and Dare North -Side
Widening (Subsection 4 -3) ....................................................... ............................... 47
Table 7. Highlighted Comparison of Dare South -Side Widening, and
Dare North -Side Widening (Subsection 4- 3) ......................... ............................... 48
Table S. Highlighted Comparison of Dare South -Side Widening, and Dare
North -Side Widening (Subsection 4 -3): (Accounting for Subsection 5 -1) ........ 48
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 1v Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

1.0 Introduction and Project Description
1.1 Purpose of Meeting
The purpose of this meeting is to submit information to the Merger Team on the
alternatives in Sections 2, 3, and 4 (East Lake Alternatives) and determine the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) /Preferred Alternative
among those alternatives (See Figures 2 -14 through 2 -18 from the DEIS in Appendix A
for illustrations of the East Lake alternatives). Informal agreement for Concurrence
Point 3 for the sections discussed will be requested at this and at two subsequent
meetings, until such time as the Merger Team has discussed all sections and signing the
formal concurrence form is appropriate.
1.2 Project Description
The proposed project is the widening of the 27.3 -mile section of US 64 in Tyrrell and
Dare counties from 0.9 mile east of Columbia to US 264 near Manus Harbor (See Figures
S -4 and S -5 from the DEIS in Appendix A). The project proposes to widen this section of
two -lane road to a four -lane highway and replace the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge across
the Alligator River with a new bridge. Fifteen study corridors and three bridge
alternatives have been evaluated, as well as the No- Action Alternative and No -Build
Alternative. Every alternative contains a four -lane, median divided highway.
1.3 Purpose and Need
The Purpose and Need Statement, as presented in Chapter 1 of the DEIS, states the
following primary benefits:
• Reduce US 64 hurricane evacuation time to better meet state clearance goals in the
project study area.
• Consistency with North Carolina's Strategic Highway Corridor Plan (which seeks
long -term interconnectivity of consistent transportation corridors in North Carolina)
and the Intrastate Highway System.
• Maintain a bridge across the Alligator River that meets the needs of highway users.
Secondary benefits of the proposed action are:
• Potential for reduction in total crash rates from the conversion of a two -lane rural
roadway to a four -lane divided section.
• A new Alligator River bridge would provide the opportunity for safety
improvements related to the swing -span and signalized approaches, as well as
improving shoulders, lane width, and guardrail.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 1 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

• Potential for improved regional bicycle trail connectivity and pathways from the
Town of Columbia to the Outer Banks.
1.4 Review of Human and Natural Resources
The following is a summary of human and natural resources found within the sections
of the project study area currently under consideration. Within their categories, these
resources are described from west to east.
1.4.1 Water Resources
1.4.1.1 Alligator River
The Alligator River (see Figures S -4 and S -5 from the DEIS included in Appendix A)
upstream (south) of the US 64 bridge crossing and Second Creek (a tributary on the
western shore of the Alligator River south of US 64) are designated Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), indicating unique and special waters of exceptional state or
national recreational or ecological significance that require special protection to maintain
existing uses.
As an ORW, the Alligator River south of the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge also is
considered a High Quality Water (HQW). There are no waters designated as Water
Supply (WS) -I or WS -II within 1.0 mile of the PSA, or any other waters designated as
HQW.
1.4.1.2 Canals
A complex network of canals and ditches provides hydrological connection throughout
much of the PSA. Agricultural lands and forestlands within the Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR) are drained by a network of canals that vary in width from
20 feet to 70 feet and in depth from 2 feet to 10 feet. Depending on wind tides, water
depths generally range from 2 feet to 6 feet. This complex network extends from canals
alongside US 64 through agricultural fields and forested areas and connects to South
Lake and the Alligator River.
1.4.1.3 Wetlands
Wetlands within Sections 2, 3, and 4 (East Lake Alternatives) of the project area are
shown on Figures 5A and 5B of the Natural Resources Technical Report Expanded Area, U.S.
64 Improvements Project (EcoScience, 2008) included here in Appendix A. They illustrate
the location of the following five wetland communities (identified by NCWAM wetland
type):
• Pocosin
• Tidal Freshwater Marsh
• Non - Riverine Swamp Forest
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 2 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

• Hardwood Flat
• Pine Flat
1.4.1.4 Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Resources
CAMA resources are illustrated on Figure 7 -6 of the DEIS and included in Appendix A
of this document. The following CAMA resources are found within Sections 2, 3, and 4
(East Lake Alternatives) of the project area:
• Coastal Wetlands
• Outstanding Resource Waters Shorelines (575 feet)
• Estuarine Public Trust Waters Shorelines (75 feet)
• Inland Public Trust Waters Shorelines (30 feet)
• Estuarine and Inland Public Trust Waters
In August 2009, NCDCM and NCDOT redelineated CAMA resources. Therefore,
CAMA resource limits shown in Figure 7 -6 do not exactly match the terrestrial
communities and jurisdictional areas shown in the 2008 Natural Resources Technical
Report Figures 3A, 313, 5A, and 5B (see Appendix A).
1.4.1.5 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)
EFH within the project area consists of several elements, including palustrine emergent
and forested wetlands, estuarine emergent wetlands, creeks, intertidal flats, aquatic
beds, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), mud bottom, and the estuarine water
column. EFH elements extend throughout wetlands and open water areas delineated in
the project area in the summer of 2007 and in January and February of 2008.
1.4.2 Plant Communities
Plant communities within Sections 2, 3, and 4 (East Lake Alternatives) of the project area
are shown on Figures 3A and 3B of the Natural Resources Technical Report Expanded Area,
U.S. 64 Improvements Project (EcoScience, 2008), the following eight plant communities
are found within Sections 2, 3, and 4 (East Lake Alternatives) of the project area:
• Agricultural Land
• Maintained /Disturbed Land
• Nonriverine Swamp Forest
• Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
• Pine Flat
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 3 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

• Shrubland
• Tidal Freshwater Marsh
• Pond Pine Woodland
1.4.3 Notable Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife
1.4.3.1 Black Bear
As discussed in Section 3.6.5.3 of the DEIS, the American black bear is one of the most
common land mammals found at ARNWR, which has what is believed to be one of the
largest concentrations and highest density populations of black bear found in the
southeastern US. In 2005, the estimated bear population on ARNWR was between 180
and 293 individuals. The density on good habitat was three bears per square mile,
where normal population would be one bear per square mile. Black bear habitat exists
on both sides of US 64. Studies of black bear crossings of US 64 in ARNWR have been
completed and will be used in the selection of wildlife crossing locations, which will be
included in the US 64 project to mitigate habitat fragmentation impacts.
1.4.3.2 Red Wolf
Also as discussed in Section 3.6.5.3 of the DEIS, the red wolf was reintroduced on
ARNWR in 1987. Wolves have reproduced in the wild and now are found throughout
ARNWR and in the four surrounding counties. Depending on circumstances within and
between red wolf packs, there can be from two to five packs of wolves on the ARNWR
at a given point in time. The red -wolf is listed as an Endangered Species. Studies of red
wolf crossings of US 64 have been completed and will be used in the selection of wildlife
crossing locations, which will be included in the US 64 project to mitigate habitat
fragmentation impacts. The outcome of wildlife crossing location selection is critical to
final biological conclusion and completing Section 7 consultation.
1.4.3.3 Red - cockaded Woodpecker
Red - cockaded woodpeckers are an Endangered Species. Both nest and foraging habitat
is found in Tyrrell County adjacent to US 64. New nest and foraging habitat surveys are
underway and will be completed and the information provided to the Merger Team
prior the meeting to identify a LEDPA in Section 1 of the project area. The DEIS
presents a biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect for the
red - cockaded woodpecker.
1.4.3.4 Shortuose and Atlantic Sturgeon and West Indian manatee
The project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect, these three marine endangered
species. The Atlantic sturgeon was added to the endangered species list after the DEIS
was released. Its characteristics and biological conclusion will be included in the FEIS.
The biological conclusion of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect presented here
has been affirmed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 4 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

1.4.4 Protected Lands and Recreation Areas
1.4.4.1 Alligator River Gamelands
The Alligator River Gameland also is managed by the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC). The gameland is comprised of 13,877 acres situated
mostly on the south side of US 64 along the western shore of the Alligator River. The
gameland is designated as a "six- days -per- week" hunting area (North Carolina does not
allow hunting on Sundays), which means that any game may be taken during the open
season for that particular species (as opposed to the Futch Gameland which requires a
special species - specific permit for hunting at all times). The primary species in the
Alligator River Gameland are deer, bear, raccoon, and waterfowl.
1.4.4.2 Significant Natural Heritage Area: Alligator Creek /Second Creek Swamp
Forest
The Alligator Creek /Second Creek Swamp Forest Significant Natural Heritage Area
(SNHA) (significance rating C) is within the PSA on both sides of US 64 for
approximately 2 miles west of the Alligator River. This forest includes the Alligator
River Gamelands and part of the Palmetto - Peartree Preserve.
1.4.4.3 NCWRC Public Boat Ramp / Old East Lake Ferry Terminal
The old East Lake ferry terminal, on the east bank of the Alligator River north of the
Lindsay C. Warren Bridge, is managed by NCWRC and provides public access to launch
boats. Accessed by SR 1153 (Old Ferry Landing Road), the NCWRC boat ramp is
located at the same inlet as the old ferry dock, which operated between 1947 and 1962.
The remains of the ferry dock are still visible, though overgrown by vegetation. A
graded parking lot serves the public for use of the boat launch.
1.4.4.4 Significant Natural Heritage Area: Alligator River /South Lake Swamp Forest
The Alligator River /South Lake Swamp Forest SNHA (significance rating B) is north of
existing US 64 and extends from the Alligator River to Hooker Gut.
1.4.4.5 Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
A substantial portion of the Dare County mainland between the Alligator River and the
Croatan Sound is part of the ARNWR; however, there are also private land holdings
adjacent to existing US 64 in this area. The majority of the Dare County project study
area (PSA) is within the ARNWR, established in 1984 to protect regional forested
wetlands and associated wildlife. Its 147,432 acres are managed by the USFWS. The
objectives of the ARNWR are to:
• Protect and preserve unique wetland habitat types and associated wildlife species.
• Provide habitat and protection for endangered species.
• Provide habitat for black bears.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 5 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

• Provide habitat and management for waterfowl and other migratory birds.
• Provide for a wide variety of native wildlife species through diverse wildlife
management techniques and strategies.
Provide wildlife- dependent public opportunities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
interpretation, observation, photography, and environmental education.
Endangered or threatened species found in the ARNWR include the American alligator,
red wolf and the red - cockaded woodpecker. Also found in the ARNWR is the bald
eagle, which is protected under the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The ARNWR also
is home to one of the largest remaining concentrations of black bears along the mid -
Atlantic coast.
1.4.5 Economic Resources
1.4.5.1 Marina, Fishing Pier, and North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries Jetty
A privately -owned marina and gasoline station complex are on the north side of US 64,
at the western shoreline of the Alligator River in Tyrrell County. In this region, the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) connects boat traffic from Virginia Beach and
Currituck (to the north) to southern locations such as Morehead City and Wilmington.
Along the AIWW, the Alligator River Marina is the only public place for boats to fuel
and dock for more than 30 miles to the north (Coinjock, NC) and more than 50 miles to
the south (Belhaven, NC) - a combined distance of more than 80 miles. During storms,
the marina also serves as the only point of refuge for these distances. The marina has 19
boat slips with short piers and 900 feet of face dock. There is a gas station for cars /trucks
and a convenience store that serves both highway and AIWW users. A separate service
building also exists, with private bathrooms and showers, laundry, and a television
room.
At the same general location, but on the south side of US 64, is a commercial crab and
fishing pier. This has been selected as a Waterfront Access and Marine Industry
(WAMI) project for funding, with $452,760 allocated for this project on North Carolina
Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) property. The proposal is to build a rock jetty,
bulkhead, and 10 boat slips on NCDOT property at the west end of the existing Lindsay
C. Warren Bridge.
1.4.6 Historic Resources
1.4.6.1 Lindsay C. Warren Bridge
The Lindsay C. Warren Bridge was previously determined eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) during the 2005 NCDOT Historic Bridge Inventory.
The bridge is a 2.8 -mile swing -span structure that carries US 64 across the Alligator
River between Tyrrell and Dare counties. Except for the swing -span, the bridge consists
of pre- stressed concrete stringer spans. The railings are concrete on -bar cantilevered,
off -brush curb railings. The swing -span is a welded girder and floor beam, the rim of
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 6 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

which is supported by a large circular girder that rotates with the span. A two - story,
flat - roofed operator's tower is on the southwest corner of the swing -span. Bridge
construction began in 1960, and opened to traffic in 1962, to replace the ferry service
between Tyrrell and Dare counties. The bridge is an example of early success in bridge
building using the then - developing technology of welded beam. The welded girder -
floor beam swing -span is one the of three oldest long -span welded beam highway
bridges in North Carolina.
1.4.6.2 East Lake Methodist Church and Cemetery
This church and cemetery were determined eligible for listing on the NRHP under
Criterion C. This property is on a 1.69 -acre parcel along US 64, approximately 1 mile
east of Lake Neighborhood Road in the East Lake District of Dare County. The property
is surrounded by the ARNWR. Built in 1887, the church is a single -story frame structure
that rests on a brick pier foundation. The parcel includes the church and cemetery, as
well as a privy, modern shed, and wood table - stands and ice chest used for an annual
homecoming. The cemetery is directly behind the church, surrounded by a white picket
fence. The cemetery has more than 175 headstones that date from the late 1800s to the
present, as well as graves that are capped with tablets. The church remains active, with
one service a month, and retains a small membership, many of whom are direct
descendants of the original congregation. The church also is used for funerals,
weddings and an annual homecoming.
1.4.6.3 East Lake Fire Tower
The East Lake Fire Tower was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP under
Criterion C. This property is on a 2.0 -acre parcel on the north side of US 64, just west of
SR 1103 (Buffalo City Road) in the East Lake District of Dare County. The property is
surrounded by the ARNWR. The fire tower was constructed in 1936 on land owned by
the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. On October 27, 1937, the life insurance
company deeded the parcel to the North Carolina State Department of Conservation and
Development, Division of Forestry, under the condition that it be used for a fire tower or
for purposes related to fire prevention and control. The property is still owned by the
Division of Forestry, although rangers stopped using towers to spot fires in the 1980s.
The East Lake Fire Tower is the only one that remains in Dare County.
1.4.7 Community
1.4.7.1 East Lake
The community of East Lake lies east of the Alligator River in Dare County. East Lake is
comprised of homes that line both sides of US 64 for approximately 5 miles.
Approximately 60 homes comprise this community (East Lake proper and small
neighborhoods within 5 miles to the east). East Lake is well - established and anchored
by landmarks such as the East Lake Methodist Church, built in 1887, the East Lake
Community Center (once a school house), and the East Lake Holiness Church, built in
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 7 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

the 1930s. The churches and the community center provide meeting places and
opportunities for regular social gatherings. No additional churches or community
centers are in East Lake. In addition, the fire tower is a local landmark and contributes
to the area's identity and sense of place. Potential displacement of these resources with
a north -side widening would therefore affect the East Lake community. Most residents
of the East Lake and Alligator communities have lived for decades on land that has been
passed down through the generations.
Using the plentitude of mobile residences and the condition of fixed residences as an
indicator of the income levels of East Lake citizens, East Lake meets the qualifications for
an environmental justice low- income community.
1.4.7.2 Borrow Pit
An inactive Dare County borrow pit is south of the East Lake.
1.5 Additional Information Since DEIS
This section provides additional information about important agency concerns that are
being addressed, but are not directly relevant to the decision of a Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative.
1.5.1 Impact and Mitigation - Related
Wildlife Crossings. Wildlife crossings will be a part of the Preferred Alternative.
Wildlife studies commissioned by NCDOT to aid in the selection of wildlife crossing
studies are now complete. Findings from these studies were not presented in the DEIS
because their purpose was to develop wildlife crossings as mitigation, rather than to
assess impacts. NCDOT has initiated negotiations with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission on crossing locations in Tyrrell County.
Both location and associated fencing have been discussed. NCDOT plans to initiate
discussions on Dare County wildlife crossings after the first of the year and before the
third LEDPA meeting that will focus on Section 5.
Red - Cockaded Woodpecker Studies. As noted in Section 1.4.3.3, red - cockaded
woodpecker studies are underway. The field work is complete. A draft report will be
provided to NCDOT in November 2012. Findings and their effect on LEDPA decisions
in Section 1 (Tyrrell County) will be presented prior to the LEDPA meeting that
considers project Section 1.
Atlantic Sturgeon. Like the shortnose sturgeon, the project May- Affect, Not Likely
Adversely Affect the Atlantic sturgeon, a protected species added to the list after the
DEIS was prepared. This conclusion was affirmed by Fritz Rohde of NMFS in a
telephone conversation and an October 2, 2012 e -mail exchange.
Relocations. A field survey of the project area was conducted in 2012 to re -affirm the
development that could potentially be relocated. The relocation numbers were updated
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 8 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

in light of this survey. For use in considering relocation opportunities, the availability of
land suitable for development in the East Lake and Alligator areas also was determined
based county property data and conversations with county officials on the suitability of
vacant properties for development. This additional information is considered in
comparison of alternatives section of this handout.
ARNWR Impacts. Impacts to ARNWR were revised to add the acres of the 200 -foot
right -of -way associated with the new bridge over land on the east side of the Alligator
River. The previous numbers only included the fill impact of new or widened road.
Accommodating Utility Relocation. Utilities relocations can generally be
accommodated within an area 25 feet beyond the slope -stake line. Natural resource
impact acres presented in the DEIS assumed a disturbed area 25 feet beyond the slope
stake line, thus taking into account the potential disturbance associated with relocation
of utilities.
Other Issues for Discussion at CP4 Meetings. Stormwater run -off, an in -water work
moratorium, reducing bird mortality on Alligator River bridge, and other design
features of the Alligator River bridge were all issues raised in agency comments. These
issues and the appropriate mitigation will be addressed during CP4 meetings.
1.5.2 Purpose and Need
Comments were received that questioned whether consistency with the Strategic
Highways Corridor or hurricane evacuation are legitimate needs. Comments also
questioned the necessity of full bridge replacement for safety. In addition, comments
questioned the potential for project to increase safety by reducing crash rates as a
secondary benefit of the project.
Regarding the SHC initiative, NCDOT believes that the SHC initiative is thoroughly and
adequately explained in the DEIS on pages 1 -11 through 1 -18. In the FEIS, NCDOT
intends to further explain the legal and regulatory means that provide FHWA and state
DOTs with the authority to establish Purpose and Need. These include guidance from
the Council on Environmental Quality (which administers NEPA), 23 U.S.C. § 134,23
U.S.C. § 139: Section 6002 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU), and court decisions. It is clear that a
project's purpose and need can include "achieving a transportation objective identified
in an applicable statewide or metropolitan transportation plan." For example, if a
statewide plan sets a goal of completing a system of strategic highway corridors, the
purpose and need for an individual project can be defined as completing a section of
that system. In North Carolina, NCDOT and FHWA also signed an interagency
agreement that created a NEPA /404 Merger Process (with associated guidance), which
provides these transportation agencies with the authority to develop purpose and need.
SHC is a legitimate Purpose and Need.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and two non - governmental
organizations (NGO) challenged various hurricane evacuation assumptions and
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 9 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

findings in the DEIS. In response, NCDOT's hurricane evacuation consultant checked
census and growth data and has validated and updated the hurricane studies' existing
conditions data, as well as the assumptions used to generate 2030 study results. These
results will be used to augment the hurricane evacuation material presented in the DEIS.
The NCDOT's hurricane evacuation consultant offered the following clarifications and
findings based on comments received:
• It was questioned whether a Category 3 hurricane had ever made landfall on the
Outer Banks. A 2008 study by NCDOT indicated that since 1953, the eyes of six
category 3 storms and two category 4 storms have made landfall in North Carolina.
These storms sometimes had a higher classification over their life, but the
classifications indicated were the classifications they held when they struck North
Carolina.
• It was questioned whether the US 64 hurricane modeling considered the use for
evacuation of US 158 in Currituck County and US 264 in Dare County. Use of both
routes was taken into consideration in the modeling.
• It was noted that with Hurricane Irene, evacuation orders were issued for tourists
very early, allowing far more than 18 hours for tourist to evacuate. While in optimal
warning situations Dare County will be able to move the tourist population in
advance of the permanent residents (as was done with Hurricane Irene), this will not
be possible for many storm scenarios that must be planned for. Irene was a slower -
moving, unusually well - behaved storm track for which National Hurricane Center
models were in very good agreement 48 hours in advance. This gave North Carolina
the benefit of moving tourists and Ocracoke Island early in the evacuation process.
A very different scenario was posed with the Hurricane Floyd scenario in 1999,
where the storm was expected to hit Florida, then Georgia, then South Carolina, and
ended up being a North Carolina storm. In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy doubled
its speed just prior to landfall.
With regard to Ocracoke Island, which was evacuated first during hurricane Irene, in
the modeling performed for the US 64 project and in all of the previous FEMA /Corps
of Engineers hurricane evacuation study efforts, Ocracoke Island evacuees are
assumed to be taken by ferry to Swan Quarter in Hyde County before making their
vehicular evacuation movements. Thus they are not part of the vehicles assumed to
traverse the US 64 study corridor. Where possible, ferry evacuations are always
conducted earlier than strictly road evacuations, because ferry service needs to be
shut down earlier than the completion of road evacuations to provide the time
needed to secure ferry vessels from rough seas.
• The level of future growth assumed for both permanent and seasonal units and
corresponding population was challenged, particularly in light of the 2008 recession
and the 2010 Census. Since the hurricane evacuation analysis was performed before
the 2008 economic recession (and its impact on real estate markets) and before the
2010 Census was released, NCDOT's hurricane evacuation consultant revisited the
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 10 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

assumptions made for both the base year condition and future year alternatives
model runs. Potential changes in base case permanent population were considered
using the 2010 US Census. Peak season population estimates contained in the 2009
Dare County Land Use Plan were considered. Permanent population forecasts for
2030 were considered using the latest North Carolina State Data Center projections.
Again, the Dare County Land Use Plan provided 2030 peak population estimates. It
was found that the latest State Data Center projections are approximately 15,000
permanent residents less than what was assumed for 2030 in the 2008 hurricane
evacuation modeling. However, Dare County land use projections for 2030 have
roughly 27,000 more seasonal people than was assumed in the 2008 modeling. This
dropping of one number and increasing another creates a "wash" in the category 3
scenario results, which validates that the 2008 conclusions are appropriate and in
fact, slightly too conservative.
A response is being developed for the FEIS regarding safety as a secondary purpose.
NCDOT believes that the improvements proposed will result in a safer road,
particularly from the perspective of providing drivers with an improved chance to
recover or take evasive action without incident when vehicle failure or driver error
create the potential for a crash to occur.
1.5.3 Costs
While conducting a new check of construction costs it was found that the cost of
undercut (removing soil unsuitable for supporting a roadbed) had been omitted from
the costs of four detailed study corridors in the East Lake vicinity. The costs for these
four study corridors were adjusted as follows:
• Subsection 4 -2: Dare North -Side Widening cost was adjusted from $8.8 to $14.4
million.
• Subsection 4 -2: Dare South -Side Widening cost was adjusted from $8.7 to $14.4
million.
• Subsection 4 -2: Dare Southern Bypass cost was adjusted from $14.7 to $19.0 million.
• Subsection 4 -3: Dare North -Side Widening cost was adjusted from $3.7 to $5.3
million
• Subsection 4 -3: Dare South -Side Widening cost was adjusted from $4.0 to $6.3
million
It also was found that the quantities for Section 3 (bridge across the Alligator River) with
the Southern Bypass had included fill under the bridge. This cost was adjusted from
$9.0 million to $6.1 million.
These cost changes are reflected in the costs of the East Lake Alternatives as described in
the text and tables of this handout, and will be included in the FEIS. Cost is not
generally a driving factor in the decisions presented today, with the exception of East
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 11 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

Lake Alternative 13 (EL 13), the cost of which has not changed. The costs of East Lake
alternatives 1 through 12 remain comparable to each other, with a range of
approximately $228 to $233 million. While the difference between ELI to EL12 and
EL 13 is now less than what it was before the cost adjustments, EL 13 remains
substantially more expensive than the other alternatives, by a range of $19 to $24
million.
2.0 NEPA/404 Merger History
The Concurrence Point 3: LEDPA meetings will build on previous points in the
NEPA /404 Merger process. Concurrence points 1, 2, and 2A are listed and described
below:
2.1 Concurrence Point 1: Purpose and Need and Study
Area Defined
All of the state and federal interagency Merger Team members signed and approved the
project's purpose and need statement on June 14, 2007 (see Chapter 1 of the DEIS and
Section 1.3 of this document), as well as the project's study area. Only ARNWR
abstained (but did not object), and in a letter stated: "While the purpose and need
document may be an adequate statement for the NEPA /404 merger process overall, we
have concerns over the level of detail provided to date relative to data requirements
necessary to prepare a Compatibility Determination for right -of -way modifications."
2.2 Concurrence Point 2: Detailed Study Alternatives
Carried Forward
The project CP 2 meeting occurred on June 19, 2008. Preliminary study alternatives
were developed within the study corridor in response to comments received by local
elected officials, the public, and the Merger Team.
Because of the length of the Study Corridor (27.3 - miles) and the abundant managed and
protected resources, including wetlands, wetland mitigation banks, gamelands, and the
ARNWR, the study corridor was divided into five major sections. Sections 1 and 2 are in
Tyrrell County, Section 3 is the bridge over the Alligator River (including any bridge
extensions over wetlands), and Sections 4 and 5 are in Dare County. These sections were
further subdivided into subsections (e.g., Subsection 1 -3, Subsection 4 -2, Subsection 5 -1).
The Merger Team also considered options such as reduced median widths and three -
lane typical sections.
The Merger Team was not able to reach concurrence on alternatives to be studied in
detail in the DEIS at the June 19, 2008. Therefore, a CP 2 continuation meeting was held
on August 21, 2008. At that meeting, concurrence was reached on:
1. Preliminary study corridors to be carried forward for detailed study.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 12 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

2. Preliminary study corridors eliminated from further consideration.
Addition of a new study corridor, Alternative 4F (considered as a part of Dare North
1 in the DEIS).
4. Tyrrell County cross- sections (23 -foot median and 46 -foot median) for a four -lane
road.
The Merger Team could not reach concurrence on cross- section(s) in Dare County.
Therefore, the issue was elevated to a higher level, the Merger Management Team
(MMT). The MMT met on October 16, 2008, and reached concurrence that a 23 -foot
typical section would be studied in Dare County. The MMT also agreed that further
median reduction opportunities would be reviewed at appropriate locations by
Concurrence Point 4A.
After the MMT, a concurrence form was signed by most of the Merger Team. The
USEPA abstained, indicating that some of the issues presented in their issue brief of
August 27, 2008 had not been fully addressed. USEPA also indicated they were unsure
of the technical justification for raising the existing road by several feet. ARNWR
offered a "qualified" concurrence, citing a need to revisit the median width at later
planning phases for certain areas within the Refuge. ARNWR indicated in a 2008 issue
brief that "there are sensitive areas and areas of high quality wildlife habitat wherein
impacts will need to be further minimized through measures such as (but not limited to)
reducing median width, incorporating wildlife passage structures, hydrologic
restoration, and building resiliency to changing conditions over time as a result of
climate change /rising sea level. Having only one typical section does not provide
sufficient analysis of the potential to minimize impacts."
The comparison of alternatives at the CP 2 Merger Team meetings enabled decisions to
be made regarding appropriate cross - sections for each alternative, which alternatives
would be retained for further consideration, alternatives that would be eliminated from
further consideration, and the reasons for elimination. The Merger Team also discussed
and agreed on changes to the naming convention for the alternatives and a change in the
dividing point between Section 1 and Section 2 of the project.
2.3 Concurrence Point 2A: Bridging Decisions and
Alignment Review
The purpose of CP 2A is to establish bridge lengths and alignments and to add, remove,
or revise project alternatives, as appropriate. The Alligator River is the only
jurisdictional stream crossing; therefore, bridging discussions involved various bridge
alternatives that cross that river.
On October 15, 2009, the NCDOT conducted a CP 2A (Bridging and Alignment Review).
At the meeting it was agreed to:
• Eliminate Alternative 213 in Tyrrell County (referred to as Dare South 1 in the DEIS).
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 13 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

• Eliminate bridge Alternative 213/413 (referred to as Dare South 1 in the DEIS).
• Eliminate the bridge corridor portion of Alternative 4B (referred to as Dare South 2
in the DEIS) in Dare County and retain the US 64 widening portion of Alternative 4B
through East Lake (referred to as South -Side Widening in the DEIS).
• Add new Alternative 4G in Dare County (considered as a part of Dare North 2 in the
DEIS) as a detailed study alternative for the DEIS, which provides an alternative
north -side bridge landing and also established a Southern Bypass corridor around
East Lake.
At the October meeting, the Merger Team was unable to reach consensus on bridge
lengths and alignments. Therefore, a second field meeting was held on November 18,
2009. At this meeting, Merger Team members walked the potential bridge alignments
and further considered wetland impacts. Based on discussions in the field and
subsequent negotiations, the Merger Team reached concurrence on the following bridge
lengths:
• Alternative 2D /4C (referred to as Dare North 1 in the DEIS): 16,547 feet.
• Alternative 2D /4D (referred to as the Northern Bypass in the DEIS): 19,900 feet
• Alternative 2D /4F (referred to as Dare North 1 in the DEIS): 16,547 feet
• Alternative 2D /4G (referred to as Dare North 2 in the DEIS): 16,800 feet
The two alternatives with identical lengths share the same bridge alignment, but their
approach roads reconnect to existing US 64 at two different locations within East Lake.
In the DEIS, all but Alternative 2D /4D (Northern Bypass) were evaluated as to how they
could connect to three different alignments in the East Lake area for which the Merger
Team concurred (North -Side Widening, South -Side Widening, and Southern Bypass).
A concurrence form dated November 18, 2009 and covering both the alignment changes
and bridge lengths was signed indicating concurrence by all Merger Team members
with no members abstaining.
3.0 Conceptual Approach to LEDPA
NCDOT and the Corps of Engineers plan to discuss the LEDPA decision over the course
of three meetings. Each meeting will focus on different project sections. The sections to
be discussed were identified to minimize the decision on one set of sections being
dependent on the decision of another set of sections.
Final concurrence on the entire project from Columbia to Manus Harbor will not be
requested until the third meeting, but it is hoped that the Merger Team can reach
preliminary agreement on a LEDPA for the sections discussed at the close of each
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 14 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

meeting. A draft concurrence form will be developed as each meeting progresses. The
focus of each meeting is planned as follows:
East Lake Alternatives EL 1 to EL 13 (Sections 2 to 4), including the bridge across the
Alligator River and its associated approach roads. Median width in Section 2 will
not be discussed, but will be considered at the second meeting.
2. Tyrrell County North - and South -Side Widening Alternatives (Section 1), including
the 23 -foot and 46 -foot median alternatives. A decision on median width in Section 2
also will be determined.
3. Dare County Alternatives (Section 5), including the bulk of the project that affects
the ARNWR and the portions of the project affecting cultural and community
resources in East Lake, for which no bypass alternatives are proposed.
At the third meeting, in addition to discussing a LEDPA in Section 5, NCDOT will
present tables showing the impacts of the entire project, from Columbia to Manus
Harbor, including impacts associated with the preferred Sections 1 to 4 identified at the
first two meetings, as well as both Section 5 corridors under consideration at the third
meeting. In addition, for each impact category presented in the tables, the maximum
and minimum potential impact from Columbia to Manus Harbor will be shown. The
objective of the maximum and minimum impact information is to hopefully illustrate
that over the course of the team's deliberations that the team has tended to select
alternatives whose impacts overall are closer to the minimum than the maximum. If
there are exceptions, the reasons why will be indicated in the third handout so those
reasons can be considered at the third meeting before a final concurrence decision is
made.
Finally, at the third meeting, NCDOT will present a concurrence form and ask the
Merger Team to concur on a LEDPA for the US 64 Improvements Project from Columbia
to Manus Harbor.
4.0 Detailed Alternatives (Sections 2 to 4)
The numerous available corridors through the bridge and East Lake area (Sections 2, 3,
and 4) provide multiple opportunities to "mix and match" the future highway alignment
as the project progresses from west to east. The project team identified 13 possible
combinations of the component corridors. The component corridors of these 13
alternatives are described in the Section 4.1. The 13 combinations are then described in
Section 4.2. See Figures 2 -14 through 2 -18 from the DEIS in Appendix A for illustrations
of the East Lake Alternatives.
4.1 East Lake Alternative Sections and Subsections
The various East Lake Alternative sections and subsections are shown in DEIS Figure
2 -14 in Appendix A of this handout. They are described in the paragraphs below.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 15 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

4.1.1 Tyrrell North (Section 2)
The Section 2 bridge replacement corridor, Tyrrell North, is the same for all of the bridge
replacement alternatives, which are on the north side of the existing bridge. Tyrrell
North is a 0.83 -mile alternative with no subsections. It begins with the connection to
Section 1 at Station 663 +00. It then extends around and adjacent to the north side of the
marina complex on new location to Station 707 +00, where it joins to the new bridge over
the Alligator River. Tyrrell North is illustrated in DEIS Figure 2 -15 in Appendix A of
this handout. Tyrrell North is under consideration with a 23 -foot or a 46 -foot median.
The median width will be a topic of conversation at the second LEDPA meeting. The
impact numbers presented in this analysis assume a 46 -foot median, the worst case. The
first LEDPA meeting will validate selection of the Tyrrell North corridor in Section 2, but
will not attempt to discuss the median width.
4.1.2 Dare North 1 (Section 3)1 Dare North 1 Connector (Subsection 4 -1)
The Dare North 1 bridge crossing extends approximately 16,547 feet (3.13 miles) from
Station 707 +00 in Tyrrell County to Station 850 +00 in Dare County as shown on DEIS
Figure 2 -16 in Appendix A of this handout. This alignment is the shortest of the three
bridge alternatives. In Tyrrell County, the west end of the bridge extends inland a
distance of 295 feet from the shoreline, over high quality wetlands. In Dare County, the
east end of the bridge extends inland a distance of 1,360 feet from the shoreline, over
coastal wetlands.
Once the end of bridging is reached for Dare North 1, the corridor offers three
possibilities to connect with corridors that begin in Subsection 4 -2, and extend through
or around the East Lake community. The three "connector" alignments are shown on
DEIS Figure 2 -17 in the appendix of this handout:
• Dare North 1 Connector to Dare North -Side Widening
• Dare North 1 Connector to Dare South -Side Widening
• Dare North 1 Connector to Dare Southern Bypass
4.1.3 Dare North 2 (Section 3) 1 Dare North 2 Connector (Subsection 4 -1)
The Dare North 2 bridge crossing extends a distance of approximately 16,830 feet (3.19
miles) from Tyrrell North in Tyrrell County (Station 707 +00) to Dare North 2 in Dare
County (Station 875 +00) (DEIS Figure 2 -16 in Appendix A of this handout). In Tyrrell
County, the west end of the bridge extends inland a distance of 295 feet from the
shoreline. In Dare County, the east end of the bridge extends inland a distance of 455
feet from the shoreline. In both cases, the bridge extends over high quality wetlands to
avoid impacts.
Once the end of bridging is reached for Dare North 1, the corridor offers three
possibilities to connect with corridors that begin in Subsection 4 -2, and extend through
or around the East Lake community. The three "connector" alignments are shown on
DEIS Figure 2 -17 in Appendix A of this handout:
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 16 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

• Dare North 2 Connector to Dare North -Side Widening
• Dare North 2 Connector to Dare South -Side Widening
• Dare North 2 Connector to Dare Southern Bypass
4.1.4 Dare Northern Bypass (Sections 3 and 4)
This alignment extends a distance of approximately 19,900 feet (3.77 miles) from Tyrrell
North (Station 707 +00) to the Dare Northern Bypass bridge landing (Station 906 +00) in
Dare County (DEIS Figure 2 -16 in Appendix A of this handout). This is the longest of
the three bridge corridors - at least 3,070 feet (0.58 mile) longer than Dare North 2 and
3,353 feet (0.64 mile) longer than Dare North 1. In Tyrrell County, the west end of the
bridge extends inland a distance of 295 feet from the shoreline. In Dare County, the east
end of the bridge extends inland a distance of 1,780 feet from the shoreline. In both
cases, the bridge extensions are intended to minimize impacts to wetlands. One
residential relocation is anticipated with the Dare Northern Bypass.
Dare Northern Bypass is so -named because it extends north of and around the East Lake
community. This stand -alone alignment consists of a highway on new location for an
estimated distance of 2.3 miles, beginning at the eastern end of the bridge for Dare
Northern Bypass (Station 906 +00).
4.1.5 Dare North -Side Widening (Subsection 4 -2)
The Dare North -Side Widening corridor is shown on DEIS Figure 2 -16 in Appendix A of
this handout. In Subsection 4 -2 this alignment extends a distance of approximately
1.5 miles and continues a north -side widening through the community of East Lake to
Station 987 +85. Thirteen residential relocations are anticipated than with a south -side
widening. Existing driveways and intersections, including South Lake Drive, Dell Lee
Road, and SR 1101 (Pump Road), will be converted to right -in /right -out configurations.
This alignment includes U -turn median breaks with bulb -outs for eastbound and
westbound motorists.
4.1.6 Dare South -Side Widening (Subsection 4 -2)
The Dare South -Side Widening corridor is shown on DEIS Figure 2 -16 in Appendix A of
this handout. In subsection 4 -2, this alignment extends a distance of approximately
1.5 miles and continues south -side widening through the community of East Lake to
Station 987 +85. The corridor passes through a cluster of East Lake residences to a
location about 0.25 mile west of Brier Hall Road. Six residential relocations are
anticipated. U -turn median breaks with bulb -outs will enable eastbound and
westbound motorists to make U -turns in this section. Right in /right out intersections
will be created at existing driveways, South Lake Drive, and Pump Road. The canal on
the south side of US 64 will be relocated, and hydraulic connectivity will be maintained.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 17 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

4.1.7 Dare Southern Bypass (Subsection 4 -2)
The Dare Southern Bypass corridor is shown on DEIS Figure 2 -16 in Appendix A of this
handout. This section is 1.5 miles long (from Station 906 +00 to Station 987 +85) and exists
only in Subsection 4 -2. Either Dare North 1 or Dare North 2 corridors will precede this
alternative with connector alignments that tie -in to a fixed starting point for the bypass.
The Southern Bypass centerline begins at a point approximately 200 feet south of
existing US 64 and 800 feet east of Old Ferry Landing Road. The centerline progresses
eastward, presenting a gently- curving alignment generally parallel to existing US 64 to
the south at a distance that varies from 200 feet to 500 feet. The alignment crosses the
infrequently -used Dare County borrow pit and, at SR 1101 (Pump Road), turns to the
northeast to reconnect to existing US 64 at the end of Subsection 4 -3, approximately
1,200 feet east of Pump Road. Either of the two Dare widening corridors (south -side or
north -side) is then available for selection in Subsection 4 -3. This alignment minimizes
relocations in the East Lake community, causing the relocation of one residence and one
business.
4.1.8 Dare North -Side Widening (Subsection 4 -3)
In Subsection 4 -3, the North -Side alignment widens US 64 for 0.6 mile to the north side,
to Station 1020 +00. Right -in /right -out access is provided at driveways and the
intersections of US 64 with Brier Hall Road and Lake Neighborhood Road. Note that the
corridor chosen in Subsection 5 -1 has implications for the alignment ultimately chosen
for Subsection 4 -3. See DEIS Figure 2 -16 in Appendix A of this handout.
4.1.9 Dare South -Side Widening (Subsection 4 -3)
In Subsection 4 -3, the Dare South -Side alignment widens US 64 for 0.6 mile to the south
side, to Station 1020 +00. Right -in /right -out access is provided at driveways and the
intersections of US 64 with Brier Hall Road and SR 1102 (Lake Neighborhood Road).
Note that the alignment chosen in Subsection 5 -1 has implications for the corridor
ultimately chosen for Subsection 4 -3. See DEIS Figure 2 -16 in Appendix A of this
handout.
4.2 East Lake Alternatives
The numerous available corridors described in the previous section provide multiple
opportunities to "mix and match" the future highway alignment as the East Lake portion
of the project progresses from west to east. In the East Lake area, not all corridors start
and end at the same location, which can create difficulty when comparing the impacts of
one corridor to another. In highway planning, a common strategy to address this
"spaghetti- like" dilemma is to establish a common start and end point through which all
the different alternative combinations must pass.
The US 64 project proposes to build a new bridge over the Alligator River with
necessary reconnections to existing US 64. With the need to identify clear beginning and
end points for comparison, the project team decided to establish the entire length of a
new bridge, plus bridge approaches, as one comparable distance for impact analysis. As
all bridge replacement corridors begin with Section 2, the Tyrrell North corridor, the
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 18 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

beginning of Section 2 is established as the common "start point." Also, since the Dare
Northern Bypass extends to the end of Section 4, for comparison purposes it was
necessary to extend the "end point" to include all possible corridors to the eastern end of
Section 4.
Therefore, all East Lake alternative combinations begin at the start of Section 2 and run
from west to east to the end of Section 4. Once end points were established, the project
team generated a listing of all possible corridor /alignment combinations and their
combined impacts.
In the East Lake area, a total of 13 combinations exist for the bridge replacement
alternatives. These combination are illustrated in DEIS Figure 2 1S (included in
Appendix A of this document). Their components are listed in Table 1. In text and
tables, the East Lake Alternatives are designated as "EL" followed by the appropriate
alternative number. For example, East Lake Alternative 6 would be designated as "EL
6."
Table 1. East Lake Alternatives
East Lake
Section 4
Alternative
SecU062,
Section 3
Subsection Subsection Subsection
(EL)
4 -1 4 -2 44
Tyrrell
Dare North 1 connector to
Dare North -Side
Dare North -Side
EL 1
Dare North 1
North
Dare North -Side Widening
Widening
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 1 connector to
Dare North -Side
Dare South -Side
EL 2
Dare North 1
North
Dare North -Side Widening
Widening
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 1 connector to
Dare South -Side
Dare South -Side
EL 3
Dare North 1
North
Dare South -Side Widening
Widening
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 1 connector to
Dare South -Side
Dare North -Side
EL 4
Dare North 1
North
Dare South -Side Widening
Widening
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 1 connector to
Dare Southern
Dare South -Side
EL 5
Dare North 1
North
Dare Southern Bypass
By ass
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 1 connector to
Dare Southern
Dare North -Side
EL 6
Dare North 1
North
Dare Southern Bypass
Bypass
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 2 connector to
Dare Southern
Dare South -Side
EL 7
Dare North 2
North
Dare Southern Bypass
Bypass
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 2 connector to
Dare Southern
Dare North -Side
EL 8
Dare North 2
North
Dare Southern Bypass
Bypass
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 2 connector to
Dare South -Side
Dare South -Side
EL 9
Dare North 2
North
Dare South -Side Widening
Widening
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 2 connector to
Dare South -Side
Dare North -Side
EL 10
Dare North 2
North
Dare South -Side Widening
Widening
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 2 connector to
Dare North -Side
Dare North -Side
EL 11
Dare North 2
North
Dare North -Side Widening
Widening
Widening
Tyrrell
Dare North 2 connector to
Dare North -Side
Dare South -Side
EL 1 2
Dare North 2
North
Dare North -Side Widening
Widening
Widening
Tyrrell
EL 13
Dare Northern By pass
North
*Subsection 4 -1 represents the "connector alignments" from Dare North 1 and Dare North 2 corridors.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 19 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

5.0 Public Hearing and Agency Comments
5.1 Public Involvement During DEIS Preparation
Prior to the completion and release of the DEIS, various public involvement events were
held to engage residents and stakeholders.
• March 2007: Citizens Information Workshop was held in Manteo.
• April 2009: Citizens Information Workshops (CIWs) were held in Columbia and
East Lake.
• October 2010: A small group meeting was held in East Lake.
• November 2010: A small group meeting was held in the Alligator community that
was identified east of Columbia in Tyrrell County.
• October 2011: Small group meetings were held with the Alligator community and
East Lake.
5.2 Public Hearing and Comments
Two Public Hearings were held on April 23 and 24, 2012. The format of both meetings
included an informal pre - hearing open house, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and a formal
presentation followed by public testimony from 7:00 p.m. until testimony was
completed. The April 23 meeting was held at the Columbia High School auditorium,
and the April 24 meeting was at the East Lake Community Center. The meeting in
Columbia was attended by 39 members of the public, and the East Lake meeting was
attended by 56 members of the public.
From the perspective of the project as a whole, the majority of public comments
expressed a desire for an alternative that would avoid impacts to community features,
such as homes, businesses, churches, cemeteries, and homes near the East Lake landfill.
As an exception, six members of the Alligator Community indicated a preference for the
north widening, which would go through their community. They expressed concerns
that the road would exacerbate their current problems with flooding and drainage, and
stated "We know we can't stop the road from coming, so we don't want to be here when
it comes."
When reasons were given for a median preference in Tyrrell County, three commenters
expressed a desire to minimize new road's footprint (and impacts) by using the 23 -foot
median. One commenter expressed a preference for the 46 -foot median because of
safety considerations.
Comments from the public included the following themes:
• Avoid church and cemetery relocation
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 20 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

The potential relocation of churches and cemetery, particularly the East Lake
Methodist Church and cemetery, is a major public concern and elicited some
emotional opposition. Fourteen comments were recorded on this topic. Specifically,
one commenter stated "I do not want my ancestors dug up with ?gig equipment and
dumped somewhere. "
• Business Impacts
The issue of access was raised by several business owners along the corridor who are
concerned about the ability of customers and associated vehicles to turn into their
parcel once the median is added. Another concern raised by businesses was the
ability of large trucks to navigate the new alignments (e.g., logging trucks or trucks
carrying equipment to be painted). A representative from Weyerhaeuser also
mentioned concern about access point limitations for their large parcel.
• Flooding and drainage
Concerns were raised about potential flooding and drainage problems that could be
caused or exacerbated by the new construction. Members of the Alligator
Community as well as the Weyerhaeuser representative listed these concerns.
• Other
One commenter questioned the need for the project at all, especially the need to take
more right -of -way in the existing 5 -lane section near Columbia. Several commenters
expressed a sentiment that impacts to people should carry more weight in the
alternative decision than impacts to animals and the natural environment. One
commenter expressed her support for expediting and moving the project forward,
citing the need for safety and economic impacts for travelers. One homeowner,
whose home would be affected by the Southern Bypass, is distraught about a
crematorium adjacent to her property and wants it to be taken if the Southern
Bypass goes through.
In official resolutions, the Town of Columbia and Tyrrell County requested a design
change at the west end of Section 1 that would extend a five -lane curb- and - gutter cross -
section with sidewalks to the edge of their extra - territorial jurisdiction (ETJ). This area is
zoned for future residential and business development, which the town and county felt
would be negatively affected by the planned highway design. NCDOT coordinated
with the town of Columbia. NCDOT responded to these requests in writing with a letter
confirming a telephone conversation with Mr. Rhett White, Town Manager of the Town
of Columbia. The letter to Columbia and an identical one to Tyrrell County indicated
that the median was an important feature that must remain, however, NCDOT
committed to work with the Town of Columbia and Tyrrell County to locate median
breaks in locations that complement their zoning plan, to consider curb and gutter
locations (with associated water treatment), and to consider sidewalk or greenway
facilities within the existing ETJ limits.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 21 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

A unanimously approved resolution put forth by the East Lake Community (signed
Rosemarie Doshier, Chairman, East Lake Community Center) questions the need to
widen the road for hurricane evacuation because backups are rarely seen on this section
of US 64. The resolution also questions the claimed reduction in crash rates with the
improved facility because crashes rarely occur on this road. In addition, the resolution
indicates support for the Southern Bypass alternative. In the resolution, the residents of
East Lake cite the importance of maintaining quality of life and the difficulty of
relocating, as well as their desire to preserve their homes, community resources, and
historic sites. Later, a verbal conversation verified that the East Lake community
strongly recommends a south -side widening in Subsection 5 -1, away from two
community churches, graveyards, a community center, and a fire tower.
Both the East Lake and Alligator communities are recognized as Environmental Justice
communities under Executive Order 12898.
Individual public comments and resolutions, along with responses, can be found in the
Post Hearing meeting minutes, in Appendix B. The referenced resolutions also are
included in Appendix B.
5.3 Non - Governmental Organization (NGO) Comments
Comments were received from two non - governmental organizations, the Coastal
Federation and the Southern Environmental Law Center. The letters are included in
Appendix B. Key issues raised and current responses are:
• Purpose and Need
Comment: The NGOs generally agreed with the need to replace (or repair) the
Lindsay C. Warren Bridge. However, they questioned the other two major points of
the Purpose and Need statement. They questioned whether the Strategic Highways
Corridor (SHC) and the Hurricane Evacuation provided sufficient rationale for the
project. They also questioned the legitimacy of potential safety benefits that have
been listed in the DEIS as a secondary benefit of the project. As such they considered
replacing the existing Alligator River Bridge with a new two -lane bridge to be the
only reasonable build alternative.
Response: In response to the various challenges made to the hurricane evacuation
assumptions findings in these comments and similar comments made by the US
Environmental Protection Agency, NCDOT's hurricane evacuation consultant checked
census and growth data and has validated and updated the hurricane studies' existing
conditions data, as well as the assumptions used to generate 2030 study results. See Section
1.5.2 of this document. Section 1.5.2 also presents NCDOT's current response to questions
related to SHC and safety.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 22 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

• Effects on the Human Environment
Comment: There are concerns about the impacts that some alternatives would cause
to communities within the project area, particularly the Alligator and East Lake
Communities.
Response: Communitlj impacts are documented in the DEIS and in the communitlj impacts
analysis (with environmental justice assessments), and will be an important consideration in
selecting the LEDPA. Sce the discussion of communitlj impacts as they relate to the LEDPA
decision in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of this document.
• Wildlife Impacts
Comment: The NGOs require more information relevant to wildlife crossing
placement, including the results of the black bear and red wolf studies completed in
2011. There is concern raised about the 4 -lane highway causing habitat
fragmentation and increasing car strikes to animals.
Response: The wildlife studies were still underway at the time the DEIS was completed.
The studies anticipated the need for the development of mitigation to hi7bit7t fragmentation
impacts documented in the DEIS. Thcse studies are now complete. NCDOT has initiated
negotiations on wildlife crossings in Tyrrell Countlj with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and NC Wildlife Resources Commission. Dare Countlj discussions will follow soon. A
wildlife crossing plan for both counties will be included in the FEIS. (See Section 1.5.1 of
this document under "Wildlife Crossings ".)
• Stormwater Management and Wetland Impacts
Comment: There is concern about stormwater discharges into Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) and questions about how borrow sites might affect
wetlands, wildlife, and the refuge.
Response: As indicated in Section 1.5.1 of this document under "Other Issues for
Discussion at CP4 Meetings, " stormwater management will be addressed as a part of the
concurrence point CP4 discussions. All of the alternatives under consideration will place a
new Alligator River ?ridge north of the current Outstanding Resource Waters boundany (the
existing ?ridge).
The winning construction contractor(s) will determine the source and location of ?sorrow
material and will apply for environmental permits that must satisfy the scrutiny of pertinent
natural resource agencies. Use of wetlands as a ?sorrow site is typically not permitted. The
use of Refuge lands could not occur without the specific permission and oversight of
ARNWR and is not expected to occur.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 23 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

• Alternatives Presentation
— Comment: The NGOs took issue with the presentation of alternatives in the
DEIS, stating that the alternatives and their impacts were unclear and that "plain
language" was not used to describe them.
Response: The primary concern related to claritlj was that the "mix and match"
approach to alternatives, coupled with the numbering system used made the analysis and
comparison of alternatives extremely difficult to follow. It was felt that this hampered the
public's i7bilitlj to participate in the NEPA process. NCDOT addressed this issue by
holding multiple meetings prior to the release of the DEIS with the communities in the
project area (see Section 5.1). At the hearing and in written correspondence, the public
and their representatives were very clear i7bout their concerns and preferences, indicating
that they understood the issues at hand.
— Comment: The NGOs said that the alternatives presented in the DEIS do not
sufficiently consider all practicable and feasible alternatives. Specifically, they
believe the analysis is lacking a no -build option, a bridge -only option, a road -on-
pilings option, and a reduced - median option.
Response: Sections 2.1 through 2.3 of the DEIS explain the alternatives explored prior
to carrying forward the detailed study alternatives assessed in the DEIS, including a No-
Action alternative (which involves the bridging [road -on- pilings] of all wetlands along
the project corridor), rehi7bilitation of the existing ?ridge over Alligator River, traffic
management, and a three -lane alternative. These options were rejected because either
they could not fulfill Purpose and Need, or they could not do so in a practicable way. A
reduced- median (23 feet instead of 46 feet) has ?peen a part of alternative development; the
reduced 23 foot median has already ?peen chosen for the ?wild designs in Dare CounhJ in
an effort to reduce wetland and hi7bit7t impacts. The No -Build alternative is always
included as a benchmark against which the impacts of the other alternatives can be
compared through the decision - making process. The ?ridge -only option recommended by
the commenter assumes that ?ridge replacement is the only legitimate purpose of the
project and therefore the only appropriate project is a two -lane Alligator River Bridge
replacement. As indicated in the response i7bove, the needs have ?peen or will be
reaffirmed.
• Failure to comply with NEPA, CWA, and Refuge Act
Comment: The NGOs argue that our analysis of effects to the natural resources and
wildlife is lacking the depth necessary for meaningful analysis. They feel that
Indirect and Cumulative Effects have not been accounted for and that mitigation
measures have not been adequately described. They also argue that all of the Build
Alternatives are fundamentally incompatible with ARNWR.
Response: See Section 1.5.1 of this document for updates on wildlife studies and on wildlife
crossings as impact mitigation. Section 4.12 of DEIS documents why induced development
is not likely to be associated with this project. ARNWR has offered cooperation throughout
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 24 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

the Merger Team process and has made their needs and concerns very clear. NCDOT
expects that this will continue as the decision - making process advances. NCDOT, however,
will be augmenting the natural resources section of the FEIS in response to these comments.
This is expected to include:
— Expanded explanation of NCDOT wetland mitigation and additional explanation on the
appropriate timing of mitigation planning.
— Expanded discussion on specific features affected on managed lands, going beyond
presentations of acres of impact. This material also will be considered in the selection of
the LEDPA.
— Documentation of ARNWR comments and agreements related to compatibility of the
Preferred Alternative.
5.4 Agency Comments
Agency comments on the DEIS are included in Appendix B. Key issues raised and
current responses are presented below.
5.4.1 US Environmental Protection Agency
The main points of the USEPA comments are addressed below. However, the comments
received from the USEPA on the DEIS contained a multitude of concerns and objections,
many of which required more detailed responses than what is presented here. At the
request of USEPA, a separate letter with detailed responses to every comment USEPA
made was prepared. The signed letter is included in Appendix C of this document.
• Purpose and Need
Comment: The EPA does not concur with the Purpose and Need for this project.
They do not recognize consistency with the Strategic Highways Corridor or
hurricane evacuation as a legitimate need. They also question the necessity of full
bridge replacement for safety. In addition, they question the potential for the project
to increase safety by reducing crash rates as a secondary benefit of the project.
Response: In response to the various challenges made to the hurricane evacuation
assumptions in these comments and similar comments from NGOs, NCDOT's hurricane
evacuation consultant checked census and growth data and has validated and updated the
hurricane studies' existing conditions data, as well as the assumptions used to generate 2030
study results. These results will be used to augment the hurricane evacuation material
presented in the DEIS. See Section 1.5.2 of this document for more information related to
NCDOT's response to this comment.
• Alternative Presentation
— Comment: The EPA claims that the alternatives presented do not adequately
consider all practicable and feasible alternatives, and states that specifically the 3-
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 25 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

lane and bridge rehabilitation (with detour) options were not considered
adequately. They also question why a 23 -foot median should not be used
throughout project and why a southern - terminus bridge option was not
considered.
Response: All of these alternatives and issues were adequately addressed in the DEIS.
— Comment: EPA argues that the tables included in the DEIS do not present data
in such a way that allows for clear comparison between alternatives.
Response: The challenge with presenting total impact findings in the DEIS was that
when accounting for sections, East Lake Alternatives, north- and south -side widening,
and alternative median widths in Tyrrell County, there are almost 2,500 different
alternative combinations. To provide total impact information for every possible
alternative combination is not pr7ctici7ble. However, the point is understood. Thus,
prior to asking the Merger Team for LEDPA concurrence, the total impact of the
proposed LEDPA will be presented for discussion. This also will include an indication of
the potential maximum and minimum potential impact for each impact category. It is
expected that the total impact for most categories will be closer to the potential minimum
than the maximum. Where the total impact is closer to the potential maximum, a reason
will be presented for discussion. This information also will be presented in the FEIS.
• Effects on Animals and the Natural Environment
— Comment: The EPA raises concerns that vehicle collisions with animals will
increase with more lanes and higher travel speeds. They also require more
information relevant to wildlife crossing placement, including the results of the
black bear and red wolf studies completed in 2011.
Response: USEPA has no ?oasis for concluding that vehicle collisions would rise. The
anticipated speed limit is 55 mph, which is the current speed limit. The wildlife studies
were still underway at the time the DEIS was completed. They were underway in
anticipation of their need for the development of mitigation to hi7bit7t fragmentation
impacts documented in the DEIS. These studies are now complete. NCDOT has already
reached a conceptual agreement with USFWS (Regulatory) and NCWRC i7bout wildlife
crossing sizes, types, and locations in Tyrrell County. Wildlife crossing discussions will
soon begin in Dare County, with USFWS (Regulatory), USFWS (Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge), and NCWRC. A wildlife crossing plan will be included in the
FEIS.
— Comment: In regard to effects on water resources, the EPA questions the
justification for the project given the "potential for irreversible impacts to waters
of the U.S."
Response: The NCDOT will in the FEIS acknowledge the extent of the wetland
impacts; however, wetlands are pervasive in the project area. Substantial efforts to avoid
and minimize wetland impacts took place during the development of detailed study
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 26 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

alternatives. Efforts to avoid, minimize, and mitigate wetland impacts will continue as
the project progresses. In addition, it must be considered that NCDOT (in partnership
with the Ecosystem Enhancement Program), mitigates by typically providing 2 -3 new
wetland acres for each acre of impact.
• Effects on the Human Environment
Comment: The EPA suggests the consideration of alternatives that do not carry
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low- income
populations and states that data used in the DEIS should be updated to reflect 2010
Census data.
Response: South -side widening at the Alligator communitlj and ELS, EL6, EL7, EL 8, and
EL 13 at the East Lake communitlj all avoid disproportionately high and adverse impacts to
these environmental justice communities. See the discussion of communitlj impacts and
avoidance alternatives in Sections 6.3 and 6.4 of this document as they relate to the LEDPA
decision.
5.4.2 US Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service
The NMFS made the initial determination that the project will "not adversely impact
essential fish habitat (EFH) or associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic
Fishery Management Council, Mid - Atlantic Fishery Management Council, or NMFS." In
addition, several other comments were noted:
• Impacts to Fish Species an Habitat
Comment: NMFS recommends including discussion of more fishes, "such as
hickory shad and river herring, which are also found in the Alligator River and are
prey for federally managed species, such as king mackerel and bluefish." They also
emphasize the importance of maintaining connectivity between the sides of the road
and suggest adding discussion about effects of construction on waters and wetlands.
Response: The recommended discussions will be added to the FEIS.
• Mitigation
Comment: NMFS recommends the inclusion of all resource agencies in decisions on
mitigation measures. They recommend that as much stormwater as possible be
captured and treated before release and the use of the 23' median to minimize
impacts to wetlands.
Response: NCDOT will include all pertinent resource agencies in decisions on mitigation
via the Merger Team process. One aspect of this discussion will be the handling of storm
water, particularly on the Alligator River Bridge. The use of a 23 foot median in Tyrrell
Countlj will be addressed during the second LEDPA Merger Team meeting. NCDOT prefers
a 46 foot median at this time and expects to reaffirm its case for a 46 foot meeting at the
second meeting.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 27 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

5.4.3 US Department of Interior
The Department of the Interior (DOI) made the observation that this project will have
substantial impacts to fish and wildlife resources and decided to defer their
recommendation for the LEDPA until the LEDPA Merger Team meetings.
• Impacts to Wildlife
Comment: The DOI finds the discussion and analysis of the both the red wolf and
the red - cockaded woodpecker to be inadequate and requests more information
regarding these population and potential fragmentation effects on their habitat. The
DOI points out that migratory birds were not adequately addressed in the DEIS and
suggests design modifications to the new bridge that would discourage birds from
perching or flying low. They also request clarification on bald eagle nests in the
project area.
Response: The FEIS will augment both the discussion of the red wolf and red - cockaded
woodpecker. One purpose of planned wildlife crossings is to mitigate red wolf impacts.
Analysis and mitigation of red wolf hi7bitat will be the su?)ject of Section 7 consultation,
which must be completed before the release of the FEIS. It will be noted that wildlife studies,
including surveys for the red wolf, were still underway at the time the DEIS was completed.
Thcy were underway in anticipation developing mitigation for hi7bit7t fragmentation impacts
documented in the DEIS. These studies are now complete. NCDOT has already reached a
conceptual agreement with USFWS (Regulatory) and NCWRC i7bout wildlife crossing sizes,
types, and locations in Tyrrell County. Wildlife crossing discussions will soon begin in Dare
County, with USFWS (Regulatory), USFWS (Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge),
and NCWRC. A wildlife crossing plan will be included in the FEIS. The impacts on natural
and other resources of the wildlife crossings will be included in the FEIS.
Updated red - cockaded woodpecker nesting surveys have ?peen completed. New foraging
hi7bit7t surveys arc underway and should be completed in November 2012. The outcome of
both of these studies will be taken into consideration during the selection of the LEDPA in
Tyrrell Countlj (second LEDPA meeting). Effects tables will be updated. Decisions on
protecting threatened and endangered species that come out of Section 7 consultation will be
included as project commitments in the FEIS.
The FEIS will augment the discussion of migratory ?girds and bidd eagle nests. The requested
?ridge design that would discourage ?girds from perching or flying low will be considered in
final design.
• Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation/ Highway Barrier Effects/ Wildlife Crossings
Comment: The DOI has concerns about not only the direct loss of habitat to the road
widening, but also the secondary effects of fragmentation, or increasing the gap
between habitats. More information is needed on the plans for wildlife crossings.
Response: It will be acknowledged in the FEIS that NCDOT also is concerned i7bout hi7bitat
fragmentation. The FEIS may also present positive outcomes of the project, such as hi7bitat
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 28 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

de fragmentation in areas. A wildlife crossing plan will be included in the FEIS. USFWS
will be included in the negotiations.
• Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR)
Comment: DOI states that NCDOT must meet the standards for a minor
modification to the existing right -of -way, and that the decision on whether it meets
these standards lies with the Refuge Manager. NCDOT must demonstrate that the
existing right -of -way is fully used before consideration can be made for additional
right -of -way affecting Refuge lands. Additionally, the Refuge will decide where
wildlife crossings may be built on Refuge land.
Response: NCDOT acknowledges the Refuge's position on minor modification and wildlife
crossings. A part of LEDPA selection will take their position on minor modifications into
consideration. The study team already is looking at refinements to alternatives in the East
Lake are that would further reduce the use of Refuge lands. NCDOT will work closely with
the Refuge in terms of impact avoidance, minimization, and mitigation.
5.4.4 NC Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Comment: The primary concern to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services is farm and forest land loss. They note that the project will "contribute to the
ongoing loss of farm and forest land in our State," which are important for a variety of
reasons. They prefer widening of the existing roadway to new location as it minimizes
the loss of farm and forest land. They also point out that new location construction has
the potential to isolate existing farm and forest land, resulting in their loss, and that
adequate travel corridors should be provided to prevent this. They summarized by
stating that "alternatives should be selected so as to minimize the loss of farm and forest
lands."
Response: Minimizing loss of farm and forest land will be one consideration in the selection of
the LEDPA. However, avoidance of communitlj and wetland impacts is expected to take priority
over minimizing impacts to farmland and upland forest lands.
5.4.5 NC Department of Cultural Resources — State Historic
Preservation Office
Comment: The State Historic Preservation Office states, "Historic properties in the Area
of Potential Effects are correctly identified along with the effects of the various
alternatives." They had no further comment.
Response: No response needed.
5.4.6 NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
5.4.6.1 Division of Coastal Management
Comment: The DCM indicates that the "information contained in the DEIS is consistent
with the information that has been provide to DCM, and upon which [they] have
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 29 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

commented, through the NEPA /404 Merger Process." Further determination of
consistency will occur after a CAMA major permit has been received.
Response: No action is required.
5.4.6.2 Division of Marine Fisheries
Comment: DMF pointed out that the Atlantic Sturgeon had been omitted from the list
of endangered species found in the project area. They also have concerns about
stormwater management and request information about how stormwater will be
treated. They make a recommendation to restrict the median width to 23' to avoid and
minimize impacts to wetlands. They also suggest that the material of the old bridge be
recycled for use in the NCDMF Artificial Reef program. An in -water work moratorium
in the Alligator River could be imposed from February 15 to June 15 to avoid impacts to
anadromous species.
Response: The Atlantic sturgeon was added to the list of endangered species after the
completion of the DEIS. Like the shortnose sturgeon, the project "May- Affect, Not Likely
Adversely Affect" the Atlantic sturgeon. This conclusion was affirmed by Fritz Rohde of NMFS
in a telephone conversation and an October 2, 2012 e -mail exchange. The handling of storm
water, particularly on the Alligator River Bridge, will be addressed during mitigation discussions
with the resource agencies, including the Division of Marine Fisheries. A reduced, 23 foot
median is already proposed in Dare County. The use of a 23 foot median in Tyrrell Countlj will
be addressed during the selection of the LEDPA. NCDOT prefers a 46 foot median at this time
and expects to reaffirm its case for a 46 foot median at the second LEDPA meeting. Recycling of
?ridge components will be discussed with the Division of Marine Fisheries during construction
planning. The need and acceptability of a moratorium will be discussed with the Division of
Marine Fisheries during construction planning.
5.4.6.3 Division of Water Quality
• Classified Waters
Comment: Due to the presence of surface waters classified as SC;SW, Outstanding
Resource Waters of the State in the project study area, DWQ requests that DOT
strictly adhere to "Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 0413.0124)
throughout design and construction of the project. They also express a preference for
on -site versus off -site mitigation measures, and require a mitigation plan prior to
issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
Response: Outstanding Resource Waters of the State (ORW) exist only to the south -side of
the existing ?ridge and all preliminary alternatives south of the ?ridge were eliminated in the
alternatives screening; however NCDOT expects to address the requested items in the FEIS.
• Stormwater Management
Comment: Stormwater management is also a concern; best practice stormwater
treatment measures are strongly encouraged and the 401 Water Quality Certification
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 30 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

application will need to specifically address the proposed methods for stormwater
management.
Response: The handling of storm water, particularly on the Alligator River ?ridge, will be
addressed during mitigation discussions with the resource agencies, including the Division of
Water Quality.
• Sediment and Erosion
Comment: Finally, DWQ states that NCDOT should address concerns about
sediment and erosion impacts by describing the potential impacts that may occur to
the aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
Response: Sediment and erosion control specifications will be included in construction
contracts.
5.4.6.4 Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs
• Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
Comment: The OCPCA mainly takes issue with the treatment of Indirect and
Cumulative Effects in the DEIS, saying that "it downplays the long -term nature of
the impacts and makes no commitment to project mitigation." They consider habitat
fragmentation to be an indirect impact, and point out the harm to animal species that
could arise from widening the highway. They bring up the topic of sea level rise,
stating: "To the extent that improvements to US 64 contribute to the isolation of
these population remnants, or prevent the movement of species to areas outside the
peninsula, the potential impacts of this project must be seen as much more critical in
the context of sea level rise than when considered in isolation ".
Response: Ht7bit7t fragmentation is a direct impact. The planned wildlife crossings will
address this impact. The FEIS may also present positive outcomes of the project, such as
hi7bitat de fragmentation in areas. The potential for sea level rise to isolate population
remnants, or prevent the movement of species will be addressed in the FEIS. It is important
to note that if sea level rise does occur much of the project area (which is mainly comprised of
wetlands) will be under water.
• Wildlife Crossings
Comment: The OCPCA requests more information about and a commitment to the
proposed wildlife crossings.
Response: NCDOT has already reached a conceptual agreement with USFWS (Regulatory)
and NCWRC i7bout wildlife crossing sizes, types, and locations in Tyrrell County. Wildlife
crossing discussions will soon begin in Dare County, with USFWS (Regulatory), USFWS
(Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge), and NCWRC. A wildlife crossing plan for both
counties will be included in the FEIS.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 31 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

5.4.6.5 Wildlife Resources Commission
• Waterfowl Habitat
Comment: The WRC is primarily concerned with the impacts to waterfowl habitat
in the Futch Game Land that might result from the alternatives, stating "loss of
acreage, alterations in water control, and loss of buffer would affect waterfowl use as
well as hunter use."
Response: These concerns will be taken into consideration in the selection of the LEDPA.
• RCW and Palmetto Peartree Preserve
Comment: They believe the impacts to the red - cockaded woodpecker have been
inadequately identified and have concerns about the description of potential impacts
to the Palmetto Peartree Preserve.
Response: Updated red - cockaded woodpecker nesting surveys have ?peen completed and new
foraging hi7bit7t surveys are underway and scheduled to be completed in November 2012.
The outcome of both of these studies will be taken into consideration in the selection of the
LEDPA in Tyrrell County. Effects tables and potential impacts to the Palmetto Pmrtree
Preserve for red - cockaded woodpecker will be updated in the FEIS and taken into
consideration as applici7ble in Section 7 coordination.
• Habitat Fragmentation
Comment: They also have concerns about habitat fragmentation, noting that any
widening of the road increases the barrier between habitats and increases the effects
of habitat fragmentation. They state that wildlife crossings are an essential part of
creating permeability of the widened 4 -lane road.
Response: NCDOT has already reached a conceptual agreement with USFWS (Regulatory)
and NCWRC i7bout wildlife crossing sizes, types, and locations in Tyrrell County. Wildlife
crossing discussions will soon begin in Dare County, with USFWS (Regulatory), USFWS
(Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge), and NCWRC. A wildlife crossing plan for both
counties will be included in the FEIS.
• Coordination on Bridge Design
Comment: The WRC emphasizes the importance of interagency coordination in the
design and construction plans for the new bridge over the Alligator River in order to
minimize impacts to aquatic resources.
Response: Interagency coordination will be a part of the development of new Alligator River
Bridge design and construction plans.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 32 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

6.0 Alternatives Comparison
Impacts anticipated for the 13 East Lake Corridors are presented in Table 2. The
information presented is essentially what was presented in the DEIS as Tables 4 -5 to 4 -8
and Appendix F with a few corrections and some additions considered appropriate for
the selection of the LEDPA. The following items presented in Table 2 are considered key
to the selection of a LEDPA from among the East Lake Corridors:
• Cost
• Relocations
• Neighborhood Disturbance
• Environmental Justice
• ARNWR Impacts
• Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) Affected
• Canal Relocations
• Coastal and Jurisdictional Wetland Impacts
While other impact categories are important for consideration, these key considerations
have been chosen for several reasons. First, these are impact categories that are
applicable to the East Lake alternatives, whereas some of the other resources considered
are either not present in these sections of the project or their impacts do not differ
between alternatives. For example, impacts to red - cockaded woodpecker habitat are in
Section 2 and thus are identical for all the EL alternatives and do not play a major role in
deciding a LEDPA. Key considerations were also influenced by public and agency
comments, which highlighted issues such as neighborhood disturbance and impacts to
the ARNWR. Other considerations are the legal requirements associated with some
impact issues, e.g. environmental justice, Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
resources, and wetlands.
The following sections address the identification of a LEDPA /Preferred Alternative in
four steps:
1. Consideration of the Northern Bypass (EL 13), for which it is NCDOT's
recommendation that this corridor alternative not be selected as the LEDPA.
2. Consideration of a bridge over the Alligator River, for which it is NCDOT's
recommendation that Dare North 2 be included as a part of the LEDPA (Sections 2,
3, and 4 -1) and that the Dare North 1 corridor be eliminated.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 33 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

Consideration of how the project should pass through or around East Lake, for
which it is NCDOT's recommendation that the Southern Bypass be included as a
part of the LEDPA (Subsections 4 -1 and 4 -2).
4. Consideration of a North -Side Widening versus a South -Side Widening at the east
end of the East Lake corridor alternatives (Subsection 4 -3). It is NCDOT's
recommendation that the South -Side Widening be included as a part of the LEDPA,
because of substantial impacts to the East Lake community associated with a North -
Side Widening in the adjoining Subsection 5 -1.
6.1 Consideration of the Northern Bypass
(Sections 2 to 4)
The Northern Bypass (EL 13) is compared with the other East Lake Alternatives in Table
2. Table 3 displays the key considerations chosen to identify the differences in impact
between the alternatives. In addition to indicating the impact, the cells in Table 3 are
colored in such a way as to display the highest (or "worst ") impact within each row as
the darkest shade of blue and the least impact as the lightest shade of blue.
The Northern Bypass almost entirely avoids the East Lake Community and the potential
for community disruption and likely environmental justice impacts by passing to the
north of the community. It requires the relocation of one newly - constructed residence,
which is currently located approximately where the Northern Bypass Bridge would
meet land on the Dare County side. It has the greatest impacts to wetlands of all the EL
options (66 acres versus 34 to 62 acres). The ARNWR has preliminarily indicated that a
Northern Bypass alignment (at its eastern end) would not constitute a minor
modification. This alignment would separate 44.64 acres of Alligator River /South Lake
Swamp Forest SNHA habitat from the larger area of this habitat that is north of East
Lake. The Northern Bypass requires the longest of the three bridge alignments under
consideration and is the most expensive option at $253 million (versus $228 million to
$233 million).
NCDOT proposes to eliminate this option (EL 13) on the basis of cost, impacts to
wetlands, and fragmentation of Alligator River /South Lake Swamp Forest SNHA
habitat. This selection leaves East Lake Alternatives 1 through 12 remaining.
6.2 Consideration of a Bridge Over the Alligator River (Dare
North 1 versus Dare North 2)
Without the Northern Bypass, there are two remaining options under consideration for a
bridge over the Alligator River: Dare North 1 and Dare North 2. Both corridors depart
from the same point at Section 2 in Tyrrell County (Tyrrell North). The two alternatives
then each connect to one of three remaining alternatives in the East Lake area (through
Subsection 4 -1): Southern Bypass, North -Side Widening, or South -Side Widening. Table
4 presents an impact comparison of the six alternatives that can be created by combining
the two remaining bridge corridors (Dare North 1 and Dare North 2) with the three
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 34 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

Table 2, Comparison of East Lake Corridor Alternatives
Impact
23•fooi4ide Median
Calegory
EL 1
EL 2
EL 3
EL 4
EL 6
EL 6
EL)
EL 8
EL 9
EL 10
EL 11
EL 12
EL 13
Length (miles
6.76
6.76
6.71
6.71
6.76
6.76
6.76
6.76
6.7')
6.7')
6.7')
6.7')
6.93
Construction Cost
X228,986,000
$229921,000
229,09 ,000
$228,1')7,000
$233,290,000
$232,3')1,000
$233,180,000
$232212,000
$229,190,000
$228,2')1,000
$228,')63,000
$229,')01,000
$2 52, ')12000
Human and Built Environment
Underground
Storage Tanks
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Historic Resources
Lindsay C. Warren
Lindsay C Warren
Lindsay C Warren
Lindsay C. Warren
Lindsay C.
Lindsay C.
Lindsay C.
Lindsay C.
Lindsay C Warren
Lindsay C Warren
Lindsay C. Warren
Lindsay C Warren
Lindsay C.
Affected
I Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Warren Bridge
I Warren Bridge
Warren Bridge
Warren Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
I Bridge
Warren Bridge
13 Residences,
13 Residences ,
13 Residences ,
6 Residences,
6 Residences,
6 Residences,
6 Residences,
13 Residences
finding affordable
finding affordable
finding affordable
finding affordable
finding affordable
finding affordable
finding affordable
finding affordable
replacement
Residence
replacement
replacement
replacement
replacement
1 Residence
1 Residence
1 Residence
1 Residence
replacement
replacement
replacement
housing and
1 Residence
housing in the
housing in the
housing in the
housing in the
housing in the
housing in the
housing in the
housing in the
communihT
'
communihT
communihT
cornmunihT
communihT
communihT
cornmunih�
coirumunihT
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
0
i
Q
Business
1 Business
1 Business
1 Business
1 Business
v
Church
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Cemetery
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
3 sheds;1
3 sheds;1
3 sheds;1
3 sheds; I
abandoned
abandoned
abandoned
abandoned
Other
7 sheds, l garage
7 sheds, l garage
structures; l
structures; l
structures; l
structures; l
7 sheds, l garage
7 sheds, l garage
garage; l cell
garage; l cell
garage; l cell
garage; l cell
tower
tower
tower
tower
US 61 widened
US 61 widened
US 61 widened
US 61 widened
US 61 widened
US 61 widened
US 61 widened
US 61 widened
through middle of
through middle of
through middle of
through middle of
through middle of
through middle of
through middle of
through middle of
Kni mites
East Lake with a
East Lake with a
East Lake with a
East Lake with a
East Lake with a
East Lake with a
East Lake with a
East Lake with a
impacts to East
Neighborhood
substantial impact
substantial impact
substantial impact
substantial impact
Bypasses East
Bypasses East
Bypasses East
Bypasses East
substantial impact
substantial impact
substantial impact
substantial impact
Lake; likely
Disturbance
on character,
on character,
on character,
on character,
Lake; preferred by
Lake; preferred by
Lake; preferred by
Lake; preferred by
on character,
on character,
on character,
on character,
acceptable option
cohesiveness, and
cohesiveness, and
cohesiveness, and
cohesiveness, and
East Lake
East Lake
East Lake
East Lake
cohesiveness, and
cohesiveness, and
cohesiveness, and
cohesiveness, and
to East Lake
heritage of
heritage of
heritage of
heritage of
heritage of
heritage of
heritage of
heritage of
residents
communihT
communihT
communihT
cornmunihT
communihT
communihT
cornmunihT
cornmunihT
Likely
Environmental
Justice
(Disproportion -
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
atelyHigh and
Adverse Impacts)
Managed
Resources
Alligator River
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Gameland (acres)
Great Dismal
Swamp Wetland
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Nlitigation Bank,
Phase I (acres)
J. Morgan Dutch
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Gameland (acres)
Palmetto- Peartree
Preserve (acres)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Alligator River
NationalWildife
18.11
7.1')
25.52
736
132
26.2
23.11
19.30
19.91
1 ').80
12.11
16. ')2
2 ').01
Refu e (acres)

Table 2 (concluded), Comparison of East Lake Corridor Alternatives
Impact
23•FoobWide Median
Calegory
EL 1
EL 2
EL 3
EL 4
EL 6
EL 6
EL)
EL 8
EL 9
EL 10
EL 11
EL 12
EL 13
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Alligator Creek;
Second Creek
22?9
2229
2229
2229
22.29
22.25
2229
22.29
2229
2229
2229
22.29
2229
Swamp Forest
(acres)
Alligator River
Swamp Forest
037
037
2.32
0.60
9.80
9.80
712
7112
(acres)
Alligator
RiveriSouthEake
Swamp Forest
0.06
010
-
010
0.06
010
0.06
010
0.06
0.06
010
3330
(acres)
Scuppernong River
Swamp Forest
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
(acres)
%shoes Pocosin
(acres)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Roanokei'Stumpy
Point %rshes and
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Pocosin (acres)
Natural Environment
Prime Farmland
(acres)
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Soils hmpacts
".65
"5
"5
80.00
85.02
8,
83.07
97.80
93.22
9718
92.60
8533
80.,
801,"
81.,
76 5,"
(acres)
Plant
Communities
68.83
72.97
70.01
69.87
840
80.89
89.23
85.08
70.07
69.92
69 :53
73.68
72.09
(acres)
Canal Relocation
(linear feet
220
3155
7,135
3,900
0,115
880
0,115
880
",135
3,900
3,235
RCI4' Habitat
'13
'13
'13
'13
'13
'13
'13
'13
'13
'13
'13
'13
'13
(acres)
Essential
Habitat acres
6613
72.71
88.09
81.91
89.30
82.76
71.67
65.09
7096
60.38
)7.15
60.03
68.65
CAU Resources,
478
478
05.06
15.06
01.58
11 :58
38.00
38.00
38.86
38.86
0310
0310
22.53
(acres)
Coastal Wetlands
0.06
0.06
6.11
6.11
5.69
5.69
3.26
3.26
2.70
2.70
030
030
0.23
Jurisdictional
Wetlands (acres)'
3121
0037
53.09
16.96
60.80
51.67
61.77
55.60
55.77
09.60
39?8
05.01
66.07
Fragments 11.61
Fragments 6.69
Fragments 6.69
acres SNHA
Other Natural
Fragments 6.69
Fragments 6.69
acres of ARNWR
acres of ARNWR
Reconnects 21.33
Reconnects 21.33
Reconnects 21.33
Reconnects 2133
Habitat
Resource Impacts
acres of ARNWR
acres of ARNWR
Reconnects 21.33
Reconnects 21.33
acres of ARNWR
acres of ARNWR
acres of ARNWR
acres of ARNWR
Reconnects 2033
acres of ARNWR
acres of ARNWR
acres of ARNWR
'Relocations a new count based on a 2012 update of structures map.
2Coastal Area Management Act (CVA) Resources - Estuarine public trust waters, Estuarine public trust waters shorelines (75 feet), Outstanding resource waters shorelines (575 feet), Inland public trust waters, Inland public trust waters shorelines (30 feet), and Coastal wetlands.
Details on the hTpes and acres of wetlands affected are provided in Subsection 1 -6 of the DEIS.

Construction Cost (M)
Relocations
Neighborhood
§ Disturbance
E
E
0 Likely EJ Impact
(Disproportionately
High and Adverse)
Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge (acres)
ro Alligator River
m Swamp Forest
z Q (acres)
+ro
ro
Alligator
U
ro
- ±F
�'
L
— RiverlSouth Lake
�m
zS p
wam Forest
—
acres
Canal Relocation
(linear feet)
CAMA
ro
Resources
ro
L Coastal
o Wetlands
ro
x Jurisdictional
m Wetlands (acres)
ro
z
Other Natural
Resource
Impacts
li&` 7.45
0.37 0.37
1 220
M1Id:0ImiId
ILeast Greatest
Table 3. Highlighted Comparison of East Lake Corridor Alternatives
M-M-Mm�
A ink
Reconnects Reconnects Reconnects Reconnects
a net of 17.3 24.33 acres 24.33 acres 24.33 acres
ARNWRofARNWR ofARNWR ofARNM
1R
Low
N
0.23
15,8
12.41
VIII
880
880
,
0.34
Reconnects Reconnects Reconnects Reconnects
a net of 17.3 24.33 acres 24.33 acres 24.33 acres
ARNWRofARNWR ofARNWR ofARNM
1R
Low
N
0.23

Table 4. Comparison of Dare North 1 and Dare North 2
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 40 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1
Sections 2, 39 4 -1, and 4 -2
Dare North 1
Dare North 2
Impact Category
With
With
With North-
With
With
With North -
Southern
South -Side
Side
Southern
South -Side
Side
Bypass
Widening
Widening
Bypass
Widening
Widening
Length (miles)
6.15
6.13
6.15
6.15
6.14
6.14
Cost 2010 dollars
$ 226, 853, 000
$ 222, 658, 000
$ 223, 487, 000
$ 226, 743,000
$222,753,000
$223,065,000
Build Environment
Underground Storage Tanks
US 64
US 64
US 64
US 64
widened
widened
widened
widened
through
through
through
through
middle of
middle of
middle of
middle of
L S
East Lake
East Lake
L S 64
East Lake
East Lake
bypasses
bypass
by passes
East Lake;
�yith a
�yith a
East Lake;
with a
with a
Neighborhood Disturbance
preferred
substantial
substantial
preferred
substantial
substantial
by East
impact on
impact on
by East
impact on
impact on
character,
character,
character,
character,
Lake
Lake
cohesive-
cohesive-
cohesive-
cohesive-
ness, and
ness, and
ness, and
ness, and
heritage of
heritage of
heritage of
heritage of
community
community
community
community
Likely Environmental Justice
(Disproportionately High and
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Adverse Impacts)
Lindsay C.
Lindsay C.
Lindsay C.
Lindsay C.
Lindsay C.
Lindsay C.
Historic Resource Affected
Warren
Warren
Warren
Warren
Warren
Warren
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
Bridge
I — finding
6 — finding
13 — finding
I — finding
6 — finding
13 — finding
affordable
affordable
affordable
affordable
affordable
affordable
replacement
replacement
replacement
replacement
replacement
replacement
Residence
housing in
housing in
housing in
housing in
housing in
housing in
the
the
the
the
the
the
community
community
community
community
community
community
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
difficult
1—
1-
oreplacement
replacement
building not
building not
Business
likely
likely
available in
available in
community
community
Church
Cemetery
3 sheds; 4
3 sheds; 4
abandoned
abandoned
Other
structures; I
structures; I
garage; I
garage; I
cell toyer
cell toyer
Managed Resources
Alligator River Gameland
acres
Great Dismal Swamp Wetland
Mitigation Bank Phase I
acres
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 40 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

Table 4 (concluded). Comparison of Dare North 1 and Dare North 2
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 41 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1
Sections 2, 39 4 -1, and 4 -2
Dare North 1
Dare North 2
Impact Category
With
With
With North-
With
With
With North -
Southern
South -Side
Side
Southern
South -Side
Side
Bypass
Widening
Widening
Bypass
Widening
Widening
J. Morgan Futch Gameland
acres
Palmetto - Peartree Preserve
acres
Alligator River National
Wildlife Refuge acres
15.88
11.08
8.11
897
5.47
2.08
Significant Natural Heritage
Areas
Alligator Creek /Second Creek
SNv,tmp Forest acres
22.29
22.29
22.29
22.29
22.29
22.29
Scuppernong River SNvamp
Forest acres
Alligator River SNvamp Forest
9.84
2.32
0.37
7.12
0.00
0.00
acres
Marhoes Pocosin acres
Roanoke /Stumpy Point
Marshes and Pocosin acres
Alligator River /South Lake
SNv,tmp Forest acres
Natural Environment
Prime Farmland acres
Soils Impacts acres
81.60
71.45
68.82
8098
69.13
68.55
Plant Communities acres
74.53
59.51
58.47
74.72
59.56
59.17
Canal Relocation linear feet
880.00
3,900.00
220.00
880.00
3,900.00
0.00
RCW Foraging Habitat acres
7.43
7.43
7.43
7.43
7.43
7.43
Essential Fish Habitat acres
74.63
73.78
58.00
55.77
56.25
48.22
CAMA Resources acres
41.58
45.46
44.78
38.04
38.86
43.14
Coastal Wetlands acres
5.69
6.11
0.60
3.26
2.74
0.34
Jurisdictional Wetlands acres
47.76
40.05
27.33
48.73
42.73
32.37
24.33 acres
of ARNWR
reconnected
At its
to rest of
eastern end,
ARNWR.
would
separate
At its
24.33 acres
24.33 acres
6.69 acres of
eastern end,
of ARNWR
of ARNWR
the
would
reconnected
reconnected
Other Natural Resource
ARNWR
separate
to rest of
to rest of
from the
6.69 acres of
ARNWR.
ARNWR.
larger
the
balance of
ARNWR
the
from the
ARNWR.
larger
balance of
the
ARNWR.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 41 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

remaining alternatives in the East Lake area. Any of these three remaining alternatives
in Subsection 4 -2 in the East Lake area can connect to the two Subsection 4 -3 widening
alternatives. Thus, Table 4. compares the impacts of six potential combinations in
Sections 2, 3, 4 -1, and 4 -2. Table 5 also makes the comparison with the inclusion of the
same blue highlighting as Table 3.
All of the alternative combinations in Table 4. involve replacing the Lindsey C. Warren
Bridge, which is eligible for the NRHP.
Although similar to the Dare North 1 corridor, Dare North 2 tends to have lower natural
resource impacts. These impacts include essential fish habitat, CAMA resources, coastal
wetlands, and the Alligator River Swamp Forest Significant Natural Heritage Area.
Dare North 2 would, however, affect 1 to 5 more acres of jurisdictional wetlands. Dare
North 2 would impact less acreage of the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
(ARNWR). Also, NCDOT has examined the geometry of the Dare North 2 alignment
and has concluded that the ARNWR impact can be reduced for Dare North 2, since as
currently designed, it clips the corner of ARNWR at the Alligator River shoreline and
yet another corner with the Southern Bypass just after the bypass first crosses existing
US 64. In addition, with the existing road right -of -way habitat restored, Dare North 2
would remove habitat fragmentation created by the existing NC 64, which separates
24.33 acres of ARNWR from the balance of ARNWR. Dare North 2 also would place the
new bridge farther from designated Outstanding Resource Waters.
Dare North 1 and Dare North 2 are similar in length and cost. Their community impacts
are the same. However, they vary substantially depending on the corridor used through
East Lake, as discussed in the next section.
Viewed as a whole with impacts in Sections 2, 3, 4 -1, and 4 -2, NCDOT prefers Dare
North 2 because of its generally lower impacts to essential fish habitat, CAMA resources,
coastal wetlands, and the Alligator River Swamp Forest Significant Natural Heritage
Area, as well as the reduction in ARNWR fragmentation. This preference would
eliminate EL 1 to EL6, and leave EL 7 to EL 12 remaining.
For LEDPA, NCDOT would, as part of the LEDPA "best fit" design, shift the alignment
slightly northward to avoid impacting ARNWR lands.
6.3 Consideration of How the Project should Pass Through
or Around East Lake (Southern Bypass, South -Side
Widening, and North -Side Widening)
Dare North 2 connects to one of three remaining alternatives in the East Lake area:
North -Side Widening, South -Side Widening, or Southern Bypass. Table 4. and Table 5
also present the impacts of those three alternatives. Any of these three alternatives can
connect to the two Subsection 4 -3 widening alternatives. The relocation counts included
in the table reflect a new survey of land use in East Lake and a revised relocation count.
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 42 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

Table 5. Highlighted Comparison of Dare North 1 and Dare North 2
1
Least Greatest
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 43 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1
Cost (M)
Neighborhood
Disturbance
T
Likely Environmental
•E
Justice Impacts
F
(Disproportionately High
0
0
and Adverse)
U
Relocations
Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge (acres)
Alligator River Swamp Forest
(acres)
Canal Relocation (linear
feet)
CAMA Resources
(acres)
Coastal Wetlands
v
U
(acres)
Jurisdictional Wetlands
0
v
Ma
(acres)
z
z
Other Natural Resource
Impacts
1
Least Greatest
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 43 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

The primary difference between these alternatives is that the North -Side Widening and
South -Side Widening would cause notable community impacts to East Lake. East Lake
meets the qualifications for an environmental justice community on the basis of low
income, which contributes to the significance of these impacts.
The North -Side Widening alternatives (EL 11 and 12) would have the greatest
neighborhood disturbance impacts for residents of East Lake. Thirteen homes would be
relocated. The small size of the East Lake community means that relocation of 13 homes
would have a substantial impact on the character, cohesiveness, and heritage of the
neighborhood. This concern is reflected in the DEIS comments from residents, including
a resolution from the East Lake Community Association. Relocation of residents to
homes within the community will be difficult because the community is small. Decent,
safe, and sanitary housing relocation housing is available, but only in other
communities, such as Columbia. The relocation reports prepared by NCDOT's right -of-
way branch and presented in Appendix C of the DEIS indicate that although descent,
safe, and sanitary housing is available, residents may have trouble finding housing
within their financial means. Housing of last resort will need to be considered as
mandated by law. Housing of last resort may involve the use of replacement housing
payments that exceed the maximum amounts specified in URA. Housing of last resort
also may involve the use of other methods of providing comparable decent, safe, and
sanitary housing within a person's financial means.
Although NCDOT cannot acquire it, if displaced residents wish to move mobile homes
or build new homes in the community, vacant land for development exists in East Lake,
but has notable limitations. About 76 acres of private, undeveloped, non - wetland land
exists in the East Lake area, within 51 parcels. None of this land is readily
"developable," however, as they do not contain soils classified as suitable for
development by Dare County based on their septic performance. Suitable fill could be
brought in from elsewhere to "repair" land and make them suitable for development. A
self - contained wastewater treatment system also might be used to make a lot
developable. In addition, only approximately 65 acres, within 21 parcels meet the size
required for development by Dare County (20,000 square feet, or about half an acre).
The 21 parcels are owned by 13 parties. Forty -five acres of the 65 acres are owned by
just two parties (one private citizen and one bank). For relocatees to buy land to build a
new home or park a mobile home, a willing seller is required. Buying property and
building a new home would require a substantial effort on the part the relocatee. Given
the findings on the availability of existing housing and the low number of parcels and
uncertainty of the uncertain willingness of the small number of owners to sell or
subdivide parcels for new homes, it appears there are no easy or affordable relocation
opportunities for East Lake relocatees, either within the community or in nearby
communities.
In Subsection 4 -2, the South -Side Widening alternatives (EL 9 and EL 10) would have
less neighborhood disturbance impacts for the residents of East Lake, with six
relocations instead of 13. While less than would occur with the North -Side Widening,
these six relocations would still represents approximately 10 percent of homes in the
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 44 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

community and a substantial impact would still be inflicted on the character,
cohesiveness, and heritage of the neighborhood. Relocation would remain difficult for
the same reasons presented in the previous paragraph. Concerns about this alternative
are also reflected in the DEIS comments from residents, including a resolution from the
East Lake Community Association.
The East Lake community has indicated in a community resolution and in citizen
comments a preference for the Southern Bypass and has indicated that neither the
North -Side nor South -Side Widening Alternatives would be acceptable in Subsection
4 -2.
From the perspective of Environmental Justice, alternatives including either North -Side
Widening or South -Side Widening would likely cause a disproportionately high and
adverse impact on this low- income Environmental Justice population (see Table 4. ).
Both alternatives would substantially impact the community. The reason the burden of
adverse impacts will be borne disproportionately by the East Lake community is
because the primary beneficiaries of the project, as reflected in the Statement of Purpose
and Need, will not be the residents of the East Lake community, but motorists traveling
to and from the Outer Banks and persons evacuating the Outer Banks in the event of a
hurricane or other severe event. However, the Southern Bypass would not pass through
the middle of the community and would reduce relocations in the East Lake community.
As stated above, one residence and one business relocation would result from this
alignment.
The Southern Bypass alternative was requested by and is still supported by the
community. Because it would not pass through the community and avoids relocations,
this alternative would not create a disproportionate impact on the East Lake community.
NCDOT believes that a minor adjustment in the Southern Bypass alignment could
eliminate the business relocation and avoid impact to a small corner of ARNWR lands
without making notable changes to natural resource impacts. Thus, from the
perspective of avoiding community impacts, the Southern Bypass is preferred by
NCDOT.
From the perspective of natural resource and managed land impacts, the Southern
Bypass tends to have the greater impact. This is not surprising since the bypass would
be built on a new alignment. The biggest differences from the perspective of regulated
resources are in wetlands (48.73 acres versus 42.73 or 32.37 acres), coastal wetlands (3.26
acres versus 2.74 or 0.34 acres), and essential fish habitat (55.77 acres versus 56.25 or
48.22 acres). The Southern Bypass would affect the least CAMA resources at 38.04 acres
versus 38.86 or 43.14 acres).
The Southern Bypass would affect 8.97 acres of ARNWR, versus 5.47 or 2.08 acres.
However, with a minor adjustment in this alignment in two locations, the Southern
Bypass would affect 5.23 acres instead of 8.97 acres. An adjustment near the Alligator
River would reduce the other two corridors to 3.78 and 0.66 acres. At its eastern end, the
Southern Bypass would separate approximately 6.7 acres of the ARNWR from the larger
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 45 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

balance of the ARNWR, although the use of Dare North 2 reconnects approximately 24.3
acres of currently fragmented habitat.
The Southern Bypass would affect 7.12 acres of Alligator River Swamp Forest Significant
Natural Heritage Area versus no impact for the other two alternatives. With the minor
adjustment in this alignment to reduce ARNWR use, the impact to this National
Heritage Area would drop.
The North -Side Widening would generally have the least natural resource impact.
Given the severity of the community impacts from the perspectives of location,
numbers, difficulty of relocation within the community, public opinion, and
Environmental Justice, and despite its often - higher impacts from a natural resource
perspective, the Southern Bypass is NCDOT's preferred alternative and the
recommended LEDPA. This selection eliminates EL 9 to EL 12 and leaves East Lake
Alternatives 7 and 8 remaining.
6.4 Consideration of the East End of the East Lake
Alternatives (Subsection 4-3)
The two alternatives for this section (Dare North -Side Widening and Dare South -Side
Widening) are compared in Table 6 and Table 7. Taking Subsection 4 -3 in isolation,
North -Side Widening would have the least impact on ARNWR and natural resources,
with only one exception (Alligator River /South Lake Swamp Forest). Were this the only
perspective, North -Side Widening might be considered the LEDPA. However, in the
next subsection to the east (Subsection 5 -1), a North - Side - Widening would cause severe
impact on cultural resources and East Lake community facilities (see Table 8). In
Subsection 5 -1, widening to the north would cause the relocation of two churches (one of
which is eligible for the NRHP and if relocated would be separated from its cemetery),
the East Lake community center, and a Forest Service fire tower (determined eligible for
the NRHP).
As with the North -Side and South -Side Widening in Section 4, these impacts would
cause notable community disruption with the loss of its three community gathering
locations and, if relocated, the separation of a historic church from its cemetery where
generations of past congregation members are buried. Under Environmental Justice,
these impacts represent a likely disproportionately high and adverse impact. One of the
greatest outcries heard from the East Lake community during public comment was the
relocation of graves. Relocation of community facilities, as in Section 4, would be
difficult. Options for relocation of these facilities will be discussed at the third meeting.
Today, NCDOT's preference is that although the North -Side Widening would have the
least impact in Subsection 4 -3, the South -Side Widening should be selected as part of the
LEDPA. At the third LEDPA meeting, a decision will be discussed for North - or South -
Side Widening in the adjoining Subsection 5 -1. NCDOT also currently prefers a South -
Side Widening in Subsection 5 -1 to avoid displacing East Lake community resources and
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 46 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

Table 6. Comparison of Dare South -Side Widening, and Dare North -Side
Widening (Subsection 4 -3)
Impact Category
Subsection 4 -3
Dare South -Side
Widening
Dare North -Side Widening
Length miles
0.61
0.61
Cost 2010 dollars
$6,437,000
$5,498,000
Build Environment
Underground Storage Tanks
Neighborhood Disturbance
Low
Low in Subsection 4 -3
(North -Side Widening in Subsection 5 -1
would displace important community
resources that would be difficult to relocate
nearby.
Likely Environmental Justice (Disproportionately
High and Adverse)
No
No in Subsection 4 -3
(Neighborhood disturbance caused by
North -Side Widening in Subsection 5 -1
would lead to likely disproportionately high
and adverse im acts on EJ community.
Historic Resource Affected
None in Subsection 4 -3
(In Subsection 5 -1: East Lake Methodist
Church and Fire Tower
Residence
Business
o
Church
None in Subsection 4 -3
In Subsection 5 -1: 2 One is NRHP eligible))
v
o
Cemetery
Other
None in 4 -3
(In Subsection 5 -1: 1 NRHP eligible Fire
TOwer,1 community center
Managed Resources
Alligator River Gameland acres
Great Dismal Swamp Wetland Mitigation Bank Phase
I acres
J. Morgan Futch Gameland acres
Palmetto - Peartree Preserve acres
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge acres
14.44
10.33
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
Alligator Creek /Second Creek SNvtmp Forest acres
Scuppernong River Swamp Forest acres
Alligator River Swamp Forest acres
Mashoes Pocosin acres
Roanoke /Stum v Point Marshes and Pocosin acres
Alligator River /South Lake Swamp Forest acres
0.10
4.06
Natural Environment
Prime Farmland acres
Soils Impacts acres
16.20
11.62
Plant Communities acres
14.51
10.36
Canal Relocation linear feet
3,235.00
RCW Foraging Habitat acres
Essential Fish Habitat acres
14.71
8.13
CAMA Resources acres
Coastal Wetlands acres
Jurisdictional Wetlands acres
13.04
6.91
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 47 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

Table 7, Highlighted Comparison of Dare South -Side
Widening, and Dare North -Side Widening (Subsection 4 -3)
Cost (M)
Neighborhood Disturbance
Likely Environmental Justice
Impacts (Disproportionately
High and Adverse)
Relocations
Alligator River NafionalWldlife Refuge
(acres)
Alligator River /Soufh Lake Swamp Forest
(acres)
Natural Canal Relocation (linearfeef)
Resources Jurisdictional Wetlands (acres)
MM
Least Greatest
Table 8. Highlighted Comparison of Dare South -Side
Widening, and Dare North -Side Widening (Subsection 4 -3):
(Accounting for Subsection 5 -1)
ss
Cost (Ni)
Neighborhood Disturbance
t
Likely Environmental Justice
o
Impacts (Disproportionately
High and Adverse)
Relocations
Alligator River Nafional Wildlife Refuge
(acres)
Alligator River /South Lake Sw amp Forest
(acres)
Natural
Canal Relocation (linear feet)
Resources
JurisdicfionalWetlands(acres)
ss

avoid causing a substantial impact to the community. If NCDOT's current preferences
are ultimately a part of the LEDPA, such a decision would eliminate East Lake
Alternative 8 (EL 8), thereby leaving East Lake Alternative 7 (EL 7) as the LEDPA in the
East Lake area.
7.0 NCDOT Preferred Alternative
NCDOT recommends that East Lake 7 (EL7) be identified as the LEDPA in these sections
as an outcome of this meeting. EL7 includes:
• Section 2: Tyrrell North 2 (median width yet to be decided)
• Section 3: Dare North 2 (with a commitment to adjust to a best -fit alignment to
avoid ARNWR impacts in Subsection 4 -1, minimize ARNWR impacts at the western
end of Subsection 4 -2), and eliminate the business relocation while seeking to avoid
increases in other potential impacts.
• Section 4:
- Subsection 4 -1: connector between Dare North 2 and Dare Southern Bypass
- Subsection 4 -2: Dare Southern Bypass
- Subsection 4 -3: South -Side Widening (subject to reconsideration if appropriate
during consideration of adjoining Subsection 5 -1 at the third meeting)
US 64 Improvements Project (R- 2544/5) 49 Concurrence Point 3 Packet 1

ADDendix A
Figures from DEIS and NRTR

US 61 Improvements Project
ElwirollmeflW IM PM Sbtemellt
County, TYRRELLI DARE COUNTIES
NCDOT Div, 1
TIP Nos.: R2544 &R2545
WBS; 35481
Tyrrell County
Built Environment and Managed Resources
NORTH CRROLINR DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS BRANCH
Figure S4

US 61 Improvements Project
ElwirollmeflW IM act Sbtemellt
County, TYRRELLI DARE COUNTIES
NCDOT Div, 1
TIP Nos.: R2544 &R2545
WBS; 35481
Dare County
p
Duet Environment and Managed Resources
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGGYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS BRANCH
Figure S•5

US 61 Improvements Project
E114011MM31 X111 act Statement
County, TYRR Ell I DARE COUNTIES
NC DOT Div, 1
TIP Nos,; R2544 & R2545
WBS; 35481
Detailed Study Bridge Replacement Corridors
Sections 2, 3, and 4
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
� = DIVISION Of HIGHWAYS
TM,. PROJECT DEVEL OPM ENT AND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSISBRANCH
Figure 2.14

US 64 Improvements Project County: TYRRELLI DARE COUNTIES Detailed Study Bridge Replacement Corridors
Environmental Ini act Statement NCDOT Div: 1
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TIP Nos.: R2544 & R2545 Sections 2 and 3 - Tyrrell County
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS WBS: 35487
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH Figure 2-15

US 61 Improvements Project
E114011MM31 X111 act Statement
County, TYRRE111 DARE COUNTIES
NCDOT Div, 1
TIP Nos,; R2544 &R2545
WBS; 35481
I
Detailed Study Bridge Replacement Corridors
Sections 3 and 4, Dare County
i NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
a DIVISION Of HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPM ENT AND ENVIROHMENTALANALYSIS BRANCH
Figure 2.16

US 61 Improvements Project
E114011MM31 X111 act Statement
County, TYRRE111 DARE COUNTIES
NCDOT Div, 1
TIP Nos,; R2544 &R2545
WBS; 35481
I
Dare North 1 and Dare North 2 Connector Alignments
Dare County
r, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OFHIOHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPM ENT AND ENVIROHMENTALANALYSIS BRANCH
Figure 2.17

East Lake Alternative 3 Corridor
Tel
le000
East Lake Alternative 4 Corridor
V e000
East Lake Alternative 5 Corridor
V(e000
East Lake Alternative 6 Corridor
Vrell� °ltd ul�u�N���tt«�iiii��t������� ...
East Lake Alternative 7 Corridor
East Lake Alternative 8 Corridor
vo�olth i.... '.'
East Lake Alternative 9 Corridor
llell� °ltd
„r
East Lake Alternative 10 Corridor
((6�o�th
East Lake Alternative 11 Corridor
Jp ellpth
East Lake Alternative 12 Corridor
�olth me INoiti
sEoo�
East Lake Alternative 13 Corridor
re
lm wlmuNOgh 2 ran h �
°
opther
h �
Bypafs areSo
North 2h
�t �0nneotor ,
�t
u .
re5o
4�hPrhA
�
o4b
�'Si
ehrn_ ae
�areN
W� °r�hs
ehln„ ode
US 61 Improvements Project
Eflvll'Oflmefll3l h act S13temeni
County, TYRRELLI DARE COUNTIES
NCDOT Div, 1
TIP Nos,; R2544 & R2545
WBS; 35481
East Lake Alternatives
Sections 2, 3 and 4
NORTH CRROLINR DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
�R PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS BRANCH
Figure 2.18

," " I % °V r „f p1'Bil'Iih
ar; , i T '� 3.�
r,,. �ypi
� r I ,/ "I
Y,... / ti r \)� /rr ri ✓i� n ,� / / /i� /iii./ j/ /i /ii /i �,
pia " \��, ✓,✓ � � � t /�% %�f/ � r %� i� / % % %� %�6 / %r /' %, //� // r�r � Q�
� 1 � i\ � � l / >'� ' I dill , 'r �i
;�,y;,� 1 � l I� %irl! (� _ 1�4I \ ✓ � %�q� � l : � ,'.�; , ..:: ,��/ �j� %�ji�:/ / /li �i/ /i
fh5 r� ,✓r� / tf✓rti�;,,,d, ' \ i � �fr� -,r i ����ii %/ /// //i j/� � //�
I I i " % �'���i //i /!✓ � /iii / �i � / h 9
I /
uuddddddVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV 1% i t i,/ v c
/ v
r
r �" ✓ ,, i ' ,�, /
�„ � % r✓ /
,(, ,.; a ;
it „�
r ✓ l l r sl 't� , -�', „ ��
{ Fir <:4 /r, r.., y1 1 /. /� , ��,, ,,;,1 ,,,('i /✓ I fr rr; ,� r:'�I '� ,,, � a� i �� / %/� ,. ;'
:
✓, , � ,� � � 1, /rf/ l � i l r a /, ,,, r, /. // "
l �w Gry 1�,,, ,��Y ,T r / r�\ ✓, r � �! // l rlY l � „ % / / %��i /��
/ {,4..i✓ \ S J'.
l�. - l
� /r,� ;� � ��, ✓ / �, /�� � / � � �/; r I l i /�/ /� / Project;
✓ �� �✓ /I rfVill r�6 ��/' !�/ � � , / �- �,.� � , }'. �,a� / � i;.,; I i 'P l r � � r,l , ';'.Il I I,,� it % /� /' �/ ,
,)/./ � / / li �1'r� . - ,, ✓'�r�� .l� Iv �✓ / ,� ��� /: � ✓ �. � �;I ,k' ��- ', � '�..; f r. ` � I IVg l r , ! i i�ri��i ,�r /% .
\,`:, l r � v ✓ /. r ;,l ^, ,�r,r' , , �1, �r ,' � r r � I ;I f I I �l %� / � / ,;, „; -' ,
��
r
✓r /�� +; I;4 %� wf ✓ l i r ✓ �1��� �I1 �� l US 64
Y tY I t , "d �i'� i ��Ir,� `I I ��rr /��/ �� rde�M���
i , / �j/P{/■{�
,..Y V r r✓ /,.., �, 1 ;�,.� �" / ' r r �j'' ��� f I� I,l(i �i //j� // %I„ , r )�a�I, ,r.,, EX PA
� ;. t'�/� / Ijh� 1 ✓ �,r'n � �/ �/ ✓ � �IOVNI19ip ��
, V l� �� '. l l r �� �� l ��. ✓% l l, r r r IJ �� I ,,i � ���//��j U � 1
l a � ✓ l i, r�
r �
��; , ✓ �'j l !% i �I l / /`''`��' AREA
', � °�. ^7� / l� ✓:�l � ��i l r lSl / �� i �/ ' I � 'III` f F °�����'y l �
r� � � ✓ / Il / / � l I � l r r vlir�l %/� lJi �I � '� I�I
y 'y � ✓/ ✓/ /� � �', � � �',�l � �/ /. � I I v, 4%�'� li rl�,il I l s. I l w
�r '. Y: , ��f /. ✓.. / r ✓ ,✓ , rrl l�� I� , „Y ;, Y., Y';� 1��XY�.4��Y`..K�!
tt'`I��' "f �/�v;t I � ��' i1, ,+l ,�,✓ � / �
TYRRELL
51, �'� � / � / / I I � I a �, r � � f J�' C��}vCI� t�� "` �d Y� v
I
�lr� �� �,,�� �t �'rr� ✓, ��r /xrb AND DARE
art; /b l � ,�+ �:',r, ,I ,,, � � ?�,:. y'`!r lLwlY u,jC, r ✓Yw � Y ,V f- i l �, l ,..0 � I r �� ��� /�, v ��
COUNTIES
v
".wfv'�`�v 4 .:..�, "�,� ����r'� / ✓...� J � "/� ,r.��� "� lri � �� ', r, k �I II ��;
� ^':.,'vri `;�ha"ts; ,r v M� 'i,v .a �i,r'r. ✓ 1 •�,r1�:' �. v4 •r Y' �.�d���a ,� I rl, , �r� �' ; �ti rr ��I �� I ! -� , �.; I r I("� �j� /,
°a�" �” f � „/ p s✓ ,� , ��.1'� w "!'�! wY1`wir�y -'P i r � r, I i , r` , � � I ����i ��� %� ,�
r /r� h'. �'I,I.✓ %✓ �P''. air' r� {' ill ;!'I I rI! �, �i/
p
r
Expandedkea
r,r
IMainagedirs Y r
SIGNIFICANT INATDHAII. HIE,Iitl AGIEE AREAS
Terrestrial Communities �y
Pond Pine Woodland %X
y ® Nonriverine Swamp Forest
Ni Wet Hardwood Forest
Pine flat
Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Mainfainedldisfurbedland �I
Agricultural land`s
Shrubland
i
Open waferr�
Impervious surface
x
„ �; x �/
� rl
M�
/ ( YY\�{ t, / � 7° f /1 ✓� / 0 �' I'/ r'✓ %' I h/I�/ % /rill / / �/ i�
I �� l l,, �,� � �. / � a/ � fr r l r � flj / /�✓ f v 3 /// /r r a
"dl�
Note; Data sources include: Project study area (EcoScience) and 2005 aerial photography (NAIP)
%VYr
Noah Carolina
itle:
TERRESTRIAL
COMMUNITIES
Dwn By. Ckd By:
ES APS
Date. Scale.
FEB 2008 1:27,000
ESC Protect No.,
N 01335
1 inch equals 2,250 feet FIGURE
2,000 1,000 0 2,000
3 A
Feetr „/, it

Expandedkea
IManaged keas
SI INIIli�lICAtg'>r INA'1'UI li„ Hlil,litlTACIi:.AIitEAS
Terrestrial Communities
Pond Pine Woodland
Nonriverine Swamp Forest
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
Pine flat
Tidal Freshwater Marsh
Maintainedldisturbedland
Agricultural land
Rrubland
Open water
Impervious surface
E
y
\
Ai y
N;
� A
C \
yAX %3 M1f�,�y
yvvw y/
4
,1, 1,
Note; Data sources include: Project study area (EcoScience) and 2005 aerial photography (NAIP)
/
EooSc om Co oration
Ralei Nod Carolina
Client:
1
��l ,yyy
yy l ylX
/y yyyy
Xl !
US 64
!' y
v
EXPANDED
v),, A , V
y v AREA
y
y !%�
;yy\ \ � y� TYRRELL
yy y!y;,lXy' AND DARE
!il COUNTIES
Noah Carolina
itle:
TERRESTRIAL
COMMUNITIES
\1
Dwn By, Ckd By:
\ 3 5
ES APS
� Y
Date. Scale:
' FEB 2008
y ,\ 1:21,000
�\ ESC Project No.,
ro
07
y
FIGURE
x
100 1,000 0 2,000 '
Feet

M
P
l a f011,kz�z
7, k
Pena "m r
fUN46
FUN13
Notes;
1. Data sources include; Expanded Project Studykea (NCDOT, EcoScience�, Section 4N Jurisdictional Open Waters (EcoSciencv�, Section
4N Jurisdictional Wetlands (EcoScience�, and 2006 aerial photography provided by the National Agriculture Imagery Program (USDA,
2. Al the request of the NCDOT, the shoreline of the Alligator River has been digitized from 2007 aerial photography provided by the NCDOT and
supplemented With 2006 aerial photography provided by the National Agriculture Imagery Program (USDA,
3. Section 4N Jurisdictional Wetlands and Open Waters Within the Original Project Studykea adjacent to the Expanded Project StudyArea are
depicted in order to display continuity.
4 Functional assessment results for Wetlands Within the expanded project study area are provided in Table 4 of the Natural Resources Technical
Report Addendum,
Legend
Expanded Project Studykea
Original project study area
Section 404 Jurisdictional Open Waters
Mon 404JaisdictionalWetlad
k g
FUN13
h sir
�rP�rn�FUN14
FUN15
FUN16
FUN17
FUN19
FUN20
FUN21
W n m l
FUN24
u
FUN25
116
r
FUN32
1 �7
rw FUN40
FUN46
�FUN51
FUN52
FUN53
■
P,
0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1
Miles
i
Client;
Project,
DE�IDRiMDq�
a
US 64
Jurisdictional
Delineations
Tyrrell and Dare Counties,
North Carolina
Title;
Section 404
Jurisdictional
Areas by
Wetland
Functional
Assessment Area
Dare County
DWn By- Ckd k
SGD APS
Date; Scale;
MAR 2008 1 111 =1800'
ESC Project No
FIGURE
5B
pp`'��/I,fUN24
�� �n�2 ` 8 ( �.�M✓ lttd It YW(C
„wt
w.
gym& A
FUN13
Notes;
1. Data sources include; Expanded Project Studykea (NCDOT, EcoScience�, Section 4N Jurisdictional Open Waters (EcoSciencv�, Section
4N Jurisdictional Wetlands (EcoScience�, and 2006 aerial photography provided by the National Agriculture Imagery Program (USDA,
2. Al the request of the NCDOT, the shoreline of the Alligator River has been digitized from 2007 aerial photography provided by the NCDOT and
supplemented With 2006 aerial photography provided by the National Agriculture Imagery Program (USDA,
3. Section 4N Jurisdictional Wetlands and Open Waters Within the Original Project Studykea adjacent to the Expanded Project StudyArea are
depicted in order to display continuity.
4 Functional assessment results for Wetlands Within the expanded project study area are provided in Table 4 of the Natural Resources Technical
Report Addendum,
Legend
Expanded Project Studykea
Original project study area
Section 404 Jurisdictional Open Waters
Mon 404JaisdictionalWetlad
k g
FUN13
h sir
�rP�rn�FUN14
FUN15
FUN16
FUN17
FUN19
FUN20
FUN21
W n m l
FUN24
u
FUN25
116
r
FUN32
1 �7
rw FUN40
FUN46
�FUN51
FUN52
FUN53
■
P,
0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1
Miles
i
Client;
Project,
DE�IDRiMDq�
a
US 64
Jurisdictional
Delineations
Tyrrell and Dare Counties,
North Carolina
Title;
Section 404
Jurisdictional
Areas by
Wetland
Functional
Assessment Area
Dare County
DWn By- Ckd k
SGD APS
Date; Scale;
MAR 2008 1 111 =1800'
ESC Project No
FIGURE
5B

US 61 Improvements Project
Elliollmelllal h act Slatemellt
County, TYRRELLI DARE COUNTIES
NCDOT Div, 1
TIP Nos.: R2544 &R2545
WBS; 35481
Date; December 2009
Concurrence Point 2A Bridge Corridors
November 2009
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
F, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS BRANCH
Fig ure 7.6
9

Appendix B
DEIS Comments

BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
Memo To
From:
Subj ect:
a STA'Z4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
October 5, 2012
Post Hearing Meeting Attendees
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
Project 6.049002T (R -2544 & R -2545) Tyrrell and Dare Counties
US 64 Improvements Proj ect
From 0.9 mile East of Columbia to US 264 near Maims Harbor
Post Hearing Meeting Minutes
Two Public Hearings were held on April 23 and 24, 2012. The format of both meetings included
an informal pre- hearing open house, from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., and a formal presentation
followed by public testimony from 7:00 p.m. until testimony was completed. The April 23
meeting was held at the Columbia High School auditorium, and the April 24 meeting was at the
East Lake Community Center. The meeting in Columbia was attended by 39 members of the
public, and the East Lake meeting was attended by 56 members of the public.
The following people met on September 12, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. in the Hydraulics conference
room to discuss the Public Hearing comments:
Mr. Gary Lovering
NCDOT
— Roadway Design Unit
Ms. Susan Lancaster
NCDOT
— Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Glenn Mumford
NCDOT
— Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Jay Bennett
NCDOT
— Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Ted Devens
NCDOT
—PDEA
Mr. Rob Hanson
NCDOT
— PDEA
Mr. Hardee Cox
NCDOT
— STIP Unit
Mr. Behshad Norowzi
NCDOT
— TPB
Mr. Tom Bacon
NCDOT
— TPMU
Mr. Jamille Robbins
NCDOT
—11EU
Mr. Herman Huang
NCDOT
—11EU
Mr. Steve Cummings
NCDOT
— Utilities
Mr. Randy Henegar
NCDOT
— Hydraulics
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE: [phone]
LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FAX [phone]
CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT
BUILDING A
1582 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
WEBSITE: WWW NCDOT.ORG /DOH
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1582
RALEIGH NC
B -1

Page 2
Attendees
October 5, 2012
Mr. Chandrakant Sura
Mr. Jerry Jennings (teleconference)
Mr. Bill Biddlecome
Mr. John Page
Mr. Bill Rice
Mr. Eric Misak
Executive Summary
NCDOT — Congestion Management
NCDOT —Division 1
USACE — Washington Field Office
PB
PB
PB
Improvements to US 64 are proposed to meet the following primary needs: 1) improvement to
hurricane evacuation clearance times; 2) compliance with the North Carolina ,Strategic Highway
Corridor Plan; and 3) replacement of the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge over the Alligator River.
The proposed project is the widening of the 273-mile section of US 64 in Tyrrell and Dare
counties from 0.9 mile east of Columbia to US 264 near Manns Harbor. The project proposes to
widen this section of two -lane road to a four -lane highway and replace the Lindsay C. Warren
Bridge across the Alligator River with a new bridge. Fifteen study corridors and three bridge
alternatives have been evaluated, as well as the No -Build Alternative and No Action Alternative.
Every build alternative contains a four -lane, median divided highway.
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with city and county officials and local citizens to address
concerns about overall impacts caused by the project. NCDOT will continue efforts to analyze
and select alternatives that minimize impacts to communities, including home, business, and
historic site relocations, to the extent practicable. Roadways will be designed with the ability to
accommodate school bus and large thick movements in order to minimize impacts to area needs.
In addition, during final design NCDOT commits to working with the Town of Columbia and
Tyrrell County on the following: locating median breaks in locations that complement local
zoning plans; considering curb and gutter locations (with associated water treatment); and
considering sidewalk or greenway facilities within the existing extra - territorial jurisdiction (ETJ)
limits of the Town of Columbia.
Primary Public Comments and Concerns
Following is a summary of the primary comments and concerns expressed by the public at the
hearings:
• Avoid church and graveyard relocation
• Avoid relocation of homes and community resources
• Use of a median
• Access control
• Flooding and drainage
• Typical section requests from city and county officials
logo

Page 3
Attendees
October 5, 2012
Oral Comments from the Public Hearing
Rhett White, Town Manager, Town of Columbia, NC
Mr. White spoke on behalf of the Town of Columbia and its elected officials. He emphasized
that NCDOT and the town must overcome all obstacles and needs to move forward to widen this
final section of US 64 as quickly and as reasonably as possible. It is the recommendation of the
town that the divided highway begin at the east end of the Columbia extra - territorial jurisdiction
(ETJ), rather than at the Full Circle Crab Company location. Within the ETJ they would like a
five lane curb and gutter section with sidewalks. He indicated that this is an area that will
continue to develop for residential and business use, so a turning lane is needed.
Response: The project will be carried forward in the most efficient manner possible which still
allows for careful consideration of project alternatives. Funding availability also is a factor. The
ETJ for Columbia extends approximately 0.5 mile from the western project limits. NCDOT
recognizes that a road design that is compatible with development plans is important. During
final design NCDOT commits to working with the Town of Columbia on the following: locating
median breaks in locations that complement local zoning plans; considering curb and gutter
locations (with associated water treatment); and considering sidewalk or greenway facilities
within the existing extra - territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) limits of the Town of Columbia.
Jeff Swain, 1479 Hwy 64 E, Columbia, NC, 27316
Mr. Swain has land just east of where the four -lane section currently ends in Columbia. He said
a turning lane is needed to the end of Tyrrell County because of the growth of Columbia. He
stated that Mr. Rhett White said most of what he wanted to say.
Response: See response to Mr. White's comments. While the addition of a median in the
proposed superstreet design limits the ability of vehicles to complete a left turn except in
designated locations, NCDOT asserts that this safety improvement will not prevent customers or
associated vehicles from accessing any businesses along the corridor.
Heidi Leo, 19421 Hwy 64, East Lake, NC, 27953
Ms. Leo is an owner of East Lake Heavy Equipment Painting located at 19421 and 19557 US 64.
They have a 300 - foot -tall cell tower on the property at 19421 US 64, and she does not believe
that it was on the maps or was erected at the time surveys were done. They have a lot of
lowboys and big tricks that come in and out of their shop on a continuous basis. They would
like to see something where the tricks can come in and out without an issue. The Northern
Bypass would not affect them. The Southern Bypass would displace the business and the cell
tower.
Response: Relocations will be updated prior to LEDPA decisions and will be reported in the
FEIS. All new alignments have been designed and engineered to accommodate the turning radii
of tractor - trailer tricks.
Loom

Page 4
Attendees
October 5, 2012
Ricky Basni�4ht, East Lake, NC
Mr. Basnight would like US 64 moved to the south side to minimize home and church
displacement. He stated that there is a lot of heritage for some of the people that went to school
in East Lake years ago.
Rosemarie Doshier_ East Lake_ NC
Ms. Doshier is Chair of the East Lake Community Center. She indicated that the East Lake
community sent a resolution to NCDOT and various resource agencies and public officials
stating that the community favors the Southern Bypass. She specifically mentioned EL 5 and
EL 6. The Northern Bypass (EL 13) also would be acceptable. She said the community does not
see the need for the four lane highway through their area, but if the project proceeds then an
alternative should be implemented that has the least impact on their rural community. She said
that a Southern Bypass is the only option that the community sees as reasonable without running
up the cost of the project, such as with the Northern Bypass. (A later verbal conversation verified
that Ms. Doshier strongly recommends a south -side widening in section 5 -1, away from
community churches, graveyards, a community center, and a fire tower.)
Response: These sentiments are acknowledged. NCDOT and the interagency project team
follow the NEPA process, which by law requires project officials to research, analyze, and fully
document all potential environmental impacts of project alternatives. Here, "environment" refers
to both the human environment (homes, business, community resources, etc.) and the natural
environment (wetlands, wildlife, etc.). Both the East Lake and Alligator communities are
recognized as meriting additional consideration under the Environment Justice Executive Order
12898. In selecting the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), the
Merger Team must strike a balance between accommodating the needs of both the human and
natural environment, and conclude which of the practicable alternatives causes the least
environmental damage overall. This requires careful consideration and often difficult decision -
making.
Steve Doshier_ 19880 Hwv 64_ East Lake_ NC_ 27953
Mr. Doshier feels that the only option that should be considered coming through East Lake is one
where nobody is affected; no one's business, no one's home. He also did not believe hurricane
evacuation clearance time reduction was a need. He said that anybody that has been here any
amount of time knows that the main evacuation route for the Outer Banks is north of here. He
stated that within 2 to 3 hours time, US 64 does not have any more traffic through East Lake,
none.
Michelle Perrot, 19545 Laurel Bay Ct., East Lake, NC, 27953
Ms. Perrot said if NCDOT has to widen west of Buffalo Bridge, the improvement should go
further back from US 64 so that no homes or businesses are affected. NCDOT could "come right
back to the end of the highway (inaudible), and then go across the main road and go on down the
river shore. (inaudible) the bridge built coming from the Tyrrell County side." She said she
could not understand why one would tear up a neighborhood when all that land is right there.
"All you've got to do is build the bridge."
I1J

Page 5
Attendees
October 5, 2012
Response: A four -lane, median - divided highway is necessary. The purpose and need for the
project is discussed in Section 1.0 of the DEIS. The three primary needs that this project
addresses are: 1) improvement to hurricane evacuation clearance times; 2) compliance with the
North Carolina ,Strategic Highway Corridor Plan; and 3) replacement of the Lindsay C. Warren
Bridge over the Alligator River.
Shirley Cahoon, 18749 Hwy 64, East Lake, NC, 27953
Ms. Cahoon noted that her home would be taken with the Southern Bypass. She said the county
allowed a crematory to be put next door to her property. She asked if NCDOT takes her home,
to please also take the crematory.
Response: The commenter's preference is noted.
Donald Liverman, 8585 Hwy 64 E., Columbia, NC (Alligator Community]
Mr. Liverman indicated that his property and that of his family has flooding problems, and he
believes raising the height of US 64 four feet will cause more problems. He and his family
would like to be relocated.
Response: The road improvements associated with all of the detailed study alternatives will
include carefully engineered designs that maintain existing drainage patterns to the extent
practicable. Pre- and post- stormwater runoff that might be associated with the increased
impermeable surface (pavement) or raising the height of the road will be investigated during the
design phase of the project.
Janet Russ_ Columbia_ NC
Ms. Russ asked that the project be expedited because it is needed today.
Response: The project will be carried forward in the most efficient manner possible which still
allows for careful consideration of project alternatives. Funding availability also is a factor.
Carolyn Beck, 19210 Hwy 64, East Lake, NC, 27953
Ms. Beck asked if there would be an East Lake exit when one is coming into East Lake from the
west. The answer of yes was given at the public hearing.
Response: No additional response required.
David Twiddy, 104 Weir Point Drive, Manteo, NC 27954
Mr. Twiddy said he appreciates all of the work done.
Response: No response required.

Page 6
Attendees
October 5, 2012
Warren Jude, Chair of the Dare County Commissioners
Commissioner Judge indicated that the county has a strong preference for any alternative that
does not displace or disturb homes, businesses, or community resources. As the only alternative
with no relocations, he specifically advocated for the EL 13 option (Northern Bypass) on the
Dare County side. He also noted that federal and state government bureaucracy and special
interest groups have given him a dose of reality that that route is probably not possible, but he
said that the county was not prepared to advocate an alternative other than EL 13 at this time.
Response: Minimizing impacts to East Lake will be an important factor in the selection of a
Preferred Alternative. Alternative East Lake 13 (Dare Northern Bypass) causes one residential
relocation, where the bridge would make landing in Dare County. Since the Public Hearing,
however, NCDOT has slightly refined the Southern Bypass design to avoid the single business
impact identified and relocate only one home. Thus the East Lake alternatives that utilize a
Southern Bypass (EL 5, 6, 7, and 8) also will cause only one residential relocation.
Written Comments Received at Public Hearing or During Comment Period
Comments Opposing Relocating Church and Cemetery
Diane Duvall Kind, 124 Mercer Road, Savannah, GA, 31411
Ms. King has family members buried in the East Lake Methodist Church cemetery and is
distressed about the prospect of moving the graves. She hopes NCDOT will reconsider plans to
"move these beautiful landmarks and disturb hallowed ground for the convenience of the
public."
William Pinner Armstrong, bobourbon2caol.com
Mr. Armstrong has family members buried in the East Lake Methodist Church cemetery. He is
appalled at the idea of moving the graves and finds it morally wrong.
Denise Smithwick, tdsmithwick2caol.com
Ms. Smithwick has family members buried in the East Lake Methodist Church cemetery and is
adamantly opposed to this project if it requires the moving of these gravesites. She is concerned
that her ancestors will be "dug up with big equipment and dumped somewhere."
Gaston Pinner, gsppinner c,hotmail.com
Mr. Pinner stated that he votes not to move the church or the graves.
Elaine Gregory, beachbound2cembarg mail. com
Ms. Gregory's daughter, whom she lost to breast cancer, is buried in the East Lake Methodist
Church cemetery. She expressed emotional distress at the thought of having to rebury her
daughter. She also believes that the people in this area should take precedence over the wildlife.
Loom

Page 7
Attendees
October 5, 2012
Rita Harrell, Wilmington, NC, rmharrell2ec.rr.com
Ms. Harrell stated that while she understands the need for improved hurricane evacuation, she is
very concerned about the prospect of moving the cemetery at East Lake Methodist Church or the
church itself. She hopes that NCDOT will reconsider a route that will not so negatively affect
East Lake.
Ernest Armstrong, earnster2msn.com
Mr. Armstrong expressed support for the US 64 Improvements Project. He sees it as an overdue
enhancement to the transportation needs of eastern North Carolina. He is concerned, however,
with the possibility of relocating the East Lake Methodist Church and its associated cemetery.
He supports alternatives that will avoid these relocations.
Response: NCDOT acknowledges and agrees that the relocation of churches and gravesites is
undesirable, and avoidance of relocation of these important community features is a major
consideration in the selection of a Preferred Alternative. NCDOT understands that the prospect
of relocating graves is distressing to family and communities. When relocation is deemed
absolutely necessary, NCDOT takes great care in relocating gravesites to appropriate locations.
The process is handled by specialists who will work with relatives of the deceased to identify
potential relocation sites and follow the requirements of state law.
Comments Opposing Relocating Homes and Businesses
Charlton Owens, Trustee, Barbara D. Owens Irrevocable Trust, 1391 Hwy 64 East, Columbia,
NC, 27925
Mr. Owens (as trustee for the owner of a property on the north side of US 64 near Columbia)
stated that he prefers no widening of the highway. He does not understand why the road near
Columbia would need to be widened when it already contains four lanes plus a turning lane. He
is concerned about quality of life issues that would arise with the widening, including less
privacy, more noise, and more drainage problems.
Crystal Basnight, 14540 Hwy 64, East Lake, NC, 27953
Ms. Basnight expressed a preference for the Southern Bypass through the East Lake area as a
way to preserve the homes of residents. If the Southern Bypass is not possible, she expressed a
second preference for a southern widening through the area with the churches and in Section 5
near the landfill. She feels very strongly about the need to preserve the way of life for those that
live in East Lake and noted that moving would be especially difficult for people in this
community who have "nowhere else to go and no money to be able to afford to leave." Ms.
Basnight also expressed support for the replacement of the bridge.
Ricky L. Basnight, 14540 Hwy 64, East Lake NC, 27953
Mr. Basnight expressed a preference for alternatives that preserve the most homes. In Tyrrell
County, he supports a 23 -foot median. He believes the bridge should end at the point that takes
the least amount of lived -on property. In East Lake, Mr. Basnight prefers the Southern Bypass. If
1M

Page 8
Attendees
October 5, 2012
the Southern Bypass is not possible, he prefers a southern widening, especially in Section 5 near
the landfill. He expressed support for replacing the bridge, but feels that the new road is
unnecessary. He believes that the interests of people in this area are more important than those of
animals.
Jerry Creef, 124 Swan View Dr., Kill Devil Hills, NC, 27948
Mr. Creef has no preference for the alternatives in Tyrrell County. For the bridge endpoint, he
prefers the Northern Bypass, which has the least impacts to community resources or homes.
Through the East Lake area, he prefers the Northern Bypass to avoid relocation impacts. He is
concerned about potential relocations of homes, businesses, and historic resources. His mother is
an East Lake resident and would be relocated under EL 11 and EL 12.
Response: NCDOT and the interagency project team follow the NEPA process, which by law
requires project officials to research, analyze, and fully document all potential environmental
impacts of project alternatives. Here, "environment' refers to both the human environment
(homes, businesses, community resources, etc.) and the natural environment (wetlands, wildlife,
etc.). Both the East Lake and Alligator communities are recognized as meriting additional
consideration under the Environment Justice Executive Order 12898. In selecting the LEDPA,
the Merger Team must strike a balance between accommodating the needs of both the human
and natural environment, and conclude which of the practicable alternatives causes the least
environmental damage overall. This requires careful consideration and often difficult decision -
making.
Comments Concerning the Use of a Median
Harriet and Lawrence Jones, 2238 US Hwy 64 E, Columbia, NC, 27925
These commenters prefer a south -side widening with a 23 -foot median in Tyrrell County. They
have a home and property on the north side of the road. They also stated that they would prefer
that the road style that nuns through Columbia (4 -lane road with a turning lane) be extended out
to their property; that they prefer not to have a turn - around located near their property; and that
they need access to both their commercial property and their home parcel.
Charlton Owens, PO Box 66, Columbia, NC, 27925
Mr. Owens prefers the south -side widening in Tyrrell County because his property is located on
the north side. He prefers a 23 -foot median so as to reduce wetland impacts. Mr. Owens is the
owner of an office building that was destroyed by Hurricane Irene. He plans not to rebuild until
he knows which alignment will be chosen for the US 64 project. He is concerned that the
building of a median would restrict left -hand turns onto his property, and that a northern
widening would preclude his ability to offer parking in front of the building.
Heidi Leo, East Lake Heavy Equipment Painting, 19421 Hwy 64, East Lake, NC, 27953
Ms. Leo owns a heavy equipment painting business located on US 64 in East Lake. She
expressed a preference for the Northern Bypass, as her properties are located to the south. A
oo

Page 9
Attendees
October 5, 2012
Southern Bypass would require the removal of a 300 - foot -tall cell tower currently located on her
property. She is also concerned about maintaining an easily accessible entrance and exit to her
location, specifically because large trucks and equipment must be able to get in and out. She also
noted that her business and the cell tower were not identified on maps presented during the
public hearing.
Response: While limited median breaks improve safety and highway operations, NCDOT
recognizes that periodic U -turns do limit the ability of vehicles to complete a left turn except in
designated areas. NCDOT asserts that this change in pattern will not prevent customers or
associated vehicles from accessing any businesses along the corridor. In addition, all new
alignments have been designed and engineered to accommodate the turning radii of school buses
and tractor - trailer tricks.
Comment Concerning Access Control
Alissa Cale, Weyerhaeuser Company, PO Box 787, Plymouth, NC, 27962
Ms. Cale is a representative for the Weyerhaeuser Company. She prefers a south -side widening
in Tyrrell County because it will have less impact on the Weyerhaeuser property. She also
believes that the 46 -foot median is a safer alternative. She has concerns about the ability of the
company's logging tricks to navigate the proposed new turn - around alignment, as well as about
limits on parcel access points with the proposed design. The Weyerhaeuser property is large and
currently has five access points onto US 64. She is also concerned about potential drainage issues
if current canals are relocated as part of the project.
Response: The intent with the proposed design is to provide one access point per parcel.
However, additional access points would be considered for parcels with substantial frontage.
Large parcel owners can contact NCDOT or wait to be contacted during the right -of -way
acquisition phase.
Comments Concerning Flooding and Drainage
Donald Liverman, Vicicy Liverman, Charlie M. Spruill, Mary A. Rhym, Jessie Lee Spruill, Lucy
D. Freeman, Alligator Community
This group of residents from the Alligator Community expressed a preference for the north -side
widening. They stated that because of concerns about flooding associated with the new road,
they would prefer to have their homes taken. They also stated a preference for the 23 -foot
widening in case some residents want to stay.
Response: NCDOT acknowledges the request to be relocated. The road improvements
associated with all of the detailed study alternatives will include carefully engineered designs
that maintain existing drainage patterns to the extent practicable. Pre- and post- stormwater runoff
that might be associated with the increased impermeable surface (pavement) or raising the height
of the road will be investigated during the design phase of the project.
LODZ

Page 10
Attendees
October 5, 2012
Other Comments
Leslie R. Smith and Ann D. Smith, 126 High Dune Loop, Kitty Hawk, NC, 27949
Leslie and Ann Smith submitted a joint comment sheet expressing a preference for the north -side
widening with a 23 -foot median in Tyrrell County.
Response: No response required.
James Reinard, jreinardLtriad.rr.com
Mr. Reinard is a frequent user of US 64 to go to the Outer Banks, and he does not consider a
four -lane highway to be necessary for travel through Dare County. He believes that improved
hurricane evacuation can be accommodated with a more modest program of upgrades, such as
pull -over lanes and hard shoulders.
Response: A four -lane, median - divided highway is necessary. The purpose and need for the
project is discussed in Section 1.0 of the FEIS. The three primary needs that this project
addresses are: 1) improvement to hurricane evacuation clearance times; 2) compliance with the
North Carolina ,Strategic Highway Corridor Plan; and 3) replacement of the Lindsay C. Warren
Bridge over the Alligator River.
Local Government and Community Group Resolutions
Town of Columbia
In a resolution dated May 7, 2012, the Town of Columbia requested a design change that would
extend a five -lane curb- and - gutter cross - section with sidewalks to the edge of their ETJ. This
area is zoned for future residential and business development, which would be negatively
impacted by the proposed highway design.
Tyrrell County
Tyrrell County submitted a resolution identical to that submitted by the Town of Columbia.
Response: The NC Strategic Highways Corridor initiative's long -term vision plan identifies this
section of US 64 as an "expressway." This type of facility requires a four -lane, median- divided
highway. More importantly, for safety and operational efficiency reasons, NCDOT now prefers
the design proposed for the US 64 project over a five -lane section for roads in both rural and
urban areas. In that regard, during final design (after completion of the NEPA process) NCDOT
commits to working with the Town of Columbia and Tyrrell County on the following: locating
median breaks in locations that complement local zoning plans; considering curb and gutter
locations (with associated water treatment); considering sidewalk or greenway facilities within
the existing ETJ limits of the Town of Columbia. This commitment will be added to the
"Environmental Commitments" section of the FEIS.
B -10

Page 11
Attendees
October 5, 2012
East Lake Resolution
A resolution put forth by the East Lake Community (signed Rosemarie Doshier, Chairman, East
Lake Community Center) questions the need to widen the road for hurricane evacuation because
backups are rarely seen on this section of US 64. The resolution also questions the claimed
reduction in crash rates with the improved facility because crashes rarely occur on this road. In
addition, the resolution indicates support for the Southern Bypass alternative. In the resolution,
the residents of East Lake cite the importance of maintaining quality of life and the difficulty of
relocating, as well as their desire to preserve their homes, community resources, and historic
sites. The resolution was unanimously approved February 22, 2012. [Both the east lane and
Alligator communities are recognized as additional consideration under the Environment Justice
Executive Order 12898.]
(Later, a verbal conversation verified that the East Lake community strongly recommends a
south -side widening in Section 5 -1, away from two community churches, graveyards, a
community center, and a fire tower.)
Response: Minimizing impacts to East Lake will be an important factor in the selection of a
Preferred Alternative. A four -lane, median - divided highway is necessary. The purpose and need
for the project is discussed in Section 1.0 of the DEIS. The three primary needs that this project
addresses are: 1) improvement to hurricane evacuation clearance times; 2) compliance with the
North Carolina ,Strategic Highway Corridor Plan; and 3) replacement of the Lindsay C. Warren
Bridge over the Alligator River. The resolution is correct in that crash rates in this area are not
high enough to warrant a need for the project. However, crash reduction resulting from the
proposed design is cited as a secondary benefit that will likely result from the project.
Attachments
East Lake Community Resolution
Town of Columbia Resolution
Tyrrell County Resolution
cc: Gary Lovering, PE
Susan Lancaster, PE
Rob Hanson, PE
Tom Bacon, PE
Herman Huang, PhD
Jerry Jennings, PE
Bill Biddlecome
Randy Henegar, PE
Ted Devens, PE
Chandrakant Sura
Glenn Mumford, PE
Hardee Cox
Jay Bennett, PE
Jamille Robbins
Steve Cummings
Behshad Norowzi
I15fl

Whereas the residents and property owners of East Lake, NC understand that DOT is proposing to widen
US Highway 64 due to consistency with NC Strategic Highway Corridor Plan, reducing hurricane
evacuation times, maintaining a bridge across the Alligator river, potential for reduction in total crash
rates, and potential for improved regional bicycle trails — the residents and property owners question
the reducing hurricane evacuation times, due to the fact that we have never seen a backup during this
section of highway through East Lake, during evacuations and we further question the reduction of
crash rates, due to the fact that we have had very few accidents on this road, especially considering the
amount of traffic that flows through here and backups only occur when the swing bridge is open to
marine traffic.
Whereas several of the routes favor widening the road through the community we find it important
that, strong consideration be given to a southern by -pass as the residents and property owners feel we
are more important than the disturbance of any wildlife refuge property. You may also note that we
were here long before the Alligator River Wildlife Refuge and while we have been very compatible in the
past it should be noted that provisions were not made when it was created to take into consideration
the widening of a highway if necessary in the future. Widening the existing highway through the
community would affect the majority of homes located in this small community.
It is also important to us to maintain our quality of life that we enjoy in this rural area and would find it
very difficult to relocate to another area as has been proven by neighboring people who were displaced
by the recent Hurricane Irene that are still trying to find affordable suitable homes. Ours is a simple life
with property and home sites passed down from generation to generation and your relocation
department would not be able to relocate us to comparable areas.
We also find it important to protect our historical heritage by keeping our churches, fire tower, and
community center. Widening the existing road may destroy or even take these structures. We actively
hold church in these churches, and hold functions at our community center that was originally the East
Lake Primary School. While the community center /school may not have Architectural Historic value, it
has value to us.
Therefore, if DOT finds it necessary to improve this section of Highway 64, through East Lake, we
strongly urge you go with a Southern By -Pass, which is one of your options, with the least disturbance of
our residents, who have lived in this area with family ties over 100 years; and as a community we
request that, the Army Corp of Engineers, the Alligator River Wildlife Refuge, and other entities that
have a stake in this decision, consider the environmental and historical justification this Southern By-
Pass will protect and to join us in this endeavor.
Rosemarie Doshier, Chairman East Lake Community Center
Unanimously Approved - February 22, 2012
IMM

Town of Columbia
`A Heart's Delight" founded in 1793
103 Main Street • P.O. Box 361
Columbia, NC 27925
252.796.2781(P) • 252.796.0082 (F)
R1° ,71VF-©ays
D4VsIG
MAY 1 1 2012
Vlmconstruction
Project peveloa ysis Branch
environmental An Y
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT NCDOT
CHANGE DESIGN OF PROPOSED US -64 EAST
THROUGH TOWN OF COLUMBIA'S ETJ
WHEREAS, the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) plans to improve and widen to four lanes
US -64 east from Columbia to Manns Harbor, including a new four -lane high rise bridge across the
Alligator River; and
WHEREAS, the design of the new highway beginning at the end of the existing four -lane section in the Town
of Columbia is proposed as a divided highway with median; and
WHEREAS, there is already a residential neighborhood in the Town of Columbia Extra- territorial
Jurisdiction (ETJ) area along US -64 to the east of the town limits, that will be significantly inconvenienced
by a divided highway with median and directional crossover with median U -turn; and
WHEREAS, this area of ETJ is planned and zoned for future residential and business development that will
be negatively impacted by the planned highway design; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Columbia has already requested that curb, guttering and sidewalks be extended to
the easternmost extent of the Town of Columbia ETJ,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Columbia Board of Aldermen requests that the NC
Department of Transportation widen US -64 to five lanes, the center lane being a designated turning lane,
from the current five lane section in Columbia to the easternmost extent of the town's Extra - territorial
Jurisdiction.
Adopted this 7th day of May, 2012.
Rhett B. White, Clerk
M' hael Griffin, Ma or
5 -13

May 14, 2012
Steven A. Lambert
Planning Director
Albemarle Commission
512 S. Church St.
Hertford, NC 27944
Dear Mr. Lambert:
Enclosed is a Resolution Requesting that NCDOT Change Design of Proposed
US-64 East Through Town of Columbia ETJ that was adopted by the Tyrrell County
Board of Commissioners at the last meeting.
If you have any questions please contact me at 252-796-2621 or by email at
PQUAyjonetyrrellcoutlt .net-
Sincerely,
( ,
Penny Rhodes Jones, NCCCC
Clerk to the Board
Enclosure
CC: Mr. Bill Biddlecome, USArmy Corps ofEngineers
,,Dr. Greg Thorpe, NCDOT
Jerry Jennings, NCDOT Division Engineer
Rhett White, Town Manager
rRIN9

W
IMIL 0 QUIXIOWN
WHEREAS, the NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) plans to improve and
widen to four lanes US-64 east from Columbia to Marms Harbor, including a new four-
lane high rise bridge across the Alligator River; and
WHEREAS, the design of the new highway beginning at the end of the existing four-
lane section in the Town of Columbia is proposed as a divided highway with median;
and
WHEREAS, there is already a residential neighborhood in the Town of Columbia
Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) area along US-64 to the east of the town limits, that
will be significantly inconvenienced by a divided highway with median and directional
crossover with median U-turn; and
WHEREAS, this area of ETJ is planned and zoned for future residential and business
development that will be negatively impacted by the planned highway design; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Columbia has already requested that curb guttering and
sidewalks be extended to the easternmost extent of the Town of Columbia ETJ; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Tyrrell County Board of
Commissioners requests that the NC Department of Transportation widen US-64 to five
lanes, the center lane being a designated -turning lane, from the current five lane section
in Columbia to the easternmost extent of the town's Extra-territorial Jurisdiction.
Thomas W. ruill, Chairman
Tyrrell County Board of Commissioners
Penny Rho 'es Jones, NOCCC
Clerk to the'Tyrrell County Board of Commissioners
B-15

�y1T AIT�y,....
.., UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
�u NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
Southeast Regional Office
263 13th Avenue South
St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 -5505
(727) 824 -5317, FAX [phone]
http: / /sero.nmfs.noaa.goy/
April 6, 2012 F /SER4: RS /pay
(Sent via electronic mail)
Colonel Steven A. Balser, Commander
US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403 -1398
Attention: Bill Biddlecome
Dear Colonel Balser:
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reyievyed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) submutted by the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) and
the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District for the proposed US Highway 64
improvements in Tyrrell and Dare Counties (Corps Action ID SAW -1998- 11011, State Project
Number 6.049002T, TIP Projects R -2545 Tyrrell Countv and R -2544 in Dare County). NCDOT
proposes to improve 27.3 mules of US Highway 64, including replacement of the Lindsav C.
Warren Bridge over the Alligator River. The project iyould start on the eastern side of Columbia
improving the roadway from a two -lane facility to a multiple -lane roadway. The project would
end at the intersection of US Highway 264 and US Highway 64 westiyard of Manns Harbor.
NCDOT proposes to constrict this project as an expressway mainly- by vadening the existing
road; a new location for the highway is proposed for the section starting it estiyard of the
Alligator River and continuing to the eastern side of East Lake Township. The Wilnungton
District's initial determination is the project iyould not adversely impact essential fish habitat
(EFH) or associated fisheries managed by the South Atlantic Fishen- Management Council, Mid -
Atlantic Fishen- Management Council, or NMFS. As the nation's federal trustee for the
conservation and management of marine, estuarine, and anadromous fishen- resources, the
follolying comments and recommendations are provided pursuant to authorities of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act and the Magnuson - Stevens Fishen- Conservation and Management
Act (Magnuson - Stevens Act).
Purpose and Need
The purposes of the proposed highiyay improvements are to reduce hurricane evacuation time to
better meet state goals, to maintain a bridge across the Alligator River that meets the needs of
P
b
B -16

highway users, and to attain consistency with North Carolina's Strategic Highway Corridor Plan
and the Intrastate Highway System. In June 2007, the NCDOT Merger Team, which consists of
federal (including NMFS), state, and local agency representatives, agreed to this purpose and
need for the project.
Alternatives Considered
NCDOT worked with the public and Merger Team to examine many alternatives, including the
No -Build Alternative, No- Action Alternative, Transportation Systems Management Alternative,
Travel Demand Management Alternative, Bus Transit Alternative, Rail Alternative, Express
Lane Alternative, Rehabilitation of the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge Alternative, and several build
alternatives. Preliminary build alternatives that met the purpose and need for the proposed
project and appeared to have acceptable impacts to the human and natural environments became
detailed study alternatives. These detailed study alternatives were further refined as more
comprehensive information was obtained through field studies and environmental analysis.
Because of the length of the study corridor and the abundance of resources within it, including
the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR), NCDOT divided the study corridor into
five major sections each with subsections. Sections 1 and 2 are in Tyrrell County, Section 3 is
the bridge over the Alligator River (including bridge extensions over adjacent wetlands), and
Sections 4 and 5 are in Dare County.
For Sections 1 and 5, the DEIS examines widening on the northern and southern side of the
highway. Additionally, the southern side and northern side widening in Section 1 includes two
proposed widths for the median (23 feet and 46 feet); only a 23 -foot median is proposed for
Section 5. The East Lake Alternatives (ELI through EL 13) are combinations of bridge
replacement corridors in Section 2, 3, and 4. Both the public notice and DEIS contain detailed
information about these alternatives. Neither the DEIS nor the public notice identify a
recommended plan; NCDOT has deferred this selection until it can evaluate comments received
on the DEIS. Given the modular and independent nature of the study sections and subsections,
the recommended plan will be a combination of the many subsection alternatives described in the
DEIS.
Essential Fish Habitat
The DEIS does not include a stand -alone EFH Assessment, but provides the required
components of an EFH Assessment through several sections of the DEIS, notably Section
3.6.6.4, which describes EFH and federally managed fishery species within the study corridor.
The descriptions of EFH and other natural resources sections in the DEIS focus on the extent of
tidally influenced forested wetlands, estuarine wetlands, benthic habitats, and estuarine waters.
NMFS recommends the Final Environmental Impact Statement include discussion of other
fishes, such as hickory shad and river herring, that are also found in the Alligator River and are
prey for federally managed species, such as king mackerel and bluefish, managed by the South
Atlantic Fishery Management Council and Mid - Atlantic Fishery Management Council,
respecively.
Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat
Important forested wetlands and emergent marsh are located on both the eastern and western side
of the Alligator River and extend throughout the project length to the connection point with US
-2-
romm

Highway 264 on the eastern end of the project. The eastern most section of the project would
impact ARNWR. The significance of the impacts to forested wetlands and emergent marsh
would depend on the highway alignment selected and how hydrologic connectivity between
forested and emergent marsh wetlands is maintain across the new four -lane highway. The
sections of the project eastward of the Alligator River would impact both forested and emergent
marsh wetlands including wetlands associated with ARNWR. Waters and wetlands associated
with ARNWR (on the eastern side of the project area) ultimately connect to estuarine waters in
Roanoke Sound. Maintaining connectivity is particularly important on western side of the
project area.
Regardless of the alternative selected, the project will impact EFH. Fill for new bridge
approaches and supports would directly impact EFH, and changes to the extensive ditching and
drainage system would indirectly impact EFH. The amount of these impacts will not be known
until later planning stages, but the general orders of magnitude appear to be several acres of
estuarine wetlands and tens of acres of estuarine waters (based on the tables in the public notice);
it should be noted that impacts from constriction activities is not discussed in the DEIS or public
notice. NMFS recommends avoidance of impacts by selection of the narrower median.
Significant savings of wetlands would occur if the width of the median were 23 feet, as opposed
to 46 feet. When evaluating NCDOT's final plans, NMFS will focus on creek systems with
direct connections to Alligator River and South Lake. Characterization of the number and size of
these creeks will be important, as will characterization of their use by fishery species and prey.
DEIS Section 4.6.7.3 affirms NCDOT's use of sequential mitigation; i.e., avoidance and
minimization will be done to their practicable limits before compensatory mitigation is pursued.
The DEIS indicates that the final determination regarding compensatory mitigation will be
coordinated with Wilmington District and North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. NMFS recommends all resource agencies have an opportunity to contribute
to this decision. The general approach to compensatory mitigation described is on -site
restoration for coastal wetlands and use of the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program
for the addressing impacts to other wetlands and streams. The potential on -site mitigation may
include removal of approximately 1,400 feet of existing US Highway 64 (after the new highway
meets the Dare County shoreline of Alligator River). While NMFS supports this general strategy
and the potential restoration of several acres of coastal marsh by removing the roadway, our final
evaluation will depend on the alternative chosen for improving the highway and the details of the
proposed mitigation.
EFH Conservation Recommendations
Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson- Stevens Act requires NMFS to provide EFH conservation
recommendations when an activity is expected to adversely impact EFH. Based on this
requirement, NMFS provides the following:
EFH Conservation Recommendations
Authorization of the projects shall be held in abeyance until NMFS has had an opportunity to
review a detailed mitigation plan. The mitigation plan shall include performance criteria and
monitoring to gauge performance relative to those criteria. The mitigation plan shall be
based on a final design for the US Highway 64 improvements that reflects the maximum
C.

practicable avoidance and minimization of impacts to coastal wetlands and creeks. The
mitigation plan also shall address all temporary impacts to EFH that result from constriction
activities.
• The final project plan shall include methods for reducing impacts from stormwater runoff
from the new bridge on the water quality of the Alligator River. NMFS recommends as
much stormwater as possible be captured and treated before release. Stormwater
management techniques developed for the Mid - Currituck Sound Bridge may also be
applicable to the new Alligator River Bridge.
Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson- Stevens Act and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR
600.920(k), requires your office to provide a written response to our EFH recommendations
within 30 days of receipt. If it is not possible to provide a substantive response within 30 days,
in accordance with our "findings' with your Regulatory Functions Branch, an interim response
should be provided to NMFS. A detail response must then be provided prior to final approval of
the action. Your detail response must include a description of measures proposed by your
agency to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse impacts of the activity. If your response is
inconsistent with our EFH conservation recommendations, your must provide a substantive
discussion justifying the reasons for not following the recommendation. The detail response
should be received by the NMFS at least ten days prior to final approval of the action.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Related questions or comments
should be directed to the attention of Mr. Ronald Sechler at our Beaufort Field Office, 101 Pivers
Island Road, Beaufort, North Carolina 28516 -9722, or at (252) 728 -5090.
cc:
COE, Bill Biddlecome @usace
USFWS, Pete_Benjamin @fws.gov
NCDCM, Doug.Huggett @ncmail.net
EPA, Fox.Rebecca @epa.gov
SAFMC, Roger.Pugliese @safmc.net
NOAA PPI, PPLNepa @noaa.gov
F, nmfs.hq.nepa @noaa.gov
F /SER, nmfs.ser.eis @noaa.gov
F /SER4, David.Dale @noaa.gov
F /SER47, Ron.Sechler @noaa.gov
-4-
/ for
B -19
Sincerely,
(,; �: 6, e
Virginia M. Fay
Assistant Regional Administrator
Habitat Conservation Division

4� ENT 0p.,,
' United States Department of the Interior TAKE PRIDE'
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance
Richard B. Russell Federal Building
75 Spring Street, S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
ER 12/100
9043.1
October 5, 2012
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit (PDEA)
N.C. Department of Transportation
Centre Center Building A
1000 Birch Ridge Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 27610
Re: Comments and Recommendations for the Review of Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for TIP Projects R -2544 and R -2545: US 64 Improvements from 0.9
mile east of Columbia to US 264 near Manns Harbor, Tyrrell and Dare Counties, North
Carolina
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The Department of the Interior (Department) has received the State Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) for TIP Projects R -2544 and R -2545. The Department has been actively
involved in the combined NEPA /Section 404 Merger Process for this project. Over the last few
years we have provided the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) with
detailed comments during several Merger Team meetings, field meetings, and through various
forms of correspondence. Some of this previous coordination is reflected in the DEIS. We offer
the following comments on the DEIS.
3.6.5.1 Terrestrial Communities and Wildlife
The document does not reference the data and information documented in the USGS Breeding
Bird Survey route 63107 (NC -107, MILLTAIL CR, NC). We suggest the Final EIS include the
data and information (including a list of species present in the area) available in the USGS
publication. The information is available on line at:
http: / /www.pwrc.usgs.gov /BBS/ results/ routemaps /routeAssigtiMap.cftng. If you have questions
concerning these comments, please contact Gary LeCain on (303) 236 -1475 or via email at
gdlecain2usgs gov.
B -20

US 64 Improvements
General Comments
Overall, this project will have substantial impacts to fish and wildlife resources. The project is
located within an environmentally significant area with a mosaic of conservation properties
(national wildlife refuges, state game lands, and non - governmental organization lands), extensive
wetland systems, and the presence of federally threatened and endangered species. Multiple
constraints create significant challenges to avoiding and minimizing impacts to federal trust
resources.
The DEIS describes multiple build alternatives. Though the Department has previously
commented on the merits and issues associated with some of the alternatives, we will defer our
recommendation for the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
until Concurrence Point 3 in the Merger Process.
Threatened and Endangered Species: Red Wolf
The Department finds the discussion and analysis of the project effects on the federally
endangered red wolf (Canis riffs) to be particularly inadequate. Despite the Department's
previous coordination with the NCDOT on this issue, the DEIS renders a biological conclusion
of "MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT" for the red wolf. We strongly
disagree with this conclusion. For several years the Department has been advising the NCDOT
of the serious implications of this project on the future recovery of the red wolf. Completed and
planned phases of the US 64 widening extend across a significant portion of the red wolf
recovery zone, which comprises the only wild population of red wolves in the world. With only
approximately 100 wild red wolves in existence, we cannot overstate the potential that this
project has to cause adverse effects to the species and hinder its recovery. The DEIS only
provides about two pages of analysis for this important issue (primarily on pages 4 -110 and 4-
111).
Page 2 -24 and 2 -29 refer to "Key Impacts" for Alternatives IA, 113, 5A and 5B. Given the
significance and unique circumstances of the red wolf population, we believe that the red wolf
should be listed as a "Key Impact ".
Page 3 -85 references the red wolf study that the NCDOT funded for this project. However, none
of the data, conclusions or recommendations from that study are included in the DEIS. Since the
study was completed and the final report issued in 2011 prior to the release of this DEIS, we find
it a glaring omission to not include some of the valuable information gained through that study.
Page 4 -94 references red wolf data up to 2007. More recent data are available directly from the
Red Wolf Recovery Program in Manteo, North Carolina.
Page 2
B -21

US 64 Improvements
Page 4 -111 correctly states that for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(2) consultation,
the red wolf is considered to have a status of Threatened on national wildlife refuge lands, and a
status of Proposed on private lands. However, because red wolf packs are so interrelated and can
be spatially dynamic over time, effects to a pack wholly located on private lands likely will
indirectly affect one or more other packs within the recovery zone which may be located on
refuge lands. Therefore, given the interspersed presence of both refuge lands and private lands,
for Section 7(a)(2) purposes, the Department will consider all red wolves affected by this project
to have the status of Threatened.
Page 4 -111 states "Widening the existing roadway is expected to result in only temporary
disturbances and temporary shifts for the red wolf" How does the NCDOT come to such a
conclusion? A 27.3 mile, four -lane, high -speed highway is a substantial and permanent intrusion
into the red wolf recovery zone. Even after constriction is completed, the road will be a
perpetual source of potential mortality and behavioral modification.
Page 4 -111 also states "At a later date, wildlife mitigation discussions may (emphasis ours)
consider dedicated wildlife crossings." The Department has consistently stated that wildlife
crossings will be an essential component to a successful Section 7 consultation. The Department
will need to be reasonably assured that the road is designed with sufficient permeability and
precludes it from acting as a barrier to red wolf movements.
Overall, the DEIS discussion of the effects of the project on the red wolf is severely lacking in
depth and appears to defer the issue to future Section 7 coordination and the Final Environmental
Impact Statement. We believe this strategy is inconsistent with the purposes of the National
Environmental Policy Act and informed decision making.
Threatened and Endangered Species: Red - cockaded Woodpecker
For the federally endangered red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW, Picoides borealis), the DEIS
renders a biological conclusion of "MAY AFFECT, NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY
AFFECT ". Although pages 4 -112 through 4 -116 provide some discussion and tabulated data,
the information is insufficient to evaluate the biological conclusion. Page 4 -112 refers to
completed RCW surveys, the Natural Resources Technical Report (EcoScience, Inc., 2008a),
and Expanded Area Addendum (Eco,Science, Inc. 2008b). The Department has not received any
of these documents for review.
Tables 4 -70, 4 -71 and 4 -72 provide tabulated data that is primarily focused on impacts to RCW
cavity trees. Since it appears that no RCW cavity trees will be directly affected, the question of
distance of the cavity trees from the project right -of -way is less important than the question of
whether or not an active RCW group's foraging partition will retain sufficient foraging habitat to
sustain the RCWs using the cavity trees. This issue is not addressed in the DEIS. The tables
have a column for "Foraging Habitat Loss "; however, foraging habitat is not defined. It is
Page 3
B -22

US 64 Improvements
unknown if the DEIS is utilizing the definition of suitable habitat from the Standard for Managed
Stability Guidelines or the Recovery Standard Guidelines (as per the 2003 RCW Recovery Plan)
or some definition altogether different (e.g. pine forest in general).
It is our understanding that no RCW foraging habitat analysis (FHA) has yet been conducted.
Without a FHA it will be impossible to determine whether this project will result in take of the
RCW. If the project removes enough suitable or potentially suitable foraging habitat from one or
more active RCW group's foraging partition(s), it could result in a take, thus necessitating a
revision of your biological conclusion to MAY AFFECT, LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
and a subsequent formal Section 7 consultation. Given that at least two RCW groups within the
project study area are active, the Department will require a FHA prior to the selection of a
LEDPA at Concurrence Point 3. We remind you that this information need has been previously
requested by the Department, most recently at a June 13, 2011 meeting. The FHA should
provide analysis for each alternative so that an informed decision on LEDPA can be made.
Page 4 -113 states "None of the project alternatives directly impacts active or inactive RCW
cavity trees." While this statement may be technically correct, it is misleading because impacts
to foraging habitat can lead to abandonment of cavity trees, which is a direct or indirect effect to
the RCW. Page 4 -113 also states "...limited loss or fragmentation of RCW foraging habitat is
expected with these alternatives." Although we have not been provided adequate information to
evaluate this claim, we note that even a small loss of foraging habitat can lead to a take of the
species. Also, a foraging partition that is currently bisected by a road, which is then
subsequently widened, may lead to the habitat on the opposite side of the road from the RCW
cluster center not being counted towards the minimum habitat required to avoid take under the
Standard for Managed Stability Guidelines (among other criteria, 3000 square feet of pine basal
area on at least 75 acres). If a greater than 200' wide gap of non - habitat (e.g. cleared road right -
of -way) separates foraging habitat stands, the noncontiguous foraging habitat cannot be counted
towards the minimum acreage of suitable habitat required. Since we have not been provided
with any mapping of RCW clusters and foraging habitat partitions, we are not able to determine
if this situation occurs or not. Also, it is unknown if the "Foraging Habitat Loss" acreages given
in Tables 4 -71 and 4 -72 include habitat lost due to this scenario or not.
Page 4 -46 briefly discusses impacts to the Palmetto - Peartree Preserve. However, the impacts are
only discussed in terms of acres of the Preserve which would be lost. Given the fact that the
Preserve is managed primarily as a RCW conservation bank, some analysis should be provided
to disclose whether or not present or future RCW management would be affected by the project.
Overall, the discussion on effects to the RCW is oversimplified and provides inadequate
analysis. The author(s) of this section of the document seem unaware of what may fully
constitute a take of the species. The discussion primarily focuses on direct effects to the cavity
trees themselves, while avoiding significant analysis of the RCWs which utilize those cavity
Page 4
B -23

US 64 Improvements
trees. The cavity trees are but one of the necessary requirements for the continued existence of
the species within the project study area.
Migratory Birds and Bald Eagles
Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to ProtectMigratoiy Birds,
requires federal agencies to take actions to implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.
703 -711). In part, these actions require federal agencies to "ensure that environmental analyses
of Federal actions required by the NEPA or other established environmental review processes
evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of
concern ". This DEIS fails to adequately address migratory birds.
The bridge over the Alligator River should be designed to discourage birds from perching on or
underneath it. The William B. Umstead Bridge over Croatan Sound has proven to be an
"attractive nuisance" situation for tens of thousands of purple martins (Progne subis) roosting on
the cables, girders, and I -beams under the bridge. High levels of vehicle collision mortality have
been documented from that bridge; therefore, a design which would similarly encourage such
perching should be avoided.
Even at bridges which do not encourage similar perching, significant levels of mortality from
vehicles hitting flying birds have also been noted for North Carolina's longest coastal area
bridges (e.g. NC 12 Bonner Bridge over Oregon Inlet, new US 64 over Croatan Sound, the
existing US 64 bridge over Alligator River). To discourage birds from flying low enough to be
struck by a vehicle, visual obstructions along the sides of the bridge should be erected. This can
take the form of fencing, higher bridge rails, poles, or decorative strictures which encourage
birds to fly higher. The Florida Department of Transportation erected poles along a bridge over
Sebastian Inlet and documented an almost 64% decline in bird mortality. Similarly, a coastal
area bridge in California (Schuyler Heim Bridge) is being constricted with a high, decorative
fence which has a high visual permeability for motorists but which will encourage birds to fly
over the height of traffic (see attached Figures 1 and 2).
Page 4 -46 briefly discusses impacts to the J. Morgan Futch Game Land. However, the impacts
are only addressed in terms of acres of the Game Land to be taken. No analysis is provided on
the effects of the project on the migratory bird use for which the Game Land is managed for (i.e.
waterfowl and doves). Of particular concern is the partial loss of the wooded buffer along the
managed fields.
Page 3 -97 and 4 -107 refer to two bald eagle (Haliaeetus lencocephalns) nests located during
2008 surveys. The DEIS does not provide specific location data, and no information has been
submitted to the Department for our review. If the eagle nests are located within 660 feet of the
project footprint, the Department will need more and updated information prior to the selection
of the LEDPA at Concurrence Point 3.
Page 5
B -24

US 64 Improvements
Wildlife Habitat Fragmentation / Highway Barrier Effects / Wildlife Crossings
The DEIS briefly mentions that Virginia Tech University has conducted a black bear (Ursus
americanus) study for the portion of US 64 within the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge
and that the University of Central Florida has conducted a study "to evaluate the potential barrier
effects" on wildlife from widening US 64 in Tyrrell County. Given the fact that both studies
were completed in 2011 prior to the release of this DEIS, and given the fact that habitat
fragmentation and road mortality are such significant issues for this project, we find it a glaring
omission to have not included any data, conclusions or recommendations from these important
studies that were funded by NCDOT. Also, the small amount of information that does describe
the studies appears to have come from early draft proposals of the studies. For example, page 3-
84 refers to "A single strand of barbed wire strung along the entire length of US 64 through the
ARNWR to capture hair from bears..." The revised methodology involved a double strand of
barbed wire.
Page 4 -92 states "Alternatives IA and 1B will have no effect on habitat fragmentation, since they
widen existing right of way." Also, page 4 -93 states "Alternatives 5A and 5B will both widen
the existing highway; therefore fragmentation is not an issue." We disagree with both these
statements. These statements demonstrate a narrow understanding of wildlife habitat
fragmentation effects. In addition to the direct loss of additional habitat, widening existing right -
of -way increases the gap between habitats, changes the permeability of the road for some
species, has implications for highway mortality, and potentially affects wildlife behavior (e.g.
increased avoidance). The effects of habitat loss and habitat fragmentation extend well beyond
the interface of habitat/non- habitat. Remaining core habitats shrink, and the "edge effect' is
moved closer to the core of habitat blocks. Some forest interior species such as some neotropical
migrant birds may avoid shrinking habitat cores. Encroaching "edge" habitat can lead to
increased predation of some species and increased brown - headed cowbird (Molothrus ater)
parasitism of the nests of neotropical migrant birds. Habitat fragmentation also facilitates
invasive and /or nonnative species colonization of shrinking fragmented lands.
On page 4 -93, the paragraph under the heading of Disturbance to Animal Species begins with
"The added width of the roadway may present a barrier to disturbance and /or open space averse
species." We agree with this statement and the rest of the paragraph, but it appears to contradict
the two statements cited above regarding Alternatives IA, 113, 5A and 5B.
On page 4 -93, under the heading of Black bear, it states "Bears may be more likely to avoid the
roadway altogether if the barrier it presents is perceived to be too intimidating. This, of course,
will result in fragmentation of habitat, reduction of individual territories..." We also agree with
this statement, but it too contradicts previous statements on pages 4 -92 and 4 -93.
Page 6
B -25

US 64 Improvements
Another apparent contradiction in the flow of thought occurs on page 4 -94. It states "Highway
widening may make US 64 a greater risk for red wolf fatality or it may deter red wolves from
crossing at all. This may amount to substantial habitat fragmentation and loss of genetic
diversity..." Again, we agree with this statement. Indeed, widening existing right -of -way does
increase the effects of habitat fragmentation.
The DEIS briefly mentions the benefits of wildlife crossings and fencing to direct wildlife
through the crossings. Given the fact that wildlife crossings will require substantial design
modifications to elevate the road to the proper height, the document should have provided
information regarding the ramifications of raising the grade for long distances. For example,
wetland impacts are likely to increase due to additional fill footprints from increased fill height.
However, the DEIS does not meaningfully address the increased fill height necessary for wildlife
crossings.
On page 1 -9, animal /vehicle collisions along US 64 were identified as a problem to the citizens
of Dare County. This concern is reinforced with the discussion on page 1 -30 stating that animals
are the cause of 36% of the overall crashes and 77% of the night -time crashes within the project
area. These statistics raise the issue of including wildlife crossing strictures as project design
safety features instead of suggesting such strictures as possible mitigation (page 2 -52) or simply
as added requirements. While they will not totally eliminate all vehicle /wildlife collisions,
wildlife crossing strictures are known to be effective in reducing those collisions, resulting in a
much safer highway for the motoring public. The DEIS further states that wildlife underpasses
and fencing were identified as measures to build a safer highway by emergency management
officials during hurricane evacuations (pages 2 -76 and 2 -77).
Alligator River National Wildlife Refute (Refute)
Minor modification to existing right -of -way: For project constriction on Refuge land, the sum
of the project encroachment onto the Refuge for new right -of -way must meet the standards for a
minor modification to existing right -of -way. This means that NCDOT must demonstrate to the
Refuge that the existing right -of -way has been fully used, and the departure from existing right -
of -way is essential to safety. The final decision as to whether a proposed modification meets the
standards for a minor modification is made by the Refuge Manager. Any right -of -way
modification must include provisions to ensure there will be no net loss in habitat quantity or
quality. This will likely require mitigation, and the mitigation plan will be prepared by the
Refuge.
Wildlife crossings: Wildlife crossings are a part of the project constriction on the Refuge.
Some of these strictures will be designed to accommodate movement of large mammals whereas
others will concentrate on mortality reduction for reptiles and amphibians. From the studies
completed to date, the Refuge will decide where wildlife crossings will be constricted on Refuge
Page 7
B -26

US 64 Improvements
land, recognizing that additional right -of -way may be required to build such strictures. NCDOT
should incorporate these design features into the project planning process as early as possible.
Highway design, impact assessment and mitigation: It is understood that NCDOT engineers will
design and build the highway and appurtenant strictures from a safety and traffic flow
perspective due to their inherent expertise. It is also understood that the Refuge will assess
impacts to Refuge lands and will develop the necessary mitigation for the use of Refuge land due
to their inherent expertise. The issue of mitigation for wetland impacts is a separate issue and
has no bearing on the mitigation for use of Refuge land.
Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Page 4 -153 briefly addresses indirect and cumulative effects on threatened and endangered
species. It states "Indirect effects to these species are not expected because the FLUSA has
many development constraints, and the project's implementation would not affect these
constraints." It appears that the analysis is very narrowly focused only on secondary
development. However, indirect effects can occur in many forms other than development.
Apart from implying that little or no development will occur, this DEIS provides no meaningful
analysis of the indirect effects of widening US 64 through the red wolf recovery zone or other
threatened and endangered species habitat.
Miscellaneous Comments
In Figure 3 -1 on page 3 -3, it is unclear if the red triangles represent individual RCW cavity trees
or some other metric. Also, it is unclear what type of bald eagle observation is indicated by the
red circle.
Tables 4 -1 through 4 -9 all have a row for acres of "Protected Species Habitat ". This appears to
be an oversimplified and undefined metric with dubious usefulness. Since the red wolf could
potentially range throughout the project study area, one could argue that all of the study area is
within protected species habitat.
Tables 4 -20 through 4 -24 present confusing information with regards to the acreage of impacts to
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). In addition to listing the Refuge, Significant
Natural Heritage Areas (SNHA) are listed. With the exception of the Alligator Creek/Second
Creek Swamp Forest SNHA, all of the others are found on the Refuge, and the acreages are
additive with regards to evaluating Refuge impacts. These tables need to be revised to reflect the
true impact to the Refuge.
Page 4 -143 addresses borrow and disposal sites. Please be aware that borrow and disposal sites
could have adverse effects on federally threatened and endangered species in this area. We
recognize that the NCDOT generally delegates regulatory compliance of borrow and disposal
Page 8
B -27

US 64 Improvements
sites to the contractors. However, regarding ESA Section 7 compliance, the Department would
consider borrow and disposal sites to be part of the overall project. Therefore, NCDOT and the
lead federal action agency should maintain oversight of borrow and disposal sites to ensure ESA
compliance. We note that we are aware of at least one occurrence where a NCDOT contractor
selected a borrow site which had adverse effects on RCWs.
The DEIS does not include the special meeting held in October, 2011 with the East Lake
Community on page 7 -42.
Conclusion
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this project. Based on our review, we find
that this DEIS has several inadequacies, most notably in its treatment of threatened and
endangered species. We have identified several information needs that we require prior to
selecting the LEDPA at Concurrence Point 3. If you have any questions regarding our response,
please contact Pete Benjamin at (919) 856 -4520, ext. 11. I can be reached on (404) 331 -4524 or
via email at joyce_stanley2ios.doi.gov.
Sincerely,
cc: Jerry Ziewitz - FWS
Brenda Johnson - USGS
Anita Barnett — NPS
Li -Tai Sikiu Bilbao — OSMRE
OEPC — WASH
Joyce Stanley, MPA
Regional Environmental Protection Assistant
for
Gregory Hogue
Regional Environmental Officer
Page 9
[I'M

US 64 Improvements
Page 10
B-29
W14MO A*
P,.,p..d by: DES, Bddg. —d A..lhefi.. �

US 64 Improvements
Page 11
B -30

Date: April 2, 2012
Dr. Gregory L Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis 8runob
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
ENVE',-��
2012
ry EA- , F '~- —
SUBJECT: Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement, OS64 Improvements Project and
Replacement of Lindsay C. Warren Bridge, Tyrrell and Dare Counties, North Carolina; CB0
No.: 20110035; TIP Project Nos.: R-2544 and R-2545
Dear Dr.Thorpe:
The U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 Office has received and
reviewed the subject docurnent and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean
Air Act (CA/\) and Section lO2(2)(C)ofthe NutioumEnviomuozeuto|PoUuyAct(1EPA).Tbe
Federal Draft 2uvinouzncuio1 Impact 8to1czoout (DBIS) includes the widening improvements of
OS 64 from 0.9 miles from east mf Columbia, l4.C. to US 264 near Monnu Harbor in Tyrrell and
Dare Counties. Additionally, the proposed project ulan includes the replacement nfthe Lindsay
C. Warren Bridge over the Alligator River munew location. Tbototd proposed project length is
approximately 27.3 roi|oa.
EPA staff has been participating iothe N2PA/Section404 Merger process for the
proposed project, including purpose and need, detailed study alternatives Lobecarried forward
and bridging dcoimiooauuduli8omcotrcvkow. Specific technical review comments ou the [}B[S
are attached to this letter (See Attachment A).
EPA has rated the DEIS section alternatives DS/\\A,lB,BL(to EL- |3.5A and 5B as
'Environmental Objections' (B0-2). DSAs rated uyBO-2are those alternatives where there ima
potential for significant cuvjnoocncotu impacts ho waters o[the U.S. that cannot hoaddressed
without significant project coodifiuubonor the development of other reasonable and feasible
alternatives. ThcDElS taUo to address the avoidance of disproportionate high and adverse
effects to minority and low income communities of Alligator and East Lake. The DEIS fails to
identify appropriate 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.
Internet Auwmwa(un4°mtp://www.op*,mm
xocycled/Recyclable.prinlod Witt) Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Pape,(Miniurnan 30% PosIconsurner)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGE
REGION
ATLANTA FEDERAL- GENTER
1+114
o1RJRGYTHSTREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA ooaoa'aeon
Date: April 2, 2012
Dr. Gregory L Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis 8runob
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
ENVE',-��
2012
ry EA- , F '~- —
SUBJECT: Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement, OS64 Improvements Project and
Replacement of Lindsay C. Warren Bridge, Tyrrell and Dare Counties, North Carolina; CB0
No.: 20110035; TIP Project Nos.: R-2544 and R-2545
Dear Dr.Thorpe:
The U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 Office has received and
reviewed the subject docurnent and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean
Air Act (CA/\) and Section lO2(2)(C)ofthe NutioumEnviomuozeuto|PoUuyAct(1EPA).Tbe
Federal Draft 2uvinouzncuio1 Impact 8to1czoout (DBIS) includes the widening improvements of
OS 64 from 0.9 miles from east mf Columbia, l4.C. to US 264 near Monnu Harbor in Tyrrell and
Dare Counties. Additionally, the proposed project ulan includes the replacement nfthe Lindsay
C. Warren Bridge over the Alligator River munew location. Tbototd proposed project length is
approximately 27.3 roi|oa.
EPA staff has been participating iothe N2PA/Section404 Merger process for the
proposed project, including purpose and need, detailed study alternatives Lobecarried forward
and bridging dcoimiooauuduli8omcotrcvkow. Specific technical review comments ou the [}B[S
are attached to this letter (See Attachment A).
EPA has rated the DEIS section alternatives DS/\\A,lB,BL(to EL- |3.5A and 5B as
'Environmental Objections' (B0-2). DSAs rated uyBO-2are those alternatives where there ima
potential for significant cuvjnoocncotu impacts ho waters o[the U.S. that cannot hoaddressed
without significant project coodifiuubonor the development of other reasonable and feasible
alternatives. ThcDElS taUo to address the avoidance of disproportionate high and adverse
effects to minority and low income communities of Alligator and East Lake. The DEIS fails to
identify appropriate 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.
Internet Auwmwa(un4°mtp://www.op*,mm
xocycled/Recyclable.prinlod Witt) Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Pape,(Miniurnan 30% PosIconsurner)

The O3ACEand NCD0T should consider context sensitive alternatives including
targeted up-grades toDS04 that address the purpose ofimproved hurricane evacuation times.
Targeted upgrades might include u3 rd west bound lane, improved paved shoulders, improved
access to Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, and enhanced safety features. Rehabilitation
measures and potentially new bridge replacement options adjacent to the existing bridge right of
way should also beconsidered.
Based upon the analysis and identification of a disproportionately high and adverse
effects determination hyNCD{}T and USACB\o environmental juadce(BJ) oocozonoihem, EPA
is unable to support the current suite of build alternatives presented iuthe [}BlS. 8J imwnea should
be used in combination with other significant environmental issues that EPA has identified to
encourage the NCDOT and USACE to develop practicable alignments and designs that meet the
purposes of the project and also taken into account the unique qualities of the project mtudyureu.
The rating nf^2' indicates that [>EID information and environmental analysis innot
sufficient and that additional information and analysis iorequired. EPA recommends that all of
the technical comments in the attachment be addressed in supplemental Merger docuilients and
prior to the next concurrence meeting, including but not limited tn current socio-economic data
and the development n[ reasonable and context sensitive alternatives.
EPA will not be able to concur oothe Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative (LBI)PA) until the significant covinunroen|o]ixooewiderdificdindbemttachmumtore
satisfactorily resolved and supplemental Merger documentation is provided to the public,
resource agencies and deoiaiou-cuokoru.
Mr. Christopher Militschcr of my staff will continue to work with you as part of the
NEPA/Section 404 Merger Team process in the identification of reasonable and feasible
alternatives. Should you have any questions concerning these comments, please feel free to
contact him a1 or(919)856-42O6or(4O4)562-9512. Thank you.
w/Attacbment
Cc: S. MuC|uudoo,DS/\CE
VY.Biddlmmme,USACO
D. Wrenn, NCDW0
-AWL-
HoinzlMueller
Chief, NEPA Program Office

D. Wainwright, NCDWQ
G. Jordan, USFWS
M. Bryant, USFWS -ARNWR
T. Wilson, NCWRC
C. Brittingham, NCDCM
R. Sechler, NOAA -NMFS
K. Hart, NCDMF
B -33

Attachment A
Technical Review Comments on the DEIS
US 64 Improvements and Lindsay C. Warren Bridge Replacement
Tyrrell and Dare Counties
TIP Nos.: R -2544 and R -2545
General Comments
The DEIS cover includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as the Lead
Federal Agency under NEPA (40 CFR Section 1501.5). Page iii, Section S.2 under the DEIS
Summary and Chapter 1, Page 1 -1 indicate that the document was prepared under the North
Carolina State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements. It is stated that the DEIS
conforms to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines. The CEQ requirements
under NEPA are regulations and are not guidelines (40 CFR Parts 1500 - 1508). The USACE is
considering a major Federal pen-nit action under the Clean Water Act (CWA) potentially
requiring the preparation of a Federal DEIS (40 CFR Section 1501.4).
As the Lead Federal Agency under NEPA, the USACE is required to comply with all
relevant and applicable Federal laws and regulations and Executive Orders (e.g., E.O. 12898 on
Environmental Justice). NEPA allows for eliminating duplication of State and Federal
requirements where appropriate (Please see 40 CFR Section 1500.4(n). The inaccuracy of this
section of the DEIS should be corrected in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
Project Purpose and Need
Page iv, Section S.4 under the DEIS Summary includes the purpose of the proposed
project. It does not include the need for the proposed project. The `need'. for the project
describes the key problem(v) to be addressed and to the extentpossible explains the underlying
causes of those problems. The `purpose' states clearly and succinctly why the project is being
proposed and articulates the positive outcomes that are intended. Please see: Purpose and Need
Guidance for FHWA- funded Projects in North Carolina, Version 2; February 2009 at
littp://www.tliwa.dot.goviNCDIV.
To the extent practicable, the USACE and NCDOT should consider other Federal
transportation agency guidance in its development of a project purpose and need.
The purposes of the project are outlined on page iv of the DEIS and are summarized as
follows: Consistency with the NCDOT's Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) plan; Reducing the
US 64 hurricane evacuation times to better meet state clearance goals in the project study area;
and, Maintaining a bridge across the Alligator River that meets the needs of highway users.
Consistency with the 2005 SHC [Vision] plan is not believed to be a documented need.
This issue has been addressed on numerous other highway projects in the Merger process.
B -34

USACE, EPA and other agencies have maintained that consistency with the SHC Vision Plan is
a purpose, and not a documentable need. The SHC Vision Plan can be and has been amended
and modified by the NCDOT since 2005. The DEIS includes an expanded description of the
SHC Vision Plan on pages 1 -11 to 1 -17. EPA does not concur that the proposed project as
defined will meet applicable environmental laws (and regulations) including but not limited to
the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive
Order 131861. The DEIS also fails to demonstrate how the project as proposed meets
`fundamental environmental stewardship' as referenced on page 1 -16.
Regarding hurricane evacuation and clearance times under N.C.G.S. Section 136 - 102.7,
the proposed project's detailed study alternatives do not meet the State standard. Please see:
http: / /law.oneele.com /north- carolina /i36- roads - and- highways/ ,l6- ro2.7.htnil
"Evacuation Standard: The hurricane evacuation standard to be used for any bridge or highway
construction project pursuant to this Chapter shall be no more than 18 hours, as recommended
by the State Emergency Management officials ". The discussion on page 1 -32 of the DEIS does
not address how the proposed project will meet this standard. Furthermore, the project study area
is extremely rural and there is no documentation that there is any hurricane evacuation or
transportation issues regarding the extremely small number of persons who reside in the project
study area (See Figure S -2). Regarding the discussions of the 2005 NCDOT Hurricane
Evacuation Study, EPA as a member of the oversight committee did not concur on the use of
a75% occupancy and Category 3 Hurricane event criteria for the Outer Banks. In an independent
evaluation of the 2005 study, EPA could not identify one Category 3 Hurricane storm that has
made actual landfall on the Outer Banks in the past 60 years of detailed National Weather
Service records. Table 1 -10 includes clearance times assuming 75% occupancy and a Category 3
Hurricane. Existing conditions are shown in the year 2007 and 22.5 hours to I -95. The 2030 No-
build is shown as 28.9 hours. The discussion of boat traffic around the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge
and potentially delayed clearance times on page 1 -35 is not believed to be accurate or properly
documented.
In a potential effort to illustrate the need for improvements to US 64, the DEIS states that
the entire population of Dare County increased by 328% from 1970 to 2000. The report fails to
analysis, however, that population growth has declined each consecutive decade within that
interval. For example, population growth in Dare County slowed to 32% from 1990 to 2000 (as
opposed to 91% from 1970 to 1980, and 70% from 1980 to 1990). The DEIS states that the
population in Dare County is projected to grow by 80% between 2000 and 2030. In the wake of
declining population growth over the last few decades and the recent economic downturn since
2009, EPA does not believe that these population projections to be realistic. The population
projections also do not correspond to the land use information and population projections from
the 2012 FEIS Indirect and Cumulative Effects report provided by FHWA and NCDOT for R-
2576. The uncontrolled coastal development of the Outer Banks has significantly slowed due to
more recent socio- economic trends, the substantial reduction in buildable lands and the lack of
other needed infrastructure. Consequently, the inflated population estimates in the DEIS outside
of the project study area can significantly alter hurricane evacuation estimates. The population
B -35

trends presented on pages 1 -20 and 1 -21, including the approximated 2003 seasonal peak
population in Dare County of 200,000, is not believed to be a relevant U.S. Census 2010 statistic.
Moreover, Table 1 -2 ends population growth demographics for Tyrell and Dare Counties in
2000. The NCDOT and USACE should provide a supplemental NEPA document that includes
more current U.S. Census data.
The DEIS fails to take in to account that evacuees can utilize other U.S. highways to
vacate Dare County in the event of a Category 3 hurricane. These routes include US 264 to the
south and US 158 to the north. Dividing automobile traffic among these three major corridors
would subsequently reduce potential congestion and the evacuation time on US 64. NCDOT and
FHWA are also proposing the `gap - funded' Mid- Currituck Bridge toll project (R -2576) that
would provide another evacuation route from the Outer Banks.
Considering the extremely large acreages managed as conservation areas, mitigation
sites, preserves, wildlife gamelands, and a National Wildlife Refuge within the project study area
[emphasis added] depicted on Figure S -2, the likelihood of future hurricane evacuation issues is
not believed to be a foreseeable transportation problem. The existing two -lane Lindsay C.
Warren Bridge over the Alligator River currently has an adequate (`fair') NCDOT safety rating
(36 out of 100). There is no documentation provided in the DEIS that the existing two -lane
bridge requires additional highway capacity to four lanes.
For some additional guidance on Purpose and Need, the USACE and NCDOT should
consider the FHWA technical assistance information below and the website links:
Using Purpose and Need in Decision - making
As noted above, the purpose and need define what can be considered reasonable, prudent, and
practicable alternatives. The decision - making process should first consider those alternatives which meet
the purpose and need for the project at an acceptable cost and level of environmental impact relative to
the benefits which will be derived from the project.
At times, it is possible that no alternative meets all aspects of the project's purpose and need. In such a
case, it must be determined if the alternatives are acceptable and worthwhile pursuing in light of the cost,
environmental impact and less than optimal transportation solution. To properly assess this, it is important
to determine the elements of the purpose and need which are critical to the project, as opposed to those
which may be desirable or simply support it, the critical elements are those which if not met, at least to
some minimal level, would lead to a "no- build" decision. Determining critical needs could include policy
decisions as well as technical considerations.
Other times, the cost or level of environmental impact are not acceptable and an alternative that only
partially meets the purpose and need or the no -build alternative must be considered. If the costs are
justified in relation to the transportation benefits, then a less than full -build alternative may be acceptable.
http: //www. environment. thwa .dot.gov /projdev /tdmnced.asp
"Care should be taken that the purpose and need statement is not so narrowly drafted that it
unreasonably points to a single solution" (FHWA Administrator: 7123103 Memorandum on Guidance
on `Purpose and Need'). http: / /www. environment. fliwa .dot.�)ov /guicleboolc/Gjoint.asp
B -36

As the Lead Federal Agency under NEPA, the EPA recommends that USACE should
fully explore other Federal transportation agency guidance and requirements to justify a project
need in consideration of the potential costs and significant environmental impacts associated
with the proposed action. The USACE should consider the "No Action" alternative for US 64
and other potential interim actions with respect to maintaining the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge.
Secondary benefits of the proposed action are identified on page iv of the DEIS. These
secondary benefits include the following: Potential for [the] reduction in total crash rates from
the conversion of a two -lane rural roadway to a four -lane, divided section; A new Alligator River
bridge will provide the opportunity for safety improvements related to the absence of a swing -
span and signalized approaches, as well as improved shoulders, wider lanes, and bicycle -safe
rails; and, Potential for improved regional bicycle trail connectivity and pathways from the Town
of Columbia to the Outer Banks.
According to highway studies, the potential for the reduction in total crash rates by
converting two -lane facilities to four -lane, median - divided facilities are not clearly documented.
Recent studies show that lane width and wider paved shoulders are more important in the
reduction of rural, two -lane crashes. Existing US 64 lacks the Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADTs) cited in the below referenced report to support conversion from two -lanes to four -
lanes: Please see: htti): : / /tti.tamLi.edu/documeuts /0- 4618 -S.pdf
Highway mitigation strategies are also available to the transportation agency in an effort
to reduce rural two -lane total crash rates, including centerline or shoulder rumble strips, shoulder
reflectors, safety edges, breakaway light poles, fixed object shielding, safety guard rails, driver
pull- off /rest areas, etc. Please see:
littp: / /safety.ihwa.dot. ,gov /geometric/ pubs /mitigationstrateai es /chapter4 /4 lane' showidth.htm
Passing lanes (3`d lane) improvements could also potentially reduce crash rates and
address any improvements sought for hurricane evacuation purposes. EPA requested that
NCDOT and other Merger team agencies consider this as a reasonable and feasible option during
the development of detailed study alternatives. The rationale for using development and
population forecasts on the Outer Banks that are outside of the project study area is not believed
to be reasonable while at the same time not including US 264 in the evaluation of an alternate
evacuation route. The project study area as currently presented in the DEIS does not provide for
a full analysis of the issues and for a full range of reasonable alternatives.
Regarding the secondary benefit of evaluating safety improvements concerning the
existing bridge over the Alligator River, there is no documentation provided that the existing
bridge was designed by NCDOT as an unsafe structure (i.e., a swing -span bridge). EPA
recognizes that a swing -span bridge for limited boat traffic may present an inconvenience at
times for motorists on US 64. However, in a mandatory hurricane evacuation order, emergency
management officials have the responsibility to keep the evacuation routes open to evacuees.
Other improvements concerning improved shoulders, wider lanes and bicycle safety rails could
be included in an alternative design that rehabilitates the existing structure.
B -37

EPA generally supports the secondary benefit of improved regional bicycle facilities
between Columbia and the Outer Banks. However, this secondary benefit can be accomplished
by implementing a number of improvements to the existing facilities that were not analyzed or
fully considered in the DEIS. The comments concerning a lack of or the inadequacy of local
transportation plans in Tyrrell and Dare Counties on page 1 -22 is noted.
Page 1 -6 of the DEIS includes a description of the project setting. EPA notes that one
business is identified in Tyrell County: a gas station/marina complex on the north side of US 64
at the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge. From previous Merger meetings, this business was more than
`a business' but reportedly a State - designated "Safe Harbor" that essentially required NCDOT to
develop bridge replacement alternatives on new location. Page 1 -10 of the DEIS includes the
statement that the proposed project will improve connectivity of the US 64 corridor. EPA does
not concur with this claim.
According to Section 230.1(d) of the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines, degradation or
destruction of special aquatic sites, such as filling operations in wetlands, is considered to be
among the most severe environmental impacts, which may represent an irreversible loss of
valuable aquatic resources. The project sponsoring agencies need to better demonstrate that the
widening of the US 64 Corridor is justified given the potential for irreversible impacts to waters
of the U.S.
Detailed Study Alternatives
EPA did not concur on the NCDOT's Detailed Study Alternatives (i.e., Concurrence
Point 2) for the proposed project. Along with several other Merger team agencies, EPA's non -
concurrence on the Detailed Study Alternatives to be Carried Forward was over -turned by the
Merger Management Team on October 16, 2008. The `requirements' for an expressway facility
are not believed to be accurate or justified based upon a demonstrated project transportation
need.
The DEIS includes traffic based upon the 2006 and 2030 design years (Page 1 -27, et al).
The 2030 design year is not consistent with other current NCDOT projects where the design year
is identified as 2035. The traffic roadway operations and capacity analysis using 2006 is not
consistent with requirements for providing current traffic data (6 year old `stale' data).
The level of service (LOS) capacity data shown in Table 1 -6 indicates that no links in the
current facility experience any failing or near - failing LOS in 2006 or 2020. Regarding the US 64
crash rate comparisons on page 1 -29 and Table 1 -7, every type of crash category (total, fatal,
non - fatal, night and wet) is significantly below the State -wide average and critical crash rates.
The safety discussion concerning the conversion of 2 -lane rural facilities to 4 -lane facilities on
page 1 -30 is noted. Please see the following related infor►nation: FHWA has conducted
numerous safety studies concerning high speed facilities: "In 2008, there were 37,261 fatalities
on oter Nation's roadways. Of these; 11,674 (31 percent) were speeding - related! ". Source:
http:/ /safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmftt/ . Also included on this FHWA website is a 2007 chart
depicting fatality rates per road type: Interstate facilities in rural areas had a rate almost double
C.

that of Interstates in urban areas. This FHWA report also includes the following potentially
relevant information:
Speeding — traveling too, fast.for conditions or in excess of the posted speed limits —is a
factor in almost one -third of all fatal crashes and costs America approximately $27.7 billion
dollars in economic costs each year. Speeding is a safety concern on all roads, regardless of
their speed limits. Much of'the public concern about speeding has been focused on high -speed
Interstates.
Considering the extremely significant costs of fatalities associated with high -speed
facilities, especially in rural areas, EPA does not concur with the analysis provided in the DEIS.
With the enormous areas surrounding existing US 64 Corridor that are designated gamelands,
mitigation sites, Significant Natural Heritage areas, and the Alligator River National Wildlife
Refuge, vehicle collisions with large mammals including black beer, white - tailed deer, coyote,
bobcat, river otter, beaver, and the endangered red wolf would be expected to increase
substantially. According to the statistics in the DEIS, animals accounted for 36% of the crashes
along US 64 and animals were involved in 77% of night time crashes. The severity of future
crashes is expected to be much greater with the increased traffic speeds on a 4 -lane, median -
divided facility. The `mitigation' concept of providing occasional wildlife passages (bridging
roads or using culverts as tunnels) under multi -lane high -speed roadways is still an emerging
scientific issue. The addition of safety guard rails along the US 64 canals resulted in a four -time
reduction in the fatal crash rate from previous safety studies (pages 1 -30 to 1 -31).
The DEIS discusses a Three -lane Alternative in Section 2.3.5 and Chapter 7. EPA also
does not concur with the same reasons for eliminating a three -lane alternative presented on pages
7 -20 to 7 -21. Contrary to the issues identified in the DEIS for this project, NCDOT and FHWA
are currently proposing to build a 22 -mile, high- speed, SHC toll facility in Gaston County that is
2- lanes. The safety crash data presented on page 7 -20 is not current (2003 -2005 crash rates).
The rural project setting and very limited population in the project study area is not compared to
the 2 and 3 -lane analysis provided. Furthermore, 4 -lane divided facilities in extremely rural areas
are expected greatly increase driver speeding habits and cause more severe collisions with
wildlife. Head -on collisions with an existing two -lane facility have not been documented in the
DEIS and it is not a reasonable assumption that a three -lane facility will increase head -on
collisions as described on page 2 -8. A concrete median barrier for a rural roadway with minimal
AADT is not a reasonable safety measure. Considering the topography within the project study
area and the presence of deep canals along significant portions of US 64, the median width
`safety argument' for recovery purposes is not believed to be valid. Safety along the existing
facility is not identified as a project purpose and need and the discussions on pages 2 -8 to 2 -10
do not take into account the context sensitive nature of the project study area. The discussion of a
median barrier and an additional westbound evacuation lane causes a capacity `bottleneck' is not
believed to be documented or a reasonable assessment. EPA maintains that a Three -lane
Alternative was not given a full and reasonable consideration for the proposed project in
consideration of the project's purpose.
The Lindsay C. Warren Bridge is described on pages 1 -24 to 1 -26. The potential
rehabilitation of this bridge is detailed in Section 2.3.7. The deficiencies identified on pages 2-
B -39

10 and 2 -11 do not demonstrate that the existing structure is `unsafe' as cited on page 2 -10.
There are no costs associated with the rehabilitation measures identified on page 2 -11 and the
reasons provided are based primarily on the desire to increase traffic capacity on the bridge
(Current or future traffic capacity is not a documented need for the project). Without costs and
an objective analysis of rehabilitating the existing bridge, EPA does not concur with the
elimination of this potentially reasonable alternative. Rural 2 -lane bridges are replaced (in place)
in numerous places in North Carolina and plans to re -route local traffic are often required while a
new or rehabilitated structure is being constructed. There is an existing `parallel' route on US
264 for re- routing traffic as rehabilitation activities are made on the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge.
Even a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge was not given full consideration and EPA did
not concur that a new 2 -lane or 4 -lane bridge structure with wider paved shoulders (to meet
current design standards) could not be tied in on either end of the existing bridge. For example, a
new 2 -lane bridge adjacent (within 30 -feet) to an existing 2 -lane bridge is currently being
planned over the Chowan River as part of TIP Project No. R- 2507A. Within the current design
year traffic forecasts presented in the DEIS, the `need' for a 4 -lane bridge is not documented.
Under Travel Demand Management Alternatives, the DEIS on page 2 -7 indicates that
there is only one other evacuation route (US 158) from the Outer Banks. This statement is not
accurate and US 264 should be considered for evacuation purposes as it has common termini
with US 64.
The rationale for providing improved (wider) shoulder lengths for disabled vehicles is a
reasonable operational and design consideration. As with `run -a -way' ramps for trucks in the
N.C. mountains, providing reasonable paved shoulder areas along existing U.S. 64 is a valid
safety consideration as presented on page 2 -14. However, the entire 27.3 mile length of the
proposed project may not require widened paved shoulders for its entire length and consideration
should be given to placing strategic widened shoulders in areas that would allow for motorists to
pull -off of the additional westbound hurricane evacuation lane (Third -lane Alternative).
The rationale presented on pages 2 -12 to 2 -18 for evaluating a 46 -foot and 23 -foot
medina design alternatives for Tyrrell County and only a 23 -foot median alternative for Dare
County is not believed to be reasonable or consistent with current NCDOT design requirements.
If a 23 -foot raised median has been determined to be safe and acceptable for US 64 for Dare
County, it would be reasonable that the 23 -foot raised median would be safe and acceptable for
the Tyrrell County portion (i.e., same project purposes; same traffic capacity; same potential
evacuation issues; etc.). The DEIS includes `cons' of utilizing a 23 -foot median design on page
2 -18. These claims are not supported by actual documentation. Safety along the existing US 64
2 -lane highway is not included as a project purpose. From the discussion on pages 2 -15 and 2-
18, it is likely that carrying forward for detailed study a 23 -foot median design alternative in the
DEIS was apparently only considered in order to obtain concurrence from certain agencies on the
Merger Management Team. NCDOT's 46 -foot median `requirement' discussed on page 2 -15
does not provide a `demonstration of a good faith attempt to balance environmental stewardship
with safety and functionality'. Safety is not part of the stated purpose of the project or a
documented need. Based upon current traffic and future projections and other transportation
measures identified in the DEIS, the existing 2 -lane US 64 functions adequately.
B -40

The DEIS includes detailed discussions concerning the DSAs on pages 2 -45 to 2 -74. The
options considered do not represent a full range of reasonable alternatives as required under 40
CFR Part 1502.14. For example, Section 3, Bridge Replacement Corridors include the bridge
crossing lengths of the Dare North 1 (3.13 miles), Dare North 2 (3.19 miles) and Dare Northern
Bypass (3.77 miles). All three bridge alternatives begin on new location in Tyrrell County to the
north of the existing bridge. Without providing a comparison to a rehabilitation alternative or a
southern terminus to the 2.3 -mile Lindsay C. Warren Bridge, these alternatives were evaluated in
detail without consideration of other potentially reasonable alternatives.
The statement on page 2 -71 concerning the `difficulty of comparing the impacts because
not all of the corridors start and end at the same location' is unclear and not consistent with the
requirements under 40 CFR Part 1502.14. The Table on 2 -7 demonstrates that basically slight
variations to similar corridors and with different design options is meant to present a `full range
of alternatives' for the East Lake area of the project. Thirteen (13) East Lake alternatives are
identified and thus it appears that a `full range of alternatives' were considered under NEPA.
EPA does not concur with this approach and that some if no most of the alternatives are not
practicable alternatives considering the project's purposes.
Pages 2 -75 to 2 -78 reiterate the project's purposes and the ability of the build alternatives
to meet the purposes. All of the build alternatives improve the hurricane evacuation clearance
time to 11.9 hours. Approximately 17 hours less than the 28.9 -hour No -build Alternative and 6
hours less than the standard of 18 hours. This would clearly indicate that a `lesser' design of one
additional westbound lane (Three -lane Alternative) would potentially meet the clearance time
standard of 18 hours.
Project costs for the DSAs are identified in Section 2.8 of the DEIS. None of the tables
2 -9 to 2 -11 include potential mitigation costs for impacts to waters of the U.S. This information
should be provided in a supplemental NEPA document. The `total' costs for Section 1 range
between $64.8 million and $73.4 million (EPA rounded to a tenth of a million from individual
dollar amounts). Section 2, 3 and 4 alternatives range from $220.8 to $252.5 million. Section 5
total costs range from $70.1 million to $73.4 million. EPA notes the comment to Table 2 -10
reflecting only a 46 -foot median for the Tyrrell North Alternative. There are no preliminary or
estimated costs for a Third -lane Alternative or bridge rehabilitation option.
Affected Environment
On page 3 -1 of the DEIS, communities on the Outer Banks, such as Duck and Kitty
Hawk, are referenced. These communities are outside of the project study area as defined. The
Town of Plymouth to the west of Columbia is not referenced in this discussion. EPA does not
agree with the methodology of the project study area (PSA) analysis as described on page 3 -2,
specifically as it pertains to population and traffic projections on the Outer Banks that are not
included in the PSA. EPA is concerned that there is a lack of viable U.S. Census data for the
East Lake and Alligator communities (page 3 -2). The demographic information included in
Table 3 -1 is not recent (within the past 5 years) or potentially relevant (Demographic area,
County -wide, and State -wide numbers only and not specific to the PSA).
B -41

EPA acknowledges the comments on page 3 -10 concerning future population trends.
Tables 3-4,3-5, 3-6,3-7,3-8, 3 -9, and 3 -10 (Population by Race and Hispanic Origin;
Population by Age; Change in Education, Income Measures and Persons Living Below the
Poverty Line; Change in Income Measures and Persons Living Below the Poverty Line; Income
Measures and Persons Below Poverty Level By Block Group; and Housing Characteristics,
respectively) are all based upon 2000 U.S. Census data. This information is not believed to be
accurate for the purposes of determining potential requirements under Executive Order 12898.,
Other socio- economic data presented in the DEIS is not believed to be fully accurate as to be
used for current conditions or future trends. NCDOT and USACE should consider providing a
supplemental NEPA document that uses 2010 U.S. Census data.
The connection between the `WAMI' project described on page 3 -19 and its direct socio-
economic effect on communities within the PSA (Alligator and East Lake) is not analyzed nor
disclosed in the DEIS. EPA notes the comments on the Alligator and East Lake communities on
pages 3 -20 and 3 -21 of the DEIS.
EPA acknowledges the comment provided on page 3 -33 of the DEIS: "I sincerely hope
that these improvements (to US 64) will not be delayed or detrimentally impacted by
management plans of the USFWS". The USFWS response to Dare County comments are noted
on page 3 -34. Section 3.3 includes discussions concerning protected lands and recreation areas.
EPA notes that portions of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge are located in the PSA.
The Palmetto - Peartree and Alligator River Preserves, J. Morgan Futch and Alligator River
Gamelands, Great Dismal Swamp, Scuppernong River and Hidden Lake Wetland Mitigation
Banks, numerous Significant Natural Heritage Areas (6 located in Tyrrell County), Alligator
River National Wildlife Refuge, Creef Cut and Sandy Ridge Wildlife Trails, and Significant
Natural Heritage Areas (4 in Dare County) are all located within the PSA.
The water quality designations identified on pages 3 -65 and 3 -66 includes the
Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) and High Quality Water (HQW) designations for the
Alligator River within the PSA.
The comments concerning Black Bear and Red Wolf studies described on pages 3 -84 to
3 -86 should have been timed such that the completed studies would be completed, analyzed and
incorporated into the DEIS prior to the issuance of the DEIS. Considering the recognized
importance of wildlife resources within the PSA, EPA does not believe that the completion of
these necessary studies should be made after the potential selection of a Least Environmentally
Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA).
EPA notes that the multi - agency accepted North Carolina Wetlands Assessment
Methodology (NCWAM) was not utilized for the wetland classifications and plant communities
within the PSA (Table 3 -16). The comment on page 3 -93 concerning canals and ditches and
USACE jurisdictional determinations is not clear.
Hazardous material sites and underground storage sites within the PSA, including the
Alligator River Marina and the former Dare County East Lake Landfill are described on pages 3-
B -42

118 and 3 -119. EPA notes that both sites are contaminated and potentially under remediation
efforts.
Impacts to the Human and Natural Environment
Impacts to the human and natural environment are included by project section in Tables
4 -1 to 4 -9. Total impacts for the project are not summarized in a comparison form that clearly
delineates the differences between the DSAs.
An analysis concerning Environmental Justice impacts under E.O. 12898 to the
communities of Alligator and East Lake is included in Section 4.1.6. Based upon the analysis
and identification of a disproportionately high and adverse effects determination by NCDOT and
USACE (Pages 4 -32 and 4 -33), EPA recommends the no -build alternative. Because this
potential adverse impact is in Section I of the PSA, the proposed project would lack a `whole
and complete' status to fulfill the stated purposes. In addition, the DEIS also states that most of
the DSAs associated with the East Lake community also represent a disproportionately high and
adverse effect (Table 4 -13). EPA strongly recommends that NCDOT and USACE develop a
substantiated project and need and new alternatives that do not result in disproportionately high
and adverse effects to minority and low - income communities.
For DSA IA, the natural resource impacts are significant and a magnitude greater than
most eastern N.C. projects: 46.6 to 54.9 acres to Managed Lands, 36.3 to 40.0 acres to SNHAs,
73.5 to 83.4 acres to Protected Species Habitat, 76.1 to 94.9 acres to jurisdictional wetlands,
39,781 to 39,766 linear feet to jurisdictional waters (canals), and 114.7 to 133.6 acres to
Essential Fish Habitat.
For DSA 1B, the natural resource impacts are significant and a magnitude greater than
most eastern N.C. projects: 14.2 to 18.6 acres to Managed Lands, 25.7 to 31.0 acres to SNHAs,
56.7 to 66.9 acres to Protected Species Habitat, 75.4 to 99.3 acres to jurisdictional wetlands,) and
78.5 to 101.9 acres to Essential Fish Habitat.
For DSAs EL 1 to EL 13, impacts to natural resources are again extremely high for this
6.7 to 6.9 mile segment. For example, EL 5 impacts 60.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and
89.3 acres to Essential Fish Habitat. EL 1 to 13 also impact between 0.6 and 21.9 acres of the
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR).
For DSA 5A, the natural resource impacts are significant and a magnitude greater than
most eastern N.C. projects: 116.3 acres to ARNWR, 53.7 acres to Managed Lands, 98.5 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands, 17,325 linear feet to jurisdictional waters (canals), 34.2 acres to
Protected Species Habitat, and 145.2 acres to Essential Fish Habitat.
For DSA 5B, the natural resource impacts are significant and a magnitude greater
than most eastern N.C. projects: 133.8 acres to ARNWR, 102.9 acres to Managed Lands, 91.5
acres of jurisdictional wetlands, 31,010 linear feet to jurisdictional waters (canals), 39.3 acres to
Protected Species Habitat, and 194.4 acres to Essential Fish Habitat.
B -43

In addition to the significant impacts to natural resources, the project includes impacts to
prime farmlands, residences and businesses, historic structures, hazardous material sites and a
cemetery. The DSAs impacts do not meet the `balancing and avoidance' requirements under
several potential environmental laws.
The DEIS states that mitigation is normally not considered until avoidance and
minimization of impacts has been demonstrated to the fullest extent practicable, a much clearer
and specific protocol for mitigation should be outlined in a supplemental NEPA document. For
example, a functional assessment (such as NCWAM) should be identified for use to determine
quality and level of function within impacted wetlands. These functional assessments will aid in
the determination of mitigation ratios and credits. Avoidance and minimization measures
proposed in the DEIS are not believed to be adequate to meet the requirements under Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines.
Footnote: 1 U.S. Department of Interior letter dated March 29, 2012.
B -44

Steven W. Troxler
Commissioner
Ms, Sheila Green
4 ri Cp
h
CU UkA
�LNDki] l�hn .
North Carolina Department of
State Clearinghouse
N.C. Department of Administration
1301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1301
and Consumer Servic
Agr'icultur'al Services
qty
ui v Vernon Cox
En- vironrncntal Programs
Specialist
February 29; 2012
State #: 12 -E- 4220 -0196
RE: US HWY 64 Widening Project roadway modifications; TIP R -2544 and R -2545
Dear Ms. Green:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed project for widening US 64 in Tyrrell and Dare Counties.
The Environmental Assessment indicates that the proposed project will contribute to the ongoing loss of farm and
forest land in our State. Farm and forest lands are important for both economic and environmental reasons.
Appropriately managed agricultural lands can provide groundwater recharge, wastewater filtration, flood prevention,
and wildlife habitat protection. Agricultural land enhances the quality of life for citizens within a community by
offering scenic landscapes, open space, and a variety of outdoor recreational activities. In addition, loss of
productive farmland has the potential for irreversible damage to the agricultural sector of our economy.
In order to minimize impacts to farm and forest lands, the following issues should be given priority in implementing
this project. Widening of the existing US 64 corridor is preferable to construction of new segments due to the fact
that widening within the existing corridor is likely to minimize impacts to existing farm and forest lands. In addition,
construction of new routes has the potential to isolate existing agricultural tracts; thus leading to the loss of
additional agricultural lands due to isolation. Where access is restricted due to new construction, it is critical that
adequate access to travel corridors be provided to agricultural operations so as to minimize travel disruptions and
associated inconvenience and costs to agricultural producers.
Based on the secondary, cumulative, and direct impacts, this project will adversely impact the agricultural,
environmental and economic resources in the proposed area. The total negative impact on the environment
and agribusiness economy will be proportionately related to the total acres of farm and forest land taken out of
production. Increased division of land units and its reduced accessibility for agricultural production will also
increase the negative impact on agriculture. Due to these adverse impacts, alternatives should be selected so as
to minimize the loss of farm and forest lands.
Re pectfully,
Vernon Cox
Environmental Pr grams Specialist
E -mail: vernon cox @ncagr.gov
1001 Wail Service Center, Raleigh, Forth Carolina, 27699 -1001 (919) 733 -7125 ® Fax [phone]
TTY: 1-800-735-2962 Voice: 1-877-735-8200
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
B -45

COUNTY: `i'YRRELL
DARE
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINI`-:: ""2ATION
INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVIEW
P02: HI
M'S RENEE GL=1ILL- EARLEY
CLEARINGHOUSE COORDINATOR
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
MSC 4617 - ARCHIVES BUILDING
RALEIGH NC
REVIEW DISTRIBUTION
ALBEMARLE REG PLANNING COMM
CC &PS - DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
DENR COASTAL MGT
DEN'R LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
DEPT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPT OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT INFORMATION
APPLICANT: N.C. Dept. of Transportation
TYPE: National. Environmental Policy Act
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
L i7AD�
STATE NUMBER:
DATE RECEIVED:
12 -E- 4220 -0196
02/09/201.2
❑ NO COMMENT
AGENCY RESPONSE:
03/07/2012
A
REVIEW CLOSED:
03/12/2012
OFFICE
paw 51�
DE "SC: Proposed project involves widening of a 27.3 mile section of US 64 in Tyrrell and
Dare counties. TIP R -2544 and R -2545
The attached project has been submitted to the N. C. State Clearinghouse for
intergovernmental review. Please review and submit your response by the above
indicated date to 1301 Mail Service Center, Rale4g't: NC 27699 - 1301.
If additional review time is needed, please contact this office at (919)807 -2425.
AS A RESULT
OF THIS REVIEW THE FOLLOWING
IS SUBMITTED:
❑ NO COMMENT
COMMENTS AT- -c- PA-CH•"il
SIGNED BY:
A
DATE:
B -46

Beverly Eaves Perdue
Governor
MEMCRANDOM
`LO: Z,eke Creech
State Clearinghouse
FROM: Melh)a McGee
Yro ect RevWew Coordinator.
Dee Freeman
Secretary
FE,: 12 -0196 DEIS Widening of 27.3 miles of US 64 in Tyrrell and
Dare Coun',_ -es ,DOT _' P 2 -254.9 and
DATE: March 29, 2,912
The Department of Environment and Natural Revources has rei.ewed `_he
proposed project.
The Department of Transportation is proposing tq widen a 2'.1.3 mile
section o` CS 64 from east of Co -umbia in Tyrrell County to US 2664 in Dare
County, incl -ading the replacement of the P_114gatcr River Swing Bridqe.
This project is beina coordinated t'-rough the NEPA 409 Mercer Process
1h icx- prova, des a forum for state and federal agent =as to discuss th,e_',.r
agency concerns. The department encou,mages the Department of
_ ransportation tc se th -s opportunity to ensure a= all patent =al
impacts have t)eer. denttif;ed, avcJded or m_nim_ zed where practl.caI
Aoiding impacts to the ful_es, extent
v possible and dealing effectively
wth the concerns of this project is an important part of its devel-opment
and the nime__ness of _Is permit review.
Thank you for trie opportunity to comment on
Attachments
1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 276991601
Phone: [phone]Internet: http: / /portal.nedenr.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer — 30% Recycled
B -47
One
NorthCaro na
Naturally

M
irCURR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Beverly Eaves Perdue Braxton C. Davis
Governor Director
March 26, 2012
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
1601 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1601
Dee Freeman
Secretary
RE. SCII NO. 12 -E -4220 -0196. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Widening a 27.3 -mile section. of
US 64 in Tyrrell and Dare Counties, T.I.P. No. R -2544 & TIP No. R -2545.
Dear Ms. McGee:
The N.C. Division of Coastal Management (DCM) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the above referenced project.
This project is being carried through the NEPAI404 Merger Process, and DCM is a member of the
NEPA1404 project team. It appears as though the information contained within the DEIS is consistent with
the information that has been provided to DCM, and upon which we have commented, through the
NEPAl404 Merger Process.
A formal DCM review of the project to determine consistency with North Carolina's Coastal Management
Program will not occur until a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) major permit application is received.
At that time, the CAMA major permit application will be circulated to the network of state agencies that
comprise North Carolina's Coastal Management Program. The statutes, rules and policies of each of these
agencies must be considered during the review of the CAMA major permit application. This process will
also include a consistency review by the DCM District Planner of the relevant CAMA land use plans.
Attached please find a memorandum from the North East DCM District Planner dated March 23, 2012
providing a Provisional Consistency Determination based upon a review of the DEIS.
Due to the extent of environmental impacts that are proposed, the N.C. Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) is urged to submit the CAMA major permit application for this project to DCM a minimum of six
months prior to the anticipated construction let date. During the CAMA major permit application review
process, DCM may have additional comments after examining the more detailed environmental information
that will be provided with the permit application. DCM may also place conditions on any CAMA permit that
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1638
Internet: www.nocoastalmanagement.net
An Equaf opportunity 1 Affirmative Ad w Employer
1 •
Na rthCarohna
a"tlC1all'y

is issued to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate environmental impacts, The comments provided in this letter
shall not preclude DCM from requesting additional information throughout the CAMA major permit
application review process, and following normal permit processing procedures. Furthermore, nothing in this
letter shall be interpreted as providing an opinion on the ultimate outcome of any CAMA permit decision.
Thank you for your consideration of the North Carolina Coastal Management Program. DCM looks forward
to our continued involvement as a member of the NEPA/404 Project Team for this project. Please contact
me at (9I9) 707 -9149 or via e -mail at cathy.brittint;ham(a,ncdenr, ov if you have any questions or concerns,
or require additional information.
CC: Doug Huggett, DCM
Frank Jennings, DCM
David Moye, DCM
Paul Williams, DCM
Charlan Owens, DCM
Attachment
1638 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NO 27699 -1638
Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal OpportuAily, , Affirmative AClion Employer
B -49
Sincerely,
Cathy Brittingham
Transportation Project Coordinator
N�1e Cafoiina
WA(MlIff

Beverly Eaves Perdue Braxton C, Davis Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cathy Brittingham, DCM Transportation Project Coordinator
FROM: Charlan Owens, AICP, NE DCM District Planner
SUBJECT: Review of the Administrative Action Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
US 64 Improvements Project for widening of US 64 to a four -lane divided highway
and construction of a four -lane high rise bridge over the Alligator River, with fifteen
(15) study corridors and three (3) bridge alternatives; along a 27.3 mile corridor
extending from the Town of Columbia Extra - Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), through
Tyrrell County to US 264 in Dare County.
Reference: State No. 6.049002T; STIP Project Nos. R -2544 and -2545
Date: March 23, 2012
Provisional Consistency Determination:
The alternatives are consistent with /not in conflict with the
Tyrrell County /Town of Columbian LUP, certified by the Coastal
Resources Commission on March 25, 2010; provided that the
wetland mitigation policy and implementation have been met.
Additional information concerning wetland mitigation is needed.
(See "Basis for Determination ", Attachment A, Page 22).
The alternatives are consistent with /not in conflict with the Dare
County 2009 LUP, certified by the Coastal Resources
Commission on February 24, 2011.
Additional information is needed concerning anticipated
shoreline stabilization in Tyrrell and Dare counties and roadway
corridor programs to be instituted in Tyrrell County. (See "Basis
for Determination" in Attachments A and B).
Update the Town of Columbia limit lines to include the Extra -
Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Planning Boundary.
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX: [phone] ; lnternet www nccoastalmanagement,net
An Equal Opportunity l Affirmative Action Employer
B -50
One
Noi-thCarolina
Aatundff

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 2 of 27
Update information concerning the Tyrrell County /Town of
Columbia and Dare County Land Use Plans; the 1996 and
1994 versions are no longer applicable.
Overview: The proposed project calls for the widening of US 64 to a four -lane divided highway
and construction of a four -lane high rise bridge over the Alligator River along a 27.3 mile
corridor extending from the Town of Columbia Extra - Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ), through
Tyrrell County to US 264 in Dare County. The existing two -lane corridor represents the last
remaining section of US 64 between Raleigh and the Outer Banks that is not multi -lane.
The primary purposes of the proposed project are to 1) provide consistency with North
Carolina's Strategic Highway Corridor Plan which seeks long -term interconnectivity of consistent
transportation corridors in North Carolina and the Intrastate Highway System; 2) reduce US 64
hurricane evacuation time to better meet state clearance goals in the project area, and; 3)
maintain a bridge across the Alligator River that meets the needs of highway users. Secondary
benefits of the proposed project include: 1) the potential to reduce total crash rates by
converting to a four -lane divided section, 2), the opportunity for bridge safety improvements,
and; 3) the potential for improved regional bicycle trail connectivity and pathways from the Town
of Columbia to the Outer Banks in Dare County.
The project study area encompasses approximately 8,922 acres and extends beyond the
existing right -ef -way for US 64. The western and eastern portions of the project area are 2,000
feet wide, centered on the existing US 64 alignment. Immediately east and west of the Alligator
River and over the river itself, the project area expands to become substantially wider to
accommodate numerous bridge approach corridor options. West of the Alligator River in Tyrrell
County, the expansion begins approximately 2.5 miles west of the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge,
flaring to a width of approximately 5 miles at the shoreline and across the river. East of the river
in Dare County, the expanded project study area encompasses approximately 3 miles of river
shoreline and then tapers back to a 2,000 -foot width approximately 5 miles east of the bridge.
Four (4) types of Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs) occur within the project study area:
Coastal Wetlands, Estuarine Waters, Coastal Shorelines and Public Trust Areas.
Most of the project study area consists of wetland or open water habitat of one kind or another,
and extensive aquatic communities are found throughout. Surface waters within the study area
include the Alligator River /Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), the Little Alligator River, East
Lake, South Lake, Laurel Bay Lake, and all of their tributaries and connecting canals and
ditches. The Alligator River north of the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge is classified as Coastal
Waters and as Joint Waters south of the bridge. The waters of the Little Alligator River, East
Lake, South Lake, and all of their tributaries and connecting canals and ditches are classified as
Inland Waters. The Alligator River south of the bridge has a use classification of SC Sw
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). A complex network of canals and ditches provides
hydrological connection throughout much of the project study area. In Tyrrell County, Second
Creek, connected to the project corridor by 1.2 miles of bottomland, is designated as SC Sw
ORW. In Dare County, Spencer Creek connected to the project corridor by a 1 mile long canal,
is designated as SA and HQW (High Quality Waters); Laurel Bay Lake, located .75 mile south of
US 64 near the Alligator River and connected to the river by a narrow, 2,000 foot long channel,
1367 U5 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX: [phone]; Internet: www.nccoastalmanagementnet One
NorthCaroj t L7 a
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer Nawrally
B -51

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 3 of 27
is designated as SC Sw ORW, and; Milltail Creek, connected to the project corridor by a 2.1
mile canal, is designated as SC Sw ORW. The project study area contains only two (2)
jurisdictional streams, both perennial: the Alligator River and an unnamed tributary to the
Scuppernong River. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not consider the man-
made canals or ditches within the project study area to be jurisdictional. There are ten (10)
Significant Natural Heritage Areas within the project vicinity: Scuppernong River Swamp Forest,
Alligator Creek /Second Creek Swamp Forest, Palmetto- Peartree Swamp Forest, Upper Alligator
River Pocosin, ;=liver Neck Swamp, Frying Pan Swamp, Alligator River Swamp Forest, Alligator
River /South Lake Swamp Forest, Mashoes Pocosin, and Roanoke /Stumpy Point Marshes and
Pocosin. A complex of streams and drainages at the mouth of the Alligator River has been
designated as Primary Nursery Area. A designated Anadromous Fish Spawning Area occurs at
Hooker Gut, which extends south from South Lake to Billy's Ditch and approaches within 400
feet of the project study area in Dare County. Limited habitat for smaller anadromous species,
such as river herring, may also occur within the canals and drainage ditches that occur
throughout the project study area. No occurrences of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV)
were found during NCDOT surveys of the Alligator River, although emergent and floating
aquatic vegetation are found in canals, marsh areas, and other environments.
In North Carolina, due to land subsidence, sea level is expected to rise between 12 and 40
inches within the next century. The Albemarle Region of the northern coastal plain is predicted
to be highly susceptible to even the smallest increases in sea level. Given its low -lying
elevation, in places 3 feet below mean sea level, the project study area may be below normal
surface water levels in 60 to 75 years. In such case, vast tracts of land would be covered or
have significantly altered ecosystem.
Land area within the project corridor is located in the AE Floodzone in the Town of Columbia
Extra - Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ); primarily within the AE Floodzone with very limited Shaded X
and outside areas in Tyrrell County, and; primarily within the AE (EL 4) and AE (EL 5)
Floodzones with a single Shaded X location in Dare County. The project area floodplains do not
serve the same function as floodplains in non - coastal areas because water levels in the project
area are not dependent on floodplain storage capacity. Rather, the project area is subject to
coastal flooding, which can raise water levels substantially via storm surge.
Alternative Corridors. Various alternative corridors and cross - sections have been carried
forward for consideration in the DEIS. These include five (5) Sections, with subsections and
cross- section options as outlined below:
Section 1 — Tyrrell County Widening
1 A — South side widening; 11.3 miles of 46 foot wide depressed median or 23
foot wide raised median; south canal to be relocated further south
1 B — North side widening; 11.3 miles of 46 foot wide depressed median or 23
foot wide raised median; south canal to remain
Section 2 — Tyrrell County Bridge Approach
Tyrrell North; .83 mile of 46 foot wide depressed median or 23 foot wide raised
median
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909 One
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX: 252 - 264 -3723 ; Internet: www.nccoastalrnanagemen €.net � One o a
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer r`
B -52

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 4 of 27
Section 3 — Replacement Bridge
Dare North 1 (Section 3 and Subsection 4 -1); 2.7 mile bridge crossing, 295 feet
from Tyrrell County shoreline and 1,360 feet from Dare County shoreline
Dare North 2 (Section 3 and Subsection 4 -1); 3.18 mile bridge crossing, 295 feet
from Tyrrell County shoreline and 455 feet from Dare County shoreline.
Dare Northern Bypass {Sections 3 and 4) ; 3.77 mile bridge crossing, 295 feet
from Tyrrell County shoreline and 1,780 feet from Dare County shoreline;
extends north of and around the East Lake community.
Section 4 — Dare County Bridge Approach
Dare Southern Bypass (Subsection 4 -2 only); 1.55 miles of 23 foot wide raised
median
Dare South -Side Widening (Subsections 4 -2 and 4 -3); 2.16 miles of 23 foot wide
raised median
Dare North -Side Widening (Subsections 4 -2 and 4 -3); 2.16 miles of 23 foot wide
raised median
Section 5 -mm Dare County Widening
5A — South side widening; 8.8 miles of 23 foot wide raised median; portion of
south canal to be relocated further south
5B — North side widening; 8.8 miles of 23 foot wide raised median; portion of
north canal to be relocated
Section 1 proposes to widen existing US 64 to the north side or south side, from two lanes to
four lanes, with either a 23- foot -wide or 46- foot -wide median. As a result, only one 1,000 -foot
wide widening corridor is established that provides two (2) alignment alternatives. Proposed
right -of -way varies from 200 to 250 feet wide, depending on topography and the design cross -
section. Considering the two (2) median -width choices, four (4) alternatives are therefore
available for selection in Section 1, any of which can combine with a selected Section 2
alternative.
In Section 2, alternative elimination decisions have yielded an established alignment within the
Tyrrell North corridor that provides a bridge approach in Tyrrell County. The project will widen
US 64 to the north side for a short distance, then extend a new four -lane divided highway
around and adjacent to the north side of the Alligator River marina until it joins the western end
of the new bridge. Two (2) cross - sections are under study: either a 23 -foot -wide or 46- foot -wide
median.
Section 3 comprises the total length of a new four -lane bridge over the Alligator River, plus
bridge ends that extend over land in Tyrrell and Dare Counties. Bridge extensions over land are
proposed to span coastal wetlands and other high quality wetlands. In Dare County, these
bridge extensions also protect wildlife by providing capability to travel underneath the highway.
Section 4 in Dare County is more complex than other project sections, resulting in many
possible corridor combinations. From the end point of a new bridge (that is already extended
over land for a considerable distance), the highway must be reconnected to existing US 64 at
some point. The Dare Northern Bypass corridor stands alone as a separate alignment that
extends to Section 5, offering no intersection possibilities with other corridors. Conversely, both
1367 U5 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: [phone] FAX; 252- 264 -3723 ; Internet: www nccoastalmanagement.net One
Nor''thCar( lh-ia
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer Naturally
B -53

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 5 of 27
the Dare North 1 and bare North 2 corridors offer multiple connection opportunities In the East
Lake community. This requires a division of Section 4 into three subsections. Section 4 ends
just east of the East Lake community. Subsection 4 -1 provides the ability for each bare North
corridor to modify slightly Its alignment to connect with one of three alignments: 1) a south -side
widening through the East Lake community - which is termed Dare South -Side Widening, 2) a
north -side widening through the East Lake community - termed Dare North -Side Widening, and
3) a Southern Bypass around the East Lake community.
Section 5 completes the project, from East Lake to US 264, by widening US 64 (to the north
side or the south side) from two -lanes to four -lanes with a 23- foot -wide raised median.
Proposed right -of -way widths vary from 200 to 250 feet, depending on canal relocation.
The proposed highway represents an expressway vision for safety and capacity. Resultantly,
median breaks are carefully controlled. The new highway proposes right -in, right -out access to
intersecting roads and driveways. Protected U -turns will be located in the median at periodic
intervals and near state routes, to accommodate left -turn movements from side roads. Where
high left -turn volumes warrant, protected "left over" lanes will be considered to accommodate
left turns from US 64 to side roads. In terms of general design parameters, throughout the
project, connectivity among existing water - filled canals along US 64 will likely be maintained,
although several alternatives require canal relocations. In these cases, canals will be relocated
further north or south, as appropriate to accommodate highway widening. It is possible that the
width of a relocated canal will be narrower than the width of the existing canal because the
relocated canal need only be sized to convey appropriate stormwater /tidal flows. At present,
relocated canals are expected to maintain a 10 -foot base width, with broad side slopes. The
depth of any relocated canal will vary depending on its location. Hydraulic connectivity of open
water roadside canals and ditches will be maintained to ensure adequate drainage of the
highway and surrounding lands. Culverts or pipes will be installed or enlarged at new or many
existing roadway crossings. It is important to note that culverts or pipes will maintain hydraulic
connectivity of open water systems to discharge stormwater runoff; however, none of these
structures conveys a jurisdictional stream. Based on preliminary assessments, the NCDQT
Hydraulics Unit has concluded that it is not feasible for the new highway to be designed to both
drain the highway and surrounding land uses and, at the same time, act as a barrier to the
consequences of sea level rise.
Local PlanninQ Jurisdictions within the Project Area. Proposed improvements within the five (5)
project Sections are located within the Town of Columbia Extra - Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ),
unincorporated Tyrrell County, and unincorporated Dare County. The replacement bridge is
located in both counties.
Town of Columbia. A portion of Section 1, Subsection 1 -1 of the project area is located within
the Town of Columbia ETJ from the existing five -lane curb and gutter of US 64 extending
approximately 2,838 feet to the east along the US 64 right -of -way.
Existing uses along the corridor are primarily agricultural to the north and residential to the
south, with forest lands at the ETJ boundary.
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, SIC 27909
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]; Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement net 011E
Nortj"lCaro in
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer L mrally
B -54

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources MEMORANDUM
Division of Coastal Management Page 6 of 27
A Town of Columbia 8 -inch water line parallels the highway along the shoulder within the
Subsection. The water line is on the south side of US 64 and within existing right -of -way. A
0.75 -inch service line extends under US 64, providing water for the houses north of the
highway. Relocation of the water line serving the area immediately east of Columbia is
anticipated.
No CAMA AECs are located in the project area within the Town.
The proposed right -of -way extends into developed farmland and through a small residential
area on the south side of US 64,
See `attachment A" for policy discussion.
Tyrrell County. The remainder of Section 1, Section 2, and a portion of Section 3 of the project
area are located within unincorporated Tyrrell County, extending from the eastern limits of the
Town of Columbia ETJ to the centerline of the Alligator River.
The first mile of the project corridor is comprised of low -lying woods and wet cut -over on both
sides of the highway. US 64 crosses an upland area, Dillon's Ridge, at 1.3 miles from the
project start. A canal is located along the south side of US 64 from approximately the 3 -mile to
11 -mile points. The abandoned, western "oxbow loop" of Old US 64 intersects the north side of
the corridor approximately 3 miles east of Columbia. The eastern side of that loop ties back in to
US 64 at 6.6 miles along the project. At mile point 11 .2, a gas station /marina complex is situated
on the north side of US 64 just before the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge. At that location,
commercial fishing docks are located to the south of US 64 at rivers' edge and along a south -
side canal paralleling US 64.
A Tyrrell County water line is located in front of the five homes at the eastern intersection of US
64 and SR 1229 (Old US 64) within Subsection 1 -4 serving the Alligator community. This water
line is approximately 500 feet long and extends along the north side of US 64 within existing
right -of -way. There is no anticipated relocation of the water line.
Six (6) Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) are located in the project vicinity in Tyrrell
County: Scuppernong River Swamp Forest, Alligator Greek/Second Creek Swamp Forest,
Palm etto- Peartree Swamp Forest, Upper Alligator River Pocosin, River Neck Swamp, and
Frying Pan Swamp.
In the project vicinity, Tyrrell County is characterized by the presence of federal, state and
private protected gamelands, nature preserves, and wetland mitigation banks. These include:
Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, Palmetto - Peartree Preserve, Alligator River Preserve,
Alligator River Gameland, J. Morgan Futch Gameland, Great Dismal Swamp Wetland Mitigation
Bank, Scuppernong River Wetland Mitigation Bank, and Hidden Lake Wetland Mitigation Bank.
Two (2) locations along US 64 in Tyrrell County provide boating access to the Alligator River.
The Alligator River Marina, located on the north side of US 64, is the only public place for boats
to fuel and dock for more than 30 miles to the north (Coinjock, NC) and more than 50 miles to
the south (Belhaven, NC). The commercial fishing docks on the south side of US 64 are a
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 h FAX: [phone] ; €nternet: wwrwxccoastalmanagernent.net ® e
iCcti ®� a
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer /ITl y
B -55

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 7 of 27
Waterfront Access and Marine Industry (WAMI) site. Approximately $450,000 in WAMI funds is
allocated to build a rock jetty, bulkhead and ten (100 boat slips on NCDOT property near the
Alligator River Bridge at the commercial crab and fishing pier. Access to the marina and to the
commercial fishing dock will be provided from the new roadway with a new two -way access
road connecting the widened US 64 with the abandoned section of US 64.
The DBIS reviews the use of vegetative buffers along the roadway for noise abatement. The
existing US 64 right -of -way is limited and does not support the minimum requirements for an
effective vegetative buffer. Substantial additional right -of -way is required to provide the
necessary width and thickness for a vegetative buffer and involves displacement of adjacent
residences. The use of vegetation for noise abatement is not considered reasonable for this
project because of the substantial amount of right -of -way necessary to make vegetative buffers
effective.
Roadway signage and programs including the wildflower research project and Adopt -a- Highway
program have not been addressed in the DEIS.
Tyrrell County and Dare County — Alligator River. Section 3 of the project area is located
within both Tyrrell County and Dare County, with boundaries at the centerline of the Alligator
River.
The Alligator River, a tributary to the Albemarle Sound, is a large blackwater river, with a
surface area of 64,000 acres.
The Lindsay C. Warren Bridge is a major structure crossing the Alligator River /Atlantic
Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW). The bridge has a swing -span to enable marine traffic to pass
through. The 2.8 -mile bridge was constructed in 1960 and has two lanes with minimal outside
shoulders to separate travel lanes from bridge rails. The bridge consists of 340 pre - stressed
concrete girder spans and a steel through - girder swing -span located over the navigational
channel at Sandy Point. The existing bridge is nearing the end of its design service life, is
structurally deficient as defined by the SHWA and NCDOT, and has geometric and safety -
related deficiencies when compared to current design standards. Highway runoff from the
existing Lindsay C. Warren Bridge is discharged directly to the Alligator River. The bridge is a
known eligible structure of historical or architectural importance. The bridge is an example of
early success in bridge building using the then - developing technology of welded beam. The
welded girder -floor beam swingspan is one the of three oldest long -span welded beam highway
bridges in North Carolina.
A replacement bridge across the Alligator River, north of the existing bridge, is proposed. The
bridge will have the following design characteristics:
• A minimum 65 foot span over the navigable channel to accommodate boat traffic
• Two (2) 12 -foot wide travel lanes in each direction
• A 10 foot wide median (4 foot wide inside shoulder with a 2 foot wide concrete
barrier)
• A 10 foot wide outside shoulder (to accommodate bicycles); no sidewalks are
proposed
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909 One
Phoney 252 - 264 -3901 4 FAX [phone] ; lnternet: www.nccoastalmanagementxet ®lYhCaro 1tTa
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer rally
B -56

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources MEMORANDUM
Division of Coastal Management Page 8 of 27
® Outside railings at 54 inches high
® An estimated bridge width of 78 feet, from rail to rail
Specific bridge dimensions and design features will be determined during final design. Based
on preliminary designs, most of the bridge Is a low -level structure that may also extend for
substantial length over land — to avoid filling coastal or high - quality wetlands. As the bridge
approaches the main channel for the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW), the bridge
gradually climbs to provide a high -level crossing. The horizontal clearance at the center
navigation span is estimated to be 180 feet. Ultimately, both the vertical and horizontal
clearance will be determined during final design and must be approved by the US Coast Guard
(USCG).
Most bridge runoff will free -fall into the Alligator River. However, at sections of the bridge that
are close enough to land to enable positive drainage , the runoff may be filtered or collected and
conveyed in a closed drainage system (pipe system) to land areas.
The use of shoreline stabilization has not been identified in the DEIS.
Construction of the replacement bridge will likely be expedited and performed within a pre-
determined timeframe to minimize impacts to marine traffic. Construction in and around the
navigation channel in the Alligator River will be coordinated with the USCG and US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE)
See `Attachment A" and `Attachment B" for policy discussions.
Dare County. Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the project area are located within unincorporated Dare
County, extending from the centerline of the Alligator River to the intersection of US 64 and 264.
The Old East Lake Ferry Terminal, located on the east bank of the Alligator River north of the
Lindsay C. Warren Bridge, is managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) and provides public access to launch boats. A graded parking lot serves the public
for use of the boat launch. The former East Lake ferry terminal north of US 64 on the east bank
of the Alligator River will not be affected by the project alternatives ; however the alignment of its
access road to US 64 may change — depending upon the alternative chosen.
There are above -grade electrical and telephone lines and single -phase distribution poles
along much of US 64 within the project study area in Dare County.
Four (4) Significant Natural Heritage Areas (SNHAs) are located in the project vicinity in Dare
County: Alligator River Swamp Forest, Alligator River /South Lake Swamp Forest, Marhoes
Pocosin, and Roanoke /Stumpy Point Marshes and Pocosin.
The majority of the project corridor in Dare County lies within the boundaries of the federally
protected Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR). The ARNWR, established in 1984,
is administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The ARNWR begins at the east bank of
the Alligator River and continues on both sides of US 64 to the eastern terminus of the project.
ARNWR surrounds the East Lake community and any private or public parcels.
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909 One
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX: 252 - 264 -3723 ; Internet vwvww ncceastalmanagement.net On1Ccli ®TTla
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer Natzarallff
B -57

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 9 of 27
ARNWR is an important commodity in the economic life of the community. Eco- tourism, fishing,
wildlife photography and environmental interpretation are increasingly being seen as a desirable
industry. Eco - tourism meets the purposes of the ARNWR and could increase tourism
expenditures in the surrounding local communities. Allowing public access by vehicle, foot,
canoe, kayak or bicycle can facilitate compatible wildlife - dependent recreation. With respect to
the presence of US 64 within the ARNWR, the ARNWR Management Plan states: "Recently
made more accessible to the mainland by bridges and ferries and primarily supported by
tourism, coastal Dare and Hyde counties have seen an influx of tourists, visitors, and residents
over the last few decades. This considerable population growth and development of the barrier
islands has brought substantial economic benefit to a region historically rural and impoverished.
As a result, the refuge, with its location along U.S. Highway 64, has seen greater recreational
and public use due to this increase in visitors. However, the region's natural resources of land
and water have suffered increasing demands, often with negative impact. As one of the few
remaining tracts of intact natural land, the refuge and, consequently, its management
considerations have become even more critical ".
Dare County has a great number of roadside canals in the project study area. One begins on
the south side of US 64 near the eastern terminus of the existing Lindsay C. Warren bridge and
continues for approximately 0.75 mile. Another canal segment runs along the north of US 64
from the US 64 and Old Ferry Landing Road intersection to approximately 0.5 mile east.
Residences on the north side of US 64 use corrugated metal pipes to allow canal waters to pass
underneath driveways, small roads or periodic berms. Other canals are intermittently located on
the north and south sides of US 64 from east of East Lake to US 264. The corridor ends at the
four -lane, undivided section of highway that begins at the intersection of US 64 and US 264.
The canals are likely a result of excavations to provide road bed material and now inadvertently
serve as stormwater retention features. Not only do canals extend parallel to the road, but they
provide connectors across the project study area among named streams. This complex
network extends from canals alongside US 64 through agricultural fields and forested areas and
connects to South Lake and the Alligator River. Agricultural lands and forestlands within the
ARNWR are drained by a network of canals that vary in width from 20 feet to 70 feet and in
depth from 2 feet to 10 feet. Depending on wind tides, water depths generally range from 2 feet
to 6 feet. Smaller linear features referred to as "ditches" act as tributaries to the canal system
and can be as small as 6 feet wide and 2 feet deep (anything shallower would be conducive to
the support of hydrophytic vegetation and, therefore, likely determined to be a wetland). All
canals and ditches within the ARNWR are connected to the adjacent sounds.
Proposed alternatives for Section 5 will result in changes to the canal system, including
relocation of canals, introduction of pipe or culverts to maintain hydraulic connectivity, and loss
of navigable connectivity for canoe /kayaks.
There are two (2) known eligible structures of historical or architectural importance within the
project area in East Lake: the East Lake Methodist Church and cemetery, and East Lake Fire
Tower. The church was built in 1887 and is located on a 1.69 acre parcel that includes a
cemetery. The fire tower, built in 1936, is located on a 2 acre parcel and is the only remaining
fire tower in Dare County.
See `Attachment B" for policy discussion.
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27969
Phone: [phone] FAX: 252 - 264 -3723: Internet: www.nccoastal management, net One
NorthCarolina
An EquaE Opportunity 4 Affirmative Action Employer
C

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 10 of 27
Anticipated Impacts resulting from this project are expected to include, but not be limited to, the
following:
The extent of AEC impact varies, depending on the alternative selected for final design. The
DEIS organizes the AEC impacts based on alternatives for Section 1 (Subsection 1 -6) in Tyrrell
County, Bridge (East Lake) Alternatives (Sections 2, 3 &4), and Section 5 (Subsections 5 -2 to 5-
4) in Dare County.
Within Section 1, impacts to Public Trust/Estuarine Waters range from 0 to 3.79 acres; impacts
to Outstanding Resource Waters Shorelines range from 16.16 acres to 20.61 acres; impacts to
Inland Public Trust Waters range from .07 to .08 acre; impacts to Inland Public Trust Shorelines
range from .21 to .25 acre, and; impacts to Coastal Wetlands range from 0 to .08 acre. CAMA
resources are not abundant in the Tyrrell County project study area, and impacts are relatively
small.
Within the Bridge /East Lake Alternatives, impacts to Public Trust/Estuarine Waters range from
2.39 to 6.01 acres; impacts to Public Trust /Estuarine Waters Shorelines range from .01 acre to
6.78 acres; impacts to Outstanding Resource Waters Shorelines range from 19.88 to 33.05
acres; impacts to Inland Public Trust Waters range from 0 to 1.81 acres, and; impacts to
Coastal Wetlands range from .23 acre to 6.11 acres. For the East Lake Alternatives, the lowest
impacts are associated with Dare South -Side Widening, which follows the existing roadway, and
Dare Northern Bypass, which avoids the large coastal resource areas near the existing
highway.
Within Section 5, impacts to Inland Public Trust Waters range from 11.19 to 25.70 acres;
impacts to Inland Public Trust Shorelines range from 13.17 to 38.15 acres, and; impacts to
Coastal Wetlands range from 2.78 to 10.26 acres. Within the Dare County portion of the project
study area, the largest CAMA wetland impacts are associated with Alternative 5B. Although this
alternative follows the existing roadway, coastal resources exist in the roadside canals, their
buffers, and adjacent wetlands. This impact corridor is long, and impacts to these areas are
unavoidable.
Section 404 wetland impacts are also organized based on Section 1, Bridge (East Lake)
Alternatives (Sections 2, 3 &4) and Section 5.
Within Section 1, wetland impacts range from 76.08 acres to 99.30 acres. In general, in Tyrrell
County, the wider 46- foot -wide median has greater wetland impacts than the 23 -foot -wide
median. When comparing a northern and a southern widening for the 23 -foot median, the north
widening has almost 1 acre less impact than the south widening. With a 46- foot median the
south widening has a more than 4 acres less impact than the north widening.
Within the Bridge /East Lake Alternatives, wetland impacts range from 34.24 to 66.07 acres.
Fewer wetland impacts occur with alternatives that closely parallel the existing road.
Within Section 5, wetland impacts range from 91.49 to 98.46 acres. In Section 5, widening to
the north has less wetiand impact than widening to the south.
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252 - 254 -3901 1 FAX: [phone] ; Internet: www,nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer
B -59
One
Nort lCc'krolinea
tzmal y

North Carol ina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 11 of 27
Concerning the gamelands, preservation areas and managed lands in Tyrrell County, direct
impacts range from no impact to approximately 49 acres of impact depending on the selected
alternative.
Specific to the ARNWR in Dare County, direct impacts range from 11.6 to 21.96 acres
depending on the selected alternative.
Opportunities for compensatory wetland mitigation are present within the project study area.
Once on -site mitigation opportunities have been evaluated by NCDOT, appropriate off -site
mitigation strategies will be evaluated. For the majority of non - coastal wetlands impacted by the
project, NCDOT intends to mitigate using existing wetland mitigation sites. NCDOT plans to
utilize EEP mitigation services for any excess coastal or non - coastal wetland mitigation needs
that are not satisfied by on -site mitigation or NCDOT -owned mitigation sites.
Bridge construction will have a temporary effect on water quality, primarily from construction
barge traffic, general construction activity, channel dredging, and pile placement. All of these
activities will result in a temporary increase in turbidity and a potential decrease in dissolved
oxygen levels associated with the re- suspension of sediment particles into the water column.
During bridge construction, steps taken to minimize turbidity (when practicable) include the use
of work bridges (rather than dredging for barge access) in shallow areas adjacent to AECs
(including wetlands) along the river bank, and turbidity curtains. Dredging generally is used in
water depths less than 6 feet where AECs are not present. In areas where the water depths are
too shallow for work barges (less than 6 feet), dredging may be required.
Land- disturbing activities will be conducted in a manner that reduces erosion, contains sediment
on -site during and after construction, prevents off -site transport of waste and chemicals, and
minimizes use and production of pollutants. Best management practices (BMPs) will be
implemented prior to the start of construction to minimize erosion and sedimentation, and to
manage pollutants associated with construction activities. During construction activities,
measures will be provided to: maintain traffic flow; minimize impacts to air quality, noise, and
construction lighting; manage waste disposal; protect surrounding natural resources; control
erosion; and handle any accidental waste spills.
The proposed improvements are anticipated to have little or no effect on groundwater and wells.
Although temporary excavation and pumping to install fill may induce short term local lowering
of groundwater levels; existing drainage patterns will be maintained. Construction and operation
of the highway will not use groundwater supplies.
The proposed project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality within the
Tyrrell and Dare counties attainment area.
Impacts to electrical, potable water, wastewater, and solid waste utilities are anticipated.
Utilities will be relocated along the new highway in accordance with final design plans and with
minimal or no disruption to existing service.
There are no known archaeological resources within the project area. The State Historic
Preservation Office concurred and recommended that no archaeological investigations be
conducted in connection with the project.
1357 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone [phone] FAX: [phone] ; Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net One
N®LlitCa olina
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer Naturally
B -60

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
MEMORANDUM
Page 12 of 27
The DEIS notes that growth potential is mainly in and adjacent to the eastern outskirts of
Columbia. There is little expected growth elsewhere in the study area due to: limited central
water systems; absence of municipal sewer or gas systems; state and federal land protections
on resources areas; few suitable land areas; limited community - serving land uses (stores,
parks, hospitals); minimal employment opportunity; and competition for growth in other, more
developmentally competitive, areas such as Roanoke Island and the Bare County Outer Banks.
See ATTACHMENTS A and B for policies and implementation statements currently relevant to
this request.
Attachment A — Tyrrell County /Town of Columbia LUP
Attachment B — Dare County 2009 LUP
cc: John Thayer, A1CP, Manager, iDCM Planning and Access Programs
1367 U5 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone], Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
B -61
One
Nort Carolina
tx zmat

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources MEMORANDUM
Division of Coastal Management Page 13 of 27
ATTACHMENT A
Within the project study area, a portion of Section 1, Subsection 1 -1 is located within the
Town of Columbia Extra - Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). The remainder of Section 1,
Section 2, and a portion of Section 3 are located within unincorporated Tyrrell County.
Policy Review:
The project area abuts areas designated on the Town of Columbia Future Land Use Map as
"Mixed Use" and areas designated on the Tyrrell County Future Land Use Map as "US 64 Mixed
Use Growth Corridor ", "Rural" and "Conservation ". Additionally, as indicated on Page 133, land
and water areas which are environmentally sensitive and important to the future of Tyrrell
County are designated as "Conservation ".
Mixed Use" is intended to promote a range of uses along the US 64 corridor within the Town of
Columbia. This four lane thoroughfare is heavily traveled, and serves as the last opportunity for
goods and services prior to reaching Manteo and the Outer Banks Beach communities. It is
anticipated that there will be an increase in retail development within Columbia to support not
only the permanent population base, but year round visitors to the Outer Banks who enjoy the
convenience of stopping through for goods and services.
"US 64 Mixed Use Growth Corridor" is intended to provide a land use district that allows for a
wide range of uses aimed at addressing development demands related to economic
development and residential growth. It is anticipated that over the next twenty years, Tyrrell
County will experience growth stemming from the County's close proximity to the beach
communities of the Outer Banks. As this scenario unfolds, development along the US 64
corridor is expected to increase substantially.
Definitions of common terms are provided in Appendix III. The following definitions are intended
to convey the meaning of the key words used in the cited policy statements and implementation
actions:
Should: An officially adopted course or method of action intended to be followed
to implement the community goals. Though not mandatory as "shall," it is still an
obligatory course of action unless clear reasons can be identified that an
exception is warranted. County /Town staff and Planning Board involved at all
levels from planning to Implementation.
Continue: Follow past and present procedures to maintain desired goal, usually
with County/Town staff involved at all levels from planning to implementation.
Encouracle: Foster the desired goal through County policies. One
Could involve County /Town financial assistance. NcirthCarolina
,lVatmully
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City; NO 279 09
Phone: 252 - 264 -3991 1 FAK 252 -264 -3723 ; Internet: www nacoastaimanagement net
One
An Equal Opportunity S Affirmative Action Employer NorthCarohna
NATturallb,
B -62

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Implement: Actions to guide the accomplishment of the Plan recommendations.
Maintain: Keep in good condition the desired state of affairs through the use of
County/Town policies and staff. Financial assistance should be provided if
needed.
Protect: Guard against a deterioration of the desired state through the use of
County /Town policies, staff, and, if needed, financial assistance.
Support: Supply the needed staff support, policies, and financial assistance at
all levels to achieve the desired goal.
Work: Cooperate and act in a manner through the use of County/Town staff,
actions, and policies to create the desired goal.
MEMORANDUM
Page 14 of 27
As of March 23, 2012, the following (P.) and implementation (I.) statements from the Tyrrell
County /Town of Columbia LUP, certified by the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) on
March 25, 2010, may be applicable to this request.
Policies — Public Access:
P.1, Page 96.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia support the Tyrrell County
visitors center, eco- tourism, and recreational related developments that
protect and preserve the natural environment while promoting the County
as a tourist destination. It supports the private and public development of
waterfront access through private funds and grant monies. It also
supports the work of the Partnership for the Sounds and the Albemarle
Commission."
Implementing Actions - Public Access:
1.6, Page 97.
"The County will cooperate with state and federal agencies to secure
estuarine access areas to ensure adequate shoreline access within all
areas of the County."
Policies — Land Use Compatibility — Residential:
P.14, Page 99.
"Tyrrell County supports wooded buffers along thoroughfares, where
feasible."
Policies - Conservation:
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] ; Internet: www.rfccoastalmanagement.net 0110
NorthCaro®.l na
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer 1 L
B -63

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
P-38, Page 104.
"All development should be designed to protect Protected Lands and
Significant Natural Heritage Areas..."
P.40, Page 104.
"Tyrrell County generally supports the efforts of state and federal
agencies with regulatory authority to monitor and regulate development in
areas susceptible to sea level rise and wetland loss, but reserves the right
to object to amendments and /or changes to regulations and /or programs."
lm lementin Actions - Conservation:
1.23, Page 105.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia will rely on the NC Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management
to regulate development through the CAMA permitting process. Also, it
will rely on the regulations of other state and federal agencies with
regulatory authority, as well as existing local development regulations, to
mitigate threats to AECs.°
1.24, Page 105.
"Tyrrell County will rely on the US Army Corps of Engineers to monitor
development proposals for compliance with Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act and will continue to enforce local land use ordinances."
1.25, Page 105.
"In order to monitor possible sea level rise, Tyrrell County will implement
the following:
• Rely on the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Coastal Management to monitor and regulate development in
areas susceptible to sea level rise and wetlands loss.
Support bulheading to protect its shoreline areas from intruding water
resulting from rising sea levels.
Policies — Stormwater Control:
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: [phone] FAX: 252 - 264 -3723 ; Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
B -64
MEMORANDUM
Page 15 of 27
One
North Carolina
1 ll6J

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
P.41, Page 106.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia support reducing soil erosion,
runoff, and sedimentation to minimize the adverse effects on surface and
subsurface water quality"
P.42, Page 106.
"Tyrrell County recognizes the value of water quality maintenance and
supports the protection of fragile areas and the provision of clean water
for recreational purposes."
P.43, Page 106.
"The county supports the enforcement of all controls and regulations,
specifically design standards, tie -down requirements, construction and
installation standards, elevation requirements, flood - proofing, CAMA
regulations, and FEMA regulations, deemed necessary by the Board of
Commissioners to mitigate the risks of lives and property caused by
severe storms and hurricanes."
P.45, Page 106.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia support requiring developers to
address stormwater management to comply with NC Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Coastal Stormwater Regulations."
Implementing Actions — Stormwater Control:
1.27, Page 107.
"...The County will continue to rely on NCDENR for enforcement of
sedimentation and erosion control measures on developments greater
than one acre..."
Policies — Water /Sewer Infrastructure:
P.59, Page 110.
"it is the policy of Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia that all
infrastructure improvements be designed and installed to have a minimal
impact on Areas of Environmental Concern."
PoliciessTransportation:
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, INC 27909
Pilone; 252 -264 -3901 15AX: 252-264-3723; Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
B -65
MEMORANDUM
Page 16 of 27
No rthCarohna
ll

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
P.61, Page 111.
"The county and the Town of Columbia support limited access from
development along all roads and highways to provide safe ingress and
egress. This policy is aimed at reducing curb cuts and promoting cross -
access between properties."
P.63, Page 112.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia specifically supports the
following future transportation improvement projects:
I'D No. ` chedOe (Fiscal Yew) �-
IR -2545 (US ) Ease of Columbia to east of the Aliligator Planininit #Design -In Prcgress
Riven 'Widen to 15.6 niile-s Mstigatr.Qrr. EYIZ
AA - East cf Colurnlaia to SR 1229 Old US 64} at Right-of-way FY12
Albgatur, River-, Ccn;buc -bon IJnfucided
AB - SR 1229 (Old bra 54) at Alligator River to ak t Right -of -r ay FY12
of All*toi Rivev. Constrirttkon Unfu,Aed
8• - West of All'igatoi, Rive €• to east of Alligator Piver Right -of -way FY12
Con.,lu °action FY12.
P.64, Page 112.
"The town and county support the expansion of US Highway 64 to four
lanes."
P.65, Page 112.
"The county supports maintaining an effective signage and addressing
system for all streets, roads, and highways."
P.66, Page 112.
"The county supports state and federal funding for maintenance /dredging
of major watercourses adjacent to the counties borders."
Implementation Actions — Transportation:
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX: [phone] ; Internet: www.nccoastamanagementnet
Ari Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
B -66
MEMORANDUM
Page 17 of 27
One
Mort Carolin
Natmallff

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
1,47, Page 112.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia will require, where reasonably
possible, the use of frontage roads in non - residential development along
federal and state major highways. The County and Town will consider
revising their respective subdivision regulations in order to comply with
this policy."
1.49, Page 113.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia will require the construction of
acceleratlon /deceleration lanes for the entrances to major commercial
and residential developments. This should be accomplished through
revisions to the town and county's subdivision ordinances."
1.52, Page 113.
"Tyrrell County will request that the NCDOT Division of Highways
implement its wildflower research project and the Adopt -a- Highway
program along US 64.,,
Policies — Natural Hazard Areas:
P.67, Page 114.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia support efforts to control
estuarine shoreline erosion. Where possible, land owners are encouraged
to use structures that will preserve wetlands and fisheries habitat and
protect water quality. Such structures include living shorelines and
plantings using native wetland species. Bulkheads are allowed; the use of
innovative techniques is encouraged."
P.68, Page 114.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia support the US Army Corps of
Engineers' regulations and the applicable guidelines of the Coastal Area
Management Act and the use of local land use ordinances to regulate
development of freshwater swamps, marshes, and 404 wetlands."
P.69, Page 114.
MEMORANDUM
Page 18 of 27
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia recognize the uncertainties
associated with sea level rise. The rate of rise is difficult to predict. Thus,
it is difficult to establish policies to deal with the effects of sea level rise.
Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia support cooperation with local,
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX: [phone] ; internee [e-mail] One
NorfCarohna
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer i(rall/'
B -67

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
state, and federal efforts to inform the public of the anticipated effects of
sea level rise."
Implementing Actions — Natural Hazard Areas:
1.53, Page 114.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia will continue to enforce its
Floodplain Ordinance and participate in the National Flood Insurance
Program. It will rely on the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management to monitor and
regulate development in areas up to five feet above mean high water
susceptible to sea level rise and wetland loss..."
1.54, Page 114.
"The county will monitor development proposals for compliance with
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and will continue to enforce local land
use ordinances to regulate development of freshwater swamps, marshes,
and 404 wetlands."
1. 55, Page 115.
"...Redevelopment, including infrastructure, should be designed to
withstand natural hazards."
Policies — Water Quality:
P.72, Page 116.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia support the guidelines of the
Coastal Area Management Act and the efforts and programs of the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Coastal Management and the Coastal Resources Commission to protect
the coastal wetlands, estuarine waters, estuarine shorelines, and public
trust waters of Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia..."
P.73, Page 116.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia support conserving its surface
groundwater resources."
P.74, Page 116.
MEMORANDUM
Page 19 of 27
"The county and the town support commercial and recreational fishing in
its waters and will cooperate with other local governments and state and
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX: [phone]; Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement net one
NorthCaroli a
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer Natitrally
'

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
federal agencies to control pollution of these waters to improve conditions
so that commercial and recreational fishing will increase."
P.77, Page 116.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia recognize the value of water
duality maintenance to the protection of fragile areas and to the provision
of clean water for recreational purposes and supports the control of
stormwater runoff to aid in the preservation of water quality."
P.79, Page 116.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columba support the policy that all State
of North Carolina projects should be designed to limit to the extent
possible stormwater runoff into coastal waters."
P.81, Page 116.
"The county supports protection of those waters known to be of the
highest quality or supporting biological communities of special
importance."
P.87, Page 117.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia support and will continue to
enforce the policies of the NC Department of E=nvironment and Natural
Resources Coastal Stormwater Rules."
Implementing Actions — Water Quality
1.59, Page 117.
"...It (the county) will rely on state and federal agencies to promote and
protect the Palmetto -Pear Tree Preserve, the Pocosin Lakes National
Wildlife Refuge, and the Pettigrew State Park, as well as other nursery
areas, habitat areas, and coastal reserves."
1. 63, Pages 118 and 119.
"Preservation of wetlands is important to the protection /improvement of
water quality in Tyrrell County. The following will be implemented:
MEMORANDUM
Page 20 of 27
Consider preservation of large wetland areas (> one acre) in a natural
state to protect their environmental value.
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX: [phone] internet: www.nccoasta €inanagemLnt.net One
NotthCarolina
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer Naturallb,
B -69

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
® Coordinate all development review with the appropriate office of the US
Army Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service.
Policies — Cultural Historic and Scenic Areas:
P.89, Page 120,
"The county supports local, state, and federal efforts to protect historic
properties within its borders and to perpetuate its cultural heritage."
P.90, Page 120.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia support protection and
preservation of all protected natural areas which have both historic and
environmental significance."
Implementing Actions — Economic Development:
1.71, Page 121.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia will support projects that will
increase public access to shoreline areas."
1.72, Page 121.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia will support North Carolina
Department of Transportation projects to improve access to and within
the county."
Policies — General Health and Human Services Needs:
P.100, Page 123.
"Tyrrell County opposes the location of US Army Corps of Engineers 404
wetland mitigation sites resulting from development outside of Tyrrell
County. This policy is intended to protect the tax base of the County."
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX [phone] ; Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity t Affirmative Action Employer
B -70
MEMORANDUM
Page 21 of 27
O
NorthCarolina
tlmall

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Implementing Actions -- General Health and Human Services Needs:
1.79, Page 124.
"Tyrrell County will work with NC State Legislators to formulate local
legislation to address the use of property located within Tyrrell County for
404 wetland mitigation sites for development occurring outside of the
County, as long as there is a direct benefit to the taxpayers of Tyrrell
County (jobs, spin off businesses, etc). Current regulatory conditions
continue to result in large tracts of land within the County being acquired
for 404 mitigation. This action results in a direct reduction to County
property tax revenues."
Implementing Actions — Funding Options:
1.82, Page 1254.
"Tyrrell County and the Town of Columbia officials will continue to work
with the Army Corps of Engineers and any other state and federal
agencies to ensure continued dredging and maintenance of channels and
rivers as needed to keep these facilities open to navigation. These efforts
shall comply with applicable state and federal regulations. Providing
borrow or spoil areas and provision of easements for work will be
determined on case -by -case basis. The county would encourage spoil
material being placed on those areas where easements for such use
already exist. Channel maintenance has major economic significance and
is worthy of state and federal funding."
MEMORANDUM
Page 22 of 27
Basis for Determination: Wetland impacts are anticipated in both Tyrrell and Dare counties.
Wetland mitigation is to be provided; however the specifics of the mitigation plan have not been
identified. For the majority of non - coastal wetlands impacted by the project, NCDOT intends to
mitigate using existing wetland mitigation sites. NCDOT plans to utilize Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP) mitigation services for any excess coastal or non - coastal
wetland mitigation needs that are not satisfied by on -site mitigation or NCDOT -owned
mitigation sites. Additional information is needed to ensure that proposed wetland mitigation is
consistent with Policy 100 and Implementation 79 concerning the mitigation of wetland impacts
in Tyrrell County for development that occurs outside of Tyrrell County.
In regards to shoreline stabilization, additional information is needed concerning anticipated
shoreline stabilization to be consistent with Policy 67 specific to controlling estuarine shoreline
erosion.
Additional information is also needed to address roadway corridor programs to be instituted
along US 64, consistent with Implementation 52 requesting implement of NCDOT's wildflower
research project and the Adopt -a- Highway program along US 64 and Policy 65 concerning the
maintenance of effective roadway signage.
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: [phone] i FAX; 252- 264 -3723 ; [nternet: www.nccoastal man agement net One
NorthCaroii to
An Equal Opportunity I Affirmative Action Employer LfhR ha'
5 -71

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources MEMORANDUM
Division of Coastal Management Page 23 of 27
ATTACHMENT
Within the project study area, a portion of Section 3, Section 4, and Section 5 are located
within unincorporated Dare County.
•,
The project area abuts areas designated on the Dare County Future Land Use Map as
"Conservation" and "Community ". As indicated on Page 217, the "Conservation" classification
also "...applies to all CAMA AECs and all federal lands except for the bombing ranges on the
Mainland and some state -owned lands in Frisco and Buxton."
The "Conservation" classification is meant "to provide for the effective long -term management
and protection of significant, limited, or irreplaceable areas. Management of the areas is
needed due to the natural, recreational, scenic, or natural productive values of such lands."
The "Community" classification is meant "to provide for clusters of mixed land uses at low
densities to help meet the housing, shopping, employment, and other needs of the less- densely
populated areas of unincorporated Dare County ". Specific to the East Lake community, as
indicated on Page 211, "...The planned four -lane expansion of US 64 through the village is
anticipated to result in some increased development activity, however the poor soil conditions
and lack of central water and wastewater facilities will serve as limiting factors."
A glossary of terms used in the policy statements is provided on Page 139. These include:
Advocate: to promote or encourage
Encourage: to favor or foster (also see support)
Recognize: to show awareness of an issue or condition
Shall: mandatory, not optional; a more formal term for "will"
Should: preferred or recommended but not mandatory in all cases
Sufoport: to foster, may imply financial support
As of March 23, 2012, the following policies from the Dare County 2009 LUP, certified by the
Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) on February 24, 2011, may be applicable to this
request:
Public Access:
Policy PA #1, Page 142
"Dare County supports the preservation and protection of the public's
right to access and use of the public trust areas and waters."
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone [phone] t FAX: [phone] ; Internet. www.nccoastaimanagement.net One
North C a'o13T1a
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action EmpEoyer Natulrallff
B -72

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Policy PA #3, Page 142.
"Dare County supports North Carolina's shoreline access policies and
grant programs and recognizes the importance of shoreline access to our
local residents and our tourist economy. Thus, the County will continue to
seek opportunities to expand access..."
Policy PA #8, Page 145.
"Dare County supports the maintenance of wildlife preservation areas and
refuges. Access by the public, including vehicular access to beaches, for
wildlife harvesting and observation should not be prohibited."
Land Use Compatibility:
Policy LUC #15, Page 159.
"The Dare County Board of Commissioners supports the protection of
structures, lands, and artifacts that have been identified by the NC
Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives and History, as
archaeologically or historically significant. On a case -by -case basis
individual protection /management strategies should be implemented to
ensure archaeological and /or historical resources are not destroyed."
Policy LUC #16, Page 160.
"The vast amount of Dare County land currently owned by public
agencies and /or non - profit agencies should be recognized by agencies
wishing to acquire additional parcels for public and /or non- profit
ownership. Additional acquisitions should be evaluated in terms of public
purpose benefits and impacts on tax revenues for Dare County."
Infrastructure Carrying Capacity:
Policy ICC #8, Page 172.
"Dare County supports the development and construction of sidewalks,
bike paths, greenways, and other walking /jogging trails to provide a safe
setting for these types of outdoor recreation and as alternative
transportation routes."
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone. 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX: [phone]; lnternet www nccoastalmanagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
B -73
MEMORANDUM
Page 24 of 27
One
Nort Caro ina
Natmally

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Natural Hazards:
Policy NH #2, Page 180.
"Estuarine shoreline development should continue to be managed to
protect and preserve the natural resources of the estuarine waters and
the estuarine shoreline. The appropriate tools for this are the existing
CAMA permit program and the Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs)
designed under the CAMA program..."
Policy NH #3, Page 180.
"Dare County supports the installation and maintenance of estuarine
bulkheads. Offshore breakwaters, slopes, rip -rap, and voluntary setbacks
are appropriate alternatives for property owners for addressing estuarine
shoreline management in lieu of estuarine bulkheads where these other
techniques may be equally effective in abating a shoreline erosion
problem.,,
Policy NH #5, Page 181.
"Dare County supports, as minimum standards, the administration and
enforcement of all applicable floodplain management regulations and the
National Flood Insurance Program..."
Policy NH #12, Page 184.
"Dare County believes the issues of global warming, sea level rise and
climate change are issues of international and national debate. Federal
and /or State initiatives that may be forthcoming to address these issues
will be reviewed as proposed with support or opposition offered
depending on the impacts for Dare County."
Water Quality:
Policy WQ #2, Page 188.
"Development projects shall be designed and constructed to minimize
detrimental impacts on surface water quality, groundwater quality, and air
quality. Structures should be designed to fit the natural topographic
conditions and vegetation versus modifications to natural conditions to
accommodate structures."
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: 252 - 264 -3901 1 FAX: [phone], Internet: www.rccoastaliTianagement.net
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
B -74
MEMORANDUM
Page 25 of 27
One
NorthCarolina
> l

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Policy WQ #5, Page 190.
"Efforts to manage stormwater runoff should be based on local conditions
and natural features. Properties immediately adjacent to SA classified
waters should be developed consistent with the dimensional standards
and lot coverage limitations of the Dare County Zoning Ordinance.
Vegetative buffers and other low— impact development methods identified
by the UNC Coastal Studies Institute are appropriate tools to address
stormwater runoff adjacent to SA waters."
Policy WQ #7, Page 192.
"Dare County advocates the use of existing (2009) state and federal
regulatory programs for protecting and preserving coastal wetland areas
of environmental concern..,"
Policy WQ #8, Page 192.
"Dare County supports the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers nationwide
permit program as administered in 2009. This support is based on the
current scope of permitting limits of the nationwide program and not any
changes that may result in a different policy..."
Policy WQ #9, Page 192.
"The use of wetland mitigation to compensate for the loss of wetlands is a
suitable alternative for projects identified as "public purpose projects" or
projects undertaken by Dare County..,"
Policy WQ #10, Page 192.
"Dare County supports the installation and maintenance of estuarine
bulkheads. Offshore breakwaters, slopes, rip -rap, and voluntary setbacks
are appropriate alternatives for property owners for addressing estuarine
shoreline management in lieu of estuarine bulkheads where these other
techniques may be equally effective in abating a shoreline erosion
problem."
Policy WQ #11, Page 192.
MEMORANDUM
Page 26 of 27
"Dare County recognizes the importance of our surrounding waters that
serve as habitats for the area's abundant fisheries resources. The
continued productivity of Dare County's fisheries shall be fostered through
restoration and protection of the unique ecosystems upon which they
depend. Dare County supports measures to protect and preserve
designated primary nursery areas by the Division of Marine Fisheries..."
1367 U5 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone] Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement net One
NoT'thCaroliIlia
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer mrall1f
B -75

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Coastal Management
Local Areas of Concern:
Policy LAC #4, Page 200.
"Dare County encourages federal and state regulatory agencies to
consider fast - tracking of public purposes projects. Where State grant
funds have been secured, consideration of an assumed or accelerated
permit process is advocated."
Policy LAC #5, Page 200.
"Dare County encourages federal and state regulatory agencies to
consider impacts from activities occurring on their lands on the
surrounding privately -owned land and communities. Although Dare
County acknowledges that federal and state properties are exempt from
local zoning and other land use ordinances, federal and state agencies
should coordinate their efforts with local officials whenever practicable."
Policy LAC #0, Page 201.
"Dare County supports the concept of combining natural resources and
tourism to promote the area's ecological values, known as "eco- tourism "."
Policy LAC #8, Page 201.
"Dare County recognizes the importance of tourism to our local economy
and supports efforts to maintain our status as a desirable place to live,
visit, and vacation..."
Policy LAC #10, Page 202.
"Dare County advocates the dredging and other associated maintenance
activities of all existing navigable channels, canals, boat basins, marinas
and waterways. Such activities are of vital importance to our local
residents, fisherman, and tourist economy."
Basis for Determination: In regards to shoreline stabilization, additional
information is needed concerning anticipated shoreline stabilization to be
consistent with Policy NH #3 and Policy WO #10 specific to estuarine shoreline
management.
1367 US 17 South, Elizabeth City, NC 27909
Phone' 252- 264 -3901 1 FAX: 252 - 264 -3723 ; Internet: www.nccoasia[anagemenLne€
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
B -76
MEMORANDUM
Page 27 of 27
One
NorthCarolina
Naturally

r: Aw.
^�uwna.r'
NCDENR
North Gardina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of tAarine Fisheries
Beverly Laves Perdue Dr, Louis B. Daniel Ili Dee Fmeman
Govern or Drectar Secretary
TO: Melba McGee
THROUGH: .Anne Deaton `
FROM: Kevin Dart 144
DATE,: March 7, 2012
SUBJECT: DEFS- Widening of 27.3 miles of EIS 64 in Tyrrell and Dare Counties (DOT TIP R -2544 and 8-
2545)
The following comments by the North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDk1 ) on the subject project
are offered pursuant to G.S. 113- 1.3.1. Th.e NCDO`I' is proposing to widen 27.3 miles of US 64 from Columbia
in Tyrrell County to US 264 in Dare County frGM 2 lanes to 4 lanes. NCDOT is proposing to replace the 2 lane
Alligator River Swing Bridge with new 4 lane bridge that includes bike lanes. The western bridge approach
will be in the same vicinity and avoid impacts to the convenience store and commercial fishing 'facility. The
eastern approach will also be in the same current vicinity but alternatives have the site either moving north or
south and will avoid the Bast lake boat ramp. Sections of the proposed project will pass trough parts of the
Great Dismal Swamp Mitigation Site and the Alligator River National Wildlife Reft €ge. No SA'V has been
mapped in the project area. Canals that will be impacted by the subject project will be relocated and maintain
hydraulic connectivity but not necessarily kayak/cance access. There has been a conflict between all parties
regarding the size of the Median (23' or 46'). The €nedian issue was raised to the Merger Manage€nent'Feam
and it was decided that a 23' median will be looked at for the Dare Cot €rcty portion of the project while 23' and
46' medians will be looked at for Tyrrell. County portions.
Since the drafting of this document; the National Marine: Fisheries Service issued a final d.eterrnination. to list the
Carolina and South Atlantic distinct population segments (DDSs) of Atlantic swraeon (Acipenser oxyrirchus
ovyrinchus) as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, which will be effective April 6, 2012
(htt :;i'st ro.nrr s.xto 'Ewi r/st:r >eon,h n). The NCDMF has implerne €rated an acoustic tagging program
that monitors Atlantic sturgeon use in the Alligator River at the current bridge. The NCDMF has observed
juvenile to adult life stages of Atlantic sturgeon utilizing the Alligator .River throughout the year (M. 1,oeftl.er,
NCDMI-, pers. comm. 2012). Depe.n.ding on the methods of bridge construction the NCDMF may request a
moratorium for in water work. The NCDOT needs to contact the NMES protected resources division for
measures to protect: the Atlantic sturgeon. In addition to Atlantic sturgeon the, Alligator River is used by other
anadromous fish as a corridor to anadromous fish spawning areas (AFSA), The elevated noise and turbidity
levels can alter the migration of these species.
NCDOT has stated that storrnwater on the bridge will only be treated at the ends using BMPs, but there is no
discussion of these measures, Will any methods be used to treat t1le remaining portions of the bridge? Tine
NCDMF requests . more information on how stormwater will be treated in the remaining portions of the bridge.
The NCDMF recommends that all attempts are made to minimize the nnediann to 23 feet. By minimizing this
width, the applicant will be demonstrating avoidance and minimization of wetland impacts. The NCDMF
requests that the project rmininaizes both wetland and canal i mpacts, Although the canals are manmade they are
still used by resident fishes and the hydrologic flow and fish passage should not be impeded. The NCDMF
prefers that bridges are used at all waterbody crossings as they will not hinder flow or fish emigration. If culverts
are utilized they should be sized properly to not degrade water quality or hinder fish passage.
B -77

Melba McGee
Page 2
March 12, 2012
The current bridge is approximately 3.3 miles long. The material is compatible For use in the :NCL7M Artificial.
Reef (AR) Program. This material could potentially be used at an existing NCDMF artificial reef in Albe,rnarle
Sound or Croatan Sound. The NCDOT should. contact Dina Francescoul (252-726-7102.1. or
i urt.l:raa�cescani, n_cdell Y)v ) to discuss this option. The NCDOT is currently working with the NCDMI AR
program in a similar manner with the Bonner Bridge (B -2500 Phase .I) project.
The NCDMF appreciates the opportunity to provide input on this project. if you have any comments or
questions, please call me at (252) 448 -3878 or ernail. meat Kevirf,l I2rt
C.

AGOth
NCDENR
Borth Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Charles Wakild, P.E Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
March 6, 2012
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental
Affairs
From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality, Central Office
Subject: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement related to proposed improvements
to U.S. 64 from 0.9 miles east of Columbia to U.S. 264 near Mann's Harbor, Dare and
Tyrell Counties, State Project No. 6.049002T, TIPS R -2544 and R -2545
State Clearinghouse Project No. 12 -01.96
This office has reviewed the referenced document, The NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) is
responsible for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters
of the U.S., including wetlands. It is our understanding that the project, as presented, will result in impacts
to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and other surface waters. NCDWQ offers the following comments based
on review of the aforementioned document:
Project Specific Comments:
1. This project is being planned as part of the 404/NEPA Merger Process. As a participating team member,
NCDWQ will continue to work with the team.
1 It is stated in Section 3.6.2.2 that "Presently, there are no site - specific consumption advisories for
mercury- contaminated fish in the Pasquotank River basin; however, an advisory for the consumption of
largemouth bass, bowfin, and chain pickerel east of I -85 in North Carolina, was issued by NCDHHS in
2002 (NCDWQ, 2006)." While this statement may be correct, it should perhaps be clarified that the
2010 and Draft 2012 303(d) lists include all 13,178 surface waters in North Carolina for limited fish
consumption advisories due to elevated concentrations of mercury in fish tissue of several species.
It is stated in Section 4.6.4 that the Alligator River is not listed on the Impaired Waters List (303[d] List)
and therefore all current uses are being met. This statement appears to be based on the 2006 303(d) list.
Additionally, it is stated in Section 4.12.9.1 that a segment of the Alligator River is listed on the 2008
303(d) list, which seems confusing given the previous statement. For clarification, the segment of the
Alligator River from the mouth of the Northwest Fork to U.S. Highway 64 was included i13 the 2008
303(d) list, and continues to be on the Draft 2012 303(d) List, for aquatic life impairment based on
exceedances of copper.
Transportation and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1617
Location: 512 N. Salisbury St. Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX 919 - 807 -6492
Internet: www.ncwaterguality.org
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer
B -79
One
orthCarolina
Naturall'y

4, The Mitigation Instrument Tri -Party Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is mentioned at the bottom
page 4 -106. The text references the MOA signed July 23, 2003. It should be noted that a new Tri -Party
MOA was signed and executed on July 28, 2010, replacing the MOA from 2003.
5. The NCDWQ requests a copy of the referenced Indirect and Cumulative Effects Screening Report
(Parsons Brinckerhoff, 2010).
6. Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified as SC;SW, Outstanding Resource
Waters of the State in the project study area. The water quality classification of SC;SW, ORW is one of
the highest classifications in the State. NCDWQ is extremely concerned with any impacts that may
occur to streams with this classification. Impacts should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.
Given the potential for impacts to these resources during the project implementation, the NCDWQ
requests that NCDOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled "Design Standards in
Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) throughout design and construction of the project.
7. The NCDWQ prefers onsite mitigation as opposed to offsite. While the document discusses some
potential onsite mitigation opportunities, the NCDWQ encourages the NCDOT to continue pursuing
onsite mitigation opportunities.
8. Under normal circumstances, the NCDWQ would not allow stormwater to be discharged directly into the
receiving water. However, it is understood that, due to the length of the bridge and other design
restrictions, the bridge over the Alligator River may be an exception. Nonetheless, the NCDOT will still
need to provide satisfactory treatment. During the design phase of the bridge the NCDOT is strongly
encouraged to contact the NCDWQ to discuss suitable treatment options and limitations.
General Comments:
9. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue to
include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping,
10. If mitigation is necessary as required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h), it is preferable to present a conceptual
(if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans
will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
11. Environmental impact statement alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff These alternatives should include road designs that allow
for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent
version of NCDWQ's Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual, July 2007, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
12. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and
minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with
the Environmental Management Commission's Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506[h]), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands or 150 Iinear feet to any single jurisdictional
stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for
use as wetland mitigation.
13. NCDWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. The
NCDOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the aquatic
environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
14. NCDOT is respectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation .
and clearing, and rip rap to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in
C.

the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or
otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application.
15. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands or streams.
16. Borrow /waste areas should avoid wetlands to the inaxiinuan. extent practical. Impacts to wetlands in
borrow /waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate
compensatory mitigation.
17. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed methods
for stormwater management.
18. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams
may require an Individual Permit (IP) application to the Corps of Engineers and corresponding 401
Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires
satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or
stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the
NCDOT and written concurrence from NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent
on. appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent
practical, the development of an acceptable stormwater management plan, and the inclusion of
appropriate mitigation. plans where appropriate.
19. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3687/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey Activities.
20. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control
Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
21. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of Wetland
Significance (NC- CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent inaccuracies
require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
NCDWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information, please contact David Wainwright at (919)807 -6405 or
David. Wainwright @ncdenr.gov,
cc: Bill Biddlecome, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office (electronic copy only)
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency (electronic copy only)
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service (electronic copy only)
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (electronic copy only)
Cathy Brittingham, Division of Coastal Management (electronic copy only)
Garcy Ward, NCDWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
C

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Conservation, Planning, and Community Affairs
Beverly Eaves Perdue Linda Pearsall Dee Freeman
Governor Director Secretary
March 28, 2012
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen P. Hall, Natural Heritage Program
SUBJECT: DE.1S — US 64 Improvements Project, Tyrrell and Dare Counties
REFERENCE: 12 -0196
The proposed project passes through one of the most ecologically significant areas in the eastern united
States and is likely to have significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the natural resources of
this area unless substantial mitigation is provided. While the document describes the nature of the
impacts in some detail and suggests the mitigation may eventually be provided, it downplays the long-
term nature of the impacts and makes no commitment to project mitigation (see p. xxxix or 4 -156). In
absence of such commitments, we have reviewed the proposed project as if it is not guaranteed to happen,
and thus have several major concerns.
Indirect Impacts
The document concentrates on the assessment of direct impacts, i.e., those resulting from the construction
of the highway along new alignments or from improvements to the existing road. However, we believe
that the indirect impacts — those affecting species and ecosystems occurring outside the actual footprint of
the project — to be far more significant. These include the effects of habitat fragmentation, which the
document treats inconsistently.
On pages 4 -92 to 4 -94, the document clearly points out that '`fragmentation and habitat loss will likely
affect all terrestrial wildlife along the project corridor ". It recognizes that "the added width of the
roadway may present a barrier to disturbance and /or open space averse species "; that "wider crossing
distances increase exposure to predation as well as vehicle collisions "; and that "some high - profile
species that may be affected are black bear, red wolf, and red - cockaded woodpecker ". Specifically with
respect to the red wolf. "highway widening may make US 64 a greater risk for red wolf fatality or it may
deter red wolves from crossing at all. This may amount to substantial habitat fragmentation and loss of
genetic diversity for a small population of a wide- ranging species". Given that this population is the only
free - ranging population of a species that is otherwise extinct in the wild, any such impacts should be
regarded as particularly significant.
Mailing address: 1601 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1601 One
Location: 217 W. Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27604 orthCaolfa
Phone: [phone] Webpage: www.oneNCNaturally.org Naturally
An Equal opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer Notural Rescur(Gs Planning and CnnServatim
l

Elsewhere, the document concludes that widening and elevating the existing highway will have no effect
on habitat fragmentation. For example, "Alternatives IA and I B will have no effect on habitat
fragmentation, since they widen the existing right of way (p. 4 -92). Similarly, "Alternatives 5A and 5B
will both widen the existing highway; therefore fragmentation is not an issue" (p. 4 -93). With regard to
the red. wolf in particular, it states that "widening the existing roadway is expected to result in only
temporary territorial shifts for the red wolf' (p. 4- 111), which is completely at odds with the statements
referred to above. This is the apparent basis for the conclusion that the project is "Not Likely to
Adversely Affeet" this species (p. 4 -110), and that following construction of the project, "animal species
will adjust their habitat and travel patterns to accommodate for the changed area" (p. 4 -156). We
strongly disagree with both of these conclusions as well as the statements that indirect effects, in general,
are not expected (p. 4 -153),
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts —those occurring due to other causes but acting in combination with the project's
impacts — are similarly dismissed: except for possible future development on the outskirts of Columbia,
which has "the potential for cumulative effects on the red wolf' (p. 4- 153), the document concludes that
"no cumulative impacts to aquatic communities and wildlife are anticipated" (p. 4 -154). This narrow
view of what constitutes cumulative impacts completely ignores the drastic effects that sea level rise is
likely to have on this area, which are highly likely to interact with the impacts resulting from this project.
Much of the refuge lands within the study area are projected to become inundated within the foreseeable
future, due both to sea level rise directly and the dissolving effects of salt -water intrusion on the peatlands
that underlie most of the area (see p. 3 -97). Species that now range over much of the peninsula, including
black bear and red wolf will become increasingly confined to the areas of highest elevation on the
peninsula. To the extent that improvements to US 64 contribute to the isolation of these population
remnants, or prevent the movement of species to areas outside the peninsula, the potential impacts of this
project must be seen as much more critical in the context of sea level rise than when considered in
isolation. As with the statements concerning indirect impacts, we completely disagree with the statement
that the cumulative impacts of the project are expected to be minimal (p. 4 -153).
Direct Imnacts
The direct impacts predicted for this project are mostly well - addressed, at least in terns of the acreage of
protected lands and natural communities that will be lost due to construction. The document, however,
does not include any mention of potential impacts to Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus
oxy°inchus), which was recently added to the federal list of Endangered Species and has the potential for
occurring within the Alligator River. It also fails to mention the presence or potential impacts to several
other rare species known to occur in the project area. One such species, the Coastal Plain race of the
black - throated green warbler (Dendroica virgins woynei), is considered Significantly Rare by the Natural
Heritage Program and has one of its largest -- if not the largest — population in the Albemarle - Pamlico
Peninsula. This species is not mentioned at all in the account of wildlife species associated with non -
riverine swamp forest habitat (p. 3 -74), but is likely to be one of the species most significantly affected by
The direct impacts of this project to that particular habitat type. in general, we would like to see a
discussion of impacts to the rare species known to occur in the area instead of the generic (and frequently
inaccurate) descriptions of wildlife given in the document (Section 3.6.5).
C.

Project Commitments
At several points, the document mentions that wildlife crossings may serve to mitigate the effects of
habitat fragmentation by maintaining or even restoring connections between habitat and population units.
Two studies are mentioned (p. 4 -40) that are being conducted to locate sites where the placement of
wildlife crossings would be the most effective, particularly for bears and red wolves. We concur with the
need for such crossings and would like to see the findings of the studies be included in the document (one
was completed in 2011). Without this i.nforrnatior, it is essentially impossible to detennine the actual
impacts of this project on the area's significant wildlife populations and ecosystems.
Beyond just studying the problem, however, we would like to see a commitment be made by DOT to
actually construct a certain number of these crossings, as recommended both by the studies and by state
and federal agency input. Other commitments should potentially include mitigation for loss of habitat
connected to the project. Protection and restoration of habitat corridors allowing for greater wildlife
movements both within the study area and connecting to areas outside would be especially appropriate.
1

:. Carolina ` d Resources . ss
��_
Gordon Myers, Executive Director��,�_ ..._ -.-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernn cn.tal Affairs, DENR
FROM, Travis Wilson, Highway Project C:oordinat€ i
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: ]march 9, 2012
SUBJECT: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed widening of US 64 in Tyrrell and Dare
Counties, forth Carolina. TIP No. R- 2544 -2545 SCH Project No. 12 -OI96
Staff biologists with the , C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) have reviewed the
subject. DEIS and are familiar with habitat values in the project area. The purpose of this review
was to assess project impacts to fish and wildlife resources, Our comments are provided in
accordance with. certain previsions of the National Environmental policy Act (42 U&C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 St.at. 401, as arnended; 16 U.S.C.
661- 667d).
NCDOT is proposing to widen a 27.3 mile suction of US 64 from east of Columbia in
Tyrrell county to US 264 in Dare County, including the replacement of the. Alligator River
bridge, '4aC is a participating agency in the coordination and planning of this project and
various comments provided in conjunction with the NFP.AJ404 Merger process have been
documented. However, potential impacts associated with the remaining alternatives are
substantial and continued efforts to avoid and minimize impacts are necessary. The following
comments identify specific items of concern-
It appears the Alligator River Game Land (ARM.) boundary is inaccurate and does not
ittelamde the GMS tract, constituting a substantial portion of the AR.GL. T c location of
this property can be roughly identified as the Significant Natural Heritage Area (SNHA)
abutting ARGL, and adjacent property from ,l. Morgan F°utch Game Land to the Great
Dismal Swamp Restoration Bank. (See attached map) Inclusion of this property should
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries a 1721 Mail Service Cente-r - Raleigh, NC 27649 -1721
Telephone: [phone] - "ax: (919) 7017 -0028

R- 254412545 Page 2 March 9, 2,€ 12
result in updating "managed lands" - impacts, the description ofAlligator River Came
Land, all environmental features maps, as well as alaplic:able RCW habitat impacts
identified as "shod on protected land ".
Table S -2 and S -3: it is unclear why impacts to "Natural heritage Areas " are itemized but
not calculated, impacts to SNHA should be included.
The 1. Morgan butch (name land is one of several. Gavle lands in North Car€alina where
active habitat, management for waterfowl occurs. Approximately 600 acres of hi.gb
quality habitat is provided :for numerous species of waterfowl, shorebirds and wading
birds. lased on survey data, this area routinely holds several. thousand lairds throughout
the winter. At peak, up to 10,000 birds use this area likely making it the premier
waterfowl mmiagernent area in the WRC Game Lands program, Limited, permit -only
waterfowl hunting is allowed at the J. Morgan Futch Game land. In recent years, this
area has become the most sought -after watcrfowling location in the Game.Lands
program. This is chic to the high bird usage along with relative ease of access compared
to other areas In our Gage Lai-ids program.
The Tyrrell County South Side widening Alternative I A would have significant impacts
to T. Morgan Futch waterfowl irnpoundrn:ents. Widening to the south its this area would
result in relocation of the canal that feeds and dralus water to the impoundments,
relocation of a purapiiig station, relocation of the dike structure adjacent to the existing
canal, and consequently the existing vegetative buffer established between the canal and
the impound.r.nents would be removed. Loss of acreage, alterations in water control, and
loss of buffer would affect waterfowl use as well as hunter use. lrrapacts resulting' orn,
the above mentioned modifications are not noted in the document, but world likely result
in significant and unmitigatable impacts to the impoundments_
Impacts to the red - cockaded woodpecker (Pic aides boreafis)(RCW) are inadeyuate)y
identified in the document, .Although cavity trees were identified and mapped as hart of
the Natural Resources Technical Report NRTR 2008) NCDC T has not provided a,
complete copy of this document. Prior the Concurrence Point 2 a CD dated June 19,
2008 was provided containing'maps and appendices to the NRTR but witlaaut,tile report,
the NRTR should be provided. Additionally it is unclear if this data was updated prior to
the Lags, Furthernnore it is not evident ghat dunes RCW foraging; habitat tabulated in
table 4 -71, except that it is located within a' /a mile radius of a. cavity tree, Also impacts
wero calculated using slope stakes plus 25 feet,: did this area take into consideration
clearing needed for utility lice relocations? Are appropriate analysis of R.CW impacts
should 'be.conductedm
Section 33.1.2. describes the history and objective of the Palmetto Peartree Preserve
(P3), however impacts to P3 are described.. in acres only. How will the bass of those acres
affect the management plan and goals of P39 Also, as a conservation bank established for
the RCW it array be necessary to provide a RCW habitat analysis on. P3 property that lip's
outside a '/2 mile radius of art active cavity tree,
C.

R.- 25441`2545 Page 3 March 9, 2612
Section 4.6.6.1 (p4 -92) Alteniative IA and I `will have no effect on habitat
fragmentation" is an inaccurate statement.. FrawgmGntatio1i is not being acknowledged for
widening since the road already exist, there seems to be a reluctance to classify this as
increased fragmentation. Instead this is identified as increased disturbance and barrier
effect. The acknowledgement of an increased barrier effect is inherently admission of
having an increased effect on habitat fragmentation. Alternatives 5A and 5B are also
similarly classified. There is also recurrence of language suggesting that a 4 lane with
wildlife crossing is an improvement over the existing 2 lane configuration, this is further
substantiated by referencing the existing 2 lane as "impervious" (p 4-1 I t) these are
inaccurate' characterizations of the existing laridscape compared to the proposed project.
NCDOT committed funding for 3 research projects in the study area to assess existing
conditions and recommendations for minimizing impacts to wildlife and habitat
fragmentation resulting from widening US 64. However none of the data or conclusions
from those;projects was include in the document. These: studies resulted in the
mcommendati.on of multiple wildlife crossing structures placed throughout the length of
the project, Wildlife crossings are essential in providing highway permeability in this
region with a widened US 64. Project commitments should include coordination to
implement results of wildlife crossing studics, and planning of wildlife crossings should
advance as soon as ate alternative is selected.
NCDOT has a history with constructing lank bridges over areas with significant. aquatic
resources. With early interagency coordination it has been possible to minimize impacts
to these resources with mini.nial interruption to the construction of those facilities. In
order to maximize the effectiveness of this coordination NCDOT should engage the
agencies in the earliest phases of design to discuss what construction activities will occur
and gain an understanding of how those activities will unpact die resource. Potential
minimization measures for discussion will likely include minimized dredging, and art ira
water work moratorium for the protection of unadrornous species listed in section 16.6.5.
Page 4 -117 also states "no occurrences of'sturgeon have been, documented in the alligator
river for over 20 years'° this may be accurate for Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser
brevirostrum) but this should also be verified for Atlantic sturgeon (Ac^ipenser-
oxyrinchus), and NCDOT should coordinate with'National Marine Fisheries Service
(NNIp ) on this issue, Lastly, sec 4.6.7.7. Anadromo s Dish Habitat (p 4 -119) "Tit
addition, the National Marine Fisheries Service may re u.ire art in -water work
moratorium from February 15 to June 15 to avoid impacts to anadrom us species." This
section of the Alligator River is designated as Coastal waters north of the bridge and Joint
waters south of the bridge. therefore NM;FS, NC Division of urine Fisheries, and
NCWRC will be accountabte for coordination of aquatic resources at. this location,
including an appropriate in water work moratorium,
W2 have reviewed the data. provided in the DEI , and. this project will continue planning through
the NI PAI404 merger process. All alternatives will result in significant impacts tea natural
resources lit dais area. However selecting the appropriate alternative. and incorporating suitable
minimization measures, these impacts can. be reduced and will allow existing ecological
functions in this area to persist. Additional natural resource minimization effbi-ts will be assessed

R- 254412M5 Page 4 March 9; 2012
during eoncurrenco point 4a once the McVgeT 'learn has selected a L aDPA. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment. If we can be of any further assistance please call meat (90) 528 -9886.
cc: Gary Jordan., USI"WS
David Wainwright, DWQ
Bill Biddlecome, USACE
Chris Milit:scher, USETA
Cathy Brittingharn, DCM
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Kevin Hart, NCDM
..

C.

ADDendix C
NCDOT Response to USEPA
Comments on the DEIS

BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
November 19, 2012
Mr. Heinz Mueller
US Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, Georgia, 30303 -8960
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statement, US 64 Improvements Project
and Replacement of Lindsay C. Warren Bridge, Tyrrell and Dare Counties, North
Carolina; CEQ No: 20110035; TIP Project Nos.: R -2544 and R -2545
Dear Mr, Mueller,
NCDOT acknowledges receipt of the April 2, 2012 EPA comments on the subject Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Given the volume and nature of EPA
comments, it has taken NCDOT considerable time to study the EPA inquiries and then
compile a response. Attachment A to this letter stratifies the EPA review into 40 distinct
and thematic comments, and then addresses each. Attachment B also presents a
"Reevaluation of 2005 NCDOT State Hurricane Evacuation Study (and 2008 supplement
for project R- 2544/5)." which was completed in October, 2012.
In general, many EPA comments are constructive to the NEPA process, and NCDOT has
spent additional time to study them and provide answers. However, many EPA
comments seem to represent unsubstantiated opinion. NCDOT is both surprised by
EPA's comments and concerned that EPA comments represent a breach of longstanding
interagency protocol. Comments disregard prior commitments that EPA made as a part
of the project's Merger Team (either by concurring or waiving their right to concur by
abstaining at key decision points), or otherwise ignore project components and
alternatives that were developed in association with the Merger Team to address specific
environmental concerns. This includes EPA concurrence on Purpose and Need (CPI),
abstention on Detailed Study Alternatives (CP2), and concurrence on Bridging Decisions
(CP2A). Many components of EPA comments are direct contradictions of your agency's,
prior- signed concurrence.
Still other comments appear to ignore or challenge the judgment of experienced engineers
and transportation planners in areas for which EPA does not demonstrate expertise - as
opposed to simply asking for additional information or clarification. Such challenges
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: 919 - 250 -4224 CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG /DOH /PRECONSTRUCT /PE/ RALEIGH NC 27610
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1548
C -1

also tend to ignore sections of the DEIS where NCDOT's findings are specifically
described. Two examples (of several) are offered:
In a 2007 merger team meeting, the EPA representative requested evidence that
hurricanes have historically made landfall in the state. Several months later, NCDOT
provided a definitive report: the "2008 North Carolina Hurricane Landfall Study,"
which cited data from the National Hurricane Center to demonstrate that major
hurricanes (up to Category 4) make landfall in NC — a fact that is self- evident to
native North Carolinians. The study furthermore showed that six Category 3 and two
Category 4 hurricanes have made landfall in NC since 1950. This supplemental study
was funded by NCDOT in order to definitively address EPA's comment. Conducting
this study delayed the project at that time. Yet, in its DEIS comments EPA either
ignores or summarily dismisses that report by making the unsubstantiated statement:
"In an independent evaluation of the 2005 study, EPA could not identify one
Category 3 Hurricane storm that has made actual landfall on the Outer Banks in the
past 60 years of detailed National Weather Service records." EPA further stated that
"hurricane evacuation issues are not believed to be a foreseeable transportation
problem."
Similarly, in early project meetings, NCDOT bridge experts represented the
construction and maintenance problems associated with rehabilitating or widening the
existing bridge over the Alligator River. The entire merger team (including EPA) did
not object with a bridge replacement at that time, yet EPA comments now demand
that bridge rehabilitation should be considered. This type of comment disregards
expertise and obstructs process by revisiting earlier decisions.
EPA suggests that its finding of EO -2 is based upon an incomplete set of alternatives that
have potential for significant environmental impacts to waters of the U.S. and /or do not
avoid disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and /or low income
communities (under Environmental Justice). Yet, the DEIS painstakingly describes
potential impacts to waters of the United States, and identifies mitigation opportunities -
including appropriate descriptions of our intentions to utilize the statewide and
programmatic Ecosystem Enhancement Program. The DEIS also includes a substantive
Environmental Justice evaluation. During the project, numerous study alternatives were
specifically developed that avoid direct impact to Environmental Justice communities.
The DEIS then fully describes which alternatives do not cause a disproportionately high
and adverse impact. And yet, EPA claims that avoidance alternatives are not developed.
Still, more EPA comments surprisingly challenge early tenets of purpose and need, as
well as an adequate range of alternatives. The merger process has moved well beyond
this point with the full knowledge and concurrence of EPA, yet no new and substantive
information is proffered to substantiate revisiting these decisions.
NCDOT does not agree with the EPA rating of EO -2, and substantively argues that the
DEIS is sufficient for decision purposes. NCDOT is known for its thorough and
analytical EIS products, and I am compelled to point out to EPA that our environmental
documents compare favorably with those from neighboring state DOTs that are managed
by the same regional EPA office. NCDOT formally requests EPA to reevaluate its rating
and determine that the DEIS is sufficient for decision making.
C -2

Specifically for the R- 2544/5 project, NCDOT presents the following facts:
1. EPA's representative signed the CPI Purpose and Need concurrence form on June
14, 2007. The purpose and need covered the project's justification, and clearly
specifies hurricane evacuation, Strategic Highway Corridors, and the aging bridge
combined as a fully justified reason to study the project.
2. During deliberations for CP2 Study Alternatives, the merger team encountered
differing opinions at the first CP2 meeting on June 19, 2008. At a second CP2
meeting on August 21, 2008, the group was able to agree on all detailed study
alternatives (cross- section and location) in Tyrrell County, and for locations of
study corridors in Dare County. The EPA and several other agencies did not
concur with NCDOT's proposed 23 -foot median in Dare County; therefore each
entity submitted an "Issue Brief" At NCDOT's discretion and in accordance
with merger process, the issue was elevated to a Merger Management Team
which rendered its decision to continue studying a 23 -foot median in Dare
County, subject to revisiting median reduction opportunities at a later
Minimization concurrence point (4A). After the merger "elevation meeting,"
EPA had an option to not accept the MMT's verdict and request a further
elevation to the merger Review Board. Instead, the EPA representative chose to
"abstain" from the CP2 decision. The merger process specifically defines
Abstinence as: "I do not actively object, but I am not signing the concurrence
form. The Merger Process may continue, and I agree not to revisit the
concurrence point subject to the guidance on revisiting concurrence points."
A meeting for concurrence point 2A — Bridging and Alignment Review, was held
on November 18, 2009. The concurrence form established bridge lengths, and
added alternatives with four -lane cross - sections). EPA signed the CP2A form on
January 15, 2010.
EPA and other agencies have abided by a well - established, agreed -upon merger process,
yet EPA's comments on the DEIS suggest that the agency is no longer willing to abide by
the documented merger protocol. In the midst of challenges rendered by EPA, the only
alternative option suggested by the commenter is "targeted upgrades;" however this
approach was exhaustively studied and then debated in early project stages. EPA's
representative in those meetings abstained from either concurring or not concurring with
the Detailed Study Alternatives to be carried forward in the subject DEIS. By definition,
abstention from a merger point means the process may continue and the agency
representative agrees not to revisit the concurrence point. NCDOT, in the context of
these comments, believes that EPA has violated the spirit and the letter of the Merger
process. It is surprising, given the robust merger process for the project, that EPA
suggests there is insufficient information or infers that "targeted upgrades" is a
substantially new option that could effectively meet the project's stated purpose. And, as
previously mentioned, this approach has been studied and considered by the merger team.
Therefore it is inconsistent and disruptive for EPA to raise this issue at this late stage.
The above observations and the overall tone of comments give NCDOT the impression
that EPA's comments are more reflective of an unyielding anti - project position than an
effort to make a positive contribution to sound project decision- making. The latter is
C -3

EPA's appropriate role omu participant in the Merger Pmoesn.I respectfully request
clarification o[EPA's approach to North Carolina's NEPA/4O4 merger process. We have
had un other participating ugeooynnbkdanilyuonbaJioLhoov,n prior concurrence orthe
process. In the future, does your agency intend to follow North Carolina's NEPA/404
Merger Process? Please advise,
lo summary, NCI)()T contends that the DElS evaluation iu clear and substantive, and
carries oreasonable range of alternatives. Prior h the first merger temo[8DPA meeting
no December ll,2Ul2,NCD0Iformally requests that EPA reconsider its EO-2rating in
lien of providing truly new information that has not previously been considered and
debated through the Merger process. In addition, we request that EPA ud in accordance
with previous concurrences or abstentions, and allow the decision process to continue. In
a spirit of partnership, we welcome EPA's constructive and productive contributions and
are certainly willing to work-out any lingering concerns.
With the distribution o[ this letter, I will ask ozy project engineer, Mr. TodDovoou to
directly coordinate with the current EPA representative, Mb. Chris MUi1mder, to prepare
for the upcoming LEDyAselection meeting. Should you have any questions, please
contact o`eut(9i9)707-00O0or .
Attachments:
A-R-2544/5: Responses to Specific EPA Comments m` the DEIS
Q - Reevaluation ol2005 NCD()T State Hurricane Evacuation Study (and 2OO8
supplement for project R-2544/5). October 2012.
cc: Mr. Scott McLendon, LTSACE
Mr. Bill B 0SACB
Ms. Amy Chapman, NCDWO
Mr. Chris MD|itauher,EPA
YNu. Deborah Barbour, y4CDOI
Mr. Terry Gibson, NCDOI

Attachment A
R- 2544/5: Responses to Specific EPA Comments on the DEIS
November 19, 2012
The following pages segregate the comments received from EPA on Attachment A of its April 2,
2012 DEIS review letter, so that each comment can be specifically answered. The EPA
comments are shown in normal type, while the NCDOT response is presented italics.
General Response
The cover letter of this Attachment A provides a general response from NCDOT to EPA.
2012 Reevaluation of the 2005 NCDOT State Hurricane Evacuation Study
EPA objections to hurricane evacuation as a purpose and need arise at multiple locations in
review comments. NCDOT also received public comments, as well as two letters from non-
governmental organizations, that requested further explanation on hurricane clearance timing.
To respond and in the summer of 2012, NCDOT again commissioned Atkins Engineering
(formerly PBSJ) to consider and respond to comments received, while also reevaluating the
assumptions, timetables, and conclusions made by the 2005 NCDOT State Hurricane Evacuation
Study, as well as parameters in the 2008 supplemental study that specifically modeled the US 64
corridor. Atkins is the pre - eminent expert in the United States for hurricane evacuation planning.
They not only prepared the hurricane evacuation studies presented in DEIS, but developed the
NCDOT model used for all NCDOT hurricane evacuation studies. They also develop the models
used in deciding when to order an evacuation in North Carolina and other states. Attachment B
presents this "Reevaluation," which answers specific comments, and provides more detailed
explanations. The reevaluation concludes that the 2005 study and 2008 supplements remain
valid — and with slightly increased justification.
Specific EPA Comments and NCDOT Responses
The overall EPA comments were stratified into 40 separate and distinct, thematic comments.
Each comment is repeated on the following pages, and then followed immediately by a response.
C -5

Listing of EPA Comments and NCDOT Responses:
Comment: The DEIS cover includes the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as the
Lead Federal Agency under NEPA (40 CFR Section 1501.5). Page iii, Section S.2 under the
DEIS Summary and Chapter 1, Page 1 -1 indicate that the document was prepared under the
North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) requirements. It is stated that the
DEIS conforms to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines. The CEQ
requirements under NEP A are regulations and are not guidelines (40 CFR Parts 1500- 1508).
The USACE is considering a major Federal permit action under the Clean Water Act (CWA)
potentially requiring the preparation of a Federal DEIS (40 CFR Section 1501.4).
As the Lead Federal Agency under NEPA, the USACE is required to comply with all
relevant and applicable Federal laws and regulations and Executive Orders (e.g., E.O. 12898
on Environmental Justice). NEPA allows for eliminating duplication of State and Federal
requirements where appropriate (Please see 40 CFR Section 1500.4(n)). The inaccuracy of
this section of the DEIS should be corrected in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS).
Response: The "guidelines" typographical mistake trill be corrected in the FEIX
USACE is fidly airare cf its responsibilities under NEPA as the Lead Federal Agency.
2. Comment: Page iv, Section S.4 under the DEIS Summary includes the purpose of the
proposed project. It does not include the need for the proposed project. The 'need for the
project describes the key problem(.$) to be addressed and to the extent possible explains the
underlying causes of those problems. The purpose' states clearly and succinctly why the
project is being proposed and articulates the positive outcomes that are intended Please see:
Puipose and Need Giizdance for FHWA funded Projects in North Carolina, Version 2;
February 2009 at http: / /www.thwa.dot.gov /NCDIV.
Response: The Summary chapter of the FEI,S also will include a "need " description. It
was presented as Section 1.2 of the DELS.
Comment: To the extent practicable, the USACE and NCDOT should consider other
Federal transportation agency guidance in its development of a project purpose and need.
The purposes of the project are outlined on page iv of the DEIS and are summarized as
follows: Consistency with the NCDOT's Strategic Highway Corridor (SHC) plan; Reducing
the US 64 hurricane evacuation times to better meet state clearance goals in the project study
area; and, Maintaining a bridge across the Alligator River that meets the needs of highway
users.
Consistency with the 2005 SHC [Vision] plan is not believed to be a documented need. This
issue has been addressed on numerous other highway projects in the Merger process.
USACE, EPA and other agencies have maintained that consistency with the SHC Vision Plan
is a purpose, and not a documentable need. The SHC Vision Plan can be and has been
amended and modified by the NCDOT since 2005. The DEIS includes an expanded
2
C -6

description of the SHC Vision Plan on pages 1 -11 to 1 -17. EPA does not concur that the
proposed project as defined will meet applicable environmental laws (and regulations)
including but not limited to the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 131861. The DEIS also fails to demonstrate how the
project as proposed meets 'fundamental environmental stewardship' as referenced on page 1-
16.
Response: On June 14, ?007, an interagency Merger Team for the project (including the
EPA representative) agreed to the needs and prurposes as stated in the Draft EIX This
included Hurricane Evacuation and achieving the ,SHC Vision. We are puzzled that
EPA's comments seem to ignore this viable purpose and need statement that was
developed through the interagency merger process. The fact that EPA has changed its
mind and currently objects to hurricane evacuation and Strategic Highway Corridors
does not invalidate a viable purpose and need statement. As described in the cover letter
to this attachment, EPA's change of direction is not consistent with an existing
interagency process.
,Shoirn beloir is Figure 1: the signature cif the EPA representative approving the project's
Purpose and Need:
M■ _.........
Concurrence Paint No. 1: Purpose and Need Study Area Defined
The Project Team concurred an this date of. Cl 1p with the purpose of and need for
the proposed project as stated above and the project study area as shown in the Exhibit
A.
US Army Corps of Engineers
NC Department of Transportation
US Fish and wild ffe Service
NC Wildllife Resources Commission
N,C Department of Cultural Resources
N CD�EINR, !Division of Water Quall'ity
U'S EnOroinmental Protection Agency
0
Abstained
Hurricane evacuation is a irell- documented and justified need that resulted from
substantial studies and interagency involvement. These very studies have been delivered
to EPA in the past. DEJ,S Chapter I c f � fully describes the issue, and refers to pertinent
technical reports.
3
C -7

The Vrategic Highi ray Corridors (,SHC) initiative is thoroughly and adequately
explained in the DETS on pages 1 -11 through 1 -18. In the FETS and possibly in response
letters (as appropriate), NCDOT intends to further explain the legal and regulatory
means thatprovide FHWA and state DOTS with the authority to establish Purpose and
Need These include guidance fl'om the Council on Environmental Quality (1rhich
administers NEPA), 23 U.S. C. § 13 1, 23 UX C. § 139: Section 6002 of the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy far Users
(SAFETEA -L U), and court decisions. It is clear that a project's purpose and need can
include "achieving a transportation objective identrfred in an applicable statewide or
metropolitan transportation plan. " For example, if a statewide plan sets a goal of
completing a system of strategic highway corridors, the purpose and need for an
individual project can be defined as completing a section of that system. This position is
affirmed by the nelu)ly- implemented MAP -21. The CEQ has further stated that " non -
tr'atlspar'tatiotl ageticies shoilld give `substantial defel'eYlce' t0 tl'aYlspal'tatraYl agencies'
def /Yldtd()YI Of a1'OJE Ct'S p1l1JOSe and need. Recent CO111't CC/SeS also heard and rendered
an opinion that the "statement of a project's purpose and need is left to the agency's
expertise and discretion, and ire defer t0 the agency rf the statement is reasonable.
The EPA and the interagency merger team have already concurred frith this Purpose and
Need Only US'FW,S Regulatory and ARNWR abstained (but did not object) for a
different reason, and in a letter Cited: "While the purpose and need document may be an
adequate statement for the NEPA 104 merger process overall, we have concerns over the
level of detail provided to date relative to data r'equir'ements necessary to pr'epar'e a
Compatibility Determ /Ylatr()YI for right -(?f -iray modrfrcatr()YIS. " There
f()re ,SWC remains as
a legitimate Putpose and Need
4. Comment: Regarding hurricane evacuation and clearance times under N.C.G.S. Section
136 - 102.7, the proposed project's detailed study alternatives do not meet the State standard.
Please see: http:/ /law.onecle.com!nOlth- carolina! 136 - roads - and- highways! 136- 102.7.html
"Evacuation Standard: The hurricane evacuation standard to be used for any bridge or
highway constriction project pursuant to this Chapter shall be no more than 18 hours, as
recommended by the State Emergency Management officials ". The discussion on page 1 -32
of the DEIS does not address how the proposed project will meet this standard. Furthermore,
the project study area is extremely rural and there is no documentation that there is any
hurricane evacuation or transportation issues regarding the extremely small number of
persons who reside in the project study area (See Figure S -2). Regarding the discussions of
the 2005 NCDOT Hurricane Evacuation Study, EPA as a member of the oversight committee
did not concur on the use of a75% occupancy and Category 3 Hurricane event criteria for the
Outer Banks. In an independent evaluation of the 2005 study, EPA could not identify one
Category 3 Hurricane storm that has made actual landfall on the Outer Banks in the past 60
years of detailed National Weather Service records. Table 1 -10 includes clearance times
assuming 75% occupancy and a Category 3 Hurricane. Existing conditions are shown in the
year 2007 and 22.5 hours to 1 -95. The 2030 No -build is shown as 28.9 hours. The discussion
of boat traffic around the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge and potentially delayed clearance times
on page 1 -35 is not believed to be accurate or properly documented.
4
C -8

Response: EPA is again reminded that they Concurred with hurricane evacuation as a
component of the statement of puYpose and need in June 2 00 7.
IYl a 2007 merger team meeting, the EPA representative requested evidence that
hurricanes make landfall in the state. In response, NC'DOTprovided a de
fryzrtrve report:
the "2008 North Carolina Hurricane Landfall ,Study, " irhich collected data fJ''om the
National Hurricane Center and ij)ith demonstrated that major hurricanes (rip to C'ategoly
4) have made landfall in North Carolina. The study jnJ'thermore showed that six
Category 3 hurricanes have made landfall in North Carolina since 1950. NC )OT took
EPA's concern seriously and expended frinds and delayed this project to provide this
information. Yet, in its DEIS comments EPA either ignores or summarily dismisses that
report by making the unsubstantiated statement: "In an Independent evaluation of the
2005 study, EPA could not identify one C'ategor'y 3 Hurricane storm that has made actual
landfall on the Outer Banks in the past 60 year's cif detailed National Weather ,Service
records. " EPA in their Comments . faded to provide a bibliographic reference or a Copy of
their independent study or explain why Its Contl'adictol y jlYldivigs sholuld be favored over
those ofNCDOT's 2008 study.
Page 1 -32 merely states the need to meet the 18 -hour evacuation standard ,Section
2.5.4.2 presents a discussion on hol1) the hurricane evacitatlon need 11)ill be met by this
project. It is Cnstomal y to present the prupose and need in Chapter I and to present in
Chapter 2 (Description gfAlternatives C'onsider'ed) how well each the alternative meets
the plilpose and need The need for hurricane evacuation is generated not fl'om the
residents of the immediate project area, but fl'om evacuees (both tourist and resident)
coming. fi -om the Outer Banks. The 2005 Hurricane Evacuation ,Study clearly
documented the existing and projected evacuation times on US 64, so EPA's statement
that there is no documentation of evacuation issues is: False.
The EPA fails to indicate irhy they disagreed ij)ith the use of a 75 percent occupancy and
Category 3 Hurricane event Criteria for the Outer Banks and why in then' Judgment the
State of North Carolina should put its visitors at greater risk by a road system that only
accommodates evacuations during lesser events. Of pertinent note: In the case of US 64,
the state's evacuation standard is not met with the No -Build Alternative, even with lower -
level category I and 2 hurricane.
EPA does not explain why they believe the statement regarding the interruption to
evacuation Caused be the existing sil)ing -Span bridge described on page 1 -35 is not
accurate or properly documented Therefore, a specific response is made drfficrilt. There
is no question that a high -span bridge would offer a no -delay route for boats and motor
vehicles; however this statement is an observation of additional benefit and is not a basis
. for project need NC'DOT does not inteYld to provide additional or ripdated boat-delay
data, as it is not pertinent to this oNectron to plilpose and need
Comment: In a potential effort to illustrate the need for improvements to US 64, the DEIS
states that the entire population of Dare County increased by 328% from 1970 to 2000. The
C -9

report fails to analysis, however, that population growth has declined each consecutive
decade within that interval. For example, population growth in Dare County slowed to 32%
from 1990 to 2000 (as opposed to 91 % from 1970 to 1980, and 70% from 1980 to 1990).
The DEIS states that the population in Dare County is projected to grow by 80% between
2000 and 2030. In the wake of declining population growth over the last few decades and the
recent economic downturn since 2009, EPA does not believe that these population
projections to be realistic. The population projections also do not correspond to the land use
information and population projections from the 2012 FEIS Indirect and Cumulative Effects
report provided by FHWA and NCDOT for R, -2576. The uncontrolled coastal development
of the Outer Banks has significantly slowed due to more recent socio - economic trends, the
substantial reduction in buildable lands and the lack of other needed infrastructure.
Consequently, the inflated population estimates in the DEIS outside of the project study area
can significantly alter hurricane evacuation estimates. The population trends presented on
pages 1 -20 and 1 -21, including the approximated 2003 seasonal peak population in Dare
County of 200,000, is not believed to be a relevant U. S. Census 2010 statistic. Moreover,
Table 1 -2 ends population growth demographics for Tyrell and Dare Counties in 2000. The
NCDOT and USACE should provide a supplemental NEPA document that includes more
current U.S. Census data.
Response: These observations are addressed in Attachment B: "2012 Reevaluation of
2005 NCDOT,State Hurricane Evacuation Vudy. " The reevaluation concludes that the
2003 study (and 2008 supplements) remains valid.
The U,S' C'ensius population statistics referenced in the Comment are presented in Chapter
3 of the DETS as background information and have no relevance to the population
numbers used to forecast hurricane clearance times in 2030, if only because it is not the
permanent population accounted for in the U,S Census but the tourist population that
drives hurricane evacuation demand The population prgjections in (N 64 DET, Table
3 -2 match the R- 257610E Table 2 -1. The statistic of 200, 000 in the peak season is not a
U,S Census number, but it is provided in the Dare County land use plan, and is relevant
to hurricane evacuation analysis.
6. Comment: The DEIS fails to take into account that evacuees can utilize other U.S.
highways to vacate Dare County in the event of a Category 3 hurricane. These routes include
US 264 to the south and US 158 to the north. Dividing automobile traffic among these three
major corridors would subsequently reduce potential congestion and the evacuation time on
US 64. NCDOT and FHWA are also proposing the'gap - funded' Mid- Currituck Bridge toll
project (R -2576) that would provide another evacuation route from the Outer Banks.
Response: This observation is addressed in Attachment B: "2012 Reevaluation (?f2005
NCDOT State Hurricane Evacuation Study. " EPA's comment is not correct: All three
Corridors listed irere Considered in the hurricane modeling
7. Comment: Considering the extremely large acreages managed as conservation areas,
mitigation sites, preserves, wildlife gamelands, and a National Wildlife Refuge within the
project study area [emphasis added] depicted on Figure S -2, the likelihood of future
6
C -10

hurricane evacuation issues is not believed to be a foreseeable transportation problem. The
existing two -lane Lindsay C. Warren Bridge over the Alligator River currently has an
adequate (`fair') NCDOT safety rating (36 out of 100). There is no documentation provided
in the DEIS that the existing two -lane bridge requires additional highway capacity to four
lanes.
Response: NCDOT strongly disagrees with EPA's statement that hurricane evacuation is
"not a foreseeable transportation problem ". EPA is not a hurricane evacllation or
transportation expert, not' does EPA provide a Credible basis f )r then' opinion on
hurricane evacllation or any indication that it eras developed by someone expert in
hurricane clearance planning. In fact, EPA has already concurred frith the pi'oject'.s
Purpose and Need irhich inchides hurricane evacllation as a major component (please
re
fei'ence Figure 1).
Chapter I cif the DETS clearly proves that the existing tiro -lane toad and bridge irould
restrict floir during an evacuation. EPA was a participant in the Merger Team process
that concluded that only font' lanes could meet the project's purpose and need Later as
alternatives (including typical sections) irer'e developed, EPA abstained from that
decision. In its brief listing uu by it abstained, houu ever, EPA lasted median i r idth and road
elevation as reasons. In its merger elevation bYief, hotirever, EPA raised no concerns
about f ntr lanes. It is not clear from the comment why EPA now believes four lanes is
not Ilustifaed F1u1'thel'm01'e, abstaining diui'lYlg the Mei'gei' process is defined as: "I do
not actively object, but I am not signing the concurrence f )rnl. The Merrger process may
Continue, and I agree not to revisit the concurrence point siublect to the guidance on
revisiting concurrence points. "
8. Comment: For some additional guidance on Purpose and Need, the USACE and NCDOT
should consider the FHWA technical assistance information below and the website links:
a. Using Purpose and Need in Decision - making
b. As noted above, the purpose and need define what can be considered reasonable, prudent,
and practicable alternatives. The decision - making process should first consider those
alternatives which meet the purpose and need for the project at an acceptable cost and
level of environmental impact relative to the benefits which will be derived from the
proj ect.
c. At times, it is possible that no alternative meets all aspects of the project's purpose and
need. In such a case, it must be determined if the alternatives are acceptable and
worthwhile pursuing in light of the cost, environmental impact and less than optimal
transportation solution. To properly assess this, it is important to determine the elements
of the purpose and need which are critical to the project, as opposed to those which may
be desirable or simply support it, the critical elements are those which if not met, at least
to some minimal level, would lead to a "no- build" decision. Determining critical needs
could include policy decisions as well as technical considerations.
7
C -11

d. Other times, the cost or level of environmental impact are not acceptable and an
alternative that only partially meets the purpose and need or the no -build alternative must
be considered. If the costs are justified in relation to the transportation benefits, then a
less than full -build alternative may be acceptable.
http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmneed.asp
"Care should be taken that the purpose and need statement is not so narrowly drafted that it
unreasonably points to a single solution" (F14WA Administrator: 7123103 Memorandum on
Guidance on "Purpose and Need').
http://www.environment.thwa.clot.gov/gLiidebook/Gjoint.asp
Response: NCDOT reminds EPA that this information was considered throughout the
Merger process thus far. Although the federal lead agency is the U,S'ACE, the
procedures, processes, and considerations used by NCDOT when FHWA is lead agency
were used on this project.
The purpose and need leas not narrowly defined'. EPA has been present at all
development stages, and concni °i-ed with pnipose and need in 2007. This reversion of
EPA's position is precisely what the merger process was designed to prevent. By this
process, agencies agree not to revisit prior concurrence points unless new information
invalidates prior concurrence. In this case, EPA is backtracking on prior concurrence,
yet (?ffors no neir znf )rmatlon as a basis jor reversal. EPA further participated in the
alternatives development process, and in 2008 abstained (brit did not oNect) to moving
forward in the merger process.
,S'hoirn beloir is Figure 2: an email from the EPA representative irhich documented the
agency's "Abstinence "from Concurrence Point 2, which selects detailed study
alternatives:
Frrom. Militschei,[e-mail] Sent, Frei 10,, 31/2008 71,37 AM!
Tea. Scales Reggie
Cc, �P;Pilliam a Eiddlecomes sace ai °my mil, garyjordaii @,fi s gov; david.wairiwi °iglit@ncmail net;
cadiy 6n,ittirnglram,&icsrnanl net; lim: hoadleyi�Nicmall net;. Dennis SbLuuarto s, gov; bbrazaerLWartdS.uscg mile,
m aethrogalbemarlecommission.org, Devens,,Thomas E; donna. ciancausseftwa. dot. gov, Yamamoto, Brian F;
Hanson, Robert Pe Everett,, Marlernae Trundle,, Carolyn
5wbjec. Rey; [REMINDER] R- �254415 Concurrence Point T Merger Agreement - FINAL
Reggie: EPA at this tur-ne abstains from CP 2 While there was additional and new information
provided at the MMT elevation briefing and a commitment to look at avoidance and minimization
with median width at CP 4A for the dare COUnty segment, some of EPA's environmental
concerns as GLItlined in GUr brief have not been fUl'ly addressed. In addition, EPA is also UnsUre
as to the technical justification for the proposal to raise the grade of the existing road by several
feet. I listed intently to Glen's presentation and reviewed the handOLIt again bait can not find the
information on the existing problems with the CUrrent elevation of US 64.
Similar to the Bonner Bridge and Troy Bypass elevations, Merger 01 partnering agencies have not
been asked to sign conCUrrence farms (Unless they wish to) when the "'rLIling`` is not in their
favor.
EPA intends to continue on the Merger 01 team for this project and will hope to have its issr.ies
resolved at later conCUrrence points and clUring the NEPAJSection 4014 process. Please retain a
cony of this e -mail for VOUr records as an "abstention Thank YOU.
8
C -12

Abstinence is defined as: 7 do not actively object, but am not signing the concurrence
form. The Merger Process may continue, and I agree not to revisit the concurrence point
subject to the guidance on revisiting concurrence points. "
9. Comment: As the Lead Federal Agency under NEPA, the EPA recommends that USACE
should fully explore other Federal transportation agency guidance and requirements to justify
a project need in consideration of the potential costs and significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action. The USACE should consider the "No Action"
alternative for US 64 and other potential interim actions with respect to maintaining the
Lindsay C. Warren Bridge.
Response: The "No Action " is addressed in the DEIS in ,Section 2.2 and found not to be
reasonable in light cif the stated needs and pwposes for the project. The "No- Build"
Alternative is always in consideration until the ROD.
In early project meetings N('DOT bridge experts represented the construction and
maintenance problems associated frith rehabilitating or iridening the existing bridge
over the Alligator River. Reasons irhy rehabilitation is not a viable alternative are
presented in Section 2.3.7 of the DEIS, including that rehabilitation would essentially
involve rebuilding the bridge. The Merger Team did concur (although EPA abstained) to
remove bridge rehabilitation as a project alternative. Yet noir, EPA requests
consideration of a bridge rehabilitation alternative frith no explanation as to irhy EPA
believes such an alternative is viable or any indication that they consulted frith
professional structural engineers to reach such a conclusion. This type of comment
disregards expertise and obstructs process by revisiting earlier decisions. The DEIS
describes irhy rehabilitation is not a viable alternative and NCDOT stands by those
findings.
10. Comment: Secondary benefits of the proposed action are identified on page iv of the DEIS.
These secondary benefits include the following: Potential for [the] reduction in total crash
rates from the conversion of a two -lane rural roadway to a four -lane, divided section; A new
Alligator River bridge will provide the opportunity for safety improvements related to the
absence of a swing, -span and signalized approaches, as well as improved shoulders, wider
lanes, and bicycle -safe rails; and, Potential for improved regional bicycle trail connectivity
and pathways from the Town of Columbia to the Outer Banks.
According to highway studies, the potential for the reduction in total crash rates by
converting two -lane facilities to four -lane, median- divided facilities are not clearly
documented. Recent studies show that lane width and wider paved shoulders are more
important in the reduction of rural, two -lane crashes. Existing US 64 lacks the Annual
Average Daily Traffic (AADTs) cited in the below referenced report to support conversion
from two -lanes to four- lanes: Please see: http: / /tti.tamu.edu /documents /0- 4618 -S.pdf
Response: EPA misunderstands and misinteipret..s the referenced Texas A &M report.
This report emphasizes the safety advantages of wide lanes and shoulders. Researchers
9
C -13

developed COeffiCieYltS that compare a standard tl1 0 -lane road i r ith 12 -foot lanes and all
8 foot shoulder, to other lane and shoulder configurations of a two -lane road For
example, the study reports that a two -lane road with no shoulder has a Total Crash ratio
of 1.62, as compared to the standard or 62 percent more crashes. The same
comparison is performed for four -lane highways.
The study reports that a common method to increase capacity on rural highways is to
stripe a formerly -tiro -lane highiray frith iride shoulders into a four -lane, undivided
highway with minimal shoulders. It finds that, because of crash concerns, this
conversion should only OCC1ir YYI SitllatiaYlS i r ith high average dally tl'af fic volumes.
From the study, EPA conjectures that a reduction in crash Fates by converting tiro -lane
Jbcihties to folir -lane, median- divided facilities is Plot clearly documented Yet, the Texas
A &M'study does not compare two -lane highways to four -lane highways, and specifically
states that the relationship betireen clashes and median iridth is Plot studied
In presentations during the project development process, NCDOT presented statewide
statistics that show four -lane, median- divided facilities have fewer crashes than two -lane
highways, and that wider medians result in fewer and less severe crashes.
EPA has failed to demonstrate any basis supporting the commenters expertise in this
matter. Furthermore, this issue relates to a secondary propose and need; therefore it is
not pertinent to moving forward with a LEDPA decision.
11. Comment: Highway mitigation strategies are also available to the transportation agency in
an effort to reduce rural two -lane total crash rates, including centerline or shoulder nimble
strips, shoulder reflectors, safety edges, breakaway light poles, fixed object shielding, safety
guard rails, driver pull- off /rest areas, etc. Please see:
http: / /safety.fhwa. dot.gov/ geometric / pubs/ mitigationstrategies /chapter4 /41 ane3 showidth.htm
Response: Additu)Ylal safetyjeatlires irill be investigated during the project design
phase; however NCDOT appreciates EPA's proactive action in pointing out these
options. Consideration in the DEIS q/'23- oot median alternative in Dare County (to the
exclusion of NCDOT's preferred 46- oot media) represents a major design exception as
one such uzrtigatu)Yl measure. The saf f jeatiires referenced are less relevant to project
development, hoirever, because safety improvements are a secondary benefit of the
project and Plot a primary puipose and need
12. Comment: Passing lanes (3rd lane) improvements could also potentially reduce crash rates
and address any improvements sought for hurricane evacuation purposes. EPA requested that
NCDOT and other Merger team agencies consider this as a reasonable and feasible option
during the development of detailed study alternatives. The rationale for using development
and population forecasts on the Outer Banks that are outside of the project study area is not
believed to be reasonable while at the same time not including US 264 in the evaluation of an
alternate evacuation route. The project study area as currently presented in the DEIS does not
provide for a full analysis of the issues and for a full range of reasonable alternatives.
10
C -14

Response: NCDOT acknowledges that at early project meetings, EPA openly advocated
for three -lane alternatives that irere presented for discussion by NC )OT. EPA listened
to NCDOT's in -depth analysis of the pros cons of different three -lane configurations, and
Which ultimately proved that three -lane alternatives irould not adequately fulfdl the
purpose cif this specific pr(?ject. In their Airgirst 27, 2008 zssires brief related to
Concurrence Point 2 on the selection of detailed study alternatives, EPA indicated that
they iranted considered a four -lane road ij)ith a 7- to II -foot median i� zth guard rail. No
mention w f as made o a three -lane alternative. It was observed at that time by NC )OT
that EPA had accepted the need for four -lanes and that the only question remaining leas
the irliether a median less than 23- eet iride should be assessed in detail in the DEIX
The Merger Team approved a minimum four -lane, median - divided highirayjor study,
and Section 2.3.5 of the DEIS includes a discussion of how three -lane alternatives were
Considered and then irltrurately joirYld to be deficient. Therefore NC'DOT does not believe
this is a reasonable alternative in the Context of the agreed -upon purpose and need
statement. Chapter 2 documents the fidl range cf alternatives considered prior to the
selection of the detail study alternatives.
EPA's hurricane related concerns are addressed in the response to EPA Comment -3
and -4.
13. Comment: Regarding the secondary benefit of evaluating safety improvements concerning
the existing bridge over the Alligator River, there is no documentation provided that the
existing bridge was designed by NCDOT as an unsafe stricture (i.e., a swing -span bridge).
EPA recognizes that a swing -span bridge for limited boat traffic may present an
inconvenience at times for motorists on US 64. However, in a mandatory hurricane
evacuation order, emergency management officials have the responsibility to keep the
evacuation routes open to evacuees. Other improvements concerning improved shoulders,
wider lanes and bicycle safety rails could be included in an alternative design that
rehabilitates the existing stricture.
Response: The existing bridge is not unsafe: it is aging and in need of replacement.
NC'DOT does not design build unsafe bridges. The bridge 11)as designed avid built maYry
years ago; knowledge of bestpractices has improved over the years. Also, the stiving
span was built in 1960 when motor vehicle and boat traffic was lower and was
appropriate for its day. During an evacuation, NC )OT has a responsibility both to boat
users passing through the stiving span in an effort to reach safe harbor and motorists on
the bridge. Regarding rehabilitating the bridge, see the response to EPA Comment -9.
14. Comment: EPA generally supports the secondary benefit of improved regional bicycle
facilities between Columbia and the Outer Banks. However, this secondary benefit can be
accomplished by implementing a number of improvements to the existing facilities that were
not analyzed or fully considered in the DEIS. The comments concerning a lack of or the
inadequacy of local transportation plans in Tyrrell and Dare Counties on page 1 -22 is noted.
11
C -15

Response: While adding bicycle facilities irill be an added benefit, it is not a primaty
need The ability to achieve this benefit through other alternatives does not giialafy them
as alternatives irhich meet the project plitpose and need
15. Comment: Page 1 -6 of the DEIS includes a description of the project setting. EPA notes
that one business is identified in Tyrell County: a gas station /marina complex on the north
side of US 64 at the Lindsay C. Warren Bridge. From previous Merger meetings, this
business was more than 'a business' but reportedly a State - designated "Safe Harbor" that
essentially required NCDOT to develop bridge replacement alternatives on new location.
Page 1 -10 of the DEIS includes the statement that the proposed project will improve
connectivity of the US 64 corridor. EPA does not concur with this claim.
Response: Specifically, the marina was noted as a 'point of re f sge "fog boaters facing
severe ireather on the Alligator River, and as a potential landing zone for emergency
medical helicopters. Along the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, the marina serves as the
only public place for boats to f tel and dock for more than 30 miles to the north
(Coinjock, NC) and more than 30 miles to the south (Bellhaven, NC). The marina has the
only gasoline station for a long stretch of highway, and also provides support to
fishing crabbing operations on adjacent piers irhieh are designated for dock and Jetty
upgrades Linder a grant from the NC Division of Marine Fisheries. The decision to avoid
the marina was a result of a good planning process that recognized it as a regional asset
that should not be displaced if'possible. The merger team agreed frith this concept, and
did not concur on alternatives that irould relocate the facility.
NCDOT acknowledges EPA's disagreement related to connectivity. Given that no reason
is provided, the Department does not understand EPA's reasoning.
16. Comment: According to Section 230. l(d) of the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines, degradation
or destruction of special aquatic sites, such as filling operations in wetlands, is considered to
be among the most severe environmental impacts, which may represent an irreversible loss of
valuable aquatic resources. The project sponsoring agencies need to better demonstrate that
the widening of the US 64 Corridor is justified given the potential for irreversible impacts to
waters of the U.S.
Response: EPA's assessment is acknowledged. See the responses to EPA Comments
-3to -6 related to the plitpose and need for the project.
NCDOT subscribes to the national "No Net Loss of Wetlands "policy. EPA is quite
aware of the relationship NCDOT maintains with North Carolina's Ecosystem
Enhancement Program (EEP), which is managed by NCDENR for the sole purpose of
creating, restoring, or preserving ietlands, streams, and other irater quality features.
Through on -Site mitigation (as practicable) and then through EEP, NC'DOT frill mitigate
for unavoidable wetland impacts, most likely at a ratio of two acres of new wetland for
every one acre impacted More details on mitigation are provided in the DELS and in
response EPA comment -29. More details irill be reported in the FELS as impacts are
refined and mitigations planning proceeds further.
12
C -16

All merger team member's, inclusive of EPA, have been airar'e of the potential for, and
scale of, impacts to tivaters of the U.S. The team considered the statement ofputpose and
need as irell as the range c?f detailed study alter'Ylatives in this context. Please r'efer'ence
Figures 1 and 2, 1 rhich respectively r'efer'ence EPA's Concur'r'ence and abstinence (non -
objection) at these decision points. NCDOT, as one of the sponsoring agencies, does not
see a need for' jiir'ther' Jiustrlicationl.
17. Comment: EPA did not concur on the NCDOT's Detailed Study Alternatives (i.e.,
Concurrence Point 2) for the proposed project. Along with several other Merger team
agencies, EPA's no-- concurrence on the Detailed Study Alternatives to be Carried Forward
was over - turned by the Merger Management Team on October 16, 2008. The 'requirements'
for an expressway facility are not believed to be accurate or justified based upon a
demonstrated project transportation need.
Response: According to NEPA 404 Merger Process guidelines, EPA's comment is
erroneous. Merger members may choose to concur, not concur, or abstain. EPA initially
did not concur, but later changed its stance to "abstain. "
During deliber'atu)ns jor CP 2 Study Alternatives, the merger team encountered duf feri g
opinions at the first merger meeting on June 19, 2008. At a second meeting on August
21, 2008, the group was able to agree on all detailed study alternatives (cross- section
and location) in Tyrrell County, and for locations of study corridors in Dale County.
The EPA and several other agencies did not concur with NCDOT's proposed 23- oot
uredraYl in Dale County; therefore each entity submitted an "I.ssiue Brief. ', EPA obliged
irith its obligation, and in then' August 27, 2008Issuue Brief indicated that they also
iranted Considered a four -lane Toad irith a 7- to II foot uredraYl 11 uth guard Paul. At
NCDOT's discretion and in accordance with merger process, the issue was elevated to a
Merger Management Team (AtUT) irhich rendered its decision on October 16, 2008 to
continue studying a 23 -foot median in Dare County, subject to revisiting median
reduction opportunities at a later Minimization concurrence point (4A). After the merger
"elevation meeting, " EPA had an option to not accept the MMT's verdict and request a
further elevation to the merger Revieir Board Instead,, the EPA representative chose to
"abstain " fl'om the CP 2 decision. The urerger process specifically defuses AbstrYlence as:
"I do not actively object, but I am not signing the concurrence f )rnr. The Merger
Process may continue, and I agree not to revisit the concurrence point subject to the
guidance on revisiting Concurrence points. "
It is inappropriate and a breach of interagency agreement for EPA to nol1) misrepresent
that the agency dud not Concur (irhen it abstained), and thus demand a revisit of
alternatives. EPA submitted on October 31, 2008 a irritten abstinence statement (See
Figure 2) that agreed to the provision above. EPA indicated that they " ij)ill have their
issues resolved at later concurrence points and during the NEPA Section 404 process ".
In addition, EPA signed the purpose and need statement in June 2007 that specifically
approved ,S'trategic Highll)ay ('al'r'rdol's as a pruuraiy purpose aYld need Agencies
13
C -17

discussed an expressway vision at length, as it relates to this section of,Strategic
Higlnray Corridor.
NC'DOT irill honor the decision the Merger Management Team and bring fi)nrard again
the pros cons of a median narroirer than urethan in the ARNWR at Concurrence point
4A.
18. Comment: The DEIS includes traffic based upon the 2006 and 2030 design years (Page I-
27, et al). The 2030 design year is not consistent with other current NCDOT projects where
the design year is identified as 2035. The traffic roadway operations and capacity analysis
using 2006 is not consistent with requirements for providing current traffic data (6 year old
`stale' data).
Response Traffic forecast policy at the time that purpose and need was established
dictated future year 2030. Furthermore, daily traffic capacity is not a part cif the purpose
and need; thus an update of daily traffic volumes is not irarranted It is the actual
hurricane evacuation volumes that drive the need for additional lanes. The hurricane
evacuation volumes irere reevaluated and subsequently validated in the "2012
Reevaluation q/'2005 NCDOT,State Hurricane Evacuation ,Study. " Daily traffic volumes
frill be updated during design phase, in order to adequately design the pavement.
19. Comment: The level of service (LOS) capacity data shown in Table 1 -6 indicates that no
links in the current facility experience any failing or near - failing LOS in 2006 or 2020.
Regarding the US 64 crash rate comparisons on page 1 -29 and Table 1 -7, every type of crash
category (total, fatal, non - fatal, night and wet) is significantly below the State -wide average
and critical crash rates. The safety discussion concerning the conversion of 2 -lane rural
facilities to 4 -lane facilities on page 1 -30 is noted. Please see the following related
information: F14WA has conducted numerous safety studies concerning high speed facilities:
"In 2008, there were 37, 261 fatalities on our Nation's roadways. Of these; 11, 674 (31
percent) were speeding- related.!" Source: http: // safety .fhwa.dot.gov /speedmgt/. Also
included on this F14WA website is a 2007 chart depicting fatality rates per road type:
Interstate facilities in rural areas had a rate almost double that of Interstates in urban areas.
This F14WA report also includes the following potentially relevant information:
"Speeding - traveling too fast for conditions or in excess of the posted speed limits - is a
factor in almost one -third of all fatal crashes and costs America approximately $27.7 billion
dollars in economic costs each year. Speeding is a safety concern on all roads, regardless of
their speed limits. Much of the public concern about speeding has been focused on high-
speed Interstates."
Response: NCDOT acknowledges that the project's LOS and crash statistic observations
are correct, currently. ,Stateiride, a four -lane divided section has a loirer crash rate of
1 19.1 crashes per 100 nrvm, as compared to 186.99 fora two -lane facility.
Since any crash is undesirable, it is important to keep in mind irhen considering road
safety not only crash rates but how to minimize the opportunity for crashes to occur.
14
C -18

Crashes occur when drivers make mistakes, motor vehicles fail mechanically, and drivers
make unsafe choices such as speeding, driving irhile impaired, or using electronic
devices irhile driving. Therefore, it is important in road design to maximize
opportunitiesjor drivers to recover irithout incident (includingproperty damage, iYlgilly,
and loss of life) when events occur because of driver carelessness or because of events
beyond the drivers control. This is one reason why NCDOT now advocates medians on
rural thoroughfares. Medians not only reduce the probability joi' a head-on collision, but
if the median is a grassy median uu)ith shallouu) slopes and adequate uu)idth, it can alloll) a
driver to leave the road, recover, and return to the travel lanes irithout crashing either
into an on- Coming Car or a rigid barrier such as a guard rail. Therefore, and as a
secondary purpose and need benefit, this project Of fees the potential fol' reduction in
total crash rates from the conversion of a two -lane rural roadway to a four -lane divided
section.
ReferenciYlg the disClission concerizrYlg CoYlvers7on of 2 -lane rural faculties to 4 -lane
rural freeways: the proposed project is not an interstate facility, and thus interstate
references are not applicable. In this instance the project uu ould likely fall Under the
category cif rural principal arterial.
20. Comment: Considering the extremely significant costs of fatalities associated with high-
speed facilities, especially in rural areas, EPA does not concur with the analysis provided in
the DEIS. With the enormous areas surrounding existing US 64 Corridor that are designated
gamelands, mitigation sites, Significant Natural Heritage areas, and the Alligator River
National Wildlife Refuge, vehicle collisions with large mammals including black beer,
white- tailed deer, coyote, bobcat, river otter, beaver, and the endangered red wolf would be
expected to increase substantially. According to the statistics in the DEIS, animals accounted
for 36% of the crashes along US 64 and animals were involved in 77% of night time crashes.
The severity of future crashes is expected to be much greater with the increased traffic speeds
on a 4 -lane, median- divided facility. The 'mitigation' concept of providing occasional wildlife
passages (bridging roads or using culverts as tunnels) under multi -lane high -speed roadways
is still an emerging scientific issue. The addition of safety guard rails along the US 64 canals
resulted in a four -time reduction in the fatal crash rate from previous safety studies (pages 1-
30 to 1 -31).
Response: NCDOT acknowledges EPA concerns but does not agree with its assessment.
The proposed project is a not a high -speed facility. Anticipated posted speed is 55 mph,
as it is today. EPA has no basis for concluding that traffic speeds would increase or that
vehicle collisions uu)ith uu)ildlife uuuouild rise. What irould likely occur is that faster drivers
will have the opportunity to pass slower drivers without moving into the opposing traffic
lane. The improved opportunity to pass will allow faster drivers to maintain their
preferred speed for longer periods cif time in that they uu)ould not get "stuck" behind
slower drivers.
It is true that animals accounted for 36 percent of crashes along the 27.3 mile U,S 64
corridor. With the installation oftivildife crossings (and associated fencing) at various
animal crossing "hot spots, "it is quite likely that animal strikes will diminish. At the
15
C -19

time of this response (fall 2012), NCDOT is currently proposing a conceptual plan for
multiple iildlife crossings along the project length. NCDOT has already Peached a
conceptual agreement frith (NFW,S (Regulatory) and NCWRC about ildlife crossing
sizes, types, and locations in Tyrrell County. Wildlife crossing discussions will soon
begin in Dare County, frith (NFW,S (Regulatory), (NFW,S (Alligator River National
Wlldllfe Refuge), aYld NC'WRC . The resource agency biologists have given no /YIdlCatloYl
that the inclusion oftirildlife crossings in the project would not be use
fsl or important
because they are an "emerging issue.
With EPA not yet knowledgeable of the NCDOT proposed wildlife crossing plan, the
Department submits that EPA does not have a proper basis for reaching its conclusion.
The FET, may serve as a more appropriate time to comment on this issue.
NCDOT intends to include guard rails along the canals as a part of the project as a
continued measure to prevent fatalities.
21. Comment: The DEIS discusses a Three -lane Alternative in Section 23.5 and Chapter 7.
EPA also does not concur with the same reasons for eliminating a three -lane alternative
presented on pages 7 -20 to 7 -21. Contrary to the issues identified in the DEIS for this project,
NCDOT and FHWA are currently proposing to build a 22 -mile, high- speed, SHC toll facility
in Gaston County that is 2- lanes. The safety crash data presented on page 7 -20 is not current
(2003 -2005 crash rates). The rural project setting and very limited population in the project
study area is not compared to the 2 and 3 -lane analysis provided. Furthermore, 4 -lane divided
facilities in extremely rural areas are expected greatly increase driver speeding habits and
cause more severe collisions with wildlife. Head -on collisions with an existing two -lane
facility have not been documented in the DEIS and it is not a reasonable assumption that a
three -lane facility will increase head -on collisions as described on page 2 -8. A concrete
median barrier for a rural roadway with minimal AADT is not a reasonable safety measure.
Considering the topography within the project study area and the presence of deep canals
along significant portions of US 64, the median width'safety argument' for recovery
purposes is not believed to be valid. Safety along the existing facility is not identified as a
project purpose and need and the discussions on pages 2 -8 to 2 -10 do not take into account
the context sensitive nature of the project study area. The discussion of a median barrier and
an additional westbound evacuation lane causes a capacity 'bottleneck' is not believed to be
documented or a reasonable assessment. EPA maintains that a Three -lane Alternative was
not given a full and reasonable consideration for the proposed project in consideration of the
project's purpose.
Response: EPA's claim of non - concurrence is incorrect. The agency abstained at
Coticifr'Petice poYYlt 2 (See Figllr'e 2). Thils, EPA did [lot oNect to nlovingfi) 1rard and
jilr'thermor'e agreed to not revisit a concurrence point (vuNect to merger guidance). The
EPA in their August 27, 2008 issues brief on uu by they did not concur indicated that they
also iranted considered a fora' -lane Toad frith a 7- to 11 -fOOt median i r rth gllal'd fail.
EPA did not request consideration of a three -lane alternative. Consideration q/ 'a three -
lane alternative also was not noted in EPA's subsequent October 31, 2008 issue brief.
16
C -20

NCDOT disagrees with the EPA opinions expressed throughout the comment. EPA has
not provided any indication that they consulted irith professional civil design engineers
or Safety experts in developing then' opinion. The EPA commenter appears in his
critique to be expressing an opinion on issues outside his area of expertise. For example:
not understanding the statement on page 2 -10 that any occurrence of a single -lane in a
westbound direction causes a bottleneck, clearly indicates a lack of understanding of
higM ray capacity and emergency planning. In addition, the statement oft page 2 -10 is
regularly demonstrated in dally driving irhen drivers experience iraiting in back -ups
when travel lanes are closed for road maintenance. As such, in the case of US 64, a
reduction from tiro iestbound lanes at any point in the project irould defeat the Valle Of
two westbound lanes for the remaining project length. In order to meet the state
hurricane evacuation standard' hro iestbound lanes are necessatyjoi' the entire U,S 64
length, ft'om the Outer Banks to I -95. IYl this r'egar'd and according to C'EQ and
numerous laws and regulations, EPA should provide substantial deference to those at
N(Y)OT for whom this is their area of expertise.
While a request for additional igfot'mation might be appropriate, EPA's conclusions
r'egar'ding safety are unsubstantiated cogjectur'e. ,Substantial safety data and discussions
of the three -lane alternative irer'e provided during CP2 deliberations. Reasonsjor'
removing the three -lane alternative on DET pages 2 -8 to 2 -10 are valid irrespective of
the environmental sensitivity of the project area. The safety benefits of medians 11 ere
also presented in detail. The DETS documented these discussions. EPA's choice to not
accept NCDOT analysis does not validate EPA's opinion.
The proposed facility in Gaston is planned for 4-lanes, with some as 2 -lanes temporarily.
NCDOT also notes the inconsistency of the commenter to request "context sensitive"
consideration for the U,S 6l project, while attempting to substantiate his comments with a
very differentproject examplejt''om the toe of the Appalachian mountains.
22. Comment: The Lindsay C. Warren Bridge is described on pages 1 -24 to 1 -26. The potential
rehabilitation of this bridge is detailed in Section 23.7. The deficiencies identified on pages
2 -10 and 2 -11 do not demonstrate that the existing stricture is 'unsafe' as cited on page 2 -10.
There are no costs associated with the rehabilitation measures identified on page 2 -11 and the
reasons provided are based primarily on the desire to increase traffic capacity on the bridge
(Current or future traffic capacity is not a documented need for the project). Without costs
and an objective analysis of rehabilitating the existing bridge, EPA does not concur with the
elimination of this potentially reasonable alternative. Rural 2 -lane bridges are replaced (in
place) in numerous places in North Carolina and plans to re -route local traffic are often
required while a new or rehabilitated stricture is being constricted. There is an existing
'parallel' route on US 264 for re- routing traffic as rehabilitation activities are made on the
Lindsay C. Warren Bridge. Even a new bridge adjacent to the existing bridge was not given
full consideration and EPA did not concur that a new 2 -lane or 4 -lane bridge stricture with
wider paved shoulders (to meet current design standards) could not be tied in on either end of
the existing bridge. For example, a new 2 -lane bridge adjacent (within 30 -feet) to an existing
2 -lane bridge is currently being planned over the Chowan River as part of TIP Project No. R-
17
C -21

2507A. Within the current design year traffic forecasts presented in the DEIS, the 'need' for a
4 -lane bridge is not documented.
Response: As indicated in Comments -9 and -13, the bridge is [lot llnsafe; it is aging
a[ld i[t need of 7'eplacen2ent. The bridge eras designed avid brlilt n2a[ly years ago;
knowledge of best practices has improved over the years. Also, the stiving span was built
in 1960 when motor vehicle and boat traffic was lower and was appropriate for its day.
In early project meetings N('DOT bridge experts represented the construction and
maintenance problems associated frith rehabilitating or iridening the existing bridge
over the Alligator River. Four -lane bridge justifications are solely based on capacity for
hurricane evacuation, and not on daily traffic. Cost is not relevant to the decision not to
rehabilitate the bridge because the rehabilitation irould essentially involve replacing the
bridge. Adding 1j)ider paved shoulders irould still leave the bridge deficient.
Reasons why rehabilitation is not a viable alternative are presented in ,Section 2.3.7 of
the DEJ,, including that rehabilitation irould essentially involve rebuilding the bridge.
The Merger Team did concur (although EPA abstained) not to include rehabilitation as a
detailed study alternative. Yet noir, EPA regrlests consideration of a bridge
rehabilitation alternative frith no explanation as to irhy EPA believes such an alternative
is viable or any indication that they consulted 11)ith professional structural engineers to
reach such a conclusion. In its August 28 and October 31 Issue Briefs related to their
reasons for their positions on alternatives, EPA gave no indication that they felt
rehabilitating the bridge eras a viable alternative. EPA abstained at concrlrrence point 2
indicating that it did not object to moving f )nrard, and filrthermore agreed to not revisit
a concilrrence point (.srlblect to n2ei -gee guidance). The DET, describes 1rhy
rehabilitation is not a viable alternative and N(Y)OT stands by those findings.
23. Comment: Under Travel Demand Management Alternatives, the DEIS on page 2 -7
indicates that there is only one other evacuation route (US 158) from the Outer Banks. This
statement is not accurate and US 264 should be considered for evacuation purposes as it has
common termini with US 64.
Response: EPA is correct in pointing out that U,S 264 should be mentioned as an
alternate evacuation route. As documented in the "2012 Reevaluation q/'2005 N(Y)OT
State Hurricane Evacuation Study, " US 26 l is assumed to be used by a portion of the
residents and tourists from Nags Head south and including the Manteo area.
Historically, North Carolina hurricane evacuation studies carried out by the U,SArmy
Corps of Engineers and FEMA lender the auspices qf NCDEMhave included a fairly
small usage of (N 264 by Outer Banks evacuees due to the 101j) lying circuitous, hro lane
condition of the road plus the fact that the road serves as the primary evacuation route
for the Pamlico ,Sound region and is already overburdened frith extremely surge
vulnerable populations in Hyde and Beaufort Counties.
24. Comment: The rationale for providing improved (wider) shoulder lengths for disabled
vehicles is a reasonable operational and design consideration. As with'run -a -way' ramps for
18
C -22

tricks in the N.C. mountains, providing reasonable paved shoulder areas along existing U.S.
64 is a valid safety consideration as presented on page 2 -14. However, the entire 27.3 mile
length of the proposed project may not require widened paved shoulders for its entire length
and consideration should be given to placing strategic widened shoulders in areas that would
allow for motorists to pull -off of the additional westbound hurricane evacuation lane (Third -
lane Alternative).
Response: Drivers cannot predict irhen a vehicle frill bleak doirn. In addition,
unprepared drivers leaving in a rush may be vulnerable to running out of gas. Therefore
it is not reasonable to offer shoulders only in certain locations. Wide shoulders are
needed far the project length, including the near replacement bridge.
25. Comment: The rationale presented on pages 2 -12 to 2 -18 for evaluating a 46 -foot and 23-
foot medina design alternatives for Tyrrell County and only a 23 -foot median alternative for
Dare County is not believed to be reasonable or consistent with current NCDOT design
requirements. If a 23 -foot raised median has been determined to be safe and acceptable for
US 64 for Dare County, it would be reasonable that the 23 -foot raised median would be safe
and acceptable for the Tyrrell County portion (i.e., same project purposes; same traffic
capacity; same potential evacuation issues; etc.). The DEIS includes 'cons' of utilizing a 23-
foot median design on page 2 -18. These claims are not supported by actual documentation.
Safety along the existing US 64 2 -lane highway is not included as a project purpose. From
the discussion on pages 2 -15 and 2, -18, it is likely that carrying forward for detailed study a
23 -foot median design alternative in the DEIS was apparently only considered in order to
obtain concurrence from certain agencies on the Merger Management Team. NCDOT's 46-
foot median 'requirement' discussed on page 2 -15 does not provide a'demonstration of a
good -faith attempt to balance environmental stewardship with safety and functionality'.
Safety is not part of the stated purpose of the project or a documented need. Based upon
current traffic and future projections and other transportation measures identified in the
DEIS, the existing 2 -lane US 64 functions adequately.
Response: It appears to N(Y)OT that EPA prefers the narrowest road possible and
either re
fiuses to believe that such a decision iJ oiuld affectpublic safety or does not
consider it important. For example, in its August 27, 2008 Issue Brief, EP,S' advocated a
four -lane cross - section that used a concrete median barrier with two foot inside
shoulders a facility that (statistically) could increase crashes by removing drivers'
ability to recover from a mistake, a bloirn tire, etc.
The rationale for irider median iridth is consistent frith the Specific project context.
NCDOT does not and is not willing to design an "unsafe " road. Safety may not be a
pwpose for improving (N 64, but any improvements need to meet Safe road design
standards. The 23- oot or 46- oot median (or less) question is one of reducing the
potential accident occurrence and severity when a mistake is made. NCDOT advocates
for providing driver(S) and their families frith a reasonable Opportunity to take Corrective
action to avoid a crash, particularly with opposing vehicle or a fixed object. The
preferred Strategy t0 provide this reCOVeI y opportunity is to increase reaction time and
recovery room by offering a wider median. Also see the response to EPA Comment 19.
19
C -23

There are times in special, context -sensitive conditions (e.g. high cost or impacts to
highly sensitive resources) that may irarrant a reduction in median iridth. The R-2544 J
project is an example of such a balance. From the Very beginning of alterYlative
development, N(Y)OT recognized the special importance of the Dare County length of
the project and the desirability of unnunnzing impact to ARNWR lands and its resources -
Which include habitat for the endangered red irolf.' Because of the special status of a
national ll)ildhfe refuge, N(Y)OT agreed to study a 11 rdeYlrYlg alternative 11 rth a maxrumm
23 -foot median in Dare County. Indeed the debate related to median iridths in Dare
County 11 aS Ylot bet11 eeYl a 46-fOOt and 23 -fOOt median but betll eef a �3 -foot median and
something less, as reflected in Merger Team Issue Brief.'s.
The ARNWR boundary does not extend into Tyrrell County, and thus 46- oot and 23- oot
median alternatives have been studied for this component of project length.
26. Comment: The DEIS includes detailed discussions concerning the DSAs on pages 2 -45 to
2 -74. The options considered do not represent a full range of reasonable alternatives as
required under 40 CFR Part 1502.14. For example, Section 3, Bridge Replacement Corridors
include the bridge crossing lengths of the Dare North 1 (3.13 miles), Dare North 2 (3.19
miles) and Dare Northern Bypass (3.77 miles). All three bridge alternatives begin on new
location in Tyrrell County to the north of the existing bridge. Without providing a
comparison to a rehabilitation alternative or a southern terminus to the 23-mile Lindsay C.
Warren Bridge, these alternatives were evaluated in detail without consideration of other
potentially reasonable alternatives.
Response: Preliminary alternatives did include tiro bridge corridors that irere located
south of the existing bridge. These alternatives irere elinnnated during ('P2
deliberations because of bridge lengths, habitat fragmentation, and to avoid high impacts
to wetlands, gamelands in Tyrrell County, Outstanding Resource Waters, and ARNWR
lands. The DEJ,'presents the alternatives, starting on page 2 -20. Alternative elimination
discussions start on page 2- l0. In its Issue Briefs ofAugust 28 and October 31, 2008,
EPA provided no indication that they ij)ished to see additional bridge alternatives
assessed in detail in the DEIX With regards to the bridge rehabilitation alternative, see
the responses to EPA Comments -9, -13, and -22.
NC'DOT disagrees irith the EPA opinion that a full range of alternatives is not presented
The array of prelinfinary study corridors satisfied the merger team. Theft, as the project
progressed, several alternatives irere added irhich avoid (under Environmental Justice)
disproportionately high and adverse impact to the East Lake and Alligator communities.
It is not only erroneous, but inconsistent for EPA (who did not object to moving forward
in the process during CP 2, ,See Figure 2) to noir state that a f dl range of detailed study
alternatives does not exist.
27. Comment: The statement on page 2 -71 concerning the'difficulty of comparing the impacts
because not all of the corridors start and end at the same location' is unclear and not
consistent with the requirements under 40 CFR Part 1502.14. The Table on 2 -7 demonstrates
20
C -24

that basically slight variations to similar corridors and with different design options is meant
to present a'full range of alternatives' for the East Lake area of the project. Thirteen (13) East
Lake alternatives are identified and thus it appears that a'full range of alternatives' were
considered under NEPA. EPA does not concur with this approach and that some if not most
of the alternatives are not practicable alternatives considering the project's purposes.
Response: Per Comments -17 and "20, EPA's claim of non - concurrence is erroneous
(See Figure 2). The agency abstained at concurrence paint 2, and NCDOT holds the
agency to this commitment under the NEPA 404 merger process. At the time of
decisions, EPA did not oNect to moving foi -hard, and f ti- thermore agreed to not revisit a
Concurrence point (in accordance frith to merger guidance).
The sentence noted on page 2 -71 was part of an explanation of why the 13 East Lake
alternatives irere necessarily developed - and not an explanation of a difficidtly that
could not be resolved The various corridor combinations irere developed for
comparison purposes, and not for to "appearances " as alleged by EPA. NCDOT also
sent newsletters and met on multiple occasions with local communities to explain and
answer questions about the alternatives.
The final sentence in EPA's comments is not clear, and no alternative approach is
offered as a basis of critique. The previous sentence affirms the presentation of the 13
East Lake alternatives as presenting the fdl alternatives so it is not clear to what EPA is
objecting to in the final sentence. If EPA's concern is due to the lack of inclusion of a
three -lane, narroir Median, or southern bridge alternatives mentioned earlier by EPA,
then seethe responses to EPA Comments -12 and-21. NCDOT acknowledges that EPA
has changed its mind frith regard to practicable alternatives, but directs EPA to the US
Army Corps of Engineers f ur f urther discussion as to the practicability of each
alternative.
28. Comment: Pages 2 -75 to 2 -78 reiterate the project's purposes and the ability of the build
alternatives to meet the purposes. All of the build alternatives improve the hurricane
evacuation clearance time to 11.9 hours. Approximately 17 hours less than the 28.9 -hour No-
Build Alternative and 6 hours less than the standard of 18 hours. This would clearly indicate
that a `lesser' design of one additional westbound lane (Three -lane Alternative) would
potentially meet the clearance time standard of 18 hours.
Response: The merger team (including EPA) eras provided studies in 2008 that clearly
shoir that the three lane alternatives do notprovide adequate evacuation times to meet
Piupose and Need Three lane alternatives irere subsequently eliminated by the Merger
Team at that time. In its CP2 Issue Briefs ofAugust 28 and October 31, 2008 and
subsequent project development proceedings, EPA has never again registered a desire to
study a three -lane alternative, and did in fact acknoirledge a need for 4 -lanes in its
bl'uef /Y1g. Thel'efol'e, any attempt to resurrect a three-lane alternative at this stage in
project planning is Counter productive and inconsistent frith regard to prior EPA
commitments. The three -lane option is not feasible for reasons that are detailed on pages
21
C -25

7 -20 and 7 -21, and NCDOT does not intend to revisit this alternative. See the responses
to EPA Comments -12 and -2 1.
29. Comment: Project costs for the DSAs are identified in Section 2.8 of the DEIS. None of the
tables 2 -9 to 2 -11 include potential mitigation costs for impacts to waters of the U.S. This
information should be provided in a supplemental NEPA document. The'total' costs for
Section I range between $64.8 million and $73.4 million (EPA rounded to a tenth of a
million from individual dollar amounts). Section 2, 3 and 4 alternatives range from $220.8 to
$252.5 million. Section 5 total costs range from $70.1 million to $73.4 million. EPA notes
the comment to Table 2 -10 reflecting only a 46 -foot median for the Tyrrell North
Alternative. There are no preliminary or estimated costs for a Third -lane Alternative or
bridge rehabilitation option.
Response: As a standing member on NCDOT merger teams, EPA is well aware that
mitigation planning is a phased process. Details on mitigation cost are not required for
decision - making at this time under NEPA. The DET legitimately details its plans jot' on-
site mitigation and for partnering 11)ith a statell)ide, pr'ogr'ammatic mitigation entity: the
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). EEP is managed by NCDENR for the sole
propose of cleating, restoring, or preserving iretlands, streams, and other irater quality
features. As uzatigatlon planyung progresses, more details can be reported in the FET,
and at later Merger Team meetings.
Mitigatio,vi plaYlYllYlgjolloll)s an appropriate timeline that balances necessalyj()1-i1)a1'd
plaYlYllYlg against ittTll)al'i -anted expeylditllre of public mo,viies. Cilvevi that finial impacts are
not yet known, it is indeed too soon to obligate mitigation f snds and acreage. If NCDOT
mitigated for the "maximum" impact possibilities noir and then appropriately reduced
impacts later (per NEPA avoidance and minimization), millions of dollars in unused
mitigation irould result Rather, NCDOTplans for the years ahead (frith the help of the
NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program) based upon "expected" impacts fi°om projects.
For several years the Department has reported its best estimate for what final impacts
might be -both by wetland type and by location. NCDOT is still evaluating on -site
mitigation possibilities, irhlle also partnering frith NC'EEP to plan ahead and ensure that
suitable mitigation is available at the appropriate permit stage.
N(Y)OT typically provides mitigation at a 2:1 ratio for unavoidable iretland and stream
impacts (ratio may be adjusted for on -site mitigation). At a minimum, NCDOT will
provide iretland restoration at a 1:1 ratio for unavoidable iretland impacts. The final
mitigation ratio frill not be set Until the USACE and NC'DWO have sent out the permit
applicatiayl for pilblic reviell) ayld comment NC'DOT 11)x11 attempt to provide mitlgatiolI
that Is jllnctlonally equivalent to Impacted streams and iretlands. All mitigation lrill be
located in the same HUC as the project Unless othenrise approved by the regulatory
agencies.
NC'DOT 11)111 /Ylvestigate potential otI -site stream and 11)etlatid mitigation opportitilltles
once the preferred alternative for the project has been selected A corridor revielr trill
be conducted along the selected alternative that evalilates parcels irithin or immediately
22
C -26

adjacent to the project right-of- -way for their potential as on -site stream and wetland
mitigation.
Folloiring the corridor revleir, feasibility studies 11111 be conducted on any potential
iiiitigatiotl sites identified Potential sites 11)111 be presented to the regulatory agencies at
the C'P4A concurrence meetingjar preliminaty approval and discussion. Site planning
11111 begin an any sites deeuled feasible and approved by the regulatory agencies. These
site plans will be submitted as part of the permit applications for the project.
NCDOT may also propose debiting existing assets as part of the mitigation proposal.
Currently the Three ,Siramp site and the Kitty C'reek'Wallace Canal mitigation site have
remaining assets irithin the same 8 digit hydrologic knit as the project as shoirn in the
table beloir.
NCDOT Owned ,Sites
,Site
Wetlands Credits Remaining (ac)
Three ,Siramp
1622
Kitty Creek and Wallace Canal
.64
,Should additional mitigation be necessary, it 11111 be requested from the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). The table above lists existing mitigation sites
held by EEP in the 03010205 HUC.
Three -lane and bridge rehabilitation are not detailed study alternatives and irere
eliminated from filrther consideration for reasons other than costs. Therefore, cost data
is not applicable.
30. Comment: On page 3 -1 of the DEIS, communities on the Outer Banks, such as Duck and
Kitty Hawk, are referenced. These communities are outside of the project study area as
defined. The Town of Plymouth to the west of Columbia is not referenced in this discussion.
EPA does not agree with the methodology of the project study area (PSA) analysis as
described on page 3 -2, specifically as it pertains to population and traffic projections on the
Outer Banks that are not included in the PSA. EPA is concerned that there is a lack of viable
U.S. Census data for the East Lake and Alligator communities (page 3 -2). The demographic
information included in Table 3 -1 is not recent (within the past 5 years) or potentially
relevant (Demographic area, County -wide, and State -wide numbers only and not specific to
the PSA).
Response: This observation is addressed in Attachment B: "2012 Reevaluation q/'2005
NCDOT State Hurricane Evacuation Study. " The Reevaluation concludes that the 2005
study (and 2008 supplements) remains valid. See responses to EPA comments -4 and-5.
31. Comment: EPA acknowledges the comments on page 3 -10 concerning future population
trends. Tables 3 -4, 3 -5, 3 -6, 3 -7, 3 -8, 3 -9, and 3 -10 (Population by Race and Hispanic Origin;
23
C -27

Population by Age; Change in Education, Income Measures and Persons Living Below the
Poverty Line; Change in Income Measures and Persons Living Below the Poverty Line;
Income Measures and Persons Below Poverty Level By Block Group; and Housing
Characteristics, respectively) are all based upon 2000 U.S. Census data. This information is
not believed to be accurate for the purposes of determining potential requirements under
Executive Order 12898. Other socio - economic data presented in the DEIS is not believed to
be fully accurate as to be used for current conditions or future trends. NCDOT and USACE
should consider providing a supplemental NEPA document that uses 2010 U.S. Census data.
Response: The information in these tables was used to set the general scene. Additional
avid detailed ivlfortiiatiovl 11)as used in the Environmental Iistice analysis. ,Yee ,Section
3.1.4.2 and 3.1.4.3 of the DEIS. At the time of DEIS completion, only year 2000 census
data was available. Since the 2010 Censns tabulations include numbers for Alligator
Township and East Lake Township, NCDOT will add them to the FELS.
Project decisions must be made at certain checkpoints in the process. This and other
EPA comments seemingly demand a never- ending stream of updated information that, if
pursited, irould result in perpetual data gathering and oNection to a decision at any
point - because some other near piece of information might be available. Neir
information should be used irhen important to decision- making but not simply jor the
sake of presenting the latest data.
32. Comment: The connection between the WAMP project described on page 3 -19 and its
direct socio - economic effect on communities within the PSA (Alligator and East Lake) is not
analyzed nor disclosed in the DEIS. EPA notes the comments on the Alligator and East Lake
communities on pages 3 -20 and 3 -21 of the DEIS.
Response: The NC Division ofMarine Fisheries has f ended a "WaterfrontAccess and
Marine Industry" (WAMI) grant to build a rock jetty, bulkhead and an estimated 10 boat
slips at the Tyrrell County shoreline of the Alligator River, and on the south side of US
64.
This improvement to Commercial fishing jacihties is anticipated to benefit local
communities. As described on DEIS page 2 -30 and shown in Figure 2 -9, the Tyrrell
,South 2 corridor passed over this site. Ditring ('P 2 deliberations avid along 11)ith
considering other impact, this WAMI project was considered by the Merger Team. At
that time the Merger Team decided to eliminate the Tyrrell ,South 2 alternative ft -om
firther consideration. Thus, f trther information on this site is not relevant to a LEDPA
decision.
33. Comment: EPA acknowledges the comment provided on page 3 -33 of the DEIS: "I
sincerely hope that these improvements (to US 64) will not be delayed or detrimentally
impacted by management plans of the USFWS". The USFWS response to Dare County
comments are noted on page 3 -34. Section 3.3 includes discussions concerning protected
lands and recreation areas. EPA notes that portions of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife
Refuge are located in the PSA. The Palmetto - Peartree and Alligator River Preserves, J.
24
C -28

Morgan Futch and Alligator River Gamelands, Great Dismal Swamp, Scuppernong River
and Hidden Lake Wetland Mitigation Banks, numerous Significant Natural Heritage Areas (6
located in Tyrrell County), Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, Creef Cut and Sandy
Ridge Wildlife Trails, and Significant Natural Heritage Areas (4 in Dare County) are all
located within the PSA.
The water quality designations identified on pages 3 -65 and 3 -66 includes the Outstanding
Resource Water (ORW) and High Quality Water (HQW) designations for the Alligator River
within the PSA.
Response: These comments acknowledge items presented in the DELS. No response is
needed
34. Comment: The comments concerning Black Bear and Red Wolf studies described on pages
3 -84 to 3 -86 should have been timed such that the completed studies would be completed,
analyzed and incorporated into the DEIS prior to the issuance of the DEIS. Considering the
recognized importance of wildlife resources within the PSA, EPA does not believe that the
completion of these necessary studies should be made after the potential selection of a Least
Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA).
Response: Two year Red Wolf and BlackBear studies (and road kill studies of all
species in Tyrrell County) irere completed in December ?011, Just as the DELS eras being
approved ,Studies irere sent at that time to all irildlife-management agencies, including
ARNWR. Of note, USFWS and NCWRC sat on the review panels of the studies as they
lj)ei'e developed' and lj)ei'e thus fully - apprised c?f study proceedings. These ildlife
studies irere conducted for the sake of responsible impact mitigation planning far lldlife
habitat, namely to establish wildlife crossing sizes, types, and fencing parameters.
,Since the completion oflvildlife studies, NCDOT (with USACEknotivledge) has met with
USFWS and NCWRC several times, working together to develop responsible solutions.
At the time of this response, a conceptual plan for Tyrrell County wildlife crossings has
been agreed to, and discussions on Dare County are set to begin shortly. The ildlife
management agencies do not feel that iildlife crossing parameters must be firmly
completed as a predecessor to LEDPA because wildlife crossing mitigation is expected to
be needed far irhichever of the detailed study alternatives assessed in the DELS is
selected as the LEDPA. These activities are, hoirever, highly pertinent to upcoming
Section 7 (Endangered Species Act) coordination. Section 7 consultation cannot be
completed until ildlife crossing types and locations are agreed-to, because their
configuration could well affect the USFWS' Biological Opinion on the potential for
incidental takes to the red irolf. The solutions avid findings lj)ill be reported in the FEJ,,
as is customary.
35. Comment: EPA notes that the multi- agency accepted North Carolina Wetlands Assessment
Methodology (NCWAM) was not utilized for the wetland classifications and plant
communities within the PSA (Table 3 -16). The comment on page 3 -93 concerning canals and
ditches and USACE jurisdictional determinations is not clear.
25
C -29

Response: NCWAMclassifications are available, and will be added to relevant tables in
the FEIX The ratings irere developed and inchided in Table 5 of the August 2008
Natural Resources Technical Report and the August 2008 addendum that covers an
expanded survey area on either side of the Alligator River.
All canals and ditches in the PM are manmade, and therefore not considered "streams"
by the USACE, hoirever they are considered jurisdictional.
36. Comment: Hazardous material sites and underground storage sites within the PSA,
including the Alligator River Marina and the former Dare County East Lake Landfill are
described on pages 3 -,118 and 3 -119. EPA notes that both sites are contaminated and
potentially under remediation efforts.
Response: The EPA observation is noted
37. Comment: Impacts to the human and natural environment are included by project section in
Tables 4 -1 to 4 -9. Total impacts for the project are not summarized in a comparison form that
clearly delineates the differences between the DSAs.
Response: NCDOT received similar comments from non- goveY'nniental organizations
that revieired the DELS. All impact data is presented in the DELS, and any revieirer can
easily use the ,Summary Chapter impact tables to, Section by ,Section (or subsection), sum
the impacts of various combinations of prgject alternatives if they so choose. Thirteen
East Lake alternatives exist, as well as a Tyrrell County widening component that has six
separate subsections and a Dare County widening component that has four separate
subsections. Each subsection in Tyrrell County has four alternatives (north and south -
side 11 ) ideYiYYig, and 23 -fOOt and 16-foot median iridths) and each subsections in Dare
County has two alternatives (north or south -side iridening). The potential combinations
of these alternatives numbers in the thousands. Therefore it 11 as impractical to list all the
possible combinations and their combined impacts or for any reader to compare
thousands of combinations.
The FELS i j ill present tables slioi j zYlg the impacts cif the Preferred Alternative for the
entire corridor from Columbia to Manns Harbor. In addition, for each impact category
presented in the tables, the maximum and minimum potential impact from Columbia to
Manns Harbor will be shown. The objective of the maximum and minimum impact
iYlforutatu)n 11 i11 be to ilhistrate that the Preferred Alternative decision tended to result in
impacts that are closer to the minimum than the maximum for all categories of impact If
there are exceptions, the reasons irhy iri11 be indicated This same information iri11 be
provided to the Merger Team prior to making its final decision on a LEDPA from
Columbia to Manns Harbor.
38. Comment: An analysis concerning Environmental Justice impacts under E.O. 12898 to the
communities of Alligator and East Lake is included in Section 4.1.6. Based upon the analysis
and identification of a disproportionately high and adverse effects determination by NCDOT
26
C -30

and USACE (Pages 4 -32 and 4 -33), EPA recommends the no -build alternative. Because this
potential adverse impact is in Section 1 of the PSA, the proposed project would lack a'whole
and complete' status to fulfill the stated purposes. In addition, the DEIS also states that most
of the DSAs associated with the East Lake community also represent a disproportionately
high and adverse effect (Table 4 -13). EPA strongly recommends that NCDOT and USACE
develop a substantiated project and need and new alternatives that do not result in
disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and low- income communities.
Response: The EPA comment related to the Alligator community is incorrect. The
Alligator community lies on the north side of US 64. A North -Side Widening at that
location irould likely cause disproportionately high and adverse impacts; hoirever the
,South -,Side Widening alternative irould not. With regards to the East Lake community,
the two bypass alternatives (out of f ntr possible ) in the East Lake area avoid causing
disproportionately high and adverse impacts, and irere specifically developed frith this
intention. Of important note: the East Lake Southern Bypass was developed at the
request of that community. Therefore, an adequate array of alternatives exists that
potentially avoid dlsproportloYlately high and adverse effects to minority and loin- income
communities.
As stated in multiple prior responses, NC )OT does not intend to revisit Purpose and
Need' irhich received concurrence ftom EPA in 2007 (,See Figure I in Response
coninient -3, and Figure 2 in Response to Comment -8). NC )OT also contends that the
project is, indeed, "whole and complete. " See response to comment "17. Proper
J1istification is proven and approved, and appropriate independent termini are
established
39. Comment: For DSA IA, the natural resource impacts are significant and a magnitude
greater than most eastern N.C. projects: 46.6 to 54.9 acres to Managed Lands, 36.3 to 40.0
acres to SNHAs, 73.5 to 83.4 acres to Protected Species Habitat, 76.1 to 94.9 acres to
jurisdictional wetlands, 39,781 to 39,766 linear feet to jurisdictional waters (canals), and
114.7 to 133.6 acres to Essential Fish Habitat.
For DSA 113, the natural resource impacts are significant and a magnitude greater than most
eastern N.C. projects: 14.2 to 18.6 acres to Managed Lands, 25.7 to 31.0 acres to SNHAs,
56.7 to 66.9 acres to Protected Species Habitat, 75.4 to 99.3 acres to jurisdictional wetlands,)
and 78.5 to 10 1. 9 acres to Essential Fish Habitat.
For DSAs EL 1 to EL 13, impacts to natural resources are again extremely high for this 6.7 to
6.9 mile segment. For example, EL 5 impacts 60.8 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 89.3
acres to Essential Fish Habitat. EL 1 to 13 also impact between 0.6 and 21.9 acres of the
Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge (ARNWR).
For DSA 5A, the natural resource impacts are significant and a magnitude greater than most
eastern N.C. projects: 116.3 acres to ARNWR, 53.7 acres to Managed Lands, 98.5 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands, 17,325 linear feet to jurisdictional waters (canals), 34.2 acres to
Protected Species Habitat, and 145.2 acres to Essential Fish Habitat.
27
C -31

For DSA 513, the natural resource impacts are significant and a magnitude greater than most
eastern N.C. projects: 133.8 acres to ARNWR, 102.9 acres to Managed Lands, 91.5 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands, 31,010 linear feet to jurisdictional waters (canals), 39.3 acres to
Protected Species Habitat, and 194.4 acres to Essential Fish Habitat.
In addition to the significant impacts to natural resources, the project includes impacts to
prime farmlands, residences and businesses, historic strictures, hazardous material sites and
a cemetery. The DSAs impacts do not meet the `balancing and avoidance' requirements
under several potential environmental laws.
Response:
EPA's comment that "D Us impacts do not meet the `balancing and avoidance'
requirements" is speculative and unsubstantiated Project impacts have been minimized
by focusing on iridening the existing highiray irhenever practicable. Neir location
segments are studied only in areas inhere a neir bridge requires reconnection to existing
%,S 64, or in locations inhere iridening irould bring about community impacts (and thus
bypasses are examined).
EPA comments ignore earlier project efforts that have already avoided and thus
significantly reduced potential impacts. Instead, EPA comments obstinately represent a
renei red attempt to farther reduce highiray footprint - to the detriment of highiray and
public safety. EPA fads to mention that high - impact alternatives have been removed
from study. EPA fails to recall that each time the agency asked for an additional study -
NCDOT complied EPA also fails to mention the significant measures and expenses that
NCDOT has pursued to achieve an environmentally - responsible solution.
NCDOT's project development process follows a progression of first avoiding, then
minimizing, and then mitigatingjor impacts. Chapter 2 of the DETS describes
preliminary alternatives considered and dropped because of their greater impact As
natural resources (including ietlands and aquatic resources) irere delineated, the
NC'DOT project team generated alternatives that sought to minimize impact. For
example: At the project start and to reduce impacts, NCDOT offered to only study a
reduced 23- oot median highll ay in Dare County. After preliminary Study alternatives
irere developed, the merger team then irorked together to evaluate and then eliminate
those alternatives that caused the highest impacts. For example, NCDOT examined
bridge alternatives north and south of the existing bridge. Alternatives south of the
bridge irere eliminated since they resulted in substantially more impact than those north
of the existing bridge. Later, NC'DOT incurred significant expense by significantly
extending bridge lengths over ietlands at the Alligator River shoreline. It is clear that
these earlier project efforts to avoid impacts have been successful - resulting in loirer
overall impacts to the resources listed
The large number of detailed study alternatives in the DETS reflect efforts to seek a
reasonable balance among the various types of impacts (natural and human
environment) irhde meeting the project's purpose and need and providing an improved
28
C -32

Toad frith design features that help minimize the opportunity for crashes. After a LEDPA
is selected a best fat design 1j)ill again seek to "tireak" alignments irithin the selected
corridors to fiir'ther minimize impacts. Finally, NCDOT emphasizes that mitigation 11)i11
occur in later project phases, which will offset impacts to certain resources Wetland
restoration is a prime example, given the javorable mitigation ratios that generally apply.
NCDOT acknowledges that the natural resource impacts of the proposed project are
notable, which is precisely why an Environmental Impact,Statement is ongoing. NCDOT
finds EPA's comments to be misleading without providing f si-thei- context of "most
eastern NC projects. " For example: Few "eastern " projects have lengths that approach
?7.3 miles; thus it is only natural to expect a magnitude of impacts that is higher than
other projects. The large amount of impacts also reflects the pervasiveness of such
r'esour'ces in the project area. When vieired from a satellite perspective, almost the entire
Albemal'le pe,vii,visula is Compl'ised of 11)etla,vids. The abundance and significance of
natural resources that are found on this project - is not comparable with other "eastern"
projects. Therefore, it is contextually inappropriate to compare this R -?� l t project
with other eastern projects.
NCDOT is working with agencies who own managed lands, such as NCWRC and
ARNWR. These organizations will enjoy improved access to their facilities - both for the
public and for operational needs such as maintenance, farming, and f re- fight /Yig. Other
ecological enhancements can be expected, such as improved connectivity of Essential
Fish Habitat, and multiple irildhfe Crossings. To the extent miaYlaged laYids are taken,
NCDOT expects to replace them with lands suitable to the governing entity. It is
reasonable to suggest that managed lands 11)i11 likely not suffer a net loss of acreage, and
may indeed benefit f1'Om an acreage increase of COmpa1'able -use lairds.
NCDOT is committed to responsible planning and environmental steirardship irhile
meeting travel needs in North C'ar'olina - including the extra Cale required 1Men
transportation needs necessitate improvements through areas of notable environmental
sensitivity. The NEPA process involved for this project truly reflects significant efforts to
identify, balance, and avoid impacts.
40. Comment: The DEIS states that mitigation is normally not considered until avoidance and
minimization of impacts has been demonstrated to the fullest extent practicable, a much
clearer and specific protocol for mitigation should be outlined in a supplemental NEPA
document. For example, a functional assessment (such as NCWAM) should be identified for
use to determine quality and level of function within impacted wetlands. These functional
assessments will aid in the determination of mitigation ratios and credits. Avoidance and
minimization measures proposed in the DEIS are not believed to be adequate to meet the
requirements under Section 404(b)( 1) Guidelines.
Response: NCDOT acknowledges EPA's opinion that mitigation should be addressed in
a supplemental NEPA document, but that is not a part of the NEPA process of DEl,S,
FEI,S, ROD, the Merger Process agreed to by EPA, nor the permit process where the
29
C -33

details of nntigation are addressed with re rence to a f /vial desig n. For n2ore
YYIfo1'n2atdaYl on n2dtdgatdavl, please re
fer to the response to comment -35.
NCWAMratings will be added to relevant FEI,S tables and considered in the
developn2ent of nzrtigatioYl. The 7'ativigs 11)e7'e developed avid znehrded ivt Table J of the
August 2008 Natural Resources Technical Report and the August 2008 addendum that
cove's an expanded survey area on either side of the Alligator Rive'.
Responses to comments -26, -38, and -39 address how NCDOT and USA CE have
appropriately pursited avoidance and minimization measures during the NEPA planning
process.
30
C -34

Attachment B
Reevaluation of 2005 NCDOT State Hurricane Evacuation Study
(and 2008 supplement for project R- 2544/5). October 2012.
Prepared by Donald Lewis, VP, Atkins North America
Prepared for PB and NCDOT
Responses to DEIS Comments —US 64 Improvements Corridor Study
NCDOT has received numerous hurricane evacuation related comments from citizens, agencies,
and non - governmental organizations concerning the 1 -64 Improvements Project Draft EIS
distributed earlier this year and discussed at public meetings held in May 2012. The department
retained Atkins (formerly PBS1) through PB (Parsons Brinkerhoff) to address the hurricane
evacuation related comments. Recognizing that the purpose and need of the 1 -64
improvements project rests largely on the hurricane issue it is imperative that the best and
most credible expertise be brought to bear in responding to comments. Atkins has performed
most if not all of the hurricane evacuation clearance time calculations for North Carolina
related projects over the last 25 plus years as well as most of the coastal United States outside
North Carolina. Clients have included primarily the US Army Corps of Engineers, NCDOT, NCTA,
the Hampton Roads RCPT, and private entities such as Progress Energy.
Concerns About Whether Major Hurricanes Strike the Outer Banks and Lack of Historical
Evidence of Large Scale Evacuations Causing Tie Ups on US 64 at East Lake /Need for Project
The North Carolina Outer Banks has historically had many significant storm threats. In fact, the
NCDOT put together a report entitled 2008 North Carolina Hurricane Landfall Study (February
2008) which very clearly documented both land falling and near miss hurricanes for the North
Carolina coast which have created threats to the Outer Banks since 1950. Just since 1950,
nineteen different storms including recent Irene have made landfall in North Carolina. Fourteen
of these storms were category three or above at their maximum and eight were category three
or above at landfall. Another twelve storms came within 50 miles of the NC coast but did not
make landfall there.
While the documented list of hurricanes affecting NC is impressive, meteorologically speaking,
sixty years of storm history is not enough to develop a return frequency of hurricanes. One
would need a thousand years of hurricane history in a given location to really nail down the
possibilities and that historical record simply does not exist. We have not seen all of the storm
C -35

tracks and intensities that are not only possible but are probable for the North Carolina Outer
Banks according to SLOSH model runs by the National Hurricane Center.
Not only have we not seen the magnitude and worst track yet for the Outer Banks, we also
have not experienced a major evacuation of the Outer Banks in recent times where all of the
permanent residents believed they needed to evacuate and where a large holiday tourist
population was in place with a storm that picks up forward speed and intensity from lower
latitudes. Of major concern, evacuations have taken place where permanent residents decided
not to evacuate and were stranded when portions of NC 12 were washed out.
East Lake will see major evacuation congestion when a major hurricane directly threatens the
Outer Banks and both permanent population and a large tourist population are forced to
evacuate simultaneously.
NCDOT comprehensively modeled hurricane evacuation scenarios for a Category 3 hurricane
and varying levels of tourist occupancy based on current and year 2030 occupancy in the Outer
Banks. The models clearly indicate that a US 64 as a 2 -lane highway is a "bottleneck" to the
evacuation network, and a 4 -lane highway is needed.
In 2005 the NC Legislature passed GS 136 -102.7 which mandated an 18 -hour hurricane
evacuation standard (to a point of safety) for any bridge or highway construction project.
NCDOT is abiding by the law. The proposed high -span bridge over the Alligator River will
alleviate back -ups caused by the existing swing -span structure.
Concerns That the Hurricane Evacuation Analysis Didn't Recognize Other North Carolina State
Hurricane Evacuation Routes; Specifically US 264 and US 158
Two of the DEIS comments received stated that the analysis failed to recognize other
evacuation routes for Outer Banks evacuees besides US 64. This is totally incorrect. The analysis
assumes that a large number of Outer Banks evacuees will use US 158 and this is based on
experience in investigating past evacuations as well as a thorough understanding of tourist
home origins. In fact the model results show a minimum of two thirds of the evacuees using the
US 158 route. Only with the Barco Diversion plan implemented, does the volume drop below
two thirds as evacuees are encouraged to use US 64. In this scenario, evacuation volumes on US
64 could increase substantially above these projected in the 2005 study. In addition, US 264 is
also assumed to be used by a portion of the residents and tourists from Nags Head south and
including the Manteo area. Historically, North Carolina hurricane evacuation studies carried out
by the US Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA under the auspices of NCDEM have included a
fairly small usage of US 264 by Outer Banks evacuees due to the low lying, circuitous, two lane
C -36

condition of the rued plus the tact that the rued serves as the primary evacuation route for the
Penn|icu Sound region and is already overburdened with extremely surge vulnerable
populations in Hyde and Beaufort Counties.
US64is not the only bottleneck inthe evacuation network. The Hurricane Evacuation Study
also reported on US 158 since it is also used to evacuate from the Outer Banks to points of
safety. As highway projects e|ungthesepereteUSl58curridureneindividueUyjustifiedend
then funded, each phased segment uf the corridor can be evaluated with regard tu its individual
contribution toward the USl58 corridor's hurricane evacuation standard.
Comments That the Tourists Will Be Gone by the Time the Evacuation is Called For
The committee that vetted the 2OO5NCOOT statewide hurricane evacuation study effort,
wrestled with this aspect of evacuations in North Carolina —specifically, what portion of the
tourist population should be planned for in evacuations. The committee made upufkey
emergency management officials, highway patrol/law enforcement, and NCIDOT staff, decided
(after reviewing the historical data) that 75 percent vvuu|d be the nnexinnunn occupancy
assumption for corridor study hurricane evacuation analyses. In accord with this direction, the
hurricane analysis performed for the US 64 Corridor Improvements Study assumed that day
visitors would not be present and that 25 percent of the tourists would not be present by the
time the general evacuation is called for either due to the fact they have already left or simply
not there due tu lower seasonal occupancies.
Hurricane Irene which was a slower moving unusually well behaved storm track for which
National Hurricane Center forecast model tracks were in very good agreement 48 hours in
advance, gave North Carolina officials the benefit of moving tourists and Ocracoke Island early
in the evacuation process. A very different scenario was posed with the Hurricane Floyd
scenario in l999 where the storm was expected tu be e Florida, then Georgia, then SC storm
and ended up being NC storm. Both tourists and permanent residents who decided to
evacuate for that event had tu move concurrently.
A chart put together for this response, shows how far out the storm is at two different levels of
forward speed for moving tourists 36, 48, 60, and 72 hours before landfall and the fact that for
most storms a large portion of the tourists will be moving concurrently with the permanent
residents due tutrack uncertainty.

Storm Location When "Tourist Evacuation Order" Given - How Far Out is the Storm at the
Time Tourists are Supposed to Move?
Hours Before
Location at Various Time Intervals/Forward Speed
Eye Landfall
forward
at 10 mph avg speed At 15 mph avg forward speed
24*
Myrtle Beach (240 miles) Savannah (360 miles)
36
Savannah (360 miles) Daytona Beach (540 miles)
48
St Augustine (480 miles) Miami (720 miles)
60
Ft Pierce (600 miles) southern Bahamas (900 miles)
72
Miami (720 miles) Puerto Rico (1080 miles)
* 24 hour interval equates to the state 18 hour clearance time threshold plus an average 6
hours of pre landfall hazards time which is added to the 18 hours of traffic movement to
arrive at the time interval before eye landfall at which the evacuation must commence so
that the vehicular evacuation is completed before the arrival of sustained tropical storm
winds.
Note: Irene was a slower moving unusually well behaved storm track for which NHC models
were in very good agreement 48 hours in advance. This gave NC the benefit of moving
tourists and Ocracoke Island early in the evacuation process. A very different scenario was
posed with the Hurricane Floyd scenario in 1999 where the storm was expected to be a
Florida, then Georgia, then SC storm and ended up being a NC storm.
While in optimal warning situations, Dare County will be able to move the ambient tourist
population in advance of the permanent residents; this will not be possible for many storm
scenarios that must be planned for. To provide evacuation notices to the tourists of the time
intervals suggested by DEIS review comments, one would have to make the decision when the
storm is located so far south that few tourists would listen.
With regard to evacuation notices: Hurricanes are an unpredictable natural phenomena with
regard to strength, anticipated path, and speed. This tri -fecta of uncertainty sometimes
surprises - or may cause hesitation of - local emergency management officials. Thus, local
evacuation orders are not always issued in accordance with advance - warning policies. Storm
uncertainty (and relative degree of fear) also contribute to the individual judgment of residents
and tourists alike as to their own evacuation response. Tourists often wish to remain in their
paid rental dwelling as long as possible, while residents often judge whether to "ride it out" in
their residence or a local shelter. This personal judgment aspect, combined with current non -
mandatory evacuation policy, can extend the clearance time of a hurricane evacuation.
Absence of a written protocol (or law) denies law enforcement the legal authority to force
evacuation. From a law enforcement standpoint, the statement that "the lack of a written
C -38

protocol should be no indicator of lack of mechanism" is unrealistic and impractical. The
supposition that 85% of Dare County will respond to a non-mandatory evacuation order and
leave before locals represents a similar idealism. Even if 85% of tourists did evacuate first, the
commenter does not present coherent, logical, and substantiated argument estu "why" it
would invalidate an 18-hour clearance time. At the present time, NC law clearly requires an 18-
hour standard (based on a comprehensive study), and it is appropriate for NCDOT and its
merger team to follow the statute.
Comments That Population Figures and Growth Factors are Assuming Too Many Evacuees
A number of comments were received challenging the level of future growth assumed for both
permanent and seasonal units and corresponding population. Because the hurricane
evacuation analysis was performed well before the 2008 "Great Recession" /and its impact on
real estate markets) and before the 2010 Census was released, it was important to revisit the
assumptions made for both the base year condition and future year alternatives nnude| runs.
Interestingly, multiple agencies commented on this aspect and set forth conflicting seasonal
tourist figures.
2OO7/2008USG4 Hurricane Evacuation Analysis Base Year Assumptions
Comparison tu2010 Census
Base Year/Existing Figures:
Dare
Atkins Modeled
2010 Census
Permanent Population
34,223
33,920
Occupied Dwelling Units
12,675
10,118
Seasonal Dwelling Units
18,000
19,670*
Currituck
Permanent Population
23,717
23,547
Occupied Dwelling Units
8,150
7,163
Seasonal Dwelling Units
4,295
5,396*
Seasonal dwelling units include Census units for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use
plus motels plus campground units.
2009 Dare County Land Use Plan provides detailed calculation of peak seasonal population of
225,094 in addition to permanent residents; Atkins modeled a maximum of 144,000 seasonal
people present at the start of an evacuation and assumed day visitors would not be present.

2007/2008 US 64 Hurricane Evacuation Analysis Base Year Assumptions
Comparisons of Future Projections
State Data Center
2030 Future
Atkins
Projections
State Data Center
Year Figures:
Modeled
Projections
Dare
Permanent Population
53,848
50,831
38,030
Occupied Dwelling Units
19,870
na
na
Seasonal Dwelling Units
23,465
na
na
Currituck
Permanent Population
40,376
40,000
23,498
Occupied Dwelling Units
13,875
na
na
Seasonal Dwelling Units
7,405
na
i na
Future year modeled numbers based on 2006 and 2007 State Data Center projections as well
as detailed vacant parcels counts by PB for the Mid Currituck project. Future seasonal units
for Dare County represent a 30% increase from current levels. The 2009 Dare County land use
plan calculates a peak season population of 330,401 people for the year 2030 which is about
a 40% increase over their 2009 base year calculation.
C -40

Base Year Seasonal Units/People
2009 Dare County Land Use Plan Tabulations
188,410
seasonal rental unit pop at 100% occupancy and 12 people per unit
7,600
campground site tourists
9,084
hotel/motel guests
20,000
day visitors
8,644
guests of permanent residents
233,738
max seasonal residents, atfu 11, occupancy
200712008 US 64 Hurricane Anaiysis byAtkinsfor PB
18,000 units times 8 people per unit=144,000 seasonal people at max occupancy
DEIS comments imply that the US 64 hurricane analysis is assuming way too many tourists
which is clearly not the case. Adjusting the 2009 county land use plan projection to a more
realistic 8 people per unit and assuming the day visitors will not be there at the start of an
evacuation yields a figure of 151,000 seasonal pop for the base year which compares well
with our analysis figure of 144,000.
Future Year Seasonal Units/People
2030 Dare County Land Use Plan Tabulations
266,327
seasonal rental unit pop at 100% occupancy and 12 people per unit
10,743
campground site tourists
12,841
hotel/motel guests
28,271
day visitors
12,219
guests of permanent residents
330,401
max seasonal residents at full occupancy
200712008 US 64 Hurricane Anaiysis byAtkinsfor PB
23,465 units times 8 people per unit=187,720 seasonal people at max occupancy
Adjusting the 2OO9 county land use plan year 2030 projection ufl2peup|eperunittuennune
realistic 8 people per unit and assuming the day visitors will not be there at the start of an
evacuation yields a figure of 213,000 seasonal population for the future year which compares
high with the Atkins conservative analysis figure of 187.720. (While there may be condos with
12 people per unit, most hotel/motel units will have no more than 4 or 5 occupants.)
As seen above, the latest state data center projections are epprux nnetdyl5,000 permanent
residents less than what was assumed in the future year 2030 numbers used by Atkins in the
2007 model runs. Dare County land use projections heveruugh|y27,000nnureseesune|
population than Atkins future year seasonal numbers. This creates a slight net increase to
evacuation volumes in the category 3 scenario where everyone is assumed tu evacuate and

there is a 75 percent tourist occunpancy assumed. Therefore no new analysis model runs
needs to be performed to address this concern.
Barco Diversion /NC -VA Border Traffic Control Plan Affect on US 64 Corridor
As a part of the mass evacuation task for Phase 2 of the Southeast Virginia and Northeast North
Carolina Catastrophic Planning Project, Atkins was charged with analyzing the current
Virginia /North Carolina Border Traffic Diversion Plan commonly known as the Barco Diversion
Plan. The plan is in place to prevent North Carolina's Dare and Currituck County evacuees from
entering the Hampton Roads evacuation road network for major hurricane situations where
evacuation traffic congestion is severe throughout the region. An August 2011 report entitled,
Barco Diversion /NC -VA Border Traffic Control Plan Analysis - Technical Memorandum, was
developed to document project findings.
In 1995, for the Hurricane Bertha evacuation, an "ad hoc" attempt was made to implement this
concept that revealed a number of implementation and coordination issues that needed to be
addressed. A June 2009 supplement to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
Emergency Operations Plan entitled VA /NC Border Traffic Diversion Plan has formalized the
needed multi - jurisdictional coordination and protocols for successfully implementing the plan
on an as- needed basis. The 2009 direction and control document provides an excellent basis for
moving forward with the establishment of more formal "triggers" that would indicate the need
for implementation.
Early May 2011 and late June 2011 coordination meetings were held with key Virginia and
North Carolina law enforcement, department of transportation, and local /state emergency
management officials to discuss previous studies, draft evacuation parameters for use by the
Atkins team, and the existing VA /NC Border Traffic Diversion Plan. That discussion allowed the
finalizing of the recommended implementation procedures.
Key findings and recommendations are highlighted below with recommendations pertinent to
the DEIS comment responses highlighted in bold:
Real -time Traffic Monitoring
1) Real -time evacuation traffic congestion will be strongly correlated with Outer Banks
tourist occupancy, Outer Banks permanent resident participation, Hampton Roads
Southside Metro participation, background traffic on 1 -64, and traffic incidents along US
158. This reality necessitates an approach that relies on real -time traffic intelligence to
make decisions regarding the Barco Diversion implementation.
C -42

2) As documented in the Phase 1 Evacuation Traffic and Evacuee Participation Monitoring
Report, a number of strategic closed circuit TV (CCTV) cameras are available at the 1 -64
and VA 168 interchange as well as along 1 -64 immediately to the west of the
interchange. These cameras must be used strategically to monitor and evaluate the
need for implementing the plan. In addition, the City of Chesapeake Traffic
Management System CCTV cameras include monitoring locations along the Chesapeake
Expressway.
Diversion Plan Trigger Points
3) After considerable deliberation among study participants including a VDOT conference
call on July 7, 2011, it was agreed that two primary trigger points should be considered
together for deciding to implement the Barco Diversion Plan (now called the North
Carolina /Virginia Border Traffic Control Plan). Based on the observed congestion,
expected direction of the storm, anticipated storm intensity, track confidence, tourist
occupancy, and the times at which evacuations are initiated on the Outer Banks and
Hampton Roads area, a mutually acceptable decision will be triggered by conditions at
two trigger points:
a) 1 -64: must west of the VA 168 interchange: traffic moving towards the high rise bridge
and Bowers Hill area at less than 5 mph for 90 minutes -- interim alert conditions similar
to the green, yellow and red monitoring indicators in the HURREVAC Risk Profile will be
triggered by green (45 minutes of <5mph), yellow (60 minutes of < 5mph), and red (90
minutes of <5mph), will be discussed by officials as the event unfolds;
1e1►E
b) the VA 168 on ramp to I- 64:for traffic moving from VA 168 towards the high rise
bridge - -if traffic backs up on VA 168 to the Kempsville Road interchange.
These two conditions would indicate a need to implement the Barco Diversion Plan.
Roadway Improvements to Ease Evacuation Congestion
4) State of Virginia funding and staffing resources to plan for and implement a reversal for
the Bowers Hill area would be very beneficial to overall evacuations for the region. In
that regard, VDOT is working aggressively to identify ways to construct crossovers and
help facilitate the physical implementation of reverse lane concepts for the Bowers Hill
area. VDOT recognizes that US 158 in North Carolina cannot handle the increased
evacuation traffic flow that the Barco Diversion Plan would force onto that route and
is looking at ways to alleviate the need for a Barco Diversion implementation.
C -43

5\ US 158 from Barco to the Pasquotank River is approximately 16 miles in length and its
lanes cannot be reversed due tu lack ufshoulders, constrained lane widths, inability tu
service traffic crashes and breakdowns, and marshy environments along the corridor.
(The State TIP includes the widening uf this segment by202l\
6) NCDOT and Federal Highway Administration should continue the process for
environmental approval of widening US 158 from Barco to Elizabeth City, North Carolina
so that additional westbound evacuation capacity can be added. NCDOT has several
ongoing projects e|ungtheUSl58curridurthetvviUeffectevecuetiun. These include e
bridge replacement over the Pesquutenk River and several resurfacing efforts. Future
projects will include e phase two widening ufUS 158 from Bdcrusstu Elizabeth City and
e possible phase three widening from Bercu to Bdcruss. Currently there is e
construction detour involving Route 343 in Camden which leads to US 17 at South Mills.
Implementation
7\ To discourage/prevent evacuees from going north on US 17 into the VA 168 and 1-64
area (which would further congest the area of concern), it may be prudent to station
law enforcement at South Mills, North Carolina to divert US 17 northbound traffic to US
158 westbound. While it would be best for North Carolina evacuees to continue to 1-95
before turning north, the diversion plan directly effects only routes VA 168 and US 17.
8\ Real-time communications between North Carolina and Virginia traffic monitoring,
emergency management, and law enforcement personnel will be critical to the decision
tu implement the plan and tu actual execution uf the traffic diversion. After
considerable discussion at the late June 2011 Elizabeth City meeting, it was determined
that the Virginia State Police Field Lieutenant with consultation of the Chesapeake
Police Department and VOOTvvuu|d relay the recommendation to implement the Bercu
Diversion tu the Virginia Emergency Operations Center /VE(]C\. The VE(]C will then
make the formal request for implementation to the North Carolina Emergency
Operations Center (NCEOC) to facilitate communication back down the chain of
command to North Carolina State Highway Patrol /NCSHP\end |uce| emergency
management offices and law enforcement. Concurrently, Virginia State Patrol /VSP\
would communicate directly with NCSHP that the request was in motion. North
Carolina real-time "sub regional" conference calls will involve appropriate Virginia
officials tu discuss the potential need for the operation before eformal
recommendation tu the VE[)Coccurs.

9\ Traffic will be stopped and diverted to US 158 at Bercu--nutet the Virginia State line.
10) Dare County emergency management, working with local law enforcement and
INICSHP, may wish to encourage residents and tourists residing south of and in Kitty
Hawk (instead of Whalebone Junction) to use US 64 for their evacuation from the
Outer Banks once the 0arcu Diversion Plan isimplemented. Dare County isconducting
local meetings to explore the possibility ufthis action and the possibility of calling for
earlier evacuations.
Recommendation number 10 supports the diversion of at least 15 percent of the US 158
evacuation traffic to US 64 for those US 64 model runs where the Barco Diversion plan was
assumed tubeimplemented.
Dare County emergency management officials have shared their plans to divide evacuation
traffic. While e comparatively small volume will ferry to Swan Quarter /end possibly Ceder
Point), most traffic will be routed to US 64 and NC 158. In recent years, emergency
management officials in Virginia have announced the possibility of closing NC 168 to evacuees
et the Virginia border. This closure vvuu|d force NC officials tu divert all traffic on US 158 traffic
westward at Bercu, and vvuu|d also result in Outer Banks officials having to immediately react
and divert es much es25Y6 more traffic onto US64. NCO(]T must plan for both scenarios.
Comments That Ocracoke and Evacuees Transported by Ferry Are Evacuated At Least 24 Hours
Before Storm Arrival and that the 18 Hour Threshold Doesn't AppIV to the Outer Banks
In the modeling performed for the proposed US 64 Corridor alternatives and in all of the
previous FEIVI4JCurpsuf Engineers hurricane evacuation study efforts, Ocracoke Island
evacuees are assumed to be taken by ferry to Swan Quarter in Hyde County before making
their vehicular evacuation movements. Thus they are not part of the vehicles assumed to
traverse the US 64 study corridor. The 18 hour clearance time threshold for a category 3
hurricane 75 percent tourist occupancy is applied only to vehicular movements using available
highway capacity. Where possible, ferry evacuations are conducted earlier due to the time
needed tu secure ferry vessels from rough seas.
The OE|Sis very clear in its presentation ufhurricane evacuation policy, modeling, and how
these translate tu purpose and need. The cunnnnenter's judgment that en 18'huurstenderd is
an "inappropriate number" belies e misunderstanding ufsystem behavior, dues not conform to
NC statute, and represents personal opinion that is unsubstantiated by study, byinter'egency
review, or by endorsement of law enforcement officials who actually conduct the evacuations.

For two years and in good faith, NCDOT partnered with a full complement of state and federal
agencies and law enforcement officials (listed in DEIS, page 1 -31) to discuss hurricane
evacuation policy and comprehensively model current and future year hurricane evacuation
scenarios. The committee selected several quantitative standards for modeling and to establish
policy goals. These were: 1) a 75% tourist occupancy level, 2) an average (non - holiday)
summer day in August, 3) a "point of safety" was established as I -95, and 4) a Category 3
hurricane. The culmination of the extensive effort was a reflected by a 2005 NCDOT State
Hurricane Evacuation Study, which recommended an 18 -hour evacuation standard. That
standard was adopted by the NC General Assembly. The department subsequently
acknowledges the legislative mandate, which is not improper. Evacuation was thus modeled
based on current and year 2030 occupancy in the Outer Banks.
In 2008 NCDOT developed a Supplemental Hurricane Evacuation Study for the US 64 corridor.
Analysis assumptions followed those of the 2005 State Hurricane Evacuation Study, and include
occupancy rates based on specific demographic information for both Hatteras and Ocracoke
Islands in addition to Manteo, Nags Head, Kitty Hawk, Whalebone, etc... These data are
eventually translated into numbers of vehicles that need to use US 64. The 2008 study simply
applied the evacuation traffic volumes from the 2005 to the US 64 corridor to model clearance
times to a point of safety (I -95). Model results clearly indicate that US 64 as a two -lane highway
is a "bottleneck," and that a 4 -lane highway is needed and - if implemented - will evacuate for
the selected "design standard" in under 18 hours.
Inputs into the hurricane evacuation model are unique to the region and indeed specifically
account for conditions on Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands. Hurricane models did consider ferry
and highway evacuations from Hatteras and Ocracoke - and furthermore how these volumes
and their arrival times affect an overall evacuation.
C -46