20161268_Complete File_20050916

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
September 16, 2005
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed Military Cutoff Road extension
from US 17 (Market Street) to the proposed I-140 in New Hanover County (TIP No. U-4751)
and the proposed US 17 Bypass of Hampstead in New Hanover and Pender Counties (TIP No.
R-3300). These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
A view of recent aerial photographs of the project study area reveals a significant amount of
forested wildlife habitat. Much of this forested land is likely wetland. New location projects in
undeveloped land can have large negative effects on fish and wildlife habitat through direct
habitat loss and fragmentation of remaining habitat. The effects of forest habitat fragmentation
usually extend well beyond the project footprint and can lead to local extirpation of forest
interior species and wildlife species which require large home ranges or that travel extensive
distances for all or part of their life history (e.g. black bear (Ursus americanus)). Roads often act
as physical barriers to wildlife movement and/or cause significant wildlife mortality in the form
of road killed animals. Forest fragmentation 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 often facilitates invasive and/or nonnative species colonization
of fragmented lands.
The two proposed projects are especially problematic for federally listed endangered and
threatened species. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected species known
to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can be found on
our web page at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html . The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database reveals several relatively recent occurrences of the federally
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysimachia asperulaefolia) within the project study area and near potential alignments for the
two projects. These occurrences are clustered to the west of US 17 and north of the existing
terminus of Military Cutoff Road. There is also a large concentration of red-cockaded
woodpecker clusters within the Holly Shelter Game Land. These birds are part of a designated
primary core population of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Recovery Unit. The project study
area needs to be thoroughly surveyed for red-cockaded woodpeckers and rough-leaved
loosestrife and, if suitable habitat exists, any other species listed for New Hanover and Pender
Counties. It is important to note that even if no federally protected species is directly affected by
the project, the indirect effects of isolating small populations by roads may be an issue.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
For road improvement projects such as widening, realignment, bridge replacement and culvert
replacement, the Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed or region should be avoided. Proposed highway projects should be aligned
along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors or other previously disturbed
areas in order to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation. Highway shoulder and median
widths should be reduced through wetland areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for sufficient wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
5. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation,
including trees if necessary;
6. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
7. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
8. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
9. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore,.it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined,and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. It is understood that a
scoping meeting will be held for this project. The Service would like to attend this scoping
meeting. Please inform Mr. Gary Jordan of the meeting location and date by phone at (919) 856-
4520, ext. 32 or by email at gary [e-mail]. Also, if you have any questions regarding
our response, please contact Mr. Jordan.
Pete B gamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Dave Timpy, USAGE, Wilmington, NC
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO
Regulatory Division
November 29, 2005
SUBJECT: Action ID 200600069; TIP Project No. U-4751, Hampstead Bypass
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Tall
Dear Dr. Thorne:
DEC 1 2005
I)E S AND STORM*TE iT0*4N
Reference your September 7, 2005 letter requesting our scot IS on the
proposed Hampstead Bypass, Pender and New Hanover Counties, North Carolina. Your letter
also requested comments on the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension Project, TIP Project
No. R-3300, located in New Hanover County.
Based on a recent field inspection by this office, information provided in the referenced
letter and a review of the soil survey for Pender and New Hanover Counties by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, the proposed project may impact jurisdictional waters and
wetlands of the United States. In addition, the information you have provided indicates that the
proposed project may impact wetlands associated with Harrison Creek and the Holly Shelter
Gamelands, as well as other locations along the proposed corridor. More information is needed
on the extent, location, and community type of all the impacted wetlands and streams before an
environmental assessment can be made. In addition, this information is needed to decide
whether coordination pursuant to the integrated Section 404/NEPA Merger Process is warranted.
Based on the information provided, it is likely that coordination pursuant to the merger process
will be required. Our comments on the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension Project, TIP
Project No. R-3300, will be provided in separate correspondence.
Department of the Army (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the discharge of dredged or fill material in
waters of the United States or any adjacent wetlands in conjunction with this project, including
disposal of construction debris. Pursuant to our mitigation policy, impacts to wetlands should
first be avoided or minimized. We will then consider compensatory mitigation for unavoidable
impacts. When final plans are completed, including the extent and location of any work in
wetlands, our regulatory division would appreciate the opportunity to review these plans for
project-specific determinations of DA permit requirements.
r
Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality, (40 CFR 1501.6 Cooperating
Agencies), we would like to participate in the development of the necessary environmental
document as a Cooperating Agency and would appreciate this request to participate as a
cooperating agency in writing from the lead Federal agency, in this case the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). It is our intention to formally adopt the FHWA NEPA document, in
whole or in part, provided it meets our requirements relative to Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act and NEPA when the Record of Decision (or Finding of No Significant Impact, as
appropriate) is completed. Please note that other program commitments will preclude us from
funding or writing any portion of the subject document. However, it is our intention to fully
participate in the development of the necessary document throughout the integrated NEPA/404
Merger process.
Should you have any questions please contact the undersigned in the Wilmington Field
Office at [phone].
Sincerely,
David L. Timpy
NCDOT Project Manager
Copies Furnished:
Mr. John Dorney /
NCDENR-DWQV
Wetlands Section
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Mr. Pete Benjamin
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Christopher Militcher
USEPA Raleigh Office
Office of Environmental Assessment
310 New Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raleigh, NC 27601
2
A
Mr. Travis Wilson
Highway Coordinator
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. Doug Huggett
NC Division of Coastal Management
Division of Coastal Management
400 Commerce Avenue
Morehead City, NC 28557-3421
Mr. Allen Pope, PE
Division Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division 3
124 Division Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE
FEATURE
D F G H I M1 M2 N 0 P Q R S T U V W z
Length (miles)/(acres)' 14.79/ 14.18/ 14.59/ 14.85/ i 4.24/ 14.65/ 3.381 3.47/ 13.62/ 13.01/ 13.42/ 14.20/ 14.00/ 10.61/ 10.90/ 12.51/ 12.55/ 17.34/
903.80 867.56 834.86 901.64 865.40 832.70 187.76 190.78 817.61 781.35 748.62 853.44 817.18 784.45 448.63 502.43 672.54 726.34 319.39
Wetland Impacts 427.83 368.44 330.22 459.42 400.03 361.82 135.75 146.47 465.72 406.36 368.15 440.44 381.08 342.87 152.88 216.36 433.22 496.71 40.71
(acres)'
Stream Crossings (no.)' 11 10 12 12 11 13 5 6 19 18 21 12 11 14 6 3 14 11 7
Residential Displacements' 30 40 64 29 39 63 86 86 28 42 66 39 49 73 77 52 87 62 5
Business Displacements' 17 20 29 16 19 28 29 29 15 18 27 14 17 26 33 25 32 24 31
Known Protected Species Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Occurrences 2
Natural Heritage Program Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N
Area'
100 Year Floodplain 41.50 46.28 35.79 51.94 56.71 46.23 0 0 33.85 38.62 28.13 34.40 39.18 28.69 22.22 42.68 22.22 42.68 0
Impacts (acres)'
Recorded Historic 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 3 3 3 3
Properties 2
Recorded Archaeological 11 16 24 11 16 24 9 9 7 12 20 9 14 22 47 41 35 29 85
Sites 2
Wildlife Refuge/Game N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Lands'
Recreational Areas/Parks' N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N N N N N N
High Quality Waters (HQW,
ORW, WS Protected or Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Critical Areas 2
Schools' 0 1 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 3 3 1 3 1 4
Churches' 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 17
Cemeteries' 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 3
Railroad Crossings (No.)' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings 5 2 2 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(No.)'
Potential Underground
Storage Tank / Hazmat 5 6 9 5 6 9 100 100 4 5 8 4 5 8 19 18 18 17 2G5
Sites 2
Interchanges (No.)' 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 0
Notes:' Within 300-foot corridor on new location and 150-foot corridor along existing US 17; 2 Within one mile of corridor centerline; *Includes streams and water features (ponds, etc.)
_, .
l
40
4 5
Corridor Alternatives Impact Comparison Table

Alternatives G, H and I
Alternatives G, H and I share the same alignment
(shown as dark green on the figure) until they inter-
sect with NC 210. Alternatives G, H and I begin
in New Hanover County at the same Wilmington
Bypass location as Alternatives D, E and F. The
alternatives travel northeast and cross Sidbury
Road. Island Creek Estates is located just west of
Alternatives G, H and I. The alternatives continue
to the north and turn east to parallel the south side
of the transmission line easement as they enter into
Pender County. Land use in this area is characterized
by forest and wetlands. After crossing into Pender
County, Alternatives G, H and I continue northeast
for approximately one mile, then turn southeast to a
proposed interchange with NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative G
(light pink) follows the same alignment as Alternative
D, connecting with existing US 17 near Long Leaf
Road with an interchange. From its interchange at
NC 210, Alternative H (dark brown) follows the same
alignment as Alternative E, connecting with existing
US 17 with an interchange near Long Leaf Road.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative I (yellow)
follows the same alignment as Alternative F, con-
necting with existing US 17 with an interchange near
Old Casteen Road south of Topsail High School.
Alternatives G, H and I include improvements to
existing US 17 from their US 17 interchanges north to
where the five lane section on US 17 transitions to a
four-lane divided roadway.
Alternatives M1 and M2
Alternatives M1 and M2 are extensions of Military
Cutoff Road. Alternative M1 (shown as bright blue
on the figure) extends north from Market Street
at Military Cutoff Road where land use includes
mostly small businesses and a golf driving range.
Alternative M1 extends through county property
between sections of Ogden Park and through a
single-family housing development. It then runs
adjacent to a densely developed residential area to
the west. Alternative M1 turns northwest through a
less developed area and ends near Plantation Road
and Crooked Pine Road at an interchange with the
Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway between
the 1-40 and US 17 interchanges. Alternative M2
(shown as purple on the figure) follows the same
alignment as Alternative M1 for approximately two
miles, then turns northeast and extends through
mostly undeveloped property to an interchange with
the Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile west
of US 17.
Alternatives N, 0 and P
Alternatives N, 0 and P (shown as olive green
on the figure) share the same alignment until they
intersect with NC 210. Alternatives N, 0 and P
begin in New Hanover County at the Wilmington
Bypass approximately one mile west of the US
17 interchange. The alternatives extend northeast
from the bypass across undeveloped land crossing
Sidbury Road near the New Hanover County/Pender
County line. Land use in the vicinity of the Sidbury
Road crossing includes scattered residential and
undeveloped properties. Alternatives N, 0 and P
continue northeast crossing Harrison Creek Road
in an area which is lightly developed with residential
properties. Alternatives N, 0 and P intersect NC 210
with an interchange.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative N
(light pink) follows the same alignment as Alternative
D, connecting with existing US 17 near Long Leaf
Road with an interchange. From its interchange
at NC 210, Alternative 0 (dark brown) follows the
same alignment as Alternative E connecting with
existing US 17 with an interchange near Long Leaf
Road. From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative P
(yellow) follows the same alignment as Alternative F,
connecting with existing US 17 with an interchange
near Old Casteen Road south of Topsail High School.
Alternatives N, 0 and P include improvements to
existing US 17 from their US 17 interchanges north
to the existing four-lane divided roadway.
Alternatives 0, R and S
Alternatives Q, R and S (shown as light brown
on the figure) share the same alignment until they
intersect with NC 210. Alternatives 0, R and S
Alternatives D, E and F
Alternatives D, E and F share the same alignment
(shown as red on the figure) until they intersect
with NC 210. Alternatives D, E and F begin in
New Hanover County at an interchange with the
Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway between
existing interchanges with 1-40 and US 17. The
alternatives extend northeast past Sidbury Road
(SR 1336). Land use between the bypass and
Sidbury Road is mostly undeveloped property.
There is a small residential community west of
the Sidbury Road crossing called Island Creek
Estates. Alternatives D, E and F cross into Pender
County, crossing a transmission line easement
near Churchouse Bay Lane. Alternatives D, E and F
include an interchange at NC 210 south of the NC
210 and Island Creek Road intersection.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative D
(shown as light pink on the figure) continues to the
northeast. It extends mainly through undeveloped
forested property, crossing a large powerline ease-
ment near Godfrey Creek Road. There is a small
residential development called Godfrey's Creek
Estates at the crossing of Godfrey Creek Road.
North of Godfrey Creek Road, Alternative D extends
through more forested land, and then turns east.
The corridor crosses Saps Road and Hoover Road
(SR 1569). There is limited residential land use on
Saps Road and Hoover Road. The large powerline
easement splits into two smaller easements west of
Hoover Road. Both smaller easements are crossed
by Alternative D. Alternative D extends to the north
of Castle Bay, an existing residential golf course
community off of Hoover Road. Alternative D ties
into existing US 17 near Long Leaf Road with an
interchange. A mini-storage facility, plant nursery,
undeveloped property, and two churches are located
on the west side of US 17 near the terminus. Land
use on the east side of US 17 near the terminus
includes Belvedere Plantation, a residential golf
course community, Andrews Mortuary, Hampstead
Chapel, and Sea Lawn Cemetery. Alternative D
includes improvements to existing US 17 from the
proposed interchange north to the point where
US 17 transitions from five lanes to a four-lane
divided roadway.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative E
(shown as dark brown on the figure) extends east
across several minor roads that include lightly
developed residential properties, and on through
undeveloped forested areas. Alternative E continues
through farmland, crossing Hoover Road north
of South Topsail Elementary School. The alterna-
tive continues northeast through undeveloped
property. Alternative E ties into existing US 17 with
an interchange at the same location as Alternative
D near Long Leaf Road. Alternative E includes
improvements to existing US 17 from the proposed
interchange north to the point where US 17 transi-
tions from five lanes to a four-lane divided roadway.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative F
(shown as yellow on the figure) follows Alternative E
until Hoover Road, where it turns south. Alternative
F continues across undeveloped land and ties into
existing US 17 with an interchange near Old Casteen
Road (SR 1702) south of Topsail High School. There
is a small mobile home development nearby. Topsail
Presbyterian Church is north of the Alternative
F intersection with US 17. Alternative F includes
improvements to existing US 17 from the proposed
interchange north to the point where US 17 transi-
tions from five lanes to a four-lane divided roadway.
(CONTINUED ON PAGE 6)
w,
3
New Location Alternatives

a.ad
i ?o'"rc i ?y _ I , Tcpsair +$
` br Ra. W . High
school:
ry?? ?aaaRb
NJI,?
e,ae
i ?vYSVOt
IBem rrc,xr
r, a
Ra lSalf ?? i.- ??
O
4
9 ?
e C
l '7 2 . lbrrn
a
a
r
o
0
w„m ? P
.•I Preliminary Corridor Build Alternatives
eynp,br, qo -;5, 7 - W I1East ofNC2,o V-tIE- oINC210
B-
Alternative D Alternative P
Alternative E Alternative 0
M--11. Rd (SR Um n ""* 1 ! AlternativeF AlternativeR
TR ea Alternative G Alternative S
Alternative H Alternative i
.? Alternative I Alternative U
c% Alternative M1 Alternative V
Alternative M2 Alternative W
Alternative N Alternative Z
Aflernative 0
o.+ f r
c
workshop Locations Study Area
-l MajorrMinor Roads I County Boundary
Water Features City of Wilmington
u r-;
f
a
Noble
(Middle ; L
1 'Sctwol 0 0.5 1 2
_\\ OMiles e

begin in New Hanover County at an interchange
with the Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway
between existing interchanges with 1-40 and US
17. Alternatives Q, R and S extend northeast from
the Wilmington Bypass across undeveloped land,
crossing Sidbury Road near the New Hanover
County/Pender County line. Alternatives Q, R and
S continue northeast, crossing Harrison Creek Road,
and crossing NC 210 with an interchange.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative Q
(light pink) follows the same alignment as Alternative
D, connecting with existing US 17 near Long Leaf
Road with an interchange. From its interchange
at NC 210, Alternative R (dark brown) follows the
same alignment as Alternative E, connecting with
existing US 17 with an interchange near Long Leaf
Road. From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative S
(yellow) follows the same alignment as Alternative F,
connecting with existing US 17 with an interchange
near Old Casteen Road south of Topsail High School
Alternatives Q, R and S
Alternatives 0, R and S include improvements to
existing US 17 from their US 17 interchanges north
to the existing four-lane divided roadway.
Alternatives T and U
Alternatives T and U are two versions of a
"shallow" bypass that begin in Pender County
approximately two miles north of the New Hanover
County line. Alternatives T and U share the same
alignment (shown as light blue on the figure) until
they intersect with NC 210 at an interchange approxi-
mately 0.5 mile west of existing US 17.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative T
(shown as light green on the figure) curves northeast
connecting with existing US 17 with an interchange
near Old Casteen Road south of Topsail High
School. From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative
U (shown as blue green on the figure) continues
north parallel to existing US 17 and crossing Hoover
Road south of South Topsail Elementary School. The
alternative continues northeast through undeveloped
property. Alternative U connects with existing US 17
near Long Leaf Road with an interchange.

Alternatives T and U include improvements
to existing US 17 from their northern US 17 inter-
changes north to the existing four-lane divided
roadway and from their southern US 17 inter-
changes south to the Wilmington Bypass.
Alternatives V and W
Alternatives V and W are two versions of a
"shallow" bypass that begin in New Hanover County
at the Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile
west of the US 17 interchange. Alternatives V and
W share the same alignment (shown as gold on the
figure) through predominantly undeveloped land until
they intersect with NC 210 at an interchange approxi-
mately 0.5 mile west of existing US 17.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative V (light
green) follows the same alignment as Alternative T
connecting to existing US 17 with an interchange
near Old Casteen Road south of Topsail High
School. From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative
W follows the same alignment as Alternative U (blue
green) connecting to existing US 17 near Long Leaf
Road with an interchange.
Alternatives V and W include improvements to
existing US 17 from their US 17 interchanges north
to the existing four-lane divided roadway.
Alternative Z - Widen Existing Facility
Alternative Z (magenta), would involve adding
lanes to the existing Market Street / US 17 corridor
from College Road to the point where existing US
17 transitions from five lanes to a four-lane divided
roadway north of Hampstead.
¦
2 ___7

Project Schedule
A tentative schedule is shown below. Because a number of factors can
affect a project's schedule, it may be subject to change.
Complete Draft Environmental Impact Statement Fall 2008
Select Preferred Alternative Spring 2009
Complete Final Environmental Impact Statement Fall 2009
Right-of-way acquisition U-4751:2012
R-3300:2012
Construction `Post Years
" Post Years means that the allocation of funding is planned for future years. Right-of-way
acquistion and construction would begin after 2013.
Contacts for the US 17
ridor Study
If you need additional informa-
tion or would like to discuss the
project, please contact:
Olivia Farr
NCDOT PDEA
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Phone: [phone], ext. 253
FAX: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
or
Liz Kovasckitz, AICP
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Project Description
NCDOT proposes to make transportation improvements to the
US 17 and Market Street (US 17 Business) corridors in northern
New Hanover and southern Pender Counties. Two North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program projects, U-4751 and R-3300,
are being evaluated as part of the US 17 Corridor Study.
Project U-4751 is included in the 2007-2013 North Carolina State
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as an extension of Military
Cutoff Road on new location from Market Street (US 17 Business) to
the US 17 Wilmington Bypass (John Jay Burney Jr. Freeway). Project
R-3300 is included in the 2007-2013 TIP as the US 17 bypass of
Hampstead.
Both projects are part of the NCDOT's Strategic Highway Corridor
(SHC) Initiative. This initiative is an effort to preserve and maximize
the mobility and connectivity of highway corridors that play a critical
role in regional transportation.
The purpose of the US 17 Corridor Study project is to improve the
traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street
corridors in the project area.
Preliminarv Corridor Alternatives
Potential corridor alternatives were screened for suitability based on
several criteria, including meeting the purpose of and need for the pro-
posed project, minimizing impacts to natural and cultural resources,
and consideration of community features. Geographic Information
System (GIS) data and modeling, aerial photography and observations
from field visits were used in the analysis. Detailed corridor drawings
and estimated impacts associated with each of the alternatives are
presented within this handout and around the room.
There are two build alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension
(M1 and M2) and 17 build alternatives for the Hampstead Bypass.
All of the Hampstead Bypass alternatives include improvements to
existing US 17 from their northern termini north to the existing median
divided section of US 17 near Sloop Point Road in Pender County.
8
1
Workshop Notes
AGENDA
Western Concurrence Meeting
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina
10:30 AM to 12:00 Noon, Olivia Farr, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch
TIP No. U-4751, us 17 Corridor Study
Hanover and Pender Counties, Division 3
NOTE: This is an Eastern meeting being held on Western meeting day.
Team Members
Jennifer Frye, USACE
Olivia Farr, PDEA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ron Sechler, NMF
Travis Wilson, WRC
Steve Sollod, DCM
Fritz Rohde, DMF
David Wainwright, DWQ
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Don Eggert, Cape Fear RPO (non-signatory)
Mike Kozlosky, Wilmington MPO
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff:
Allen Pope, Division 3
Joe Blair, Division 3
Mason Herndon, Division 3
Gary Lovering, Roadway Design
Ron Allen, Roadway Design
David Chang, Hydraulics
Ray McIntyre, Program Development
Don Moore, Geotech
Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Earlene Thomas, TPB
Phil Harris, NEU
Carl Goode, HEU
-- - Jay McInnis, PDEA
Rob Hanson, PDEA
Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey, Inc.
Jay Bissett, Mulkey, Inc.
* The purpose of this meeting is to reach concurrence on CP 2.

MEMORANDUM
To: Meeting Participants
FROM: Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
DATE: December 18, 2006
SUBJECT: NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting, US 17 Corridor Study, New Hanover and
Pender Counties, NCDOT TIP Project Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
A NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting was held for the subject project on September 21, 2006 in the
board room of the NCDOT Highway Building. The purpose of the meeting was to present
information to support concurrence on the purpose and need for the proposed project. Meeting
attendees are provided below and a summary of the meeting follows.

Ron Allen NCDOT - Roadway Design
Jan Anderson RS&H
Andy Belcher Mulkey
Jay Bissett Mulkey
Joe Blair NCDOT - Division 3
Olivia Farr NCDOT -PDEA
Jennifer Frye US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Carl Furney Mulkey
Jeff Garland NCDOT - Traffic Engineering
Rob Hanson NCDOT - PDEA
John Hennessy NC Division of Water Quality
Mason Herndon NCDOT - Division 3
Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Mike Kozlosky Wilmington MPO
Gary Lovering NCDOT - Roadway Design
Ron Lucas Federal Highway Administration / NC Division
Chris Manley NCDOT - NEU
Kathy Matthews Environmental Protection Agency
Sarah McBride NC DCR / Historic Preservation Office
Jay McInnis NCDOT - PDEA
Ray McIntyre NCDOT - TIP
Scott McLendon US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Chris Militscher Environmental Protection Agency
Don Moore NCDOT - Geotechnical
Allen Pope NCDOT - Division 3
Amy Simes NCDENR
Steve Sollod NC Division of Coastal Management
Mark Staley NCDOT - Roadside Environmental
Tom Stoddard NCDOT - TIP
MuLKEV INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY. NC 2751 1 PCt BOX 33 127 RALEIGH, NC: 27636 PH: 919.851.1 912 FaX; 919-851.191 8 WWW,MLILKEYINC.COm
Earline Thomas NCDOT - Transportation Planning
Dave Timpy US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Anthony West NCDOT - Roadway Design
Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Brian Wrenn NC Division of Water Quality
10" _aUMTVAA Y
Olivia Farr opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. Ms. Farr then introduced
Liz Kovasckitz for the presentation. Ms. Kovasckitz opened with the explanation that Figure 3 had
been updated following distribution of the package to attendees. Copies of the revised Figure 3 were
circulated. Ms. Kovasckitz delivered a PowerPoint presentation, which provided background
information on the project study area and presented information relevant to the Purpose and Need
for the project. Three displays showing environmental features of the study area were then reviewed.
The meeting was opened for discussion after the presentation.
Dave Timpy requested clarification on what the 2030 No Build Scenario traffic numbers in the
Purpose and Need are based on. Jan Anderson responded the study started with the base year of
2005, and included the Wilmington Bypass, the widening of Market Street, and the super street
improvements that will be made on US 17. Mr. Timpy asked why Military Cutoff Road was not
included in the study and whether the proposed Martin Luther King (MLK) Parkway was considered.
Ms. Anderson noted that Military Cutoff Road was not included because it is part of the Build
project; the proposed project includes the Military Cutoff Road extension and the Hampstead Bypass
combined. Jay McInnis added that anything expected to be opened in 2030 was included with the
exception of the proposed projects. He stated the MLK Parkway was considered in the study. Mr.
Timpy asked if the land use model used in the traffic analysis took into account future development
and the requirements that the development (permits, zoning, etc.) would have to meet before
approval. Ms. Anderson explained that a trend analysis was used and specific developments were not
included. Ms. Anderson explained that the analysis assumed the area would continue to grow as it
had in the past. She noted refinements to the analysis are expected as the project moves forward.
Chris Militscher asked if it was correct that the Wilmington Bypass interchange at US 17 fails in 2030 as
shown on the capacity analysis display. Jan Anderson and Jay McInnis explained that the US 17
roadway at that area fails, but not the Wilmington Bypass. Ms. Anderson noted the illustration should
show the failure occurs when traffic exits off the Bypass. Allen Pope stated that backups on US 17 at
the interchange can affect traffic on the Wilmington Bypass. Mr. McInnis noted if backups occur from
the Wilmington Bypass onto US 17, it is because of traffic on US 17, not the Bypass. In response to a
question, Mr. Pope clarified that exit ramps from the Wilmington Bypass to US 17/Market Street are
multi-lane and entrance ramps from US 17/Market Street onto the Bypass are single-lane.
Scott McLendon asked for clarification on how the two TIP projects are connected relative to the
Purpose and Need Statement. Liz Kovasckitz replied that the projects were combined to evaluate
them from a system-wide perspective. She noted it is possible the two projects could join at the
Wilmington Bypass. Considering them together allows a more comprehensive evaluation of direct
and indirect impacts of the larger system, or transportation feature.
Chris Militscher noted the discussion of system linkage was specific to the R-3300 project as it talks
about US 17 and 1-40 traffic, but not to Military Cutoff Road. Liz Kovasckitz explained that Military
Cutoff Road up to Wilmington Bypass could be considered a missing link. There is a lot of traffic
impacting the local streets in the area such as Gordon Road, Market Street, and Military Cutoff Road,
and this will continue to be a problem in the future. Mr. Militscher noted the traffic impact could be
handled by another type of improvement in the future such as an interchange. Mr. Militscher stated
he did not see a case made for the system linkage between Military Cutoff Road and the new
Hampstead Bypass. Jay McInnis indicated that the discussion was getting into alternatives. He stated
that the purpose of this project is to improve the capacity of the US 17 corridor and also to improve
conditions on Market Street. The system linkage aspect is that a new connection from Military
Cutoff Road to the bypass may alleviate the congestion. The main purpose of the project is to
improve the US 17 corridor, but the intent is to also make conditions more favorable on Market
Street. Mr. McInnis asked if there were suggestions on wording to clarify the Purpose Statement to
reflect that.
Allen Pope noted that Market Street is known as US 17 Business. Chris Militscher stated that
Military Cutoff Road, however, is not US 17 and not a direct part of the US 17 corridor, yet it is
being proposed for extension. Mr. Militscher noted that he reviewed the related feasibility study
several years ago and that may be influencing his questions regarding connecting the Military Cutoff
Road intersection to the new bypass. Scott McLendon noted it is typical to assess a project, and then
the other planned improvements in the area to see how those would affect the carrying capacity/level
of service. If Military Cutoff Road extension was evaluated separately, how would that affect the level
of service, safety, and traffic of those other projects? He noted the projects are separate, but they are
the same for the purposes of the planning process and the Purpose and Need Study. Mr. McLendon
suggested that while it could be done that way, he is not clear on how it should be handled.
A participant followed up with a question regarding whether the plan was to produce one or two
documents. Jay McInnis explained that the plan was to produce one document, but if it is
determined that the two projects do not need to connect, then the projects could be evaluated in two
separate documents. Mr. McInnis noted that one concern was to make certain there is logical
termini.
Chris Militscher asked what the logical termini are for this project. Jay McInnis reviewed the study
area boundaries and the problem areas on Market Street and US 17. Mr. Militscher noted that it
appeared there are two sets of termini. Travis Wilson suggested making the focus of the project to
improve capacity on US 17, which is also Market Street, and remove the Military Cutoff Road
extension aspect so that it is not driving a new location project. The alternatives will show what
improvements are needed between Military Cutoff Road and the Holly Shelter Game Land (HSGL).
Mr. McInnis replied that was the intent, but there are two projects. He noted the alternatives may
identify other solutions.
Gary Jordan asked if one of the TIP numbers would potentially be dropped out of the study. Jay
McInnis said the projects could become separate studies. Allen Pope suggested if only one TIP
project was presented, there would be questions regarding what was happening on the second
project.
Chris Militscher requested confirmation that it is only one project, the US 17 corridor from the study
area's southern boundary up to the northern boundary. Rob Hanson confirmed that as long as the
section of Market Street and US 17 shown in the study area are included, the objective is to address it
as one project. Mr. Hanson noted there was a lot of discussion at NCDOT regarding whether to do
the projects separately or together. It appeared there was enough of a chance that if the projects
were conducted in isolation, one could drive the location of the other. If one of the projects tied in
to the Wilmington Bypass and a complete study of what would happen on the other side of the
Bypass was not done at the same time, then that could be considered segmentation. Mr. Hanson
stated he was an advocate of doing this as one study because of the potential an alternative could
arise from one of the studies that ties in at the Wilmington Bypass. Mr. Hanson stated he believed it
was more environmentally inclusive to do it as one project and suggested looking at how the Purpose
and Need is written so that it addresses both the Market Street and US 17 issues.
Chris Militscher noted a good case for the project need had been made for transportation demand,
carrying capacity and safety issues. He stated system linkage may be a purpose, however, he didn't
feel that need had been demonstrated yet. Mr. Militscher noted the Wilmington Bypass is part of the
US 17 corridor in the study area. He stated he is not sure the case has been made that there needs to
be another link from the existing US 17 corridor to the "new" US 17 corridor. Jay McInnis
responded he understood Mr. Militscher's concern regarding the uncertainty of what is going to
happen on Market Street if a bypass of Hampstead is constructed, and summarized Mr. Militscher's
concern that the need for another connection to that bypass had not been demonstrated. Mr.
Militscher agreed and noted that the alternatives may end up there, however, in the context of the US
17 corridor, the corridor is split from the Wiltington Bypass to Market Street. He recognized the
documentation shows problems south of the split, but stated that the new US 17 corridor is the
Wilmington Bypass. Mr. Pope disagreed noting Market Street is designated US 17 Business; the
through traffic going to Wilmington has been separated, but it is still US 17.
Jay McInnis explained that the intent, and the way the Purpose Statement is written, is that both US
17 and Market Street are included. Chris Militscher reiterated he believes there is sufficient
documentation showing congestion, traffic carrying capacity, and safety issues within the project
study area but he had issues with "system linkage" because Military Cutoff Road is not part of US 17.
Mr. McInnis noted he would be OK with removing "system linkage" from the Purpose and Need
Statement. Scott McLendon agreed with taking the system linkage statement out. Ron Lucas noted
that even though what is studied may include a link, he didn't consider it critical to be included in the
Purpose and Need Statement. Mr. Militscher replied that if it was included, then it should be defined
as between the existing Wilmington Bypass and the northern part of the study area. The Merger
Team agreed to take out the phrase "and system linkage" from the Purpose Statement. Dave Timpy
questioned whether the specific area of US 17 being studied should be specified since US 17 runs the
length of the state. Mr. McInnis clarified that "project area" in the Purpose Statement refers to the
study area and therefore, only the portion of US 17 in the study area would be included. Mr.
McInnis read the revised Purpose Statement: "Improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the
US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area."
Gary Jordan stated he wanted to discuss the project study area. Mr. Jordan explained the sensitivity
of the HSGL in the northeast end of the project study area. The red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW)
in the HSGL are part of a designated primary core population of the mid-Atlantic coastal plain
recovery unit, which makes them very important. The 2003 revised recovery plan for RCWs projects
that HSGL will provide 38 active groups of RCWs. If even one of those is impacted, it is a potential
jeopardy call because it is a primary core population. Mr. Jordan requested the study area not include
any of the HSGL and the study area be moved far enough away to avoid impacting the clusters.
Travis Wilson agreed with Mr. Jordan's request to move the study area. Mr. Wilson asked if the
project is federal or state funded. Jay McInnis noted that it is state funded. Mr. Wilson explained the
HSGL would be a Section 4(? property, but Section 4(f) does not apply since this project is state
funded. He further noted that the land was purchased with federal funds, it is part of a significant
natural area, and a major aspect of the HSGL is the management of the RCWs.
Gary Jordan noted that if the project resulted in a jeopardy call, then that alternative is removed from
consideration and another alternative without a jeopardy call would have to be chosen.
Scott McLendon asked Mr. Jordan if the RCW foraging habitat would also need to be considered and
if so, how large of an area would need to be evaluated. Mr. Jordan explained the foraging partitions
extend a half mile from the center of each cluster and some of those groups are right on the edge of
the HSGL. To avoid the issue altogether, the study area would need to be moved one-half mile
outside of the game land. Dave Timpy asked why the northern part of the study area was extended
to where it was on US 17 versus farther north or south. Jay McInnis explained that the intent was to
stay out of the HSGL but for simplicity, a straight line from point to point was used. Mr. McInnis
indicated the HSGL could be removed from the study area.
Rob Hanson noted he did not have a problem moving the northern side of the study area farther
south, recognizing the difficulty of getting anything approved in that area. Mr. Hanson noted he
would qualify redrawing the study area outside of the HSGL with the understanding that if anything
unusual occurred in the future, and including the area was the only way to achieve the purpose and
need of the project, (along with a way to mitigate any impacts) the team would be asked to reconsider
that area.
Allen Pope noted the study area was drawn so that it extended to where the four-lane divided section
began on US 17, which would allow consideration of a connection beyond the high school, middle
school and elementary school.
Liz Kovasckitz noted whatever is included in the study area will be evaluated and perhaps it would be
beneficial to include the larger area for a more comprehensive evaluation. Gary Jordan advised that
the HSGL monitors the RCW clusters and they get breeding data updates every year. He noted the
information could be provided.
Mr. Militscher noted he is concerned about what is provided to local citizens and their subsequent
expectations. He stated the adopted Pender County Vision Plan extends the Hampstead Bypass
through the HSGL. Allen Pope explained the alignment in the Plan goes up to the HSGL boundary.
He noted a proposed development shares a border with HSGL and the developer has indicated he
would try to reserve some type of corridor in his development plan.
Chris Militscher noted some people have already seen potential alignments drawn on a map and
wondered if the same alignments would be brought forward. A meeting participant responded the
Hampstead Bypass as shown in the Pender County Thoroughfare Plan is very vague. Mr. Militscher
noted the feasibility study, which was not completed, had many potential alternatives shown. Some
potential alternatives appeared to go through the HSGL.
Dave Timpy noted that going from four-lane to five-lane on US 17 apparently influenced the
northern study area boundary. He questioned why it was important to have the boundary there
rather than move it south to avoid the HSGL completely. Jay McInnis explained if it was moved
much farther south, it would not allow the bypass to extend around Hampstead while moving farther
north would pose problems with the game land. By locating the northeastern edge of the study area
where it is shown, it allows a bypass of Hampstead while coming close to, but not encroaching upon,
the HSGL.
Mr. Timpy questioned how far the current study area boundary would need to be moved to avoid the
HSGL. Liz Kovasckitz responded that it would be approximately one-half mile.
A meeting participant suggested moving the study area boundary to the property line of the HSGL.
Gary Jordan noted it would be an improvement, but there should be an understanding that if the
project fell within one of the foraging partitions that extend outside of the boundaries of the game
land, it could still be considered a take, which could potentially result in a jeopardy call. Allen Pope
asked if that was also true for the developer. Mr. Jordan confirmed that the developer may have
issues as well and that he will be obtaining information on the development to pass on to another
biologist.
Jay McInnis asked for confirmation on using the HSGL property line as the boundary for the study
area. Rob Hanson recommended using the property line as the boundary for the study area, which
recognizes the issues discussed but avoids bringing the boundary too far south.
Gary Jordan noted there are potentially other RCWs outside of the HSGL that are not part of the
primary core population. It is not likely affecting those populations would result in a jeopardy call,
but they are still important.
Chris Militscher asked about a mitigation site developed for the Wilmington Bypass. The mitigation
site is near Murrayville Road and the Wilmington Bypass, with a small residual strip that parallels the
Bypass.
Sarah McBride noted there was some discussion on hurricane evacuation in the Purpose and Need
package and asked if the proposed improvements would be studied for and/or designated as an
evacuation route, especially in light of the planned growth in the area. Allen Pope noted the
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety is responsible for making that designation. They
look primarily at north and west routes. Where there is an increase in growth that results in more
congestion than the roads can handle, the Department has in the past approached it by beginning the
evacuation earlier.
Dave Timpy referred to the previous conversation on system linkage and noted the Military Cutoff
Road extension is now a protected corridor through a New Hanover County resolution; everything
around the corridor is developing rapidly and there will not be many alternatives that do not include
a lot of relocations outside of the protected corridor. Mr. Timpy thought it was the right direction to
take system linkage out of the Purpose and Need. The range of alternatives available can be looked
at during the alternatives analysis, including the protected corridor. Chris Militscher asked to also
look at "improve existing." Mr. Timpy followed up stating consideration of the super street and
traffic management measures, including timing of lights and all the typical measures normally
considered, should be in the mix of alternatives considered.
Dave Timpy advised that Jennifer Frye is very familiar with this area, especially Plantation Road and
the interchange at I-140. Mr. Timpy noted there is an abundance of wetlands in that area. To build
the Wilmington Bypass project, 98 acres of wetland impacts were authorized. The wetlands on the
Wilmington Bypass project extend the length of the project and across the right-of-way. The only
part under the road that wasn't wet were the existing roads. He noted the protected corridor for
Military Cutoff Road extension includes some uplands, but for the most part it is wetlands.
John Hennessy questioned Jay McInnis on the time line for getting alternatives developed and
submitted to the Merger Team. Mr. McInnis responded alternatives are expected to be brought
forward in September 2007. Mr. Hennessy noted there are a number of large developments
proposed in the study area, as well as the potential for additional development because it is a fast-
growing area. Mr. Hennessy stated a longer wait in getting detailed study alternatives out to the
public could result in potentially limiting the alternatives. Mr. McInnis agreed, and said the
alternatives will be brought to the Merger Team as soon as possible.
Jay McInnis read the revised Purpose Statement: "The purpose of the project is to improve the
traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area." Mr.
McInnis noted the description of the study area as included on the Concurrence Point 1 signature
form: The proposed study area is located within portions of northern New Hanover County and
southern Pender County. It is roughly bounded on the west by I-40, on the north by the Northeast
Cape Fear River, Holly Shelter Game Land to the east, and US 17 to the south. Jennifer Frye asked
if US 17 is going to be the boundary. Liz Kovasckitz stated that US 17 would be included in the
study area.
Chris Militscher stated that US 17 is a Strategic Highway Corridor but that wasn't referenced in the
Purpose and Need Statement. He suggested including the Strategic Highway Corridor reference in
the Purpose and Need statement in parentheses after "US 17 and Market Street." Dave Timpy
questioned if the intent was to make it part of the project's purpose and need. Mr. Militscher said the
reference would recognize it had been designated by the NCDOT and the FHWA on their adopted
Vision Plan as a Strategic Highway Corridor. After further discussion, the Team decided to leave the
reference out.
Jennifer Frye asked why the southern boundary of the study area wasn't extended to I-40. She noted
it appeared that the current boundary excluded a potential alternative in that area. Ms. Frye
suggested extending the study area boundary to include the Market Street and 1-40 interchange.
After discussion, the Merger Team agreed to extend the study area boundary to include the
interchange. Ms. Frye noted there is a new school on Murrayville Road that was not shown on the
map.
Jay McInnis requested confirmation from team members on the revised wording of the Purpose and
Need Statement and noted a revised study area map would be attached to the concurrence form.
The concurrence form was circulated for signature and the meeting adjourned.
SECTION 404/NEPA INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
CONCURRENCE POINT NO. I
PURPOSE AND NEED
PROJECT TITLE: US 1.7 Corridor Study, New Hanover and Pender Counties, TIP Nos.
U-4751 and R-3300, State Project No. 40191.1.1.
PURPOSE ANO N EEO OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: 1-he purpose of the project
is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor
ill the project area.
STUDY AREA: The proposed study area is located wid-iin portions of northern New
l--lanovcr County and southern Pender County. It is toughly bounded on west by I-40, on
the north by the Northeast Cape Fear River, Holly Shelter Gamelands to the cast, and US 17
rc, the south.
I'he project team has concurred with the purpose and need for the proposed project as
described above.
NAME AGENCY DATE
c -- USACE o 1
NCDWO 01 1 I'?l
Geri. NCDO'I' -_7 c7
USEPA
r
NCB\ RC ,9- Z/`" 06
USFWS
NCSI IPO
( W- _ NCDCM l G?
-- NC3i
71
t
- ? E=` - WMPO 2- /X'
?i
N -6
N ? R5
O ?
7 m E O
N M
c
m
Q O LL (f) o
Q 5
U Z U S V
OFIE
J ?
t J
y J
? Y trt
r ? y

L
lL
N
N
M
N
O
O
O
Cl)
N
? N
N",t?.. L(7 7.
-l?WeA3.4, l3 N lJJ 'O
C
? O C
- -? O.
LL S
i -
ppway?r >

MEMORANDUM
To* Meeting Participants
FROM' Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
DATE: December 18, 2006
SUBJECT: NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting, US 17 Corridor Study, New Hanover and
Pender Counties, NCDOT TIP Project Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
A NEPA/Section 404 Merger Meeting was held for the subject project on September 21, 2006 in the
board room of the NCDOT Highway Building. The purpose of the meeting was to present
information to support concurrence on the purpose and need for the proposed project. Meeting
attendees are provided below and a summary of the meeting follows.
N..
Ron Allen NCDOT - Roadway Design
Jan Anderson RS&H
Andy Belcher Mulkey
Jay Bissett Mulkey
Joe Blair NCDOT - Division 3
Olivia Farr NCDOT - PDEA
Jennifer Frye US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Carl Furney Mulkey
Jeff Garland NCDOT - Traffic Engineering
Rob Hanson NCDOT - PDEA
John Hennessy NC Division of Water Quality
Mason Herndon NCDOT - Division 3
Gary Jordan US Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh Field Office
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Mike Kozlosky Wilmington MPO
Gary Lovering NCDOT - Roadway Design
Ron Lucas Federal Highway Administration / NC Division
Chris Manley NCDOT - NEU
Kathy Matthews Environmental Protection Agency
Sarah McBride NC DCR / Historic Preservation Office
Jay McInnis NCDOT - PDEA
Ray McIntyre NCDOT - TIP
Scott McLendon US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Chris Militscher Environmental Protection Agency
Don Moore NCDOT - Geotechnical
Allen Pope NCDOT - Division 3
Amy Simes NCDENR
Steve Sollod NC Division of Coastal Management
Mark Staley NCDOT - Roadside Environmental
Tom Stoddard NCDOT - TIP
MULKEY 4NC, ?1 ':" 'ON. PAL' C APY., NC 275.1 1 Pj -) }".:' :tC,H, NC 2763r. PW; 1 J' c. ' 2 FAX ' S ? 1 £3 IVVI" 'UL It EYiNC. r- 0M
Earline Thomas NCDOT - Transportation Planning
Dave Timpy US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
Anthony West NCDOT - Roadway Design
Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Brian Wrenn NC Division of Water Quality
Olivia Farr opened the meeting and invited introductions from attendees. Ms. Farr then introduced
Liz Kovasckitz for the presentation. Ms. Kovasckitz opened with the explanation that Figure 3 had
been updated following distribution of the package to attendees. Copies of the revised Figure 3 were
circulated. Ms. Kovasckitz delivered a PowerPoint presentation, which provided background
information on the project study area and presented information relevant to the Purpose and Need
for the project. Three displays showing environmental features of the study area were then reviewed.
The meeting was opened for discussion after the presentation.
Dave Timpy requested clarification on what the 2030 No Build Scenario traffic numbers in the
Purpose and Need are based on. Jan Anderson responded the study started with the base year of
2005, and included the Wilmington Bypass, the widening of Market Street, and the super street
improvements that will be made on US 17. Mr. Timpy asked why Military Cutoff Road was not
included in the study and whether the proposed Martin Luther King (MLK) Parkway was considered.
Ms. Anderson noted that Military Cutoff Road was not included because it is part of the Build
project; the proposed project includes the Military Cutoff Road extension and the Hampstead Bypass
combined. Jay McInnis added that anything expected to be opened in 2030 was included with the
exception of the proposed projects. He stated the MLK Parkway was considered in the study. Mr.
Timpy asked if the land use model used in the traffic analysis took into account future development
and the requirements that the development (permits, zoning, etc.) would have to meet before
approval. Ms. Anderson explained that a trend analysis was used and specific developments were not
included. Ms. Anderson explained that the analysis assumed the area would continue to grow as it
had in the past. She noted refinements to the analysis are expected as the project moves forward.
Chris Militscher asked if it was correct that the Wilmington Bypass interchange at US 17 fails in 2030 as
shown on the capacity analysis display. Jan Anderson and Jay McInnis explained that the US 17
roadway at that area fails, but not the Wilmington Bypass. Ms. Anderson noted the illustration should
show the failure occurs when traffic exits off the Bypass. Allen Pope stated that backups on US 17 at
the interchange can affect traffic on the Wilmington Bypass. Mr. McInnis noted if backups occur from
the Wilmington Bypass onto US 17, it is because of traffic on US 17, not the Bypass. In response to a
question, Mr. Pope clarified that exit ramps from the Wilmington Bypass to US 17/Market Street are
multi-lane and entrance ramps from US 17/Market Street onto the Bypass are single-lane.
Scott McLendon asked for clarification on how the two TIP projects are connected relative to the
Purpose and Need Statement. Liz Kovasckitz replied that the projects were combined to evaluate
them from a system-wide perspective. She noted it is possible the two projects could join at the
Wilmington Bypass. Considering them together allows a more comprehensive evaluation of direct
and indirect impacts of the larger system, or transportation feature.
Chris Militscher noted the discussion of system linkage was specific to the R-3300 project as it talks
about US 17 and I-40 traffic, but not to Military Cutoff Road. Liz Kovasckitz explained that Military
Cutoff Road up to Wilmington Bypass could be considered a missing link. There is a lot of traffic
impacting the local streets in the area such as Gordon Road, Market Street, and Military Cutoff Road,
and this will continue to be a problem in the future. Mr. Militscher noted the traffic impact could be
handled by another type of improvement in the future such as an interchange. Mr. Militscher stated
he did not see a case made for the system linkage between Military Cutoff Road and the new
Hampstead Bypass. Jay McInnis indicated that the discussion was getting into alternatives. He stated
that the purpose of this project is to improve the capacity of the US 17 corridor and also to improve
conditions on Market Street. The system linkage aspect is that a new connection from Military
Cutoff Road to the bypass may alleviate the congestion. The main purpose of the project is to
improve the US 17 corridor, but the intent is to also make conditions more favorable on Market
Street. Mr. McInnis asked if there were suggestions on wording to clarify the Purpose Statement to
reflect that.
Allen Pope noted that Market Street is known as US 17 Business. Chris Militscher stated that
Military Cutoff Road, however, is not US 17 and not a direct part of the US 17 corridor, yet it is
being proposed for extension. Mr. Militscher noted that he reviewed the related feasibility study
several years ago and that may be influencing his questions regarding connecting the Military Cutoff
Road intersection to the new bypass. Scott McLendon noted it is typical to assess a project, and then
the other planned improvements in the area to see how those would affect the carrying capacity/level
of service. If Military Cutoff Road extension was evaluated separately, how would that affect the level
of service, safety, and traffic of those other projects? He noted the projects are separate, but they are
the same for the purposes of the planning process and the Purpose and Need Study. Mr. McLendon
suggested that while it could be done that way, he is not clear on how it should be handled.
A participant followed up with a question regarding whether the plan was to produce one or two
documents. Jay McInnis explained that the plan was to produce one document, but if it is
determined that the two projects do not need to connect, then the projects could be evaluated in two
separate documents. Mr. McInnis noted that one concern was to make certain there is logical
termini.
Chris Militscher asked what the logical termini are for this project. Jay McInnis reviewed the study
area boundaries and the problem areas on Market Street and US 17. Mr. Militscher noted that it
appeared there are two sets of termini. Travis Wilson suggested making the focus of the project to
improve capacity on US 17, which is also Market Street, and remove the Military Cutoff Road
extension aspect so that it is not driving a new location project. The alternatives will show what
improvements are needed between Military Cutoff Road and the Holly Shelter Game Land (HSGL).
Mr. McInnis replied that was the intent, but there are two projects. He noted the alternatives may
identify other solutions.
Gary Jordan asked if one of the TIP numbers would potentially be dropped out of the study. Jay
McInnis said the projects could become separate studies. Allen Pope suggested if only one TIP
project was presented, there would be questions regarding what was happening on the second
project.
Chris Militscher requested confirmation that it is only one project, the US 17 corridor from the study
area's southern boundary up to the northern boundary. Rob Hanson confirmed that as long as the
section of Market Street and US 17 shown in the study area are included, the objective is to address it
as one project. Mr. Hanson noted there was a lot of discussion at NCDOT regarding whether to do
the projects separately or together. It appeared there was enough of a chance that if the projects
were conducted in isolation, one could drive the location of the other. If one of the projects tied in
to the Wilmington Bypass and a complete study of what would happen on the other side of the
Bypass was not done at the same time, then that could be considered segmentation. Mr. Hanson
stated he was an advocate of doing this as one study because of the potential an alternative could
arise from one of the studies that ties in at the Wilmington Bypass. Mr. Hanson stated he believed it
was more environmentally inclusive to do it as one project and suggested looking at how the Purpose
and Need is written so that it addresses both the Market Street and US 17 issues.
Chris Militscher noted a good case for the project need had been made for transportation demand,
carrying capacity and safety issues. He stated system linkage may be a purpose, however, he didn't
feel that need had been demonstrated yet. Mr. Militscher noted the Wilmington Bypass is part of the
US 17 corridor in the study area. He stated he is not sure the case has been made that there needs to
be another link from the existing US 17 corridor to the "new" US 17 corridor. Jay McInnis
responded he understood Mr. Militscher's concern regarding the uncertainty of what is going to
happen on Market Street if a bypass of Hampstead is constructed, and summarized Mr. Militscher's
concern that the need for another connection to that bypass had not been demonstrated. Mr.
Militscher agreed and noted that the alternatives may end up there, however, in the context of the US
17 corridor, the corridor is split from the Wilmington Bypass to Market Street. He recognized the
documentation shows problems south of the split, but stated that the new US 17 corridor is the
Wilmington Bypass. Mr. Pope disagreed noting Market Street is designated US 17 Business; the
through traffic going to Wilmington has been separated, but it is still US 17.
Jay McInnis explained that the intent, and the way the Purpose Statement is written, is that both US
17 and Market Street are included. Chris Militscher reiterated he believes there is sufficient
documentation showing congestion, traffic carrying capacity, and safety issues within the project
study area but he had issues with "system linkage" because Military Cutoff Road is not part of US 17.
Mr. McInnis noted he would be OK with removing "system linkage" from the Purpose and Need
Statement. Scott McLendon agreed with taking the system linkage statement out. Ron Lucas noted
that even though what is studied may include a link, he didn't consider it critical to be included in the
Purpose and Need Statement. Mr. Militscher replied that if it was included, then it should be defined
as between the existing Wilmington Bypass and the northern part of the study area. The Merger
Team agreed to take out the phrase "and system linkage" from the Purpose Statement. Dave Timpy
questioned whether the specific area of US 17 being studied should be specified since US 17 runs the
length of the state. Mr. McInnis clarified that "project area" in the Purpose Statement refers to the
study area and therefore, only the portion of US 17 in the study area would be included. Mr.
McInnis read the revised Purpose Statement: "Improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the
US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area."
Gary Jordan stated he wanted to discuss the project study area. Mr. Jordan explained the sensitivity
of the HSGL in the northeast end of the project study area. The red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCW)
in the HSGL are part of a designated primary core population of the mid-Atlantic coastal plain
recovery unit, which makes them very important. The 2003 revised recovery plan for RCWs projects
that HSGL will provide 38 active groups of RCWs. If even one of those is impacted, it is a potential
jeopardy call because it is a primary core population. Mr. Jordan requested the study area not include
any of the HSGL and the study area be moved far enough away to avoid impacting the clusters.
Travis Wilson agreed with Mr. Jordan's request to move the study area. Mr. Wilson asked if the
project is federal or state funded. Jay McInnis noted that it is state funded. Mr. Wilson explained the
HSGL would be a Section 4(f) property, but Section 4(f) does not apply since this project is state
funded. He further noted that the land was purchased with federal funds, it is part of a significant
natural area, and a major aspect of the HSGL is the management of the RCWs.
Gary Jordan noted that if the project resulted in a jeopardy call, then that alternative is removed from
consideration and another alternative without a jeopardy call would have to be chosen.
Scott McLendon asked Mr. Jordan if the RCW foraging habitat would also need to be considered and
if so, how large of an area would need to be evaluated. Mr. Jordan explained the foraging partitions
extend a half mile from the center of each cluster and some of those groups are right on the edge of
the HSGL. To avoid the issue altogether, the study area would need to be moved one-half mile
outside of the game land. Dave Timpy asked why the northern part of the study area was extended
to where it was on US 17 versus farther north or south. Jay McInnis explained that the intent was to
stay out of the HSGL but for simplicity, a straight line from point to point was used. Mr. McInnis
indicated the HSGL could be removed from the study area.
Rob Hanson noted he did not have a problem moving the northern side of the study area farther
south, recognizing the difficulty of getting anything approved in that area. Mr. Hanson noted he
would qualify redrawing the study area outside of the HSGL with the understanding that if anything
unusual occurred in the future, and including the area was the only way to achieve the purpose and
need of the project, (along with a way to mitigate any impacts) the team would be asked to reconsider
that area.
Allen Pope noted the study area was drawn so that it extended to where the four-lane divided section
began on US 17, which would allow consideration of a connection beyond the high school, middle
school and elementary school.
Liz Kovasckitz noted whatever is included in the study area will be evaluated and perhaps it would be
beneficial to include the larger area for a more comprehensive evaluation. Gary Jordan advised that
the HSGL monitors the RCW clusters and they get breeding data updates every year. He noted the
information could be provided.
Mr. Militscher noted he is concerned about what is provided to local citizens and their subsequent
expectations. He stated the adopted Pender County Vision Plan extends the Hampstead Bypass
through the HSGL. Allen Pope explained the alignment in the Plan goes up to the HSGL boundary.
He noted a proposed development shares a border with HSGL and the developer has indicated he
would try to reserve some type of corridor in his development plan.
Chris Militscher noted some people have already seen potential alignments drawn on a map and
wondered if the same alignments would be brought forward. A meeting participant responded the
Hampstead Bypass as shown in the Pender County Thoroughfare Plan is very vague. Mr. Militscher
noted the feasibility study, which was not completed, had many potential alternatives shown. Some
potential alternatives appeared to go through the HSGL.
Dave Timpy noted that going from four-lane to five-lane on US 17 apparently influenced the
northern study area boundary. He questioned why it was important to have the boundary there
rather than move it south to avoid the HSGL completely. Jay McInnis explained if it was moved
much farther south, it would not allow the bypass to extend around Hampstead while moving farther
north would pose problems with the game land. By locating the northeastern edge of the study area
where it is shown, it allows a bypass of Hampstead while coming close to, but not encroaching upon,
the HSGL
Mr. Timpy questioned how far the current study area boundary would need to be moved to avoid the
HSGL. Liz Kovasckitz responded that it would be approximately one-half mile.
A meeting participant suggested moving the study area boundary to the property line of the HSGL.
Gary Jordan noted it would be an improvement, but there should be an understanding that if the
project fell within one of the foraging partitions that extend outside of the boundaries of the game
land, it could still be considered a take, which could potentially result in a jeopardy call. Allen Pope
asked if that was also true for the developer. Mr. Jordan confirmed that the developer may have
issues as well and that he will be obtaining information on the development to pass on to another
biologist.
Jay McInnis asked for confirmation on using the HSGL property line as the boundary for the study
area. Rob Hanson recommended using the property line as the boundary for the study area, which
recognizes the issues discussed but avoids bringing the boundary too far south.
Gary Jordan noted there are potentially other RCWs outside of the HSGL that are not part of the
primary core population. It is not likely affecting those populations would result in a jeopardy call,
but they are still important.
Chris Militscher asked about a mitigation site developed for the Wilmington Bypass. The mitigation
site is near Murrayville Road and the Wilmington Bypass, with a small residual strip that parallels the
Bypass.
Sarah McBride noted there was some discussion on hurricane evacuation in the Purpose and Need
package and asked if the proposed improvements would be studied for and/or designated as an
evacuation route, especially in light of the planned growth in the area. Allen Pope noted the
Department of Crime Control and Public Safety is responsible for making that designation. They
look primarily at north and west routes. Where there is an increase in growth that results in more
congestion than the roads can handle, the Department has in the past approached it by beginning the
evacuation earlier.
Dave Timpy referred to the previous conversation on system linkage and noted the Military Cutoff
Road extension is now a protected corridor through a New Hanover County resolution; everything
around the corridor is developing rapidly and there will not be many alternatives that do not include
a lot of relocations outside of the protected corridor. Mr. Timpy thought it was the right direction to
take system linkage out of the Purpose and Need. The range of alternatives available can be looked
at during the alternatives analysis, including the protected corridor. Chris Militscher asked to also
look at "improve existing." Mr. Timpy followed up stating consideration of the super street and
traffic management measures, including timing of lights and all the typical measures normally
considered, should be in the mix of alternatives considered.
Dave Timpy advised that Jennifer Frye is very familiar with this area, especially Plantation Road and
the interchange at I-140. Mr. Timpy noted there is an abundance of wetlands in that area. To build
the Wilmington Bypass project, 98 acres of wetland impacts were authorized. The wetlands on the
Wilmington Bypass project extend the length of the project and across the right-of-way. The only
part under the road that wasn't wet were the existing roads. He noted the protected corridor for
Military Cutoff Road extension includes some uplands, but for the most part it is wetlands.
John Hennessy questioned Jay McInnis on the time line for getting alternatives developed and
submitted to the Merger Team. Mr. McInnis responded alternatives are expected to be brought
forward in September 2007. Mr. Hennessy noted there are a number of large developments
proposed in the study area, as well as the potential for additional development because it is a fast-
growing area. Mr. Hennessy stated a longer wait in getting detailed study alternatives out to the
public could result in potentially limiting the alternatives. Mr. McInnis agreed, and said the
alternatives will be brought to the Merger Team as soon as possible.
Jay McInnis read the revised Purpose Statement: "The purpose of the project is to improve the
traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area." Mr.
McInnis noted the description of the study area as included on the Concurrence Point 1 signature
form: The proposed study area is located within portions of northern New Hanover County and
southern Pender County. It is roughly bounded on the west by 1-40, on the north by the Northeast
Cape Fear River, Holly Shelter Game Land to the east, and US 17 to the south. Jennifer Frye asked
if US 17 is going to be the boundary. Liz Kovasckitz stated that US 17 would be included in the
study area.
Chris Militscher stated that US 17 is a Strategic Highway Corridor but that wasn't referenced in the
Purpose and Need Statement. He suggested including the Strategic Highway Corridor reference in
the Purpose and Need statement in parentheses after "US 17 and Market Street." Dave Timpy
questioned if the intent was to make it part of the project's purpose and need. Mr. Militscher said the
reference would recognize it had been designated by the NCDOT and the FHWA on their adopted
Vision Plan as a Strategic Highway Corridor. After further discussion, the Team decided to leave the
reference out.
Jennifer Frye asked why the southern boundary of the study area wasn't extended to I-40. She noted
it appeared that the current boundary excluded a potential alternative in that area. Ms. Frye
suggested extending the study area boundary to include the Market Street and I-40 interchange.
After discussion, the Merger Team agreed to extend the study area boundary to include the
interchange. Ms. Frye noted there is a new school on Murrayville Road that was not shown on the
map.
Jay McInnis requested confirmation from team members on the revised wording of the Purpose and
Need Statement and noted a revised study area map would be attached to the concurrence form.
The concurrence form was circulated for signature and the meeting adjourned.
SECTION 4114/NEPA INTERAsENCY A -,REEMENT
CONCURRENCE POINT NO. 1
PURPOSE AND NEED
PROJECT TITLE: (JS 17 Corridor Study, Ne-vv Hanover and Pender Counties,,rw loos..
t-:-4751 and R-3300, State project No. 406't.1.1.
PURPOSE: AND NEED OF THE PROPOSED ACTION: "1'lle purpose of the project
is to improve the traffic car yi:n" capacity and safety of the I.TS 17 and Alarket Street corridor
In the project area.
STUDY AREA: The proposed study area is located within portions of northern New
l'lanovcr County and southern Pender County. It is roughly bounded on west by 1-40, on.
the north by the Northeast Cape Fear River, Hally Shelter Ga nelands to the east, and US 17
it s the soliih.
The project team has concurred with the purpose and heed for the proposed project as
described above.
NAME AGENCY DATE
n
USACE
NC:DWQ 1
c
NCDOT
r § NC \lZ€ Vie`" 06
1tJ
NCSHPO
NCDCM
NC:1 ; I1,
V \ po

N 0 (d
4 (D
O C
m C
C
/'. LL (n.
'C -0 -`^
r ? o z (j
4) ? .
i
..1
LL
CC
G
m,
N
O
k \

r.
@
s

it 'T
l .r
{i

+ a'•„ 'W+'?z».?'s?i:: Yn it»'? ?n w 'aL t`... r -,,
ws 9 t
F x ? .. i o ? ? !4 ? Mks ?•? t
s h wirt ,»?

O
O
cn
O
I'-
5f 'C U
N ?
c
? O C
z u (?
a?
n r? O
? z
z'
II
?12@[Rnwgp
Std 1 2006
u[rvK-

CONCURRENCE MEETING
INFORMATION PACKET
FOR YOUR REVIEW
PRIOR TO MEETING
ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2006
PROJECT ENGINEER
OLIVIA FARR
U-4751 AND R-3300
Please bring this packet
to the meeting.

AGENDA
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Eastern Concurrence Meeting
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina
10:30 AM to 12:00 Noon, Olivia Farr, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch
TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300, us 17 Corridor Study
New Hanover and Pender Counties, Division 3
Team Members
Dave Timpy and Jennifer Frye, USACE
Olivia Farr, PDEA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Ron Lucas, FHWA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, WRC
Steve Sollod, DCM
Fritz Rohde, DMF
Brian Wrenn, DWQ
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Don Eggert, Cape Fear RPO (non-signatory)
Mike Kozlosky, Wilmington MPO
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and other Agency Staff:
Allen Pope, Division 3
Gary Lovering, Roadway Design
David Chang, Hydraulics
Monica Kerr, TPB
Phil Harris, NEU
Carl Goode, HEU
Jay McInnis, PDEA
Rob Hanson, PDEA
Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey, Inc.
Jay Bissett, Mulkey, Inc.
* The purpose of this meeting is to reach concurrence on CP 1.
US 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY
NEW HAN?VER AND FENDER COUNTIES

TIP PR?JECT Nos. U-4751 AND R-3300
STATE PR?JECT No. 401 91.1.1
NEPA/SECTION 404 MERGER MEETING AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 2 1, 2006
INTRODUCTIONS AND SIGN-IN
PROJECT OVERVIEW/DESCRIPTION
PURPOSE AND NEED
DISCUSSION
SUMMARY/FINAL COMMENTS

PURPOSE AND NEED
US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT No. 401 91 .1 .1
TIP PROJECT Nos.
U-4751 & 8-3300
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ti?OE HOxiN 4q 4
02
Yc tk
? O
yF?l- TAnNSQO
AUGUST 2006
PREPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
6750 TRYON ROAD
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 2751a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project .......................................................1
1.1 Purpose of Today's Meeting ............................................................................................1
1.2 Project Description ...........................................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Projects ..................................................................................1
1.4 Project Background ..........................................................................................................1
1.4.1 Study Area Description .......................................................................................1
1.4.2 Existing Transportation Facilities ..................................................................... 5
1.5 Need for the Proposed Projects ..................................................................................... 6
1.5.1 Transportation Demand .....................................................................................6
1.5.2 Traffic Carrying Capacity ................................................................................... 8
1.5.3 Accident Analysis .............................................................................................. 10
1.5.4 System Linkage .................................................................................................. 12
1.5.5 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program ........................................ 12
Appendix A -References and Supporting Information ............................................. A-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity ..............................................................2
Figure 2. Study Area ............................................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3. Human Environment .....................................................................................................A-5
Figure 4. Protected Species/Lands ................................................................................................A-6
Figure 5. Streams and Wetlands .....................................................................................................A-7
Figure 6. 2005 Base Year Daily Traffic Estimates ......................................................................A-8
Figure 7. 2030 No Build Daily Traffic Estimates ........................................................................A-9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Predicted Population Growth Trends .............................................................................. 7
Table 2. 2005 Existing AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections) ............................................. 9
Table 3. 2005 Existing AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections) ........................................ 9
Table 4. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections) .........................................10
Table 5. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections) ....................................10
Table 6. Accident Rates ...................................................................................................................11
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
iii
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
iv

' 1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED
' PROJECT
1,1 PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
' The purpose of today's meeting is to present information to support concurrence on purpose and
need (Concurrence Point 1).
' 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
' TIP Project U-4751 is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) as an extension of Military Cutoff Road on new location from its current terminus at
US 17 (Market Street) in Wihnuigton north to the Wilmington Bypass Qohn Jay Burney Jr. Freeway).
' TIP Project R-3300 is included in the 2006-2012 TIP as a US 17 bypass of Hampstead.
' 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS
The purpose of the proposed projects is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the
US 17 corridor in the project area and improve system linkage in northern New Hanover County
' and the Pender County coastal area. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 1.
1 1.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.4.1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
' The study area is located in the outer Coastal Plain within portions of northern New Hanover
County and southern Pender County (see Figure 2).
' This part of the Cape Fear River basin is the only coastal area in North Carolina that is accessible by
interstate highway, making it a popular destination because of its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean,
beaches, and estuarine waters.
I
I
I
The southern extent of the study area is characterized primarily by a mix of commercial and
residential development; the northern extent includes preserved land, undeveloped forests, open
fields, and wetlands. Natural areas preserved for recreation and education uses include the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Holly Shelter Game Preserve and the North Carolina State
University blueberry research station. Open fields are primarily inaiiaged agricultural areas used for
blueberries, row crop, and tobacco production, or are left fallow. Figures displaying natural and
human environment features in the proposed study area are included in the appendix (Figures 3-5).
Features on the figures include streams, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
mapped wetlands, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) sites and other available
Geographic Information System (GIS) data in the project area. Data was also obtained from the
State Historic Preservation Office and windshield surveys conducted in the field.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
T 3?J
,11? _-- --- -- !
53
Will , d 50
/ Pendenea 11
is `,

/
E
P
e
N Hill

E -
p o R t ?
_ ,
?>on
8 ± 1=
,
CCrrne.' 6' w w x(50
Inson 11 s 5 i
3
oK ? t ? s E,a!
a
se ni
?
? 5 10
Melen Holly R tlµ. , ?
CI ???`\ ? J
s?
Ga ?
? Scoll !
i Sal EEnCIi
; a )? st
S
r
V
HaANOY
,
•
4 t WPiWgtun
87
-
*31
Es,i_i 3 / tN T
,'" Z0 ECT

,.
,..i„... s .sca. v 'tr lt<
i-lI 11
?C ?Krn3
S W I
1 81 ,? s e „ , `?.
?g ,P! f a Q,zrtuna Beach

i I PL FASURf
. B7, lst.w?
a zi;
it ! ,

r L K Si3i!dC.>
rj `
.r
L G .C Hf?.C
i t3 ,t 11 'S?ar:G
t :tcR

Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
ryORiry
OF ? X49
APB py ? Alnr+h (`?rnlin?
Department of Transportation
9y PAC
aiFNr OF THPN?'QO
Holly Shelter Gamelands

ai - ___--_ -..__N
,
C
eFe
270

o,
e Pd
1p021 ?'' Ham stead

p
nU9 Shelte
H ,

` 17 a?
Z ?t

F
lf
y • Oy^
yP
ISg 1336)
d

\a
?
C
?
.
Sidbuty Fti
pc \
?a
-10
110
Scotts Hill
Wilmington Bypas
s

r ,

;U
1i 0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Wilmington Miles N

7ir
i
I %

117
77t
CD
C'°?/>
a
.• n
Hampstead

Ra
y?V
Bypass
? a

Murrayville Rd

U m
U N Ke
rr Ave

Ra aa?°
S 13 °4?

Cn R2s4
t 4-: a
,
N
U
Z
Princess Place D
74 a
17
74 =

-Y
Up Rd
A° , a -
k9a / % ?,
er?a9e i ?
Ra ;

S?

Legend
Study Area
- - County Boundary
NCDOT Major Roads
Interstate 40
Secondary Roads
Holly Shelter Gameland
Wilmington City Limit
Major Hydrography

Aar

MULKEY Prepared For: Study Area
NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
US 17 Corridor Study

New Hanover and Pender Counties
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles Figure

2
M

le-

Photos from stock.xchng,
I

' 1.4.2 Existing Transportation Facilities
US 17 serves as a major connector among New Hanover, Pender and Onslow counties and is
' classified as an urban principal arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System. In the
project vicinity, US 17 connects to 1-40, US 74, and NC 210. Named Market Street in the
Wilmington urban area, LS 17 provides a link to the Wilmington downtown district.
' US 17 (I\larket Street) is a four or five-lane roadway in the project area. The posted speed linut varies
from 45 to 55 miles per hour (mph). Nearby land uses along US 17 include commercial, retail, and
' single- and multi-family residential development. In the vicinity of Hampstead US 17 is part of
NC Bike Route 3.
Military Cutoff Road is a two or three-lane, north-south route classified as an urban principal
' arterial. It currently extends from US 76 to US 17 (1\4arket Street). The posted speed limit is 45
mph. The NC OT is widening the existing section between US 74 (F.astwood Road) and Market
Street to a four-lane divided/five-lane facility. Nearby land use along Military Cutoff Road is a mix
' of residential and commercial development.
The Wilmington Bypass is a new four-lane freeway. Construction of the section that extends
eastward from I-40 (north of downtown Wilmington) to US 17 (Market Street) was completed in
2006.
I

US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
i
1.5 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECTS
Needs to be addressed by the proposed projects are:
? Transportation Demand
US Census Bureau statistics indicate New Hanover County grew by 33.3 percent from 1990 to 2000.
Pender County grew by 42.4 percent during the 1990 to 2000 period and the City of Wilmington
grew by 35.3 percent. New Hanover and Pender Counties are expected to continue to experience
double-digit growth through the year 2030. This growth in population, tourism and supporting
services have resulted in an increase in mixed-purpose traffic on US 17.
0 Traffic Carrying Capacity
Current traffic volumes on US 17 in the project vicinity are expected to increase substantially over
the next 20 years. Average daily traffic volumes along existing sections of US 17 and Military Cutoff
Road will increase by 43 to 60 percent by 2030 from the 2005 base conditions. Level of service
analyses for signalized and unsignalized intersections and arterial segments show that most of these
arterials and intersections will operate at level of service F in 2030.
? Safety Issues
Four fatal accidents occurred along US 17 between Military Cutoff Road and Sloop Point Road
between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005. The crash rate along the urban section of US 17
in New Hanover County is higher than the statewide rate; and several of the roadway segments
analyzed along US 17 in both New Hanover and Pender Counties have accident rates higher than
the NCDOT Division 3 rate.
? System Linkage
The Pender County Thoroughfare Plan identifies US 17 as a primary arterial. The WMPO identifies
it as an urban principal arterial on its 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. In the project vicinity,
US 17 and I-40 provide the only north-south highway routes between southeastern Pender County,
northern New Hanover County, and Wilmington. The newly opened Wilmington Bypass provides
the only multi-lane east-west connection between US 17 and 1-40 for traffic in the New Hanover
and Pender County area.
1.5.1 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
According to US Census Bureau statistics, New Hanover County grew by 33.3 percent from 1990 to
2000. US Census Bureau statistics indicate Pender County grew by 42.4 percent during the 1990 to
2000 period and the City of Wilmington grew by 35.3 percent. The City's Planning Division
indicates that Wilmington's 2005 population was 94,531 persons (cvww.wihnningtonnc.gov).
According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, New Hanover County, ranks eighth
among North Carolina's 100 counties in tourism expenditures. This ranking reflects the large
number of annual visitors to the area, which creates increased demands on local roads and the need
for goods and services. According to the NC State Demographics website
(http://demog.state.nc.us) New Hanover and Pender Counties are expected to continue double-
digit growth through the year 2030 (Table 1).
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
Table 1. Predicted Population Growth Trends.
Growth Projecti on
County 2000 - 2010 2010 - 2020 2020- 2030
New Hanover 24.9% 17.8% 14.2%
Pender 27.2% 21.1% 16.7% 1?
' Both New Hanover and Pender County participate in the cooperative state-local North Carolina
Coastal Management Act (CAMA) program which was established in 1974. CAMA requires that
' local governments within the 20 coastal counties prepare land use plans which provide a balance of
protection, preservation, and orderly development.
' The 2005 Pender County CAIVIA Land Use Plan Update functions as the master development guide for
the county's future. One of the main components of the CAMA plan(s) is to create a future land
use map based on land suitability, environmental factors, and development policies. The future land
' use for the Pender County portion of the study area is identified as Rural Clusters and Conservation
Areas (along water features and flood prone areas). Rural Clusters are identified by the plan as
"small concentrations of distinct residential communities that may be associated with a church, other
' institutional or non-residential use Rural Areas". For these areas, Pender County's primary purpose
is to maintain the viability of these neighborhoods.
' The 2006Wilmington Neav Hanover County CAMA Land Use Plan Update functions as the future plan
for both the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County. The future land use for the New
Hanover County portion of the study area is identified as Wetland Resource Protection Area, Rural,
' and Conservation Areas (primarily flood prone). According to the plan document, the Rural
classification is comprised of low intensity land uses (agriculture, forest) and discourages urban-type
uses. Only low density residential development (less than 2.5 units per acre) is permitted in the
' Rural area.
Zoning regulations are in place for the study area in both New Hanover and Pender Counties.
Existing zoning regulations and restrictions in the Pender County portion of the project area
consists of Rural Agriculture (RA) and Residential District-20 (R-20). RA zoning comprises the
majority of the project area and is defined to accommodate very low-density residential
' development, and non-residential development not requiring urban services. R-20 zoning applies to
areas along the existing NC 210 corridor and is defined to accommodate low-density residential
uses.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
7
1.5.2 TRAFFIC CARRYING CAPACITY
A traffic study was conducted along US 17 and existing sections of Military Cutoff Road to
determine if there is sufficient roadway capacity to meet current (2005) and future (2030) travel
demand (RS&H, 2006). Figures 6 and 7 in the appendix present the average daily traffic along area
roadways.
Average Daily Traffrc
The 2005 ADT for US 17 between Station Road in Wilmington and Sloop Point Loop Road in
Pender County varies between 24,300 vehicles per day (vpd) and 49,900 vpd. By the year 2030,
traffic along this portion of US 17 is expected to increase to between 47,200 vpd and 94,500 vpd.
Truck traffic is approximately eight percent along US 17 between just south of Station Road and the
Wilmington Bypass interchange.
The 2005 average daily traffic (ADT) along Military Cutoff Road from south of Station Road to
US 17 varies between 17,200 vpd and 30,600 vpd. By the year 2030, traffic along this portion of
Military Cutoff Road is expected to increase to between 40,000 vpd and 70,800 vpd. Truck traffic is
approximately eight percent along Military Cutoff Road.
2005Leve1 ofService
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that characterizes the operational conditions within a
traffic stream and the perception of traffic service by motorists and passengers. The Transportation
Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual generally describes these conditions in terms of such
factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and
convenience. Six levels are used, ranging from A to F. For roadways, LOS A indicates no congestion
while LOS F represents more traffic demand than road capacity and extreme delays. The
engineering profession generally accepts LOS D as a minimally acceptable operating condition for
signalized intersections.
Included in the 2005 Base Year Conditions are the Wilmington Bypass segment between I-40 and
US 17 (completed in 2006) and related improvements to US 17/Market Street (expected to be
completed in the near future). The results indicate the following:
? The arterial capacity analysis indicates that travel demand at seven of the 13 segments analyzed
exceeds the arterial capacity limits during at least one peak hour of the day.
? The intersection capacity analysis indicates that travel demand on one or more approaches at
six of the 11 intersections analyzed either approaches or exceeds the intersection capacity
limits during at least one peak hour of the day.
The average intersection LOS results for existing conditions are presented in Table 2 for signalized
intersections and Table 3 for unsignalized intersections.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
8

Table 2. 2005 Existing AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections)

i
I 2005
ntersect
ons
AM Peak
PM Peak
US 17 at Gordon Road E D
Military Cutoff Road at Gordon Road F D
US 17 at Military Cutoff Road D D
US 17 at Porters Neck Road D D
US 17 at Sidbury Road B A
US 17 at NC 210 D F
US 17 at Jenkins Road/Country Club Drive D C
ru -S7 at Sloop Point Loop Road C B
Table 3. 2005 Existing AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections)
2005
h
i
i
l A
I
& C
i
pproac
es
ntersect
ons
r
t
ca
AM Peak PM Peak
Westbound - F Westbound - F
US 17 at Station Road
Southbound - B Southbound - B
Eastbound - F Eastbound - F
Military Cutoff Road at Station Road
Northbound - C Northbound - B
Eastbound - A Eastbound - F
NC 210 at Island Creek Road
Southbound - B Southbound - C
2030 Level ofService
The 2030 No Build scenario includes consideration of the Wilmington Bypass and the Military
Cutoff Road widening project, but does not include the proposed new location Military Cutoff Road
Extension/ Hampstead Bypass project. The results indicate that the existing transportation systems
would not be capable of accommodating anticipated development. Roadway improvements are
needed to serve the expected 2030 travel demand in the study area.
The average intersection LOS results for the future No Build conditions are presented in Table 4 for
signalized intersections and Table 5 for unsignalized intersections.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
9
Table 4. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections)
Intersections 2030
AM Peak PM Peak
Military Cutoff Road at Station Road F F
US 17 at Gordon Road F F
Military Cutoff Road at Gordon Road F F
US 17 at Military Cutoff Road F F
US 17 at Porters Neck Road F F
US 17 at Sidbury Road F F
US 17 at NC 210 F F
US 17 at Jenkins Road/Country Club Drive F F
US 17 at Sloop Point Loop Road F E
Table 5. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Unsignahzed Intersections)
ersections & Critical Approaches 2030

F AM Peak PM Peak
Z1
at Sta tion Road Westbound - F Westbound - F
Southbound - F Southbound - F
NC 210 at Island Creek Road Eastbound - B Eastbound - F
Southbound - F Southbound - F
1.5.3 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
Traffic accident data for the three year period between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005 '
shows there were four fatal accidents along US 17 between Military Cutoff Road and Sloop Point
Road. Table 6 provides a comparison of accident rates, categorized by fatal accidents, non-fatal
injury accidents, and night and wet road accidents. The highest percentage of accidents reported was '
for "rear-end, slow, or stop" type of accidents. The NCDOT classifies the segment of US 17 within
the project limits in New Hanover County as an urban highway, while the Pender County segment is
classified as a rural highway. Table 6 includes urban and rural crash rates for comparison of the
study area accident rates with NCDOT Division 3 and state accident rates. The accident rates are
summarized as accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles (MVM) driven.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need '
10
Table 6. Accident Rates

A
S
d

Total Automobile Crash Rate
[per 100 million vehicle miles
rea
tu
y Crash Rate
Fatal Non-
Fatal

Injury
Night
Wet
Surfaces
Urban
Statewide* 354.95 1.07 121.30 72.39 67.04
Division 3* 415.50 1.42 145.02 88.11 73.80
US 17
Station Road to Gordon Road 950.43 0 399.18 199.59 95.04
Gordon Road to Military Cutoff
Road 1306.05 0 447.53 228.33 173.53
Military Cutoff Road to Porters
Neck Road 411.45 1.54 145.90 71.79 82.60
Porters Neck Road to Sidbury
Road 369.38 2.08 139.04 95.46 53.95
Military Cutoff Road
Station Road to US 17 208.46 0 79.64 28.11 25.76
Rural
Statewide* 133.06 1.58 53.25 39.54 26.65
Division 3* 154.83 1.98 67.40 49.77 29.60
US 17
Sidbury Road to Scotts Hill Loop
Road 570.26 0 277.82 102.35 146.22
Scotts Hill Loop Road to NC 210 118.97 0 45.36 38.52 17.97
NC 210 to Jenkins Road 242.76 0 93.08 49.05 30.48
Country Club Drive to Sloop
Point Loop Road 112.74 1.37 44.0 27.50 19.25
* 2001-2003 three-year average crash rates for North Carolina Urban and Rural US Highways.
As shown in Table 6, the accident rate in NCDOT Division 3 is higher than the state rate for all
accident types analyzed. The accident rate along the urban section of US 17 in New Hanover
County is higher than the state rate and higher than the NCDOT Division 3 rate from Station Road
to Military Cutoff Road.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
11
In Pender County, US 17 has a higher accident rate than both the NCDOT Division 3 and statewide
rates between Sidbury Road and Scotts Hill Loop Road and from NC 210 to Jenkins Road.
US 17 is a primary hurricane evacuation route for both permanent and temporary residents along
the coast in New Hanover and Pender Counties. US 74 to the south and NC 210 to the north
currently provide evacuation route connections between US 17 and I-40, which is a primary inland
hurricane evacuation route from New Hanover County and Wilmington.
1.5.4 SYSTEM LINKAGE
The need for a more effective road network, with reduced congestion from planned improvements
and accommodation for multimodal transportation alternatives, is outlined in the City of
Wilmington's 2004 Future Land Use Plan and Corridor Plan. The land use plan was developed to guide
the City when making development and redevelopment land use decisions over the next 20 years.
Detailed corridor plans for major roads are a component of the plan. As part of the overall
transportation planning process, the road corridor plans will integrate design requirements for
shared space for vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit riders. The City will coordinate with the
NCDOT and local metropolitan planning organizations to implement transportation improvement
projects identified by the land use and corridor plans. In the project vicinity, improvements to
US 17/ Market Street were included in the initial Phase I major road plan corridors. The City is
currently developing additional corridor plans for other major roads (Phase II).
1.5.5 NCDOT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The NCDOT 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists the proposed projects as
U-4751 (Military Cutoff Road Extension) and R-3300 (Hampstead Bypass). Other TIP projects in
the vicinity of the projects include the following:
? U-92: Construct 7.7 miles of Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway as four lanes divided on new
location, from US 117 to US 74 in Wilmington. Currently under construction.
? U-2734: Widen 2.2 miles of SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) to multi-lanes, from north of
US 74 to US 17. Currently under construction.
? U-3338: Widen 3.1 miles of Kerr Avenue to multi-lanes, from Oleander Avenue to Martin
Luther King, Jr. Parkway. Planning and design are currently in progress. Right-of-way is
scheduled for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2009; construction is scheduled for FFY 2011.
? U-3831: Widen 2.4 miles of SR 2048 (Gordon Road) to multi-lanes, from the NC 132
interchange ramp to west of US 17 (Market Street). Planning and design are currently in
progress. Right-of-way is scheduled for FFY 2011; construction is not currently funded.
? B-4590: Replace Bridge No. 29 on US 117/NC 133 over Smith Creek. Right-of-way
scheduled for FFY 2009; construction is scheduled for FFY 2010.
? B-3496: Replace Bridge No. 10 on SR 1411 over Bradley Creek. Currently under
construction.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
12
' ? B-4591: Replace Bridge No. 4 on SR 1002 over Island Creek. Right-of-way scheduled for
FFY 2008; construction is scheduled for FFY 2009.
? R-2405A: I-40 Connector, from I-40 to US 17 North of SR 1402 (Porters Neck Road). The
I-40 Connector was recently completed; access management improvements on US 17 in the
Scotts Hill area are under construction.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
13
APPENDIX A -REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING
INFORMATION

I

I

US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
A-1
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
A-2
H,
REFERENCES
AARoads. Interstate 140 North Carolina. www.interstate-guide.com.
AirNav.com. Wilmington International Airport (New Hanover County International Airport), North
Carolina. www.airnav.com.
City of Wilmington. www.wihningtonnc.gov.
City of Wilmington. Cape Fear Regional Household Travel Survey, Final Report 2003.
Hampstead Chamber of Commerce. www.hampsteadchamber.com.
Log In North Carolina. Economic Census Data. //data.osbm.state.nc.us/pls/linc/
dyn-linc-main. show
' North Carolina State Demographics. http://demog.state.nc.us.
' North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide
WaterQuality Plan. Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning Program. //h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
basmwide/draftCPFApri12005.htm.
' North Carolina Department of Transportation. Mountains to Sea, North Carolina Bicycling Highways.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. June 2006. TravelAnalysis ReportforMilitary Cutoff
Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass, TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300.
gram.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Pro
www.ncdot.org.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. Feasibility Study, Military Cutoff Road Extension
From Existing Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) in Wilmington to Proposed TIP Project R-2405A (US 17
Wilmington Bypass).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. The Strategic Highway Corridors. Concept
Development Report, Chapter 3.
North Carolina Employment Security Commission. www.ncesc.com.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
A-3
North Carolina State Demographics. http://demog.state.nc.us.
Pender County Planning Department. 2005. Future Land Use Plan Map. www.pender-
county.com/documents/planning/Maps
Pender County Thoroughfare Plan, 1997.
Topsail-Island Information. www.topsail-island.info/wordpress/index.php/hatnpstead.
United States Census Bureau. www.census.gov.
Weiss, Martin H. and Roger Figura. 2003. A Proui rional Typology of Higbway Economic Development
Projects. Federal Highway Administration. www.fhwa.dot.gov.
Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2006. Wilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Range
ortation Plan. www.wmpo.org/LRTP.httn.
Trans
Wilmington - New Hanover. County Joint Coastal Area Management Plan, 2006 Update.
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Transportation Improvement
Program 2004 - 2010.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
A-4
i
i
i
i
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
Prepared For: Human Environment Figure
MULKEYNCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 0 0.5 1 2 3
rAdw US 17 Corridor Study Miles 3
New Hanover and Pender Counties
I

I

I
I
I
I

¦

f

Prepared Far: Protected Species/Lands Figure
NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 0 0.5 1 2 3 ?gdw MI_.ILKEY US 17 Corridor Study Miles 4
New Hanover and Pender Counties
Prepared For: Streams and Wetlands Figure
NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 0 0.5 1 2 3
M
ULKEY '? US 17 Corridor Study Miles
5
New Hanover and Pender Counties
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
9
i
Hot to ...ie
LEGEND
000 Vehicles Per uay (AU 1)
DHV PM
D
On
DHV Design Hourly Volume (%)
D Directional Split (%)
PM PM Peak Period
--*-- Direction of D
(d,t) Duals, TT-STs (%)
DRAFT
.NewHa?b????W?N
DAILY TRAFFIC ESTIMATES
(AOT)
2005 Base Year Conditions
TIP: U-4751 and R-3300 WBS: 40191 Division: 3
Prepared By: Michael Blackmore Date: August 24, 2006
Counties: New Hanover and Pender
Location: US 17 from Station Road to Sloop Point Loop Road
Project: US 17 Corridor Study
MULKEY o7r FIGURE6
i
Not to scale
LEGEND
000 Vehicles Per Day (ADT)
DHV PMt) No D
DHV Design Hourly Volume (%)
D Directional Split (%)
PM PM Peak Period
{ Direction of D
(d,t) Duals, TT-ST's (%)
DRAFT
W N ,w Hanever WC,unty
y9,
0
?y
9
DAILY TRAFFIC ESTIMATES
(ADT)
2030 No Build Conditions
TIP: U-4751 and R-3300 WBS: 40191 Division: 3
Prepared By: Michael Blackmore Date: August 24, 2006
Counties: New Hanover and Pender
Location: US 17 from Station Road to Sloop Point Loop Road
Project: US 17 Corridor Study
MLJL_KEY JJI FIGURE7

PURPOSE AND NEED
US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT NO. 401 91.1.1
TIP PROJECT NOS.
U-4751 & R-3300
0 V
? X006
SEp
DEN ?D?jORMWPZE goON
WE.RpN05
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4?pe MONTH Gy
o?
° o
P
yFhrofiNnNSao
AUGUST 2006
PREPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
6750 TRYON ROAD
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 2751 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project .......................................................1
1.1 Purpose of Today's Meeting ............................................................................................1
1.2 Project Description ......................................................................................................... ..1
1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Projects ................................................................................ ..1
1.4 Project Background ..........................................................................................................1
1.4.1 Study Area Description ..................................................................................... ..1
1.4.2 Existing Transportation Facilities ................................................................... .. 5
1.5 Need for the Proposed Projects ..................................................................................... 6
1.5.1 Transportation Demand ..................................................................................... 6
1.5.2 Traffic Carrying Capacity ................................................................................... 8
1.5.3 Accident Analysis .............................................................................................. 10
1.5.4 System Linkage .................................................................................................. 12
1.5.5 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program ........................................ 12
Appendix A -References and Supporting Information ............................................. A-1
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity ....................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Study Area ............................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3. Human Environment .....................................................................................................A-5
Figure 4. Protected Species/Lands ................................................................................................A-6
Figure 5. Streams and Wetlands .....................................................................................................A-7
Figure 6. 2005 Base Year Daily Traffic Estimates ......................................................................A-8
Figure 7. 2030 No Build Daily Traffic Estimates ........................................................................A-9
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Predicted Population Growth Trends .............................................................................. 7
Table 2. 2005 Existing AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections) ........................................... .. 9
Table 3. 2005 Existing AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections) ...................................... .. 9
Table 4. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections) ......................................... 10
Table 5. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections) .................................... 10
Table 6. Accident Rates ...................................................................................................................11
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
m
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
1V

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED
PROJECT
t 1 .1 PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING
The purpose of today's meeting is to present information to support concurrence on purpose and
need (Concurrence Point 1).
' I .Z PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TIP Project U-4751 is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement
' Program (TIP) as an extension of Military Cutoff Road on new location from its current terminus at
US 17 (Market Street) in Wilmington north to the Wilmington Bypass Gohn Jay Burney Jr. Freeway).
' TIP Project R-3300 is included in the 2006-2012 TIP as a US 17 bypass of Hampstead.
' 1.3 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS
The purpose of the proposed projects is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the
US 17 corridor in the project area and improve system linkage in northern New Hanover County
t and the Pender County coastal area. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 1.
' 1.4 PROJECT BACKGROUND
1.4.1 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION
' The study area is located in the outer Coastal Plain within portions of northern New Hanover
County and southern Pender County (see Figure 2).
' This part of the Cape Fear River basin is the only coastal area in North Carolina that is accessible by
interstate highway, making it a popular destination because of its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean,
beaches, and estuarine waters.
H

I
I
I

The southern extent of the study area is characterized primarily by a mix of commercial and
residential development; the northern extent includes preserved land, undeveloped forests, open
fields, and wetlands. Natural areas preserved for recreation and education uses include the North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Holly Shelter Game Preserve and the North Carolina State
University blueberry research station. Open fields are primarily managed agricultural areas used for
blueberries, row crop, and tobacco production, or are left fallow. Figures displaying natural and
human environment features in the proposed study area are included in the appendix (Figures 3-5).
Features on the figures include streams, North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (DCM)
mapped wetlands, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) sites and other available
Geographic Information System (GIS) data in the project area. Data was also obtained from the
State Historic Preservation Office and windshield surveys conducted in the field.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
I
1
F \
a Haber SurQaw
?? t 3 ?` FOI
Saint
ena s t0 Holly RAg 4 o
Hel n
NM. Bokl idd 6 jl]
.Rim „ aPSa<<eencn
1 C sti Sootls 1
4 IS Han A HIII ? 7 psal
Tngcaii [n(et !closer!/
ama ~ Oel o c'sk x 5 i
B Sandy oek 1 - H ?V reh I"
Mace 6 a x to
a L I d on
g ,/ g
Btsh 17
? 3 +? `. l? ?v I t ?Iliz gear.
Town PROJECT
Winnabow
NBOFO
M 30
1a?' VICINITY
S w I C. K! 13J
//J c F rl d!I 421 c ! - Uc n Mr"
? / gp #BO 4ny S B _
116 8.1m. Carolin
Beach
Ay Roiling a
6 h
g Smith SI / atEASURE
dam i , g] Ise vn
ml
by to .Harbor 133 ?.
_? qk m
aJ?=?rt"°Y., _.Inp?n ? e gar, i 1 r to_en1
+? . `'f 03k IS12nd ca ?u ? : -?? ' i $Mlrll Isur+o
ea_^ e n ? .4s nenisi.<ioD
Iiu9
CFYE Gf/.R
.?.:9?. 3a1(:Y ?7
Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
F NORT11
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
A
OP
FM'OFTRPNge

Holly Sheher Gamelands ?
o",
?.
No\\YS\e\ce?.\%SP\
$idWQ'
1
r ,
Hampstead
I
? ck
\
17
13361 . }? /y i•`k fan V 2 .
t'.,'?k
y
eoo, ?9ri , a5
?r
cats Mil STUDYAREA
m1?Won i
B s a s t'
y(td55

/J
"
A
11

t

n
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Mil
w!h iogtoF l,0
'j " es N

117 Gtee??
d
J
Hampstead
ao
S ^ ,0/%
7 ?

S2!bu

ngton B
ypass

? a
m
, Murrayville Rd

N m
Cz
N Kerr Ave

Ra aa?

1
3 e

4

0?
cn 264 0 ?

Cl)
N

Z

Princess Place D
74 U
17 Fq
74 =

00
A07 4 1
eri
age Ra
i

Legend
Study Area
County Boundary
R
NCDOT Major
oads

Interstate 40
Secondary Roads
Holly Shelter Gameland
Wilmington City Limit
Major Hydrography

MULKEY Prepared For:

i? 1 Study Area
NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
US 17 Corridor Study
New Hanover and Pender Counties
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles

) Figure

2
i/
/
i

Photos from stock.-,cling, littp://wwu'.stic.hu/
' 1.4.2 Existing Transportation Facilities
US 17 serves as a major connector among New Hanover, Pender and Onslow counties and is
' classified as an urban principal arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System. In the
project vicinity, US 17 connects to I-40, LS 74, and NC 210. Named Market Street in the
Wilmington urban area, US 17 provides a link to the Wilmington downtown district.
' US 17 (Market Street) is a four or five-lane roadway in the project area. The posted speed limit varies
from 45 to 55 miles per hour (mph). Nearby land uses along US 17 include commercial, retail, and
' single- and multi-family residential development. In the vicinity of Hampstead, US 17 is part of
NC Bike Route 3.
Military Cutoff Road is a two or three-lane, north-south route classified as an urban principal
' arterial. It currently extends from US 76 to US 17 (Market Street). The posted speed limit is 45
mph. The NCDOT is widening the existing section between US 74 (Eastwood Road) and Market
Street to a four-lane divided five-lane facility. Nearby land use along Military Cutoff Road is a inix
' of residential and commercial development.
The Wilmington Bypass is a new four-lane freeway. Construction of the section that extends
' eastward from I-40 (north of downtown Wilmington) to US 17 (Market Street) was completed in
2006.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
5
1
1.5 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECTS
Needs to be addressed by the proposed projects are:
? Transportation Demand
US Census Bureau statistics indicate New Hanover County grew by 33.3 percent from 1990 to 2000.
Pender County grew by 42.4 percent during the 1990 to 2000 period and the City of Wilmington
grew by 35.3 percent. New Hanover and Pender Counties are expected to continue to experience
double-digit growth through the year 2030. This growth in population, tourism and supporting
services have resulted in an increase in mixed-purpose traffic on US 17.
? Traffic Carrying Capacity
Current traffic volumes on US 17 in the project vicinity- are expected to increase substantially over
the next 20 years. Average daily traffic volumes along existing sections of US 17 and Military Cutoff
Road will increase by 43 to 60 percent by 2030 from the 2005 base conditions. Level of service
analyses for signalized and unsignalized intersections and arterial segments show that most of these
arterials and intersections will operate at level of service F in 2030.
? Safety Issues
Four fatal accidents occurred along US 17 between Military Cutoff Road and Sloop Point Road
between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005. The crash rate along the urban section of US 17
in New Hanover County is higher than the statewide rate; and several of the roadway segments
analyzed along US 17 in both New Hanover and Pender Counties have accident rates higher than
the NCDOT Division 3 rate.
? System Linkage
The Pender County Thoroughfare Plan identifies US 17 as a primary arterial. The WMPO identifies
it as an urban principal arterial on its 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. In the project vicinity,
US 17 and 1-40 provide the only north-south highway routes between southeastern Pender County,
northern New Hanover County, and Wilmington. The newly opened Wilmington Bypass provides
the only multi-lane east-west connection between US 17 and 1-40 for traffic in the New Hanover
and Pender County area.
1.5.1 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
According to US Census Bureau statistics, New Hanover County grew by 33.3 percent from 1990 to
2000. US Census Bureau statistics indicate Pender County grew by 42.4 percent during the 1990 to
2000 period and the City of Wilmngton grew by 35.3 percent. The City's Planning Division
indicates that Wilmington's 2005 population was 94,531 persons (www.wikningtonnc.gov).
According to the North Carolina Department of Commerce, New Hanover County ranks eighth
among North Carolina's 100 counties in tourism expenditures. This ranking reflects the large
number of annual visitors to the area, which creates increased demands on local roads and the need
for goods and services. According to the NC State Demographics website
(http://demog.state.nc.us) New Hanover and Pender Counties are expected to continue double-
digit growth through the year 2030 (Table 1).
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
6
Table 1. Predicted Population Growth Trends.
Growth Projection
Coup 2000 - 2010 2010 - 2020 2020 - 2030
New Hanover 24.9% 17.8% 14.2%
Pender 27.2% 21.1% 16.7%
Both New Hanover and Pender County participate in the cooperative state-local North Carolina
Coastal Management Act (CAMA) program which was established in 1974. CAMA requires that
local governments within the 20 coastal counties prepare land use plans which provide a balance of
protection, preservation, and orderly development.
The 2005 Pender County CMA Land Use Plan Update functions as the master development guide for
the county's future. One of the main components of the CAMA plan(s) is to create a future land
use map based on land suitability, environmental factors, and development policies. The future land
use for the Pender County portion of the study area is identified as Rural Clusters and Conservation
Areas (along water features and flood prone areas). Rural Clusters are identified by the plan as
"small concentrations of distinct residential communities that may be associated with a church, other
' institutional or non-residential use Rural Areas". For these areas, Pender County's primary purpose
is to maintain the viability of these neighborhoods.
' The 2006 WilmingtonNesv Hanover County C AMA Land Use Plan Update functions as the future plan
for both the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County. The future land use for the New
Hanover County portion of the study area is identified as Wetland Resource Protection Area, Rural,
and Conservation Areas (primarily flood prone). According to the plan document, the Rural
classification is comprised of low intensity land uses (agriculture, forest) and discourages urban-type
uses. Only low density residential development (less than 2.5 units per acre) is permitted in the
' Rural area.
Zoning regulations are in place for the study area in both New Hanover and Pender Counties.
Existing zoning regulations and restrictions in the Pender County portion of the project area
consists of Rural Agriculture (RA) and Residential District-20 (R-20). RA zoning comprises the
majority of the project area and is defined to accommodate very low-density residential
' development, and non-residential development not requiring urban services. R-20 zoning applies to
areas along the existing NC 210 corridor and is defined to accommodate low-density residential
uses.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
7
1.5.2 TRAFFIC CARRYING CAPACITY
A traffic study was conducted along US 17 and existing sections of Military Cutoff Road to
determine if there is sufficient roadway capacity to meet current (2005) and future (2030) travel
demand (RS&H, 2006). Figures 6 and 7 in the appendix present the average daily traffic along area
roadways.
Average Daily Traffic
The 2005 ADT for US 17 between Station Road in Wilmington and Sloop Point Loop Road in
Pender County varies between 24,300 vehicles per day (vpd) and 49,900 vpd. By the year 2030,
traffic along this portion of US 17 is expected to increase to between 47,200 vpd and 94,500 vpd.
Truck traffic is approximately eight percent along US 17 between just south of Station Road and the
Wilmington Bypass interchange.
The 2005 average daily traffic (ADT) along Military Cutoff Road from south of Station Road to
US 17 varies between 17,200 vpd and 30,600 vpd. By the year 2030, traffic along this portion of
Military Cutoff Road is expected to increase to between 40,000 vpd and 70,800 vpd. Truck traffic is
approximately eight percent along Military Cutoff Road.
2005 Level ofService
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure that characterizes the operational conditions within a
traffic stream and the perception of traffic service by motorists and passengers. The Transportation
Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual generally describes these conditions in terms of such
factors as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and
convenience. Six levels are used, ranging from A to F. For roadways, LOS A indicates no congestion
while LOS F represents more traffic demand than road capacity and extreme delays. The
engineering profession generally accepts LOS D as a minimally acceptable operating condition for
signalized intersections.
Included in the 2005 Base Year Conditions are the Wilmington Bypass segment between I-40 and
US 17 (completed in 2006) and related improvements to US 17/Market Street (expected to be
completed in the near future). The results indicate the following:
? The arterial capacity analysis indicates that travel demand at seven of the 13 segments analyzed
exceeds the arterial capacity limits during at least one peak hour of the day.
? The intersection capacity analysis indicates that travel demand on one or more approaches at
six of the 11 intersections analyzed either approaches or exceeds the intersection capacity
limits during at least one peak hour of the day.
The average intersection LOS results for existing conditions are presented in Table 2 for signalized
intersections and Table 3 for unsignalized intersections.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need

Table 2. 2005 Existing AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections)

P11
I

I

I
ti
t 2005
n
ersec
ons
AM Peak
PM Peak
US 17 at Gordon Road E D
Military Cutoff Road at Gordon Road F D
US 17 at Military Cutoff Road D D
US 17 at Porters Neck Road D D
US 17 at Sidbury Road B A
US 17 at NC 210 D F
US 17 at Jenkins Road/Country Club Drive D C
US 17 at Sloop Point Loop Road
L- I C B
Table 3. 2005 Existing AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections)
2005
iti
l A
h
I
ti
& C
r
pproac
ntersec
ons
ca
es
AM Peak PM Peak
Westbound - F Westbound - F
US 17 at Station Road
Southbound - B Southbound - B
Eastbound - F Eastbound - F
Military Cutoff Road at Station Road
Northbound - C Northbound - B
Eastbound - A Eastbound - F
NC 210 at Island Creek Road
Southbound - B Southbound - C
2030 Level ofServrce
The 2030 No Build scenario includes consideration of the Wilmington Bypass and the Military
Cutoff Road widening project, but does not include the proposed new location Military Cutoff Road
Extension/ Hampstead Bypass project. The results indicate that the existing transportation systems
would not be capable of accommodating anticipated development. Roadway improvements are
needed to serve the expected 2030 travel demand in the study area.
' The average intersection LOS results for the future No Build conditions are presented in Table 4 for
signalized intersections and Table 5 for unsignalized intersections.
' US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
9
Table 4. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Signalized Intersections)
Interse
ti
n 2030
c
o
s AM Peak PM Peak
Military Cutoff Road at Station Road F F
US 17 at Gordon Road F F
Military Cutoff Road at Gordon Road F F
US 17 at Military Cutoff Road F F
US 17 at Porters Neck Road F F
US 17 at Sidbury Road F F
US 17 at NC 210 F F
US 17 at Jenkins Road/Country Club Drive F F
US 17 at Sloop Point Loop Road F E
Table 5. 2030 No-Build AM & PM LOS (Unsignalized Intersections)
Intersections & Critical Approaches 2030

AM Peak PM Peak
US 17 at Station Road Westbound - F Westbound - F
Southbound - F Southbound - F
NC 210 at Island Creek Road Eastbound - B Eastbound - F
Southbound - F Southbound - F
1.5.3 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
Traffic accident data for the three year period between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2005
shows there were four fatal accidents along US 17 between Military Cutoff Road and Sloop Point
Road. Table 6 provides a comparison of accident rates, categorized by fatal accidents, non-fatal
injury accidents, and night and wet road accidents. The highest percentage of accidents reported was
for "rear-end, slow, or stop" type of accidents. The NCDOT classifies the segment of US 17 within
the project limits in New Hanover County as an urban highway, while the Pender County segment is
classified as a rural highway. Table 6 includes urban and rural crash rates for comparison of the
study area accident rates with NCDOT Division 3 and state accident rates. The accident rates are
summarized as accidents per 100 million vehicle-miles (MVM) driven.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
10
I Table 6. Accident Rates

d
A
S

Total Automobile Crash Rate
[per 100 million vehicle miles
rea
y
tu Crash Rate
Fatal Non-
Fatal
Injury
Night Wet
Surfaces
Urban
Statewide* 354.95 1.07 121.30 72.39 67.04
Division 3* 415.50 1.42 145.02 88.11 73.80
US 17
Station Road to Gordon Road 950.43 0 399.18 199.59 95.04
Gordon Road to Military Cutoff
Road 1306.05 0 447.53 228.33 173.53
Military Cutoff Road to Porters
Neck Road 411.45 1.54 145.90 71.79 82.60
Porters Neck Road to Sidbury
Road 369.38 2.08 139.04 95.46 53.95
Military Cutoff Road
Station Road to US 17 208.46 0 79.64 28.11 25.76
Rural
Statewide* 133.06 1.58 53.25 39.54 26.65
Division 3* 154.83 1.98 67.40 49.77 29.60
US 17
Sidbury Road to Scotts Hill Loop
Road 570.26 0 277.82 102.35 146.22
Scotts Hill Loop Road to NC 210 118.97 0 45.36 38.52 17.97
NC 210 to Jenkins Road 242.76 0 93.08 49.05 30.48
Country Club Drive to Sloop
Point Loop Road 112.74 1.37 44.0 27.50 19.25
* 2001-2003 three-year average crash rates for North Carolina Urban and Rural US Highways.
As shown in Table 6, the accident rate in NCDOT Division 3 is higher than the state rate for all
accident types analyzed. The accident rate along the urban section of US 17 in New Hanover
County is higher than the state rate and higher than the NCDOT Division 3 rate from Station Road
to Military Cutoff Road.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
11
In Pender County, US 17 has a higher accident rate than both the NCDOT Division 3 and statewide
rates between Sidbury Road and Scotts Hill Loop Road and from NC 210 to Jenkins Road.
US 17 is a primary hurricane evacuation route for both permanent and temporary residents along
the coast in New Hanover and Pender Counties. US 74 to the south and NC 210 to the north
currently provide evacuation route connections between US 17 and I-40, which is a primary inland
hurricane evacuation route from New Hanover County and Wilmington.
1.5.4 SYSTEM LINKAGE
The need for a more effective road network, with reduced congestion from planned improvements
and accommodation for multimodal transportation alternatives, is outlined in the City of
Wilmington's 2004 Future Land Use Plan and Corridor Plan. The land use plan was developed to guide
the City when making development and redevelopment land use decisions over the next 20 years.
Detailed corridor plans for major roads are a component of the plan. As part of the overall
transportation planning process, the road corridor plans will integrate design requirements for
shared space for vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, and transit riders. The City will coordinate with the
NCDOT and local metropolitan planning organizations to implement transportation improvement
projects identified by the land use and corridor plans. In the project vicinity, improvements to
US 17/ Market Street were included in the initial Phase I major road plan corridors. The City is
currently developing additional corridor plans for other major roads (Phase II).
1.5.5 NCDOT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The NCDOT 2006-2072 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) lists the proposed projects as
U-4751 (Military Cutoff Road Extension) and R-3300 (Hampstead Bypass). Other TIP projects in
the vicinity of the projects include the following:
? U-92: Construct 7.7 miles of Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway as four lanes divided on new
location, from US 117 to US 74 in Wilmington. Currently under construction.
? U-2734: Widen 2.2 miles of SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) to multi-lanes, from north of
US 74 to US 17. Currently under construction.
? U-3338: Widen 3.1 miles of Kerr Avenue to multi-lanes, from Oleander Avenue to Martin
Luther King, Jr. Parkway. Planning and design are currently in progress. Right-of-way is
scheduled for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2009; construction is scheduled for FFY 2011.
? U-3831: Widen 2.4 miles of SR 2048 (Gordon Road) to multi-lanes, from the NC 132
interchange ramp to west of US 17 (Market Street). Planning and design are currently in
progress. Right-of-way is scheduled for FFY 2011; construction is not currently funded.
? B-4590: Replace Bridge No. 29 on US 117/NC 133 over Smith Creek. Right-of-way
scheduled for FFY 2009; construction is scheduled for FFY 2010.
? B-3496: Replace Bridge No. 10 on SR 1411 over Bradley Creek. Currently under
construction.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
12

? B-4591: Replace Bridge No. 4 on SR 1002 over Island Creek. Right-of-way scheduled for
FFY 2008; construction is scheduled for FFY 2009.
' ? R-2405A: I-40 Connector, from I-40 to US 17 North of SR 1402 (Porters Neck Road). The
I-40 Connector was recently completed; access management improvements on US 17 in the
Scotts Hill area are under construction.

US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
13
APPENDIX A -REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING
' INFORMATION
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
A-1
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
A-2

I

I
REFERENCES
AARoads. Interstate 140 North Carolina. www.interstate-guide.com.
AirNav.com. Wilmington International Airport (New Hanover County International Airport), North
Carolina. www.aimav.com.
City of Wilmington. www.wihningtonnc.gov.
City of Wilmington. Cape Fear Regional Household Travel Survey, Final Report 2003.
Hampstead Chamber of Commerce. www.hampsteadchamber.com.
Log In North Carolina. Economic Census Data. //data.osbm.state.nc.us/pls/linc/
dyn_linc_main.show
North Carolina State Demographics. http://detnog.state.nc.us.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Cape Fear River Basinwide
Water.Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning Program. //h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.httn.
' North Carolina Department of Transportation. Mountains to Sea, North Carolina Bicycling Higbivays.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. June 2006. TravelAnalysis ReportforMilitary Cutoff
Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass, TIP Nos U-4751 and R-3300.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program.
www.ncdot.org.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. Feasibility Study, Military Cutoff Road Extension
From .Existing Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) in Wilmington to Proposed TIP Project R-2405A (US 17
Wilmington Bypass).
' North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. The Strategic Highway Corridors. Concept
Development Report, Chapter 3.
North Carolina Employment Security Commission. www.ncesc.com.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
A-3
I
North Carolina State Demographics. http://demog.state.nc.us.
Pender County Planning Department. 2005. Future Land Use Plan Map. www.pender-
county.com/documents/planning/Maps
Pender County Thoroughfare Plan, 1997.
Topsail-Island Information. www.topsail-island.info/wordpress/index.php/hatnpstead.
United States Census Bureau. www.census.gov.
Weiss, Martin H. and Roger Figura. 2003. A Provisional Typology of Highway Economic Development
Pr jects. Federal Highway Administration. www.fhwa.dot.gov.
Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2006. Wilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Lange
Transportation Plan. www.wmpo.org/LRTP.htm.
Wilmington - New Hanover County Joint Coastal Area Management Plan, 2006 Update.
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Transportation Improvement
Program 2004 - 2010.
US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need
A-4
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
-Lon

A

1

a A Is 9-0 ??
? 1y
-41
R- R f4,
is ?? < ?d?7 ??.? ?" ' ??• +rc`? '? ? ?' ?"?. ° d ?,yr'y ? r d ? / ?G
P S0 r n-R
44.
y?
AM!
gj? Y y `
?j! ? • 8 ? ?, P?" ?l ? shy h 1' ' ? ?. j,T?? ?'.
V
7,4
yp 7 r. + /
d /
1 di++ '
Legend
Study Area
County Boundary
NCDOT Major Roads
Proposed Development
Ogden Park
Parcels
Historic Property
A Archaeological Points
¦ Emergency
M Library
Cemetery
Church
g Public Schools

MULKEY Prepared For: Human Environment
NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300

US 17 Corridor Study
New Hanover and Pender Counties
0 0.5 1 2 3

Miles
Figure

3
Prepared For: Human Environment Figure
NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 0 0.5 1 2 3
MULKEY
US 17 Corridor Study Miles
3
,rrA'I New Hanover and Pender Counties

Prepared For: Protected Species/Lands Figure
NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 0 0.5 1 2 3
MUL KEY ?
US 17 Corridor Study Miles 4
"` New Hanover and Pender Counties
s-
e
>R ,
Jr ?
?4.4 '6?ff
a y
P J? "? ?f
6 J I
bz p
5-7 -
Y I?.
A ?
Legend
Study Area
- County Boundary
NCDOT Major Roads
P
4
City of Wilmington
DCM Wetland
_ Cape Fear Water Bodies
High Quality Water Zone

M l.J L.KEY Prepared For:

E Streams and Wetlands
NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
US 17 Corridor Study

New Hanover and Pender Counties
0 0.5 1 2 3
Miles
Figure

5
DRAFT
?Tn
i
9
'?a r?m?o? • PeMler Caunry
?Nex Hanover County
Not to eerie
LEGEND
auo venicies per uay (Au i
DHV PM
No D
t)
DHV Design Hourly Volume (%)
D Directional Split (%)
PM PM Peak Period
y Direction of D
(d,t) Duals, TT S Ps (%)
DAILY TRAFFIC ESTIMATES
(ADT)
2005 Base Year Conditions
i
i
i
TIP: U-4751 and R-3300 I WBS: 40191.1.1 Division: 3
Prepared By: Michael Blackmore Date: August 24, 2006
Counties: New Hanover and Pender
Location: US 17 from Station Road to Sloop Point Loop Road
Project: US 17 Corridor Study
-?--MLILKEY RJ9®R FIGURE6
i
i
i
i
i
'k,
C,
i
9
Not to sale
LEGEND
000 Vehicles Per Day (ADT)
DHV PM
N D
t)
DHV Design Hourly Volume (%)
D Directional Split (%)
PM PM Peak Period
--o-- Direction of D
(d,t) Duals, TT ST's (%)
DRAFT
M. Pe.der Cowry
• New H..' Canty
DAILY TRAFFIC ESTIMATES
(ADT)
2030 No Build Conditions
TIP: U-4751 and R-3300 IWBS:40191.1.1 Division: 3
Prepared By: Michael Blackmore Date: August 24, 2006
Counties: New Hanover and Pender
Location: US 17 from Station Road to Sloop Point Loop Road
Project: US 17 Corridor Study
?--MULKEY ,Lis7°ll, FIGURE7

o ?G
yosFy? O
ya
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
MEMORANDUM Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs, DENR
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator -
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: November 1, 2005
SUBJECT: Response to the start of study notification from the N. C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) regarding fish and wildlife concerns for the
proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension from Us 17 (Market Street) to
the proposed I-140 in New Hanover County and the US 17 Bypass of
Hampstead in New Hanover and Perquimans Counties, North Carolina.
TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300, SCH Project No. 06-0107.
This memorandum responds to a request from Gregory J. Thorpe of the NCDOT
for our concerns regarding impacts on fish and wildlife resources resulting from the
subject project. Biologists on the staff of the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) have reviewed the proposed improvements. Our comments are provided in
accordance with certain provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
Numerous natural resources lie within the defined study corridor, including Holy
Shelter Game Lands managed by the NCWRC. Both Holy Shelter Game Lands and the
North East Cape Fear River floodplain are listed by The Natural Heritage Program as
nationally significant resources. Multiple state and federal listed species occur within the
defined corridor, including the federally endangered Red-cockaded Woodpecker
(Picoides borealis) and Rough-leaf Loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulifolia). The
multitude of occurrences of these species in conjunction with the game lands area will
limit the area in which NCDOT can address the purpose and need for this project.
NCDOT should coordinate with resource agencies at the earliest stages of alternative
development to address questions and concerns that could lead to project delays. To help
facilitate document preparation and the review process, our general informational needs
are outlined below:
1. Description of fishery and wildlife resources within the project area,
including a listing of federally or state designated threatened, endangered,
or special concern species. Potential borrow areas to be used for project
r .. r
Memo 2 November 1, 2005
construction should be included in the inventories. A listing of designated
plant species can be developed through consultation with:
The Natural Heritage Program
N. C. Division of Parks and Recreation
1615 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, N. C. 27699-1615
[phone]
WWW.ncsDarks.net/nhp
and,
NCDA Plant Conservation Program
P. O. Box 27647
Raleigh, N. C. 27611
[phone]
2. Description of any streams or wetlands affected by the project. The need for
channelizing or relocating portions of streams crossed and the extent of
such activities.
3. Cover type maps showing wetland acreages impacted by the project.
Wetland acreages should include all project-related areas that may
undergo hydrologic change as a result of ditching, other drainage, or
filling for project construction. Wetland identification may be
accomplished through coordination with the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). If the COE is not consulted, the person delineating
wetlands should be identified and criteria listed.
4. Cover type maps showing acreages of upland wildlife habitat impacted by
the proposed project. Potential borrow sites should be included.
5. The extent to which the project will result in loss, degradation, or
fragmentation of wildlife habitat (wetlands or uplands).
6. Mitigation for avoiding, minimizing or compensating for direct and indirect
degradation in habitat quality as well as quantitative losses.
7. A cumulative impact assessment section which analyzes the environmental
effects of highway construction and quantifies the contribution of this
individual project to environmental degradation.
8. A discussion of the probable impacts on natural resources which will result
from secondary development facilitated by the improved road access.
9. If construction of this facility is to be coordinated with other state, municipal,
or private development projects, a description of these projects should be
included in the environmental document, and all project sponsors should
be identified.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in the early planning stages for
this project. If we can further assist your office, please contact me at [phone].
Cc: Dave Timpy, USAGE, Wilmington
John Hennessy, DWQ
Gary Jordan, USFWS
4'
O QG
' O? W AT FR
Uj Z'r..
O `C
October 6, 2005
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office of Legislative and
Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Brian L. Wrenn, NCDWQ, Transportation Permitting Unit
Subject: Request for Comments for the Proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension from US 17 to
the Proposed I-140 in New Hanover County and the US 17 Bypass of Hampstead in New
Hanover and Pender Counties, WBS Element 4019 and 40237, TIP Projects U-4751
and R-3300,State Clearinghouse Project No. 06-0107
This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible
for the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the
U.S., including wetlands. After a preliminary review, DWQ has identified the following named streams
located within the project study area:
Stream Name River Basin Stream Classification Stream Index Number
Howe Creek Cape Fear SA; ORW 18-87-23
Pa es Creek Cape Fear SA; HQW 18-87-22
Futch Creek Cape Fear SA; HQW 18-87-19
Mill Creek Cape Fear SA; HQW 18-87-14
Old Topsail Creek Cape Fear SA; HQW 18-87-12
Mullet Run Cape Fear SA; HQW 18-87-9-1
Virginia Creek Cape Fear SA; HQW 18-87-9
Trumpeter Swam Cape Fear C; Sw 18-74-49-2-1-1
Catskin Creek Cape Fear C; SW 18-74749-2-1
Merrick Creek Cape Fear C; Sw 18-7449-2
Harrisons Creek Cape Fear C; Sw 18-74-49
Northeast Cape Fear
River Cape Fear B; Sw 18-74-(47.5)
Island Creek Cape Fear C; Sw 18-74-50
Prince George Creek Cape Fear C; Sw 18-74-53
Smith Creek Cape Fear C; Sw 18-74-63
Holly Shelter Creek Ca e Fear C; Sw 18-74-35
DWQ has the following comments:
Project Specific Comments:
1. Several of the streams in the project study area are class SA; HQW of the State. The water quality
classification of SA; HQW is one of the highest classifications in the State. DWQ is extremely
concerned with any impacts that may occur to streams with this classification. It is preferred that
these resources be avoided if at all possible. if it is not possible to avoid these resources, the impacts
should be minimized to the greatest extent possible. This includes implementation of the highest
One
Carolina
Transportation Permitting Unit y"tura??i?
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
An Eaual OnnortuniN/Affirmative Action Emnlover-50% Recvcled/10% Post Consumer Paper
November 1, 2005 ?` ?
Page 2
level of sedimentation and erosion. control measures as detailed in Design Standards in Sensitive
Watersheds (15A NCAC 04B .0124). In addition, because the project would be located in coastal
counties and HQW watersheds, an engineered stormwater management plan and a stormwater
management permit will be required.
2. The project study area includes a large amount of wetlands, especially in the northern portion of the
study area in the Holly Shelter Gamelands. A road project in this area would result in a large amount
of wetland impacts. DOT should consider alternatives that avoid these areas, or in the case that they
cannot be avoided, should implement minimization techniques such as bridging and steeper fill
slopes.
The northern portion of the project study area includes the Holly Shelter Gamelands. The Gamelands
consist of pine savanna flats, Carolina bays, and bottomland swamps. In addition, this area is prime,
active habitat for the Red Cockaded Woodpecker as well as many other animal and plant species.
DOT should consider the quality of these resources when developing alternatives. If at all possible,
the Holly Shelter Gamelands should be avoided.
General Comments:
1. DOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of
impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent practical.
2. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should not be permitted to
discharge directly into streams or surface waters.
In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules 115A NCAC
2H.0506(b)(6) }, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream and. for impacts of greater than one acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is
required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. In
accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)},
the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
4. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be
implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly,
especially following rainfall events.
5. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
6. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent
sedimentation of water resources.
7. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, rock
berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent excavation
in flowing water.
8. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
November 1, 2005
Page 3
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are
met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional
information, please contact Brian Wrenn 919-733-5715.
pc: Dave Timpy, Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Chris Militscher, US EPA
Travis Wilson, NC WRC
Gary Jordan, US FWS
Ken Averitte, Fayetteville Regional Office, DWQ
File Copy
Jed Number:
DeParfent of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
is project is being reviewed as indicated below:
.egional Office Regional Office Area
Asheville
%
WWater
3 Fayetteville
roundwater
lb/C
:1 Mooiresville r
6,Land Quality Engineer
o Raleigh,
o Washington o Recreational Consultan
V?ilmington
o Winston-Salem
Manager Sign4WRegion:
Response (check all applicable)
D No objection to project as proposed.
o No Comment
o Insufficient information to complete review
a Other (specify or attach comments) .

0
CT 1
SF?R• 2
In-House Review
o-Soil & Water Varine. Fisheries
Coastal Management
o Water Resources
ldl
t
i lth
l H
ea
nvironmenta
t orest Resources

ef'
o Solid Waste Mgmt
o Land Resources
o Radiation Protection
Parks & Recreation o Other
Q,Water Quality
o Groundwater
o Air Quality
Date: lo-Howe Reviewer/AgoncY:
RETURN TO:
Melba McGee
Environmental Coordinator
Office of Legislative & Intergovernmental Affairs
t .
L '
M
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
r ?
' 121314
is J6 .
ew• SU7E
f/
SEP 2005
$ `°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ??' DOq
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION C-1lri
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
September 7, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of Administration
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental
Military Cutoff Road Extension from US 17 (Market Sifeet) to thl
proposed I-140 in New Hanover County and the US 17 Bypass of
Hampstead in New Hanover and Pender Counties, WBS Element
40191.1.1 and 40237, TIP Projects U-4751 and R-3300
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the extension of US 1.7 Bypass of Hampstead.
The project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is
scheduled for right of way in fiscal year 2012 and construction in post year.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed project.
We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating potential
environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or approvals that may be
required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with `CDOT staff to discuss the
proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our materials for this meeting, we
would appreciate your response by November 4, 2005. If you would like to attend the scoping meeting,
please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared for this
project. This document will be prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Beverly Robinson, Project
Development Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 254. Please include the TIP Project
Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
PDEA Scoping Procedures
TIP Project: U-4751/R-3300
Rev 4/4/05
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: U-4751/R-3300
WBS No.: 40191.1.1/40237
Federal Aid No: N/A
Division: 3
Sent Date: September 7, 2005
Revision Date:
Meeting Date: September 29, 2005
County: New Hanover,
Pender
ect llescn
Military Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover County from US 17 (Market Street) to I-140
(Proposed Wilmington Bypass) and the US 17 Bypass of Hampstead in New Hanover and Pender
Counties.
General Project Need:
Congestion, Safety and Access.
Metropolitan / Rural Plannine Organization Area:
NEPA/404 Merizer Candidate?: Yes
Feasibility Study Completed?: X Yes
Wilmington - MPO
Cape Fear - RPO
No Not sure
? No June 2004 - U-4751 Date
February 1999 - R-3300
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Project Schedule:
Type:
Environmental Document: DEIS
FEIS
ROD
Right of Way:
Let:
Dates:
September 2008
September 2009
March 2010
2012
Post Year
Air Quality Status: Non-attainment Maintenance Attainment
PDEA Scoping Procedures
TIP Project: U-4751/R-3300
Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits:
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional Classification:
14 miles-Hampstead Bypass Rev 4/4/05
3.8 miles-Military Cutoff Road

Partial control of access proposed for Military Cutoff Road
Full Control of access proposed for Hampstead Bypass
None Existing - New location
Other Principal Arterial - Military Cutoff Road
Rural Principal Arterial - Hampstead Bypass
Strategic Corridor Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type
Roadway Typical Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Boulevard Section - Military Cutoff Road
Freeway Section - Hampstead Bypass
Major Thoroughfare - Military Cutoff Road
Other Principal Arterial - Hampstead Bypass
Four lane 23-foot median divided facility - Military Cutoff
Road
Four-lane 46 to 70-foot median divided facility - Hampstead
Bypass
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
Yes ? No
Right of Way_
(Existing / Proposed)
Proposed 150 feet - Military Cutoff Road
Proposed 250 feet - Hampstead Bypass
Existing Posted Speed: Proposed 50 mph - Military Cutoff Rd
Design Speed: 60 mph - Hampstead Bypass
Traffic j AADT):
Current Year:
Design Year:
% TTST:

(2030) 34,800- -Military Cutoff Rd
32,500 - Hampstead B ass
Design Standards Applicable: [_X AASHTO 3R
Railroad Involvement:
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate*:
Current Estimate* * :
Construction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
31,700,000 18,100,000 49,800,000
168,400,000 18,100,000 186,500,000
% Dual:
% DHV:
* Cost for Military Cutoff Road Only. Hampstead Bypass not funded in TIP. **Military Cutoff Road and
Hampstead Bypass construction costs. Current right of way cost reflects TIP right of way cost for Military Cutoff
Road.
PDEA Scoping Procedures
TIP Project: U-475I/R-3300
Rev 4/4/05
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: U-4751/R-3300
WBS No.: 40191.1.1/40237
Federal Aid No: N/A
Division: 3
Sent Date: September 7, 2005
Revision Date:
Meeting Date: September 29, 2005
Coup New Hanover,
Pender
Military Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover County from US 17 (Market Street) to I-140
(Proposed Wilmington Bypass) and the. US 17 Bypass of Hampstead in New Hanover and Pender
Counties.
General Proiect Need:
Congestion, Safety and Access.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Area:
NEPA/404 Merger Candidate?: Yes
Feasibility Study Completed?: X Yes
Wilmington - MPO
Cape Fear - RPO
C? No Not sure
No June 2004 - U-475 L Date
Febra 1999 - R-3300
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Proiect Schedule:
T e:
Environmental Document: DEIS
FEIS
ROD
Right of Way:
Let:
Air Quality Status:
Dates:
2008
2009
March 2010 _
2012
Post Year
Non-attainment Maintenance Attainment
PDEA Scoping Procedures
TIP Project: U-4751/R-3300
Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits:
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional Classification:
Rev 4/4/05
3.8 miles-Military Cutoff Road
14 miles-Ham stead Bypass
Partial control of access proposed for Military Cutoff Road
Full Control of access proposed for Hampstead Bypass
None Existing - New location
Other Principal Arterial - Military Cutoff Road
Rural Principal Arterial - Hampstead Bypass
Strategic Corridor Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation Facility Type):
Roadway Typical Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Boulevard Section -Military Cutoff Road
Freeway Section - Hampstead Bypass
Major Thoroughfare - Military Cutoff Road
Other Principal Arterial - Hampstead Bypass
Four lane 23-foot median divided facility - Military Cutoff
Road
Four-lane 46 to 70-foot median divided facility - Hampstead
Bypass
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
Yes ? No
Right of Way:,
(Existing / Proposed)
Proposed 150 feet - Military Cutoff Road
Proposed 250 feet - Hampstead Bypass
Existing Posted Speed: Proposed 50 mph - Military Cutoff Rd
Design Speed: 60 mph - Hampstead B ass
TrafficJAADT):
Current Year:
Design Year:
% TTST:

(2030) 34,800- -Military HBa]ss
32,500 - Hampstead Design Standards Applicable: C? AASHTO 3R

Railroad Involvement:
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate*:
Current Estimate**:
Construction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
31,700,000 18,100,000 49,800,000
168,400,000 18,100,000 186,500,000
% Dual:
% DHV:
* Cost for Military Cutoff Road Only. Hampstead Bypass not funded in TIP. **Military Cutoff Road and
Hampstead Bypass construction costs. Current right of way cost reflects TIP right of way cost for Military Cutoff
Road.
1
1
1 ?
117 1
i--7'
f.
HOLLY SHELTER
?- GAMELANDS r J 71.1
ROCKY POINT j 1 17
LOODWO H 1'
210 sW
?
A
HOLLY SHELTER
GAMELANDS
,.. 210 /
%
AMPSTEAD ? ; d %
a s
TQPSAIL
1PEACH
CASTLE
% ,-'
?a
%
1336) - i v %A C30 ?? /
sjp?v
117 O
' ? 0?,??,_ 1 !?
%
%
7 ?
r. I 1 /PLANTATION RD ej !
?.
Y /
%
MUAMAYSVILU AD ;? . ", ( ! Y
I ! i
1
L OGD$A
T AX-TIC
WILM NGTON
INT' ARPT I q ? !
WILMINGTON
" 74? , (J
17.L°
C,
117 74 ?; WJHTSVILLE
BEACH
t 1r?? - -IrIIII ?? 76 .
a v
210
SU'CITY
Quad Sheets
Castle Hayne, Scotts Hill,
Hampstead Topsail,
Mooretown, Rocky Point
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
1 OF TRANSPORTATION
l DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION
AND HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES
TIP PROJECTS U-4751IR-3300
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project ID No. FS-0303B Preliminary Estimate Feas County: NEW HANOVER
Project Number 6.401071
Route Military Cutoff Road Extension
From Military Cutoff Road/US 17 Market Street to R-2405A CONSTR COS
Typical Section New Location 4-Lane Divided with 23' Raised Median, 4' PS, (with S.P.U.I.) $36,400,000
Prepared By: J.L.Cole/L.A.Tutt 12119/2003 Ali B
Checked By: B. D. Peeler, PE 02/23/04 Rev
Priced By: Doug Lane 8/30/2005 Updated Prices
Line
Item
Des Sec
No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
G 0001000000-E 200 Clearing and Grubbing 24.3 Acre S 20,000.00 S 486,000.00
G 0022000000-E 225 Unclassified Excavation 21,100 CY S 8.00 S 168,800.00
G 0080000000-E SP Sub grade Stabilization 207,660 SY S 5.00 S 1,038,300.00
G 0106000000-E 230 Borrow Excavation 1,065,000 CY S 4.00 S 4,260,000.00
Drainage 3.83 Miles S 300,000.00 S 1,149,300.00
P 1011000000-E 500 Fine Grading 269,340 SY S 2.00 S 538,680.00
P Paving, Resurfacing 16,250 SY S 8.00 S 130,000.00
P Paving, Widening 2,090 SY S 35.00 S 73,150.00
P Paving, New 185,180 SY S 30.00 S 5,555,400.00
P 2542000000-E 846 F-6" Concrete Curb and Gutter 33,950 LF S 12.00 S 407,400.00
P 2549000000-E 846 2'-6" Concrete Curb and Gutter 7,200 LF S 14.00 S 100,800.00
P 852 Monolithic Concrete Islands 9,720 SY S 45.00 S 437,400.00
F 866 Fencin 47,550 LF S 3.50 S 166,425.00
GR 3030000000-E 862 Steel BM Guardrail 3,737.50 LF S 15.00 S 56,062.50
GR 3210000000-E 862 Guardrail Anchor Units, Type CAT-1 10 EA S 500.00 S 5,000.00
GR 3215000000-E 862 Guardrail Anchor Units, Type III 20 EA S 1,200.00 S 24,000.00
GR 3270000000-E SP Guardrail Anchor Units, Type GRAU 350 10 EA S 1,800.00 S 18,000.00
Erosion Control (Seeding & Mulching) 81.5 Acres S 8,000.00 S 652,000.00
Traffic Signal (SPUD 1.0 Each S 150,000.00 S 150,000.00
Traffic Control 3.83 Miles S 50,000.00 S 191,550.00
Thermo and Markers 3.83 Miles S 30,000.00 S 114,930.00
UtiliConstruction
Relocate Existing Water Line '4,100 LF S 40.00 S 164,000.00
Relocate Existing Sewer Line 4,100 LF S 50.00 S 205,000.00
Pro osed Dual Brid e
ALTB 24+00.00 to 29+00.00
2 30'x 500' 30,000 SF S 80.00 S 2,400,000.00
Bridge over US 17 Market Street (Horizontal Curvexskew = 4675')
Pro osed Dual Bride
ALTB 50+49.74 to 51+38.66
1 30' x 129; 1 42' x 129' 9,288 SF S 85.00 S 789,480.00
Bridge over Ogden Park Roa,l (skew = 13112')
Proposed Brid e
ALTA 238+78.84 to 241+22.09
1 96'x 243' 23,328 SF $ 80.00 S 1,866,240.00
Bridge over R-2405A (skew = 90)
Pro osed Retaining Walls at S.P.U.L Bridge over US 17 Mar ket Stre et
Wall 120+00 to 24+00 LT (L=396', Avg H=9') 3,563 SF S 55.00 S 195,965.00
Wall 120+00 to 24+00 LT (L=404', Avg H=9') 3,637 SF S 55.00 S 200,035.00
Wall 120+00 to 24+00 LT (L=485', Avg H=9') 4,365 SF S 55.00 S 240,075.00
Wall 4 29+00 to 34+00 LT (L=521', Avg H=9') 4,690 SF S 55.00 S 257,950.00

Misc. & Mob (15% Util, Strs, Walls) S 947,057.50
Misc. & Mob (55% Roadway) S 8,648,000.00
Note: 15% increase applied to quantities
Lgth 3.83 mi Contract Cost ...................................... s j i'6s/,uuu.vu
E. & C. 15% ...................................... S 4,763,000.00
Construction Cost ...................................... S 36,400,000.00
North Carolina Department of Transportation
• Preliminary Estimate
TIP No. R-3300 TLP County:
Route US 17 Hampstead Bypass
From I-140 to Ex US 17 North of Hampstead
Typical Section New Loc 4-Lane, 46'Median, 4'Paved Shoulders
Prepared By: Doug Lane 8/31/2005
Requested By: Beverly Robinson (PD & EA) 8/30/2005
Wage]
N.Hanover-Pender
Constr.Cost
$132,000;000

Line
Item
Des
Sec No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount
Clearing and Grubbing 345 Acre $ 12,000.00 $ 4,140,000.00

Earthwork 3,551,400 CY $ 4.00 $ 14,205,600.00
Undercut Excavation 608,900 CY $ 6.00 $ 3,653,400.00
Borrow to Replace Undercut
Soil Stabilization Fabric 791,600
608,900 CY
SY $ 4.00
$ 2.00 $ 3,166,400.00
$ 1,217,800.00

Pavement Removal 10,700 SY $ 3.00 $ 32,100.00
Drainage 13.5 Miles $ 300,000.00 $ 4,050,000.00

, Fine Grading
New Pavement 761,200
507,500 SY
SY $ 2.00
$ 30.00 $ 1,522,400.00
$ 15,225,000.00
2'-6" Concrete Curb and Gutter 3,000 LF $ 15.00 $ 45,000.00

Guardrail 21,200 LF $ 14.00 $ 296,800.00
Guardrail Anchors 144 Each $ 1,500.00 $ 216,000.00

Fencing (Woven Wire)
Erosion Control 14
16.3 Miles
Acre $ 35,000.00
$ 8,000.00 $ 490,000.00
$ 130,400.00

Signing (Interchanges) 3 Each $ 90,000.00 $ 270,000.00
Interchanges (Roadway)
Diamond at Sidbury Road
Diamond-w/2Lps at NC 210
Trumpet at Existing US 17 1
1
1 LS
LS
LS $ 4,000,000.00
$ 4,500,000.00
$ 3,000,000.00 $ 4,000,000.00
$ 4,500,000.00
$ 3,000,000.00

Traffic Control 1 LS $ 400,000.00 $ 400,000:00
Thermo and Markers 14 Miles $ 25, $ 350,000.00

Structures
T Smith Cree
Smith Creek k RCBC 2@8x6-138-2F-90S
RCBC 2@8x6-138-2F-90S 138
138 LF
LF $ 1,187.00
$ 1,187.00 $ 163,806.00
$ 163,806.00
Island Creek
Island Creek RCBC 2@6x6-138-2F-90S
RCBC 2@7x7-138-2F-90S 138
146 LF
LF $ 930.00
$ 1,064.00 $ 1287340.00
$ 155,344.00
Island Creek
Island Creek
Island Creek
T Island Creek
Harrison Creek
T Trumpeter Swamp
T Trumpeter Swamp New Strs 2 38'x 720'
New Strs 2 38'x 730'
New Strs 2 38'x 570'
New Strs 2 38'x 100'
New Strs 2 38'x 120'
RCBC l @6x6-138-2F-90S
RCBC 1 10x6-138-2F-90S 54,720
55,480
43,320
7,600
9,120
138
138 SF
SF
SF
SF
SF
LF
LF $ 80.00
$ 80.00
$ 80.00
$ 90.00
$ 85.00
$ 544.00
$ 740.00 $ 4,377,600.00
$ 4,438,400.00
$ 3,465,600.00
$ 684,000.00
$ 775,200.00
$ 75,072.00
$ 102,120.00
North Carolina Department of l ransportauon
Preliminary Estimate
Prepared By: Doug Lane 8/31/2005
Requested By: Beverly Robinson (PD & EA) 8/30/2005
Lrd66 ']

Line
Item
Des
Sec No.
Description
Quantity
Unit
Price
Amount

Structures (Interchanges)
Sidbury Rd Interch New Strs 2(4,38'x 160' 12,160 SF $ 85.00 $ 1,033,600.00
600
305
00
1
C 210 Interch
SI7SBBypass New Strs 2@38'x 160'
New Str 36'x 260' 15,360
9,360 SF
SF $ 85.00
$ 85.00 ,
.
,
$
$ 795,600.00

Utilitv Construction
Relocate Existing Water Lines 4,000 LF $ 35.00 $ 140,000.00

670
012
00
2
Misc. & Mob (15% Strs&Util) 1 LS ,
.
,
$
00
000
501
33
Misc. & Mob (55% Rdwy) 1 LS .
,
,
$
e ]ARRFnonon
Lgth 14.0 Miles
%,onu a« %-jj3L .......................... ....................
E. & C. 15% .......................... .................... $
Construction Cost .......................... .................... S
17,114,000.00
132,000,000.00
Note: Right-of-Way and R/W Utilities are not included in cost shown above.
Cost for Directional Interchange at I-140 is not included.
CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
SCREENING
US 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY
NEW HANOVER AND FENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT NO. 401 91 .1 .1
TIP PROJECT NOS.
U-4751 & R-3300
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
?Of NORIH ?y
? O
FkIOf iRAN`'?O
,JANUARY 2007
PREPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
6750 TRYON ROAD
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 2751 B

L'
i

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Purpose of Today's Meeting ....................................................................................1
2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................1
3.0 Purpose of the Proposed Project .............................................................................1
4.0 Project Alternatives .................................................................................................. 3
4.1 No Build Alternative ......................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Transportation System Management Alternative ......................................................... 3
4.3 Mass Transit Alternative .................................................................................................. 3
4.4 Widen Existing Facility .................................................................................................... 3
4.5 New Location Alternatives .............................................................................................. 3
4.5.1 Segment A ............................................................................................................ 4
4.5.2 Segment B ............................................................................................................. 4
4.5.3 Segment C ............................................................................................................. 4
4.5.4 Segment D ............................................................................................................ 4
4.5.5 Segment E ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.6 Segment 1 ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.7 Segment 2 ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.8 Segment 3 ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.9 Segment F ............................................................................................................. 6
4.5.10 Segment G ............................................................................................................ 6
4.6 Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) Corridor Alternatives ................................................. 6
4.6.1 Alternative A: Segments A-1 .............................................................................. 6
4.6.2 Alternative B: Segments A-2 .............................................................................. 6
4.6.3 Alternative C: Segments A-3 .............................................................................. 7
4.6.4 Alternative D: Segments B-1 ............................................................................. 7
4.6.5 Alternative E: Segments B-2 .............................................................................. 7
4.6.6 Alternative F: Segments B73 .............................................................................. 7
4.6.7 Alternative G: Segments C-1.............................................................................. 7
4.6.8 Alternative H: Segments C-2 ............................................................................. 7
4.6.9 Alternative I: Segments C-3 ............................................................................... 8
4.6.10 Alternative J: Segments D-1 ............................................................................... 8
4.6.11 Alternative K: Segments D-2 ............................................................................. 8
4.6.12 Alternative L: Segments D-3 .............................................................................. 8
4.6.13 Alternative N: Segments E-1 ............................................................................. 8
4.6.14 Alternative O: Segments E-2 ............................................................................. 8
4.6.15 Alternative P: Segments E-3 .............................................................................. 9
4.7 Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) Corridor Alternatives .............................. 9
4.7.1 Alternative M(1) - Segment F ........................................................................... 9
4.7.2 Alternative M(2) - Segment G .......................................................................... 9
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
in
Appendix A- Corridor Screening and Design Criteria ..............................................A-1
1.0 Corridor Screening and Design Criteria .............................................................. A-3
1.1 Resources Considered ..................................................................................................A-3
1.2 Design Criteria ...............................................................................................................A-3
1.2.1 Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) ..........................................................................A-3
1.2.2 Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) ...................................................A-4
1.3 Screening Methodology ...............................................................................................A-4
Appendix B- References and Supporting Information .............................................B-1
1.0 References ............................................................................................................ B-3
2.0 Reference Maps ................................................................................................... B-5
2.1 Military Cutoff Road Extension Official Corridor Map ......................................... B-5
2.2 Pender County Future Land Use ................................................................................ B-7
2.3 New Hanover County Land Classification Map ...................................................... B-9
2.4 Pender County Zoning ...............................................................................................B-11
2.5 New Hanover County Zoning ..........................................................B-13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity .................................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Corridor Segments ............................................................................................................ 13
Figure 3. Alternatives A, B and C .................................................................................................... 15
Figure 4. Alternatives D, E, F and M1 ........................................................................................... 17
Figure 5. Alternatives G, H, I and M1 ............................................................................................ 19
Figure 6. Alternatives J, K and L ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7. Alternatives N, O, P and M2 ........................................................................................... 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Comparison of Build Alternative Corridors ...................................................................11
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
iv

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
1 O PURPOSE OF TODAY'S MEETING

H

I

The purpose of today's meeting is to review preliminary alternatives for the US 17 Corridor Study
and determine what alternatives should be shown to the public at the citizens informational
workshops. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) plans to conduct
citizens informational workshops for the proposed project in May.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The NCDOT proposes to make transportation improvements to the US 17 and Market Street
(US 17 Business) corridor in northern New Hanover and southern Pender Counties. Two North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects are being evaluated as part of the
US 17 Corridor Study.
Project U-4751 is included in the Draft 2007-2013 TIP as an extension of Military Cutoff Road on
new location from its current terminus at US 17 (Market Street) in Wilmington north to the
Wilmington Bypass Qohn Jay Burney Jr. Freeway). The proposed project is programmed for right of
way acquisition in 2012, with construction in post years. Project R-3300 is included in the Draft
2007-2013 77P as a US 17 bypass of Hampstead. The proposed project is programmed for partial
right of way acquisition in 2012, with the remainder of right of way acquisition and construction in
post years. Both projects are part of the NCDOT's Strategic Highway Corridor Initiative.
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The purpose of the US 17 Corridor Study project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and
safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area. The project study area is roughly
bounded on the west by I-40, on the north by the Northeast Cape Fear River, Holly Shelter Game
Lands to the east, and Market Street and US 17 to the south (Figure 1). The Section 404/NEPA
Merger Team for the US 17 Corridor Study concurred on the purpose of the project and the project
study area at their September 21, 2006 Concurrence Point 1 meeting.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening

t
4
t
0
i ( Greek t.
41
H Is W IIA?C 0? R. T. City ;
6
i
-_----u -- 53 Ha 5
anawk 4 `;a 21 i? WBtar - Run,.
, \
err Penderten
/
f t
6

\
'
( W tha
Mapl
15 Hill
/ Z
1
1
-
e
P it E N$ 8 E R
r
'
210 t Wards + ® S 1
?
Corner BotBaw o \ 5Q
Atkinson ii' * 3 FN
e
9 Saint
t Helena S 10
\
Holly Ridge 4 e
u
Meons re k 6
S rJat. aan! ?e/d 1 111 .ct
+ `• ?qn=-
s / orris 6 Rocky Point 13 tat' !IU 210
it i nB t ®' 210
c
6 ? ?
$ 421 5 6 Hampstead b0 r?c?
°
- 1 RIW
\.. Scotts
ti
1 Ps?r: Bench
4 r IS Hi
HIM t
6 Ps?i77 !'l
< 103
--,
rT p'eL: Inlet l?Lo.cedJ
man Nice i '-
S
e
H oV
te
t
? h n
rce
ar
, 1
^:t
yf
G
nlaco
?
,
, ' on
LO
?
s J?
el
BtShO
? 3
'
'O
?
\
P. ?,
EI ?s?l'.',r
_
; c
i ; bear'
Tnwn G?ke J,a '_Arl?r Ih"„.I „20
PROJECT

I'
Wlnraonvi
! 12 `, MA oa?oxo

VICINITY
S W C I KI er 1
r
r,
mn xr, <k t,rrr
/
1. ? 1 +, l a t ,; 4 a
?
-
'
?
y
r
-
? ,?Carolma Baach
17B sc: la
pl `? Bod Q C f
i
'
1
th St
Sm
? viceasure
a , 3 n /
% IstA?c
L, ?1 z $1
0
V t wn Narbor 13d
er.
-'?'---_-. 21J
_ .X"? -?_{y.:. e; tn4? .rcuF ! 1 l?ln scri/
c d L ?- G?k Islo?d c ?-'' - I s 1 htst tva
ft rj 51L( HEAL'
n l
r
,?J
R rr i _
I_[aND
' - C<PF FEaR
Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
OF NORT/f C
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
v ?P
OFM
PNe'e0
Holly Shelter Gamelands
i
r ,
. V ,
ANC ?'ts (7(f?
Hampst
c 17
r d lsa X33 -rrt""? - /F Z ?O
't .564 4Q'
wym ?sro?e coottsH N STUDYAREA
? i XE??
0 0.5 1 2 3

I
I
I
I
L

H

4.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
4.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to US 17 or Military
Cutoff Road within the study area; only typical maintenance activities would occur. The No Build
Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project.
4.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements are intended to maximize the efficiency
of the present system within the existing right-of-way while minimizing capital outlay. Examples of
typical TSM operational improvements include signal phasing or timing changes, access control,
speed restrictions and traffic law enforcement. Typical TSM physical improvements include the
addition of turn lanes, signing, striping, and minor realignments. A current TIP Project (U-4902B)
involves access management improvements to Market Street. It is expected that TSM
improvements would improve traffic flow along Market Street, but it is expected that Market Street
would still operate at an unsatisfactory level of service.
4.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
The project study area will be evaluated for characteristics suitable for implementation of mass
transit or enhancement of existing mass transit systems that would improve the traffic carrying
capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor.
4.4 WIDEN EXISTING FACILITY
Widening existing Market Street would improve traffic flow. However, land adjacent to the roadway
is densely developed. Widening the existing facility would require the acquisition of additional right
of way and result in a substantial number of residential and business displacements. Businesses
along Market Street would experience reduced access during the construction of this alternative.
4.5 NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
Constructing a facility on new location would reduce the amount of through traffic using Market
Street and existing US 17 within Hampstead. A number of new location alternative corridors have
been identified for the US 17 corridor study. These alternatives were developed utilizing GIS
modeling (see Appendix A).
' This modeling effort resulted in the development of five alternative segments west of NC 210 and
three alternative segments between NC 210 and US 17 near Hampstead (Figure 2). These segments
can be combined to make a total of 15 possible new location alternatives for a US 17 Hampstead
' Bypass. Two new location alternatives have been developed for proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension. These segments and alternatives are discussed below.
' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
3
4.5.1 SEGMENT A
Segment A begins in New Hanover County at the I-40 interchange with Holly Shelter Road
(SR 1002). It extends northeast across undeveloped property just north of Holly Shelter Road.
Segment A crosses over to the south side of Holly Shelter Road at a curve past the Roanoke Cement
Company and Cemex Castle Hayne Terminal property. The segment follows closely along the south
side of Holly Shelter Road adjacent to mostly undeveloped property. It crosses a transmission line
easement and turns southeast to intersect with NC 210 in Pender County south of the intersection
of NC 210 and Island Creek Road (SR 1002). Several businesses are located at the NC 210
intersection. Segments A, B, C and D terminate at an interchange with NC 210.
4.5.2 SEGMENT B
Segment B begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the Wilmington Bypass,
approximately midway between existing interchanges with I-40 and US 17. It is anticipated that the
interchange would impact a small section of the NCDOT's Murraysville Mitigation Site. Segment B
extends northeast past Sidbury Road (SR 1336). Land use between the bypass and Sidbury Road is
mostly undeveloped property. There is a small residential community west of the Sidbury Road
crossing called Island Creek Estates.
As Segment B crosses into Pender County, it crosses the northwest section of the proposed
Easthaven development. The development site plan calls for a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP),
school, fire/EMS department, amenity areas, an athletic complex/park, commercial and various
types of residential land use. At build-out, up to 4,700 single and multi-family homes with
approximately 10,000 residents are anticipated. Segment B continues northeast, crossing the
transmission line easement and joining Segment A near Churchouse Bay Lane. It ends at an
interchange at NC 210 south of the NC 210 and Island Creek Road intersection.
4.5.3 SEGMENT C
Segment C begins in New Hanover County at the same Wilmington Bypass location as Segment B.
The corridor travels northeast and crosses Sidbury Road. Island Creek Estates is located just west of
Segment C. The corridor continues to the north and turns east to parallel the south side of the
transmission line easement as it enters into Pender County. Land use along this portion of Segment
C is characterized by forest and wetlands.
As Segment C crosses into Pender County, it travels across the northern section of the proposed
Easthaven development. After leaving the proposed Easthaven development, Segment C continues
northeast for approximately one mile, then turns southeast to intersect NC 210.
4.5.4 SEGMENT D
Segment D begins in New Hanover County at the Wilmington Bypass/US 17 interchange. It
extends north across undeveloped property, crossing Sidbury Road near the New Hanover
County/Pender County line. Land use in the vicinity of the Sidbury Road crossing includes scattered
residential and undeveloped properties. Segment D continues northeast, crossing the central portion
of the proposed Easthaven development. It continues northeast across Harrison Creek Road, an
area which is lightly developed with residential properties, ending at NC 210.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
4

' 4.5.5 SEGMENT E
Segment E is a modification of Segment D that moves the beginning of the alignment at the
Wilmington Bypass to approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange. Segment E extends
' northeast from the bypass across undeveloped land and joins Segment D south of the New Hanover
County/Pender County line. It then follows Segment D to NC 21.0.
' 4.5.6 SEGMENT 1
Segments 1, 2 and 3 begin at NC 210 south of the intersection of NC 210 and Island Creek Road.
t After its intersection with NC 210, Segment 1 continues to the northeast. It extends mainly through
undeveloped forested property, crossing a large powerline easement near Godfrey Creek Road.
There is a small residential development called Godfrey's Creek Estates at the crossing of Godfrey
' Creek Road. Godfrey's Creek Estates includes both mobile homes and stick built homes.
North of Godfrey Creek Road, Segment 1 extends through more forested land, and then turns east.
' The corridor crosses Saps Road and Hoover Road (SR 1569). There is limited residential land use on
Saps Road and Hoover Road consisting of both mobile homes and stick built homes. The large
powerline easement splits into two smaller easements west of Hoover Road. Both smaller easements
' are crossed by Segment 1.
Segment 1 extends to the north of Castle Bay, an existing residential golf course community off of
' Hoover Road. It continues east through the northern portion of The Preserve, which is a proposed
mixed-use development. The Preserve is approximately 750 acres in size and will be developed in
phases. Currently, there are 250 permitted single-family lots. Future plans include 200 additional lots
' for single-family and multi-family use. The development will include 500,000 square feet of retail
space. Phase I was scheduled to begin in October 2006. Full build-out is expected in three years. The
development is adjacent to Topsail High School and borders Holly Shelter Game Lands.
' Segment 1 terminates at US 17 near Long Leaf Road with an interchange. A mini-storage facility,
plant nursery, an.undeveloped 25-acre property for sale for retail and office development, and two
' churches are located on the west side of US 17 near the terminus. Land use on the east side of
US 17 near the terminus includes Belvedere Plantation, a residential golf course community,
Andrews Mortuary, Hampstead Chapel, and Sea Lawn Cemetery.
4.5.7 SEGMENT 2
' Segment 2 begins at NC 210 south of the intersection of NC 210 and Island Creek Road. It extends
east across several minor roads that include lightly developed residential properties, and on through
undeveloped forested areas. Segment 2 continues through farmland, crossing Hoover Road north of
' South Topsail Elementary School. The segment continues northeast through undeveloped property
and through The Preserve proposed development. Segment 2 ends at an interchange with US 17 at
the same location as Segment 1.
4.5.B SEGMENT 3
' Segment 3 begins at NC 210 south of the intersection of NC 210 and Island Creek Road. It follows
Segment 2 until Hoover Road, where it turns south. Segment 3 continues across undeveloped land
' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
5
1
and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road (SR 1702). There is a small mobile home development '
nearby. Topsail Presbyterian Church is north of the Segment 3 intersection with US 17.
4.5.9 SEGMENT F
Segment F is an extension of Military Cutoff Road. It extends north from Market Street at Military
Cutoff Road where land use includes mostly small businesses and a golf driving range. Segment F
extends through county property between sections of Ogden Park and through a single-family
housing development. It then runs adjacent to a densely developed residential area to the west. The
segment turns northwest through a less developed area and ends near Plantation Road and Crooked
Pine Road at an interchange with the Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway between the I-40
and US 17 interchanges.
4.5.1 0 SEGMENT G
Segment G also extends Military Cutoff Road. Segment G follows the same alignment as Segment F
for approximately two miles. Where Segment F turns northwest, Segment G turns northeast and
extends through mostly undeveloped property to the Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile
west of US 17.
4.6 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS (R-3300) CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
Corridor alternatives for the proposed project are provided below and shown on Figures 3 through
7. The alternatives are comprised of various combinations of the segments introduced in Section 4.5.
Refer to Section 4.5 for detailed descriptions of each segment. A comparison of the build
alternatives is provided in Table 1. Highlights from the table are included in the alternative
descriptions. Refer to the table for a detailed listing of nearby resources and potential impacts.
4.6.1 ALTERNATIVE A: SEGMENTS A-1
Corridor Alternative A combines Segments A and 1. Alternative A begins at the I-40 interchange at
Holly Shelter Road and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative is the longest in length, at approximately 14.83 miles. It includes eight stream crossings
and could impact approximately 1,036 acres of wetlands. Alternative A will result in a total of 46
residential and business displacements. This and all other alternatives have known protected species
occurrences within one mile of the corridor centerline.
4.6.2 ALTERNATIVE B! SEGMENTS A-2
Corridor Alternative B combines Segments A and 2. Alternative B begins at the I-40 interchange at
Holly Shelter Road and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative is approximately 14.27 miles in length. Estimated impacts include seven stream crossings
and approximately 879 acres of wetlands. Alternative B will result in approximately 59 residential
and business displacements, and has a notable number of hazardous material sites within one mile of
the centerline. This alternative also has the highest number of recorded archaeological sites within
one mile of the centerline.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
6
I
' 4.6.3 ALTERNATIVE C: SEGMENTS A-3
Corridor Alternative C combines Segments A and 3. Alternative C begins at the I-40 interchange at
' Holly Shelter Road and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. This alternative includes eight stream
crossings and approximately 687 acres of wetland impacts. Alternative C is approximately 12.36
miles in length and will result in the most residential and business displacements.
' 4.6.4 ALTERNATIVE D: SEGMENTS B-1
' Corridor Alternative D combines Segments B and 1. Alternative D begins at the Wilmington Bypass
and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. Approximate impacts
include ten stream crossings and more than 1,059 acres of wetlands. This alternative has the lowest
' amount of potential residential and business displacements, and the highest number of major utility
crossings.
' 4.6.5 ALTERNATIVE E: SEGMENTS B-Z
Corridor Alternative E combines Segments B and 2. Alternative E begins at the Wilmington Bypass
' and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This alternative is
approximately 13.41 miles in length and includes an estimated 36 residential and business
displacements. Wetland impacts are estimated at approximately 902 acres and there are nine stream
crossings.
4.6.6 ALTERNATIVE F: SEGMENTS B-3
' Corridor Alternative F combines Segments B and 3. Alternative F begins at the Wilmington Bypass
and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. Estimated wetland impacts from Alternative F are low
relative to most other alternatives. There are ten stream crossings and approximately 39 residential
and business displacements. Estimated 100-year floodplain impacts are lower than many other
alternatives.
' 4.6.7 ALTERNATIVE G: SEGMENTS C-1
Corridor Alternative G combines Segments C and 1. Alternative G begins at an interchange with the
' Wilmington Bypass and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road..This
alternative has the second highest estimated amount of wetland impacts, at approximately 1,141
acres, but has a low amount of residential and business displacements compared to other
' alternatives. Alternative G crosses ten streams and has the second highest amount of 100-year
floodplain impacts, at approximately 207 acres.
4.6.B ALTERNATIVE H: SEGMENTS C-Z
Corridor Alternative H combines Segments C and 2. Alternative H begins at an interchange with the
' Wilmington Bypass and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative is approximately 13.53 miles in length and includes nine stream crossings. Alternative H
has approximately 37 residential and business displacements and approximately 985 acres of wetland
' impacts.
' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
7
4.6.9 ALTERNATIVE 1: SEGMENTS C-3
Corridor Alternative I combines Segments C and 3. Alternative I begins at an interchange with the
Wilmington Bypass and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. Estimated 100-year floodplain and
wetland impacts are lower than many other alternatives. Alternative I includes ten stream crossings
and approximately 40 residential and business displacements.
4.6.1 O ALTERNATIVE J: SEGMENTS D- 1
Corridor Alternative J combines Segments D and 1. Alternative J begins at the Wilmington
Bypass/US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road.
This alternative has the highest estimated amount of wetland impacts and includes nine stream
crossings. Alternative J will result in approximately 31 residential and business displacements.
4.6.1 1 ALTERNATIVE K: SEGMENTS D-2
Corridor Alternative K combines Segments D and 2. Alternative K begins at the Wilmington
Bypass/US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road.
Estimated impacts include approximately 1,014 acres of wetlands and 44 residential and business
displacements. This alternative is approximately 12.31 miles in length.
4.6.1 2 ALTERNATIVE L: SEGMENTS D-3
Corridor Alternative L combines Segments D and 3. Alternative L begins at the Wilmington
Bypass/US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. At 10.41 miles in length, this
is one of the shorter alternatives. Impacts to the 100-year floodplain are approximately 68.70 acres,
which is among the lowest of the alternatives. Alternative L has the second highest number of
recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the corridor centerline.
4.6.13 ALTERNATIVE N: SEGMENTS E-1
Corridor Alternative N combines Segments E and 1. Alternative N begins at the Wilmington Bypass
approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High
School near Long Leaf Road. This alternative includes 13 stream crossings and the second highest
estimated amount of wetland impacts, at approximately 1,123 acres. Estimated residential and
business displacements are lower than most of the other alternatives and Alternative N has the
lowest recorded number of archaeological sites within one mile of the corridor centerline.
4.6.14 ALTERNATIVE O: SEGMENTS E-2
Corridor Alternative O combines Segments E and 2. Alternative O begins at the Wilmington Bypass
approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High
School near Long Leaf Road. This alternative is approximately 12.28 miles in length and is estimated
to impact approximately 965 acres of wetlands. Residential and business displacements are estimated
at 37 and no major utility crossings are anticipated.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
I
I

4.6.1 5 ALTERNATIVE PI SEGMENTS E-3
Corridor Alternative P combines Segments E and 3. Alternative P begins at the Wilmington Bypass
approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road.
This alternative has a high number of stream crossings and a lower amount of potential 100-year
floodplain impacts relative to most others. Wetland impacts are estimated at 773 acres. Alternative P
has the third highest number of estimated residential displacements and is not expected to have any
major utility crossings.
4.7 MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION (0-4751) CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES
There are two build alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension. The City of Wilmington
adopted a Transportation Official Corridor map for the proposed extension of Military Cutoff Road
on August 8, 2005 (see Appendix B). Alternative M(1) closely follows the adopted corridor, while
Alternative M(2) follows it approximately half way. The following provides highlights of the two
alternatives. Further details are provided in Table 1 and on Figures 2, 5, and 7.
4.7.1 ALTERNATIVE M(1) - SEGMENT F
Corridor Alternative M(1) consists of Segment F. It begins on Market Street at Military Cutoff Road
and ends at the Wilmington Bypass near Plantation Road and Crooked Pine Road. This alternative is
approximately 3.37 miles in length. Stream and wetland impacts are anticipated; however, there are
no impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Because the surrounding area is densely developed, there is
the potential for a high number of hazardous material site and/or UST impacts, and numerous
displacements. There are approximately 109 hazardous material sites within one mile of the corridor
centerline. Residential and business displacements are estimated at 57.
4.7.2 ALTERNATIVE M(Z) - SEGMENT G
Corridor Alternative M(2) consists of Segment G. It begins on Market Street at Military Cutoff Road
' and ends at the Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange. This
alternative follows a similar route to Alternative M(1), and therefore has similar potential impacts. It
is slightly longer, at 3.46 miles, and is estimated to have the same number of stream crossings,
residential and business displacements, and 100-year floodplain impacts. Hazardous material and/or
UST sites within one mile of the corridor are slightly less, at 100.

' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
9
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
10

'fable 1. Comparison of Build ?klternativc Corridors

I

P
I

I

FEATURE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE (SEGMENTS)
A (Al) B (A2) C (A3) D (131) E (B2) F (B3) G (C1) H (C2) I (C3) J (D1) K (D2) L (133) N (E1) 0 (E2) P(E3) M1
(F) M2
(G)
Len9th(miles)/(acres) 14.83/
2175.19 14.27/
2106.08 12.36/
1809.77 13.97/
2034.34 13.41/1
965.33 11.51/ 1
1668.92 14.09/
2047.75 13.53/
1978.74 11.62/
1682.32 12.88/
1929.34 12.31/
1860.34 10.41/
1563.92 12.84
1864.65 1228/
1795.65 10.37/
1499.23 3.37/
441.13 3.46/
451.55
Wetland Impacts (acres)
c 1036.40 879.33 687.16 1059.69 902.54 710.37 1141.71 984.64 792.47 1171.30 1014.22 822.06 1123.01 965.93 773.77 343.98 369.35
Stream Crossings (No.) 8 7 8 10 9 10 10 9 10 9 8 9 13 12 13 6 6
Residential Displacements 3 32 44 48 10 22 26 11 23 27 16 28 32 11 23 34 29 29
Business Displacements 3 14 15 14 13 14 13 13 14 13 15 16 15 13 14 15 28 28
Known Protected Species Occurrences'- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Natural Heritage Program Area I Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N
100 Year Floodplain Impacts (acres) 211.18 196.64 148.74 159.5 146.17 96.51 207.48 194.14 96.51 131.15 116.60 68.70 131.15 116.60 68.70 0.0 0.0
Recorded Historic Properties'- 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Recorded Archaeological Sites'- 23 38 32 11 17 21 11 17 21 26 32 35 7 13 16 12 9
Wildlife Refuge/Game Lands N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Recreational Areas/Parks 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
HQW, ORW, WS Protected or Critical Areas'- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Schools 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Churches 1 4 4 2 3 3 1 2 2 0 4 4 2 2 2 0 1 1
Cemeteries 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Railroad Crossings (No.) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings (No.) 4 1 1 5 2 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Hazardous Material Sites' 58 64 60 3 4 5 3 4 5 12 13 14 2 3 4 109 100
Interchanges (No.) 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 1 1
Notes:
Within 1000-foot corridor.
'- \x'1111111 one mile of corridor centerline.
3 \&'ithin 300-foot corridor based on 1000-foot corridor centerline.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening

Creek

Belvedere
11 fm'.: W
s^r 7 qv +? ?TL ?x
'-.i'H axn i S ,?W''rl ,J a Ii
1, 02
W p
5 .wk?+I' K l/ y? f ?4 v S'
?,I"Y p 7 i ? 1 4 ? Ql
14 >
v ? ? ? 9Y ° t. ? 9.rr* r, ?Oa? t "? x` ,? ?b • ? r" ?,, '` ht`"v , v t ^' ?` ?*,n r 6 a
es , l> ?,y?U'? n'S5,4?Y rr _°;..: d?L* tT n.y ,y wgal'?k
F., "rs ?Y' n p` .. r ? / ki° `'n.? ° y. "S` ?I
\ ^ M°n°vy`?'g' te,.
_- ' M1 ,r ja/ ,4s?? J?;° 'u., ?e ?,. ,. e '?h?.v ?,?,ro
4
?
afro&4 p k,?r^' ?y G} ' ?
h ?G ! 11Lvq,? ,'^?-''`?'+4i'?v'"'.wp?4 '°
h
s ytr .,$ W k? .a i d "t ;, a w a +p. sr - n
t" 3f t ~ fd r'a 1? s? 3 °t w?r°f A A *w`? p r J
Lec
gend
fi v? '???? V ''4dro ?d'4 "M r'ra¢"'»y,§3T Yt S I,y,'?{F? '''t ,i?.' d ?G. i? r?
Call
Major Roads OgdenPark Public School
°'??' Corridor G Parcels © Librar
'` y
4,r?7-
SNHA Emer enc
4?-ACorridorH g y
0^ ,l, a r?'k t }, m x+ r i
Corridor)
SNHAMacrosite Church
Corridor M(1) SNHA Megasite Cemetery
Streams Managed Areas A Archaeological
/ r
!County Boundary Nature Preserves Historic
j dK'
" 06
? Study Area A NHEOPts
( HazMat UST
p ,Ba+S i I
'g, A
y p Ka ; yak _J Proposed Developments A RCW
US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
Prepared Alternatives G, H I and M(1) 0 0.5 1 2 Figure No.
Miles
For ` NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 5
MULKEY
?? _ ? New Hanover & Pencler Counties, NC Aerial Photography Provided by NcooT

y
Castle Bay
A
Prot
s ?V cr fS ?f"? t1
?? L k .. s j yp `a
U", -4rfA
0? .14 ?+ t'7+f<?y r :Z$ S".' 'a g at r,J'y 3
I Legend
g14clot.aa ?, ' + ?v inn t w t g ? II "'?h r??? x? ?i" ? 'r
t? ?04W'!
Public School
Major Roads OgdenPark
vcoorMurrayvmr k??? y fir' CorridorJ Parcels Library
$..
MrtinatinnSih - t. '? =s $.. .? V yw r'.
rr,
F,A Corridor K SNHA Emergency
Corridor L SNHA Macrosite Church
r
-n i
Streams SNHA Megasite Cemetery
( County Boundary
Managed Areas Archaeological
Study Area
Nature Preserves Historic
t"s 'C? 7P V « S'rc?? Y Q''J P1}?'SI°pr??' 4'r`w`? yy ?r S/
s?
0 ?" gr ?? fe y` a c a ? h?e t Developments A NHEO Pis ( HazMat/UST
a?? N s , ,? r Proposed
• ? fi ?? ?m_ v ?? ! - A RCW
d ? ?.„ I f
US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
6v1 U LK E Y Prepared . Alternatives J, K and L o 05 2Miles Figure No.
For NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 6
E F R ti 1 N L,1 r New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Aerial Photography Provided by NcDOT
B-Nedere Plantation

Y• %F
C p4?
OG
•G
'l?
r€

a
e
G
O
.G

P
Legend
Major Roads - OgdenPark g Public School
Corridor N Parcels Library
Corridor 0 -' SNHA Emergency
CorridorP SNHAMacrosite Church
Corridor M(2) SNHA Megasite Cemetery
Streams Managed Areas ® Archaeological
County Boundary Nature Preserves Historic
Study Area A NHEO Pts HaZMat/UST
Proposed Developments A RCW
US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
Prepared Alternatives N, 0, P, and M(2) 0 0.5 t 2Miles Figure No.
M U L K E Y For NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U 4751 & R 3300 7
New Hanover & Pencler Counties, NC Aerial Photography Provided by NCDOT
I

APPENDIX A- CORRIDOR SCREENING AND DESIGN CRITERIA

I

I
I
I

US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-1
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-2

1 .13 CORRIDOR SCREENING AND DESIGN CRITERIA
n
n
I
0
I
u
I

L
Potential corridor alternatives were screened for suitability based on several criteria, including
meeting the purpose of and need for the proposed project, minimizing impacts to natural and
cultural resources, and consideration of community features. Geographic information system (GIS)
data and modeling, aerial photography and observations from field visits were used in the analysis.
1.1 RESOURCES CONSIDERED
The following features were considered in the development of the preliminary corridor alternatives:
¦ Available Natural Resources Data
• Wetlands (by type)
• Streams
• Protected Species
• Natural Heritage and Managed Areas
• Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas
¦ Community
• Accessibility
• Public Services
• Community Facilities
• Traffic Service
• Businesses
• Displacements
¦ Recorded Archaeology and Historic Resource Sites
' ¦ Recorded Hazardous Materials Sites and Underground Storage Tanks
0 Major Utility Easements

1.2 DESIGN CRITERIA
Alignment centerlines were placed to minimize impacts to resources, provide a roadway that is
constructible, and cross roads, streams and utility easements at a reasonable angle. The following
design criteria were also used when preparing the alternatives:
1.2.1 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS (R-3300)
1. Freeway Classification
2. Control of access facility
3. Design speed of 70 miles per hour (mph); posted speed of 65 mph
4. Recommended proposed right of way width: 250 feet
5. Typical Sections
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-3
a. Lane Width: 12 feet
b. Roadway Width: 118 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes with 12-foot outside
shoulders (ten-foot paved) in each direction with a 46-foot median containing six-
foot inside shoulders (four-foot paved)
c. Structure Width for Bypass: Dual bridges, 38 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes
and one ten-foot outside shoulder and one four-foot median shoulder
6. Maximum grade of three percent; minimum grade of 0.3 percent
7. Side slopes of 6:1 (minimum) to 3:1 (maximum) for all cut or fill heights
1 .2.2 MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION (U-4751)
1. Urban Arterial Classification
2. Partial control of access facility
3. Design speed of 50 miles per hour (mph); posted speed of 45 mph
4. Recommended proposed right of way width: 150 feet
5. Typical Sections
a. Lane Width: 12 feet
b. Roadway Width: 63 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes with eight-foot outside
shoulders (four-foot paved) in each direction with a 23-foot median containing 1.5-
foot curb and gutter
c. Structure Width for Bypass: Dual bridges, 30 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes
and one four-foot outside shoulder and one two-foot median shoulder
6. Maximum grade of three percent; minimum grade of 0.3 percent
7. Side slopes of 6:1 (minimum) to 3:1 (maximum) for all cut or fill heights
1.3 SCREENING METHODOLOGY
A windshield survey was conducted to identify neighborhoods, community facilities, and other
notable features along several major roads within the project area. Additional information was
gathered from published sources and files of various state and federal resource agencies. The project
was discussed with local planning agencies to determine the compatibility with local planning goals,
and to note any areas of potential controversy.
Published information regarding the project area and region was derived from a number of
resources including but not limited to:
• Soil survey data for New Hanover and Pender Counties
• Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Wetland Mapping
• US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping
• GIS data layers for New Hanover and Pender Counties
• NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) data
• USGS Topographic mapping
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-4
I
' • NCDOT aerial photography
• US Census Bureau Data
' • Local planning documents
' The project site is included on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps for Hampstead,
Scotts Hill, and Topsail, North Carolina.
' Utilizing GIS software from Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), a least-cost model
was developed for the study area. The least-cost model analyzed natural and human environment
features, weighted for constraint factors, and generated best path alignments between termini for
' which potential corridors would generate the least overall impacts. After the model was run for all
routes, centerlines were drawn to reflect the best path alignments to the extent possible. Impacts
were calculated by section for each alignment and the sections with the least overall impacts were
' retained and combined into alignment alternative segments, which are described in Section 4.5. The
segment centerlines were buffered and several 1,000-foot corridor alternatives were generated by
merging the segments in different combinations (see Sections 4.6 and 4.7) that minimized impacts.

US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-5
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B- REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-1
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-2

I
I
I
I
I

1.0 REFERENCES
City of Wilmington. www.wihningtonnc.gov.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. October 18, 2006. US 17 Corridor Study (TIP Proj No U-4751 +8-
3300), Pender, NC.
Hampstead Chamber of Commerce. www.hampsteadchamber.corn.
Log In North Carolina. Economic Census Data. //data.osbm.state.nc.us/pls/linc/
dyn_linc_main.show
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need Statement, 2006.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Important Farmlands of North Carolina.
www.nc.nres.usda.gov/programs /soilsurvey/pritnefarmland.httn.
New Hanover County GIS Services. Zoning Map. http://www.nhcgov.com/GIS/GISservices.asp
North Carolina State Demographics. http://demog.state.nc.us.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Cape FearKiverBasinavide
VaterQuality Plan. Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning Program. //h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.httn.
' North Carolina Department of Transportation. June 2006. TravelAnalysis ReportforMilitay Cutoff
Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass, TIP Nos. U4751 and R-3300.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Draft 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program.
' www.ncdot.org.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. Feasibility Study, Military Cutoff Road Extension
' From Existing Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) in WYlilmington to Proposed TIP Project R-2405A (US 17
Wilmington Bypass).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. The Strategic Highway Corridors. Concept
Development Report, Chapter 3.

North Carolina Employment Security Commission. www.ncesc.com.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-3
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2000. Executive Summary, NaturalArea Inventory ofPender
County, North Carolina.
North Carolina State Demographics. http://detnog.state.nc.us.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Draft Revision Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
Management Plan for North Carolina State-Owned Game Lands.
Pender County Planning Department. 2005. Future Land Use Plan Map. www.pender-
county.com/documents /planning/Maps
Pender County Planning Department. 2005 Zoning Map. http: / /www.12ender-
couniy.com/dgparttnents/planning/index.shtrni.
Pender County Thoroughfare Plan, 1997.
Personal Communications, October 2, 2006-
New Hanover County Planning Department: Chris O'Keefe, Jane Daughtridge, Sam Burgess
Pender County Planning Department: Ken Vafiar, Andrew Collins, Michael herold
City of Wilmington Planning Department: Mike Kozlosky, Ron Satterfield, Christine Laughlin
United States Census Bureau. www.census.gov.
Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2006. Wilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Range
Transportation Plan. www.wtnpo.org/LRTP.htrn.
Wilmington- New Hanover County. Joint Coastal Area Management Plan 2006 Update.
http://www.nhcgov.com/PLN/PLNtnain.asp
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-4

i
i
i
i

NFW HANUVER COUNTY MYTH „Ft„_IrIA
A NA W UfSIN CF i,FY IFAr -IifIS rLAI WAS bRAWN UNDER MI
S 'St '? 2 I:.1 IM AN A'.IOA S . l'I lA M '- F /S,01,
>L
ONS REWRD_.J AS I (,),I It,-r,,.A7 ?T, N vnuAl
©Jl JJA 5 W I N RV CI AND ARE Ct AI, IrD of 1 AS f)f AN J FROM
_c M h AS JW I U' A S 2 Y W .' U .!
xrEEr) V( CRG-.7 (L 0. Mt t SF LII L i?Ol A I A F IIS I t
p?7V IF WFRr (> PN ) .Y
iA M)'t) S ?' E AND
vt YEAN J rU ' OR I' F ( 2 A 'C?S 1 V)f (IPATiOVS' SS
4J AN U O _A ',' f SH(,Wr r( JR TFA, Ili ',lR! Y WAS F FOR MED
I A 4i.' S'.,., 1 ti _K I i w .,_ /:'S A A4_..
COOK) JA It S. ARE t. 1SFU C NAL N7 -
' 17 A: FD FA(. D IN A(,COH A Lc NIP1 '3 S
I`IAt N
3t, ! A1nEVL'.D-
WITTaE MY OFli( NAL "NATURE LSCFNC,. NUMBER AND TllIS
'JAY VF A J 005.
A c
I t" DC N17 C -
l
/
/
LI ii
S-I,
r L

LEGEND
s

F K lIN C G? r k _'F USN Im1EPP
(C( it
7 1 EXl IV '1N
11 GLD, PIPE
FIR cx 5 v )N h:IJ
A
I If cA ST!t IRON r _
o EX! 7 TN"" N.';
I W == f nN c T!")N W
JW OH t ! i „
I k. TIP] 1 II4RY
6 N
n
E
NE'C
,NiJ .^ ?,?iCl I1?U
„
p?ticil?
-Z-?:j

/

?i
xG \?'y
S-T A r.6G 64 y 1 9 .I
l / 9
\
11? '' ? h?l 1 a
C J"
/
r d9.9'F
// 9!
17!F
/

I'
-
KT a SRN AREA\
ROADWAY CORRIDOR V
\ X OFFICIAL MAP 1
nv
MILITARY CUT-OFF
ROAD EXTENSION
FROM
GORDON ROAD TO 1-140
FOR rH
ClTYOF WlLM1NGTON
eo Box ram
WILMINCIP.N,NcfB l
PRELIMINARY
FOR REVIEW ONLY
ARNOLDW CARSON, PLS PC
405NORMTHIRD MEET
WILMINOTCW, NcT oI
PHONE [phone]
9 l 9128
Iaoq' goo'- ?:aoc' '^.cL
I
Pender County
Future Land Use Plan Map
77
71-
7
AFNDE? ?
Pender"Ie:i? ?M tplc IlilII
Watha? l
r Land
Classifications
,t
Conservation Areas I
421
• " Conservation Areas III
Rural Areas
Buria
a
s, Rural Clusters
i
®Transition Areas
Atkinson
St Helena 1b Urban Growth Areas
Urban Growth Areas
?
a Y - = ? Surf (,Jity
`?g ?Nr?h?;(fuuit f
Topsail Beach
,y
nampatea?l !
Primary Roads
121
Rivers & Streams
S ; Municipalities
1 inch equals 8,000 feet ETIS
?_.
r
/9003 950 0 7,900 Feet
¦ ?. , 1
* Wetlands of less than fifty (50) contiguous acres not included NAD 11983 North Carolina State Plane t????1 Pender County Planning Department 2005
i
i
i
i
i
i
VA ilniinrl<?n S?-?? I l;nn?ci r(nuu?c Part lll: Land classification
Brunswick County
I
I
I
I
i
I
C'.RTIFIED 6/23/o6 Page 66 v crsion 8/2/o6 3:o;; PNI
2oo6 Wilmington - New Hanover County CAMA Plan
Land Classifeation Map Update
e

7 -- -
0 1
? ur

j
1 r
?
V? / FA I 1

I fin.
I I I V
1 11 ? `may
?
?? ?
? I
V / I
n f
'
J
J
" J
I
I I (.
1.

vsPA r,
r _

^
1
1 CA? - ?
s U
C
o U
??
(,D
Wick
Br?ns
ar?iPema cw.rm??u ra,p
w?m?Ae h ilea ?
w
anb?a .?.. dw a
Ci.- by, PeM.i C.-Ty PWnnlny Nparl -
Pwa.?C-ty-
o-='
'
P.na.i Cowry Z9 Oraln.nce

41
I I % ep yd
7
OAP ?
C,
0<"
1 inch Pylhtls 4,000 feet FA_
wu?, ? ?axeuoa
111101111111111
NAD 19113 Nndh Carolina Stale Plane
r\
New Hanover County Zoning Map
`" Q'
1-1
R-2 0
S
I-2
1 7
I-1 D&I
B-2 CD Z-786
r R-15
f
;1y7
PD
`i3z . 1 . • d&I CD
B-2 C D
I-1 CD `
AR 6-1 CD 10 R-20 S
F.-20
H KI
i R.. I
11 _IX
J&I 4
- WD
132? QO 710000
1
http://www.iilic,,,c)v.com/GIS/GISservices.gsp
C O RRI D13R ALTERNATIVES
SCREENING
US 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT NO. 401 91 .1.1
TIP PROJECT Nos.
U-4751 & R-3300
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
?0 N04tl1 "y
g4,
° o
a
?Of TR?N9fO?F
JANUARY 2007
PREPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
6750 TRYON ROAD
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 27518

C

L'

H

I

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Purpose of Today's Meeting ....................................................................................1
2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................1
3.0 Purpose of the Proposed Project .............................................................................1
4.0 Project Alternatives .................................................................................................. 3
4.1 No Build Alternative ......................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Transportation System Management Alternative ......................................................... 3
4.3 Mass Transit Alternative .................................................................................................. 3
4.4 Widen Existing Facility .................................................................................................... 3
4.5 New L ocation Alternatives .............................................................................................. 3
4.5.1 Segment A ............................................................................................................ 4
4'.5.2 Segment B ............................................................................................................. 4
4.5.3 Segment C ............................................................................................................. 4
4.5.4 Segment D ............................................................................................................ 4
4.5.5 Segment E ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.6 Segment 1 ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.7 Segment 2 ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.8 Segment 3 ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.9 Segment F ............................................................................................................. 6
4.5.10 Segment G ............................................................................................................ 6
4.6 Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) Corridor Alternatives ..................................................... 6
4.6.1 Alternative A: Segments A-1 .............................................................................. 6
4.6.2 Alternative B: Segments A-2 .............................................................................. 6
4.6.3 Alternative C: Segments A-3 .............................................................................. 7
4.6.4 Alternative D: Segments B-1 ............................................................................. 7
4.6.5 Alternative E: Segments B-2 .............................................................................. 7
4.6.6 Alternative F: Segments B-3 .............................................................................. 7
4.6.7 Alternative G: Segments C-1 ............................................................................. 7
4.6.8 Alternative H: Segments C-2 ............................................................................. 7
4.6.9 Alternative I: Segments C-3 ............................................................................... 8
4.6.10 Alternative J: Segments D-1 ..........................
4.6.11 Alternative K: Segments D-2 ............................................................................. 8
4.6.12 Alternative L: Segments D-3 .............................................................................. 8
4.6.13 Alternative N: Segments E-1 ............................................................................. 8
4.6.14 Alternative O: Segments E-2 ............................................................................. 8
4.6.15 Alternative P: Segments E-3 .............................................................................. 9
4.7 Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) Corridor Alternatives .............................. 9
4.7.1 Alternative M(1) - Segment F ........................................................................... 9
4.7.2 Alternative M(2) - Segment G .......................................................................... 9
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
in
Appendix A- Corridor Screening and Design Criteria ..............................................A-1
1.0 Corridor Screening and Design Criteria .............................................................. A-3
1.1 Resources Considered ..................................................................................................A-3
1.2 Design Criteria ...............................................................................................................A-3
1.2.1 Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) ..........................................................................A-3
1.2.2 Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) ...................................................A-4
1.3 Screening Methodology ...............................................................................................A-4
Appendix B- References and Supporting Information .............................................B-1
1.0 References ............................................................................................................ B-3
2.0 Reference Maps ................................................................................................... B-5
2.1 Military Cutoff Road Extension Official Corridor Map ......................................... B-5
2.2 Pender County Future Land Use ................................................................................ B-7
2.3 New Hanover County Land Classification Map ...................................................... B-9
2.4 Pender County Zoning ...............................................................................................B-11
2.5 New Hanover County Zoning ..................................................................................B-13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity ....................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Corridor Segments ............................................................................................................13
Figure 3. Alternatives A, B and C ....................................................................................................15
Figure 4. Alternatives D, E, F and M1 ...........................................................................................17
Figure 5. Alternatives G, H, I and M1 ............................................................................................19
Figure 6. Alternatives J, K and L ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7. Alternatives N, O, P and M2 ........................................................................................... 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Comparison of Build Alternative Corridors ...................................................................11
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
1
iv
1

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
' 1.0 PURPOSE OF TODAY?S MEETING-.
The purpose of today's meeting is to review preliminary alternatives for the US 17 Corridor Study
' and determine what alternatives should be shown to the public at the citizens informational
workshops. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) plans to conduct
citizens informational workshops for the proposed project in May.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

I

The NCDOT proposes to make transportation improvements to the US 17 and Market Street
(US 17 Business) corridor in northern New Hanover and southern Pender Counties. Two North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects are being evaluated as part of the
US 17 Corridor Study.
Project U-4751 is included in the Draft 2007-2013 TIP as an extension of Military Cutoff Road on
new location from its current terminus at US 17 (Market Street) in Wilmington north to the
Wilmington Bypass Qohn Jay Burney Jr. Freeway). The proposed project is programmed for right of
way acquisition in 2012, with construction in post years. Project R-3300 is included in the Draft
2007-2013 TIP as a US 17 bypass of Hampstead. The proposed project is programmed for partial
right of way acquisition in 2012, with the remainder of right of way acquisition and construction in
post years. Both projects are part of the NCDOT's Strategic Highway Corridor Initiative.
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The purpose of the US 17 Corridor Study project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and
safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area. The project study area is roughly
bounded on the west by I-40, on the north by the Northeast Cape Fear River, Holly Shelter Game
Lands to the east, and Market Street and US 17 to the south (Figure 1). The Section 404/NEPA
Merger Team for the US 17 Corridor Study concurred on the purpose of the project and the project
study area at their September 21, 2006 Concurrence Point 1 meeting.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
t.. 7nache,
Y i Cypress )
r' ' r Creek t'

W Ila e o? T City
1o H Is. 41
is
r ^
`yl II Haws
,
?.
.hawk ° I d1 a
_ Ran
I Pentlenea
err t
W

ivan" a I_ tha 15 Mal
HIII
Z ,.

?
E
`/ P fl a
W
E R It
t
G
`
a
zto /
Wards 1
s
® \t
rp,
,
coner o
BuB w \(50
Atkinson ?? * 3 \ 'JFol
p

f a
Helena 5 ID
Holly R:dg
Moores re k 6
5 N L HoMf ield 1
117
t 4_ \ o
3.

.,.t
urrie 6 . Rocky Point t3
1 13 21. 210
a
11 ?. 2IB ® e i10
E
z
1. 421
179
5 5 Hampstead a _

b0
1
tl
H
l
a ,sai. HeecF
15 i
l
t
Ha
a u;l lr/,t
t . 173 ', Mill ctorcrlr
smar, C
eelco 4 ;'yr??
Smdy
Em k S
'(<
h r
,
Maco " 6 1 G
t 9 \n _PI d J ?> Z o n

B shoe
0
1 3? •, 1r gh -1.}e
' Bear:
-n??fi <B n? ,
' „el PROJECT
.-a-"
t
MASONBORO
?
? VICINITY
¢tAND
A? 17J 1
.
S W I? C [ K.

/ ( )
87
l ?'. 1PezeBecrfi Inlrr
?}tr
178 Bnnma = Y
.
Carolina8,,adi
{
soiflt,g Lai C I a
N9&LdGC
" ?
/
I r[f.4 .. ...
8
a
h _ ... .
r
.
e
Smith St y G fl r'FaS Uee
1 lams q a? sITP+G
zu
o sansei
Ya t ? Hzrbot 133
21 it
o e C k Island
?? re IM 1st G
BACO HEnD
IS
NG
71
[3 u y IA
•
1
?
.. ?qFE FE.:R
Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
OF NORTH C
y1? 049
North Carolina
q ?
m Department of Transportation
9 ?Q
QO
OF: TRANS
Holly Shelter Gamelands \ ?y
{
He' a
J .? 7 r vv?S?e1? J
r
-.__ ,..
J z n
't15Rt33Y x' \ ° V
ti abotl /?'A
+ y ? ti„ o? l a5?
co j a\ 1
wtmEE o _._, ` a CUas
r%rl_ STUDY AREA
\ - i'9t n Bypass i
r
15- Al
\ ? is f
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
? ° t% Miles N??

4.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
' 4.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to US 17 or Military
Cutoff Road within the study area; only typical maintenance activities would occur. The No Build
' Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project.
' 4.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements are intended to maximize the efficiency
of the present system within the existing right-of-way while minimizing capital outlay. Examples of
' typical TSM operational improvements include signal phasing or timing changes, access control,
speed restrictions and traffic law enforcement. Typical TSM physical improvements include the
addition of turn lanes, signing, striping, and minor realignments. A current TIP Project (U-4902B)
' involves access management improvements to Market Street. It is expected that TSM
improvements would improve traffic flow along Market Street, but it is expected that Market Street
would still operate at an unsatisfactory level of service.
1
4.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
' The project study area will be evaluated for characteristics suitable for implementation of mass
transit or enhancement of existing mass transit systems that would improve the traffic carrying
capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor.
1
4.4 WIDEN EXISTING FACILITY
' Widening existing Market Street would improve traffic flow. However, land adjacent to the roadway
is densely developed. Widening the existing facility would require the acquisition of additional right
of way and result in a substantial number of residential and business displacements. Businesses
' along Market Street would experience reduced access during the construction of this alternative.
' 4.5 NEw LOCATION ALTERNATIVES.
Constructing a facility on new location would reduce the amount of through traffic using Market
Street and existing US 17 within Hampstead. A number of new location alternative corridors have
' been identified for the US 17 corridor study. These alternatives were developed utilizing GIS
modeling (see Appendix A).
This modeling effort resulted in the development of five alternative segments west of NC 210 and
three alternative segments between NC 210 and US 17 near Hampstead (Figure 2). These segments
can be combined to make a total of 15 possible new location alternatives for a US 17 Hampstead
' Bypass. Two new location alternatives have been developed for proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension. These segments and alternatives are discussed below.
' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
4.5.1 SEGMENT A
Segment A begins in New Hanover County at the I-40 interchange with Holly Shelter Road
(SR 1002). It extends northeast across undeveloped property just north of Holly Shelter Road.
Segment A crosses over to the south side of Holly Shelter Road at a curve past the Roanoke Cement
Company and Cemex Castle Hayne Terminal property. The segment follows closely along the south
side of Holly Shelter Road adjacent to mostly undeveloped property. It crosses a transmission line
easement and turns southeast to intersect with NC 210 in Pender County south of the intersection
of NC 210 and Island Creek Road (SR 1002). Several businesses are located at the NC 210
intersection. Segments A, B, C and D terminate at an interchange with NC 210.
4.5.2 SEGMENT B
Segment B begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the Wilmington Bypass,
approximately midway between existing interchanges with I-40 and US 17. It is anticipated that the
interchange would impact a small section of the NCDOT's Murraysville Mitigation Site. Segment B
extends northeast past Sidbury Road (SR 1336). Land use between the bypass and Sidbury Road is
mostly undeveloped property. There is a small residential community west of the Sidbury Road
crossing called Island Creek Estates.
As Segment B crosses into Pender County, it crosses the northwest section of the proposed
Easthaven development. The development site plan calls for a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP),
school, fire/EMS department, amenity areas, an athletic complex/park, commercial and various
types of residential land use. At build-out, up to 4,700 single and multi-family homes with
approximately 10,000 residents are anticipated. Segment B continues northeast, crossing the
transmission line easement and joining Segment A near Churchouse Bay Lane. It ends at an
interchange at NC 210 south of the NC 210 and Island Creek Road intersection.
4.5.3 SEGMENT C
Segment C begins in New Hanover County at the same Wilmington Bypass location as Segment B.
The corridor travels northeast and crosses Sidbury Road. Island Creek Estates is located just west of
Segment C. The corridor continues to the north and turns east to parallel the south side of the
transmission line easement as it enters into Pender County. Land use along this portion of Segment
C is characterized by forest and wetlands.
As Segment C crosses into Pender County, it travels across the northern section of the proposed
Easthaven development. After leaving the proposed Easthaven development, Segment C continues
northeast for approximately one mile, then turns southeast to intersect NC 210.
4.5.4 SEGMENT D
Segment D begins in New Hanover County at the Wilmington Bypass/US 17 interchange. It
extends north across undeveloped property, crossing Sidbury Road near the New Hanover
County/Pender County line. Land use in the vicinity of the Sidbury Road crossing includes scattered
residential and undeveloped properties. Segment D continues northeast, crossing the central portion
of the proposed Easthaven development. It continues northeast across Harrison Creek Road, an
area which is lightly developed with residential properties, ending at NC 210.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening '
4
1

' 4.5.5 SEGMENT E
Segment E is a modification of Segment D that moves the beginning of the alignment at the
' Wilmington Bypass to approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange. Segment E extends
northeast from the bypass across undeveloped land and joins Segment D south of the New Hanover
County/Pender County line. It then follows Segment D to NC 210.
' 4.5.6 SEGMENT 1
Segments 1, 2 and 3 begin at NC 210 south of the intersection of NC 210 and Island Creek Road.
' After its intersection with NC 210, Segment 1 continues to the northeast. It extends mainly through
undeveloped forested property, crossing a large powerline easement near Godfrey Creek Road.
' There is a small residential development called Godfrey's Creek Estates at the crossing of Godfrey
Creek Road. Godfrey's Creek Estates includes both mobile homes and stick built homes.
North of Godfrey Creek Road, Segment 1 extends through more forested land, and then turns east.
' The corridor crosses Saps Road and Hoover Road (SR 1569). There is limited residential land use on
Saps Road and Hoover Road consisting of both mobile homes and stick built homes. The large
powerline easement splits into two smaller easements west of Hoover Road. Both smaller easements
' are crossed by Segment 1.
Segment 1 extends to the north of Castle Bay, an existing residential golf course community off of
' Hoover Road. It continues east through the northern portion of The Preserve, which is a proposed
mixed-use development. The Preserve is approximately 750 acres in size and will be developed in
phases. Currently, there are 250 permitted single-family lots. Future plans include 200 additional lots
for single-family and multi-family use. The development will include 500,000 square feet of retail
space. Phase I was scheduled to begin in October 2006. Full build-out is expected in three years. The
development is adjacent to Topsail High School and borders Holly Shelter Game Lands.
' Segment 1 terminates at US 17 near Long Leaf Road with an interchange. A mini-storage facility,
plant nursery, an undeveloped 25-acre property for sale for retail and office development, and two
' churches are located on the west side of US 17 near the terminus. Land use on the east side of
US 17 near the terminus includes Belvedere Plantation, a residential golf course community,
Andrews Mortuary, Hampstead Chapel, and Sea Lawn Cemetery.
4.5.7 SEGMENT 2
' Segment 2 begins at NC 210 south of the intersection of NC 210 and Island Creek Road. It extends
east across several minor roads that include lightly developed residential properties, and on through
undeveloped forested areas. Segment 2 continues through farmland, crossing Hoover Road north of
' South Topsail Elementary School. The segment continues northeast through undeveloped property
and through The Preserve proposed development. Segment 2 ends at an interchange with US 17 at
the same location as Segment 1.
1
4.5.8 SEGMENT 3
' Segment 3 begins at NC 210 south of the intersection of NC 210 and Island Creek Road. It follows
Segment 2 until Hoover Road, where it turns south. Segment 3 continues across undeveloped land
' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
5

and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road (SR 1702). There is a small mobile home development '
nearby. Topsail Presbyterian Church is north of the Segment 3 intersection with US 17.
4.5.9 SEGMENT F
Segment F is an extension of Military Cutoff Road. It extends north from Market Street at Military
Cutoff Road where land use includes mostly small businesses and a golf driving range. Segment F
extends through county property between sections of Ogden Park and through a single-family
housing development. It then runs adjacent to a densely developed residential area to the west. The
segment turns northwest through a less developed area and ends near Plantation Road and Crooked
Pine Road at an interchange with the Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway between the I-40
and US 17 interchanges.
4.5.1 0 SEGMENT G
Segment G also extends Military Cutoff Road. Segment G follows the same alignment as Segment F
for approximately two miles. Where Segment F turns northwest, Segment G turns northeast and
extends through mostly undeveloped property to the Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile
west of US 17.
4.6 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS (R-3300) CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
Corridor alternatives for the proposed project are provided below and shown on Figures 3 through
7. The alternatives are comprised of various combinations of the segments introduced in Section 4.5.
Refer to Section 4.5 for detailed descriptions of each segment. A comparison of the build
alternatives is provided in Table 1. Highlights from the table are included in the alternative
descriptions. Refer to the table for a detailed listing of nearby resources and potential impacts.
4.6.1 ALTERNATIVE A: SEGMENTS A-1
Corridor Alternative A combines Segments A and 1. Alternative A begins at the I-40 interchange at
Holly Shelter Road and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative is the longest in length, at approximately 14.83 miles. It includes eight stream crossings
and could impact approximately 1,036 acres of wetlands. Alternative A will result in a total of 46
residential and business displacements. This and all other alternatives have known protected species
occurrences within one mile of the corridor centerline.
4.6.2 ALTERNATIVE B: SEGMENTS A-Z
Corridor Alternative B combines Segments A and 2. Alternative B. begins at the I-40 interchange at
Holly Shelter Road and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative is approximately 14.27 miles in length. Estimated impacts include seven stream crossings
and approximately 879 acres of wetlands. Alternative B will result in approximately 59 residential
and business displacements, and has a notable number of hazardous material sites within one mile of
the centerline. This alternative also has the highest number of recorded archaeological sites within
one mile of the centerline.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening '
6

I

I_!

I
I
I
4.6.3 ALTERNATIVE C: SEGMENTS A-3
Corridor Alternative C combines Segments A and 3. Alternative C begins at the I-40 interchange at
Holly Shelter Road and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. This alternative includes eight stream
crossings and approximately 687 acres of wetland impacts. Alternative C is approximately 12.36
miles in length and will result in the most residential and business displacements.
4.6.4 ALTERNATIVE D: SEGMENTS B-1
Corridor Alternative D combines Segments B and 1. Alternative D begins at the Wilmington Bypass
and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. Approximate impacts
include ten stream crossings and more than 1,059 acres of wetlands. This alternative has the lowest
amount of potential residential and business displacements, and the highest number of major utility
crossings.
4.452.5 ALTERNATIVE E: SEGMENTS B-2
Corridor Alternative E combines Segments B and 2. Alternative E begins at the Wilmington Bypass
and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This alternative is
approximately 13.41 miles in length and includes an estimated 36 residential and business
displacements. Wetland impacts are estimated at approximately 902 acres and there are nine stream
crossings.
4.6.6 ALTERNATIVE F: SEGMENTS B-3
Corridor Alternative F combines Segments B and 3. Alternative F begins at the Wilmington Bypass
and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. Estimated wetland impacts from Alternative F are low
relative to most other alternatives. There are ten stream crossings and approximately 39 residential
and business displacements. Estimated 100-year floodplain impacts are lower than many other
alternatives.
4.6.7 ALTERNATIVE G: SEGMENTS C-1
Corridor Alternative G combines Segments C and 1. Alternative G begins at an interchange with the
Wilmington Bypass and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative has the second highest estimated amount of wetland impacts, at approximately 1,141
acres, but has a low amount of residential and business displacements compared to other
alternatives. Alternative G crosses ten streams and has the second highest amount of 100-year
floodplain impacts, at approximately 207 acres.
4.6.8 ALTERNATIVE H: SEGMENTS C-2
Corridor Alternative H combines Segments C and 2. Alternative H begins at an interchange with the
Wilmington Bypass and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative is approximately 13.53 miles in length and includes nine stream crossings. Alternative H
has approximately 37 residential and business displacements and approximately 985 acres of wetland
impacts.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
7
4.6.9 ALTERNATIVE 1: SEGMENTS C-3
Corridor Alternative I combines Segments C and 3. Alternative I begins at an interchange with the
Wilmington Bypass and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. Estimated 100-year floodplain and
wetland impacts are lower than many other alternatives. Alternative I includes ten stream crossings
and approximately 40 residential and business displacements.
4.6.1 O ALTERNATIVE aJ: SEGMENTS D-1
Corridor Alternative J combines Segments D and 1. Alternative J begins at the Wilmington
Bypass/US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road.
This alternative has the highest estimated amount of wetland impacts and includes nine stream
crossings. Alternative J will result in approximately 31 residential and business displacements.
4.6.1 1 ALTERNATIVE K: SEGMENTS D-2
Corridor Alternative K combines Segments D and 2. Alternative K begins at the Wilmington
Bypass/US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road.
Estimated impacts include approximately 1,014 acres of wetlands and 44 residential and business
displacements. This alternative is approximately 12.31 miles in length.
4.6.1 2 ALTERNATIVE L: SEGMENTS D-3
Corridor Alternative L combines Segments D and 3. Alternative L begins at the Wilmington
Bypass/US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. At 10.41 miles in length, this
is one of the shorter alternatives. Impacts to the 100-year floodplain are approximately 68.70 acres,
which is among the lowest of the alternatives. Alternative L has the second highest number of
recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the corridor centerline.
4.6.1 3 ALTERNATIVE N: SEGMENTS E-1
Corridor Alternative N combines Segments E and 1. Alternative N begins at the Wilmington Bypass
approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High
School near Long Leaf Road. This alternative includes 13 stream crossings and the second highest
estimated amount of wetland impacts, at approximately 1,123 acres. Estimated residential and
business displacements are lower than most of the other alternatives and Alternative N has the
lowest recorded number of archaeological sites within one mile of the corridor centerline.
4.6.14 ALTERNATIVE O: SEGMENTS E-2
Corridor Alternative O combines Segments E and 2. Alternative O begins at the Wilmington Bypass
approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High
School near Long Leaf Road. This alternative is approximately 12.28 miles in length and is estimated
to impact approximately 965 acres of wetlands. Residential and business displacements are estimated
at 37 and no major utility crossings are anticipated.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening

I

' 4.6.1 5 ALTERNATIVE PC SEGMENTS E-3
Corridor Alternative P combines Segments E and 3. Alternative P begins at the Wilmington Bypass
' approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road.
This alternative has a high number of stream crossings and a lower amount of potential 100-year
floodplain impacts relative to most others. Wetland impacts are estimated at 773 acres. Alternative P
' has the third highest number of estimated residential displacements and is not expected to have any
major utility crossings.
' 4.7 MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION '(U-4751) CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES
' There are two build alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension. The City of Wilmington
adopted a Transportation Official Corridor map for the proposed extension of Military Cutoff Road
on August 8, 2005 (see Appendix B). Alternative M(1) closely follows the adopted corridor, while
Alternative M(2) follows it approximately half way. The following provides highlights of the two
alternatives. Further details are provided in Table 1 and on Figures 2, 5, and 7.
4.7.1 ALTERNATIVE M(1) - SEGMENT F
Corridor Alternative M(1) consists of Segment F. It begins on Market Street at Military Cutoff Road
and ends at the Wilmington Bypass near Plantation Road and Crooked Pine Road. This alternative is
' approximately 3.37 miles in length. Stream and wetland impacts are anticipated; however, there are
no impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Because the surrounding area is densely developed, there is
the potential for a high number of hazardous material site and/or UST impacts, and numerous
' displacements. There are approximately 109 hazardous material sites within one mile of the corridor
centerline. Residential and business displacements are estimated at 57.
' 4.7.2 ALTERNATIVE M(2) - SEGMENT G
Corridor Alternative M(2) consists of Segment G. It begins on Market Street at Military Cutoff Road
' and ends at the Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange. This
alternative follows a similar route to Alternative M(1), and therefore has similar potential impacts. It
is slightly longer, at 3.46 miles, and is estimated to have the same number of stream crossings,
' residential and business displacements, and 100-year floodplain impacts. Hazardous material and/or
UST sites within one mile of the corridor are slightly less, at 100.
r
I
C
' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
9
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
10

"fable 1. Comparison of Build Alternative Corridors

I
I

¦
I
I
I

I
I
I
I

FEATURE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE (SEGMENTS)
A (Al) B (A2) C (A3) D (131) E (132) F (133) G (Cl) H (C2) I (C3) J (131) K (132) L (133) N (El) 0 (E2) P(E3) M1
(F) M2
(G)

Length (miles)/(acres) 14.83/
2175.19 14.27/
2106.08 12.36/
1809.77 13.97/
2034.34 13.11/1
965.33 11.51/
1668.92 14.09/
2047.75 13.53/
1978.74 11.62/
1682.32 12.88/
1929.34 L.31/
1860.34 10.41/
1563.92 1 28/
5.65 10.37 /
1499.23 3.37/
441.13 3.46/
45155
Wetland Impacts (acres) 1036.40 879.33 687.16 1059.61 902.54 710.37 1141.71 984.64 792.47 1171.30 101422 822.06 1123.01 965.93 773.77 343.98 369.35
Stream Crossings (No.) 8 7 8 10 9 10 10 9 10 9 8 9 13 12 13 6 6
Residential Displacements s 32 44 48 10 22 26 11 23 27 16 28 32 11 23 34 29 29
Business Displacements 3 14 15 14 13 14 13 13 14 13 15 16 15 13 14 15 28 28
Known Protected Species Occurrences'- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y y y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Natural Heritage Program Area I Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N
100 Year Floodplain Impacts (acres) 211.18 196.64 148.74 159.5 146.17 96.51 207.48 194.14 96.51 131.15 116.60 68.70 131.1: 116.60 68.70 0.0 0.0
Recorded Historic Properties z 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Recorded Archaeological Sites z 23 38 32 11 17 21 11 17 21 26 32 35 7 13 16 12 9
Wildlife Refuge/Game Lands n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Recreational Areas/Parks t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
HQW, ORW, WS Protected or Critical Areas -' Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Schools t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Churches t 4 4 2 3 3 1 2 2 0 4 4 2 2 2 0 1 1
Cemeteries 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Railroad Crossings (No.) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings (No.) 4 1 1 5 2 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Hazardous Material Sites z 58 64 60 3 4 5 3 4 5 12 13 14 2 3 4 109 100
Interchanges (No.) 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 1 1
Notes:
Within 1000-foot corridor.
\x'ithin one mile of corridor centerline.
3 Within 300-foot corridor based on 1000-foot corridor centerline.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Scrccning
11

ee?
F,e F1,:_

r0'"

v w ° r'
14 'T'
yM3 }! fi ?¢' `?? rL j7 1 #„ ^7' N. ?? ' 'T .(.u . 4 y 4 b? ?2.Yry. e A-111 I?. i@!Y?' . p2 ?%
?3ey ? rf G - S d F..
7 ' K t p t ? Jy?3" •S. ! ® ??h? '?, ?' ? 4:F' (? KI '?. `'?at? 1 .? ? ? 1 ? ,? ???.,???I 1 g Ifnn? #i'.P %4 ?Y. ?iS..} ?Y .tt?hy !'G
e Ssv 4«i r ?? ?, 1,# ?wG z, e rt
J' y? . 1 a x
Legend
t a .
110 1^ , j Major Roads SNHA Public School
77-
*? P?
8 •t Corridor Segments East of NC 210 SNHA Macrosite Library
??
Corridor Segments West of NC 210 `'NHA Megasite ® Emergency
?
°.{ Alf-
r2-r01 Military Cutoff Road Segments Managed Areas Church
Streams Nature Preserves Cemetery
Count Boundary A NHEO Pts A Archaeological
e ?- Y Y
,?.
4 Study Area RCW Historic
I z ,? q 0 Proposed Developments HazMat/UST
' US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
Prepared Corridor Segments o 0.5 1 2 Figure No.
MULKEY For: NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 N1aes 2
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Aerial Photography Provided by RCDOT
YfJF 4 r J.,•E
S TMJ
?I
f 4
n„•

'S ? ?- IleBa ,t, thePrF
t A144
T Legend
.1 7? i, 1i Yd/QP vMt ji ?y Y¢„ - ! y? ail ''lv r ??
00 Major Roads OgdenPark Public School
Library
Corridor N Parcels "I" A
Corridor 0
SNHA Emergency
' 1 a12 v 7
a
Corridor P
R SNHA Macrosite Church
IS, :Corridor M(2) SNHA Megasite Cemetery
.'.
. ?'..? ?'`''t°,+. , l '?,,;, ~`• Streams
as Managed Areas Archaeological
County Boundary Nature Preserves ® Historic
.2r 4
Study Area A NHEO Pts HaZMat/UST
f Proposed Developments RCW
d t • ti,I?[ " , C sd fi a1 ?(4s.
US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
Prepared Alternatives N, 0, P, and M(2)
For: NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC
0 0.5 1 Figure No.
Miles 7
Aerial Photography Provided by NCDOT

I

I
I APPENDIX A- CORRIDOR SCREENING AND DESIGN CRITERIA

I

' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-1
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-2

1 1.0 CORRIDOR SCREENING AND DESIGN CRITERIA
Potential corridor alternatives were screened for suitability based on several criteria, including
meeting the purpose of and need for the proposed project, minimizing impacts to natural and
cultural resources, and consideration of community features. Geographic information system (GIS)
data and modeling, aerial photography and observations from field visits were used in the analysis.
' 1.1 RESOURCES CONSIDERED
The following features were considered in the development of the preliminary corridor alternatives:
' ¦ Available Natural Resources Data
• Wetlands (by type)
• Streams
• Protected Species
• Natural Heritage and Managed Areas
' • Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas
Community
• Accessibility
• Public Services
• Community Facilities
' • Traffic Service
• Businesses
• Displacements
' Recorded Archaeology and Historic Resource Sites
•' Recorded Hazardous Materials Sites and Underground Storage Tanks
N Major Utility Easements
' 1.2 DESIGN CRITERIA
Alignment centerlines were placed to minimize impacts to resources, provide a roadway that is
' constructible, and cross roads, streams and utility easements at a reasonable angle. The following
design criteria were also used when preparing the alternatives:
' 1.2.1 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS (R-3300)
1. Freeway Classification
2. Control of access facility
3. Design speed of 70 miles per hour (mph); posted speed of 65 mph
' 4. Recommended proposed right of way width: 250 feet
5. Typical Sections

US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-3

a. Lane Width: 12 feet
b. Roadway Width: 118 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes with 12-foot outside
shoulders (ten-foot paved) in each direction with a 46-foot median containing six-
foot inside shoulders (four-foot paved)
c. Structure Width for Bypass: Dual bridges, 38 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes
and one ten-foot outside shoulder and one four-foot median shoulder
6. Maximum grade of three percent; minimum grade of 0.3 percent
7. Side slopes of 6:1 (minimum) to 3:1 (maximum) for all cut or fill heights
1.2.2 MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION (U-4751)
1. Urban Arterial Classification
2. Partial control of access facility
3. Design speed of 50 miles per hour (mph); posted speed of 45 mph
4. Recommended proposed right of way width: 150 feet
5. Typical Sections
a. Lane Width: 12 feet
b. Roadway Width: 63 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes with eight-foot outside
shoulders (four-foot paved) in each direction with a 23-foot median containing 1.5-
foot curb and gutter
c. Structure Width for Bypass: Dual bridges, 30 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes
and one four-foot outside shoulder and one two-foot median shoulder
6. Maximum grade of three percent; minimum grade of 0.3 percent
7. Side slopes of 6:1 (minimum) to 3:1 (maximum) for all cut or fill heights
1.3 SCREENING METHODOLOGY
A windshield survey was conducted to identify neighborhoods, community facilities, and other
notable features along several major roads within the project area. Additional information was
gathered from published sources and files of various state and federal resource agencies. The project
was discussed with local planning agencies to determine the compatibility with local planning goals,
and to note any areas of potential controversy.
Published information regarding the project area and region was derived from a number of
resources including but not limited to:
• Soil survey data for New Hanover and Pender Counties
• Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Wetland Mapping
• US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping
• GIS data layers for New Hanover and Pender Counties
• NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) data
• USGS Topographic mapping
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-4

' • NCDOT aerial photography
• US Census Bureau Data
• Local planning documents
The project site is included on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps for Hampstead,
Scotts Hill, and Topsail, North Carolina.
' Utilizing GIS software from Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), a least-cost model
was developed for the study area. The least-cost model analyzed natural and human environment
features, weighted for constraint factors, and generated best path alignments between termini for
' which potential corridors would generate the least overall impacts. After the model was run for all
routes, centerlines were drawn to reflect the best path alignments to the extent possible. Impacts
were calculated by section for each alignment and the sections with the least overall impacts were
retained and combined into alignment alternative segments, which are described in Section 4.5. The
segment centerlines were buffered and several 1,000-foot corridor alternatives were generated by
merging the segments in different combinations (see Sections 4.6 and 4.7) that minimized impacts.
I
1
' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-5

I

t APPENDIX B- REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION

' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-1
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-2

1.0 REFERENCES
City of Wilmington. www.wn-iingtonnc.gov.
' Environmental Data Resources, Inc. October 18, 2006. US 17 Corridor Study (I7P Pr j No U4751 +8-
3300), Pender, NC.
Hampstead Chamber of Commerce. www.hampsteadchamber.com.
Log In North Carolina. Economic Census Data. //data.osbm.state.nc.us/pls/linc/
dyn_linc_main.show
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need Statement, 2006.
' Natural Resources Conservation Service. Important Farmlands of North Carolina.
www.nc.nrcs.usda.gov/progratns/soilsurvey/primefarmland.htm.
' New Hanover County GIS Services. Zoning Map. http://www.nhcgov.com/GIS/GISservices.asp
North Carolina State Demographics. http://demog.state.nc.us.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Cape FearKiverBasinzvide
VaterQuality Plan. Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning Program. //h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.httn.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. June 2006. TravelAnalysis ReportforMilitary Cutoff
Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass, TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Draft 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program.
www.ncdot.org.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. Feasibility Study, Military Cutoff Road Extension
' From Existing Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) in Wilmington to Proposed TIP Project R-2405A (US 17
Wlilmington Bypass).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. The Strategic Highway Corridors. Concept
Development Report, Chapter 3.
t North Carolina Employment Security Commission. www.ncesc.corn.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-3
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2000. Executive Summary, Natural Area Inventory offender
County, North Carolina.
North Carolina State Demographics. http://dernog.state.nc.us.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Draft Revision Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
Management Plan for North Carolina State-Owned Game Lands.
Pender County Planning Department. 2005. Future Land Use Plan Map. www.12ender-
county.co.tn/documents/`-planning/MQs
Pender County Planning Department. 2005 Zoning Map. http: / /www.pender-
county.com/departments/ leg/index.shtml.
Pender County Thoroughfare Plan, 1997.
Personal Communications, October 2, 2006-
New Hanover County Planning Department: Chris O'Keefe, Jane Daughtridge, Sam Burgess
Pender County Planning Department: Ken Vafiar, Andrew Collins, Michael herold
City of Wilmington Planning Department: Mike Kozlosky, Ron Satterfield, Christine Laughlin
United States Census Bureau. www.census.gov.
Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2006. Wilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Range
Tramportation Plan. www.wrnpo.org/LRTP.htm.
Wilmington- New Hanover County. joint Coastal Area Management Plan 2006 Update.
http: / /www. nhcgov. corn/PLN /`PLNmain. asp
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-4
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
NEW IIAN C?ER COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA
7 ARNOLD N. CARSON. C4FTL 1 A THIS PLAT WAS DRAWN UNDER MY
P /, L) FROM An A G,S S'jPVFY MAC JN EP U UP RI ION
(?'. , nSR (R )A IOW r,.,)
c , N V')' - HA, h L, )A? S J IC NE F A: C , J AT ) AS A M FROM
r C U? rv F OJ D AS `; N LR J NA 115 5 5U,?V Y WAS F R GI ,rfE
C%,JAED:N. ORDER (,:) OF I,E F SPtU ICA JN5 A , ,r I USED RTi<
''STA7C MODE) GrS PIELF '^:C(E.f AND Cr OR IHNAIES F tE OBTAINED BY
A?EPAC, F' MEAN Id ,(ID 0 ` OR I E ,r Zlk 5 W V,ATIONS LSS
}sAn 0.7 C,- PA CH J N S+OV! A F-1', S R Y WAS ? R FD
11 APR;L JULY, 20()f, LS;NG O N h R L'. L 7 k,.,.'_ /ER) A ,,. A:_.
COOR„M1ATES AR BASED O. In Ba.
f?'A EI PLAT W -PARR ) d ACCORDANCE WITH 0. 30 AT; AMENDED.
W'TI YS.. M. ORE; INri SI. NATURE uSCENCE NUME3??< AND ,fPL iHflS _
DAY )A __ A , 05.
THIS LA" IS OF A P r-'^A ROAD LGRRIDOR AS'D IS AN EXCEP ,
(f)l71)'r;,
7NE" DE INIrGN LF A ,BI-,'I?I I1'. A CCR IN TC C.S. 47-30
ANO 15 FH?PAR%ED IN A(,CCRE YIVCC W `N G5 53A
IV..D W?CARSON. ,
I I / F'17 N ( LICENSE NU L S. tv: v I rS
LEGEND
/ R ,AR ?n R1L E
L N,i)OT 01- rt h WAY 0
-
Ir JN.
t P)nf?
E 81. 71NC f Clv! P4 TE VIII ,ti,r r, ' 4
(cr rx P rlr
EI x 5 v
VN frN P,p_

Ip
Fir?
S r ,
CT
.. EX
r - t ru ,acv
u FYI;IINt r N n
I- N - l'4oD r:OIN m, 1
0W/ GB EE R iA iON !J
EI S',NC SA` TARY S V , , .
n SMAG SE -, MAu NAIL
SP K cr

-rl 41
c
_: .
r
??C
(Cla
fl
.
LEE
/I
/ I
?I.
L-L
L i?') Eys l
MLJTARYC" FM-'n
GPI
Nipw- 5w

i
-L? ? +2? 15d A 13 ? 2L3 L
N t f., t7
7E.i.,85
1? ? 1
11` / ,II (7-6)
1
1
) ? ll
y E
0
1 \ 71 .tl y
i
1
\ \ / ROADWAYCORRIDOR
X OFFICIAL MAP
\X/
OF
MILITARY CUT-OFF
ROAD EXTENSION
1. GORDON ROAD TO 1--140
?
II1LII CITYOFWIL
M/NGTON
Po BOY 1610
WAM/NGRNl, NCT9Wf
FNEPPREDay
PRELIMINARY
/OR REVIEW ONLY
AR.V0LD w G1RsoN as, Pc -
la9NAPMPIIRGSFAEET
WILMINGIUN NC.'( f
?NE -#,
lBrmm-erne
Icua soo' u' ,c' .,?' 3caa'
MM.M
I `F I
,
_, MI IICA ESU .YRE.1
I
ty.r

Atkins

fi
a
ti
;J r ,
? I'cndcca ,J
Watha
k 9th
1 ?? fil
,421
'Burgaw
St Helena
bi
?e Rocl:? I'.oint
421 71,7
-r W E
S
1 inch equals 8,000 feet
gnu 950 0 7,900 Feet
* Wetlands of less than fifty (50) contiguous acres not included NAD 1983 worth Carolina State Plane
Pender County
Future Land Use Plan Map
_ r? ?Maple Ilill
-4
Land
Classifications
Conservation Areas I
?ro Conservation Areas III
Rural Areas
Rural Clusters
Transition Areas
,.? Urban Growth Areas
surrCity
1d , ?, ?S i 2 a.
I'
e
topsail Beach
,o
It uupstc td'`
Primary Roads
?c
Rivers & Streams
Municipalities
\ ETJs
Y Pender County Planning Department 2005
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
1
1
1
1
1
Wilmin,ton - Ni,Nc l lane ci ( omit% -t III: Lau,I Cla1, ilicalion
2006 CAMA Plan I'pdatc
Brunswick County
CERTIPIBD 6/23/o6 Page 66 version 8/2/o6 3:03 PM
2oo6 Wilmington - New Hanover County CAMA Plan
Land Classifcation Map Update
?n,
G"
ec 1
0?aa ,
/o
gNnswick?°° ?'
mal PenAOi Camq Znnlnp MOl?adople4 Lin 1969
xMrn y1o?14mugM1 bty 6,]Wt.n14 o1N.i
amn nxna e . Ilbvs
Greeted bV P- Couly Planning D pxbmn
Source. N.-C-ty ie. Dep.-t
PenEx COUnry 2omng OrOinenu .c
L

0
Burgaw
L1
i
41 ?,
1 inch rquals 4.000 feet
14 OM ,•. 1 1AOWFeel
NAD 19 11 3 N111t Carolina State Plane
- )M-7 I / ?--, Holly Shelter Game Land

oa
\?5
e
5
t,0
New Hanover County Zoning Map

1ss&I B-2 CD Z-786
.
PD
q?
P.-2 0 f i 32, ?l B-1
? B-2 D /f 0&I CD
1 1 C D y7.
_ A.P/ B-1 CD P.-f 0 t, /
? ? B2
A-I f !+? , P,-21
? ? _r ti 43 cf.
x
-`
F?74 ?? }F.
h
17 J
78 rr z 4, 7s 74
CITS'r
{? 5 ?c 7CS WB
k i _ .??
Created 1(J!011061 32)
'? 0 0 0 0 qi
http://www.iihc,?,)ov.com/GIS/GISservices.M
CONCURRENCE MEETING
INFORMATION PACKET
FOR YOUR REVIEW
PRIOR TO MEETING ON
FEBRUARY 22, 2007
PROJECT ENGINEER
Olivia Farr
U-4751
Please bring this packet
to the meeting.
4?T?N?sq
?Q,L4 O??
Agenda
Eastern Concurrence Meeting
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Board Room, Transportation Building
Raleigh, North Carolina
1:00 PM to 3:00 PM, Olivia Farr, Project Planning Engineer, NCDOT PDEA Branch
TIP No. U-4751; US 17 Corridor Study
Hanover and Pender Counties, Division 3
Team Members:
Jennifer Frye, USACE
Olivia Farr, PDEA
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, WRC
Steve Sollod, DCM
Fritz Rohde; DMF
David Wainwright, DWQ
Sarah McBride, SHPO
Don Eggert, Cape Fear RPO (non-signatory)
Mike Kozlosky, Wilmington MPO
NCDOT Technical Support Staff and Other Agency Staff:
Allen Pope, Division 3
Joe Blair, Division 3
Mason Herndon, Division 3
Gary Lovering, Roadway Design
David Chang, Hydraulics
Don Moore, Geotech
Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Earlene Thomas, TPB
Phil Harris, NEU
Carl Goode, HEU
Jay McInnis, PDEA
Rob Hanson, PDEA
Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey, Inc.
Jay Bissett, Mulkey, Inc.
* The purpose of this meeting is to reach concurrence on CP 2.
CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
SCREENING
US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT NO. 401 91.1.1
TIP PROJECT NOS.
U-4751 & R-3300
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
?Of N00.fN ?1
* l*
o O
C
Of TQANSQO?r
JANUARY 2007
PREPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS
6750 TRYON ROAD
CARYt NORTH CAROLINA 27518

I
I
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Purpose of Today's Meeting ....................................................................................1
2.0 Project Description ..................................................................................................1
3.0 Purpose of the Proposed Project .............................................................................1
4.0 Project Alternatives .................................................................................................. 3
4.1 No Build Alternative ................................................................................:........................ 3
4.2 Transportation System Management Alternative ......................................................... 3
4.3 Mass Transit Alternative .................................................................................................. 3
4.4 Widen Existing Facility .................................................................................................... 3
4.5 New Location Alternatives .............................................................................................. 3
4.5.1 Segment A ............................................................................................................ 4
4.5.2 Segment B ............................................................................................................. 4
4.5.3 Segment C ............................................................................................................. 4
4.5.4 Segment D ............................................................................................................ 4
4.5.5 Segment E ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.6 Segment 1 ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.7 Segment 2 ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.8 Segment 3 ............................................................................................................. 5
4.5.9 Segment F ............................................................................................................. 6
4.5.10 Segment G ............................................................................................................ 6
4.6 Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) Corridor Alternatives ..................................................... 6
4.6.1 Alternative A: Segments A-1 .............................................................................. 6
4.6.2 Alternative B: Segments A-2 .............................................................................. 6
4.6.3 Alternative C: Segments A-3 .............................................................................. 7
4.6.4 Alternative D: Segments B-1 ................................................................:............ 7
4.6.5 Alternative E: Segments B-2 .............................................................................. 7
4.6.6 Alternative F: Segments B-3 .............................................................................. 7
4.6.7 Alternative G: Segments C-1 ............................................................................. 7
4.6.8 Alternative H: Segments C-2 ............................................................................. 7
4.6.9 Alternative I: Segments C-3 ............................................................................... 8
4.6.10 Alternative J: Segments D-1 ............................................................................... 8
4.6.11 Alternative K: Segments D-2 ............................................................................. 8
4.6.12 Alternative L: Segments D-3 .............................................................................. 8
4.6.13 Alternative N: Segments E-1 ............................................................................. 8
4.6.14 Alternative O: Segments E-2 ............................................................................. 8
4.6.15 Alternative P: Segments E-3 .............................................................................. 9
4.7 Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) Corridor Alternatives .............................. 9
4.7.1 Alternative M(1) - Segment F ........................................................................... 9
4.7.2 Alternative M(2) - Segment G .......................................................................... 9
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
M
Appendix A- Corridor Screening and Design Criteria ..............................................A-1
1.0 Corridor Screening and Design Criteria .............................................................. A-3
1.1 Resources Considered ..................................................................................................A-3
1.2 Design Criteria ...............................................................................................................A-3
1.2.1 Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) ..........................................................................A-3
1.2.2 Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) ...................................................A-4
1.3 Screening Methodology. ...............................................................................................A-4
Appendix B- References and Supporting Information .............................................B-1
1.0 References ............................................................................................................ B-3
2.0 Reference Maps ................................................................................................... B-5
2.1 Military Cutoff Road Extension Official Corridor Map ......................................... B-5
2.2 Pender County Future Land Use ................................................................................ B-7
2.3 New Hanover County Land Classification Map ...................................................... B-9
2.4 Pender County Zoning ...............................................................................................B-11
2.5 New Hanover County Zoning ..................................................................................B-13
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity ....................................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Corridor Segments ............................................................................................................13
Figure 3. Alternatives A, B and C ....................................................................................................15
Figure 4. Alternatives D, E, F and M1 ...........................................................................................17
Figure 5. Alternatives G, H, I and M1 ............................................................................................19
Figure 6. Alternatives J, K and L ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 7. Alternatives N, O, P and M2 ........................................................................................... 23
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Comparison of Build Alternative Corridors ...................................................................11
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
1
iv

CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES SCREENING
' 1.0 PURPOSE OF TODAY?S MEETING
C
C
C
C

I
I
I

The purpose of today's meeting is to review preliminary alternatives for the US 17 Corridor Study
and determine what alternatives should be shown to the public at the citizens informational
workshops. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) plans to conduct
citizens informational workshops for the proposed project in May.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The NCDOT proposes to make transportation improvements to the US 17 and Market Street
(US 17 Business) corridor in northern New Hanover and southern Pender Counties. Two North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) projects are being evaluated as part of the
US 17 Corridor Study.
Project U-4751 is included in the Draft 2007-2013 TIP as an extension of Military Cutoff Road on
new location from its current terminus at US 17 (Market Street) in Wilmington north to the
Wilmington Bypass Qohn Jay Burney Jr. Freeway). The proposed project is programmed for right of
way acquisition in 2012, with construction in post years. Project R-3300 is included in the Draft
2007-2093 TIP as a US 17 bypass of Hampstead. The proposed project is programmed for partial
right of way acquisition in 2012, with the remainder of right of way acquisition and construction in
post years. Both projects are part of the NCDOT's Strategic Highway Corridor Initiative.
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The purpose of the US 17 Corridor Study project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and
safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area. The project study area is roughly
bounded on the west by I-40, on the north by the Northeast Cape Fear River, Holly Shelter Game
Lands to the east, and Market Street and US 17 to the south (Figure 1). The Section 404/NEPA
Merger Team for the US 17 Corridor Study concurred on the purpose of the project and the project
study area at their September 21, 2006 Concurrence Point 1 meeting.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening

Teacna ` l
t4 W?IIe 9p 5 t' c'}y
Fenderlea tt w tna 6' ,,`
5
15 HIDI ,
H111
P ttE H$ ` E R % "
to
` W.Ift Burgaw o 1 G t1 50 `'<
+ tt a * A PoI
..
Hekna 5 t0 Holly Rld`gc, -'I s
Nal. Belll rie/d 5 71 7 I Y/7A .S???t".
A
Riw . usarLeach
a I a 1
s
A 16 He n Hl
6 A F ai(1n'll
a
-Z IN
1 T p?'pi; lrlleL (closed)
_-
man Delco`y Est ,reh
H J O
s
E n

aucy
m k t
tiac .-10
t
9
Y I t 0?
S ?/
81
Bishop
I
_
n A ie 6=
A ac.
tuw P ROJECT

V/ ho l{ VICINITY
rsLA D
S W I
C K
421
i
?
,
aUe hlnfer
i g] ,ceze
?
?
Borvia
Carolrs Beach
L '' o yy
MIMR OP
~ 9 $TI}h $l VLFASURE
3 lam 1 t $1 c. fl IStgnD
111
0 Sunsei
-
v I r.on Haroor 133
? ?
hwM1 ? C ?c?k ! I I IcLrscd/
-t"' "'_?
lei Od? ?$Llid C
? - I S IiN l'L ND
s
Y BALD HEAD
S
D

I
LAN
Buy
CAFE FEAR
Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
?P?O@ NORTH Cg9O4
y North Carolina
2 Department of Transportation
9
O?
TRAN'P
OF
Holly Shelc
,
i
r
ti
-
r
1 f
7'ldt ?. t 0
c
l ?`a
,
J1z
17
/ ?...
0 ?
fisr ' - MttS I STUDY AREA
f }? pi \4." Irv sF v? r ?
t f// 4= t {t???`"'. ^ i ??r t.? (( 2 f ^,A`. ttlV/ff
Y
? N
11 // ?? ?v
`l ? . ??a0
P\

0 0.5 1 2 3 4
o? - Mifes N

I
I

4.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
4.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
The No Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to US 17 or Military
Cutoff Road within the study area; only typical maintenance activities would occur. The No Build
Alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project.
4.2 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE
Transportation System Management (TSM) improvements are intended to maximize the efficiency
of the present system within the existing right-of-way while minimizing capital outlay. Examples of
typical TSM operational improvements include signal phasing or timing changes, access control,
speed restrictions and traffic law enforcement. Typical TSM physical improvements include the
addition of turn lanes, signing, striping, and minor realignments. A current TIP Project (U-4902B)
involves access management improvements to Market Street. It is expected that TSM
improvements would improve traffic flow along Market Street, but it is expected that Market Street
would still operate at an unsatisfactory level of service.
4.3 MASS TRANSIT ALTERNATIVE
The project study area will be evaluated for characteristics suitable for implementation of mass
transit or enhancement of existing mass transit systems that would improve the traffic carrying
capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor.
4.4 WIDEN EXISTING FACILITY
Widening existing Market Street would improve traffic flow. However, land adjacent to the roadway
is densely developed. Widening the existing facility would require the acquisition of additional right
of way and result in a substantial number of residential and business displacements. Businesses
along Market Street would experience reduced access during the construction of this alternative.
4.5 NEW LOCATION ALTERNATIVES
Constructing a facility on new location would reduce the amount of through traffic using Market
Street and existing US 17 within Hampstead. A number of new location alternative corridors have
been identified for the US 17 corridor study. These alternatives were developed utilizing GIS
modeling (see Appendix A).
' This modeling effort resulted in the development of five alternative segments west of NC 210 and
three alternative segments between NC 210 and US 17 near Hampstead (Figure 2). These segments
can be combined to make a total of 15 possible new location alternatives for a US 17 Hampstead
' Bypass. Two new location alternatives have been developed for proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension. These segments and alternatives are discussed below.
1 US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
1
4.5.1 SEGMENT A '
Segment A begins in New Hanover County at the I-40 interchange with Holly Shelter Road
(SR 1002). It extends northeast across undeveloped property just north of Holly Shelter Road.
Segment A crosses over to the south side of Holly Shelter Road at a curve past the Roanoke Cement
'
Company and Cemex Castle Hayne Terminal property. The segment follows closely along the south
side of Holly Shelter Road adjacent to mostly undeveloped property. It crosses a transmission line
easement and turns southeast to intersect with NC 210 in Pender County south of the intersection '
of NC 210 and Island Creek Road (SR 1002). Several businesses are located at the NC 210
intersection. Segments A, B, C and D terminate at an interchange with NC 210.
4.5.2 SEGMENT B
Segment B begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the Wilmington Bypass,
'
approximately midway between existing interchanges with I-40 and US 17. It is anticipated that the
interchange would impact a small section of the NCDOT's Murraysville Mitigation Site. Segment B
extends northeast past Sidbury Road (SR 1336). Land use between the bypass and Sidbury Road is
'
mostly undeveloped property. There is a small residential community west of the Sidbury Road
crossing called Island Creek Estates. '
As Segment B crosses into Pender County, it crosses the northwest section of the proposed
Easthaven development. The development site plan calls for a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP),
school, fire/EMS department, amenity areas, an athletic complex/park, commercial and various '
types of residential land use. At build-out, up to 4,700 single and multi-family homes with
approximately 10,000 residents are anticipated. Segment B continues northeast, crossing the
transmission line easement and joining Segment A near Churchouse Bay Lane. It ends at an '
interchange at NC 210 south of the NC 210 and Island Creek Road intersection.
'
4.5.3 SEGMENT C
Segment C begins in New Hanover County at the same Wilmington Bypass location as Segment B.
The corridor travels northeast and crosses Sidbury Road. Island Creek Estates is located just west of '
Segment C. The corridor continues to the north and turns east to parallel the south side of the
transmission line easement as it enters into Pender County. Land use along this portion of Segment
C is characterized by forest and wetlands. '
As Segment C crosses into Pender County, it travels across the northern section of the proposed
Easthaven development. After leaving the proposed Easthaven development, Segment C continues '
northeast for approximately one mile, then turns southeast to intersect NC 210.
'
4.5.4 SEGMENT D
Segment D begins in New Hanover County at the Wilmington Bypass/US 17 interchange. It
extends north across undeveloped property, crossing Sidbury Road near the New Hanover '
County/fender County line. Land use in the vicinity of the Sidbury Road crossing includes scattered
residential and undeveloped properties. Segment D continues northeast, crossing the central portion
of the proposed Easthaven development. It continues northeast across Harrison Creek Road, an '
area which is lightly developed with residential properties, ending at NC 210.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening '
4

I
' 4.5.5 SEGMENT E
Segment E is a modification of Segment D that moves the beginning of the alignment at the
' Wilmington Bypass to approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange. Segment E extends
northeast from the bypass across undeveloped land and joins Segment D south of the New Hanover
County/Pender County line. It then follows Segment D to NC 210.
' 4.5.6 SEGMENT 1
' Segments 1, 2 and 3 begin at NC 210 south of the intersection of NC 210 and Island Creek Road.
After its intersection with NC 210, Segment 1 continues to the northeast. It extends mainly through
undeveloped forested property, crossing a large powerline easement near Godfrey Creek Road.
There is a small residential development called Godfrey's Creek Estates at the crossing of Godfrey
Creek Road. Godfrey's Creek Estates includes both mobile homes and stick built homes.
North of Godfrey Creek Road, Segment 1 extends through more forested land, and then turns east.
' The corridor crosses Saps Road and Hoover Road (SR 1569). There is limited residential land use on
Saps Road and Hoover Road consisting of both mobile homes and stick built homes. The large
powerline easement splits into two smaller easements west of Hoover Road. Both smaller easements
' are crossed by Segment 1.
Segment 1 extends to the north of Castle Bay, an existing residential golf course community off of
' Hoover Road. It continues east through the northern portion of The Preserve, which is a proposed
mixed-use development. The Preserve is approximately 750 acres in size and will be developed in
phases. Currently, there are 250 permitted single-family lots. Future plans include 200 additional lots
' for single-family and multi-family use. The development will include 500,000 square feet of retail
space. Phase I was scheduled to begin in October 2006. Full build-out is expected in three years. The
development is adjacent to Topsail High School and borders Holly Shelter Game Lands.
' Segment 1 terminates at US 17 near Long Leaf Road with an interchange. A mini-storage facility,
plant nursery, an undeveloped 25-acre property for sale for retail and office development, and two
' churches are located on the west side of US 17 near the terminus. Land use on the east side of
US 17 near the terminus includes Belvedere Plantation, a residential golf course community,
Andrews Mortuary, Hampstead Chapel, and Sea Lawn Cemetery.
4.5.7 SEGMENT 2
' Segment 2 begins at NC 210 south of the intersection of NC 210 and Island Creek Road. It extends
east across several minor roads that include lightly developed residential properties, and on through
undeveloped forested areas. Segment 2 continues through farmland, crossing Hoover Road north of
' South Topsail Elementary School. The segment continues northeast through undeveloped property
and through The Preserve proposed development. Segment 2 ends at an interchange with US 17 at
the same location as Segment 1.
4.5.B SEGMENT 3
' Segment 3 begins at NC 210 south of the intersection of NC 210 and Island Creek Road. It follows
Segment 2 until Hoover Road, where it turns south. Segment 3 continues across undeveloped land
' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
5

and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road (SR 1702). There is a small mobile home development '
nearby. Topsail Presbyterian Church is north of the Segment 3 intersection with US 17.
4.5.9 SEGMENT F
Segment F is an extension of Military Cutoff Road. It extends north from Market Street at Military
Cutoff Road where land use includes mostly small businesses and a golf driving range. Segment F
extends through county property between sections of Ogden Park and through a single-family
housing development. It then runs adjacent to a densely developed residential area to the west. The
segment turns northwest through a less developed area and ends near Plantation Road and Crooked
Pine Road at an interchange with the Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway between the I-40
and US 17 interchanges.
4.5.1 0 SEGMENT G
Segment G also extends Military Cutoff Road. Segment G follows the same alignment as Segment F
for approximately two miles. Where Segment F turns northwest, Segment G turns northeast and
extends through mostly undeveloped property to the Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile
west of US 17.
4.6 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS (R-3300) CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVES
Corridor alternatives for the proposed project are provided below and shown on Figures 3 through
7. The alternatives are comprised of various combinations of the segments introduced in Section 4.5.
Refer to Section 4.5 for detailed descriptions of each segment. A comparison of the build
alternatives is provided in Table 1. Highlights from the table are included in the alternative
descriptions. Refer to the table for a detailed listing of nearby resources and potential impacts.
4.6.1 ALTERNATIVE A: SEGMENTS A-1
Corridor Alternative A combines Segments A and 1. Alternative A begins at the I-40 interchange at
Holly Shelter Road and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative is the longest in length, at approximately 14.83 miles. It includes eight stream crossings
and could impact approximately 1,036 acres of wetlands. Alternative A will result in a total of 46
residential and business displacements. This and all other alternatives have known protected species
occurrences within one mile of the corridor centerline.
4.6.2 ALTERNATIVE B3 SEGMENTS A-Z
Corridor Alternative B combines Segments A and 2. Alternative B begins at the I-40 interchange at
Holly Shelter Road and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative is approximately 14.27 miles in length. Estimated impacts include seven stream crossings
and approximately 879 acres of wetlands. Alternative B will result in approximately 59 residential
and business displacements, and has a notable number of hazardous material sites within one mile of
the centerline. This alternative also has the highest number of recorded archaeological sites within
one mile of the centerline.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening '
6

' 4.6.3 ALTERNATIVE C: .SEGMENTS A-3
Corridor Alternative C combines Segments A and 3. Alternative C begins at the I-40 interchange at
' Holly Shelter Road and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. This alternative includes eight stream
crossings and approximately 687 acres of wetland impacts. Alternative C is approximately 12.36
miles in length and will result in the most residential and business displacements.
' 4.6.4 ALTERNATIVE D: SEGMENTS B-1
' Corridor Alternative D combines Segments B and 1. Alternative D begins at the Wilmington Bypass
and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. Approximate impacts
include ten stream crossings and more than 1,059 acres of wetlands. This alternative has the lowest
amount of potential residential and business displacements, and the highest number of major utility
' crossings.
' 4.6.5 ALTERNATIVE E: SEGMENTS B-2
Corridor Alternative E combines Segments B and 2. Alternative E begins at the Wilmington Bypass
and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This alternative is
' approximately 13.41 miles in length and includes an estimated 36 residential and business
displacements. Wetland impacts are estimated at approximately 902 acres and there are nine stream
' crossings.
4.6.6 ALTERNATIVE F: BEGMENTB B'3
' Corridor Alternative F combines Segments B and 3. Alternative F begins at the Wihrdngton Bypass
and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. Estimated wetland impacts from Alternative F are low
relative to most other alternatives. There are ten stream crossings and approximately 39 residential
' and business displacements. Estimated 100-year floodplain impacts are lower than many other
alternatives.
' 4.6.7 ALTERNATIVE G: SEGMENTS C-1
Corridor Alternative G combines Segments C and 1. Alternative G begins at an interchange with the
' Wilmington Bypass and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative has the second highest estimated amount of wetland impacts, at approximately 1,141
acres, but has a low amount of residential and business displacements compared to other
' alternatives. Alternative G crosses ten streams and has the second highest amount of 100-year
floodplain impacts, at approximately 207 acres.
4.6.B ALTERNATIVE H: SEGMENTS C-2
Corridor Alternative H combines Segments C and 2. Alternative H begins at an interchange with the
' Wilmington Bypass and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road. This
alternative is approximately 13.53 miles in length and includes nine stream crossings. Alternative H
has approximately 37 residential and business displacements and approximately 985 acres of wetland
' impacts.
' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
7
1
4.6.9 ALTERNATIVE 1: SEGMENTS C-3
Corridor Alternative I combines Segments C and 3. Alternative I begins at an interchange with the
Wilmington Bypass and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. Estimated 100-year floodplain and
wetland impacts are lower than many other alternatives. Alternative I includes ten stream crossings
and approximately 40 residential and business displacements.
4.6.1 O ALTERNATIVE J: SEGMENTS D-1
Corridor Alternative j combines Segments D and 1. Alternative j begins at the Wilmington
Bypass/US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road.
This alternative has the highest estimated amount of wetland impacts and includes nine stream
crossings. Alternative j will result in approximately 31 residential and business displacements.
4.6.1 1 ALTERNATIVE K: SEGMENTS D-2
Corridor Alternative K combines Segments D and 2. Alternative K begins at the Wilmington
Bypass/US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High School near Long Leaf Road.
Estimated impacts include approximately 1,014 acres of wetlands and 44 residential and business
displacements. This alternative is approximately 12.31 miles in length.
4.6.12 ALTERNATIVE L: SEGMENTS D-3
Corridor Alternative L combines Segments D and 3. Alternative L begins at the Wilmington
Bypass/US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road. At 10.41 miles in length, this
is one of the shorter alternatives. Impacts to the 100-year floodplain are approximately 68.70 acres,
which is among the lowest of the alternatives. Alternative L has the second highest number of
recorded archaeological sites within one mile of the corridor centerline.
4.6.13 ALTERNATIVE N: SEGMENTS E-1
Corridor Alternative N combines Segments E and 1. Alternative N begins at the Wilmington Bypass
approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High
School near Long Leaf Road. This alternative includes 13 stream crossings and the second highest
estimated amount of wetland impacts, at approximately 1,123 acres. Estimated residential and
business displacements are lower than most of the other alternatives and Alternative N has the
lowest recorded number of archaeological sites within one mile of the corridor centerline.
4.6.14 ALTERNATIVE O: SEGMENTS E-2
Corridor Alternative O combines Segments E and 2. Alternative O begins at the Wilmington Bypass
approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 north of Topsail High
School near Long Leaf Road. This alternative is approximately 12.28 miles in length and is estimated
to impact approximately 965 acres of wetlands. Residential and business displacements are estimated
at 37 and no major utility crossings are anticipated.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
8

I
I
I

4.6.1 5 ALTERNATIVE PC SEGMENTS E-3
Corridor Alternative P combines Segments.E and 3. Alternative P begins at the Wilmington Bypass
approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange and ends at US 17 near Old Casteen Road.
This alternative has a high number of stream crossings and a lower amount of potential 100-year
floodplain impacts relative to most others. Wetland impacts are estimated at 773 acres. Alternative P
has the third highest number of estimated residential displacements and is not expected to have any
major utility crossings.
4.7 MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION (U-4751) CORRIDOR
ALTERNATIVES
There are two build alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension. The City of Wilmington
adopted a Transportation Official Corridor map for the proposed extension of Military Cutoff Road
on August 8, 2005 (see Appendix B). Alternative M(1) closely follows the adopted corridor, while
Alternative M(2) follows it approximately half way. The following provides highlights of the two
alternatives. Further details are provided in Table 1 and on Figures 2, 5, and 7.
4.7.1 ALTERNATIVE M(1) - SEGMENT F
Corridor Alternative M(1) consists of Segment F. It begins on Market Street at Military Cutoff Road
and ends at the Wilmington Bypass near Plantation Road and Crooked Pine Road. This alternative is
approximately 3.37 miles in length. Stream and wetland impacts are anticipated; however, there are
no impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Because the surrounding area is densely developed, there is
the potential for a high number of hazardous material site and/or UST impacts, and numerous
displacements. There are approximately 109 hazardous material sites within one mile of the corridor
centerline. Residential and business displacements are estimated at 57.
' 4.7.2 ALTERNATIVE M(2) - SEGMENT G
Corridor Alternative M(2) consists of Segment G. It begins on Market Street at Military Cutoff Road
' and ends at the Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile west of the US 17 interchange. This
alternative follows a similar route to Alternative M(1), and therefore has similar potential impacts. It
is slightly longer, at 3.46 miles, and is estimated to have the same number of stream crossings,
' residential and business displacements, and 100-year floodplain impacts. Hazardous material and/or
UST sites within one mile of the corridor are slightly less, at 100.

' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
10

I 'fable 1. Comparison of Build Alternative Corridors

I

I
I
I

I
I
I

I

FEATURE CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE (SEGMENTS)
A (Al) B (A2) C (A3) D (131) E (132) F (133) G (C1) H (C2) I (C3) J (D1) K (D2) L (133) N (E1) 0 (E2) P(E3) M1
(F) M2
(G)

Length (miles)/(acres) 14.83/
2175.19 14.37/
210C>.08 12.36/
1809.77 0.97/
2034.34 13.41/1
965.33 11.51/
1668.92 14.09/
2047.75 13.53/
1978.74 11.62/
1682.32 L'.88/
1929.34 12.31/
1860.34 10.41/
1563.92 13.84/
1864.65 1228/
1795.65 10.37/
149923 337/
441.13 3.46/
451.55
Wetland Impacts (acres) 1036.40 879.33 687.16 1059.61 902.54 710.37 1141.71 984.64 792.47 1171.30 101422 822.06 1123.01 965.93 773.77 343.98 369.35
Stream Crossings (No.) 8 7 8 10 9 10 10 9 10 9 8 9 13 12 13 6 6
Residential Displacements 3 32 44 48 10 22 26 11 23 27 16 28 32 11 23 34 29 29
Business Displacements 3 14 15 14 13 14 13 13 14 13 15 16 15 13 14 15 28 28
Known Protected Species Occurrences'- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Natural Heritage Program Area I Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N
100 Year Floodplain Impacts (acres) 211.18 196.64 148.74 159.5 146.17 96.51 207.48 194.14 9651 131.15 116.60 68.70 131.15 116.60 68.70 0.0 0.0
Recorded Historic Properties' 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Recorded Archaeological Sites'- 23 38 32 11 17 21 11 17 21 26 32 35 7 13 16 12 9
Wildlife Refuge/Game Lands 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Recreational Areas/Parks 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
HQW, ORW, WS Protected or Critical Areas'- Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Schools 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Churches 1 4 4 2 3 3 1 2 2 0 4 4 2 2 2 0 1 1
Cemeteries' 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Railroad Crossings (No.) 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Crossings (No.) 4 1 1 5 2 2 3 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
Hazardous Material Sites 2 58 64 60 3 4 5 3 4 5 12 13 14 2 3 4 109 100
Interchanges (No.) 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 2 1 1
Notes:
Within 1000-foot corridor.
'- Within one mile of corridor centerline.
3 Within 300-foot corridor based on 1000-foot corridor centerline.
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
11

. 'J
A

DOT

IT
?s

V1. N
+ s
' e)
? G
0
? G
?a
Legend
Major Roads SNHA g Public School
Corridor Segments East of NC 210 C' SNHA Macrosite ITI Library
Corridor Segments West of NC 210 SNHA Megasite ® Emergency
¦¦-- Military Cutoff Road Segments Managed Areas Church
Streams Nature Preserves Cemetery
County Boundary A NHEO Pts e Archaeological
Study Area A RCW Historic
Proposed Developments HaZMat/UST
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Aerial Photography Provided by N--DOT
Figure No.
2

t

W071,; # x T?

Belvedere

a

G
0
.G

?a
`
P
? s f. ,? P r? • ???? y rv> ? ?1??,. ?'r 'K
Legend
+pp
?ph?,?y
5 al$'
Major Roads = OgdenPark Public School
ly' 4?? Y ???? , lN?P3??? ? y '?y???, -' ,, ?Y b yS ? ? ?. ,?? _
S &A l9! © Library
Corridor D
e*? fi sy, i A ?; =3^ v; - Parcels
VV*
'r,, j •t`? 1x'
E g a - - Corridor E
e SNHA ® Emergency
:• r ' `'
4i rlJ
?i,a Y? /vv4l Corridor F
SNHA Macrosite Church
Corridor M(1) SNHAMegasite Cemetery
g"
erk
c
"! r rt??? i > ? Streams
-IN
Managed Areas • Archaeological
?
i1.9 r^(=s. M1 a `" '?, > h a? :''d• }, tk i1 I' ?. i s1 r---
'? County Boundary Nature Preserves ® Historic
i
1V- M ?° I Study Area 1 NHEO Pts 1 HazMat/UST
A
• ?' Proposed Developments A RCW
US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY o 0.5 t Fi ure No.
Prepared II Alternatives D, E, F, and M(1) Miles 9
M U L K E Y For NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 4
AAW ?
I `„ j New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Aerial Photography Provided by NCDOT

Creek

s(4

??1
V
o
O
G

r a,
US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
Prepared Alternatives G, H, I, and M(1) 0 0.5 t 2 Figure No.
M U L K E Y For: IR NCDCT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Miles 5
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Aerial Photography Provided by NCDOT
Legend
Major Roads - OgdenPark Public School
Corridor G Parcels ITI Library
Corridor H SNHA Emergency
Corridor I SNHA Macrosite Church
Corridor M(1) SNHAMegasite Cemetery
Streams Managed Areas A Archaeological
County Boundary Nature Preserves ® Historic
Study Area A NHEO Pts `f HaZMat/UST
Proposed Developments A RCW

A
t .?
J
fi
4

a
e
0
0
.G

?a

Legend
Major Roads - OgdenPark Public School
Corridor J Parcels D Library
Corridor K SNHA ® Emergency
Corridor L SNHA Macrosite Church
Streams SNHA Megasite Cemetery
_ County Boundary Managed Areas A Archaeological

1 1.0 CORRIDOR SCREENING AND DESIGN CRITERIA
' Potential corridor alternatives were screened for suitability based on several criteria, including
meeting the purpose of and need for the proposed project, minimizing impacts to natural and
cultural resources, and consideration of community features. Geographic information system (GIS)
' data and modeling, aerial photography and observations from field visits were used in the analysis.
1.1 RESOURCES CONSIDERED
The following features were considered in the development of the preliminary corridor alternatives:
' Available Natural Resources Data
• Wetlands (by type)
• Streams
• Protected Species
• Natural Heritage and Managed Areas
' • Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas
Community
• Accessibility
' • Public Services
• Community Facilities
' • Traffic Service
• Businesses
• Displacements
It Recorded Archaeology and Historic Resource Sites
' Ir Recorded Hazardous Materials Sites and Underground Storage Tanks
N Major Utility Easements
1.2 DESIGN CRITERIA
Alignment centerlines were placed to minimize impacts to resources, provide a roadway that is
constructible, and cross roads, streams and utility easements at a reasonable angle. The following
design criteria were also used when preparing the alternatives:
' 1.2.1 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS (R-3300)
1. Freeway Classification
' 2. Control of access facility
3. Design speed of 70 miles per hour (mph); posted speed of 65 mph
4. Recommended proposed right of way width: 250 feet
5. Typical Sections
I
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-3

a. Lane Width: 12 feet
b. Roadway Width: 118 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes with 12-foot outside
shoulders (ten-foot paved) in each direction with a 46-foot median containing six- '
foot inside shoulders (four-foot paved)
c. Structure Width for Bypass: Dual bridges, 38 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes
and one ten-foot outside shoulder and one four-foot median shoulder '
6. Maximum grade of three percent; minimum grade of 0.3 percent
7. Side slopes of 6:1 (minimum) to 3:1 (maximum) for all cut or fill heights
1.2.2 MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION (U-4751)
'
1. Urban Arterial Classification
2. Partial control of access facility
3. Design speed of 50 miles per hour (mph); posted speed of 45 mph
4. Recommended proposed right of way width: 150 feet
5. Typical Sections '
a. Lane Width: 12 feet
b. Roadway Width: 63 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes with eight-foot outside '
shoulders (four-foot paved) in each direction with a 23-foot median containing 1.5-
foot curb and gutter
c. Structure Width for Bypass: Dual bridges, 30 feet comprised of two 12-foot lanes
and one four-foot outside shoulder and one two-foot median shoulder
6. Maximum grade of three percent; minimum grade of 0.3 percent
7. Side slopes of 6:1 (minimum) to 3:1 (maximum) for all cut or fill heights
1.3 SCREENING METHODOLOGY '
A windshield survey was conducted to identify neighborhoods, community facilities, and other
notable features along several major roads within the project area. Additional information was
gathered from published sources and files of various state and federal resource agencies. The project
was discussed with local planning agencies to determine the compatibility with local planning goals,
and to note any areas of potential controversy.
Published information regarding the project area and region was derived from a number of
resources including but not limited to:
• Soil survey data for New Hanover and Pender Counties
• Division of Coastal Management (DCM) Wetland Mapping '
• US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping
• GIS data layers for New Hanover and Pender Counties
• NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) data
• USGS Topographic mapping
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening '
A-4

' • NCDOT aerial photography
• US Census Bureau Data
t • Local planning documents
The project site is included on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle maps for Hampstead,
Scotts Hill, and Topsail, North Carolina.
Utilizing GIS software from Environmental Systems Research Institute (ES", a least-cost model
was developed for the study area. The least-cost model analyzed natural and human environment
features, weighted for constraint factors, and generated best path alignments between termini for
which potential corridors would generate the least overall impacts. After the model was run for all
' routes, centerlines were drawn to reflect the best path alignments to the extent possible. Impacts
were calculated by section for each alignment and the sections with the least overall impacts were
' retained and combined into alignment alternative segments, which are described in Section 4.5. The
segment centerlines were buffered and several 1,000-foot corridor alternatives were generated by
merging the segments in different combinations (see Sections 4.6 and 4.7) that minimized impacts.

I

I
I
I

Ll

' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
A-5

fl
I
APPENDIX B- REFERENCES AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION
u
1

I

r
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-1

US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-2

I

r
I

1

1.0 REFERENCES
City of Wilmington. www.wffiningtonnc.gov.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. October 18, 2006. US 17 Corridor Study (TIP Proj No U-4751 +R-
3300), Pender, NC.
Hampstead Chamber of Commerce. www.hampsteadchamber.com.
Log In North Carolina. Economic Census Data. //data.osbm.state.nc.us/pls/linc/
dyniinc-main. show
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, US 17 Corridor Study Purpose and Need Statement, 2006.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. Important Farmlands of North Carolina.
www.nc.n.rcs.usda.gov/programs/soilsurvey/primefarmland.htin.
New Hanover County GIS Services. Zoning Map. http://www.nhcgov.com/GIS/GISservices.asp
North Carolina State Demographics. http://demog.state.nc.us.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Cape Fear River Basinn4de
VaterQuality Plan. Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning Program. //h2o.enr.state.nc.us/
basinwide/draftCPFApril2005.htm.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. June 2006. TravelAnalysis Report for Military Cutoff
Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass, TIP Nos. U-4731 and R-3300.
1
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Draft 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program.
' www.ncdot.org.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. Feasibility Study, Military Cutoff Road Extension
From Existing Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) in WWlilmington to Proposed TIP Pr ject R-2403A (US 17
Wlilmington Bypass).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. The Strategic Highway Corridors. Concept
Development Report, Chapter 3.
North Carolina Employment Security Commission. www.ncesc.com.
' US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-3
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2000. Executive Summary, Natural Area Inventory of Pender
County, North Carolina.
North Carolina State Demographics. http://demog.state.nc.us.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Draft Revision Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
Management Plan for North Carolina State-Owned Game Lands.
Pender County Planning Department. 2005. Future Land Use Plan Map. www.pender-
county.com/documents /planning /Maps
Pender County Planning Department. 2005 Zoning Map. hqp: / /www.pender-
county. corn / departments /planning/ index. shtml.
Pender County Thoroughfare Plan, 1997.
Personal Communications, October 2, 2006-
New Hanover County Planning Department: Chris O'Keefe, Jane Daughtridge, Sam Burgess
Pender County Planning Department: Ken Vafiar, Andrew Collins, Michael herold
City of Wilmington Planning Department: Mike Kozlosky, Ron Satterfield, Christine Laughlin
United States Census Bureau. www.census.gov.
Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2006. Vilmington Urban Area 2030 Long Lange
Transportation Plan. www.wtnpo.org/LRTP.httn.
Wilmington- New Hanover County. Joint Coastal Area Management Plan 2006 Update.
http://www.nhcgov.com/PLN/PLNmain.asp
US 17 Corridor Study Alternatives Screening
B-4
I

¦

!_
[°

?' _
?`
[-
?`
?`

?`
?
`
?`
[-
?`
?`

?`
?
`
?`
[-
?`
?`

?`
?
`
?`
[-
?`
?`

?`
?
`
?`
[-
?`
?`

?`
?
`
?`
[-
?`
?`

?`
?
`
?`
[-
?`
?`

?`
?
`
?`
[-
?`
?`

?`
?
`
?`
[-
?`
?`

'
i ? '-
E;'-
A, I. ltd' 'S -,;.6: ; r"' •;f A ,?""5,, .,r ,y...5r
.m; ,!, fIfs ?` f ? '? ,? 4 zw^ d Y a

4
i 14,

? r5
3? E I

E

-5
I

3 ? r5.

E

-5
I

3 ? r5.

E

-5
I

3 ? r5.

E

-5
I

3 ? r5.

E

-5
I

3 ? r5.

E

-5
I

3 ? r5.

E

-5
I

3 ? r5.

E

-5
I

3 ? r5.

E

-5
i
; E