20161268_Merger Process Documentation_20110914

PP7
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'T'MENT OF TRANSPORTATION "
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE - EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
August 29, 2011
Mr. Brad Shaver
Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28402
Dear Mr. Shaver:
SUBJECT: SECTION 404 - NEPA MERGER PROCESS Application for a Department of
the Army (DOA) Permit pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to discharge
dredged or fill material into Waters of the United States to construct the Military
Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover County and the US 17 Hampstead Bypass in
New Hanover and Pender Counties, North Carolina
WBS Element Number 40191.1.2
STIP Projects U-4751 and R-3300
Corps Action ID 2007 1386
The following application, including separate attachments for (1) ENG Form 4345 and (2) mailing
list (labels) is submitted for your consideration. As you are aware, this project was selected for
treatment under the Section 404/NEPA Merger process. At this juncture, the Regulatory Division
has provided concurrence with Purpose and Need and Study Area Defined (Concurrence Point 1),
Detailed Study Alternatives Carried Forward (Concurrence Point 2) and Bridging and Alignment
Review (Concurrence Point 2A). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been
prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. The
DEIS was signed on July 28, 2011.
m,._o
(?
ka@cu- e
Sip 1
?D
µ?,., DfyR 4 701j
"WVOS,gNps ?R?q?7y .
Please issue your public notice at the earliest opportunity so that we can jointly proceed toward
selecting the LEDPA (least environmentally damaging practicable alternative which meets the
purpose and need of the project) following analysis of public input. Once the LEDPA is selected
and approved, efforts will be undertaken to further minimize impacts to wetlands and streams in the
LEDPA corridor and to propose suitable compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMEW ANO ENVIRONw V TAL ANALYSIS
1540 MAL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: 919-707£052
WEBSITE: W ..N000TORG
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER, BUILDING A
1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27610

This submittal is in accordance with step four of the guidelines for integrating project review under
the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact Ms. Olivia Fart at (919)
707-6021 or Ms. Amy James at [phone].
Sincerely,
regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Attachments: ENG Form 4345
Project Summary
Project Vicinity Map (DEIS Figure 1)
Preliminary Corridor Alternatives (DEIS Figure 6)
Military Cutoff Rd. Ext. Transportation Corridor Official Map (DEIS Fig. 7)
Detailed Study Alternatives (DEIS Figure 8)
Current Detailed Study Alternatives (DEIS Figures 9, 10A through 10K)
Typical Cross Sections (DEIS Figures I1A, 11B and 12)
Mailing Labels
CC w/Attachments: David Wainwright, NCDWQ (7 copies)
CC w/o Attachments: Monte Matthews, USACE, Raleigh
Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Chris Militscher, USEPA
NCDMF
Renee Gledhill-Earley, HPO
Mike Kozlosky, Wilmington MPO
Art McMillan, P.E., NCDOT Highway Design
Jay Bennett, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design
David Chang, P.E., NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Greg Perfetti, PE, NCDOT Structure Design
Phil Harris, P.E., NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Allen Pope; P.E., NCDOT Division 3 Engineer
Rob Hanson, P.E., NCDOT Project Development
Jay McInnis, P.E., NCDOT Project Development
Olivia Farr, NCDOT Project Development
t.
J
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT - OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710.0003
(33 CFR 325) EXPIRES: 31 August 2012
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 11 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington
Headquarters, Executive Services and Communications Directorate, Information Management Division and to the Office of Management and Budget,
Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to
either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location or the proposed activity.
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
Authorities: Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10, 33 USC 403; Clean Water Act, Section 4134,33 USC 1344; Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act, Section 103, 33 USC 1413, Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers, Final Rule 33 CFR 320-332 Principal Purpose: Information provided on this
forth will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Routine Uses: This Information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal,
state, and local goverment agencies, and the public and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by Federal law. Submission of
requested information is voluntary, however, if information is not provided the permit application cannot be evaluated nor can a permit be issued. One set of
original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be allached to this application (see sample
drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not
completed in full will be retumed.
(ITEMS 1 THRU 4 TO BE FILLED BY THE CORPS)
1. APPLICATION NO. 2 FIELD OFFICE CODE 3. DATE RECEIVED 4. DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE
(ITEMS BELOW TO BE FILLED BY APPLICANT)
5. APPLICANTS NAME: 8. AUTHORIZED AGENTS NAME AND TITLE (an agent is not required)
First- Gregory Middle- J. Last- Thorpe First- Middle- Last-
Company- NCDOT Company-
E-mail Address- goorpe®nrtlutgev E-mail Address -
6. APPLICANTS ADDRESS. 9. AGENTS ADDRESS
Address - 1546 Mail Service Celner Address -
City - Raleigh State- NC Zip- 276941$,18 Country- USA City- State- Zip- Country -
7. APPLICANTS PHONE NOS. W/AREA CODE 10. AGENT'S PHONE Nos. W/AREA CODE
a. Residence b. Business c. Fax a. Residence b. Business c. Fax
919-707-6000 919-707-6052
STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION
11.1 hereby authorize, to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing at this application and to famish, upon request,
supplemental information in suppon of this permit appri_bon.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY
12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE (see inmidiprs)
NCDOT STIP Nos. U4751 and R-3300, SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and US 17 Hampstead Bypass
13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN (a applrc INe) 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS (a aptlimee)
See attached Project Summary Tables 3 through 8
Address
.
NIA
15. LOCATION OF PROJECT
Latitude 'N W 15'W( 75n 1U'21'Sr(R3 ) Nwv Narcvrt a Patln CCU .NC
Longitude: °W 7rtr21Wrw75l117r4?43,2'rR.aro0) City - Slate- Zlp-
16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN lave arsevdunf
State Tax Parcel ID Municipality
Section- Towrtshio- Ranae-
17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE
F. 69 Oediigoo Ave to Wieilgtm. NC to the wasta n poled tem,Inur Take Darlington Avenue earth to US 17 (Market Soeen. Teke US 17 Norm (Market Street) eppodmatey 5 mum to Weary
Cutoff Reed. To the eestem project terminus: From Military CNM Road, mn6nee earth an US 17 (Mad ei Slreen appmwnataly 14 ndlas m Sloop Pain, Loop Road. See enachea Flgure T vidtnty map.
ENG FORM 4345, SEPT 2009 EDITION OF OCT 2004 15 OBSOLETE Proponent: CECW-OR

18. Nature of AOGvity (Desceput n a p,le4 include all laalunds)
Fwd MaYSy cutoT ROaI as a W-la a eNka] r®Oway an mw b°Cen icon M1t dnsnl l°minls x Us ly IMaM1et sevYl in wrlnbwl ?vd? men iYndnryle a dt Na Us 17 W Ieau a n eroaa (Joan Ay sump Jr.
Fme.aylam mnabu6 da US 11 HamQW] eyP+u as s heenaym teak Cm it= Malay CubRRoad Ettenvm at Rn US 17WiIta pion B,,aue, b alsbp US 17 Ind d Hamylead. For MWUry Cubfl ROtl
E lord iwl, ha dalaitl s" adntadras as paaMW In Va MIS pTwed M USAM on Uly 28, 2011: ARmaEVU Mt and M2 Fd pq HanpMead eypa+. MnneYVaa Elt.O, R, and U and the deaden study
aannaYne aaaadal an Me July 28. 011 UtVJM rid MS. Sae 0'e IMtWluSan ddcdm on yy 101112 a..Wpr.svntual and to watlud flym b anddnd nNnedde
19. Project purpose tDe,ww be, readout dpurpas, or rile pmied, we risbuctilms)
The purpose of the project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market
Street corridor in the study area.
USE BLOCKS 20-231F DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED
20. Reason(s) for Discharge
The proposed discharge Is required to accomplish the improvements listed In Block #18. The type of material being discharged and the amount of each
type is not yet available, but will be provided as part of the Section 404 Permit Application to be submitted during the final design phase of the project.
21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards:
Type Type Type
Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards Amount in Cubic Yards
Not available (see Block #20) Not available (see Block #20) Not available (see Block #20)
22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled (see lesductionsl
Acres See Taken 3 though 9 on pages 17 through 25 of the attached project summary for a description of, and enticipat al impacts to, wetlands, ponds and strearlo by project alternative.
Or
Liner Feet
23. Description of Avoidance, Minimization, and. Compensation (see msducdons) .
See the MBlgadon Evaluadort sacion on pages 27 and 28 of the attached project summary for a description of avoidance and minimization messures and compensatory mitigation.
24. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes ED No El IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK
25. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody fir me than vl be entered here, pease attach a supplemental lot).
Addr-s- See the attached mailing list compiled for the proposed project.
city - State- Zip- -
26. List of Other Certifications or ApprovalslDenials Received from other Federal, State, or Local Agencies for Wore Described in This Application.
AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL' IDENTIFICATION NUMBER DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED
NCDWQ 401 Water Quality Carl. TBD
'Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building, and flood plain permits
27. Application is hereby made for a permit or perl to authorize the work described in this application 1 certify that the information in this application is
complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly authorized agent of the
applicant.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the
statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed.
18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that Whoever, in any manner within the junsdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully
falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements a representations or
makes or uses any false writing a document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than
$10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both.
ENG FORM 4345, SEPT 2009
J
Project Summary
SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and
US 17 Hampstead Bypass
New Hanover and Pender Counties
S.T.I.P. Project Nos: U-4751 and R-3300
WBS Element No. 40191.1.2
Corps Action ID 2007 1386
The following information is a summary of relevant project details and is being provided to assist in
the Section 404 regulatory review of the project. Please note that more detailed infotmation is
available in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
Introduction
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to extend Military Cutoff
Road as a six-lane divided roadway on new location from its current terminus at US 17 (Market
Street) in Wilmington north to an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass Qohn Jay Burney
Jr. Freeway). A project vicinity map is attached (see Figure 1). For project R-3300, NCDOT
proposes to construct the US 17 Hampstead Bypass as a freeway mostly on new location. The US
17 Hampstead Bypass may connect to the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension at the existing
US 17 Wilmington Bypass and extend to existing US 17 north of Hampstead. Studies are underway
in accordance with the requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended. Project U-4751 is included in the approved 2092-2018 NCDOT State
Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP) as an extension of Military Cutoff Road on new location
from its current terminus at US 17 Business (Market Street) in Wilmington north to the US 17
Wilmington Bypass Qohn Jay Burney Jr. Freeway). Project R-3300 is included in the approved 2012-
2018 S77P as a US 17 bypass of Hampstead.
Four new location build alternatives for the US 17 Hampstead Bypass, and two new location build
alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension are being evaluated (see attached DEIS Figure 9).
The total lengths of the proposed build alternatives range from approximately 16.6 mules to
approximately 18.0 miles. A 70 mph design speed (65 mph posted speed limit) is proposed for
Hampstead Bypass. A 50 mph design speed (45 mph posted speed limit) is proposed for Military
Cutoff Road Extension.
Full control of access is proposed for the US 17 Hampstead Bypass. Limited and full control of
access is proposed for Military Cutoff Road Extension. For the US 17 Hampstead Bypass
Alternatives E-H, O and R, access is proposed at interchanges with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass,
NC 210 and existing US 17 at approximately 0.7 mile west of Grandview Drive. A total right of way
width of 250 feet to 350 feet is proposed for these alternatives. For the US 17 Hampstead Bypass
Alternative U, access is proposed at interchanges with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, the US 17
Wilmington Bypass interchange at Market Street, Sidbury Road, Brown Town Road, NC 210 and
existing US 17 approximately 0.5 mile west of Grandview Drive. To provide access to adjacent
properties, service roads.are proposed for the sections of Alternative U along existing US 17 from

Market Street to where the US 17 Hampstead Bypass transitions to new location. A variable right of
way width of 250 feet to 520 feet is proposed for Alternative U.
Access to Military Cutoff Road Extension is proposed at interchanges at Market Street and the US
17 Wilmington Bypass. Additional access along Military Cutoff Road Extension is proposed at
signalized directional crossovers with Putnam Drive, Lendire Road and Torchwood Boulevard.
Only right turns will be permitted onto Military Cutoff Road Extension from these roads.
Signalized U-turn lanes will be provided to accommodate left turns. A variable right of way width
of 150 feet to 350 feet is proposed for Military Cutoff Road Extension.
NEPA/404 Merger Process Documentation
The draft environmental impact statement for the project was approved on July 28, 2011. The
NEPA/404 merger team concurred on purpose and need (Concurrence Point 1) at a meeting held
on September 21, 2006. The merger team concurred on alternatives for detailed study (Concurrence
Point 2) at a meeting held on August 23, 2007. The merger team concurred on bridging decisions
(Concurrence Point 2A) at a meeting held May 27, 2010. The merger team also agreed to revise
Concurrence Point 2 at this meeting based on additional information obtained during detailed
environmental surveys.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed action is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US
17 and Market Street corridor in the study area.
The proposed projects will increase the capacity of the US 17 corridor and improve level of service,
benefiting both local and through traffic. The proposed projects will provide a new route for
travelers with destinations in northern New Hanover County and area beaches. The projects will
remove much of the through traffic from the existing roadway, allowing it to better serve local land
use. Separating through traffic from the local traffic that is using the existing roadway to access
schools, shopping and residential areas will enhance safety.
The purpose and need for this project was agreed upon by federal, state, and local agency
representatives in September 2006.
Schedule and Costs
Right of way acquisition and construction for the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension (TIP
Project U-4751) is scheduled to begin in state fiscal years 2014 and 2017, respectively in the 2012-
2018 STIP. Right of way acquisition for the proposed Hampstead Bypass (TIP Project R-3300) is
scheduled to begin in state fiscal year 2017 in the 2012-2018 STIP. Construction for the proposed
Hampstead Bypass is not currently funded.
Current estimated costs for each alternative are presented in Table 1 below. These costs are
estimates and are subject to change. Costs will be refined after a preferred alternative is selected.
Table 1. Cost Estimates for Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative
M1+E-H M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Right of Way
Acquisition $104,500,000 $100,875,000
$102,150,000
$155,875,000
$155,950,000
Utility
Relocation $1,304280 $1,434,320 $1,352,400 $1,809,000 $1,890,920
Wetland and
Stream $14,935,765 $17,063,669 $16,750,329 $11,635,741 $12,233,334
Mitigation
Construction $241,300,000 $239,900,000 $235,900,000 3235,500,000 3228,300,000
Total $362,040,045 $359,272,989 $356,152,729 $404,819,741 $398,374,254
Alternatives
No Build Alternative
The No-Build Alternative would not provide any substantial improvements to US 17 or Market
Street (US 17 Business) within the study area through the year 2035. Only typical maintenance
activities such as patching, resurfacing, regrading shoulders and maintaining ditches would occur.
For the purposes of the USACE review, and consistent with Appendix B of its regulations at 33
CFR part 325, USACE considers the No Action alternative to be the alternative that does not
require a USACE permit for its construction. Based on the information available concerning the
location and extent of the streams and wetlands in the project area, it is believed that to construct
the proposed highway facility while completely avoiding impacts to jurisdictional waters and
wetlands, and thus precluding the need for a USACE permit, would not be practicable and thus
does not satisfy the purpose and need for the project.
The No-Build Alternative would not add new lanes or provide alternative routes or means of travel
to existing roadways. Therefore, the traffic carrying capacity of Market Street and US 17 would not
improve and an increase in the number of accidents could be expected. Therefore, the No-Build
Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the proposed project and has been removed
from further consideration.
Transportation Systems Management
Transportation Systems Management (TSbi) involves modest physical and operational
improvements to enhance traffic performance, safety, and management. These measures can
include ramp lengthening, construction of auxiliary lanes, constructing new interchanges, improved.
signing and lane markings, and improved shoulder illumination. It is expected that TSM physical
improvements would improve traffic flow in some areas along Market Street and US 17, but the
roadways would not show an appreciable increase in capacity, and an increase in the number of
accidents could be expected. Therefore, the TSM Alternative does not meet the purpose of and
need for the proposed project and has been eliminated from further consideration.
Travel Demand Management Alternative
TDM improvements would not add new lanes or provide alternative routes or means of travel to
existing roadways. Therefore, the traffic carrying capacity of Market Street and US 17 would not
improve and an increase in the number of accidents could be expected. Therefore, the TDM
Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the proposed project and has been
eliminated from further consideration.
Mass Transit Alternatives
Although portions of the project study area (Wilmington and most of New Hanover County) are
served by mass transit, current roadway access and land use along Market Street and US 17 is not
conducive to converting lanes on Market Street and US 17 to express lanes. The Mass Transit
Alternative would only minimally address the current traffic flow problems in the area. In addition,
it would not be a reasonable alternative because of potential lack of demand, dispersed residential
areas and employment centers, and diversity of trip origins and destinations. The Mass Transit
Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the proposed project and has been
eliminated from further consideration.
Preliminary Build Alternatives
The NEPA/Section 404 merger team reviewed preliminary build alternatives at three meetings
between February 2007 and August 2007. During these meetings, the merger team eliminated
alternatives from further consideration, added alternatives for evaluation, and combined some
alternatives. In total, 23 preliminary build alternatives were developed for Hampstead Bypass and
two preliminary build alternatives were developed for Military Cutoff Road Extension. Preliminary
build alternatives are described below and shown in DEIS Figure 6 (attached).
Hampstead Bypass Alternatives
Alternative A
Alternative A begins in New Hanover County at the I-40 interchange with SR 1002 (Holly Shelter
Road). It extends northeast across undeveloped property just north of Holly Shelter Road. It
crosses to the south side of Holly Shelter Road at the curve where Holly Shelter Road transitions to
Island Creek Road. The alternative follows the south side of Island Creek Road adjacent to mostly
undeveloped property. Alternative A crosses a transmission line easement and buns southeast to an
interchange with NC 210 southeast of the intersection of NC 210 and Island Creek Road.
Alternative A then extends from NC 210 to the northeast through undeveloped forested property,
crossing a large power line easement near Godfrey Creek Road. North of Godfrey Creek Road,
Alternative A extends through forested land, crosses Saps Road and SR 1569 (Hoover Road) and
then tums east. The alternative then extends to the north of Castle Bay, an existing residential golf
course community off of Hoover Road. It continues east to a proposed interchange with existing
US 17 near SR 1675 (Long Leaf Drive). It then extends along existing US 17, ending at a signalized
intersection at SR 1563 (Sloop Point Loop Road).
Alternative A was eliminated from further study because it would require US 17 traffic to travel out
of direction. It is not expected Alternative A would improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety
of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the study area. Therefore, Alternative A would not meet
the purpose of and need for the proposed project.
Alternative B
Alternative B begins in New Hanover County at the I-40 interchange with SR 1002 (Holly Shelter
Road). It has the same alignment as Alternative A from I-40 to NC 210.
From NC 210, Alternative B extends east across several minor roads through undeveloped forested
areas. Alternative B continues northeast, crossing Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary
School. The alternative continues to a proposed interchange with US 17 near Long Leaf Drive. It
then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at SR 1563 (Sloop Point Loop
Road).
Alternative B was eliminated from further study because it would require US 17 traffic to travel out
of direction. It is not expected Alternative B would improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety
of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the study area. Therefore, Alternative B would not meet
the purpose of and need for the proposed project.
Alternative C
Alternative C begins in New Hanover County at the I-40 interchange with SR 1002 (Holly Shelter
Road). It has the same alignment as Alternatives A and B from I-40 to NC 210.
From NC 210, Alternative C extends northeast across several minor roads through undeveloped
forested areas. Alternative C crosses SR 1569 (Hoover Road) north of South Topsail Elementary
School. At SR 1569 (Hoover Road), Alternative C turns east, continues across undeveloped land to
a proposed interchange with US 17 near SR 1702 (Grandview Drive). Alternative C extends along
existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at SR 1563 (Sloop Point Loop Road).
Alternative C was eliminated from further study because it would require US 17 traffic to travel out
of direction and it is not expected Alternative C would improve the traffic carrying capacity and
safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the study area.. Therefore, Alternative C would not
meet the purpose of and need for the proposed project.
Alternative D
Alternative D begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass,
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street. The alternative extends northeast across
SR 1572 (Sidbury Road). Alternative D extends into Pender County, crossing a transmission line
easement near Churchhouse Bay Lane. Alternative D includes a proposed interchange at NC 210
southeast of the NC 210 and SR 1002 (Island Creek Road) intersection.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative D continues to the northeast, crossing a large power
line easement near Godfrey Creek Road. North of Godfrey Creek Road, Alternative D extends
through forested land, crosses Saps Road and Hoover Road and turns east. Alternative D extends
to the north of Castle Bay, an existing residential golf course community off of Hoover Road, and
ties into existing US 17 near Long Leaf Drive with a proposed interchange. Alternative D then
extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road. Because
of their close proximity to each other, the study corridors for Alternatives D and G were combined.
The resultant alternative, Alternative D-G, was selected to be studied in detail.
Alternative E
Alternative E begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass,
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street The alternative follows the same alignment
as Alternative D from the Wilmington Bypass to NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative E extends east and crosses Hoover Road north of
South Topsail Elementary School. The alternative continues northeast and ties to existing US 17 at
a proposed interchange near Long Leaf Drive. Alternative E then extends along existing US 17 to
end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Because of their close proximity to each other, the study corridors for Alternatives E and H were
combined. The resultant alternative, Alternative E-H, was selected to be studied in detail.
Alternative F
Alternative F begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass,
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street. The alternative follows the same alignment
as Alternatives D and E from the Wilmington Bypass to NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative F extends east across several minor roads and crosses
Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School. At Hoover Road, Alternative F turns
south and des into existing US 17 with an interchange near Grandview Drive south of the Topsail
School complex. Alternative F then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection
at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Because of their dose proximity to each other, the study corridors for Alternatives F and I were
combined. The resultant alternative, Alternative F-I, was selected to be studied in detail.
Alternative G
Alternative G begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass,
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street. The alternative travels northeast across
Sidbury Road. Alternative G continues north and turns east to parallel the south side of the
transmission line easement as it enters Pender County. After crossing into Pender County,
Alternative G continues northeast to a proposed interchange with NC 210.
From the interchange at NC 210, Alternative G continues to the northeast, crossing a large power
line easement near Godfrey Creek Road. North of Godfrey Creek Road, Alternative G extends
through forested land, crosses Saps Road and Hoover Road and turns east. Alternative G extends
to the north of Castle Bay and ties into existing US 17 near Long Leaf Drive with a proposed
interchange. Alternative G then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at
Sloop Point Loop Road.
Because of their dose proximity to each other, the study corridors for Alternatives D and G were
combined. The resultant alternative, Alternative D-G, was selected to be studied in detail.
Altemative H
Alternative H begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass,
approximately midway between 1-40 and Market Street. The alternative follows the same alignment
as Alternative G between the Wilmington Bypass and NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative H extends east across several minor roads and crosses
Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School. The alternative continues northeast and
ties to existing US 17 at a proposed interchange near Long Leaf Drive. Alternative H then extends
along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Because of their close proximity to each other, the study corridors for Alternatives E and H were
.
combined. The resultant alternative, Alternative E-H, was selected to be studied in detail
Alternative I
Alternative I begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass,
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street. The alternative follows the same alignment
as Alternatives G and H between the Wil - ngton Bypass and NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative I extends east across several minor roads and crosses
Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School. At Hoover Road, Alternative I tutus
south and ties into existing US 17 with an interchange near Grandview Drive south of the Topsail
School complex. Alternative I then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection
at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Because of their close proximity to each other, the study corridors for Alternatives F and I were
combined. The resultant alternative, Alternative F-I, was selected to be studied in detail.
Alternative I
Alternative j begins in New Hanover County at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange with
Market Street. It extends north across undeveloped property, crossing Sidbury Road near the New
Hanover County/Pender County line. Alternative j continues northeast, crossing Harrison Creek
Road, to a proposed interchange at NC 210.
From the interchange at NC 210, Alternative j continues to the northeast, crossing a large power
line easement near Godfrey Creek Road. North of Godfrey Creek Road, Alternative j extends
through forested land, crosses Saps Road and Hoover Road and turns east. Alternative j extends to
the north of Castle Bay and ties into existing US 17 near Long Leaf Drive with an interchange.
Alternative j then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point
Loop Road.
Alternative j was eliminated from further study due to constructability issues. This alternative would
result in the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, Market Street, and Hampstead Bypass traffic converging at
one location, with one facility being full control of access and the other two facilities being partial to
no control of access. From a design standpoint, it would not be feasible to separate traffic while
maintaining a travel corridor along existing US 17.
Alternative K
Alternative K begins in New Hanover County at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange with
Market Street. The alternative follows the same alignment as Alternative) from the Wilmington
Bypass to NC 210.
From NC 210, Alternative K extends east across several minor toads and crosses Hoover Road
north of South Topsail Elementary School. The alternative continues northeast through
undeveloped property to a proposed interchange with US 17 north of the Topsail School complex
near Long Leaf Drive. Alternative K then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized
intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative K was eliminated from further study due to constructability issues. This altemative
would result in the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, Market Street, and Hampstead Bypass traffic
converging at one location, with one facility being full control of access and the other two facilities
being partial to no control of access. From a design standpoint, it would not be feasible to separate
traffic while maintaining a travel corridor along existing US 17.
Alternative L
Alternative L begins in New Hanover County at the US 17 Wihnington Bypass interchange with
Market Street. The alternative follows the same alignment as Alternatives J and K from the
Wilmington Bypass to NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative L extends east across several minor roads and crosses
Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School. At Hoover Road, Alternative L turns
south and des into existing US 17 with an interchange near Grandview Drive south of the Topsail
School complex. Alternative L then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection
at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative L was eliminated from further study due to constructability issues. This alternative
would result in the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, Market Street, and Hampstead Bypass traffic
converging at one location, with one facility being full control of access and the other two facilities
being partial to no control of access. From a design standpoint, it would not be feasible to separate
traffic while maintaining a travel corridor along existing US 17.
Alternative N
Alternative N begins in New Hanover County at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass approximately one
mile west of the Market Street interchange. It extends northeast from the bypass through
undeveloped land and crosses Sidbury Road near the New Hanover County/Pender County line.
The alternative continues northeast across Harrison Creek Road to a proposed interchange at NC
210.
From the interchange at NC 210, Alternative N continues to the northeast, crossing a large power
line easement near Godfrey Creek Road. North of Godfrey Creek Road, Alternative N extends
through forested land, crosses Saps Road and Hoover Road and turns east. Alternative N extends
to the north of Castle Bay and ties into existing US 17 near Long Leaf Drive with a proposed
interchange. Alternative N then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at
Sloop Point Loop Road. Alternative N was selected to be studied in detail.
Alternative O
Alternative O begins in New Hanover County at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass approximately one
mile west of the Market Street interchange. The alternative follows the same alignment as
Alternative N from the Wilmington Bypass to NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative O extends northeast across several minor roads and
crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School. The alternative continues
northeast to a proposed interchange with existing US 17 near Long Leaf Drive. Alternative O then
extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative 0 was selected to be studied in detail.
Alternative P
Alternative P begins in New Hanover County at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass approximately one
mile west of the Market Street interchange. The alternative follows the same alignment as
Alternatives N and O from the Wilmington Bypass to NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative P extends northeast across several minor roads and
crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School. At Hoover Road, Alternative P
turns east and ties into existing US 17 with a proposed interchange near Grandview Drive south of
the Topsail School complex. Alternative P then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized
intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road. Alternative P was selected to be studied in detail.
Altemative 0
Alternative Q begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street. Alternative Q extends northeast from the
bypass and crosses Sidbury Road near the New Hanover County/fender County line. The
alternative continues northeast across Harrison Creek Road to a proposed interchange with NC 210.
From the interchange at NC 210, Alternative Q continues to the northeast, crossing a large power
line easement near Godfrey Creek Road. North of Godfrey Creek Road, Alternative Q extends
through forested land, crosses Saps Road and Hoover Road and turns east. Alternative Q extends
to the north of Castle Bay and ties into existing US 17 near Long Leaf Drive with a proposed
interchange. Alternative Q then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at
Sloop Point Loop Road. Alternative Q was selected to be studied in detail.
Alternative R
Alternative R begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wihnington Bypass
approximately midway between existing interchanges with I-40 and Market Street. Alternative R
extends northeast from the bypass and crosses Sidbury Road near the New Hanover
County/Pender County line. The alternative continues northeast across Harrison Creek Road to a
proposed interchange with NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative R extends northeast across several minor toads and
crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School. The alternative continues
northeast to a proposed interchange with existing US 17 near Long Leaf Drive. Alternative R then
extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative R was selected to be studied in detail.
Altemative S
Alternative S begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass
approximately midway between existing interchanges with I-40 and Market Street. Alternative S
extends northeast from the bypass and crosses Sidbury Road near the New Hanover
County/Pender County line. The alternative continues northeast across Harrison Creek Road to a
proposed interchange with NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative S extends northeast across several minor roads and
crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School. At Hoover Road, Alternative S
turns east and ties into existing US 17 with a proposed interchange near Grandview Drive south of
the Topsail School complex. Alternative S then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized
intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road. Alternative S was selected to be studied in detail.
Alternative T
Alternative T begins in New Hanover County at the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass and Market
Street interchange. The alternative extends along existing US 17 to a proposed interchange
approximately two miles north of the New Hanover County line, where it transitions to new
location. Alternative T intersects with NC 210 at an interchange approximately 0.5 mile west of
existing US 17. From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative T curves northeast, connecting with
existing US 17 at a proposed interchange near Grandview Drive south of the Topsail School
complex. Alternative T then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at
Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative T was eliminated from further study because, compared to some alternatives, it would
cause a higher number of residential and business displacements, and would likely impact several
historic and archaeological sites.
Alternative U
Alternative U begins in New Hanover County at a proposed interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass. The interchange location will vary depending on the selected preferred Military
Cutoff Road Extension alternative (Ml or M2). Alternative U extends along existing US 17 to a
proposed interchange approximately two miles north of the New Hanover County line, where it
transitions to new location. Alternative U intersects with NC 210 at an interchange approximately
0.5 mile west of existing US 17. From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative U continues northeast
parallel to existing US 17 and crosses Hoover Road south of South Topsail Elementary School. The
corridor continues northeast to a proposed interchange with existing US 17 near Long Leaf Drive.
Alternative U then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point
Loop Road. Alternative U was selected to be studied in detail.
Alternative V
Alternative V begins in New Hanover County at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass approximately one
mile west of the Market Street interchange. Alternative V intersects with NC 210 at a proposed
interchange approximately 0.5 mile west of existing US 17. From its interchange at NC 210,
Alternative V curves northeast, connecting with existing US 17 at a proposed interchange neat
Grandview Drive south of the Topsail School complex. Alternative V then extends along existing
US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative V was eliminated from further study because compared to some alternatives it would
cause a higher number of residential and business displacements, would impact more exceptionally
significant wetlands and streams, and would likely impact several historic and archaeological sites.
Alternative W
Alternative W begins in New Hanover County at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass approximately one
mile west of the Market Street interchange. Alternative W travels northeast to intersect with NC
210 at a proposed interchange approximately 0.5 mile west of existing US 17. From its interchange
at NC 210, Alternative W continues northeast parallel to existing US 17 and crosses Hoover Road
south of South Topsail Elementary School. The alternative continues northeast to a proposed
interchange with existing US 17 near Long Leaf Drive. Alternative W then extends along existing
US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
10
Alternative W was eliminated from further study because compared to some alternatives it would
cause a higher number of residential and business displacements, would impact more exceptionally
significant wetlands and streams, and would likely impact several historic and archaeological sites.
Alternative Z (Improve Existing Alternative)
Alternative Z is the "Improve Existing" alternative. This alternative adds lanes to Market Street and
existing US 17 from College Road in New Hanover County to Sloop Point Loop Road in Pender
County. Access to properties along existing US 17 is provided by service roads and interchanges at:
realigned Sidbury Road and SR 1571 (Scotts Hill Loop Road); realigned NC 210 (approximately 0.5
mile south of existing NC 210); and approximately 0.25 mile south of the Topsail School complex.
Alternative Z was selected to be studied in detail.
Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives
Alternative Ml
Alternative Ml begins at a proposed interchange at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street. The
alternative extends north through vacant County property between the two sections of Ogden Park
and residential areas. Alternative Ml turns northwest and ends near Plantation Road and Crooked
Pine Road at a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, approximately tnidway
between the I-40 and Market Street interchanges.
The City of Wilmington adopted an official transportation corridor map for the proposed extension
of Military Cutoff Road on August 8, 2005 (see Figure 7). Alternative M1 follows the adopted
corridor map alignment. Alternative Ml was selected to be studied in detail.
Alternative M2
Alternative M2 begins with an interchange at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street. From the
proposed interchange, Alternative M2 follows the same alignment as Alternative Ml for
approximately two miles. Alternative M2 then turns northeast and extends through mostly
undeveloped property to a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass approximately
one mile west of Market Street. Alternative M2 was selected to be studied in detail.
Detailed Study Alternatives
Following the April 2007 citizens informational workshops, 13 of the preliminary study alternatives
were selected for detailed study. Two new location detailed study alternatives were selected for
Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751). Ten new location alternatives and one improve existing
alternative were selected for Hampstead Bypass (R-3300). The 13 detailed study alternatives are
shown on DEIS Figure 8 (attached).
All of the alternatives for the project will affect foraging habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker, a
federally-listed endangered species (see Sections 3.5.4.3 and 4.5.4.3). Because of this, the detailed
study alternatives were evaluated for ways to minimize impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker
foraging habitat. Minimization options were developed and adopted for Alternatives E-H, O, R,
and Alternative U.
The alignment of detailed study alternatives D-G, F-I, N, P, Q, S, and Z corridors precluded the
development of an option that would substantially minimize impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker
foraging habitat for those alternatives. These alternatives were eliminated from further
11
consideration due to their impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat and other
resources.
Hampstead Bypass Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative D-G (Combination of Alternatives D and G)
Alternative D-G extends from a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street to existing US 17 at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative D-G was eliminated from further study following detailed environmental surveys
because it would have greater impacts than several other alternatives to a number of resources
including future potentially suitable and potentially suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat,
streams, managed natural areas, forested areas and floodplams.
Alternative F-I (Combination of Alternatives F and I)
Alternative F-I extends from a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street to existing US 17 at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative F-I was eliminated from further study following detailed environmental surveys because
it would have greater impacts than several other alternatives to a number of resources including
streams, ponds, residential and business displacements, and future potentially suitable and potentially
suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.
Alternative N
Alternative N extends from a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass
approximately. one mile west of the Market Street interchange to existing US 17 at Sloop Point Loop
Road. Alternative N was eliminated from further study following detailed environmental surveys
because it would have greater impacts than several other alternatives to a number of resources
including wetlands, managed natural areas, forested areas, and future potentially suitable and
potentially suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.
Alternative P
Alternative P extends from a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilm ngton Bypass .
approximately one mile west of the Market Street interchange to existing US 17 at Sloop Point Loop
Road. Alternative P was eliminated from further study following detailed environmental surveys
because it would have greater impacts than several other alternatives to a number of resources
including streams, wetlands, ponds, residential and business displacements, and future potentially
suitable and potentially suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.
Alternative O
Alternative Q extends from a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street to existing US 17 at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative Q was eliminated from further study following detailed environmental surveys because it
would have greater impacts than several other alternatives to a number of resources including
streams and future potentially suitable and potentially suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.
Alternative S
Alternative S extends from a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street to existing US 17 at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative S was eliminated from further study following detailed environmental surveys because it
12
would have greater impacts than several other alternatives to a number of resources including
streams, ponds, residential and business displacements, and future potentially suitable and potentially
suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat.
Alternative Z (Improve Existing Alternative)
Alternative Z widens the existing Market Street / US 17 corridor. Alternative Z was eliminated
from further study following detailed environmental surveys because it would have greater impacts
on homes and businesses than any of the alternatives. Alternative Z would also have greater
impacts than several other alternatives to a number of other resources including future potentially
suitable and potentially suitable red-cockaded woodpecker habitat and High Quality Waters.
Military Cutoff Road Extension Detailed Study Alternatives
Both of the detailed study alternatives for the proposed Military Cutoff Road extension are still
being considered.
Current Detailed Study Alternatives
There are four new location build alternatives for the Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) and two new
location build alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) still under consideration.
The current detailed study alternatives for Hampstead Bypass include E-H, O, R, and U. The
current detailed study alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension include Ml and M2. A
comparison of the anticipated impacts for the current detailed study alternatives is included in
Table 2. The current detailed study alternatives are shown in DEIS Figure 9 and Figures 10-A
through 10-K (attached).
13
Table 2. Summary Comparison of Current Detailed Study Alternatives
Current Detailed Study Alternative
FEATURE' Ml+ E-H M2+0 Ml+R M1+U M2+U
Length (miles) 17.5 16.6 17.1 18.0 16.8
Delineated Wetland Impacts 246.1 384.4 297.4 218.4 283.8
acres
Delineated Stream Impacts 24,531 13,842 24,571 15,450 8,786
(linear feet

Residential Displacements 61 60 59 93 95
Business Displacements 2 84 84 84 106 106
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Future Potentially Suitable / 8.67/ 8.67/ 8.67/ 8.67/ 8.67/
Potentially Suitable Habitat 7.39 7.39 7.39 7.39 7.39
acres
RCW, RCW,
May affect, Likely to Adversely CM, CM, RCW, RCW,
Affect federally protected RCW, RLL RLL RLL, RLL RLL
3
species ,
GS GS
Natural Heritage Program 01
SNHA, Managed Areas and 4.43 42.94 5.01 3.24 34.40
Wetland Mitigations Sites
(acres)

Prime Farmlands/Farmlands of 67.5 58.1 58.1 49.9 49.9
Statewide Importance (acres)
Forest acres 518 512 472 406 455
Historic Properties no. 1 1 1 4 4
Noise Receptor Impacts 257 236 248 310 304
High Quality Waters (HQW,
ORW, WS Protected or Critical 9.6 9.6 9.6 12.4 12.4
Areas) (acres)
Total Cost (in millions) $362.0 $359.3 $356.2 $404.8 $398.4
'Impact calculations are based on preliminary design slope stake limits plus an additional 25 teet.
z Includes non-profit displacements.
a RCW- red-cockaded woodpecker, RLL- rough-leaved loosestrife, GS- golden sedge, CM- Cooley's meadowme
Hampstead Bypass Current Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative E-H (Combination of Alternatives E and Hl
Alternative E-H begins in New Hanover County at a proposed interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street. The alternative extends
northwest past Sidbury Road into Pender County. Land use between the bypass and Sidbury Road
14
is mostly undeveloped property. Alternative E-H turns to the northeast and continues to a
proposed interchange with NC 210 east of Island Creek Road.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative E-H extends northeast across several trnor roads that
include lightly developed residential areas and through undeveloped forested areas. Alternative E-H
crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School and continues northeast through
undeveloped property to a proposed interchange with realigned US 17 approximately 0.7 mile west
of Grandview Drive. Alternative E-H continues north behind the Topsail School complex and then
turns east to tie into existing US 17 near Leeward Lane. Alternative E-H continues north on
existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative O
Alternative O begins in New Hanover County at a proposed interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile west of the Market Street interchange. It extends north
from the bypass through undeveloped land and crosses Sidbury Road at the New Hanover
County/Pender County line. The alternative continues north through predominantly undeveloped
land to a proposed interchange at NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative O extends northeast across several minor roads that
include lightly developed residential areas and through undeveloped forested areas. It continues
through farmland, crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School and continues
northeast through undeveloped property to a proposed interchange with realigned US 17
approximately 0.7 mile west of Grandview Drive. Alternative O continues north behind the Topsail
School complex and then turns east to tie into existing US 17 near Leeward Lane. Alternative O
continues north on existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative R
Alternative R begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass,
approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street. Alternative R extends northeast from the
bypass across undeveloped land and crosses Sidbury Road at the New Hanover County/Pender
County line. The alternative continues north through predominantly undeveloped land to an
interchange at NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative R crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail
Elementary School and continues northeast through undeveloped property to a proposed
interchange with realigned US 17 approximately 0.7 mile west of Grandview Drive. Alternative R
continues north behind the Topsail School complex and then turns east to tie into existing. US 17
near Leeward Lane. Alternative R continues north on existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative U
Alternative U begins in New Hanover County at a proposed interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass. The interchange location will vary depending on the selected preferred Military
Cutoff Road Extension alternative (Ml or M2). Alternative U follows the Wilmington Bypass
through the existing interchange at Market Street. The alternative runs along existing US 17 to a
proposed interchange with realigned Sidbury Road. Alternative U continues north on existing US
17 for approximately two miles to where it transitions to new location at a proposed interchange
with existing US 17. Alternative U continues north on new location to intersect with NC 210 at a
proposed interchange approximately 0.5 mile west of existing US 17.
15
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative U continues north parallel to existing US 17 and crosses
Hoover Road south of South Topsail Elementary School. The alternative continues northeast
through undeveloped property to a proposed interchange with realigned US 17 approximately 0.5
mile west of Grandview Drive. Alternative U continues north behind the Topsail School complex
and then turns east to tie into existing US 17 near Leeward Lane. Alternative U continues north on
existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road.
Military Cutoff Road Extension Current Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative Ml
Alternative Ml begins at a proposed interchange at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street. The
alternative extends north through vacant County property between the two sections of Ogden Park
and residential areas. Alternative Ml turns northwest and ends neat Plantation Road and Crooked
Pine Road at a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway
between I-40 and Market Street. The City of Wilmington adopted a Transportation Official
Corridor map for the proposed extension of Military Cutoff Road on August 8, 2005. Alternative
MI follows the adopted corridor map alignment.
Alternative M2
Alternative M2 begins at a proposed interchange at Military Cutoff Road and Market Street.
Alternative M2 follows the Alternative Ml alignment for approximately two miles. Alternative M2
then turns northeast and extends through mostly undeveloped property to a proposed interchange
with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile west of Market Street.
Typical Sections
Alternatives E-H, O, and R
The proposed typical section for Hampstead Bypass Alternatives E-H, O and R from the proposed
interchange at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass to the proposed interchange at NC 210 consists of six
12-foot lanes (three in each direction) with 14-foot outside shoulders (12-foot paved). A 46-foot
median is proposed. From the proposed interchange at NC 210 to existing US 17, the typical
section for Alternatives E-H, O and R is comprised of four 12-foot lanes (two in.each direction)
with 14-foot outside shoulders (12-foot paved). A 46-foot median is proposed.
Alternative U
The proposed typical section for Hampstead Bypass Alternative U from the proposed interchange at
the US 17 Wilmington Bypass to the proposed interchange with existing US 17 consists of ten
12-foot lanes (five in each direction) with 14-foot outside shoulders (12-foot paved). A 22-foot
median with ten-foot inside shoulders and a two-foot concrete barrier is proposed. From the
proposed interchange with existing US 17 to the proposed interchange at NC 210, the typical
section for Alternative U is six 12-foot lanes (three in each direction) with 14-foot outside shoulders
(12-foot paved). A 46-foot median is proposed. The proposed typical section for Alternative U
from the proposed interchange at NC 210 north to existing US 17 is four 12-foot lanes (two in each
direction) with 14-foot outside shoulders (12-foot paved) in each direction with a 46-foot median.
Alternatives Ml and M2
The proposed typical section for Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives Ml and M2 from the
proposed interchange at Market Street to approximately 0.9 mile north of Torchwood Boulevard
16
consists of six lanes (three in each direction) with a 30-foot median and curb and gutter. Two
12-foot inside lanes and one 14-foot outside lane (to accommodate bicycles) with two-foot curb and
gutter and a ten-foot berm are proposed in each direction. From approximately 0.9 mile north of
Torchwood Boulevard to the proposed interchange at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass the proposed
typical section for Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives MI and M2 consists of six 12-foot
lanes (three in each direction) with 14-foot outside shoulders (12-foot paved). A 46-foot median is
proposed.
The Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization'(MPO) has requested a multi-use path be
constructed along proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension (see Appendix B of the DEIS). The
multi-use path would tie into an existing multi-use path along Military Cutoff Road. The
construction of a multi-use path as part of the proposed project will be dependent upon a cost-
sharing and maintenance agreement between the NCDOT and the Wilmington MPO. The
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the Wilmington MPO on the inclusion of the multi-use
path along Military Cutoff Road Extension. If a multi-use path is included along Military Cutoff
Road Extension, the ten-foot berm will be increased to 12 feet to accommodate the path.
Waters of the United States
The proposed project will impact water resources in the study area. Impacts to wells, streams,
ponds, wetlands, and floodplains are summarized below. Water resources in the study area are part
of the Cape Fear River basin (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] Hydrologic Units 03030007 and
03020302). A total of 59 jurisdictional streams, 17 ponds, and 108 jurisdictional wetlands are located
within the current detailed study alternatives' study corridors.
Streams, Ponds and Wetlands
Impacts to Waters of the U.S. would occur at various locations throughout the length of the project,
at stream crossings, wetland areas, and ponds. Anticipated impacts by stream are presented for the
detailed study alternatives in Table 3. Total stream impacts for each alternative are shown in Table
4. Anticipated impacts for each pond are presented for the detailed study alternatives in Table 5.
Total pond impacts for each alternative are shown in Table 6. Anticipated impacts by wetland are
presented for the detailed study alternatives in Table 7. Total wetland impacts for each alternative
are shown in Table 8. The DEIS and the Natural Resources Technical Report (Mulkey, August
2010) include additional details about Waters of the U.S.
Table 3. Individual Stream Impacts
Stream Figure Corridor Stream Compensatory Stream
ID Stream Name No. Alternatives Impact Mitigation Determination
(feet)* Required
BSA UT to Smith Creek 10-C MI, M2 294.71 Yes Perennial
BS UT to Smith Creek 10-C Ml, M2 153.12 Yes Perennial
BSK UT to Smith Creek 10-C Ml, M2 609.43 Yes Perennial
BSL UT to Smith Creek 10-C Ml, M2 287.65 Yes Perennial
BSM UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1, M2 732.16 Yes Perennial
BSN UT to Smith Creek 10-C MI, M2 970.20 Yes Perennial
M7-
BSO UT to Smith Creek 10-C Ml, M2 2'Mz 75 Yes Perenn al

2,321.95
17
Stream Compensatory
Stream Figure Corridor Stream
Stream Name Impact Mitigation
ID No. Alternatives Determination
(feet)* Required
BSP UT to Smith Creek 10-C Ml, M2 M1-398.21, Yes Perennial
M2-328.11
BSQ UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1, M2 Iv(1-83.23 Yes Perennial
M2- 82.13

61
2 N02
OH%VM'
BDITCHI UT to Howe Creek 10-C Ml, M2 3.
5 o
N
s
E-H, R-
1,949.14,
CSA UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H, R, Ul, Ul- Yes Perennial
M1 2,079.61,
Ml-
2,079.15
E-H,R-
CSB UT to Island Creek 10-C, E-H, R, U1, 257.70, Yes Perennial
10-D Ml Ml, Ul-
270.64
CSC UT to Smith Creek 10-C, M1 943.08 Noz
10-D OHWM'
10-C, Yes Intermittent
CSD UT to Smith Creek Ml 902.39
10-D Yes Perennial
CSE UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1 239.16 Noz OHWM'
CSG UT to Smith Creek 10-C Ml 280.66 Yes Intermittent
CSH UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1 230.00 Yes Intermittent
CSI UT to Smith Creek 10-C MI 231.87 Yes Perennial
E-H, R-
CSJ UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H, R, Ul, 1,289.61, Yes Perennial
Ml Ul, Ml-
932.20
CSK UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H,I Ul, 399.56 Yes Perennial

0-359.29,
DSA UT to Island Creek 10-C O, U2, M2 M2, U2- Yes Perennial
444.32
ESA UT to Mill Creek 10-G Ul, U2 848.71 Yes Perennial
ESB UT to Mill Creek 10-G Ul, U2 130.43 Yes Perennial
. E-H, R-
2131.71

FSA
UT to Island Creek
10-D E-H, OR , ,
0-16.03,
Yes
Perennial
Ul, Ml
M1,U1-
520.14
0-52.86,
Ul
U2
0 Ul, U2,
FSC UT to Island Creek 10-D ,
,
, Yes Intermittent
Ml, M2 Ml, M2-
37.42
FSE UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H, R 331.14 Yes Perennial

R
51
289 2
OH%vfM'
FSF UT to Island Creek 10-F . o
N
s
18
Stream Figure Corridor
Stream
Compensatory
Stream
ID Stream Name No Alternatives Impact Mitigation Determination
. (feet)* Required
Noz OHW
P
No3 I
FSH UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H 494.65 yes Interm ttent
Yes Perennial
E-H-
FSI UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H, R 273.54, R- Yes Perennial
266.68
FSJ UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H, R 858.61 Yes Intermittent
FSK UT to Island Creek 10-F R 81.02 Yes Intermittent
GFSE UT to Island Creek 10-E O 301.99 Yes Perennial
GSA UT to Island Creek 10-F O, R 417.82 Yes Perennial
GSG UT to Island Creek 10-E, O 190.25 Yes Intermittent
10-F
Yes Intermittent
HBSAA UT to Island Creek 10-F E-H 141.44 yes Perennial
Yes Intermittent
HBSC UT to Island Creek 10-F E-H 368.56 yes Peten ual
Yes Intermittent
HBSD(1) UT to Island Creek 10-F E-H 269.34 yes Pere, ial
HBSH UT to Island Creek 10-F E-H 319.90 Yes Intermittent
HSB UT to Harrisons 10-H E-H 262.08 Yes Intermittent
Creek
HSC UT to Harrisons 10-F, E-H 403.72 Yes Perennial
Creek 10-H
HS% UT to Harrisons 10-H E-H 305.58 Yes rennial
Creek
Yes rmittent
ISA UT to Island Creek 10-F O, R 725.75 yes renr al
k

UT to Harrisons
10-H
O, R
Yes Interrnittent
ISC 276 96
Creek Yes rennial
ISD UT to Harrisons 10-H O, R 424.9 Yes rennial
Creek
IDITCHI UT to Harrisons 10-F O, R 397.01 Noz
OHINM
k
Cree
LSB UT to Harrisons 10-H E-H, O, R 1,397.92 Yes . Perennial
Creek
LSC Harrisons Creek 10-H E-H, O, R 655.51 Yes Perennial
UT to Harrisons 10-H E-H, O, R Yes Intermittent
LSCA 441.54
Creek Yes Perennial
LSCAA UT to Harrisons 10-H E-H, O, R 208.86 Yes Perennial
Creek
LSCB UT to Harrisons 10-H E-H, O, R 307.07 Yes Perennial
Creek
LSCC UT to Harrsons 10- E-H, O, R 130.65 Yes Perennial
Creek
LSCF UT to Harrisons 10-1-11 E-H, O, R 119.60 Yes Intermittent
Creek
19
Stream Figure Corridor Stream Compensatory Stream
ID Stream Name No. Alternatives Impact Mitigation Determination
(feet)* Required
LSD Godfrey Creek 10-H, E-H, O, R 284.51 Yes Perennial
10-I
LSDA UT to Godfrey 10-I E-H, O, R 194.73 Yes Intermittent
Creek
E
H
O
R Yes Intermittent
?
4 -
,
,
,
NSA UT to AIA
lY 10-K Ul, U2 441.60 Yes Perennial
4
' E-H, O, R, Yes Intermittent
NSF 0
UT to AIAY 10-I Ul, U2 104.83, Yes Perennial
ZSB UT to Futch Creek 10-E Ul, U2 385.87 Yes Perennial
ZSK UT to Prince 10-D E-H, R 849.12 Yes Perennial
George Creek
ZSL UT to Prince 10-D E-H, R 40.23 Yes Perennial
George Creek
'Impacts are for all alternatives unless otherwise noted. Individual impacts calculated for Military Cutoff Road
Extension .Alternatives Ml and M2 utilize the corresponding Hampstead Bypass Alternative U interchange
configuration.
I Resource determined by USACE to be a jurisdictional tributary based on the presence of an ordinary high water mark
(OHWM) during Geld verification.
2 Tributary feature exists within the boundaries of an adjacent wetland and therefore does not require mitigation
independent of the wetland.
3 Tributary feature does not require stream mitigation but may require mitigation by the USACE as a "Water of the US"
dependent upon the type of impact proposed at the time of permit application.
a Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway.
s U1 is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass at Military Cutoff
Road Extension Alternative MI. U2 is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with US 17
Wilmington Bypass at Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M2.
Table 4. Total Stream Impacts
Delineated Stream Alternative
Impacts (linear feet) M1+EH M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Perennial 17,987 11,486 18,634 11,755 7,687 .
Intermittent 3,487 1,346 2,553 997 486
Other1 3,057 1,010 3,384 2,698 613
Total 24,531 13,842 24,571 15,450 8,786
t Tributary waters determined to be jurisdictional during preliminary jurisdictional determination process
based on the presence of an ordinary high water mark (OH)N6'I)
20
Table 5. Individual Pond Impacts
Pond
ID Figure
No. Corridor
Altemative(s)t
Appearance Connected Feature
Map ID Pond Impacts
(acres)'
BPE 10-C Ml, M2 Stormwater Pond BSL 0.75
BPF 10-C Ml, M2 Stormwater Pond BSO 0.41
BP 10-C Ml, M2 Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.11
BPI{ 10-B Ml, M2 Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.01
GPA 10-F O Stormwater Pond GWA 0.09
GPB 10-F O, R Stormwater Pond GWA 0.07
GPC 10-F O, R Stormwater Pond GWA O - 0.11, R - 0.06
GPD 10-F O, R Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.01
IPA2 10-F O, R Stormwater Pond N VT 0.14
IPE 10-H E-H, O, R Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.27
)PD 10-I
I
E-H, O, R, Ul, U2
Cypress/Gum
Depression
No Connection
E-H, O, R -1.68,
Ul, U2 -1.65
KPB 10-I E-H, O, R, Ul, U2 Cypress/Gum
Depression KWA/K%VG E-H, O, R - 0.31,
Ul, U2 - 0.55
KPC 10-I Ul, U2 Manmade/Maintained KWF 0.18
LPD 10-H E-H, O, R Manmade/Maintained LWA 0.02
LPE 10-H E-H, O, R Manmade/Maintained No Connection 023
NPC 10-I E-H, O, R, Ul, U2 Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.06
NPE 10-I E-H, O, R, Ul, U2 Water Treatment Pond No Connection 0.05
Impacts are for all alternatives unless otherwise noted. Individual impacts calculated for Military cutott Roan Lxtenston
Alternatives 1vll and M2 utilize the corresponding Hampstead Bypass Alternative U interchange configuration.
'UI is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with US 17 %Wilmington Bypass at ?vUtary Cutoff Road
Extension Alternative IM. U2 is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass at
blilitary Cutoff Road Extension Altemadve 1\12. _
Table 6. Total Pond Impacts
Alternative
M1+EH M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Delineated Pond Impacts
(acres) 3.90 4.32 4.18 3.68 3.68
21
Table 7. Individual Wetland Impacts
Wetland DEIS Corridor Cowardin Hydrologic DWQ Wetland

ID Figure
N
Alternative(s)"
Classification'
Classification Wetland Impacts
"
o Rating (acs)
BWB 10-C M1,M2 PF04B Non-riparian 27 0.23
BWC 10-C MI,1M2 PFO Non-riparian 25 0.18
BWD 10-C M1,M2 PFO Non-riparian 34 1.90
M1-1.
BWI 10-C M1,M2 PF01/3/4B Non-riparian 34 M2-1.89
89
CWA 10-C M1,M2 PF03/4A Non-riparian 34 M1-6.37, M2-
4.80
E-H, R-1.11,
CWB 10-C, 10- Ml, E-H, R, Ul PSS3/4B Non-riparian 36 M1-112.52,
D U1-1.06
C%VD 10-D R, Ul
E-H PSS3/4Bd Non-riparian 36 E-H, ,
, U1--9.82
9.82
CWE 10-D E-H, R, Ul PF03/413g 36 E-H-36.83,
Non-riparian R-36.83,
U1-23.89
Riparian
E-H, R-21.52,
C1`VF 10-C, 10- E-H, O, R, Ul, PF03/4B Non-riparian 36 0-2.11,
D U2 Ul-7.23,
U2-1.05
E-H, R-0.13,
0-92.65,
DWC 10-C, 10- E-H, M2, O, R, PSS3/4B Non-riparian 36 U1-0.12,
D, 10-E Ul, U2 M2-92.50,
U2-77.36
EWF 10-E Ul, U2 PFO Riparian 14 0.37
EWH 10-G Ul, U2 PFO Non-riparian 20 1.18
EWHl 10-G Ul, U2 PFO Riparian 20 1.23
E%VI 10-G Ul, U2 PFO Riparian 37 0.53
EwK 10-G Ul, U2 PSS1C Non-riparian 25 0.06
EVVM 10-G Ul, U2 PFO1C Riparian 19 5.26
0-0.67,
FWA 10-C, 10- O, Ul, U2 PFO Non-riparian 30 U1-0.45,
D U2-0.48
FWB 10-D E-H, R PFO Riparian 20 5.01
FWC2 10-D, 10- E-H
R PFO 48 E-H-1.46,
F , Non-riparian R-8.24
Riparian
FWD 10-F R PSS3B Non-riparian 28 7.36
22
Table 7. Individual Wetland Impacts continued
Wetland
ID DEIS
Figure
No. Corridor
Alternative(s)' Cowardin
Classification' Hydrologic
Classification DWQ
Wetland
Rating Wetland
Impacts
(acres)"
FWF 10-F E-H PFO Non-riparian 37 6.89
P arian
BVHB 10-F E-H PFO Non-riparian 24 0.04
FW 10-F E-H PFO Non-riparian 17 0.38
RY/L. ]0-F E-H PFO Non-riparian 19 0.03
RVY 10-D E-H, R PFO -Non-riparian 20 0.18
GWA 10-F O, R PEM/PSS Riparian 61 0-6.05, R-7.94

GWC
10-C, 10-
D, 10-E
O, Ul, U2
PFO
Non-riparian
32 0-75.81,
U1-0.68,
U2-27.17
GWD 10-E, 10-F O PFO Non-riparian 32 4.53
Riparian
HBAA3 10-F E-H PSS/PFO Riparian 32 0.06
HBAB 10-F E-H PSS/PFO Non-riparian 27 1.09
HBWD 10-F E-H PSS/PFO Riparian 83 1.14
HBWF ]0-F E-H PEM/PSS Riparian 32 0.76
HB%YAK4 10-F E-H PFO/PSS Riparian 83 1.47
HBWI' 10-F E-H PSS Non-riparian 14 0.39
HWB 10-H E-H PFO R arian 50 2.36
HWD 10-H E-H. PFO Non-riparian 21 0.35
HWG5 10-H E-H PFO/PSS Riparian 15 0.88
Non-riparian
HWH 10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian 26 0.15
H%VH1 10-H E-H PFO Non-ri arian 26 0.09
H%VH2 10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian 26 0.03
HWH3 10-H E-H PFO Non-ri arian 26 0.07
HWH4 10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian .26 0.02
HWH5 10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian 26 0.23
HWY 10-H, 10- E-H PFO Non-riparian 26 0.23
HWAA6 10-F E-H' PFO Non-riparian 40 15.40
Riparian
HWEE 10-F E-H PFO Riparian 25 0.15
HWHH 10-F E-H PFO 34 0.24
HWbiX 10-H E-H Non-ri arian 40 0.05
IWA 10-H E-H, O, R R arian 80 0.03
IWA MM 10-H 10- O, R P Non-riparian 39 4.81
I??/B 10-H E-H, O, R R arian 25 0.09
IWC 10-H E-H, O, R R arian 20 0.13
IWD 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Non-riparian 31 0,R-17.43,
E-H-18.64
Riparian
23
Table 7. Individual Wedand Impacts can[inued
Wetland

ID DEIS
Figure
No Corridor

Alternative(s)' Cowardin

Classification Hydrologic

Classification DWQ
Wetland
Rating Wetland
Impacts
(acres)'
IWE 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Non-riparian 13 0.16
III 10-H O, R PFO Riparian 69 7.61
Non-riparian
IWH4 10-H O, R PFO Non-riparian 53 7.67
Riparian
IWK 10-F O, R PFO Riparian 77 7.30
Non-ri arian
IWN 10-F O, R PFO R arian 79 4.89
IWQ 10-F O, R PFO Non-riparian 7 0.48
IWT) 10-F O, R PFO
Non-riparian 41 14.57
Riparian
rwU 10-F O, R PFO Non-riparian 13 0.29
IWV 10-F 0, R PFO Non-riparian 42 4.81
IkvV/ 10-F O, R PFO Non-riparian 45 10.38
KWA 10-I Ul, U2 PFC3/4B Non-riparian 30 2.27
KWC 10-I Ul, U2 PF01/2C Non-riparian 17 4.47
KWD 10-G, 10-I U1, U2 PF04A Non-riparian 26 4.73
KWF 10-I U1, U2 PFO/PSS Non-riparian 45 6.01
KWG 10-I E-H, O, R, UI,
U2 PF01/2G Non-riparian 43 E-H,O,R-0.57,
U1,U2-2.88
KW'H'u 10-I Ul, U2 PF01/2C Non-riparian 42 5.70
KWI 10-G Ul, U2 PF01/3/4B Non-riparian 49 32.18
KWN 10-G Ul, U2 PF04B Non-riparian 46 24.01
KWO 10-G Ul, U2 PF04B Non-riparian 37 18.02
KWS 10-I Ul, U2 PF01/4B Non-riparian 33 Ul,U2-0.52
LWA 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Riparian 70 0.13
LIMB 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Riparian '72 7.81
DM 10-H E-H, O, R PFO R arian 83 5.86
LIC/Dl 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Riparian 48 0.08
LWE 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Non-riparian 29 8.22
LWG 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Non-riparian 46 0.17
LWH 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Non-r arian 23 0.20
LIM 10-H, 10-I E-H, O, R PFO Riparian 80 2.50
LI 10-I E-H, O, R PFO Non-riparian 40 5.26
MWM(2) 10-H E-H, O, R PFO
Riparian 68 2.70
Non-riparian
NIYB 10-K E-H, O, R, Ul,
U2
PEM/PFO
Non-riparian
13
0.02
NYE 10-K E-H, O, R, U1,
U2
PEM/PFO
Non-riparian
12
0.03
NWF 10-K E-H, O, R, Ul,
U2
PEM/PSS
Non-riparian
12
I

.04
24
Table 7. Individual Wetland Impacts continued
Wetland DEIS
Figure Corridor

' Cowardin - Hydrologic DWQ
Wetland Wetland
Impacts
ID No Alternative(s) Classification' Classification
Rating
(acres)"

N?YJ
10-K E-H, O, R, Ul,
PSS/PFO
Non-riparian
12 E-H,O,R-0.02,
02
U1
U2
0
U2 ,
-
.
NWK 10-K Ul, U2 PSS Non-riparian 12 0.02
NWM 10-K E-H, O, R, Ul, PFO Non-riparian 22 E-H,O,R-0.68,
U1
U2
0
68
U2 ,
-
.
NWO 10-I E-H,O,R PF04 Non-riparian 17 3.11
NWP 10-I R, Ul,
E-H, 0, PSS Non-riparian 17 E-H,O,R-29.13,
2 U1,U2-11.38
ZWJ 10-E Ul, U2 PFO Non-riparian 26 1.37
Zw/K 10-E Ul, U2 PEM Non-riparian 16 0.08
ZWL 10-G Ul, U2 PFO Non-riparian 20 0.24
ZWM 10-G Ul, U2 PFO Non-riparian 20 0.04
ZWY 10-C M1,M2 PFO Non-riparian 10 0.04
ZWCC 10-K E-H, O, R, Ul, PFO Riparian 28 0.03

ZWDD 10-D E-H, R PFO . Non-riparian 26 1.16
R=iparian
PD-0111 10-C M1,M2 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.07
PD-03 10-C M1,M2 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 7.21
PD-04 10-C Ml,M2 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 6.42
PD-15 10-I E-H, 0, R, Ul, PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.48

PD-16 10-I E-H, O, R, Ul,
PFO/PSS
Non-riparian
N/A
0.58
U2

PD-29
10-I E-H, O, R, Ul,
PFO/PSS
Non-r par an
N/A E-H,O,R-8.58,
U1
U2
8
56
U2 ,
-
.
PD-31 10-I E-H, O, R, Ul, PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 2.91
U2

PD-33
10-I E-H, O, R, Ul,
PFO/PSS
N/A
0.82
U2 Non-ripaaan
Riparian
PD-34 10-I E-H, O, R, Ul,
PFO/PSS
Non-riparian
N/A
1.08
U2

PD-35
10-I , R, Ul,
E-H, O
PFO/PSS
Non-riparian
N/A 3.08
U2
Cowardin classifications are based on characteristics of each wetland at the specific time and location of
observation. Wetlands having `No ID' were not characterized due to impacted appearance at the time of
observation.
'- Includes wetland FEW i Includes wetland IWG
a Includes wetland HBAC 9 Includes wetland IWI
4Includes wedand HBWP 9 Includes wetlands IWR
5Includes wetlands HWM, HWN, HWO 10 Includes wetlands KW , KWK, and KWL.
r, Includes wetlands HWBB, HWII, HWLL 'I Delineation data previously verified; no DWQ wetland rating forms
completed for these wetlands
25
Table 7. Individual Wetland Impacts con[inued
Wetland DEIS Corridor Cowardin Hydrologic DWQ Wetland

ID Figure
Alternative(s)' t
Classification
Classification Wetland Impacts
"
No Rating (acres)
'Ul is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass at Military Cutoff
Road Extension Alternative Ml. U2 is Hampstead Bypass Alternative U starting at an interchange with US 17
Wilmington Bypass at Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M2.
"Impacts are for all alternatives unless otherwise noted. Individual impacts calculated for Military Cutoff Road
Extension Alternatives MI and M2 utilize the corresponding Hampstead Bypass Alternative U interchange
configuration.
Table 8. Total Wetland Impacts
Alternative
M1+EH M2+0
I M1+R M1+U
I M2+U
Delineated Wetland Impacts 246.05 384.42 297.24 218.35 283.77
(acres)
Structures
Table 9 lists the proposed major hydraulic structures for the current detailed study alternatives. The
NEPA/Section 404 merger team concurred on the size and location of the structures in May 2010.
The locations of the structures are shown on DEIS Figure 10-A.
Table 9. Proposed Hydraulic Structures.
Site Wetland Corridor Existing Recommended
No 1 ID
Stream ID Alternative Structure Structure

1
ZSB
EWF U at Ml
1 @° 12'x8' RCBC2 Retain and Extend
U at M2 Existing Culvert
U at Ml
2 _ KWD 1,@9'x8' RCBC.
U at M2
3 BSP BWI MI, M2 --- 2 7'x12' RCBC
4 - DWC M2 --- 1 9'x8' RCBC
5 --- GWA O, R --- 3@12'xT R(' BC
6 ISA, ISB MIN O, R --- Dual 100' Lon Bridges
7 ISD IWF O, R --- 3@11'x8' RCBC

8 LSC, LSCC
LWD
E-H, O, R
3@48"CMP3
2@6'x5' RCBC^
LSCF

10
FSA
CSA E-H, O, R, U 1
?°72"RCPS Retain existing and add
g
, at M7 t`vo 1 72
RCP6
11 FSI -- E-H, R 1@12'x9' RCBC
15 HBSF, HBSH HBWI< E-H --- Dual 230' Lon Bridges
16 HBSD 2 HBWD E-H --- Dual 200' Lon Bridges
26
Site
No.'
Stream ID Wetland
ID Corridor
Alternative Existing
Structure Recommended
Structure
-
17 HSY HWB E-H -- 3 10'x9' RCBC
21 FSA FWB E-H, R --- 201 1'x9'RCBC
22 FSE FWC E-H, R --- 2@12'x7' RCBC
23 LSD LWI E-H, O, R --- 2 9'x7' RCBC
25 HBSC HBWF E-H 1@9'x8' RCBC
I Site numbers correspond to the project's Preliminary Hydraulic Study's site numbers. Some preliminary hydraulic sites
were avoided during design and are therefore not included in the table.
r Reinforced concrete box culvert
} Corrugated metal pipe
' Preliminary design also includes dual 135-foot long bridges to maintain neighborhood access
' Reinforced concrete pipe
Retain existing 72" RCP pipe under Wilmington Bypass and add 72" RCP at two interchange ramps. Supplementation
of existing 72" pipe or enlarging of proposed ramp pipes will be investigated during final design.
Floodolains
All of the detailed study alternatives cross floodplains. Hampstead Bypass alternatives E-H, O and
R include major hydraulic crossings in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) detailed
study Special Flood Hazard Zone. Hydraulic design for these crossings will not create constraints to
flow. Therefore, upstream floodways will not be affected by placement of these structures.
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, the NCDOT Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the
NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated state agency for administering FEMA's
National Flood Insurance Program, to determine the status of the project with regard to applicability
of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement with FMP (dated 6/5/08), or approval of a Conditional
Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated streams. Therefore,
NCDOT Division 3 shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the Hydraulics Unit upon
completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage structure(s) and roadway
embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain were built as shown: in the construction
plans, both horizontally and vertically.
Mitigation Evaluation
Mitigation has been defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations to
include efforts that: a) avoid; b) minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for
adverse impacts to the environment [40 CFR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Practicable alternative analysis must be
fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation can be discussed.
Avoidance and Minimization
During the development of the detailed study alternatives, efforts were made to avoid and minimize
impacts to wetlands and streams wherever practicable.
Because of the number of streams and wetlands present in the study area, total avoidance of surface
waters is not practicable. Impacts to wetlands and streams were considered during the selection of
the current detailed study alternatives. Alignments for the alternatives have been developed within
27
the study corridors that minimize impacts to streams and wetlands. The NEPA/Section 404 merger
team has concurred on the streams that should be bridged by the alternatives. NCDOT will attempt
to avoid and minimize impacts to streams and wetlands to the greatest extent practicable in selecting
the preferred alternative and during project design.
Preliminary build alternatives were established through an evaluation of suitability mapping based on
available socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental resource data. Potential corridor alternatives
were screened for suitability based on several criteria, including meeting the purpose of and need for
the proposed project, minimizing impacts to 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. Corridor centerlines were drawn to reflect alignments that
minimized impacts. Impacts were calculated by section for each alignment and the sections with the
least overall impacts were retained and combined into alignment alternative segments.
The segment centerlines were buffered and several 1,000-foot corridor alternatives were generated
by merging the segments in different combinations. Roadway alignments were developed and placed
within the 1,000-foot corridors to minimize impacts to resources, provide a roadway that is
constructible, and crosses roads, streams and utility easements at a reasonable angle.
Preliminary build alternatives meeting the purpose of and need for the proposed project and with
the least impacts to the human and natural environments were identified as detailed study
alternatives (Section 2.3). Preliminary, design plans were developed for alternatives selected for
detailed study. The detailed study alternatives selection process incorporated recommendations
made by federal and state environmental regulatory and resource agencies and comments received
from two citizens informational workshops held in April 2007.
Four streams within one mile downstream of the study area have been designated HQW by the
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ). These streams, Futch Creek, Old Topsail Creek,
Pages Creek, and an unnamed tributary to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, receive water from
streams in the study area. In addition, Howe Creek has been designated an ORW by DWQ. All
tributaries of these streams within the study area are identified in Section 3.5.3.2.1 and are .
designated as HQW or ORW due to the classification of their receiving waters. Design Standards
for Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented for these streams during project construction. ,_
Compensatory Mitigation
The NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation opportunities once the
preferred alternative has been selected. Offsite mitigation needed to satisfy the federal Clean Water
Act requirements for this project will be provided by the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program in accordance with the
"North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement
Program In-Lieu Fee Instrument", dated July 28, 2010.
North Carolina Buffer Rules
No North Carolina River Basin Buffer Rules apply to project streams, which are part of the Cape
Fear River basin.
Special Waterway Designations
Four streams within one mile downstream of the study area have been designated as High Quality
Waters (HQW), and one stream within one mile downstream of the study area has been designated
28
as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ). Futch Creek, Old Topsail Creek, Pages Creek, and an unnamed tributary to the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) receive water from streams in the study area and are
designated HQW from their source to their confluence with the AIWW. Howe Creek receives
water from streams in the study area and has been designated ORW from its source to its
confluence with the AIWW. There are no water supply watersheds (WS-I or WS-II) or North
Carolina 303(d) listed streams within one mile downstream of the study area. Additionally, there are
no benthic and/or fish monitoring sites within one mile downstream of the study area. No shellfish
growing areas or primary nursery areas are present in the study area.
Federally Threatened and Endangered Species
As of September 22, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 11 federally-protected
species for New Hanover County and 12 federally-protected species for Pender County (see Table
10 below).
Table 10. Federally-Protected Species Effects
Scientific Common Federal
County Biological
Alternatives
Name Name Status Conclusion
New
Alligator American T(S/A) Hanover Not Required
mzrtinzppzenrir alligator Pender
New
Chelonia nydas Green sea T Hanover, No Effect
wide Pender
New
Caretta caretta Loggerhead T Hanover No Effect
sea turtle . Pender
New
Charadr ur Piping plover T Hanover No Effect
melodut Pender
New May Affect, '
Picozdes bonalir Red-cockaded E Hanover Likely to E-H, O, R, U
woodpecker Pender Adversely Affect
New
Acipenter Shormose
E
Hanover
No Effect
brevimstrum sturgeon Pender
New
Trichechur West Indian E Hanover No Effect
manatus manatee
Pender
New
Schwalbea American E Hanover No Effect --
ameicana chaffseed* .
Pender
' New May Affect,
ThahctrlmT s
Cooley E Hanover Likely to O, R
caolyi meadowrue Pender Adversely Affect
29
May Affect,
Carex haea Golden sedge E Pendex Likely to O, R
Adversel y Affect
Lysimachia Rough-leaved New May Affect, E-H
O
R

asperulaefoka
loosestrife
E
Hanover
Likely to ,
,
,
U
Ml
M2
Pender Adversely Affect ,
,
flmaranlhus Seabeach New
pumilut amaranth T Hanover No Effect
Pender
E - Endangered T - Threatened T(S/A) - Threatened due to Similanty of Appearance
Historic record (the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago)
Wild and Scenic Rivers
The project will not impact any Designated Wild and Scenic Rivers or any rivers included in the list
of study rivers (Public Law 90-542, as amended).
Cultural Resources
A preliminary architectural survey was conducted in ]anuaty 2010 and identified a total of 78
individual resources that were built prior to 1961 within the Area of Potential Effects (APE). There
is one property within the Area of Potential Effect listed on the National Register of Historic Places
and four properties eligible for listing. The potential effect of the proposed project on historic
architectural resources was evaluated in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Effects are summarized by alternative in Table 11. The State Historic
Preservation Office concurred with these effect determinations at a meeting held on March 8, 2011.
Table 11. Historic Architectural Resource Effects
Altemative
Historic Property M1+EH M2+0 M1+R, M1+U. M2+U
No No No Adverse Adverse
Poplar Grove Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect
Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse
Mount Ararat AME Church Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect
Wesleyan Chapel United No No No Adverse Adverse
Methodist Church Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect
No No No Adverse Adverse
Scotts Hill Rosenwald School Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect
No No No No No
Topsail Consolidated School Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect
Archaeological surveys will be conducted for the project after the selection of the preferred
alternative.
30
Hazardous Materials
An assessment was made of the potential impacts of the proposed project on known hazardous
material sites and underground storage tanks (UST) based on field observations and searches of
State and Federal databases. These findings are of a preliminary nature and not intended to replace
more detailed studies such as subsurface soil or groundwater investigations at appropriate locations.
Other potentially hazardous materials sites and USTs may exist within the project corridor due to
illegal dumping, lack of compliance with regulatory reporting and limited regulatory data.
A field reconnaissance was conducted in February 2009., Geographic Information Systems data was
reviewed to identify known sites of concern in the study area. A search of the appropriate
environmental agencies' databases was performed to assist in evaluating identified sites. Twenty
eight sites that may contain petroleum underground storage tanks (USTs) within the study area were
identified (see DEIS Figure 10-B). No hazardous waste sites and no landfills were identified. Seven
other geoenvironmental concerns were identified in the study area. These included five automotive
repair facilities, one junkyard and one golf course maintenance shop.
Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 may impact five properties that either have
or formerly had underground storage tanks (USTs). The properties are located along Market Street
in the vicinity of the proposed interchange with Military Cutoff Road Extension (see Figure 10-B).
Preliminary site assessments to identify the nature and extent of any contamination will be
performed on these sites prior to right of way acquisition. The sites include:
• Kelly's Automotive, 6747 Market Street - This facility (formerly Ed's Brake & Lube) presently
operates as an automotive repair shop. One UST for used waste oil was dosed in 1998. This
facility has one in-ground hydraulic lift currently in use. The site is anticipated to present low
geoenvironmental impacts.
• Walgreens Drug Store, 6861 Market Street - This business (formerly Snak Mart, Inc.) presently
operates as a drug store. Five USTs were closed at this site in 2001. There are no USTs
currently in use. The site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts.
• O'Leary's Auto Repair, 5905 Market Street - This facility currently bpetates as an automotive
repair shop. There are no USTs currently in use at this facility. The site is anticipated to present
low geoenvironmental impacts.
• Pro Lube, 6940 Market Street - This business presently operates as an oil change facility. There
ate no USTs currently in use at this site. The site is anticipated to present low geoenvitonmenud
impacts.
• Market Street Citgo, 6980 Market Street - This facility currently operates as a convenience store
and gas station. The UST registry shows six tanks currently in use at this facility. This site was
investigated as part of NCDOT TIP project U-4902B. The site is anticipated to present low
geoenvironmental impacts.
Logical Termini /Independent Utility
The proposed projects have logical termini and independent utility. The proposed projects involve
constructing new roadways, mostly on new location. These projects will not restrict consideration
of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements in the area. These
projects would be a reasonable expenditure of capital even if no additional transportation
improvements were made.
31
ally ?., _
P
)K)
W I ,C . li:L lire il ,
R
, Al
PROJEC-
VICINITY
Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
°f "ORTM c•R
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
? . Holly Shehn Game1-&
n
o ?
F . ."6 N?l;p .l ,•
I `jD`? \4ncA?,z<
.Ll Harnp,t
No\\?`'??¢?PA'\50.\? f ?,.•'.
4v`
C.
SL- Hill
-?1_ wllnrrngfon AVpd54
P
1' rl- 1/ l 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 1
Miles IN11
wdrr,I ]I-,

v -0 i
C) CD }
CL CL 5
\ii p?F/ ?I n N? I,
C-11.90 Rd.
J
m -
?ca ? ? ,N n e \ f4.
.C .
p
pia
;
,
(6 al, add
QaDW U
4
0
M114ary Cutoff Rtl. qbp
'
(SR 1407) ?o

?w 1
a

f

c
A
'? I c
j N J
A
1 ?
CJ a

z
(7 ?
0
O
CD _3
O O Cf
W CD . 1
0
90 z (7 0
CC: o 0 -1
CL. C7 a Q
O C Cn -i
ED
CL -
-4 rrt
CD Ln CD
cn -k. -1
Z90
w ?
o
CD 111
T
x Va?
o
o ?
b
r
d j
s

0
?
n ?
*004
Q
o=
a c
a ?
0
v
m a
C -
C ? -
n -
CD
03
03
m O -
a ?
o?
N
o ?
m
O ?
C!, -r,._
2?
_2i
LQ?
C
co
z
0

I I I I I I I 0 ? I ' I ??

I ?

v
? ? 3 m m
3 3 m ? m m m m m m m m m m i
c? C)
m 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3> >
m m m m m m ?, o? v v m 0
'7? d < <
(D (D <
ID <
0 <
m <
0 < <
W (D <
m K
m <
m G <
m (D <
M Q
r - m c) T m o C) co D

r N
N n CD

o' y
N C

i ? I I I m
L_1
m m m m o m m m co m n
c
O
d 3
N 3
N 3 3
O) N 3
07 3
N 3
d 3 3
D7 D? 7
N N

G co

0)
G. <'
Z.
G.
z
;E. <'
<' O
6) W m m m m m N 0) 0)
N < c -( (n O O Z
CL
co m
0 2

d
Oc
d'
'L
M
? o
?O
T ?
4
-u-1 Reg
ssno443,nNo
Z
tJ
I
¦ f ?
? f ca
¦ ?L(b?s? asp va ,a,.ooµ
i
•
tic, f ? •
Q • •
IsIlb
•
? c wJ
>t ?

-a
CD 0
m m
CL a
o a'
lc
let.
r
I'I
z ,
°
O ?
Z -{
(D U)
0?
0 0
m -' 09
C7 V
90 ? C7
(D C) 0?
CL
CD?o Q?
0?
cQ 00
CD j " 0
z 90 a
C7
as M
w x
C)
O•
c
n
(D
d ?
0
o ?
a?
0
ca•
z
0
?l ~If
\
-z-?JI'M
\ ?C? OOCS?\I
\ s
? c\ z
T
l n

i
G
BOULEVARD
CI?N <m> 7nn"la ,n ?
Gq O?ti ??Lyz•?ri rJ Ui;FZ
'1 .D y -, x 9 V? 0
r- C)
q ,ups _zf
D G q A n A r ..1 2 c' j'I )u 1-r A
x' 11 fl~ A<L` a?'azmc)' n
OO yid m' ??q.q .?in?21 p
4ta NNE u'_iG?t„V?? K
?O.p SIG O.N. "11?m .1:'!n?-.
x
m10 rz TS?ct-u >
aG 1^a morph' Ir`t^"
?n ^n Wqz ., V,?zoxc-,
n n n
2,.n. Za OC' jJ AA<?V1
m bri r?
A? ?A Z:t,c t
Tu zz ?"' „DF..
Vic' Sn U <CY
M y?
m m-+nu _, ?G
02 A r=0_Ja VI DCD
>aU A? \NZD?n<?zYl
W ??i ]G G1 Nc.:
ba 4N f'
y I?Z ^A C)<:L
?t1? U?U?Z
?Oh t-v m<mi?h'I?IU<yC
yyW C
=m iC: .gDDa D C? q? A
....q yl In to yUl-F4t Dfry?
4Z i£ uANZU?A NO< L•
GAm Z C
VI
II O r0 <n K: A•
N^`,, II II ?? q u Il II 9 II
z
?m ,16
N ck t U pab?Tx;•y?caC)na.,x
o=ti-r ;? r? C)`?''o,•r ill
C)t 2!
C
Il ~
1'I
z
L -----? ?
0 r
k>& r 2 po
,?kLl?r
I nI Z p

x
l< * , \\
v ., ,tea
clz
-71
.i
CD (D
_

fD
CL
o

71
(D
CL
rr

- d
z

?• P.O.
P

r College Rd
.
m

`4 \p?e0
y,
IG ?tZ so'O
QaoW u
a? 1
h ?
Military C1110n Rd, a'a e`'
( fSR 1407(
it• R
Z
l
° v
Z (D
O
u /??•
5) -0 ? \Y
O O
Nom -' V)
%V l J C
-0 p
C0-
CD CD ?
0 (1) Cn r=h
o CZ CD
3
m (?, LU
C) ?•
/A
W V?
W
0
O
v
0
m
m
T U)
_ O
c C
? N
z
? a
a O t_,
m
o ?
a
c
O ?
U) C'
CD L.
_T
r?
W
m
z
0
J
k a
D
O

t o2
y
?
C ^ \I yVy

t

o ?
a ?

A
4
A
N
f .
r
}
i
Pe
f ?+' 4
Pa
if
9 u'1 Avg
°oa asoo443Jt143 ,.../(
0
A n
7^r =
H
•
10

i
i
t}
7 ON,elrpJe' `? ?
C
2L a
A ' ep
1
r

I I I

I a) 0 p•
i 2? L o C
,a. m
n !p m m m m m m Z ?O.

ro
m

c
5'
a ?
<
?
`<'
m
<
?
< t
m m
<
m
<
m
o
W
?
p z
N T T o v
O O S ?.
C m
rn Cp
y
O
N
I
r I
I I I I I ?_
m
L-_1 I N
C) n D D D D D D o
cc
o m m m m m m z

'<
d
fU
0.7 ?
?
'
?
' n
N
c W IT) (<G N Z Z
N Z
N o
a N C cn x O
O N
O z
0
d
iC, \\?
Oc
d'

C? n
a
In
Q
as
¦
a
l
.Qa
Qty,
a a
?J

`? SI
A
T T
///

CD
a CD
a
3
J
Q L

m

1 C°11eHe Rtl
.
m

0
Qe°W u
4
,O
MIIIta C "0" Rd,
fSR 1409)
i
d w?
? O
A X
ice,. N
'cS
U-
• I
zz
l J ?
? O 3
w C C
O
C ?•
(D .? y ?.
R° z c1 Q-
0 Cl)
D S M V/
z Q P-1
moo
O C?
D
. V tt•'!`
L tD
z 90 ?
T rh
O ?•
CA)
O
CD
N
O
0
TI
d
O W
tp c
c ?
(D ?
N
? Z V
?o =
a?
?d
o=
? C
O X
G
ml
_M
C
C
z
0
ca
9
6 0
/ A \ b
1f ` a
? a.
n
y
H
`y
c ?.
?s

I 1

o

m m ? m m m ?

3
7
3
n _
CD
? m ? w a
T ? j
m ? = m m m Vi
a o a o
? m O ? ? Q
H o ? N n
CL
N
N ?

r-, I I CD co

' I
__1 O1
N
•'
n n D D D
o
m
m
m
o 3 3 3 Z
Ti m m n
W
N
M
W
p o
c ;o m
L
C 2
o ,2

/ v
N
T
1
,J
V
1
a
? S
v
0
2\
ti A
A ?
? J
{r ?
1 N,elnp?
r
n
c a ??
Zia n.a o
m o i •
ti
d
C,
Oc
N
d'
2 1
M
n
L• n ,?
q D
?- 3
4
-u•1 Aug
ss"44pj°4o

1 O
? i
N
°c t iis) . Pti tan°°H

r
?tiC,

m m
v o?
(D CD
CL d
cr
o •c
If 1

z
n ?
0
z .-+
CD
o o Cl)
(.
-
CD
Q-zn Q
a
c ,
-cc C/)
=ct,) 3 Q rr
m m o
U) Cl)
C)
,C,- D
'(n?
i CD
z Po
W C•
C)
O /A
Q
d
d
0
O
C
N
Z
? n

w
O

Z
g A D
m y
^ p cn N i o
N
=

m v

o
J
3
m m
,
9 C
s
G1
3 a ??
o m_ o c .
0 (n
O n 2
a N
•
?
? C
F N N ?
m
g?g O 0
O Z
a
3
y
? O
N
?\yj
1 3 3 3
m ;D
O 3 3 3 n C C "S c
p? J.

m m m
2 cn
ts'
c
?
'
a
G_
c m
=
c?
N a
to ?
c
? m
cn W N z m
7 w

y
p N
to
O n m ?

m
d N
N
?? ICI' ? ® I
nna.??c?o
`
?
? 2 ?
2 `? n m
Kc tr
n '0S d`'2 ?S d m
0 CD ? am
a

CD ?
r ?
ET
N ?
z
0 0 J
ry^ N
M
T?
C
a
1
O

a
-117

?Z ?y W N 3 ,? Q
y
°
peg
M CD
O Z . V1 EL c
o
o
N
N a
?i
z o c
?c o
p
O
rye
4?q 11
J Q j w N 8 fD? D
?" 7 O

m m

n W a Go U7
c m
Syp?
T m m
_ (_n
(G y y z
?? o D ad ?

a
-- cC7om TOM Tom 9 OZ
c7 C7 > ?C) ? C7 .
N
-
'°w tw bo) W
I 6
Q?4 m'Q? ..
v c Q
0
P ?

`_n
CC
O
ou CD
Z
0
¦
9

? T:?.
l p'.

a
zp C
CD ? fp C
o
C
CD CD
M? 4
5 3
D
CL M
CD 4 0
o C fA
c
m? ? C
Z
;(J
L tp
C) H
J?l
O
m?
n
L
cQ
N
v

7-z
it • - ,,? ,? t.??? - .:.;? -, ,
?! jlY r

I?®r
P 2 m ? m cp -0 cD
n u v v m 3
7 ,' fl.
v
d d CL
? N
ti ? N ?
S6n _ Q
?r o
p 0
vl
p ?
L]
m m ? N N > C 3:
y `pC
n
s %% . _
n V ,n

r ? _ z m n U) ? v,
a ?
C
? ?
Y' T O
m c
,.m N
?
? n ? 3
d gy
m
=

?
? y
I
?1 A N? al.Z7 ?? ? Z
n (? =.C7 CC1 c n ? ?.
Z P?
?? n
K
?C
m w'
< 3 W
Q?Q mQ J
_
N
fD N `i
a
0 o'
Z ?
?' N
O
(U
W
fem. . .

t
Y j,f
n c1
o c
z o?
-j 5 (n
0 0 ,,,? C7
go fDi ` O
? n
'D c
,
3
D 4 O
C
o (A
C -1
m' j C C
z
W?
°o y

i
c I
a w <D j ? ? Q
Ea
8$g o ti `m m ?
2 y n c E, c
C. iz z C)
?2 i O o
N
?
g?c o
O a
O
? $ 4 y
s N
'd y Tom. ,r_ n n
S M 0 rn _
t?
?C N /rnST? i4G 1[] Q

N ?_ f0 C n d 9*
N
m
z n n. C C/l

i g 2
O
o N (D C G
O d

® ? N
N

n n>n?c?i?c?i' s
~ N
m
2
(?'O m2 ?2 ?S a C
Q " v m v p1
< ?
_
E
o- ?
y

CD
?
^
rr
J U

'ri
0
1
V J
`O
mm\
`V

cQ
j ?
0 ?
m(D
Z
0
N
N
J
CD
v l
co
`w

5. INSIMIN/}
1\4` CI - el
z
CD O
cD -4
o 0
N fD II
1 O
M C
c 4
m 3 Ej
CL
m - Q O
o ,
N
; c?"$
?. C
z90
A
lr%
ca CD
(n
C)

I
1
oy 1
.may, (? N O W n CD

? 3 ?
° o' ?. ?. o rn
Z p a rn a m
o o> m m
N ? ?? o
K 4
na
]gZ _ N_
O
93w N a
N

4 r
?° m
rn cn 2
.? an d ?, ,y p Q
-
&? < < 8 m m ?? cn

ti E m m
_ m
N z
c)
N n n c v> > m
cn cn m ^ m
s `g

u 'f'i S
O
O m m m
C
Q p
, 01
? .
< W j
- a
ID
C-) C) VC) PO?C;-0) o

a

?
y
5.
Q ?

'n
O CD
z
O
T
n
C) Z
O Cn
O
^1,,
?J
Q,

r

N
Cl)
O
?T
J
O
cn

a
cn
CD
W
I
r1l
t
t
n n
zo
m
* cn
0D -4
< 2. C7
O
9? m
z CL
3
m Q O
o C cA
cJn D C
z?
n?
o to
0
,
_ J y \ 4 k
T vrs:- ^ \
f
.
c -.I .

O moo

I'
? -
'
-J r 1 ?
, ? lf

%

'i
1
? ?

i

Ql o..
,
i
?T
O

? i
?' 2 m T x n o c> fD
'K 06 p ?, g C
71
o?n N ? N ? ? ? ? `??r No ,? ?.•1'ti?
N _ I 0`-
O
eU u
c (1)
r. ;u m n r_n u) 'v
i ? A = p N N ? C ? ?? '?.
J N o p aW '?
m N y µ.???.
*0! f lob
n n`??nSn a. °
2 W
pl d 2,
`cd ?d j d. '•
T? CD a
z ? u.
0
¦
007,

l? :.;ya`p
fY?
lY
0 C
z0
= D
rn c`oo' ? C7
O
5?0 CD ;0 0- 50
CD 3 Cn
v
m m 4 O
0-j
c^D c
z 90
O CA
O
-u -0
CD CD
'a ?o
N N
m m
a Q
o cr

r
m

z CD
o a)
O C:L
z -i
? C
N
Cl)
-oZo?
CD 3
aCT o- 0.
CD CD O
C) v' fn (n
C
O C
A,< n
CD Ln
n ? o
z 90 ?
z
W 0
V1
C)
O
CL
N
T
(O
C
(D
0
T A.
CD
•? Q
`l (!
N
U1 ?
N CD
O
D CD
z
0

cD
v
cD
s
0
v
Q
c
0
3
0
a
O
cn
CD
C1
2
v
-0
Cn
CD
m
C2
W
`G
a
O
Cn
Cn
E
CD
C7
Sv
Cn
CD
fl]
z
n
N
1
C)
O
m
X
CC]
C
cn
v
7`.
r
I.
ZZ
CD
v
CD
ti
C
O
v
C ?
CD
Q
C
n n
I -n
O
3
O p
a -o
O O
Cn cn
CD CD
Cl- CZ
3 3
-0 -O
CD
CD
Q w
? W
a a
Cn m
Cn cn
CD
s n
Cv E
aD c
CD cQ
CD
v v
M
X Cn
3
C
c
Ct?
O 0
co
O .C
a -p
O
Cn Cn
CD Cn
Q r-.
= O
sv ?
0
a -o
O
CD Cn
CD
TQ CL
W
3
ill -O
Cn Cn
Cn CD
CD
F Cn
CD C2
n ?
LU a
CC] Cn
CD Cn
r+ CD
^Z ?
N sv
O
CD
m
z
0
N
O

dowbWamawam
It
.VI
O?v

CD (D
m ?
m CD
C- a
0 6
_ C
r
m
2
3
N
Z r-h
0
0 Q'
Z ca
CD T
mC-OD? V1 90 Z O ?
CD
Q ?.
CL Cr
CD CD O
O 'A
°c C O CD+
AC n
CD v_
?? O
z S?
Z
O
O cn
O
W
Q
4!+
T
(O
CD 0
o
CD
N (7
? t
r`v l0
O
a
m
CD
C
-l
O
3
m
X
C
Cv
G
CO
O
O
W
(/1
(?1
CD
0
CO
CD
O
CD
CD
Cl)
CD
CD
0
CD
0
O
Cl)
CD
Q
3
(n
CD
Cll
C1
W
N
Cn
Cn
O
CD
n
CD
Cll
m
X
Ca
c-
CA
n
0
m
i
A
a
C'D
Cb
cD
C
TI
0
3
m
O
O
Cn
CD
Q-
5-
CD
0
tli
O
Ca
CD
'C
V
CV
G
O
W
O
(n
O
m
X
c
cn
Cv
C
3
CQ
O
v
(n
CD
C7
v
CD
CD
cn
CD
CD
r-f
0
0. 0 --
0
°
m
N

o O
S•
a• I
m N
D

V
Jn C
V

9

N t?
A
n
7

7
n
n

X

0
a

r- _ Q
0
TI ? I OW
n
? N I
f
N N
I)
0 I N I ?? r?
o I R 1111
IN I ili
m
0
T? _.
W
Z
0
ll
-o
m m
•p -o
m m
? m
CL a
O 6
C
r
7
m
I 't.
9
d
Z 0
n O
0
O ::P
z -I X
2)
2 T Q
O ' (z m
O OTT (I)
CD S
Z O N.
3
CDD (DD Cr CL
C
0
n N Cn
O C n'
?a
m• Lnn cn
cn ? ?p
z 90
n? 0
z
0 0
O 0
CL
N
T
is
(D 0
(D
m O
C. Cl)
n
Q)
(gin
N
O

(Q
f
N ?
z
0
m
^J`
WTT
'?'Uw
V2J
V
4
N
T
O
3
D
0
X
ID
CD.
O
CD
z
O
S
O
0
n
0
O
Q
co
O
c
CD
v
a
O
C
cn
C?
C
CC
O

(

W ?
CD
N
?

? N
4 - O?
N

?. C
cr
0
3 90
y

n7 - N
C LA
O
CD
(n N
n (n
CD O
CD
O X O
O
D
° O
c
CA C J
O
x D I`

CD Gl c

o O ^' ?°
T J
N ?? O G)
C = C
(D D
C)
z
O a-

O N Qo
C
0
C
C
D

CL

- O

CD A
`c
S
Q O
O
I
O
1

Q•