20161268 Ver 1_Draft Environmental Impact Statement_20111013

PROPOSED SR 1 409 (MILITARY CLITOFF R?AD) EXTENSION AND
PROPOSED U S 1 7 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40 1 9 1.1.2
NCDOT TI P PROVECTS U-475 1 AND R-3300
CoRPS AcTION 1 D 2007 1 386
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
July 2011
Co-Lead Agency: US Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
US Army COrps+ Project Contact: Brad Shaver
Of Engineel'S
Wilmington Oistrict Telephone: [phone]
Co-Lead Agency: North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Set-vice Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Project Contact: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Telephone: [phone]
Cooperating Agencies
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
z8 ?? .
Da Colonel, US my
?District Commander
Date regory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.,
Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PROPOSED SR 1 409 (MiLITARY CUTOFF ROAD) EX'T'ENSION
AN D
PROPDSED U S 1 7 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PRDJECT 40 1 9 1. 1.2
NCDOT TIP PROJECTS U-4751 AND R-3300
CORPS ACTION I D 2007 1386
1?D1?IINIS'i"IZl-?'I IVI? ??C'I'ION
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
j uly 2011
Documentation Prepared b) MULKEY ENGINEERSi AND CONSULTANTSy INC.
wltll CO1]t11bL1t1011S f10111:
RS&H ARCHITECTS-ENGINEERS-PLANNERS' INC.
SGPI ENGINEERING GRDUP? INC. 0?vo?oppOaC?Ro0BBpQ,
o
??A
?
oQO
oeo
?
????Essr??? ?
I
?
Datc 1?. I3issett, jr., P.L. ?'? Q?'
14842
T\'Iulkey Filg'111ee1S a11d COI15UIta11tS, Inc. k
Princ ipal ;??
',oo?t Nc??°°
ko
°c
?
s
n
0o+oeoo°
.? ?
??000-
00?o0
"^I' ? I S a °' 0
?%y
}
? IS+I! ??/? 0
p
(/
?DOB0000000p0 `
Date Liz ft-asckitz,AICP
A-Iulkey Engineers and Consultaiits, Inc.
Project IVIanager
for the:
NDRTH C AROLiNA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPDRTA'i'ION
.

Date Olivia Farr
Noith Carolina Department of T1a11SpOltal'1011
1'roject Developinent and I:11V11'011111e11ta? ,-?1111i'S1S B1ai1Cl2
P10 eCt P1a1111111g EIlglllee]'
-7119 6
DZt(' 111 S??C111111S, J1., P.E.
North Carolina Departineiit of 'T"ransporration
Project Development and Liiviroiiniental i?nalysis I3railcli
Project l:ngineer
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
PROPOSED MILITARY CLITOFF ROAD EXTENSION AND
PROPOSED LJ5 1 7 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
New Hanover and Pender Counties
State Project 40191.1.2
TIP Projects U-4751 and R-3300
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALY515 BRANCH-
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LJNIT
Additional coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the project's
potential effects on red-cockaded woodpecker, Cooley?s meadowrue, golden sedge, and
rough-leaved loosestrife will be conducted prior to completion of the final
environmental document for this project.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALY515 BRANCH-
HUMAN ENVIRONMENT UNIT
An archaeological survey will be conducted for the project a$er the selection of the
preferred alternative.
ROADWAY DE51GN UNIT, HYDRAULIC DE51GN UNIT, ROAD5IDE
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT AND DIVI5ION 3
Four streams within one mile downstream of the study area have been designated HQW
by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWOJ. 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 in Sensitive Watersheds will be
implemented for these streams during project construction.
ROADWAY DE5113N LJNIT AND DIVISION 3
All Hampstead Bypass alternatives include improvements along existing US 17 in the
vicinity of Holly Shelter Game Land. There is potentially suitable and future potentially
suitable red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat adjacent to both the east and west
sides of existing US 17 in this area. Roadway widening improvements associated with
Hampstead Bypass along existing US 17 in this area will not exceed a width of 200 feet in
DRAFT EIS LJ-4751 & R-3300 PAGE 1?F 2
JuLY 201 1
order to maintain connectivity between red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat
partitions.
ROADWAY DE5113N UNIT AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT BRANCH
NCDOT will coordinate with local officials as the project progresses regarding the status
of local greenway plans and proposed walking trails.
The Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) has requested the inclusion
of a multi-use path along proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension. 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 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.
HYDRAULIC DE51GN UNIT
The 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
L,etter of Map Revision (CLOMR) and subsequent final L,etter of Map Revision
(LOMR).
STRLICTLIRE DESIGN LJNIT
Bicycle safe bridge railing will be provided on the NC 210 bridge over the Hampstead
Bypass.
DivisioN 3
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated stream(s).
Therefore, the Division 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.
GEOTECHNICAL UNIT
Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 may impact five properties that
either have or formerly had underground storage tanks. Preliminary site assessments to
identify the nature and extent of any contamination will be performed at any potential
hazardous materials sites along the preferred alternative prior to right of way acquisition.
DRAFT EIS LJ-4751 & R-3300 PAGE 2?F 2
JuLY 201 1
TABLE OF CONTENT5
PROJECT COMMITMENTS .................................................................................1
S UM MARY ............................................................................................................ S-1
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR PROJECT .......................................... 1-1
1.1 Proposed Action ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.1.1 Project Setting ......................................................................................................1-1
11.2 History of Project ...............................................................................................1-3
1.1.3 Decision to Combine Projects in One Environmental Document ..............1-3
1.2 Purpose of Proposed Action ...................................................................1-3
1.3 Need for Proposed Action ......................................................................1-4
1.31 Surnrnary of Need for Proposed Action ..........................................................1-4
1.3.2 Traffic Operations Analyses ..............................................................................1-5
1.3.3 Accident Analysis ................................................................................................1-7
1.3.4 Transportation Demand ....................................................................................1-8
1.3.5 NC Strategic Highway Corridors/Intrastate System ......................................1-9
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ........................2-1
21 No-Build (No Action) Alternative ..........................................................2-1
2.2 Preliminary Study Alternatives ...............................................................2-2
2.2.1 Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative ..............................2-2
2.2.2 Travel Demand Management (TDNI) Alternative ..........................................2-2
2.2.3 Mass Transit Alternatives ....................................................................................2-3
2.2.4 Preliminary Build Alternatives ...........................................................................2-4
2.3 Detailed Study Alternatives ..................................................................2-15
2.3.1 Description of Detailed Study Alternatives ...................................................2-16
2.4 Current Detailed Study Alternatives .....................................................2-20
2.4.1 Description of Current Detailed Study Alternatives .....................................2-20
2.4.2 Current Detailed Study Alternatives Design Criteria ....................................2-23
2.5 Traffic Operations Analyses .................................................................2-31
2.51 Analysis Methodology .......................
2.5.2 Year 2035 Build Traffic Projections
2.5.3 Year 2035 Build Capacity Analysis
..2-31
..2-31
..2-32
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS I TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
2.6 Traffic Safety ......................................................................................... 2-34
2.7 Costs ..................................................................................................... 2-35
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ............................................................. ..3-1
3.1 Human Environment ........................................................................... ..3-1
311 Population Characteristics ................................................................................ ..3-1
31.2 Economic Characteristics ................................................................................. ..3-2
3.1.3 Corrnnunity Facilities and Services .................................................................. ..3-3
31.4 Corrununity Cohesion ....................................................................................... ..3-4
3.2 Land Use and Transportation Planning .............................................. ..3-4
3.2.1 Land Use Plans ................................................................................................... ..3-4
3.2.2 Transportation Plans ......................................................................................... ..3-8
3.3 Physical Environment Characteristics ................................................. 3-12
3.31 Noise Characteristics ......................................................................................... 3-12
3.3.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 3-12
3.3.3 Farmlands ............................................................................................................ 3-13
3.3.4 Utilities ................................................................................................................. 3-14
3.3.5 Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................... 3-14
3.3.6 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................. 3-14
3.3.7 Floodplains/Floodways .................................................................................... 3-15
3.3.8 Protected Lands ................................................................................................. 3-15
3.4 Cultural Resources ............................................................................... 3-16
3.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources ..................................................................... 3-16
3.4.2 Archaeological Resources ................................................................................. 3-18
3.4.3 Tribal Lands ........................................................................................................ 3-18
3.5 Natural Environment Characteristics .................................................. 3-18
3.51 Soils/Topography/Geology ............................................................................. 3-18
3.5.2 Biotic Communities and Wildlife ..................................................................... 3-20
3.5.3 Water Resources ................................................................................................. 3-26
3.5.4 Jurisdictional Issues ........................................................................................... 3-47
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................. ..4-1
4.1 Human Environment Impacts ............................................................. ..4-1
411 CorrununityImpacts .......................................................................................... ..4-1
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 11 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
41.2 Corrununity Facilities and Services .................................................................. ..4-2
41.3 Relocation of Homes and Businesses ............................................................. ..4-3
41.4 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................... ..4-3
41.5 Economic Effects .............................................................................................. ..4-6
4.2 Land Use and Transportation Planning .............................................. ..4-7
4.2.1 Land Use Plans ................................................................................................... ..4-7
4.2.2 Transportation Plans ......................................................................................... ..4-7
4.3 Impacts to the Physical Environment .................................................. ..4-8
4.3.1 Noise Impocts ..................................................................................................... ..4-8
4.3.2 Air Quality ........................................................................................................... 4-12
4.3.3 Farmland Impocts .............................................................................................. 4-14
4.3.4 UtilityImpacts .................................................................................................... 4-15
4.3.5 Hazardous Materials Impocts ........................................................................... 4-15
4.3.6 Mineral Resources .............................................................................................. 4-16
4.3.7 Floodplain/Floodway Impocts ........................................................................ 4-16
4.3.8 Protected Lands Impocts .................................................................................. 4-17
4.4 Cultural Resources Impacts ................................................................. 4-18
4.4.1 Historic Architectural Resources ..................................................................... 4-18
4.4.2 Archaeological Resources ................................................................................. 4-18
4.4.3 Tribal Lands ........................................................................................................ 4-18
4.5 Impacts to the Natural Environment ................................................... 4-19
4.5.1 Soils/Topographical/Geological Impocts ...................................................... 4-19
4.5.2 Biotic Community and Wildlife Impocts ........................................................ 4-19
4.5.3 Water Resources Impocts ................................................................................. 4-21
4.5.4 Jurisdictional Issues ........................................................................................... 4-33
4.6 Indirect and Cumulative Effects .......................................................... 4-42
4.61 Evaluation of Indirect Effects .......................................................................... 4-45
4.6.2 Evaluation of Cumulative Effects ................................................................... 4-46
4.7 Construction Impacts ........................................................................... 4-47
4.8 Irretrievable & Irreversible Commitment of Resources ...................... 4-51
4.9 Relationship between Long Term & Short Term Uses/Benefits ....... 4-51
5.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ........ ..5-1
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS III TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
5.1 Agency Coordination .............................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1 NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process ................................................................. 5-1
51.2 Other Agency Coordination ............................................................................... 5-2
5.2 P ublic Involvement ................................................................................. 5-3
5.21 Citizens Informational Workshops ................................................................... 5-3
5.2.2 Small Group Meetings ......................................................................................... 5-3
5.2.3 Other Public Outreach ........................................................................................ 5-3
5.2.4 Public Hearing ...................................................................................................... 5-3
5.3 U SACE Public Interest Review .............................................................. 5-4
5.31 Conservation ......................................................................................................... 5-4
5.3.2 Economics ............................................................................................................ 5-4
5.3.3 Aesthetics .............................................................................................................. 5-5
5.3.4 General Environmental Concerns ..................................................................... 5-5
5.3.5 Wetlands ................................................................................................................ 5-5
5.3.6 Historic and Cultural Resources ........................................................................ 5-5
5.3.7 Fish and Wildlife Values ..................................................................................... 5-6
5.3.8 Flood Hazards ...................................................................................................... 5-6
5.3.9 Floodplain Values ................................................................................................ 5-6
5.3.10 Land Use ........................................................................................................... 5-6
5.3.11 Navigation ........................................................................................................ 5-6
5.312 Shore Erosion and Accretion ........................................................................ 5-6
5.313 Recreation ......................................................................................................... 5-6
5.3.14 Water Supply .................................................................................................... 5-7
5.3.15 Water Quality ................................................................................................... 5-7
5.316 EnergyNeeds ................................................................................................... 5-7
5.317 Safety ................................................................................................................. 5-7
5.318 Food and Fiber Production ............................................................................ 5-7
5.319 MineralNeeds .................................................................................................. 5-7
5.3.20 Considerations of Property Ownership ....................................................... 5-8
6.0 LIS T OF PREPARERS .............................................................................. 6-1
6.1 North Carolina Deparhnent of Transportation ..................................... 6-1
6.2 Mulkey Engineers and Consultants ....................................................... 6-2
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS Iv TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
6.3 RS&H Architects-Engineers-Planners, Inc ........................................... 6-4
6.4 SEPI Engineering Group, Inc ................................................................6-4
APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Agency Correspondence
Appendix C NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program/Relocation
Reports
Appendix D List of References
LI5T OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Crash Rates
Street) ...........................
Table 1-2. Crash Rates
Bypass ...........................
Table 1-3. Crash Rates
.......................................
Military Cutoff Rd. from Station Rd. to US 17 Bus. 1(Vlarket
...........................................................................................................1-7
US 17 Bus. (Market St.) from Station Rd. to US 17 Wilmington
...........................................................................................................1-8
US 17 from US 17 Wilmington Bypass to Sloop Point Loop Rd.
...........................................................................................................1-8
Table 1-4. Population Growth Trends .................................................................. ................1-9
Table 2-1. Comparison of Preliminary Corridor Alternatives ............................ .................2-5
Table 2-2. Comparison of August 2007 Detailed Study Alternatives . .............. ...............2-17
Table 2-3. Comparison of Current Detailed Study Alternatives ........................ ...............2-21
Table 2-4. Comparison of Alternative U Typical Sections ................................. ...............2-27
Table 2-5. Proposed Hydraulic Structures ........................................................................... 2-30
Table 2-6. 2035 Traffic Projections for No-Build and Detailed Study Alternatives..... 2-32
Table 2-7. Average Intersection Delay and L,evel of Service along Existing US 17 for
2035 No-Build and Detailed Study Alternatives . ................................................................2-34
Table 2-8. Cost Estimates for Detailed Study Alternatives ...............................................2-35
Table 3-1. Population Growth Trends 1990-2000 ................................................................3-1
Table 3-2. Income and Poverty Status ....................................................................................3-2
Table 3-3. NCDOT 2011-2020 DraftS"I7P Projects in the Study Area .............................3-9
Table 3-4. Prime Farmland Soils in the Study Area ............................................................3-13
Table 3-5. Soils in the Study Area
..3-19
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS v TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-6. Coverage of Terrestrial Communities in the Study Area ................................ 3-21
Table 3-7. Physical Characteristics of Streams within Study Area .................................... 3-28
Table 3-8. Physical Characteristics of Ponds in the Study Area ........................................ 3-35
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area .......................... 3-38
Table 3-10 . Federally Protected Species Listed for New Hanover & Pender Counties 3-48
Table 4-1. Residential and Business Relocations ................................................................. ..4-3
Table 4-2. Noise Abatement Criteria .................................................................................... .. 4-9
Table 4-3. Criteria for Substantial Increase in dBA ............................................................ .. 4-9
Table 4-4. Predicted Noise Traffic Impacts ........................................................................ 4-10
Table 4-5. Prime Farmland Impacts ..................................................................................... 4-15
Table 4-6. Utility Relocation and Construction Costs ........................................................ 4-15
Table 4-7. Gamelands and Preservation Area Impacts ...................................................... 4-17
Table 4-8. Historic Architectural Resource Effects ............................................................ 4-18
Table 4-9. Terrestrial Corrununity Impacts .......................................................................... 4-20
Table 4-10 . Forest Impacts ..................................................................................................... 4-21
Table 4-11 . Individual Stream Impacts ................................................................................. 4-23
Table 4-12 . Total Stream Impacts ......................................................................................... 4-26
Table 4-13 . Individual Pond Impacts ................................................................................... 4-27
Table 4-14 . Total Pond Impacts ............................................................................................ 4-27
Table 4-15 . Individual Wetland Impact ................................................................................ 4-28
Table 4-16 . Total Wetland Impacts ....................................................................................... 4-32
Table 4-17 . Federally-Protected Species Effects ................................................................. 4-35
Table 4-18 . Relative Rating of Indirect and Cumulative Effects, Military Cutoff Road
Extension .................................................................................................................................. 4-44
Table 4-19 . Relative Rating of Indirect and Cumulative Effects, Hampstead Bypass... 4-44
Table 4-20 . Baseline Watershed Data by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) ........................ 4-45
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS vl TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
LIST OF FIGURE5 INCLLJDED IN APPENDIX A
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. 2008 Average Annual Daily Traffic, Existing Conditions
Figure 3. 2008 L,evel of Service, Existing Conditions
Figure 4. 2035 Average Annual Daily Traffic, No-Build
Figure 5. 2035 L,evel of Service, No-Build
Figure 6. Preliminary Corridor Alternatives
Figure 7. Military Cutoff Road Extension Transportation Corridor Official Map
Figure 8. Detailed Study Alternatives
Figure 9. Current Detailed Study Alternatives
Figure 10A-K. Current Detailed Study Alternatives, Environmental Features
Figure 11A-B. Hampstead Bypass Typical Sections
Figure 12. Military Cutoff Road Extension Typical Sections
Figure 13A-D. 2035 Average Annual Daily Traffic, Build Conditions
Figure 14A-D. 2035 L,evel of Service, Build Conditions
Figure 15. Generalized Zoning
Figure 16. Pender County Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 17. Greater Wilmington Area Thoroughfare Plan
Figure 18. Predominant Soils and Prime Farmland Soils
Figure 19A-K. Natural Corrnnunities
Figure 20. Current Detailed Study Alternatives, Hydrologic Units
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS vll TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
SUMMARY
S. 1 TYPE OF ACTION
Administrative Action Environmental Impact Statement
(X) Dra$ ( ) Final
S.2 CONTACT
Brad Shaver
US Army Corps of Engineers-Wilmington
District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
[phone]
S.3 PROPOSED ACTION
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
North Carolina Departrnent of
Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
[phone]
5.3. 1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION
State Transportation Improvement Program (STTP) projects U-4751 and R-3300 involve
the construction of Military Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover County and the
US 17 Hampstead Bypass in New Hanover and Pender Counties, respectively. These
projects are included in the 2009-2015 STTP.
For project U-4751, the North Carolina Departrnent of Transportation (NCDO1)
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). Limited
and full control of access is proposed. For project R-3300, NCDOT proposes to
construct the US 17 Hampstead Bypass as a freeway 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.
Full control of access is proposed for the US 17 Hampstead Bypass.
5.3.2 PLJRPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
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.
LJS 17 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS S-1 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
S.4 DETAILED STLJDY ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives considered for the proposed project include the No-Build Alternative, the
Transportation System Management Alternative, the Travel Demand Management
Alternative, the Mass Transit Alternative, and the build alternatives.
Preliminary build alternatives were established through an evaluation of suitability
mapping based on available socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental resource data.
Preliminary build alternatives that met 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. 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.
Project alternatives were further refined as more comprehensive information was
obtained through detailed field studies and environmental analysis. There are two
current detailed study alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) and four
current detailed study alternatives for Hampstead Bypass (R-3300). Military Cutoff Road
Extension Detailed Study Alternatives M1 and M2 are new location alternatives in New
Hanover County extending Military Cutoff Road from Market Street to the US 17
Wilmington Bypass. Hampstead Bypass Detailed Study Alternatives E$, O, and R are
new location alternatives extending from the US 17 Wilmington Bypass in New Hanover
County to existing US 17 north of Hampstead near Sloop Point L,oop Road in Pender
County. Detailed study alternative U extends along existing US 17 from the tie-in of
proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension (Alternatives M1 or M2) to approximately two
miles north of the New Hanover/Pender County line, then extends on new location to
existing US 17 north of Hampstead near Sloop Point Loop Road in Pender County.
Current Detailed Study Alternatives are shown on Figure S-1.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS S-2 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
S.S SLJMMARY OF IMPACTS
A comparison of the current Detailed Study Alternatives is shown in Table S-1.
Table S-1. Summary Comparison of Current Detailed Study Alternatives
Current Detailed Study Alternative
FEATURE' M1+ E-H M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
L,en th 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
inear feet
Residential Displacements 61 60 59 93 95
Business Dis lacements2 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
May affect, Likely to Adversely RCW, RCW,
Affect federally protected RCW, RLL CM, CM, RCW, RCW,
s
ecies3
RLL,
RLL,
RLL
RLL
p GS GS
Natural Heritage Program
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 Im ortance acres
Forest acres 518 512 472 406 455
Historic Pro erties no. 1 1 1 4 4
NoiseReceptorimpacts 257 236 248 310 304
High Quality Waters (F3QW,
ORW, WS Protected or Critical 9.6 9.6 9.6 12.4 12.4
Areas) (ocres)
Total Cost (in millions) $362.0 $359.3 $356.2 $404.8 $398.4
lImpact calculations axe based on pxeliminary design slope stake limiTS plus an additional 25 feet.
2 Includes non-pxofit displacemenTS.
3 RCW- xed-cockaded woodpeckex, RLL xough-leaved loosestnfe, GS- golden sedge, CM- Cooley's
meadowrue
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS S-3 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
S.6 UNRESOLVED ISSLJES
Unresolved issues to be addressed prior to the publication of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement include:
Selection of the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (L,EDPA) and
development of avoidance and minimization efforts within the corridor of the
preferred alternative.
• Completion of archaeological surveys for the preferred alternative corridor.
• Additional coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the
effects of the project on red-cockaded woodpecker, Cooley?s meadowrue, golden
sedge, and rough-leaved loosestrife.
S.7 ACTIONS REQLJIRED BY OTHER STATE AND FEDERAL
AGENCIES
All of the proposed detailed study alternatives would require environmental regulatory
permits from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the NC Division of Water
Quality (DWQ).
A Section 404 Permit from the USACE is required for any activity occurring in water
or wetlands that would discharge dredged or fill material into Waters of the United
States and adjacent wetlands. An individual Section 404 permit will be required. The
USACE will determine final permit requirements.
• A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ is required for activities
that may result in discharge to Waters of the United States to certify that the
discharge will be conducted in compliance with applicable state water quality
standards. The Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be required prior to
issuance of the Section 404 permit.
The proposed project will require a Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) consistency
determination from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management.
Consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the effects of the
proposed project on the federally-protected red-cockaded woodpecker, Cooley?s
meadowrue, golden sedge, and rough-leaved loosestrife is required.
The USACE will serve as the lead federal agency with respect to compliance with Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act It is anticipated that the USACE will request of the
USFWS that formal consultation for red-cockaded woodpecker and rough-leaved
loosestrife be initiated in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act a$er
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS S-4 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative for the proposed project has
been identified.
If Alternative M2+0 or Alternative M1+R is selected as the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative for the proposed project, it is anticipated that the
USACE will request of the USFWS that formal consultation for Coole?s meadowrue
and golden sedge be initiated in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS S-5 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
/
0
i
z
a ?
A ?
cree6 ml?.,/
Ry ,
?gY
?q N
Fe
j
??
?
? ISR?oo21
SldbU? Rd.
. 1
Island ? ?
r'n
L}'¢¢k
0
J A
1
1?p1
ad.l5a
0!??
?en
a
lsR? ha?
IsR
Harrisons
Geek
?
?17
? ScOt4NilrloopRV,
C Sc
? o
lll00
.. ?
? •
.
\ye4N

?
Green
Channel
Creek
e 1.
OG
G
w`
a?
P
?a?sn oak? } ' Nrxnn
Smith Tor? ?mw?'" Channel
? Leqend
Creek e ?'wo at 34/ /
Current Detailed SfudyAlternatives
West I East of NC 210 West I East of NC 210
Alternative M1 Alternative E-H
?"0s1 P°geS Alternative M2 Alternative R
c°'a ?d.lg? ? Creek ?
on?a
?SR M?ddle Sound- ? 4 Alternative 0 Alternative U
o Horve /
? S Geek
fdry %
Martr Lulher Kr9 Jr. PkwYi r?
0
0
(SR 2649)1
Interchange Locations County Boundary
? ' ?J Major/Minor Roads ? City of Wilmington
Wilmi gton ? b. ? d ;o
?, °ws N2 ? Water Features
tµ,oo
aRa
f
Prepared by Current Detailed Stud Alternatives Fiure No.
MULKEY n y 0 3,500 7,000 14,000 g
US 17 Corridor Study Fi Feet
Prepared for: -? NCDOTTIP Pro?ect Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 $-?
? ? ? .? ? Data Sources: NCDOT and Mulkey GIS
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC
\,?J 9ure P Pre ared: 10121/10
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR
PROJECT
State Transportation Improvement Program (STTP) projects U-4751 and R-3300 involve
the construction of Military Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover County and the
US 17 Hampstead Bypass in New Hanover and Pender Counties, respectively. These
projects are included in the 2009-2015 STTP. This dra$ environmental impact statement
(DEIS) is being prepared for both projects in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code 4321-4327), as
codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1500-1508 and the North
Carolina Environmental Policy Act of 1971, as amended (North Carolina General
Statutes Article I Chapter 113A), as codified in the North Carolina Administrative Code,
Title 1, Chapter 25.
1. 1 PROPO5ED ACTION
For project U-4751, the North Carolina Departrnent of Transportation (NCDO1)
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). Limited
and full control of access is proposed. 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.
Full control of access is proposed for the US 17 Hampstead Bypass.
The project vicinity and study area are shown in Figure 1. The study area boundaries
roughly follow I-40 to the west, the Northeast Cape Fear River to the north, Holly
Shelter Game Land to the east and existing US 17 to the south.
1. 1. 1 PROJECT SETTING
1. 1. 1. 1 DE5CRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA
The proposed projects are located in the outer Coastal Plain and cross portions of
northern New Hanover County and southern Pender County. This part of the Cape
Fear River basin is the only coastal area in North Carolina that is accessible by interstate
highway, making it a popular destination because of its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean,
beaches, and estuarine waters. In the project vicinity, the City of Wilmington is home to
one of the state's largest historic districts and the USS North Carolina battleship and
memorial. Wilmington and nearby communities of Hampstead, Topsail Island,
Wrightsville Beach, Kure Beach, and Carolina Beach offer numerous options for dining,
shopping, recreation, and entertainment The Hampstead area is home to four golf
courses that are centered in large residential developments. Proximity to numerous
coastal communities makes this area a popular second-home and retirement destination.
LJ517 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 1-1 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
The southern extent of the study area is characterized primarily by a mix of commercial
and residential development; the northern extent includes preserved land, undeveloped
forests, open fields, and wetlands. Natural areas preserved for recreation and education
uses include the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Holly Shelter Game
Land and the North Carolina State University blueberry research station. Open fields are
primarily managed agricultural areas used for blueberries, row crops, and tobacco
production, or are le$ fallow.
1. 1. 1.2 EXISTING TRAN5PORTATION FACILITIE5
US 17 serves as a major connector between New Hanover, Pender, and Onslow
Counties. In the study area, US 17 connects with I-40 and US 17 Business (Market
Street) at interchanges and with NC 210 at a signalized intersection (see Figure 1). From
I-40 to Market Street, US 17 is also known as the Wilmington Bypass. The US 17
Wilmington Bypass is a four-lane freeway with a posted speed limit of 65 miles per hour
(mph). The US 17 Wilmington Bypass opened to traffic in 2006. From its interchange
at Market Street to Sloop Point Loop Road, US 17 is a four or five-lane, two-way, north-
south route classified as an urban principal arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. US 17 between the Wilmington Bypass and Sloop Point Loop
Road was widened from two to four and five lanes between 1996 and 1999 and
intersections along US 17 between the Wilmington Bypass and the northern intersection
of SR 1571 (Scotts Hill L,oop Road) were upgraded to "superstreet" intersections (no left
turns onto US 17) in 2006. The posted speed limit varies from 45 to 55 mph. US 17 is a
part of NC Bike Route 3 in the vicinity of Hampstead.
In the study area, US 17 Business (Market Street) extends from US 117/NC 132 (College
Road) to the US 17 Wilmington Bypass. Land use along Market Street includes
commercial, retail, and single-family and multi-family residential development. Market
Street is a four or five-lane roadway in the study area. The posted speed limit varies
from 45 to 55 mph.
In the study area, Military Cutoff Road is a four-lane divided or five-lane, north-south
route with a posted speed limit of 45 mph. Military Cutoff Road is classified as an urban
principal arterial in the Statewide Functional Classification System. Military Cutoff Road
connects with Gordon Road and Market Street at signalized intersections. Gordon
Road, an east-west urban minor arterial, connects with I-40 at an interchange.
Interstate 40 is a major east-west freeway that crosses eight states, beginning in Barstow,
California and ending in Wilmington, North Carolina. It links several large cities in the
state, including Asheville, Winston-Salem, Greensboro, Durham, and Raleigh. NC 210 is
a two-lane, east-west major arterial serving as a connector between Cumberland, Bladen,
and Pender Counties. In the study area, NC 210 connects with US 17 in Hampstead and
I-40 via Holly Shelter Road. NC 210 provides access to the Topsail Island beaches.
LJ517 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 1-2 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
1. 1.2 HISTORY OF PROJECT
Feasibility studies were conducted for both Military Cutoff Extension and the
Hampstead Bypass. The Hampstead Bypass Feasibility Study was completed in dra$
form in February 1999, but was never published as final. In early 2004, the feasibility
study was reinstated. A Feasibility Study for the Military Cutoff Extension was
completed in June of 2004. The proposed project is included in local thoroughfare plans
and shown in the 2009-2015 STIP, with both U-4751 and R-3300 shown as Strategic
Highway Corridor projects. Project development studies for the proposed project began
in 2005.
1. 1.3 DECI510N TO COMBINE PROJECT5 IN ONE
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
During project development it was recognized that projects U-4751 and R-3300 may
share a common terminus. Because they may be adjoining new location projects and
together they would have a cumulative impact on the human and natural environment, it
was decided that the two projects should be addressed in a single document This
combined document provides a way to communicate all direct and indirect impacts the
projects would have on the environment, as well as the cumulative impact resulting from
the incremental impacts of the two projects when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions.
1.2 PURPO5E OF PROPO5ED ACTION
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. The project is expected to provide
the following benefits:
• Improve traffic flow and level of service on US 17and Market Street 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 project will provide a
new route for travelers with destinations in northern New Hanover County and area
beaches. The project will remove much of the through traffic from the existing roadway,
allowing it to better serve local land use.
• Enhance safety along US 17 and Market Street in the study area.
Separating through traffic from the local traffic that is using the existing roadway to
access schools, shopping and residential areas will enhance safety.
LJ517 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 1-3 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
1.3 NEED FOR PROPO5ED ACTION
The following surrnnary and supporting technical data for existing and forecasted
conditions in the study area detail the need for improvements along the US 17 corridor
in New Hanover and Pender Counties.
1.3. 1 SUMMARY OF NEED FOR PROPO5ED ACTION
Needs to be addressed by the proposed projects are:
• Traffic Carrying Capacity
Traffic volumes on US 17 in the project vicinity are expected to increase substantially
over the next 25 years. Average daily traffic volumes along existing roads in the study
area will more than double in some locations by 2035 from the 2008 base conditions.
Roadway capacity analyses show that most of the arterials and intersections in the study
area would either approach or exceed the roadway capacity limits during at least one peak
hour of the day in 2035.
• Safety Issues
A total of 87 crashes occurred on Military Cutoff Road between Station Road and US 17
Business (Market Street) between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. The total
crash rate for Military Cutoff Road in this area is above the 2005-2007 statewide crash
rate for urban Secondary Routes.
A total of 612 crashes including three fatal crashes occurred on Market Street betweer
Station Road and the US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange at Market Street between
January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. The total crash rate for Market Street in this
area is above the 2005-2007 statewide crash rate for urban United States routes.
A total of 489 crashes including two fatal crashes occurred on US 17 between the US 17
Wilmington Bypass interchange at Market Street and Sloop Point L,oop Road between
January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2009. The total crash rate for US 17 in this area is
below the 2005-2007 statewide crash rate for rural United States routes.
• Transportation Demand
US Census Bureau statistics indicate New Hanover County grew by 33.3 percent from
1990 to 2000 and 22.3 percent between 2000 and 2010. Pender County grew by 42.4
percent between 1990 and 2000 and 32.9 percent between 2000 and 2010. Both counties
are expected to continue to experience high growth rates through the year 2030. This
growth in population, tourism and supporting services has resulted in an increase in
mixed-purpose traffic on US 17.
LJ517 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 1-4 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
1.3.2 TRAFFIC OPERATION5 ANALYSE5
1.3.2.1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The objective of the traffic operations analysis is to evaluate the existing and future travel
conditions and to assess the effectiveness of the proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension and Hampstead Bypass in improving traffic flow in the study area. This study
analyzed freeway mainline, weaving and merge/diverge, arterial and intersection
capacities for two conditions: 2008 Existing Conditions and 2035 No-Build Conditions.
The capacity analysis was performed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
methodologies. The Alyl and PM peak hour traffic volumes from the traffic forecast
prepared for the project were used in the capacity analysis.
Traffic forecasts for the base year (2008) and horizon year (2035) were prepared for the
project in June 2008 using output from the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning
Organization's (MP0) Travel Demand Model. The Travel Demand Model uses various
socioeconomic data to forecast growth in order to predict demands on a transportation
network. Regional growth expectations help to determine projected traffic in a horizon
year. Assumptions about future development activity and changes in distribution of
population and employment in the forecast study area are implicit in the model.
Expectations regarding specific developments can be a factor in the development of the
forecast It is anticipated that there will be periods where housing and employment
market trends will fluctuate up and down through the horizon year. The future year
Build scenario assumes completion of all projects in the fiscally constrained Wilmington
MPO Comprehensive Transportation Plan adopted in March 2005.
Results of the traffic capacity analyses for the project are presented in this document in
terms of level of service. Level of service (L,OS) is a qualitative measure that
characterizes the operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception of
traffic service by motorists and passengers. The Transportation Research Board's
Highway Capacity Manual generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors
as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and
convenience. Six levels are used, ranging from A to F. For roadways, LOS A indicates
no congestion while LOS F represents more traffic demand than road capacity and
extreme delays. The engineering profession generally accepts LOS D as a minimally
acceptable operating condition for signalized intersections.
Freeway capacity analyses for the freeway mainline, merge/diverge junctions, and
weaving segments were performed using the methodologies described in the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual. In this methodology, the level of service is determined by
calculating the density of passenger cars per mile per lane.
The arterial capacity analyses were performed using Synchro software program and in
accordance with the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, which bases LOS on average
through-vehicle travel speeds. The average through-vehicle speed is calculated by
dividing the length of the segment by the sum of the travel time on that segment plus
LJ517 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 1-5 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
control delay. The control delay includes the total delay for a vehicle approaching and
entering a signalized intersection, delays of initial deceleration, move-up time in the
queue, stop and re-acceleration.
The intersection capacity analyses were performed using Synchro software in accordance
with NCDOT Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Guidelines. Traffic flow at an
intersection is affected by the volume of traffic and by the intersection geometry. At
intersections with signals, LOS A represents no congestion, LOS E represents long
delays, and LOS F represents excessive delays with vehicles having to wait several signal
cycles to clear an intersection.
1.3.2.2 2008 TRAFFIC VOLLJMES
The 2008 ADT along Military Cutoff Road from south of Station Road to US 17
Business (Market Street) varies between 15,000 vehicles per day (vpd) and 34,000 vpd.
Truck traffic makes up approximately three percent of the total traffic along Military
Cutoff Road. The 2008 ADT along Market Street between US 117/NC 132 (College
Road) and the US 17 Wilmington Bypass varies between 30,000 and 52,900 vpd. Truck
traffic makes up approximately six percent of the total traffic along this section. The
2008 ADT along US 17 between I-40 and Sloop Point L,oop Road ranges between
15,000 vpd and 38,600 vpd. Truck traffic makes up approximately eight percent of the
total traffic along this section. Figure 2 shows 2008 ADT.
1.3.2.3 'ZOOB LEVEL OF 5ERVICE
Under the 2008 existing conditions, capacity analyses indicate that traffic demand along
several segments of US 17 Business and Military Cutoff Road either approaches or
exceeds (L,OS E or F) the roadway capacity during at least one peak hour of the day.
The intersection capacity analysis indicates that traffic demand at 24 out of 29 study
intersections either approaches or exceeds the roadway capacity during at least one peak
hour of the day. Figure 3 shows the 2008 levels of service for the existing facilities.
1.3.2.4 2035 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC PROJECTION5
Projected 2035 ADT for Military Cutoff Road from south of Station Road to Market
Street varies between 26,000 vpd and 46,000 vpd. Truck traffic is projected to make up
approximately three percent of the total traffic along Military Cutoff Road.in 2035. The
2035 ADT along Market Street between College Road and US 17 Wilmington Bypass is
expected to range between 48,200 and 71,000 vpd. Truck traffic is expected to make up
approximately six percent of the total traffic along this section. Projected 2035 ADT for
US 17 from I-40 to Sloop Point L,oop Road varies between 62,800 vpd and 115,000 vpd.
Truck traffic is expected to make up approximately eight percent of the total traffic along
this section. Figure 4 shows 2035 ADT projections.
LJ517 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 1-6 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
1.3.2.5 YEAR 2035 NO-BUILD CAPACITY ANALYSIS
Under the 2035 No-Build conditions, the US 17 interchanges at I-40 and US 17 Business
will operate at or beyond capacity (LOS E or F). Freeway and arterial capacity analyses
indicate that traffic demand at all of the segments along US 17, Market Street and
Military Cutoff Road will approach or exceed capacity during at least one peak hour of
the day. The intersection capacity analysis indicates that traffic demand at 28 out of the
29 intersections studied will either approach or exceed capacity during at least one peak
hour of the day. These capacity deficiencies indicate a need for roadway improvements
in the study area to serve the anticipated future traffic demand. Figure 5 shows the 2035
level of service for the existing facilities.
1.3.3 ACCIDENT ANALY515
Traffic accident data was analyzed for the three year period between January 1, 2007 and
December 31, 2009 for US 17, LTS 17 Business (Market Street) and 1l2ilitary Cutoff Road
Extension. The data is summarized in Tables 1-1 through 1-3 below. For each roadway
segment, the crash rate for the total number of crashes and crashes by type are shown.
These rates are compared to statewide and critical crash rates. The critical crash rate is a
way to mathematically evaluate the significance of the crash rate for a section of roadway.
Critical crash rate values vary as the AADT changes. The critical crash rate can be used
to identify high accident locations. Locations with a crash rate higher than the critical
rate may lzave potential highway safety deficiencies.
Rear-end collisions were the most common type of accident, accounting for between 40
percent and 51 percent of all accidents reported. Approximately one-third of all crashes
involved injuries.
Table 1-1. Crash Rates - Military Cutoff Rd. from Station Rd. to US 17 Bus. (Market
Street)
Crash T e
yP Crashes Crash
Rate1 Statewide
Rate z Critical
Rate 3
Total 87 608.9; 404.22 495.21
Fatal 0 0.00 1.11 9.19
Non-Fatal
Injury 31 216.99 126.46 178.89
1 Cxashes pex 100 million vehicle miles
z 2005-2007 statewide crash xate fox urban Secondary Routes (SR) in Noxth Caxolina
3 Based on the statewide ciash iate (95% level of confidence)
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 1-7 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 1-2. Crash Rates - US 17 Bus. (Market St.) from Station Rd. to US 17
Wilmington Bypass
Crash T e
yP Crashes Crash
Rate1 Statewide
Rate 2 Critical
Rate 3
Total 612 399.31 318.41 342.45
Fatal 3 1.96 1.07 2.77
Non-Fatal
Injury 200 130.49 103.55 117.40
i Cxashes pex 100 million vehicle miles
z 2005-2007 statewide crash xate fox urban United States (US) routes in Noxth Caxolina
3 Based on the statewide cxash xate (95% level of confidence)
Table 1-3. Crash Rates - US 17 from US 17 Wilmington Bypass to Sloop Point Loop
Rd.
Crash T e
yp Crashes Crash
Ratel Statewide
Ratez Critical
Rate3
Total 489 137.78 318.41 334.13
Fatal 2 0.56 1.07 2.11
Non-Fatal
Injury 168 47.34 103.55 112.58
1 Cxashes pex 100 million vehicle miles driven
2 2005-2007 statewide cxash xate fox urban United States (US) xoutes in Noxth Caxolina
3 Based on the statewide cxash xate (95% level of confidence)
1.3.4 TRAN5PaRTAT1ON DEMAND
Increases in population can be expected to result in increased demand on roadways.
According to US Census Bureau statistics, New Hanover County grew by 33.3 percent
from 1990 to 2000. US Census Bureau statistics indicate Pender County grew by 42.4
percent during the 1990 to 2000 period and the City of tXlilmington grew by 35.3
percent. Both counties are expected to continue to experience high growth rates
through the year 2030 (Table 1-4).
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 1-8 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 1-4. Population Growth Trends
Growth Projection
Count 2QQQ - 2010 2Q10- 202Q 2020- 2Q3Q
NevT Hanover 22.3 ', 0 10.4 °/0 9.5
Pender 32.9 % 27.3 % 21.4 %
Source: Office of State Budget andManagement http://www.osbm.statenc.us/ncosbrn
According to "The 2008 Economic Impact of Travel on North Carolina Counties", a
study prepared for the North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film and Sports
Development by the US Travel Association, New Hanover County ranks eighth among
North Carolina's 100 counties in tourism expenditures. This ranking reflects the large
number of annual visitors to the area, which creates increased demands on local roads
and the need for goods and services.
1.3.5 NC STRATEGIC HIGHWAY CORRIDORSIINTRASTATE
5Y5TEM
The Strategic Highway Corridors (SHC) initiative is a major implementation step of the
North Carolina Long-Range Multimodal Statewide Transportation Plan adopted by the
Board of Transportation in September 2004. Under this initiative, the NCDOT is
focusing on improving, protecting, and planning for critical highway facilities in the
State. Corridors were selected based on meeting one or more of the following criteria:
¦ Mobility: Whether a corridor currently serves or has the potential to expeditiously
move large volumes of traffic.
¦ Connectivity.• Whether a corridor provides a vital connection between Activity Centers.
Interstcate Relieven Whether a corridor currently serves or has the potential to serve as a
reliever route to an existing interstate facility.
The following elements were also considered during Strategic Highway Corridor
selection:
Hurricane Evacuation Route: Wlzether a corridor is considered a major route on the
NC Emergency Managernent's Coastal Evacuation Route Map.
Cited in a Prominent Report Certain reports list the need for improvements along major
corridors in the State, mainly to improve econornic conditions in a particular area.
¦ Pcart ofa Major Highway Systein: Whether a corridor is part of a national, statewide,
economic, or military highway system.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 1-9 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
The proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension and US 17 within the study area are part
of SHC No. 52 between Wilmington and Norfolk, Virginia. In the SHC Vision Plan,
US 17 (from I-140 to the Virginia state line) is designated as a freeway facility. The
functional purpose of the freeway facility is high mobility and low access. Proposed
Military Cutoff Road Extension is designated as a boulevard in the SHC Vision Plan.
The functional purpose of the boulevard facility is moderate mobility and low to
moderate access.
LJ517 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 1-10 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
2.0 DE5CRIPTIDN OF ALTERNATIVES
CONSIDERED
Alternatives considered for the proposed project include the No-Build Alternative
(Section 2.1), the Transportation System Management Alternative (Section 2.2.1), the
Travel Demand Management Alternative (Section 2.2.2), the Mass Transit Alternative
(Section 2.2.3), and the build alternatives, including the Improve Existing Alternative
(Alternative Z).
Preliminary build alternatives (Section 2.2.4) were established through an evaluation of
suitability mapping based on available socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental
resource data. Preliminary build alternatives that met 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). The detailed study alternatives
selection process incorporated recommendations made by federal and state
environmental regulatory and resource agencies and corrnnents received from two
citizens informational workshops held in April 2007.
Project alternatives were further refined as more comprehensive information was
obtained through detailed field studies and environmental analysis. There are two
current detailed study alternatives for Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) and four
current detailed study alternatives for Hampstead Bypass R-3300). Current detailed
study alternatives are discussed in Section 2.4.
2.1 NO-BLJILD (NO ACTION) 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.
The No-Build Alternative would not affect the human or natural environments. There
would be no impacts to streams, wetlands, historic resources, protected species, or other
cultural or natural resources. The No-Build Alternative would not result in any
residential or business relocations, nor would there be any right of way or construction
costs.
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.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-1 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
As discussed in Section 1.3.2, traffic capacity analyses indicate that by 2035, all of the
roadway segments along Market Street and US 17 analyzed for the project would
approach or exceed the roadway capacity limits during at least one peak hour of the day.
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.
2.2 PRELIMINARY STUDY ALTERNATIVES
2.2. 1 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM5 MANAGEMENT (TSM)
ALTERNATIVE
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) improvements involve increasing the
available capacity of a roadway within the existing right of way with minimum capital
expenditures and without reconstructing or adding additional through lanes to the
existing road. There are two types of TSM roadway improvements: operational and
physical improvements. Physical improvements are usually more capital intensive while
operational changes are largely administrative in nature.
Items such as the addition of turn lanes, striping, signing, signalization, and minor
realignments are examples of TSM physical improvements. Physical TSM improvements
are most effective in addressing site-specific capacity and safety issues. 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.
Examples of TSM operational improvements include traffic law enforcement, speed
restrictions, access control, and signal timing changes. These types of improvements are
best suited for areas with capacity or safety deficiencies in specific locations. A current
TTP Project (U-4902B) involves access management improvements to Market Street It
is expected that TSM operational improvements would improve traffic flow along
Market Street. However, it is expected that Market Street and US 17 would not show an
appreciable increase in capacity in design year 2035 with TSM operational improvements.
TSM 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 TSM Alternative does not meet the purpose of and need for the proposed
project and has been eliminated from further consideration.
2.2.2 TRAVEL DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM)
ALTERNATIVE
Travel Demand Management (I'DM) is an innovative approach to mitigating traffic
congestion. Examples of TDM alternatives include ridesharing, park & ride, flexible
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-2 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
work schedules, and telecommuting programs. Ridesharing provides a vehicle option for
people who normally travel via public transportation and non-motorized modes, but at
times need to make special trips (e.g. grocery shopping, trips to rural areas, trips from a
transit station to a final destination). Employers who provide flexible work schedules
allow employees to choose their arrival and departure times, which may reduce peak
travel demand by allowing employees to avoid the most congested travel times or more
easily coordinate carpools and vanpools. Telecommuting allows employees to work
from home. Because telecommuters are not traveling between home and work, travel
demand may be reduced, particularly during peak hours.
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.
2.2.3 MA55 TRAN5IT ALTERNATIVES
Mass transit alternatives include bus services, rail services, and express lanes. The study
area is not currently served by passenger rail service. There is one inactive railroad in the
study area and one active railroad in the project vicinity. The inactive line extends from
Craven County to northern Brunswick County and parallels US 17 in the study area. The
active line is operated by CSX and extends from the North Carolina-Virginia state line in
Northampton County southward to Wilmington, offering freight services only.
The Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority (X1ave Transit) provides transit services
in Wilmington, most of New Hanover County, and portions of Brunswick County.
Through Wave Transit a variety of public transportation options are available, including
fixed bus routes, paratransit vans, the Front Street free trolley (serving downtown
Wilmington), Seahawk shuttle [serving the University of North Carolina Wilmington
(UNCW) campus], Castle Hayne shuttle, Brunswick Connector, and Columbus
Connector. Wave Transit Eastwood Road/Mayfair Route travels along a short section
of Military Cutoff Road south of the study area. Intercity bus services are provided by
Greyhound Bus Lines and Carolina Trailways. A new multimodal transportation center
was recently constructed in downtown Wilmington. Pender County does not currently
have public transit operations in place.
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.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-3 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
2.2.4 PRELIMINARY BLJILD ALTERNATIVE5
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 Figure 6. A comparison of the preliminary build
alternatives in relation to environmental features is shown in Table 2-1.
2.2.4.1 HAMP5TEAD BYPA55 ALTERNATIVE5
Alternative A
Alternative A begins in New Hanover County at the I-40 interchange with SR 1002
(F3olly Shelter Road). It extends northeast across undeveloped property just north of
Holly Shelter Road. Alternative A crosses over to the south side of Holly Shelter Road
at the curve where it transitions to Island Creek Road. The alternative follows closely
along the south side of Island Creek Road adjacent to mostly undeveloped property.
Alternative A crosses a transmission line easement and turns 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 more forested land, crosses Saps
Road and SR 1569 (F3oover Road) and then turns 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 US 17 near SR 1675 (Long L,eaf
Drive), then extends along existing US 17 to end 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 and 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 A was not shown at the April 2007 citizens informational
workshops.
Alternative B
Alternative B begins in New Hanover County at the I-40 interchange with 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
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-4 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 2-1. Comparison of Preliminary Corridor Alternatives.
Preliminary Corridor Alternatives
Altemative A B C D E F G H I J K L N 0 P Q R S T U V w M1 M2 Z
Segment West of NC 210

Segment East of NC 210
FEATURE Prelirninary Corridor Alternative impacts are reported below based on the type of infomiation and level of detail available at the point in the
project development process the alternative was either dropped from further consideration or carried forwazd for detailed study.
Length (miles} 15.75 15.19 15.65 14.79 14.18 14.59 14.85 14.24 14.65 13.80 13.23 13.69 13.62 13.01 13.42 14.20 13.59 14.00 10.61 10.65 12.51 12.55 3.38 3.47 17.34
Wetland Impacts (acres) 1 304.1 2612 218.3 427.9 368.5 33029 459.4 400.1 361.86 386.87 343.9 301.0 4659 406.5 368.2 440.6 3812 342.9 157.7 2212 438.0 501.5 135.8 146.5 40.7
Stream Impacts: No. Crossings` f
LinearFeet
9?
7?
90"
5,688
6,130
7,754
5,894
6,335
7;960
9
7
10
10,166
10,608
12,232
6,145
6,586
8,211
2,261
643
8,849
7,232
2,299
2,233
1,331
Residential Displacements' 34 46 67 30 40 64 29 39 63 18 30 51 31 41 65 39 49 73 79 53 89 63 86 86 5
Business Displacements1 17 18 21 17 20 29 16 19 28 18 19 22 15 18 27 14 17 26 41 34 40 33 29 29 31
Federal/State'I'hreatened and
Endangered Species Occurrences
y
y
Y
0
0
0
0
0
0
Y
Y
Y
0
0
0
1
1
1
Y
1
Y
Y
0
0
1
RCW Occurrences within 0.5 mile
(no. of those occucrences in Holly
Shelter Game Land)
8(2)
8(2)
2(2)
8(2)
8(2)
2(2)
9(2)
9(2)
3(2)
8(2)
8(2)
2(2)
8(2)
0
Q
2(2)
Natural Heritage Program SNHA,
Managed Areas and Wetland
Mirigations Sites (acres)
y
y
N
69.42
43.07
6.78
69.42
43.07
6.78
Y
Y
Y
89.42
63.07
26.78
69.42
43.07
6.78
N
36.29
Y
Y
0
6
0
100 Year Floodplain Impacts
(acres) 1
61.63
55.26
37.29
41.50
46.27
35.79
51.94
56.71
4623
40.25
33.88
1591
33.84
38.61
28.13
34.40
39.17
28.69
22.22
42.68
22.22
42.68
0
Q
0
Recorded Historic Properties 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 3 0 Q 0
Recorded Archaeological Sites2 23 29 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 32 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 1 35 29 0 0 0
Wildlife Refuge f Game Lands 1 N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N N 0 0 0
Recreational Areas/Pazks 1 N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 N N 1 1 0
Acres in High Quality Waters
(HQW, ORW, WS Protected or
Critical Areas)
y
y
y
0
0
8.92
0
0
8.92
Y
Y
Y
0
0
8.92
0
0
8.92
Y
29.29
Y
Y
1.31
1.31
38.6
Cemeteries 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 2 2 3
Potential Underground Storage
Tauk f Hazmat Sites
UO
59
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
15
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
3
18
17
19
19
140
Notes Impact calculations are based on preliminary corridox alignments: 1 Within 300-foot cotridoi on new location altematives and Wlithin 150-foot cotridor along exist'rng US 17; Z`Uithin one mile of corridor centeiline.
* Includes streams and ponds.
LJ51 7 CORRIDOR 5TUDY DEIS 2-5 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
interchange with US 17 near Long L,eaf Drive and then extends along existing US 17 to
end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative B was eliminated from further study because it would require US 17 traffic to
travel out of direction and 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 B was not shown at the April 2007 citizens informational
workshops.
Alternative C
Alternative C begins in New Hanover County at the I-40 interchange with 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 Hoover Road north of South Topsail
Elementary School. At Hoover Road, Alternative C turns east, continues across
undeveloped land to a proposed interchange with US 17 near Grandview Drive.
Alternative C extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at 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 C was not shown at the April 2007 citizens informational
workshops.
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
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 L,ong L,eaf
Drive with a proposed interchange. Alternative D then extends along existing US 17 to
end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road. Alternative D was shown at
the April 2007 citizens informational workshops. Because of their close proximity, the
study corridors for Alternatives D and G were combined following the workshops. The
resultant alternative, Alternative D-G, was selected to be studied in detail.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-7 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
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 L,ong L,eaf Drive. Alternative E then
extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop
Ro ad.
Alternative E was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops. Because of
their close proximity, the study corridors for Alternatives E and H were combined
following the workshops. The resultant alternative, Alternative E$, was selected to be
studied in detail.
Alternative F
Alternative F begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street The
alternative follows the same alignment as Alternatives D and E from the Wilmington
Bypass to NC 210.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative F extends east across several minor roads
and crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School. At Hoover Road,
Alternative F turns south and ties into existing US 17 with an interchange near
Grandview Drive south of the Topsail School complex. Alternative F then extends
along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative F was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops. Because of
their close proximity, the study corridors for Alternatives F and I were combined
following the workshops. The resultant alternative, Alternative F-I, was selected to be
studied in detail.
Alternative G
Alternative G begins in New Hanover County at an interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street The
alternative travels northeast across Sidbury Road. Alternative G continues north and
turns east to parallel the south side of the transmission line easement as it enters Pender
County. A$er 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
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-B TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
turns east Alternative G extends to the north of Castle Bay and ties into existing US 17
near Long L,eaf Drive with a proposed interchange. Alternative G then extends along
existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative G was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops. Because
of their close proximity, the study corridors for Alternatives D and G were combined
following the workshops. The resultant alternative, Alternative D-G, was selected to be
studied in detail.
Alternative H
Alternative H 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 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 L,ong L,eaf
Drive. Alternative H then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized
intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative H was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops. Because
of their close proximity, the study corridors for Alternatives E and H were combined
following the workshops. The resultant alternative, Alternative E$, 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 Wilmington
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 turns 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.
Alternative I was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops. Because of
their close proximity, the study corridors for Alternatives F and I were combined
following the workshops. The resultant alternative, Alternative F-I, was selected to be
studied in detail.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-9 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Alternative J
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 L,ong L,eaf 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 J was not shown at the April 2007 citizens
informational workshops.
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 J from the Wilmington Bypass to NC 210.
From NC 210, Alternative K extends east across several minor roads 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 L,eaf 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
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 was not shown at the April 2007 citizens
informational workshops.
Alternative L
Alternative L begins in New Hanover County at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass
interchange with Market Street The alternative follows the same alignment as
Alternatives J and K from the Wilmington Bypass to NC 210.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-1 0 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
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 ties 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.
rllternative 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 L was not shown at the April 2007 citizens
informational workshops.
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 sigizalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative N was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative N was selected to be studied in detail following the workshops.
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 O was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative O was selected to be studied in detail following the workshops.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 2-1 1 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
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 shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative P was selected to be studied in detail following the workshops.
Alternative Q
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/Pender 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 L,eaf 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 shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative Q was selected to be studied in detail following the workshops.
Alternative R
Alternative R 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 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
roads and crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School. The
alternative continues northeast to a proposed interchange with existing US 17 near L,ong
L,eaf Drive. Alternative R then extends along existing US 17 to end at a signalized
intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative R was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative R was selected to be studied in detail following the workshops.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-1 2 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Alternative S
Alternative S begins in New Hanover County at an interchange witlz the US 17
Wilmington Bypass approximately tnidway 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 Sclzool complex. Alternative S then extends
along existing US 17 to end at a signalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative S was shown at the Apri12007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative S was selected to be studied in detail following the workshops.
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 sigzalized intersection at Sloop Point Loop
Ro ad.
Alternative T was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative T was eliminated from further study following the workshops 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 (M1 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. T'he 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.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 2-1 3 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Alternative U was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops
rllternative U was selected to be studied in detail following the workshops.
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 near 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 shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative V was eliminated from further study following the workshops 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.
Alternative W was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative W was eliminated from further study following the workshops 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 archaeolop'cal sites.
Alternative Z (Iinprove 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 shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative Z was selected to be studied in detail following the workshops.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 2-1 4 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
2.2.4.2 MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION
ALTERNATIVE5
Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 are new location alternatives
extending Military Cutoff Road from Market Street to the US 17 Wilmington Bypass.
Alternative M1
Alternative M1 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 M1 turns northwest and ends
near Plantation Road and Crooked Pine Road at a proposed interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway 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 M1 was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative M1 was selected to be studied in detail following the workshops.
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 M1 for approximately two miles. Alternative M2 then turns northeast and
extends through mostly undeveloped properLy to a proposed interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass approximately one mile west of Market Street.
Alternative M2 was shown at the April 2007 citizens informational workshops.
Alternative M2 was selected to be studied in detail following the workshops.
2.3 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 Figure 8 and a
comparison of the alternatives is shown in Table 2-2.
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$, O, R, and Alternative U.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-1 5 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Impacts to red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat were minimized by shi$ing the
proposed interchange with existing US 17 near L,ong Leaf Drive to the south. The
minimization option instead includes a proposed interchange approximately 0.7 mile
west of Grandview Drive, south of Topsail High School. Existing US 17 will be
realigned to the west to connect with the Hampstead Bypass at this interchange. With
the minimization option, the Hampstead Bypass would tie into existing US 17 near
L,eeward Lane and the section of existing US 17 between Grandview Drive and L,eeward
Lane would function as a service road.
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 consideration due to their impacts to red-cockaded
woodpecker foraging habitat and other resources (see Section 2.3.1.1). Detailed study
alternatives that were retained for further study are presented in Section 2.4. Current
detailed study alternatives are shown on Figure 9.
2.3. 1 DESCRIPTION OF DETAILED STUDY ALTERNATIVES
Section 2.3.1.1 briefly describes the Hampstead Bypass detailed study alternatives which
were dropped from consideration following detailed environmental surveys. Current
detailed study alternatives are described in Section 2.4.
2.3. 1.1 HAMP5TEAD BYPA55 DETAILED STUDY
ALTERNATIVE5
Alternative D-G (Combination of preliminary build 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 L,oop 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 floodplains.
Alternative F-I (Combination of preliminary build 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
L,oop 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.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-1 6 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 2-2. Comparison of August 2007 Detailed Study Alternatives.
Detailed Study Alternatives
Altemative M1+D-G M1+E-H* M1+ F-I M2+N M2+0 * M2+P M1+Q M1+ R* M1+S M1+U* M2+ LJ * M1+ Z M2+ Z
Military Cutoff Road Ext, Segmelit
Segment West of NC 210
Segment East of NC 210 • ?
FEATUREI Detailed Study Corridar Altemative impacts are reported below based on the type of information and level of detail available at the point in the
project development process the alternative was either dropped from further consideration or carried forward for detailed study.
L.ength (miles) 1822 17.51 17.82 17.21 16.56 16.88 17.77 17.09 17.43 18.01 16.80 2126 2121
Delineated Wetland Impacts (acres) 265.7 223.4 213.8 402.9 360.6 3509 315.7 273.4 263.8 205.4 265.1 146.5 2062
Delineated Strearn Impacts (linear feet) 27,930 23,383 26,358 16,923 12,376 15,351 27,644 23,096 26,021 14,995 8,343 21,399 14,747
Delineated Pond Impacts (acres) 1.69 2.92 4.39 2.11 3.34 4.81 1.97 32 4.67 2.77 2.77 3.25 325
Residential Displacements 25 31 90 25 31 90 26 32 91 72 71 145 144
Business Displacements 37 33 69 37 33 69 37 33 69 42 42 269 269
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Future Potentially
Suitable / Potentially Suitable Habitat (acres) 52.87/1.01 6.94/0.28 17.35/2.89 52.871.01 694/028 17.35/2.89 52.87/1.01 6.94/0.28 17.35/2.89 6.94/028 6.94/0.28 19.97/3.46 1997/3.46
Other Surveyed Federal / State Threatened and
Endangered Species Habitat Present yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Natural Heritage Program SNHA, Managed Areas
and Wetland Mitigations Sites (acres) 18.27 4.43 4.42 56.78 4293 42.93 18.85 5.00 5.00 323 34.37 3.23 34.37
Prime Farmlands/Farmlands of Statewide Importance
(acres) 70023 700.41 767.06 696.31 696.43 762.77 666.56 666.54 73292 479.56 500.17 690.98 711.52
Forest (acres) 544.69 493.49 467.35 53796 486.74 460.46 497.93 446.70 420.43 376.71 424.61 263.22 311.85
104 Yeaz Floodplain and Floodway Crossings
(no.)/(acres) 4I12.65 3I10.50 3/10.83 3/7.85 2/5.70 2/6.03 3/7.85 2/5.70 2/6.03 1/1.94 1/1.94 0/0.10 0/0.10
Recorded Historic Pmperties (no.) 0 0 Q 0 0 0 Q Q 0 1 1 1 1
Recorded Archaeological Sites (no.) 0 0 Q 0 0 0 Q Q 0 1 1 2 2
Wildlife Refuge/Game Lands (acres) 0.03 0 0 0.03 0 0 0.03 0 0 0 0 1.55 1.55
Recreational Areas/Parks (no.) 0 0 Q 0 0 0 Q Q 0 Q 0 1 1
High Quality Waters (HQW, ORW, WS Protected or
Critical Areas) (acres) 4.48 7.02 28.11 4.48 7.02 28.11 4.48 7.02 28.11 9.68 9.68 121.36 121.36
Cemeteries (no.) 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 5 5 9 9
Potential UST / Hazmat Sites (no.) (i 5 8 6 5 8 6 5 8 5 5 36 36
Notes: "Red-cbckaded woodpeckee minunization design option. Impacts based on concept sketches.
lImpact calculations are based on peeliminary design slope stake limits plus an additional 25 feet.
LJ51 7 CORRIDOR 5TUDY DEIS 2-17 TIP N05. LJ-4751 & R-3300
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 L,oop 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 Wilmington Bypass
approximately one mile west of the Market Street interchange to existing US 17 at Sloop
Point L,oop 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 Q
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
L,oop 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
L,oop Road. Alternative S 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 Z C"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.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-1 9 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
2.3. 1.2 MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION DETAILED
STUDY ALTERNATIVE5
Both of the detailed study alternatives for the proposed Military Cutoff Road extension
are still being considered. Alternatives M1 and M2 are described in Section 2.4.1.2.
2.4 CLJRRENT DETAILED STLJDY ALTERNATIVE5
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$, O, R, and U(see Section 2.4.1.1). The current detailed study alternatives
for Military Cutoff Road Extension include M1 and M2 (see Section 2.4.1.2). A
comparison of the anticipated impacts for the current detailed study alternatives is
included in Table 2-3. The current detailed study alternatives are shown in Figure 9 and
Figures 10-A through 10-K.
2.4. 1 DE5CRIPTION OF CLJRRENT DETAILED STLJDY
ALTERNATIVE5
2.4. 1.1 HAMP5TEAD BYPA55 CLJRRENT DETAILED STUDY
ALTERNATIVE5
Alternative E-H
Alternative E$ 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 is mostly undeveloped property. Alternative E$ turns to
the northeast and continues to a proposed interchange with NC 210 east of Island Creek
Ro ad.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative E$ extends northeast across several minoi
roads that include lightly developed residential areas and through undeveloped forested
areas. Alternative E$ 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$
continues north behind the Topsail School complex and then turns east to tie into
existing US 17 near L,eeward Lane. Alternative E$ continues north on existing US 17
to Sloop Point Loop Road.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-20 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 2-3. Comparison of Current Detailed Study Alternatives.
Current Detailed Study Alternatives
Alternative M1+ E-H M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Military Cutoff Road Ext. Segment
Segment West of NC 210
Segment East of NC 210

FEATUREl
Length rniles 17.5 16.6 17.1 18.0 16.8
Delineated Wetland Impacts acres 246.1 354.4 297.4 218.4 283.8
Delineated Stream Irnpacts linear feet 24,531 13,842 24,571 15,450 8,786
Delineated Pond Impacts acres 3.9 4.3 4.2 3.7 3.7
Residential Displacements 61 60 59 93 95
Business Displacernentsz 84 84 84 106 106
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Future
Potentially Suitable / Potentially
Suitable Habitat acres g 67/

7•3? 8.67/

7•3? 8.67/

7.39 8.67/

7.39 8.67/

7.39
Other Surveyed Federal / State
Threatened and Endangered Species
Habitat Present
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Natural Heritage Program SNHA,
Managed Areas and Wetland Mitigations
Sites acres
4.43
42.94
5.01
3.24
34.40
Prime Farmlands/Farrnlands of
Statewide Importance acres 67.5 55.1 58.1 49.9 49.9
Forest acres 518 512 472 406 455
100 Year Floodplain and Floodway
Impacts acres 11.73 8.8 8.8 3.0 3.0
Historic Properties (no.) 1 1 1 4 4
Noise Receptor Impacts 257 236 248 310 304
Recorded Archaeolo 'cal Sites no. Q 0 0 1 1
Wildlife Refu e/Game Lands acres 0 0 0 0 0
Recreational Areas/Parks no. Q Q 0 Q Q
High Quality Waters (HQW, ORW, WS
Protected or Critical Areas) (acres)
?•6
9.6
9.6
12.4
12.4
Cemeteries (no.) 2 2 2 5 5
Potential UST / Hazmat Sites (no.) 5 5 5 5 5
Notes: lIrnpact calculations axe based on pxelirninaxy design slope stake lirnits plus an additional2S feet.
Z Includes non-pxofit displacements.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 2-2 1 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
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 L,eeward 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 L,eeward 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 (M1 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.
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
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-22 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
continues north behind the Topsail School complex and then turns east to tie into
existing US 17 near L,eeward Lane. Alternative U continues north on existing US 17 to
Sloop Point Loop Road.
2.4.1.2 MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTEN510N CURRENT
DETAILED STLJDY ALTERNATIVE5
Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 are new location alternatives
extending Military Cutoff Road from Market Street to the US 17 Wilmington Bypass.
Alternative M1
Alternative M1 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 M1 turns northwest and ends
near 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 (see Figure 7). Alternative M1 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 M1 alignment for approximately two
miles. Alternative M2 then turns northeast and extends through mostly undeveloped
properLy to a proposed interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass approximately
one mile west of Market Street.
2.4.2 CLJRRENT DETAILED STLJDY ALTERNATIVE5 DESIGN
CRITERIA
The design criteria used to develop preliminary designs are based on the project's
location, function and classification. The design criteria conform to the standards
established by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
2.4.2.1 DE51GN SPEED
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.
2.4.2.2 TYPICAL SECTIONS
The typical sections used for the proposed Hampstead Bypass and Military Cutoff Road
Extension are influenced by the type of facility required to fulfill the project's purpose
and need. The number of proposed lanes included in the typical sections is based on
providing capacity for existing and future traffic. Traffic operations analyses are
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-23 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
discussed in detail in Section 2.5. L,evel of Service D is the desirable traffic service for
the proposed facilities in the 2035 design year.
An exception to this methodology is in the area where impacts to red-cockaded
woodpecker foraging habitat were minimized at the northern end of the proposed
project From the proposed interchange at realigned US 17 to the end of the project,
traffic demand will exceed capacity (Level of Service F) in 2035 using the proposed four-
lane typical section (two lanes in each direction) described in Section 2.4.2.2.1. However,
the traffic carrying capacity of US 17 in this area will be improved, meeting purpose and
need. Until the proposed Hampstead Bypass ties into existing US 17 near L,eeward Lane,
the amount of traffic on the bypass will be less than the amount of traffic on existing
US 17 under the No Build condition. In addition, traffic service on existing US 17 in the
area will be improved.
Other factors that contributed to the decision to propose the use of a four-lane typical
section in this area include:
• The construction of a four-lane freeway for the preceding segment from the
proposed Hampstead Bypass interchange at NC 210 to the proposed interchange
at relocated US 17 will result in an acceptable level of service (Level of Service D)
and minimize construction costs.
• Using a four-lane typical section along existing US 17 in the vicinity of Holly
Shelter Game Land maintains connectivity between red-cockaded woodpecker
foraging habitat partitions.
• The proposed Hampstead Bypass must transition to four lanes to meet the
typical section of existing US 17 at the northem terminus of the project Traffic
demand on existing US 17 where the project will tie in is projected to exceed
capacity (Level of Service F) in 2035.
• Using a six-lane typical section between two four-lane typical sections would
create a traffic botdeneck.
• Because it is at the end of the project, it makes more sense in terms of the project
as a whole to transition to four lanes earlier in order to minimize impacts to a
protected species. This would not be effective in the middle of the proposed
project where driver expectancy issues would arise and increased congestion
would result from traffic botdenecks.
2.4.2.2.1 HAMP5TEAD BYPA55 TYPICAL SECTION5
Figures 11-A and 11-B show the proposed typical sections for Hampstead Bypass. The
North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to construct the Hampstead
Bypass as a freeway facility. Therefore, no bicycle lanes or sidewalks are proposed.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-24 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
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 roadway typical section for Alternatives
E$, O and R is comprised of four 12-foot lanes (two in each direction) with 14-foot
outside shoulders (12-foot paved). A 46-foot median is proposed.
The number of proposed lanes along Hampstead Bypass Alternatives E$, O and R is
based on providing capacity for existing and future traffic and efforts to minimize RCW
habitat impacts. Traffic operations analyses are discussed in detail in Section 2.5. The
analyses show that six lanes are required to accommodate future traffic volumes along
the proposed bypass from the US 17 Wilmington Bypass to NC 210. Four lanes will
accommodate future traffic volumes along the portion of the proposed bypass between
NC 210 and the proposed interchange with existing US 17. Traffic volumes along the
bypass increase again from the interchange with existing US 17 to the end of the project.
However, in order to minimize RCW habitat impacts, only four lanes are proposed along
this section of the bypass.
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.
Several considerations factored into the proposed typical section for this segment of
Alternative U:
• Year 2035 traffic projections for Alternative U in this area are comparable to
traffic found on the busiest roads in the most populated areas in North Carolina,
including Charlotte and Raleigh.
• Traffic analyses show that the number of lanes required between the proposed
interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass and the proposed interchange at
NC 210 are higher for Alternative U than for Alternatives E$, O and R between
the same points. This is because Alternatives E$, O and R provide northbound
travelers the option of either using the proposed Hampstead Bypass or existing
US 17, while all traffic is directed along one route with Alternative U. More lanes
are required to process this increased traffic on Alternative U.
• US 17 Wilmington Bypass and existing US 17, each with four lanes and poor
traffic service, come together along this section of Alternative U. With their
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-25 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
combined traffic and an additional 70,000 cars, ten lanes are needed to
accommodate projected 2035 traffic volumes.
• As noted above, the NCDOT proposes a freeway facility with full control of
access for the Hampstead Bypass because in addition to increasing safety, it
would provide greater benefit in terms of traffic service than the partial or open
control of access options. An expressway, or non-freeway option, with direct
access from the bypass to adjacent properties would require 14 travel lanes to
provide adequate traffic carrying capacity. The signals required for an expressway
reduce the capacity from approximately 2,200 passenger cars per hour for a
freeway lane to approximately 450 vehicles per hour for an expressway lane. In
addition, there would be driver expectancy and safety concerns associated with
the Hampstead Bypass making the transition from a freeway to a 14-lane
expressway with signalization and turning movements, and back to a freeway.
• Where Alternative U travels along existing US 17, a frontage road system is
needed in addition to the main travel lanes to provide access to adjacent
properties. Service roads would provide access to businesses, residences and
community facilities along existing US 17 between the existing interchange with
US 17 Wilmington Bypass and the proposed interchange with existing US 17
where Hampstead Bypass transitions to new location. Utilizing service roads
minimizes impacts by reducing relocations and right of way costs.
Table 2-4 compares capacity and anticipated impacts for four, six, eight, and ten-lane
typical sections between the existing interchange at US 17 Wilmington Bypass and
Market Street to the proposed Hampstead Bypass interchange at existing US 17 south of
Hampstead.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-26 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 2-4. Comparison of Alternative U Typical Sections
From Existing Interchange
at US 17 Wilmington
Bypass and Market St. to
Proposed Hampstead
Bypass Interchange at
Sidbury Rd. From Proposed Hampstead
Bypass Interchange at
Sidbury Rd. to Proposed
Hampstead Bypass
Interchange at Existing
US 17 (S. of Hampstead)
2035 ADT 117,000 86,100
10-Lane Freewa with a 22 -foot rnedian or an S-Lane Fr eewa with a 46-foot median
Level of Service / Densit 1 D/ 28.5 C/ 20.0
Wetland acres 0.71 1.10
Streams inear feet 0 385.87
Relocations 20 homes, 8 businesses,
2 churches 14 homes, 7 businesses,
3 churches
8-L ane Freeway with a 22-foot m edian
Level of Service / Densit T1 E/ 44.5 D/ 26.0
tiYletland acres 0.71 1.06
Streams (linear feet) Q 359.65
Relocations 19 homes, $ businesses,
2 churches 14 homes, 7 businesses,
3 churches
6-L ane Freeway with a 22-foot m edian
Level of Service / Densit 1 F* E/ 43.0
Wetland acres 0.71 1.01
Streams inear feet 0 333.11
Relocations 16 homes2, 8 businesses,
1 church 13 homes, 7 businesses,
3 churches
4-L ane Freewa with a 22-foot m edian
Level of Service / Densityl F(*) F(*}
Wetland acres 0.71 0.97
Streams Oinear feet} 0 305.72
Relocations 14 homes2, $ businesses,
1 church 13 homes, 6 businesses,
3 churches
1 Density is defined as passengzx caxs pex mile per lane.
Z It is pxobable thexe would be two additional xesidential xelocations with the siY-lane and foux-lane typical
sections because dual lane exits would likely be needed at the US 17 Wilrnington Bypass Intexchange at Market
Stxeet.
* Ovexall density xesult is not cornputed when vehicle speed on fxeeway is less than 55 mph.
Notes:
¦ Poplax Gxove (on National Registex) and Wesleyan Chapel United Methodist Chuxch (National Registex
eligible) axe unpacted by all tjrpical sections.
¦ Iinpacts axe calculated based on slope stake plus 25-feet.
¦ It is assumed that one 12-foot lane would be elirninated in each dixection with each typical section two-
lane xeduction.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 2-27 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
From the proposed interchange with existing US 17 to the proposed interchange at
NC 210, the roadway typical section for Alternative U is comprised of 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. The proposed 46-foot median width would allow for a future widening to three
12-foot travel lanes in each direction without purchasing any additional right of way.
Impact calculations include the median and therefore would include impacts associated
with adding future lanes.
Traffic volumes decrease along the proposed four-lane section between NC 210 and the
proposed interchange with existing US 17. Traffic volumes along the bypass increase
again from the interchange with existing US 17 to the end of the project. However, in
order to minimize RCW habitat impacts, only four lanes are proposed along this
segment.
2.4.2.2.2 MILITARY CLJTOFF ROAD TYPICAL 5ECTION
Figure 12 shows the proposed typical sections for Military Cutoff Road Extension.
Alternatives M1 and M2
The proposed typical section for Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives M1 and
M2 from the proposed interchange at Market Street to approximately 0.9 mile north of
Torchwood Boulevard 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 M1 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).
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 expanded to 12 feet to accommodate the path.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-28 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
2.4.2.3 PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY AND TYPE OF ACCES5
The NCDOT proposes full control of access for the Hampstead Bypass because it
would provide greater benefit in terms of traffic service than the partial or open control
of access options. For Alternatives E-H, O and R, access is proposed at interchanges
with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, NC 210 and existing US 17 approximately 0.7 mile
west of Grandview Drive. Interchange locations are shown on Figure 9. For Alternative
U, access is proposed at interchanges with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, the existing
US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange at Market Street, Sidbury 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 that
travel along existing US 17 from Market Street to where Hampstead Bypass transitions
to new location. A total right of way width of 250 feet to 350 feet is proposed for
Hampstead Bypass Alternatives E$, O and R. A variable right of way width of 250 feet
to 520 feet is proposed for Alternative U.
Military Cutoff Road Extension is proposed as a full/limited control of access facility.
Access to Military Cutoff Road Extension is proposed at interchanges at Market Street
and Military Cutoff Road, and the US 17 Wilmington Bypass. Additional access along
Military Cutoff Road Extension is proposed at signalized directional crossovers with
Putnam Drive, L,endire Road and Torchwood Boulevard. Only right turns will be
permitted onto Military Cutoff Road Extension from these roads. Signalized U-turn
lanes will be provided to accommodate le$ turns. A variable right of way width of 150
feet to 350 feet is proposed for Military Cutoff Road Extension.
2.4.2.4 5TRUCTURE5
Table 2-5 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 on May 26 and 27, 2010 (see Appendix B). The locations of the structures
are shown on Figure 10-A.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-29 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 2-5. Proposed Hydraulic Structures.
Site Wetland Corridor Existing Recornmended
No.i Stream ID ID Alternative Structure Structure
U at M1 1a,12'x8' Retain and Extend
1 ZSB EWF
U at M2
RCBC2 .
Existing Culvert
U at M1
2 -- KWD -- 1@9'x8' RCBC
U at M2
3 BSP BWI M1, M2 --- 2@7'x12' RCBC
4 --- DWC 1122 --- 1@9'x8' RCBC
5 --- GWA O, R --- 3G12'x7' RCBC
Dual 100' Long
6 ISA, ISB IWN O, R ___ B
id
r
s
7 ISD IWF O, R --- 3@11'x8' RCBC
LSC,
g LSCC, LWD E-H, O, R 3@
?CM 2C6'x5' RCBC4
P3
LSCF
E-H O R
? 1@72"RC Retain existing and
"
10 CSA, FSA --- add two 1@ 72
U at M1 PS RCPI
11 FSI --- E-H, R --- 1@12'x9' RCBC
15 liBSF' HBWK E-H ___ Dual 230' Long
HBSH Brid s
Dual 200' Long
16 HBSD(2) HBtiYTD E-H ___ Bridges
17 HSX HWB E-H --- 3@10'x9' RCBC
21 FSA FWS E-H, R -- 2@11'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
1 Site numbexs coxxespond to the pxoject's Pxeliminaxy Hydxaulic Studfs site numbexs. Some pxeliminaxy
hydxaulic sites wexe avoided duxing design and axe thexefoxe not included in the table.
Z Iteinfoxced concxete box culvext.
3 Coixugated metal pipe.
4 Pxelurunaxy design also includes dual 135-foot longbxidges to rnaintain neighboxhood access.
5 Iteinfoxced concxete pipe.
6 Retain existing 72" RCP pipe undex Wilmington Bypass and add 72" RCP at two intexchange xarnps.
Supplementation of existing 72" pipe ox enlaxging of pxoposed xamp pipes will be investigated during final
design.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 2-30 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
2.5 TRAFFIC OPERATION5 ANALYSE5
2.5. 1 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
A Traffic Operation Analysis Report was prepared for the proposed project in August
2010. The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the future travel conditions and to
assess the effectiveness of the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension and Hampstead
Bypass in improving traffic flow in the study area for the current detailed study
alternatives.
Freeway capacity analyses for the freeway mainline, merge/diverge junctions, and
weaving segments were performed using the methodologies described in the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual. The arterial capacity analyses were performed using Synchro
software program and in accordance with the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. The
intersection capacity analyses were performed using Synchro software an in accordance
with NCDOT Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Guidelines. Additional details of
the methodology and analyses supporting the information provided in this section are
provided in the August 2010 Traffic Operation Analysis Report, appended by reference.
2.5.2 YEAR 2035 BUILD TRAFFIC PROJECTION5
Table 2-6 compares 2035 traffic projections for the current detailed study alternatives
and the No-Build Alternative for Market Street, US 17, Hampstead Bypass, Military
Cutoff Road, and Military Cutoff Road Extension. Year 2035 projected average daily
traffic (AD1) volumes for the current detailed study alternatives and the surrounding
roadway network are shown on Figures 13-A through 13-D. Volumes shown in Table
2-6 for existing US 17 from I-40 to Sloop Point Loop Road include the new location
connector from existing US 17 to the northernmost interchange south of the school.
The projected ADT for this interchange connector is substantially lower that other
segments between these points.
The 2035 traffic forecasts for Alternatives M1+ E-H, M2+0 and M1+R indicate that the
proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass projects will divert
approximately 30 percent to 50 percent of the future traffic away from Market Street and
US 17 between Gordon Road and Sloop Point Loop Road. As a result, traffic flow
conditions will be substantially improved in these areas when compared with the traffic
flow conditions under the No-Build Alternative.
The 2035 traffic forecasts for Alternatives M1+U and M2+U indicate that the proposed
Military Cutoff Road Extension project will divert approximately 15 percent of the future
traffic away from Market Street Similarly, the proposed Hampstead Bypass project will
divert approximately 50 percent to 65 percent of the future traffic away from US 17
between NC 210 and Sloop Point L,oop Road. As a result, traffic flow conditions will be
substantially improved in these areas when compared with the traffic flow conditions
under the No-Build Alternative.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 2-31 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 2-6. 2035 Traffic Projections for No-Build and Detailed Study Alternatives.
No-Build M1+E-H & M2+0 M1+U M2+U
M1+R
2Q35 % 2035 % 2Q35 % 2035 % 2Q35 %
ADTI TTz ADT TT ADT TT ADT TT ADT TT
Market St.
(College Rd. 48,200 - 48,600 - 48,600 - 49,000 - 49,400 -
ta US 17 71,000 5-6 66,OOQ 5-6 66,000 5-6 66,000 5-6 66,400 5-6
Wilrnington
Bypass)
Existing US
17 (1-40 to 62 800 -
8-10 28 600 - 5- 29 600 - 5- 16 800 -
5-10 16 800 -
5-10
Sloop Point 115,000 90,0003 10 86,0003 10 117,0003 117,0003
Loop Road)
Harnpstead NA
NA 48 200 -
10 47 200 -
10 45 400 -
5-? 45 400 - 5-9
Bypass 64,400 63,400 49,100 49,100
Milita,ry 26 000 -
3 29 200 - 3 27 200 -
3 29 200 -
3 28 600 - 3
Cutoff Road 46,000 46,50Q 45,50Q 46,500 46,000
M'1'tary 44,000 - 45,000 - 38,000 - 38,000 -
Cutoff Road NA NA 53,400 7 54,400 7 46,400 7 48,400 7
EYtension
1 2035 Avexage Daily Txaffic Z Pexcent Truck Txaffic
3 Volumes include the new location connectox to the noxthemmost intexchange south of the school and
exclude the segment designated as Sexvice IZoad in vicinity of Countxy Club Drive.
2.5.3 YEAR 2035 BUILD CAPACITY ANALY515
Year 2035 level of service for the current detailed study alternatives are shown on
Figures 14-A through 14-D. The figures shox72035 level of service along the proposed
Military Cutoff Road Extension and Harnpstead Bypass, including proposed
interchanges and signalized intersections. The fib res also show the level of service for
several connecting roadways that could experience changes in capacity as a result of the
proposed project including Market Street/US 17 between College Road and Sloop Point
Road, NC 210 and US 17 Wilmington Bypass.
The freeway and arterial capacity analyses for Alternatives M1+E-H, M2+0 and M1+R
indicate that the traffic demand along the majority of the proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension and Hampstead Bypass will function at Level of Service D or better, an
acceptable rate of flow, throughout the day. However, the peak hour traffic demand
along Military Cutoff Road Extension will experience significant queuing issues at several
locations. As noted in Section 2.5.1, Alternatives M1+E-H, M2+0 and M1+R will
attract more traffic away from Market Street and US 17 to the proposed Military Cutoff
Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass than Alternatives M1+U and M2+U. The
traffic demand along Market Street, the US 17 tiYlilmington Bypass from I-40 to Military
Cutoff Road Extension and much of existing US 17 from Market Street to Sloop Point
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 2-32 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Loop Road will continue to exceed roadway capacity (Level of Service F). Nevertheless,
travelers will experience improved driving conditions in these areas as the volume of
traffic and associated congestion and delays would be reduced.
The freeway and arterial capacity analyses for alternatives M1+U and M2+U indicate
that the traffic demand along the majority of the proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension and Hampstead Bypass will function at Level of Service D or better, an
acceptable rate of flow, throughout the day. However, the peak hour traffic demand
along Military Cutoff Road Extension will experience significant queuing issues at several
locations. Under alternatives M1+U and M2+U, additional lanes will be added to the
US 17 Wilmington Bypass between Military Cutoff Road Extension and Market Street.
Additional lanes will also be added to existing US 17 from Market Street to where
Hampstead Bypass transitions to new location. With these improvements in place, the
traffic flow conditions in these areas will be improved from Level of Service F under the
No-Build Alternative to Level of Service D. Traffic demand along the US 17
Wilmington Sypass from I-40 to Military Cutoff Road Extension and US 17 north of
Hampstead P>ypass will continue to exceed roaclway capacity (Level of Service F) similar
to the No-Build Alternative. However, travelers will experience improved driving
conditions in these areas as the volume of traffic and associated congestion and delays
would be reduced.
The proposed project will not eliminate all of the congestion problems on Market Street
and US 17. The intersection capacity analysis for Alternatives M1+E-H, M2+0 and
M1+R indicates that traffic demand at 28 out of the 37 intersections analyzed along
Military Cutoff Road, Market Street, existing US 17, and NC 210 would either approach
or exceed (Level of Service E or F) roadway capacity during at least one peak hour of the
day. The intersection capacity analysis for Alternatives M1+U and M2+U indicates that
traffic demand at 18 out of the 37 intersections analyzed along Military Cutoff Road,
Market Street, existing US 17, and NC 210 would either approach or exceed roadway
capacity during at least one peak hour of the day. Table 2-7 compares projected delays at
several intersections along Market Street and existing US 17 for the No-Build Alternative
and the detailed study alternatives. Delays are shown for the intersections because, with
the exception of Leeward Lane, all intersections shown in Table 2-7 exceed roadway
capacity (Level of Service F) during at least one peak hour of the day. Level of service at
each intersection is noted in parenthesis in Table 2-7. All of the detailed study
alternatives would substantially reduce delay at most intersections over the No-Build
Alternative.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 2-33 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 2-7. Average Intersection Delay and Level of Service along Existing US 17 for
2035 No-Build and Detailed Study Alternatives.
Altematives
No-Build M1+E-H Altematives Altematives Altematives
and M1+R ?+O M1+U M2+U
Inteisection
ith M
k
w
ar
et
Street or
2035 Peak Hour Avera,ge Intersection Delay (rninutes per vehicle) and
E
i
ti
US 17 Level of Seivice1
x
s
ng
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
2'4 1.8 2.4 1.8 2.4 2.0 2.5 2.0
Gordon Road 8.8 T) 7.3(F) ' ' '
F F F F) F) F F F)
Middle Sound
4.? (F?
4.4(F} 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.5 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.5
Loop Road F F E F F F F F
Porters Neck 9•1 (F) 9
.4 (F) 5.3 5.7 4.9 5.4 6.9 7.5 6.6 7.9
Road (F F F F F (F F F
NC 210 9.8 (F) 10.2 3.3 3.7 3.4 3.9 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6
(F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
Hoover Raad 5.7 (F) 5.1 (F) 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.1 2.7 3.4 2.8 3.4
F F F F F F F F
Country Club > 16.7 15.9 1.7 2.2 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
Drive / Jenkins

Road (F) (F) (Fl (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)

Leeward La,ne > 16.7 > 16.7 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
(F) (F) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B)
Sloop Point
4•8 {F)
4.9 {F) 5.1 5.0 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.2 5.4 5.2
Loop Road (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F) (F)
1 Level of Sexvice is shown in paxentheses
Note: Yeax 20351eve1 of sexvice (LOS) fox the cuxrent detailed study altematives axe shown on Figuxes 14-A
thxough 14-D. Yeax 2035 No-Build LOS is shown in Figuxe S.
2.6 TRAFFIC SAFETY
The construction of any of the current detailed study alternatives would reduce the
amount of traffic on Market Street and existing US 17. This reduction in traffic volumes
should in turn reduce the number of accidents occurring on the existing roadways.
Market Street and existing US 17 would continue to have occurrences of accidents.
However, the anticipated reduction in traffic volumes is expected to have a
corresponding reduction in the types of accidents generally associated with traffic
congestion. This in turn is expected to result in reduced accident related property
damage and injuries.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 2-34 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Both 11-'Iilitary Cutoff Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass are proposed median
divided facilities. Medians provide separation between opposing traffic and reduce the
likelihood of head-on collisions.
Access to Hasnpstead Bypass will be via interchanges while access to Military Cutoff
Road Extension will be provided by interchanges and signalized directional crossovers
with U-turn locations. These types of access control can be expected to minimize the
number of accidents associatecl with turning moveinents.
Severe accidents associated with high speeds on the proposed Hampstead Bypass are
expected to be minimal. As noted above, the proposed multi-lane facility would include
a median to separate opposing traffic and «rould be designed to accommodate high-
speed traffic.
2.7 COST5
Preliminary cost estimates for the detailed study alternatives are presented in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8. Cost Estimates for Detailed Study Alternatives
Alteniative
M1+E-H M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Right of Way $104,500,000 $100,875,000 $102,150,000 $155,875,000 $155,950,000
Acquisition
Utility
Relocation
$1,304280
$1,434,320
$1,352,400
$1,809,000
$1,890,920
Wetland and
Streain $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 $235,500,000 $228,300,000
Total $362,040,045 $359,272,989 $356,152,729 $404,819,741 $398,374,254
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 2-35 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes the existing conditions and characteristics of the study area that
could be affected by the proposed extension of Military Cutoff Road and the proposed
Hampstead Bypass. The chapter includes comprehensive information relating to the
study area as a whole rather than providing separate descriptions of the area as it relates
to each alternative. Information presented relates to the existing social, economic,
cultural, physical and natural environment settings. This chapter provides the basis for
determining the specific impacts of each detailed study alternative, as discussed in
Chapter 4.
3.1 HLJMAN ENVIRONMENT
A Community Impact Assessment and Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Assessment were prepared for the proposed project in June 2009. City, county, state,
and demographic area data were compared to identify characteristics and trends, and
draw conclusions about the study area. The demographic area includes portions of New
Hanover County, Pender County and the City of Wilmington in and around the study
area. A copy of the Community Impact Assessment and Qualitative Indirect and
Cumulative Effects Assessment, appended by reference, is located in the project file.
3. 1. 1 POPULATION CHARAGTERI5TIG5
The population of New Hanover County, Pender County and the City of Wilmington
grew at a fairly rapid rate between 1990 and 2000 (Table 3-1). The demographic area
experienced rapid growth (55 percent) in the same time period.
Table 3-1. Population Growth Trends 1990-2000
Population Groxvth
Jurisdiction
1990
aooo Actual
Change
1990-2000 Percent
Change 1990-
2000
North Carolina 6,628,63; 8,049,313 1,420,676 21.4°ro
New Hanover
County 120,284 160,307 40,023 33.3%
Pender County 28,855 41,082 12,227 42.4%
Wilrnington 55,530 75,83$ 20,308 36.6%
Demographic Area
IL- 24,043 37,348 13,305 55.3%
Soiuce: US Census Bureau - Censtu 1990 STF 1 Table P001, Census 2000 SF1 Table P1

US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-1 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
In comparison to New Hanover County, Pender County, Wilmington and the State, the
demographic area has a higher percentage of Whites. The demographic area is 88.1
percent White, 9.5 percent Black or African American, 1.8 percent Hispanic or Latino,
and less than one percent each of other races {American Indian, Asian, Pacific Islander,
etc.}.
3. 1 .2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERI5TIC5
In both 1959 and 1999, the median household income in the Dernographic Area was
higher than any of the other areas analyzed (Table 3-2). Correspondingly, the
Demographic Area had a lower percentage of individuals below the poverty level in 1959
and 1999.
Table 3-2. Income and Poverty Status
Median Household Percent
Income Individuals Below
Jurisdiction Poverty Level

1989 1999 1989 1999
North Carolina $26,647 $39,154 12.50';% 12.30
New Hanover $27,320 $40,172 14.0% 13.1%
County
Pender County $23,270 $35,902 17.2°ro 13.6%
Wilmington $20,609 $31,099 22.1% 19.6%
Demographic Area $34,883 $46,106 7.0% 9.3%
New Hanover County, Pender County and the City of Wilmington all rely heavily on
tourism. The region consists of many coastal communities enjoyed largely by seasonal
residents and visitors. Wilmington has a rich history and substantial cultural resources
which make it a popular destination for visitors.
Wilmington is horne to a North Carolina Ports Authority complex that is designated as a
foreign trade zone. The City also has inland transportation facilities such as CSX
Intermodal and Norfolk Southern rail freight services. With major distribution services
available, many manufacturing facilities have located in this area.
The Retail Trade and the Health Care and Social Assistance Sectors were the dominant
industry sectors in New Hanover County in 2006. Retail Trade was the largest industry
sector in Pender County. Other strong sectors in 2006 included Construction,
Educational Services, Health Care and Social Assistance, and Public Administration.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-2 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Between 1990 and 2006, several industry sectors in both counties experienced triple digit
growth.
There are no large employers within the demographic area. Most employers consist of
small businesses such as retail establishments and offices. Most residents within the
demographic area travel outside of the area to work at large employers such as New
Hanover Regional Medical Center, Corning, Verizon, the University of North Carolina
Wilmington, and others.
3. 1.3 COMMLJNITY FACILITIES AND SERVICES
There are a number of noteworthy public facilities within the study area:
• Topsail High School and Topsail Middle School share a campus off of US 17 near
the northern end of the proposed project Topsail Elementary School is located on
Hoover Road.
• Daycare facilities are located on Gordon Road and US 17 in New Hanover County
and on NC 210 and US 17 in Pender County.
• Ogden Park is the only park in the study area. This 160-acre facility includes fields
for baseball, so$ball, and soccer, tennis courts, playgrounds, and restroom facilities
among other amenities.
• There are several nearby golf courses located within residential developments in
Pender County. In New Hanover County, there is a driving range located on Market
Street at Military Cutoff Road.
• The 49,000-acre Holly Shelter Game Land is located immediately north of the study
area.
• The Hampstead Branch of the Pender County Library is located off of US 17 north
of Country Club Drive.
• A North Carolina Highway Patrol station/Division of Motor Vehicles license office
is located near the Market Street/Gordon Road intersection in New Hanover
County. Hampstead Fire Department and Pender Fire & EMS Rescue are located on
US 17 between Hoover Road and Country Club Drive.
• There are several cemeteries located in the study area.
• A New Hanover County Water Treatrnent Plant is located north of Torchwood
Boulevard.
• NC Bike Route 3 runs north-northeast from Wilmington to Hampstead along
Sidbury Road, Holly Shelter Road and NC 210. NC Bike Route 3 ties into US 17 at
Hampstead and continues north through Pender County. Military Cutoff Road is
included as part of the Southside Route identified as Bike Route 11. A multi-use
path is located on Military Cutoff Road south of Market Street, just outside of the
study area.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-3 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
3. 1 .4 COMMUNITY COHESION
In the southern portion of the study area there is a mix of dense commercial and
residential development along Market Street, Military Cutoff Road, and Gordon Road.
There is a large residential area comprised of several neighborhoods north of Ogden
Park. With the exception of Island Creek Estates, a single-family residential
neighborhood located off of Sidbury Road, there is minimal development north of the
US 17 Wilmington Bypass to the New Hanover County line.
Hampstead is an unincorporated corrnnunity in Pender County that includes several
retail centers, residential areas and open space in the vicinity of NC 210 from the
intracoastal waterway to north of US 17. Proximity to numerous coastal communities
makes this area a popular second-home and retirement destination. The Hampstead area
is home to four golf courses which are centered in large residential developments,
including Castle Bay off of Hoover Road, Olde Point off of Country Club Drive,
Belvedere off of L,ong L,eaf Road, and Topsail Greens on Topsail Greens Drive just
north of Sloop Point Loop Road.
NC 210 provides access to several low-density residential neighborhoods, including two
mobile home communities. A large single-family residential development, Cross Creek,
is also located off of NC 210. L,ow-density single family residentail development is
located along Harrison Creek Road, Godfrey Creek Road, Hoover Road, and St John's
Church Road.
3.2 LAND USE AND TRAN5PORTATION PLANNING
3.2. 1 LAND U5E PLAN5
Local jurisdictions in the study area include New Hanover County, Pender County and
the City of Wilmington.
3.2. 1.1 EXISTING LAND U5E
The southern extent of the study area is characterized primarily by a mix of dense
commercial and residential development From the Wilmington Bypass to NC 210, the
intensity of development along US 17 decreases. However, in Hampstead , from
NC 210 to the northern end of the study area, land adjacent to US 17 is moderately to
heavily developed with commercial and institutional uses. In this area, US 17 provides
access to several residential developments.
With the exception of properties near US 17, land use north of the Wilmington Bypass is
predominantly rural in nature and includes preserved land, undeveloped forests, open
fields, and wetlands. A mix of single family residential and business land uses are located
along NC 210. There is limited residential land use on Sidbury Road, Harrison Creek
Road, and Hoover Road.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-4 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
3.2. 1 .2 ZONING CHARACTERI5TIC5
Zoning regulations are in place for the Military Cutoff Road Extension and Hampstead
Bypass study area in both New Hanover and Pender Counties (Figure 15). Land in the
New Hanover County portion of the study area is largely zoned for low-density
residential uses R-15) with some industrial uses along the Northeast Cape Fear River.
Land in the Pender County portion of the study area is zoned Rural Agriculture (RA) and
Residential District-20 (R-20). RA zoning comprises the majority of the study area and is
defined to accommodate very low-density residential development, and non-residential
development not requiring urban services. R-20 zoning applies to areas along the
existing NC 210 corridor and is defined to accommodate low-density residential uses.
3.2.1.3 FUTURE LAND U5E
The City of Wilmington developed The lVilmington Future L.rznd Use Plan, 2004-2025 to
guide physical development within the City and to determine how to build or preserve
certain aspects of the community. The plan has a long range planning horizon of twenty
years. The plan notes that Wilmington is nearing build-out and there is a need to
redevelop aging or underutilized properties. A small part of the study area is included in
this plan's boundaries. A few areas along Market Street south of Military Cutoff Road
are classified as small infill tracts in Varied Use Areas. This area of Market Street is
mostly a Tier Two Redevelopment Area. These areas are characterized by declining or
marginal corrnnercial enterprises and/or businesses that have not kept pace with more
recent trends. Tier 2 properties are targeted for upgrade as opportunities arise.
The MarketStreet Corrzdor Study Quly 2010) includes a long term view on development
along the Market Street corridor as defined by efficient land use patterns, transportation
choices, distinctive architecture, and high quality of life. Plans for redevelopment of
areas around Military Cutoff Road are premised on the proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension. The design intent for this area is to create a compact neighborhood center
with a walkable street network and neighborhood services. The Study presents the
opinion that the Military Cutoff Road Extension intersection with Market Street should
be grade separated.
Both New Hanover and Pender Counties participate in the cooperative state-local North
Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) program. CAMA requires local
governments within the 20 coastal counties to prepare land use plans which provide a
balance of protection, preservation, and orderly development.
The 2006 iFibnington-New Hanover County CAMA L.rznd Use Plan Update functions as the
future plan for both the City of Wilmington and New Hanover County. The future land
use for the New Hanover County portion of the Military Cutoff Road Extension and
Hampstead Bypass study area is identified as Wetland Resource Protection Area, Rural,
and Conservation Areas (primarily flood prone). According to the plan document, the
Rural classification is comprised of low intensity land uses (agriculture, forest) and
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-5 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
discourages urban-type uses. Only low density residential development Oess than 2.5
units per acre) is permitted in the Rural area.
New Hanover County does not have a separate land use plan outside of the joint 2006
Vibnington-New Hcanover County CAMA Land Use Plan Update. Small area plans exist for
the Middle Sound and Porters Neck communities. However, New Hanover County
considers these plans outdated as they are more than 20 years old.
The 2005 Pender County CAMA Land Use Plan Update focuses on policies designed to
protect significant and irreplaceable natural systems. It includes a land use classification
system as a tool to protect natural systems but does not provide detailed guidance for
land use decisions. In the CAMA plan, future land use for the Pender County portion of
the study area is identified as an Urban Growth Area and Conservation Area. The
Urban Growth Area classification provides for the continued development of areas
provided with water and/or sewer services or where the County is actively engaged in
planning these services. This area classification provides for higher net densities. The
Conservation Area Classification is intended to protect natural systems from
inappropriate development The CAMA Land Use Plan shows Conservation Areas
along Harrisons Creek, Godfrey Creek, and tributaries to Harrisons Creek, Godfrey
Creek and Island Creek.
The June 2010 Pender County Comprehensive L.rznd Use Plan includes future land use
classifications that are intended to reflect and expand on the land classifications used in
the CAMA Land Use Plan. The comprehensive plan incorporates a CoastalPenderSmall
Area Plan that includes the study area from the Pender County line near Sidbury Road to
Holly Shelter Game Land and Sloop Point L,oop Road. The small area plan designates a
Mixed Use future land use classification from Sidbury Road to near Harrison Creek
Road, between NC 210 and US 17. The Mixed Use classification applies to locations
where a mix of higher density uses is to be encouraged. The Mixed Use classification
continues along US 17 to Sloop Point L,oop Road, with the exception of a few areas
classified as Conservation. Conservation Areas have special significance or unique
characteristics that make them worthy of preservation. These areas include South
Topsail Elementary School, the Topsail Middle and High School complex, and Holly
Shelter Game Land. Northwest of US 17, from Harrison Creek Road to Holly Shelter
Game Land, the future land use classification is predominantly Suburban Growth. The
Suburban Growth classification identifies areas where significant residential growth is
expected to occur. The Coastal Pender SmallArea Plan indicates regulations should be
revised to protect the Hampstead Bypass Corridor from future development and to
encourage development that is in harmony with the bypass when a corridor alternative is
selected.
Porters Neck Crossing is a proposed commercial development in New Hanover County.
The approximately 54-acre project is located near Porters Neck Road in the southwest
quadrant of the intersection of Market Street and Wilmington Bypass. The proposed
development is expected to include at least one anchor retailer, including a Lowe's Home
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-6 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Improvement store, along with complimentary commercial services to possibly include
retail, restaurant and hotel uses.
Several residential developments are also planned or under construction in New Hanover
County. New Hanover County approved The Registry at Vineyard Plantation with 106
single-family lots at Porters Neck Road. A mixed use development called Scotts Hill
Village is also planned near the Pender County line. Several small to medium-sized
residential developments are in various stages of construction between Market Street and
the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension. These include Westside/Park Ridge,
Palm Grove, Copperfield, and Garlington Heights.
Four large proposed mixed use developments are in various stages of planning in Pender
County in the study area: East Haven, Bayberry Farms, Hampstead Corrnnons, and
Hawksbill Cove. The Easthaven development has received master plan and Phase I
approval from the Pender County Planning Board. The planned development is
proposed just north of the Pender County line. Access points into the development
would include Sidbury Road and US 17. Easthaven's plan calls for both commercial and
residential land use. At build-out, up to 4,096 single and multi-family homes with
approximately 10,000 residents are anticipated.
Bayberry Farms is a proposed mixed-use development The Bayberry Farms
development has received master plan and Phase I approval from the Pender County
Planning Board. Future plans include 461 single and multi-family homes and retail
space. The development is adjacent to Topsail High School and borders Holly Shelter
Game Land. Access points would include Jenks Road and US 17. Representatives with
Bayberry have met with County staff and NCDOT staff on the future of their
development A revised Traffic Impact Analysis has been submitted to NCDOT
Congestion Management for review. A proposal to continue the project through the
development process with the County has yet to be initiated.
Hampstead Commons consists of 384 multi-family units and 200,000 square feet of
commercial on 63.22 acres with direct access to US 17 and Caison Drive. This has
received master plan approval from the Pender County Planning Board in December
2009 and a conditional preliminary plat for the first phase consisting of 144 residential
units was approved by the Planning Board in November 2010.
Hawksbill Cove is a proposed 376-acre development located along Country Club Road
that would extend from the Intracoastal Waterway to US 17. The Hawksbill Cove
development has received master plan and Phase I approval from the Pender County
Planning Board. Access to Hawksbill Cover would be from US 17 via Country Club
Road and Leeward Lane. Revisions to the master plan that include access to the
development from Transfer Station Road are pending. The proposed mixed-use
development includes 710 single-family residences, 395 multi-family units, and
commercial, office and retail space.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-7 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
There are several other pending residential and commercial developments in Pender
County. Breezy Pines, a seven-lot subdivision off of Hoover Road was approved in
2007. Commercial developments are planned off of US 17 near Ravenswood Road, and
Long L,eaf Drive. Hampstead Town Center is planned on US 17 near County Club
Ro ad.
3.2.2 TRANSPORTATION PLAN5
3.2.2.1 HIGHWAY PLAN5
There are several local transportation plans that include portions of the study area:
• The Final Dra$ of the Cape Fear Commutes 2035 Transportation Plan (October 2010)
notes the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass projects
are current roadway projects in the STTP.
• The Thoroughfare Plan for Pender County North Carolina Qune 1997) shows the
Hampstead Bypass in its list of TTP projects and on its adopted Thoroughfare Plan
map (see Figure 16).
• The Coastal Pender County Collector Sti-eetPlan (May 2007) notes plans for the
Hampstead Bypass. The plan notes the opportunity to re-envision the function and
appearance of existing US 17 after the construction of the Hampstead Bypass to that
of a regional arterial and community main street with a"village boulevard" cross
section.
• The City of iilmington 20-YearTransportation Needs Qanuary 2007) discusses Market
Street Access Management Improvements. The improvements are scheduled
between Colonial Drive and Porters Neck Road.
• The Greater Vilmington Urban Area Thoroughfare Plan (2006) shows Military Cutoff
Road and the proposed extension as a major thoroughfare. The proposed
Hampstead Bypass is shown as a proposed freeway (see Figure 17).
• The Vilmington UrbanArea 2030 Long AangeTransportation Plan (2005) lists both the
Military Cutoff Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass projects as regionally
significant in terms of long-term impact on travel patterns in the Greater Wilmington
Urban Area.
• The Koadavay Corridor Of?'icialMap ofMiktary CutoffKoadExtenszon (2005) shows the
corridor the City of Wilmington has preserved for the Military Cutoff Road
Extension project (see Figure 7).
• The MarketStreet CorrzdorPlan (2004) provides strategies that will make Market Street
less congested and more attractive. The plan notes that Market Street serves as an
entrance corridor to downtown and leads to major commercial and service
destinations for both City residents and regional shoppers.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-B TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
There are two other transportation improvement projects included in the 2011-2020
Draft ST'IP in the study area (Table 3-3). The US 17 Access Management Improvements
(U-4902) are expected to reduce delays and improve safety along US 17 between
Colonial Drive and SR 1402 (Porters Neck Road). Other recent improvements to
Military Cutoff Road, Market Street and US 17 were implemented to reduce delays,
improve access, and address safety concerns. These include improvements implemented
as part of a new shopping center development at Market Street and Porters Neck Road.
Future no-build traffic projections and traffic capacity analyses performed for the subject
project assumed these other projects were constructed.
In addition, a feasibility study (FS-0803B) is underway to evaluate adding additional lanes
to existing US 17 from the US 17 Wilmington Bypass in New Hanover County to NC 50
in Onslow County. No funding for right of way acquisition or construction is included
in the 2019-2020 Drcaft STIP for this work. The additional lanes and access management
improvements are being studied in an effort to improve safety along US 17. Traffic
volumes are expected to exceed the capacity of existing US 17, even with other planned
improvements, including the Hampstead Bypass.
Table 3-3. NCDOT 2011-2020 Drcaft STIP Projects in the Study Area
STIP
Praject
Descriptian Schedule
(Draft STIP)
SR 2048 (Gordorl Road), NC 13? Intercllange Ramp
to West of US 17 Business (Market Street) - Widen to Section A: Right of way
U-3831 multi-lanes. 2.4 miles. Section A is from the NC 132 and construction in
interchange ramp to SR 2270 (Wood Sorrell Road). 2012. Section B is
Section B is from Wood Sorrell Road to west of unfunded.
Market Street.
US 17, Colonial Drive to SR 1402 (Porters Neck No right of way.
Road) - Access Management Improvements (8.6 Construction:
miles). Section A is from SR 1272 (New Centre Dr.) Section A: In progress
to Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Section B is from
U-4902 Colonial Dr. to SR 1272 (New Centre Dr.). Section C Section B: 2019
is from Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. to SR 1409 Section C: 2012
(Military Cutoff Road). Section D is from Military
Cutoff Road to SR 1402 (Porters Neck Road). Section D: 2017
3.2.2.2 TRANSIT PLANS
The Cape Fear Public Transportation Authority (Wave Transit) provides transit services
in Wilmington, most of New Hanover County, and portions of Brunswick County.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-9 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Through Wave Transit a variety of public transportation options are available, including
fixed bus routes, paratransit vans, the Front Street free trolley (serving downtown
Wilmington), Seahawk shuttle (serving the University of North Carolina Wilmington
(UNC-W) campus), Castle Hayne shutde, Brunswick Connector, and Columbus
Connector. Wave Transit Eastwood Road/Mayfair Route travels along a short section
of Military Cutoff Road south of the study area. Intercity bus services are provided by
Greyhound Bus Lines and Carolina Trailways. A new multimodal transportation center
was recently constructed in downtown Wilmington.
The Verve Short-Aange TransitPlan includes New Hanover County and northeast portions
of Brunswick County. Goals in the plan include increasing the role of transit in the
region, providing high-quality service to all residents, providing adequate funding, and
improving transit service reliability and efficiency. A Porters Neck Shutde route is
recommended in the plan along Market Street A potential park and ride facility is
shown in the plan along Market Street north of Military Cutoff Road. Military Cutoff
Road is included on the proposed Central Loop route. A satellite transfer station is
recommended east of the study area off of Military Cutoff Road.
The Final Dra$ of the Cape Fear Commutes 2035 Transportation Plan includes an express
bus route between downtown Wilmington and Hampstead and serving Scotts Hill and
Porters Neck. Future public transportation needs are also addressed in the Wilmington
Urban Area 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan.
Pender County does not currently have public transit operations in place. Pender Adult
Services provides limited van service to low-income, disabled, and/or elderly county
residents.
The study area is not currently served by passenger rail service. There is one inactive
railroad in the study area and one active railroad in the project vicinity. The inactive line
extends from Craven County to northern Brunswick County and parallels existing US 17
in the study area. The active line is operated by CSX and extends from the North
Carolina-Virginia state line in Northampton County southward to Wilmington, offering
freight services only.
3.2.2.3 BICYCLE/PEDE5TRIAN PLANS
The North Carolina Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation has designated a
cross-state system of bicycling highways. One of these designated bicycle highways,
NC Bike Route 3, runs through New Hanover and Pender Counties. Within the study
area, NC Bike Route 3 runs north-northeast from Wilmington to Hampstead along
Sidbury Road, Blue Clay Road, Holly Shelter Road, and NC 210. NC Bike Route 3 ties
into US 17 at Hampstead and continues north through Pender County.
While New Hanover County and the City of Wilmington completed a comprehensive
bicycle plan in 1979, only portions of the plan have been implemented to date. In an
effort to plan and implement missing portions of the region's bicycle system, the Bicycle
System Element program was included as part of the Greater lVibnington UrbanArea
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-1 0 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Transporlation Plan. Components include a regional bicycle system which provides a
coordinated network of bicycle facilities on locally-owned streets and state-owned roads.
This regional system is intended to accommodate longer distance bicycle trips and
provide access to regional activity centers. A local bicycle system consisting of collector
and local service facilities and neighborhood routes would also provide access to Wave
Transit routes.
Military Cutoff Road is included as part of the Southside Route identified as Bike Route
11, which connects the Middle Sound Area (near Ogden) to Carolina Beach Road.
Providing bike paths on Military Cutoff Road and on Eastwood Road from Military
Cutoff Road to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) are considered high priorities under the
Bicycle System Element program.
The Coastal Pender County Collector Sti-eetPlan 1(Vlay 2007) notes the lack of existing bicycle
and pedestrian facilities in the Pender County portion of the study area.
The Final Draft Cape Fear Commutes 2035 Transporlation Plan notes plans for several
facilities, including a multi-use path along Military Cutoff Road Extension; future bicycle
improvements along several roadways including Sidbury Road, NC 210, and Hoover
Road; the East Coast Greenway, which is proposed to follow Military Cutoff Road
Extension and the Hampstead Bypass; and the Coastal Pender Greenway along the
Progress Energy Company's transmission line right of way, between NC 210 and Sloop
Point Loop Road.
The 2010 Pender County Comprehensive Parks and Kecreation Plan includes recommendations
for several facilities in the study area, including a five-to 20-acre Island Creek
Neighborhood Park in the vicinity of NC 210 and Island Creek Road; a 20-to 75-acre
park along US 17 in the Scotts Hill area between Sidbury Road and NC 210; the Coastal
Pender Greenway; and, the Coastal Pender Rail-Trail, which would utilize the former rail
corridor along US 17 in Pender County. The Plan also recorrnnends the development of
a comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian plan, which would incorporate the bicycle
facilities recommended by the Wilmington MPO in the Cape Fear Commutes 2035
Transporlation Plan.
The primary goal of the Pedestrian Element of the Greater lVibnington UrbanArea
Transporlation Plan is to create a continuous network of safe, convenient and accessible
pedestrian facilities to and within regional activity centers and major transit facilities. A
number of action items are listed, including incorporating pedestrian plans in the
Transportation Capital Improvement Program and implementing sidewalks as part of all
transportation improvements, when feasible.
Valk lVilmington: A Comprehensive Pedestnan Plan presents a comprehensive pedestrian plan
for the City of Wilmington and was partly funded through a grant from NCDOT. The
Plan was adopted by the Wilmington City Council on August 4, 2009.
The Cross-City Trail is a proposed 20-mile, off-road, multi-use trail which will provide
bicycle and pedestrian access to numerous destinations in Wilmington. The trail is a
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-1 1 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
public-private venture that will make up part of the East Coast Greenway, a multi-use
path extending from Maine to Florida. None of the proposed Cross-City Trail will be
located in the subject study area.
3.3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERI5TIC5
3.3. 1 NOISE CHARACTERI5TIC5
Noise is basically defined as unwanted sound. It is emitted from many sources including
airplanes, factories, railroads, power generation plants, and highway vehicles. Highway
noise, or traffic noise, is usually a composite of noises from engine exhaust, drive train,
and tire-roadway interaction.
The magnitude of noise is usually described by its sound pressure. Since the range of
sound pressure varies greatly, a logarithmic scale is used to relate sound pressures to
some corrnnon reference level, usually the decibel (dB). Sound pressures described in
decibels are called sound pressure levels and are o$en defined in terms of frequency-
weighted scales (A, B, C, or D). The weighted-A decibel scale is used almost exclusively
in vehicle noise measurements because it places the most emphasis on the frequency
range to which the human ear is most sensitive (1,000-6,000 Hertz). Sound levels
measured using a weighted-A decibel scale are o$en expressed as dBA. Examples of
noise pressure levels in dBA are a jackhammer at 120 dBA, a garbage disposal at 80 dBA,
a window air-conditioner at 60 dBA, and a dripping faucet at 30 dBA.
Noise measurements were taken in the vicinity of the project to determine ambient
(existing) noise levels. This project is primarily on new location; therefore, ambient
measurements were taken in locations that were in close proximity to the study corridors.
The purpose of this noise level information was to quantify the existing acoustic
environment and to provide a base for assessing the impact of future noise level
increases. The measured current noise levels in the study area ranged from 53 dBA to
73 dBA.
3.3.2 AIR QLJALITY
Air pollution originates from various sources. Emissions from industry and internal
combustion engines are the most prevalent sources. Air quality is defined according to
criteria established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Under the
Clean Air Act, these criteria are designated as the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). Criteria have been established for six air pollutants that motor
vehicles emit carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO), hydrocarbons (F3C),
particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (SOz), and lead (Pb) Oisted in order of decreasing
emission rate).
All areas within North Carolina are designated as attainment, non-attainment, or
unclassifiable with respect to each of the six pollutants under the NAAQS. Areas that
have pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS are designated as attainment The
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-1 2 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
project is located in New Hanover and Pender counties, «-lzich have been determined to
comply IA7ith the NAAQS. The proposed project is located in an attainment area.
In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, EPA also regulates
air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human-made sources, including on-road mobile
sources, non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners), and
stationary sources (e.g., factories or refineries). Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) are a
subset of the 188 air toxics defined by the Clean Air Act. MSATs are compounds
emitted from highway vehicles and non-road equipment. The six primary MSATs are
benzene, formaldehyde, acrolein, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, and diesel exhaust.
Section 4.3.2 of this document contains a more detailed discussion of MSATs.
3.3.3 FARMLANDS
North Carolina Executive Order Number 96, Conservcation of Prinze Agricultural cand Forest
Lancls, requires all state agencies to consider the impact of land acquisition and
construction projects on prime farmland soils, as designated by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of
physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed, and
other agricultural products within allowable soil erosion tolerance. Prime farmland does
not include land already in or committed to urban development, transportation or water
storage. Table 3-4 shows prime farmland soils in the study area. Soils in the study area
are included on Figure 18.
Table 3-4. Prime Farmland Soils in the Study Area
Soil Series Mapping
Unit County
Craven fine sandy loam Cr New Hanover
Johns fine sandy loam* Jo Pender
Lynchburg fine sandy loam"` Ls New Hanover
Norfolk loamy fine sand NoB Pender
Onslow loamy fine sand On New Hanover/Pender
Pantego loam* Pn New Hanover
Rains fine sandy loam* Ra New Hanover /Pender
Torhunta mucky fne sandy
*
loam
To
New Hanover/ Pender
Woodington fine sandy loam* Wo New Hanover /Pender
[Wr:i:g:htsboro fine sandy loam Wr New Hanover
* Prime faxrnland if dxained
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-1 3 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
3.3.4 UTILITIE5
Water and wastewater services in Wilmington and New Hanover County are provided by
the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority. Sewer lines and water lines extend along Market
Street, US 17, Sidbury Road, and Military Cutoff Road. A Cape Fear Public Utility
Authority well field and water treatrnent facility is located north of Torchwood
Boulevard.
Pender County Utilities provides water and wastewater services in Pender County.
Existing sewer and water lines are present along US 17, NC 210, and Hoover Road
Other utilities vary in density from light to heavy with fiber optic, telephone,
underground telephone, power, and cable TV in residential areas and along Market
Street A natural gas line runs along Market Street There are fiber optic, telephone and
water lines located along US 17. One of AT&T's main fiber optic lines on the east coast
runs along the west side of US 17 and along an abandoned railroad right of way. There
is a water tower neat the Topsail school complex north of Hampstead.
There are power line easements near Ogden Park and in the northwestern portion of the
study area south of Island Creek Road. Power substations are located northeast of the
intersection of Military Cutoff Road and Market Street in New Hanover County and off
of St John's Church Road near County Club Road in Pender County.
3.3.5 HAZARDOU5 MATERIALS
Hazardous material sites are regulated by the Resource Conservation Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). Hazardous materials are generally defined as material or a combination
of materials that present a potential hazard to human health or the environment.
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 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.
3.3.6 MINERAL RE50URCE5
The North Carolina Departrnent of Natural Resources, Division of Land Management,
lists four permitted active mines in the study area as of August 27, 2010. The four sites
are permitted for sand and gravel operations and include: West Bay Pond Mine in New
Hanover County (see Figure 10-C), Whitehouse Creek Mine in Pender County (see
Figure 10-G), HanPen Mine in Pender County (see Figure 10-F), and Whitehead Fish
Farm Mine in Pender County (see Figure 10-F3).
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-1 4 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
3.3.7 FLOODPLAINS/FLOODWAYS
Both New Hanover County and Pender County participate in the National Flood
Insurance Regulatory Program and portions of the study area are within the 100-year
floodplain. Figures 10-A through 10-K show floodplains in the study area. There are no
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) buyout properties within the study
area.
3.3.8 PROTECTED LAND5
3.3.8.1 WILD AND SCENIC RIVER5
No Wild and Scenic Rivers are located in the study area.
3.3.8.2 STATE/NATIONAL FORE5T5
No state or national forests are located in the study area.
3.3.8.3 GAMELANDS AND PRE5ERVATION AREA5
There are several Significant Natural Heritage Areas or managed preservation areas in the
study area. These areas are described below and shown on Figures 10-A through 10-1,:-
Holly Shelter Game Land is located at the northern end of the study area. The site is
managed by the state of North Carolina and is part of a Significant Natural Heritage
Area. At over 50,000 acres, Holly Shelter Game Land is one of the highest quality areas
of pocosin habitat and savanna flatwoods remaining on the east coast. Holly Shelter
Swamp, one of the largest peat-filled pocosin basins in the southeastern U.S., makes up
approximately 75 percent of the game land. The site supports numerous rare species and
plants including rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperufifolia) and red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealzr). Red-cockaded woodpecker clusters on Holly Shelter Game
Land are part of the Coastal North Carolina Primary Core Recovery Population within
the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Recovery Unit Population. The management of the
red-cockaded woodpecker is a major function of Holly Shelter Game Land.
Blake Savannah is a Significant Natural Heritage Area located in Pender County adjacent
to Sidbury Road. The site is privately owned. Blake Savanna has a good quality example
of a rare Pine Savanna natural community variant.
Several NCDOT mitigation sites exist in the study area. NCDOT currently manages
each of these sites. The Corbett Tract Mitigation Site is an approximately 618-acre
wetland mitigation site located along the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass near the I-40
interchange. The Corbett Tract site provided 493 acres of wetlands mitigation for
impacts related to the construction of the US 17 Wilmington Bypass.
The Corbett Tract also contains a buffer strip, or residual strip, along US 17 Wilmington
Bypass approximately midway between I-40 and Market Street The 28.5-acre Corbett
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-1 5 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Tract Residual Site was not used for mitigation. However, per a January 2002 NCDOT
Biological Assessment and a May 2002 US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion,
it is intended to be maintained for conservation measures associated with endangered
species, specifically rough-leaved loosestrife.
The eastern end of the Corbett Tract Residual Site is adjacent to the northwestern corner
of the Plantation Road Site. The Plantation Road Site is used specifically for
conservation measures associated with endangered species, specifically rough-leaved
loosestrife.
Two residual sites are located along the north side of the US 17 Wilmington Bypass. A
34-Acre Residual Site is located near the northeastern corner of the Plantation Road Site.
A 22-Acre Residual Site is just west of the US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange with
Market Street The residual sites were not used directly for conservation measures or
mitigation.
There are several other Significant Natural Heritage Areas and managed areas in the
project vicinity. These sites include Sidbury Road Savanna, Castle Bay Preserve, a North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Site adjacent to Holly Shelter Game Land,
and portions of Howe, Pages and Futch creeks.
3.4 CULTURAL RE50URCE5
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
(36 CFR 800), requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their
undertaking on historic properties (including archaeological sites) and afford the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to corrnnent on the effects of
the undertaking. Since the proposed project does not use funds from the Federal
Highway Administration, but requires a federal permit from the US Army Corps of
Engineers, the USACE will serve as the lead federal agency with respect to compliance
with Section 106. The proposed project is not subject to Section 4(0 of the US DOT
Act of 1966.
3.4. 1 HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RE50URCE5
A preliminary architectural survey was conducted in January 2010 and identified a total
of 78 individual resources that were built prior to 1961 within the Area of Potential
Effects (APE). Of those resources, one is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, and the State Historic Preservation Office (F3P0) determined four other
properties required in-depth evaluations of eligibility for the National Register. These
resource locations are shown on Figures 10-C, 10-E, 10-G, and 10-I.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-1 6 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Property Listed on the National Register
Poplar Grove - This property is located on US 17 North, across from Sidbury Road in
Pender County.
Poplar Grove was erected circa 1850 for Joseph Mumford Foy, an amateur architect who
designed the residence. The antebellum Poplar Grove plantation house was erected to
face the New Bern-to-Wilmington plank road that traversed the estate. The Foy
plantation contained 64 slaves and produced naval stores, as well as peanuts, beans, corn,
and swine for northern markets. After the Civil War, the farm was owned by Joseph T.
Foy, an influential landowner, businessman, and politician who was instrumental in
linking New Bem to Wilmington by railroad. The property was listed in the National
Register in 1979 due to its associations with the prominent Foy family and its
architectural integrity.
It is recommended that the National Register Boundary be amended to exclude a new
commercial building and its 0.7 acre site, which was subdivided from the original
National Register tract along Scotts Hill Loop Road.
Properties Eligible far the National Register
Mount Ararat t1ME Church - This property is located along Market Street and Ogden
Park Drive.
Mount Ararat AlyIE Church was constructed in the Middle Sound community of New
Hanover County soon a$er Reconstruction ended. The cornerstone indicates the church
was built in 1878, although a 1985 county-wide architectural survey described it as one of
five extant buildings that dated to the 1880s. The church is notable for its early use of a
projecting entrance tower and pointed arch windows, reflecting the influence of Gothic
Revival ecclesiastical architecture. Mount Ararat AlyIE Church is recommended eligible
for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture and under Criterion
Consideration A: Religious Properties.
Wesleyan Chapel United Methodist Church - This property is located at the junction
of US 17 North and Sidbury Road.
The 1931 church is a brick-veneered, Colonial Revival edifice with a front-gable main
block, frame cupola, and both jack-arched and segmental-arched windows and entrance.
A church history states that the interior is largely intact and retains its auditorium plan
and original finishes. A church cemetery divided into sections is located behind the
church building and contains headstones that date primarily from the late nineteenth
century to recent decades. Wesleyan Chapel United Methodist Church is recommended
eligible for the National Register under Criterion C for architecture and under Criterion
Consideration A: Religious Properties.
Scotts Hill Rosenwald School - This school sits on a 1.71-acre lot facing northwest
towards US 17 North in Pender County.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-1 7 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
The school was constructed between 1926 and 1927, and is a one-room, frame building
with a one-story, front-gable form of German siding, brick foundation piers, and a shed-
roofed front entry. Original wood floors, walls, and ceiling appear to have survived.
Scotts Rosenwald School is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for both
education and African American heritage and under Criterion C for architecture.
Topsail Consolidated School - This school faces west along US 17 North in the
Hampstead community of Pender County.
Built in 1925, the vacant school is an expansive, Neo-Classical Revival building that
features a prominent, colossal portico capped by a pediment The school building has
replacement one-over-one, wood sash windows throughout, but original brick lintels
with soldier courses and cast-stone decorative treatrnents remain intact. Plaster walls,
wood ceilings, and wood-paneled classroom doors also remain intact Topsail
Consolidated School is eligible for the National Register under Criterion A for education
and Criterion C for architecture.
3.4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RE50LJRCES
Due to the number of detailed study alternatives, an intensive archaeological survey has
not been initiated. A$er the selection of a preferred corridor, an archaeological
investigation will be conducted pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the guidelines issued by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation.
3.4. 3 TRI BAL LAN D5
There are no American Indian tribal lands in the project study area.
3.5 NATLJRAL ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS
Field investigations were conducted by qualified biologists between February 14, 2008
and June 23, 2010 to assess the existing natural environment within the study area.
Details of the methodology and investigations supporting the information provided in
this section are provided in the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) completed
in August 2010, appended by reference.
3.5. 1 SOIL5/TOP0GRAPHY/GEOLOGY
A limited geotechnical investigation was completed by NCDOT in December 2008 to
evaluate subsurface conditions. The investigation consisted of a field reconnaissance
visit and review of existing subsurface data in the study area to determine the suitability
of subgrade material and ground water depth.
The proposed project lies within the Coastal Plain Physiographic Province. Topography
in the study area is nearly level with numerous creeks bisecting the upland areas.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-1 B TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Elevations in the study area range from 10 to 65 feet above mean sea level. Existing
US 17 follows an upland ridge. Northwest of US 17, the project lies within the
Northeast Cape Fear River drainage basin and surface water flows to the northwest.
Southeast of US 17, surface water flows into Topsail and Middle Sound. Subsurface
drainage is typically poorly drained to well drained.
The geology within the study area consists of mostly undivided coastal plain sediments
consisting of granular and less abundant cohesive soils. The majority of these soils
exhibit excellent to gnod engineering properties and are suitable for embankment
construction.
Northwest of US 17 and north of the developed area of Wilmington, surficial organic
soils are present as topsoil and vary from one to three feet thick. Most of the creeks in
the study area contain five to 15 feet of organic soils in associated floodplains. Carolina
Bays are present in the study area. The bays typically contain organic soils. The organic
soils exhibit poor engineering properties.
Limestone of the Ecocene age Castle Hayne formation was encountered in the study
area near sea level. Sinkholes are present in the study area due to collapse of the
limestone layers.
The New Hanover County Soil Survey identifies 20 soil unit types within the New
Hanover County portion of the study area. Additionally, the Pender County Soil Survey
identifies 17 soil unit types within the Pender County portion of the study area. Table
3-5 below lists the soils series, drainage class, and hydric statzis for these units.
Table 3-5. Soils in the Stzidy Area
Soil Series Mapping
Unit Draiiiage Class Hydric
Sta,tus County
Alpin firie sand 11nB Excessively DLained HydLYC* Perlder
Autryville fine sand AuB Well Drained Hydtic* Pender
Baymeade fine sand Be
BaB NXlell Drained Hydric* New Hanover
Pender
Ciaven fine sandy loam1 Ct Moderately Well Drained Hydric* New Hanover
Dorovan soils DO Very Poorly Drained Hydric New Hanover
Foreston loainy fine sand Fo Moderately Well Dtained Hydric* Pender
]ohns fine sandy loam2 ]o Somewhat Poorly Drained Hydric* Pender
Johnston soils JO Very Poorly Drained Hydric New Hanover
Kureb sand I? B Excessively Drained Hydric* N Pender
Leon sand L? Poorly Drained Hydric N PeHndeovet
1 yn?chburg fine sandy Ls Somewhat Poorly Drained Hydric* New Hanover
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-1 9 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-5. Soils in the Study Area continued

Soil Series Mappiiiy
Unit
Drainage Class Hydric
Sta,tus
County
Lyrul HaSreii fine sand Ly Poorly Drained Hydric Ne«r HanoSrer
Mandarin fine sand Ma Somewhat Poorly Drained Hydric* Pender
Marvyn and Craven soils McC Moderately/Well Drained Hydric* Pender
Muckalee loam Mk Poorly Dtained Hydric Pender
Munrille muck Mu Very Pooily Drained Hydric New Hanover
Pender
Norfolk loamy fine sandl NoB Well Drained Hydric* Pender
Onslow loamy fine sandl On Moderately Well/
Somewhat Poorly Drained Hydric* New Hanover
Pender
Pactolus fine sand PaA Modeiately Well/
Somewhat Poorl Drained Hydric* Pender
Pantego loam2 Pn Very Poorly Drained Hydric New Hanover
Rains fine sandy loam2 Ra Poorly Drained Hydric New Hanover
Pender
Rimini sand Rm Excessively Drained Hydric* New Hanover
Seagate fine sand Se Somewhat Poorly Drained Hydric* New Hanover
Stallings fine sand St Somewhat Poorly Drained Hydric* New Hanover
Torhunta mucky fine
sand loamz
To
Very Poorly Dtained
Hydric New Hanover
Pender
Utban land Ur None Nonhydric New Hanovet
Wakulla sand Wa Somewhat Excessively
Drained Nonhydric New Hanovet
Woodington fine sandy
loam2 Wo Poorly Drained HYdric New Hanover
Pender
W?ghtsboro fine sandy
o Wi Moderately Well Dtained Nonhydric New Hanovei
*Soils which axe prirnarily nonhydric, but which contain hydric inclusions
1 All axeas axe pxime faxmland
2 Prirne familand if dxained
3.5.2 BIOTIC COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE
Biotic resources in the study area include both terrestrial and aquatic communities. The
composition of these communities is reflective of the topography, soils, hydrologic
influences, and past and present land uses. The following sections describe the existing
vegetation and associated wildlife that have been identified within the study area.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-20 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
3.5.2. 1 TERRE5TRIAL GOMMUNITIE5 AND WILDLIFE
3.5.2. 1. 1 TERRE5TRIAL GDMMUNITIE5
Fifteen terrestrial communities were identified in the study area. Figures 19-A through
19-K show the location and extent of these terrestrial communities. Table 3-6
summarizes the terrestrial community coverage within the study area.
Maintained/Di sturb ed
This community consists of areas that are periodically maintained by human influences,
such as roadside and power line rights of way, regularly mowed lawns, commercial and
industrial properties, and open areas. All of these land uses tend to have similar
vegetation, with few large trees and abundant herbaceous cover. The tree species
observed in the study area include loblolly pine, red maple, sweet-gum, live oak, black
clzerry, white oak, and longleaf pine; however, residential properties tended to have a
wide range of large tree species. Two common shrubs to this vegetative sub-type,
observed occurring both naturally and as escaped plants, are wild and cultivated roses
and wax myrtle. Fescue is the dominant groundcover species throughout most of these
areas. Other groundcover and herbaceous species included goldenrod, broomsedge,
dog-fennel, Bermuda grass and Japanese honeysuckle.
Table 3-6. Coverage of Terrestrial Communities in the Study Area
Community Coverage :(ac:res}]
Nlaintaii-led/Disturbed 2,942.4
Mesic Pine Flatwoods 1,627.9
Wet Pine Flatwoods 850.2
Pond Pine Woodland 519.0
Pocosin 517.8
Xeric Sandhill Scriib 359.5
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood - Blackwater Sub e 288.7
Nonriverine Wet Hard-,vood Forest 263.2
Pine Savanna 192.4
Cutover 176.1
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swarn - Blackwater Sub e 162.6
C ress/Gum Swam - Blackwater Sub e 140.5
Nonriverine Swamp Forest 58.3
Small Depression Pocosin 20.0
Small De ression Pond 4.3
TOTAL 8,422.9
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-21 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Mesic Pine Flatwoods
This community is found on mesic (non-wetland) sites of either flat or rolling coastal
plain sediments. These sites are neither excessively drained nor have a significant
seasonal high water table. In the study area, Mesic Pine Flatwoods commonly occurred
on the breaks of interstream divides. This community has a closed to open canopy of
longleaf pine, sometimes mixed with loblolly pine.
The understory is sparse (in frequently burned sites) to dense (in unburned sites), and
contains species such as southern red oak, water oak, post oak, blackjack oak, mockernut
hickory, and sweet-gum. A low shrub layer of varying density is usually present.
Common species include inkberry, large gallberry, fetterbush, sweet bay, red bay, giant
cane, and creeping blueberry. The herb layer is generally dominated by wiregrass in
frequently burned areas, with bracken fern dominant in patches. Other typical herb
species included broomstraw and panic grass.
Wet Pine Flatwoods
This community occurs on seasonally wet to usually wet sites, generally on flat or nearly
flat coastal plain sediments. While seasonally saturated, this community may become
quite dry for part of the year. Wet Pine Flatwoods are most commonly observed in
broad areas of interstream divides. In the study area, this community has a canopy of
longleaf, loblolly or pond pine, or any combination of the three. The understory is
sometimes absent but usually contains invading hardwoods. The shrub layer varies in
density and contains species similar to those in the Mesic Pine Flatwoods community.
The herb layer is generally dominated by wiregrass, with bracken fern dominating locally.
Other typical herbs included broomstraw and panic grass.
Pond Pine Woodland
This community occurs on poorly drained interstream flats that are temporarily flooded
or saturated. The Pond Pine Woodland community has an open to nearly closed canopy
of pond pine, sometimes codominant with loblolly bay, and commonly includes lesser
amounts of sweet bay, red maple, loblolly pine, and swamp bay. The shrub layer is
usually tall and very dense unless recently burned. Common shrubs are titi, fetterbush,
inkberry, large gallberry, sweet pepperbush, and swamp bay. Giant cane is o$en present
in the shrub layer and laurel greenbrier is also common. Herbs are nearly absent under
the dense woody cover, although occasional Virginia chain-fern, netted chain-fern, and
moss clumps were observed.
Pocosin
This community occurs on central to intermediate parts of domed peatlands on poorly
drained interstream flats, and peat-filled Carolina bays and swales. In the study area,
Pocosins were commonly observed serving as headwater wetlands to small coastal plain
streams. A dense shrub layer between four to eight feet tall is corrnnon, with little
evidence of fire. Pocosins are dominated by fetterbush, titi, and inkberry, with abundant
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-22 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
laurel greenbrier. Scattered pond pine, swamp bay, loblolly bay, and sweet bay were also
commonly observed. Herbs are usually nearly absent beneath the dense shrub layer.
Xeric Sandhill Scrub
This community consists of coarse, deep sands of ridge and swale systems, Carolina bay
rims, and sandy uplands. These areas are the driest in the coastal plain. In the study
area, the Xeric Sandhill Scrub community most commonly occurs on the sand ridge rims
of pocosin-like Carolina bays. This community has an open canopy of longleaf pine, with
an open to dense understory of turkey oak. Occasional sassafras and persimmon were
observed. A sparse low shrub layer consisting primarily of huckleberry and poison oak is
sometimes present A sparse to moderately dense herb layer consists of species such as
wiregrass and spikemoss.
Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood Forest - Blackwater Subtype
This corrnnunity is seasonally to intermittently flooded, and is commonly observed on
the floodplains of larger streams in the study area. Bottomland hardwoods are expected
to form a stable climax forest, having an uneven-aged canopy with primarily gap phase
regeneration. The canopy is dominated by various combinations of bottomland
hardwoods and conifers. Species observed include laurel oak, water oak, red maple,
loblolly pine, and sweet-gum. The understory includes red maple, swamp bay, American
holly, and sweet bay. The shrub layer is o$en well developed and sometimes includes
dense titi and giant cane. Vines are sometimes dense with corrnnon greenbrier, poison
ivy, muscadine, and supplejack. The herb layer is poorly developed but includes
occurrences of Christrnas fern, Virginia chain-fern, netted chain-fern, and royal fern.
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
This community occurs on poorly drained interstream flats not associated with rivers or
estuaries. These sites are seasonally saturated or flooded by high water tables, poor
drainage, and by sheet flow from adjacent pocosins. The community is dominated by
various hardwood trees typical of bottomlands. Common species include swamp
chestnut oak, laurel oak, yellow poplar, sweet-gum, red maple, and swamp blackgum.
The understory includes species such as musclewood, red maple, and American holly.
The shrub layer is generally sparse to moderately dense. Species include spicebush,
swamp bay, coastal doghobble, sweet pepperbush, highbush blueberry, wax myrtle, giant
cane, swamp palmetto, and beauty-berry. Vines such as crossvine, poison ivy, trumpet
creeper, and grape vines are common. The herb layer includes sedges, lizard's tail, false
nettle, Christrnas fern, and netted chain-fern.
Pine Savanna
This community occurs on wet, generally flat areas that are seasonally saturated by a high
or perched water table. These communities naturally experience frequent, fairly low
intensity surface fires. The Pine Savanna community has an open to sparse canopy of
longleaf pine with pond pine sometimes codominating or dominating. Scattered
inkberry, creeping blueberry, wax myrtle and other shrubs are o$en present The herb
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-23 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
layer is generally dense, unless recently burned, and is very diverse, with grasses, sedges,
composites, orchids, and lilies particularly prominent Insectivorous plants such as
Venus flytrap, yellow pitcher plant, purple pitcher plant, and sundew are commonly
observed.
Cutover
This corrnnunity consists of areas that have been logged within five years and are in early
forest succession stages. Small loblolly and pond pines are common growing beneath
larger shrub and herbaceous species that are first to establish dominance in these areas.
Aside from the pines, the dominant species include sweet-gum, red maple, inkberry, wax
myrtle, red chokeberry, fetterbush, greenbrier, blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle,
broomsedge, and goldenrods.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - Blackwater Subtype
This corrnnunity is found on floodplains of small blackwater streams. Blackwater
streams, in contrast to brownwater, tend to have highly variable flow regimes, with
floods of short duration, and periods of very low flow resulting in the community being
intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. The canopy is dominated by various
combinations of bald cypress, swamp blackgum, and various other blackwater river
floodplain species including sweet-gum, yellow poplar, red maple, laurel oak, swamp
chestnut oak, river birch, loblolly pine, and pond pine. The understory is similarly
variable. Species include musclewood, red maple, American holly, sweet bay, swamp
bay, and titi. The shrub layer ranges from sparse to dense and almost pocosin-like.
Dominant species include coastal doghobble and fetterbush. Vines, particularly poison
ivy, greenbrier, laurel greenbrier, and supplejack are common.
Cypress/Gum Swamp - Blackwater Subtype
Cypress/Gum Swamp corrnnunities are common in the lower and middle parts of the
coastal plain. This community is found in backswamps, sloughs, swales, and featureless
floodplains of blackwater rivers, and is seasonally to semi-permanently flooded. In the
study area, this corrnnunity most commonly occurs as backswamp areas to larger
perennial streams and open bodies of water. The canopy is dominated by swamp
blackgum, bald cypress, or pond cypress. The understory and shrub layer are usually
poorly developed or absent Swamp blackgum and red maple are the most typical
species, with swamp bay, sweet bay and buttonbush occurring in places. Observed shrub
species include titi and fetterbush. The herb layer ranges from nearly absent to moderate
cover. Species include lizard's tail, sedge, and netted chain-fern.
Nonriverine Swamp Forest
This community is observed on wet, very poorly drained upland flats that are saturated at
least seasonally or are shallowly flooded by the high water table. The canopy contains
varying mixtures of pond cypress, bald cypress, swamp tupelo, loblolly pine, pond pine,
yellow poplar, and red maple. Understory species that were observed include sweet bay,
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-24 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
swamp bay, titi, fetterbush, sweet pepperbush, blueberry, and laurel greenbrier. Typical
herbs include Virginia chain-fern, netted chain-fern, sedges, and sphagnum moss.
Small Depression Pocosin
This corrnnunity occurs in the form of small Carolina bays and other small depressions
in upland, usually sandy areas. These areas are seasonally flooded or intermittently
exposed and may receive drainage from surrounding sandy areas. In the study area, this
community commonly occurs in areas mapped with Autryville and Baymeade soil types.
A dense to fairly dense shrub layer was observed, with species including fetterbush, titi,
inkberry, sweet pepperbush, dangleberry, blueberry, and lamb-kill. The canopy is usually
dominated by pond pine, red maple, or swamp bay, with associated sweet bay, swamp
blackgum, pond cypress, loblolly pine and loblolly bay. Laurel greenbrier is common.
Herbs are generally sparse, but cinnamon fern, Virginia chain-fern, netted chain-fern, and
sedges were observed.
Small Depression Pond
This community occurs in the form of sinkholes, Carolina bays, and other upland
depressions that are permanently flooded in the center and grade outward to the
prevailing hydrology of the surrounding area. This community is also generally
associated with upland soils such as Autryville and Baymeade, but sometimes occurs
within larger wetland complexes. These ponds are surrounded by a pocosin-like density
of shrubs and include species such as titi, fetterbush, and inkberry, along with distinctive
pond-shore species such as buttonbush. Scattered pond cypress and swamp blackgum
were observed. Shallow water and exposed edges may contained a variety of emergent
and wetland plants, including panic grass, spike-rush and other rush species, a number of
sedge species, sundew, and often Virginia chain-fern.
3.5.2. 1.2 INVASIVE EXOTIC PLANT SPECIES
Fi$een species from the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina were
found to occur in the study area. The species identified were tree of heaven (Threat level
1), Chinese privet (I'hreat level 1), multiflora rose (Threat level F, Japanese grass (Threat
level 1), kudzu (Threat level 1), hydrilla (I'hreat level 1), mimosa (Threat level 2), autumn
olive (Threat level 2), shrub lespedeza (Threat level 2), bamboo (Threat level 2), Johnson
grass (Threat level 2), English ivy (I'hreat level 2), Japanese honeysuckle (I'hreat level 2),
Chinese wisteria (I'hreat level 2), and Bradford pear (I'hreat level 3).
3.5.2.1.3 TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE
Terrestrial communities in the study area are comprised of both natural and disturbed
habitats that may support a diversity of wildlife species. Species observed during field
investigations are discussed below. Species for which there was evidence in the form of
scat or tracks are also included in the discussion.
Mammal species that were observed utilizing forested habitats and stream corridors
within the study area include beaver, black bear, coyote, bobcat, Eastern cottontail, gray
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-25 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
squirrel, muskrat, cotton mouse, raccoon, gray fox, Virginia opossum, wild pig, white-
tailed deer, and woodchuck. Birds that were observed using forest and forest edge
habitats include American bittern, crow, woodcock, Carolina chickadee, bobwhite quail,
cardinal, Carolina wren, common flicker, downy woodpecker, red-bellied woodpecker,
Eastern bluebird, mockingbird, mourning dove, myrtle warbler, pine warbler, prairie
warbler, tu$ed titrnouse, prothonotary warbler, wild turkey, wood thrush, and yellow-
rumped warbler. Birds observed using the open habitat or water bodies within the study
area include bald eagle, belted kingfisher, Canada goose, Cooper's hawk, field sparrow,
gray catbird, great blue heron, laughing gull, ring-billed seagull, mallard, osprey, red-tailed
hawk, turkey vulture, and red-winged blackbird. Reptile and amphibian species observed
using terrestrial communities in the study area include black racer, eastern box turtle,
eastem fence lizard, eastern king snake, five-lined skink, eastern garter snake, green
anole, rat snake, six-lined racerunner, rough green snake, copperhead, canebrake
ratdesnake, spring peeper, and southem toad.
3.5.2.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIE5 AND WILDLIFE
Aquatic communities in the study area consist of perennial and intermittent coastal plain
streams, swamps, small depression ponds, and maintained farm ponds. These
communities can support various fish, reptile, and amphibian species, as well as mollusks
and crustaceans. Species observed in or along perennial streams in the study area include
brown water snake, snapping turtle, bluegill, Eastern crayfish, green treefrog, barking
treefrog, and water moccasin. Intermittent streams in the study area are relatively small
in size but were observed supporting crayfish, yellowbelly slider, bullfrogs, and various
benthic macroinvertebrates. Pond and swamp habitats support bluegill, largemouth bass,
snapping turtle, crayfish, bullfrogs, American alligator, spotted turtle, green treefrog,
brown water snake, and water moccasin.
3.5.3 WATER RE50URCE5
Descriptions of water resources identified in the study area during field investigations
include physical and water quality characteristics, best usage classifications, and
relationships to major regional drainage systems. Water resources in the study area are
part of the Cape Fear River basin (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] Hydrologic Units
03030007 and 03020302).
3.5.3.1 GROUNDWATER
Groundwater data indicate the groundwater surface is typically one to four feet below
the natural ground surface. Lateral ditches along existing roads appear to be functioning
adequately. Portions of five different aquifers are located within the study area.
Descriptions of the aquifers are provided below.
Castle Hayne Aquifer
The Castle Hayne aquifer is located in both the New Hanover and Pender County
portions of the study area. In addition to supplying some industrial and agricultural
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-26 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
usages, a number of municipal well fields are supplied by the aquifer. These municipal
areas include the City of Wilmington, New Hanover beach towns, the New Hanover
County water system, Topsail Island, and Surf City. According to the North Carolina
Division of Water Resources, the Castle Hayne aquifer is the state's most productive
aquifer. Wells associated with this aquifer yield 200-500 gallons per minute (gpm) on
average, although the yield can reach more than 2,000 gpm.
Peedee Aquifer
The Peedee aquifer is present in the New Hanover County portion of the study area.
The Peedee aquifer supplies well fields used by New Hanover County. On average, wells
associated with this aquifer yield up to 200 gpm.
Black Creek, Upper Cape Fear, and Lower Cape Fear Aquifers
Black Creek, Upper Cape Fear, and L,ower Cape Fear aquifers are present in the study
area. However, New Hanover and Pender Counties depend litde, if any, on these
aquifers for water supply, due to their increased salinity.
3.5.3.1.1 WELL5
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Health data indicate there are numerous public water supply wells in the
study area. The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority in New Hanover County has several
existing and proposed well sites associated with their Nano Water Treatrnent Plant.
3.5.3.2 SLJRFACE WATERS
3.5.3.2.1 STREAMS
A total of 134 streams were identified in the study area (Table 3-7). Streams within the
detailed study alternative corridors are shown in Figures 10-A through 10-K. Four
streams within one mile downstream of the study area have been designated High
Quality Water (F3QW), and one stream within one mile downstream of the study area
has been designated Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) by the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQJ. 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 (X1S-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.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-27 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-7. Physical Characteristics of Streams within Study Area

Strearn
ID

Stream Name Bank

Height
feet Bankful

Width
feet Water

Depth
inches
Channel
Substrate

Velocity

Clarity Length in

Study Area
feet
Streain
Determination
ASA UT to Spring Branch 6-; 10 - 12 4-6 Saizd Slow Clear 977 Pereizizial
BSA UT to Smith Creek 6-7 8- 10 6- 10 Sand Slow Slightly Turbid 799.63 Perennial
BS UT to Smith Creek 5-6 S- 10 2-4 Sand Slow Sli htl Turbid 2,466.12 Perennial
BSK UT to Smith Creek 5-6 S- 10 4-6 Sand Slow Slightly Turbid 3,012.17 Perennial
BSL UT to Smith Creek 5-6 8- 1() 4-8 Sand Slow Sli htl Turbid 318.06 Perennial
BSM UT to Smith Creek 6-7 15 - 20 4-6 Sand Slow Slightly Turbid 1,065.21 Perennial
BSN UT to Smith Creek 6-7 15 - 20 4-6 Sand Slow Sli htl Turbid 970.2 Perennial
BSO UT to Smith Creek 6-7 15 - 20 12 - 18 Sand Slow Turbid 2,401.7 Perennial
BSP UT to Smith Creek 5-6 15 - 18 8- 16 Sand/Gravel Moderate Sli htl Turbid 1,342.78 Perennial
BSQ UT to Smith Creek 5-6 15 - 18 8- 16 Sand/Gravel Moderate Sli htl Turbid 450.13 Perennial
BDITCHI UT
H
C
k 3 7 4
12 S
d Sl T
bid 254.09 C)HWMI
to
owe
ree - an ow ur 513.01
CSA UT to Island Creek 6-7 10 - 12 12 - 16 Sand Slow Turbid 3,021.2$ Perennial
CSS UT to Island Creek 6-8 12 - 15 12 - 16 Sand Slow Turbid 2175.34 Perennial
CSC UT to Smith Creek 4-5 S- 10 4-8 Sand Stagnant Slightly Turbid 944.11 OHWMl
CSD UT
S
i
h C
k 4
5 8
10 4
8 S
d S Sli
h
l
T
bid 2,470.29 Intermittent
to
m
t
ree - - - an tagnant g
t
y
ur 1,087.24 Perennial
CSE UT to Smith Creek 3-4 6-8 2-4 Sand Stagnant Slightly Turbid 629.51 OHWMl
CSF UT to Smith Creek 2 3-4 2 Sand Stagnant Slightly Turbid 161.59 OHWM1
CSG UT to Smith Creek 6-7 12 - 15 4-8 Sand Sta ant Sli htl Turbid 499.56 Intermittent
CSH UT to Smith Creek 6-7 12 - 15 6- 10 Sand Slow Sligl-itly Turbid 832.96 Interinittent
CSI UT to Smith Creek 6-7 12 - 1S 6- 10 Sand Sta ant Sli htl Turbid 1,070.75 Perennial
CSJ UT to Island Creek 6-7 12 - 15 4-6 Sand Stagnant Slightly Turbid 1,503.26 Perennial
CSK UT to Island Creek 5-6 1Q - 14 4-8 Sand/Gravel Slow Clear 399.56 Perennial
DSA UT to Island Creek 6-8 12 - 15 12 - 16 Sand Slow Turbid 3,486.92 Perennial
ESA UT to Mill Creek 2 6 4- 24 Sand Slow Slightly Turbid 1,431.43 Perennial
US 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-28 TIP NOS. U-4751 S< R-3300
Table 3-7. Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area continued

Strearn
ID

Stream Name Bank

Height
(feet) Bankful

Width
(feet) Water

Depth
(inches)
Channel
Substrate

Velocity

Clarity Length in

Study Area
(feet)
Streain
Determination
ESB UT to Nlill Creek 2 3 3-8 Sand Slo?x Sli htlv Turbid 245.43 PereiZiiial
FSA UT to Island Creek 3-6 12 0.5 - 36 Sand Moderate Clear/Tannic 4,475.76 Perennial
FSB UT to Island Creek 4-5 12 12 - 24 Sand Moderate Clear/Tannic 1,085.48 Intermittent
FSC UT to Island Creek 2-4 8 6- 12 Sand Slow Clear 538.43 Intermittent
FSD UT to Island Creek 4-5 2 2 Sand Slow Clear 120.33 Intermittent
FSE UT to Island Creek 1-2 2-3 6- 12 Sand/Cla Slow Clear/Tannic 1,609.51 Perennial
FSF l
d C
k
UT
I 6
8 4 12
24 d
S S Cl
i
T 526.05 oHwMl
to
s
an
ree - - an tagnant ear/
ann
c 916.85
100.63 ol-iwMl
FSH UT
I
l
d C
k 4
6 8
10 12
24 S
d M
d Cl
T
i 269.69
to
s
an
ree - - - an o
erate ear/
ann
c 713.05 Intermittent
1,163.97 Perennial
FSI UT to Island Creek 2-4 6-8 6- 24 Sand Moderate Clear/Tannic 568.64 Perennial
FS UT to Island Creek 3-6 3-6 0.5 - 36 Sand Moderate Clear/Tannic 858.61 Intermittent
FSK UT to Island Creek 1-2 2-4 3- 12 Sand Slow Tannic 1295.5 Intermittent
GFSE UT to Island Creek 4 8 6-36 Sand Fast Clear/Tannic 1176.4 Perennial
GSA UT to Island Creek 0.5 - 2 4 6- 12 Sand Moderate Clear/Tannic 417.82 Perennial
GSS UT to Island Creek 3-6 8- 12 24 - 4S Sand Sta ant Clear/Tannic 259.38 Intermittent
GSG UT to Island Creek 6-8 $ 12 - 4S Sand Stagnant Clear/Tannic 913.05 Intermittent
GSX UT to Island Creek 1 5 6-10 Sand Moderate Clear/Tannic 392.87 Perennial
HP>SA UT to Island Creek 2-3 2-3 6- 18 Sand Slow Clear 1,892.57 Perennial
HBSAA UT
I
l
d C
k 2
5 5 3
6 S
d Sl Cl 349.96 Intermittent
to
s
an
ree - - an ow ear 1,564.99 Perennial
HMSB UT to Island Creek 2-3 2.5 - 3 3-6 Sand Slow Clear 535.6 Interrnittent
HBSC l
d C
k
UT
I 1
3 5
2
3 6
12 d
S Sl Cl 420.97 Interrnittent
to
s
an
ree - .
- - an ow ear 1,343.94 Perennial
HP
SD
1 UT
I
d C
k
l 1
3 2
5
3 G
1Q S
d Sl Cl 625.05 Intermittent
a
(
) to
s
an
ree - .
- - an ow ear 544.09 Perennial
US 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-29 TIP NOS. U-4751 S< R-3300
Table 3-7. Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area continued

Strearn Bank Bankful Water
Channel Length in
Streain
Stream Name Height Width Depth Velocity Clarity Study Area
ID Substrate Determination
{feet} (feet) (inches) (feet)
HSSD 2 UT to Island Creek 2- 4 12 - 15 6- 24 Saiid Slo?- Clear;`Tai-ii-iic i,326.24 PereiZiZial
HBSE UT to Island Creek 2-3 1-2 G- 12 Sand Stagnant Clear/Tannic 406.4 Perennial
HBSF Island Creek 2-4 8- 12 3- 36 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 5,430.04 Perennial
HBSG UT to Island Creek 2-4 12 - 12 6- 24 Sand Slow Clear 2,552.85 Perennial
HBSH UT to Island Creek 2-3 2 1-4 Sand Slow Clear 391.78 Intermittent
UT to Harrisons
HSA ? 5 1-6 Sand Stagnant Clear 103.52 Intermittent
reek
C
UT to Harrisons
HSB 1 5 1-6 Sand Stagnant Clear 789.7 Intermittent
Creek
UT to Harrisons
HSC 2-3 5 1-6 Sand Stagnant Clear 3,382.55 Perennial
Creek
UT to Harrisons
HSCA 1-2 2-3 1-6 Sand Slow Clear 225.37 Intermittent
Creek
UT to Harrisons
HSD 2 2-4 2- 10 Sand Slow Clear 176.33 Intermittent
Creek
HSE UT to Island Creek 0.5 - 1 2 1-6 Sand Moderate Clear 66.9 Intermittent
UT to Harrisons
HSX 0.5 - 2 6-$ 6- 24 Sand Moderate Clear/Tannic 1,241.32 Perennial
Creek
UT to Harrisons
HSZ 2-3 2-4 6- 18 Sand Moderate Slightly Turbid 176.39 Perennial
Creek
UT to Harrisons
HDITCHI 6-8 8 12-24 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 2,041.86 OHWM1
Creek
UT to Harrisons
HDITCH2 6-8 8 12-24 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 1691.7 OHWM1
Creek
ISA l
d C
k
UT
I 5
0
1 5
() 3
6 d
S d
M Cl 392•6 Intermittent
to
s
an
ree .
- - 1 - an o
erate ear 797.73 Perennial
ISB UT to Island Creek 0-1 S -15 3-9 Sand Moderate Clear 1,573.06 Perennial
UT to Harrisons 616
06 Intermittent
ISC 1
0
5 5 6
12 S
d M
d Cl .
Creek -
' - an o
erate ear 615.71 Perennial
US 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-30 TIP NOS. U-4751 S< R-3300
Table 3-7. Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area continued

Strearn Bank Bankful Water
Channel Length in
Streain
Stream Name Height Width Depth Velocity Clarity Study Area
ID
(feet)
(feet)
(inches) Substrate
(feet) Determination
ISD UT to Harrisons 0 5- 2 6-8 6- 24 Sand Vloderate Clear/Tannic 1,35().()7 Perennial
Creek
UT to Harrisons
IDITCHI 6-8 5 6-12 Sand Fast Clear/Tannic 1,775.16 OHWM1
Creek
51
109
T
ld T
il . offwMl
JSA U
to O
opsa 3 3 2-6 Sand Slow Sli
htl
Turbid 671
96
k
C g
y .
ree 1,16$.01 Intermittent
UT to Old Topsail
JSB 2 3 2-6 Sand Slow Slightly Turbid 523.77 Intermittent
Creek
UT to Old Topsail
JSC 3 3 2-6 Sand Slow Clear 729.48 Intermittent
Creek
SD UT to Old Topsail 2 3 3
12 S
d Sl Cl 1,049.63 Intermittent
J Creek - an ow ear 1,314.95 Perennial
UT to Harrisons
LSA d_ 6 20 48 - 60 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 709.2$ Perennial
Creek
LSAA UT to Harrisons 0.5-1 3-5 6-12 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 330.44 Perennial
Creek
UT to Harrisons
LSAB 0.5-1 3-5 2-6 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 216.05 OHWM1
Creek
UT to Harrisons
IS$ 0.5 - 1 3-8 3-6 Silt/Sand Moderate Clear 2,341.71 Perennial
Creek
LSC Harrisons Creek 1-3 1Q - 15 3-9 Sand Moderate Clear 2,897.09 Perennial

LSCA UT to Harrisons
5
0
1
4
2
6
Sil
d
S
d
M
Cl 353.54 Intermittent
-
• - t/
an o
erate ear
Creek 503.33 Perennial
UT to Harrisons
LSCAA 1 3 2-6 Silt/Sand Moderate Clear 530.3 Perennial
Creek
LSC$ UT to Harrisons Q_ Q 5 6 2-6 Silt/Sand Moderate Clear 877.37 Perennial
Creek
US 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-31 TIP NOS. U-4751 S< R-3300
Table 3-7. Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area continued

Strearn Bank Bankful Water
Channel Length in
Streain
Stream Name Height Width Depth Velocity Clarity Study Area
ID Substrate Determination
(feet) (feet) (inches) (feet)
UT to Harrisons
LSCBA 4- 0.5 3 1-3 Silt/Sand Slo-v7
Clear
65.75
OH?X1M1
Creek
UT to Harrisons
LSCC 3_ 4 4 2-6 Silt/Sand Slow Turbid 456.63 Perennial
Creek
UT to Harrisons
LSCD 1-2 2 1-3 Silt/Sand Moderate Clear 203.29 Intermittent
Creek
UT to Harrisons
LSCE 3_ 4 4 1-3 Silt/Sand Slow Turbid 210.14 Intermittent
Creek
UT to Harrisons
LSCF 3_ 4 3 1-3 Silt/Gravel Moderate Clear 167.22 Intermittent
Creek
LSD Godfre Creek 1-2 10 2-6 Sand Slow Clear 2,570.01 Perennial
LSDA UT to Godfre Creek 3 2 2-6 Silt/Sand Slow Turbid 1012.8 Intermittent
LSE UT to Godfrey Creek 2-3 5- 10 2-6 Sand Moderate Clear 1,4$4.12 Perennial
LTRj131 UT to Godfrey Creek 2-3 5- 10 2-6 Silt/Sand Slow Turbid 703.55 OHWM1
UT t
mpeters
MSA W? ? 4 1-3 Sand Slow Clear 125.1 Intermittent
S
P
UT t
mpeters
MSAA SW? 3 4 1-3 Sand Moderate Clear 226.14 OH?X1M1

UT t
mpeters
MSB Sw? 2 6 2- 1Q Silt/Sand Slow Clear 1002.8 Perennial
P
112SC UT to Godfre Creek 10 3 2- 12 Sand Moderate Clear/Tannic 1,388.7 Perennial
MSCA UT to Godfrey Creek 5 7 6-18 Sand Fast Clear/Tannic 445.65 Perennial
MSD Godfre Creek 0.5 - 1 7 2- 24 Sand Moderate Clear/Tannic 1,193.96 Perennial
689.23 OHWMl
MSDA UT to Godfrey Creek 3-4 2 2-6 Sand Moderate Clear 186.09 Intermittent
152.75 Perennial
UT to Harrisons
MSE 0.5 3 2- 10 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 236.97 Perennial
Creek
MSF Harrisons Creek 0.5 S- 10 12 - 36 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 1,255.75 Perennial
US 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-32 TIP NOS. U-4751 S< R-3300
Table 3-7. Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area continued

Strearn
ID

Stream Name Bank

Height
(feet) Bankful

Width
(feet) Water

Depth
(inches)
Channel
Substrate

Velocity

Clarity Length in

Study Area
(feet)
Streain
Determination
MSFA UT to Harrisons
Creek 0 5- 1 2 2-8 Sand Vloderate Clear 448.66 Perennial
MSFS UT to Harrisons
Creek Q 5- 1 2 1-4 Sand Slow Clear 133.24 Intermittent
MSI UT t
G
df
C
k 3 2
3 3
6 S
d F Cl 274.01 OHWM1
o
o
rey
ree - - an ast ear 744.77 Intermittent
NIDITCHI UT to Godfrey Creek 5 7 6-18 Sand Stagnant Clear/Tannic 1,025.42 OHWMl
NIDITCH2 UT to Godfrey Creek 5 7 6-15 Sand Stagnant Clear/Tannic 1011.27 OHwM1
NIDITCH3 UT to Godfrey Creek 3 2-3 3-6 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 395.49 OHWM1
NIDITCH4 UT to Godfrey Creek 3 2-3 3-6 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 622.23 OHwM1
NIDITCH5 UT to Godfrey Creek 3 2-3 3-6 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 466.64 OHWM1
NIDITCH6 UT to Godfrey Creek 3 2-3 3-6 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 515.44 OHwM1
1AADITCH7 UT to Godfrey Creek 5 7 6-1$ Sand Stagnant Clear/Tannic 1,260.69 OHWM1
NIDITCH8 UT to Godfrey Creek 5 7 6-18 Sand Stagnant Clear/Tannic 2,028.45 OHwM1
NIDITCH9 UT to Godfrey Creek 5 7 6-1$ Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 2,032.12 OHWM1
,7I7ITCHIQ UT to Godfrey Creek 3 2-3 3-6 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 528.69 OHwM1
NIDITCH11 UT to Godfrey Creek 3 2-3 3-6 Sand Slow Clear/Tannic 553.05 OHWM1
ITCH12 UT to Godfrey Creek 3 2-3 3-6 Sand SIow Clear/Tannic 1,028.25 OHWMl
NSA UT
AIWWZ 2
3 3
4 4
8 S
d Sl Cl 346.17 Intermittent
to - - - an ow ear 129.12 Perennial
NSB UT to AIWWZ 6 4-5 4-8 Sand Slow Clear 82.65 OHWMl
NSE AILYIWZ
UT 5
4 2
8 4
8 S
d Sl Cl 60.82 oHWMl
to - - - an ow ear 62.11
NSF IWW2
UT 5
4 4
6 4
8 d
S Sl Sli
h
l
bi
l
T 483.38 Intermittent
to tL - - - an ow g
t
y
ur
c 1,445.17 Perennial
NDITCHI UT to AIWW2 2-3 5-7 2-8 Sand Slow Clear 259.68 OHwM1
ZSA UT to Pages Creek 3 3-4 2-6 Sand Slow Clear 79.14 Interrnittent
ZSB UT to Futch Creek 1-3 4-6 6- 24 Sand Fast Tannic 452.6 Perennial
US 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-33 TIP NOS. U-4751 S< R-3300
Table 3-7. Physical Characteristics of Streams in the Study Area continued

Strearn
ID

Stream Name Bank

Height
(feet) Bankful

Width
(feet) Water

Depth
(inches)
Channel
Substrate

Velocity

Clarity Length in

Study Area
(feet)
Streain
Determination
ZSC UT t
Mi11 C
k 3 5
4 6 d
S d
t
M Cl 303.29 OH\X1"T\11
o
ree - an o
era
e ear 267.96 Interrnittent
ZSD UT to Old Topsail
Creek 2 2-3 6- 12 Sand Slow Tannic 340.76 Perennial
T
i 90'29 OHwM1
ZSE U
to Harr
sons
k
C 1 2 6- 12 Sand Stagizant Clear 16.7
ree 103.73 Intermittent
ZSF UT to Pab s Creek 1 2-3 6- 12 Sand Fast Clear 90.78 Intermittent
ZSG UT to Pa s Creek 0.5 - 3 4-5 4-8 Sand Slow Tannic 151.4 Perennial
ZSH Spring Branch 2-3 4-5 4-8 Sand Fast Clear 952.87 Perennial
ZSJ UT to Old Topsail
Creek 2 5-6 6-8 Sancl Fast Clear/Tannic 195.56 Intermittent
ZSK UT to Prince George
Creek 1-3 3-4 6- 18 Sand Fast Tannic 3,216.93 Perennial
ZSL LTT to Prince George
Creek 1-3 3-4 G- 18 Sand Fast Tannic 322.7 Perennial
ZSNI UT to Old Topsail
Creek <1 2-3 4- 10 Sand Slow Clear $07.98 Intermittent
ZDITCHI UT to Mill Creek 4 3 0-2 Sand Slow Clear 187.33 OHwM1
ZDITCH2 UT to Mill Creek 4 3 0-2 Sand Slow Clear 213.42 OHWM1
ZDITCH3 UT to Mill Creek 4 3 0-2 Sand Slow Clear 385.88 OHwM1
ZDITCH4 UT to Mill Creek 4 3 0-2 Sand Slow Clear 169.28 OHwM1
ZDITCH5 UT to Mill Creek 4 3 0-2 Sand Slow Clear 147.04 OHWMI
ZTRIBI UT to Old Topsail
Creek 4 4 6-12 Sand Slow Clear 206.59 OHwM1
Z,I,RI132 UT to Harrisons
Creek 5 10 12-24 Sand Stagnant Slightly Turbid 430.27 OHWM1
1 Itesource detennined by USACE to be a jusisdictional tributaxy based on the pxesence of an oxdinaxy high watex mark (OHVVM) duxing field vexification.
Z Atlantic Intxacoastal Watexway
US 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-34 TIP NOS. U-4751 S< R-3300
3.5.3.2.2 PoNDs
Eighty-five ponds are located in the stzidy area. Ponds within the detailed study
alternative corridors are shown in Figures 10-A through 10-K. Table 3-8 describes the
appearance of each pond including its approximate size in acres. If the pond is directly
connected to a jurisdictional stream or wetland, the name of that feature is also indicated
in the table.
Table 3-8. Physical Characteristics of Ponds in the Study Area

Pond ID
Appearance Connected
Feature Map ID Pond Area in
Study Area
(acres)
P>PA StortziaToter Porzd No Corztiection 0.15
BPB Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.14

BPC Residential Small
Lake
No Connection
1.66
BPD Manmade/Maintained BWE 0.41
BPE Stormwater Pond BSL 4.08
BPF Stormwater Pond SSO 2.28
BPG Stormwater Pond BSO 0.60
BPH Stortnwater Pond No Connection 0.46
BPI Storinwater Pond BSA 0.30
SP Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.12
BPK Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.07
CPA Small Borrow Pit CWF 0.05
EPA Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.03
GPA Stormwater Pond GWA 0.12
GPB Stormwater Pond GWA 0.07
GPC Stormwater Pond GWA 0.12
GPD Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.11
IPA Maintained Farm
Pond IWA 0.11
IPA2 Stormwater Pond IWT 0.57
IPB Maintained Farm
Pond IWA 0.04
IPB2 Small Depression
Pond IWA 0.06
IPC Small Depression
Pond IWT 0.0$

IPD Maintained Farm
Pond
HWA
0.15
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-35 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-8. Physical Characteristics of Ponds in the Study Area confinued

Pond ID
Appearance Connected
Feature Map ID Pond Area in
Study Area
(acres)
IPE StormaTater Porzd No Cotitiection 0.27
IPF Manmade/Maintained IWB 0.54

IPG Maintained Farm
Pond
No Connection
0.07
IPH Stormwater Pond IWT 0.11
JPA Stormwater Pond JWD 0.11
JPB Stormwater Pond No Connection ().09
JPC Small Depression
Pond JWJ 0.37
JPD CyPress/Guin
De ression No Connection 2.44
JPE Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.10
JPF Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.10
JPG Stormwater Pond JWQ 0.07
JPH Small Depression
Pond
No Connection
0.32
KPA Manmade/Maintained No Connection 0.37
KPB Cypress/Gum
Depression I<,X1A/KWG 0.54
KPC Manmade/Maintained KWF 0.57
KPD Manmade/Maintained KWD 0.15
KPE Storinwater Pond Ilai1D 0.02
KPF Stormwater Pond KWD 0.09
KPG Stormwater Pond KWE 0.26
KPH Cypress/Gum
De ression I-,-XIA/KWG 0.09
LPA Manmade/Maintained LSC 0.15
LPB Manmade/Maintained LWF 0.50
LPC Manmade/Maintained LWK 0.07
LPD Manmade/Maintained LWA 0.33
LPE Manmade/Maintained No Connection 0.38
MPA Stormwater Pond MWJ 0.05
MPB Stormwater Pond MWJ 0.11
MPC Wastewater Retention No Connection 1.14
MPD In-line Pond MSDA 0.10
MPE Srnall Borrow Pond VIWL 0.08
MPF Manmade/Maintained MWH 0.13
MPG Marunade/Maintained MLY1H 0.40
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-36 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-8. Physical Characteristics of Ponds in the Study Area confinued

Pond ID
Appearance Connected
Feature Map ID Pond Area in
Study Area
(acres)
1'II'H Montziade!1Iaititaitied No Cotitiection 0.11
MPI Small Farm Pond No Connection 0.0$
NPA Small Borrow Pond No Connection 0.37
NPB In-line Pond NSF 0.41
NPC Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.06
NPD Storinwater Pond No Connection 0.26

NPE Water Treatment
Pond
No Connection
0.70
ZNPA Manmade/Borrow
Pond NWP 1.24
ZNPB Nlanmade/Borrow
Pond No Connection 0.74
ZPA Manmade/Borrow
Pond GVvB 0.02
ZPB Manmade/Borrow
Pond GWS 1.96
ZPC Manmade/Maintained No Connection 0.60
ZPD Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.50
ZPE Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.44
ZPF Storinwater Pond No Connection 0.49
ZPG Stormwater Pond ZNXTSB 0.15
ZPH 112anmade/Excavated No Connection 0.13
ZPI Stormwater Pond ZNX?,?A 0.10
ZPJ Stortnwater Pond ZWAA 0.54
ZPK Storinwater Pond ZWAA 0.07
ZPL Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.65
ZPM Stormwater Pond ZWBF> 0.0$
ZPN Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.08
ZPO Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.08
ZPP Stormwater Pond ZWG 0.21
ZPQ Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.16
ZPR Manmade/Maintained No Connection 0.11
ZPS Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.72
ZPT Manmade/Maintained No Connection 0.03

ZPU Small Depression
Pond
No Connection
().05
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-37 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
3.5.3.2.3 WETLAND5
A total of 286 jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the study area. Wetlands
within the detailed study alternative corridors are shown in Figures 10-A through 10-K.
Wetland classification and quality rating data are presented in Table 3-9. All wetlands in
the study area are within the Cape Fear River basin {USGS Hydrologic Units 03030007
and 03020302}.
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area

Wetland
ID
Cowardinl
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
WeWQd
Rating Wetland
Area in
Study Area
acres
BZ\,'P PF04B Non-riparian 27 0.31
BWC PFO Non-riparian 25 0.35
BWD PFO Non-riparian 34 5.02
BWI PF01/3/4B Non-riparian 34 11.09
CWA PF03/4A Non-riparian 34 28.42
CWB PSS3/4B Non-riparian 36 66.17
CWC PSS3/4Bd Non-riparian 36 15.02
CtiYD PSS3/4Bd Non-riparian 36 26.5
CWE PF03 4B Non-riparian 36 65.5
/ g Riparian 3.51
CWF PF03/4B Non-riparian 36 61.44
DWC PSS3/4B Non-riparian 36 286.63
EWr1 No ID Non-riparian 15 0.35
EWS No ID Non-riparian 13 0.22
EWC No ID Riparian 16 2.81
EWD No ID Non-riparian 19 1.39
EWF PFO Riparian 14 0.46
EtiYTH PFO Non-riparian 20 1.52
EWH1 PFO Riparian 20 4.09
EWI PFO Riparian 37 2.77
EXXJ PFO Riparian 15 3.81
EWK PSS1C Non-riparian 25 1.69
EWL PSS1C Non-riparian 23 1
EWNI PF01C Riparian 19 5.86
EWTN PFO Non-riparian 15 0.04
EWO PLTS4C Non-riparian 20 0.43
EWP PLTB4C Non-riparian 20 0.39
EWQ PUB4C Non-riparian 20 0.07
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-38 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area continued

Wetland
ID
Cowardinl
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
WeW?d
Rating Wetland
Area in
Study Area
(acres)
ENN,R PtIP4C Noi-i-riparian 20 0.44
EWS PUS4C Non-riparian 20 0.13
FWA PFO Non-riparian 30 2.5
FWB PFO Riparian 20 9.85
FWC2 PFO Non-riparian 48 21.5
Riparian 11.15
FWD PSS3P Non-riparian 28 32.25
FWF PFO Non-riparian 37 20.91
Riparian 2.69
FWH PFO Non-riparian 33 0.86
FW'HA PFO Non-riparian 29 2.11
FWHB PFO Non-riparian 24 0.48
FWHC PFO Non-riparian 24 0.73
FWI PFO Non-riparian 17 1.25
FWJ PFO Non-riparian 17 0.6
FWK PFO Non-riparian 17 1.12
FWL PFO Non-riparian 19 1.1
FWX PFO Non-riparian 31 0.15
FWY PFO Non-riparian 20 1.01
GWA PEM/PSS Riparian 61 25.15
GWB3 PSS Non-riparian 32 15.99
GWC PFO Non-riparian 32 138.14
GWD PFO Non-riparian 32 19.74
Rip arian 3.13
GWF PFO Riparian 19 0.02
GWH PFO Riparian 54 0.26
GWZ PSS Non-riparian 19 0.41
HBAA4 PSS/PFO Riparian 32 2.29
HSAB PSS/PFO Non-riparian 27 4.13
HP>WA PFO Riparian 32 0.69
HBWB PSS/PFO Riparian 32 0.08
HSWD PSS/PFO Riparian $3 59.92
BBWE PSS Riparian 32 0.05
HBWF PEM/PSS Riparian 32 5.42
HBWG PSS/PFO Non-riparian 32 3.01
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-39 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area continued

Wetland
ID
Cowardinl
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
WeW?d
Rating Wetland
Area in
Study Area
(acres)
Ripariai-I 1.68
HBWH PFO Non-riparian 20 0.43
11BLYIH2 PFO Non-riparian 20 0.11
HBNX1H3 PFO Non-riparian 20 0.03
HSWT PSS/PFO Riparian 32 0.74
HBWKS PFO/PSS Riparian $3 72.63
HBWL PFO/PSS Non-riparian 18 0.28
HBWM PFO/PSS Non-riparian 18 0.23
HBNX/N PFO Non-riparian 18 0.11
HSWD PSS Non-riparian 14 1.14
HBWQ PFO Non-riparian 18 0.04
HBWR PSS/PFO Non-riparian 1$ 0.43
HBWS PFO/PSS Non-riparian 1$ 0.45
HSWT PSS Non-riparian 14 0.39
HBWV PSS Non-riparian 14 0.15
HBtiYIX PSS/PFO Non-riparian 14 0.06
HP>WY PSS/PFO Non-riparian 32 0.06
HWA PFO Riparian 21 1.8
HWB PFO Riparian 50 10.53
HWC PSS Non-riparian 15 0.15
HWD PFO Non-riparian 21 1.5
HWE PFO/PSS Non-riparian 27 13.84
HtiYIF PFO/PSS Non-riparian 15 0.35
HWG6 PFO/PSS %Parian 15 8.2
Non-riparian 1.64
HWH PFO Non-riparian 26 0.15
HWH1 PFO Non-riparian 26 0.09
HWH2 PFO Non-riparian 26 0.03
HWH3 PFO Non-riparian 26 0.07
HWH4 PFO Non-riparian 26 0.02
HWHS PFO Non-riparian 26 0.23
HWH6 PFO Non-riparian 26 0.1
HWI PFO Non-riparian 26 0.02
HWJ PFO Non-riparian 26 ().()3
HtXIK PFO Non-riparian 26 1.05
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-40 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area continued

Wetland
ID
Cowardinl
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
WeW?d
Rating Wetland
Area in
Study Area
(acres)
HMIT PFO Noi-i-ripariai7 26 0.32
HWL1 PFO Non-riparian 26 0.06
HWP PSS Non-riparian 26 0.26
HtiY1R PFO %parian 51 0.09
HWS PFO %parian 44 2.53
HWT PFO Non-riparian 15 0.24
HWU PFO Non-riparian 15 Q
HW`\T PFO/PSS Non-riparian 38 0.07
HWY PFO Non-riparian 26 0.33
HWZ PFO Non-riparian 21 0.66
HWAA7 PFO Non-riparian 40 123.09
%parian 11.02
HwCC PFO Non-riparian 25 0.04
HWDD PFO Non-riparian 25 0.1
HWEE PFO %parian 25 0.56
HWFF PFO/PSS Riparian 34 1.49
HWGG PSS Riparian 34 1.39
HWHH PFO Non-riparian 34 1.57
HWJJ PFO %parian 34 1.86
HWKK PFO Non-riparian 21 0.92
HWMNIB PFO Non-riparian 36 19.77
Riparian 1.37
HWIVIX PFO Non-riparian 40 1.19
IWA PFO Riparian SQ 2.78
IWA_MNI PFO Non-riparian 39 22.78
IWS PFO Riparian 25 1.62
Itx'C PFO %parian 24 0.49
IWD PFO Non-riparian 31 31.3
Riparian 2.13
Itx'E PFO Non-riparian 13 0.16
IWF9 PFO %parian 69 15.86
Non-riparian 6.7
IWG_CC1 PFO Non-riparian 41 0.94
I?'v'G_CC2 PFO Non-riparian 41 0.44
IWG_CC3 PFO Non-riparian 41 0.99
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-41 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area continued

Wetland
ID
Cowardinl
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
WeW?d
Rating Wetland
Area in
Study Area
(acres)
IZX1Hi?` PFO Non-riparian 53 19.26
Riparian 3.83
IWJ PFO Non-riparian 10 2.85
IWK PFO Riparian 77 20.43
Non-riparian 6
IWL PFO Riparian 33 1.75
IW1vI PFO Non-riparian 11 4.15
IWN PFO Riparian 79 40.49
IWO PFO Non-riparian 7 0.16
IWP PFO Non-riparian 15 0.13
IWQ PFO Non-riparian 7 0.64
IWS PFO Non-riparian 10 1.3
IWTI 1 PFO Non-riparian 41 56.09
Rip arian 9.16
IWU PFC7 Non-riparian 13 0.45
IWV PFO Non-riparian 42 13.77
IWw PFO Non-riparian 45 43.84
JWA PFO Non-riparian 4 0.04
JWB PFO Non-riparian 7 0.01
JWC PFO Non-riparian 14 0.39
tYTD PFO Non-riparian 22 3.67
J Rip arian 2.18
JWG PFO Riparian 15 0.94
JWH PFO Riparian 34 0.08
JXX7I PFO Riparian 26 5.87
JWJ PFO Non-riparian 35 1.02
JWK PFO Non-riparian 14 0.42
JWL PFO Non-riparian 22 0.35
JWM PFO Non-riparian 9 0.79
JWN PFO Riparian 6 0.52
JWO PFO Non-riparian 12 0.24
JWP PFO Riparian 13 0.35
JWQ PFO Riparian $2 3.57
JNX1R PFO Riparian 10 ().09
JwS PFO Riparian 69 2.06
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-42 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area continued

Wetland
ID
Cowardinl
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
WeW?d
Rating Wetland
Area in
Study Area
(acres)
J«-'T PFO Ripariai-1 i 3 2.27
JWU PFO Riparian 26 0.68
KWA PF03/4B Non-riparian 30 24.46
IaVS PF01/2C Non-riparian 22 3.19
KWC PF01/2C Non-riparian 17 11.77
KZXID PF04A Non-riparian 26 19.49
KWE PF04Bd Non-riparian 19 5.77
KWF PFO/PSS Non-riparian 45 29.15
KWG PF01/2G Non-riparian 43 13.05
I,?kXjH12 PF01/2C Non-riparian 42 17.5
K?'I PF01/3/4B Non-riparian 49 139.44
KWN PF04B Non-riparian 46 80.96
I?XIO PF04B Non-riparian 37 25.95
KWS PF01/4B Non-riparian 33 4.11
KWST PF02/4Eg Non-riparian 39 0.1
LWA PFO Riparian 70 5.8
LWB PFO Riparian 72 12.09
LWC13 PFO Non-riparian 30 1.72
LWD PFO Riparian $3 15.9$
LWD1 PFO Riparian 48 0.08
LWE PFO Non-riparian 29 24.36
LWF PFO Non-riparian 11 0.28
LWG PFO Non-riparian 46 1.04
LWH PFO Non-riparian 23 0.2
LWI PFO Riparian 80 15.79
LWf PFO Non-riparian 40 44.05
LWJA PFO Non-riparian 21 0.16
LWK PFO Non-riparian 78 5.11
Rip arian 6.17
LWL PFO Riparian 76 4.94
MtX1A14 PSS/PFO Non-riparian 36 17.95
MMC PF04 Non-riparian 31 59.18
Vltx'E PFO/PSS Non-riparian 30 9.43
MWF PFO Non-riparian 19 7.66
MWG PFO/PSS Non-riparian 20 0.32
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-43 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area continued

Wetland
ID
Cowardinl
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
WeW?d
Rating Wetland
Area in
Study Area
(acres)
NLtXTH15 PFO Non-riparian 33 70.31
1l??rl PF04 Non-riparian 20 0.03
1rLWJ PFO Non-riparian 33 31.44
MWK PF04 Non-riparian 20 0.57
MW1L PFO %Parian 68 18.08
Non-riparian 9.04
MtiY1112(1) PFO Non-riparian 25 28.79
MtX1M
2 PFO %parian 68 14.31
(
) Non-riparian 11.95
IVX1N(1) PFO Riparian 25 0.1
VItX1N{2} PFO Non-riparian 21 0.13
MWX PFO Non-riparian 25 1.63
Mtx'Y PFO Riparian 25 1.41
MwZ PFO Non-riparian 25 4.73
MWAA PFO Non-riparian 25 6.33
NWA PFO Non-riparian 12 0.63
NWS PEM/PFO Non-riparian 13 3.72
NWC PEM/PFO Non-riparian 12 0.18
NWD PSS Non-riparian 12 1.28
NWE PEM/PFO Non-riparian 12 3.15
NWF PEM/PSS Non-riparian 12 0.35
NWG PEM Non-riparian 12 0.01
NWH PEM Non-riparian 12 0.09
NWI PEM Non-riparian 12 0.03
NWf PSS/PFO Non-riparian 12 0.22
NWK PSS Non-riparian 12 2.23
NW'L PSS Riparian 50 2.59
NWM PFO Non-riparian 22 4.07
NWN PF04A Non-riparian 12 1.64
NtX10 PF04 Non-riparian 17 5.01
NLYi1' PSS Non-riparian 17 104.38
NWQ PSS Riparian 12 0.45
NWS PSS Non-riparian 17 3.3
ZWA PFO Non-riparian 19 0.44
ZWB PFO Non-riparian 23 1.59
ZwC PENI Non-riparian 26 2.1
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-44 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area continued

Wetland
ID
Cowardinl
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
WeW?d
Rating Wetland
Area in
Study Area
(acres)
Z1\,'D PFO Noi-i-ripariai7 16 1.13
ZWE PSS Non-riparian 21 3.65
ZWF PSS Non-riparian 16 0.51
ZWG PSS Non-riparian 24 2.08
ZWH PFO Non-riparian 20 0.11
ZWf PFO Non-riparian 26 1.69
ZWK PEM Non-riparian 16 0.08
ZWL, PFO Non-riparian 20 0.24
ZWM PFO Non-riparian 20 0.04
ZWO PFO Non-riparian 22 1.1
ZWP PFO Non-riparian 20 0.54
ZWQ PSS Riparian 40 0.7
ZWS PFO Non-riparian 36 15.99
ZWT PFO Non-riparian 16 1.18
ZWU PFO Non-riparian 16 0.12
ZWV PFO Riparian 39 0.17
Zww PFO Riparian 23 1.16
ZWX PFO Riparian 16 0.3
ZWY PFO Non-riparian 10 0.08
ZWZ PFO Riparian 34 0.1
ZWAA PFO Non-riparian 22 0.79
Z'VVPB PFO Riparian 40 1.44
ZWCC PFO Riparian 28 0.85
ZWDD PFO Non-riparian 26 6.69
Rip arian 1.46
ZWGG PSS Non-riparian 16 12.32
ZJtivMNI PFO Riparian 30 1.22
PD-0116 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 1.41
PD-02 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.23
PD-03 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 32.37
PD-04 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 25.49
PD-05 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.14
PD-06 PFO/PSS Riparian N/A 1.36
PD-07 PFO/PSS Riparian N/A 0.1
PD-OS PFO/PSS Riparian N/A 0.03
PD-09 PFO;'PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.39
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-45 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area continued

Wetland
ID
Cowardinl
Classification
Hydrologic
Classification
WeW?d
Rating Wetland
Area in
Study Area
(acres)
PD-10 PFO;"PSS Non-iiparian N%A 0.72
PD-11 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.7
PD-12 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.15
PD-13 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.43
PD-14 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.53
PD-15 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.53
PD-16 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.63
PD
17 PFO
PSS Non-riparian N
A 22.51
- / .
Riparian /
5.58
PD-18 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 1.73
PD-19 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.41
PD-20 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.01
PD-21 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.43
PD-22 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.02
PD-23 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.51
PD-24 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 7.52
PD-25 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 46.3
PD-26 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.04
PD-27 PFO/PSS Riparian N/A 3.34
PD-28 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.28
PD-29 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 28.36
PD-30 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 2.59
PD-31 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 17.84
PD
32 PFO
PSS Non-riparian N
A 3.86
- / .
Riparian /
1.59
PD
33 PFO
PSS Non-rip
arian N
A 8.17
- / .
Riparian / 1.95
PD-34 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 2.93
PD-35 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 9.54
PD-36 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.15
PD-37 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 2.9
PD-38 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 1.63
1 Cowaxdin classifications axe based on chaxacteristics of each wetland at the specific time and location of
observation. Wetlands having `No ID' wexe not chaxacterized due to impacted appeaxance at the time of
obseLVatiori
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-46 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 3-9. Jurisdictional Characteristics of Wetlands in the Study Area contimted
2 Includes wedand FWE 10 Includes wedand IWI
3 Includes wedand ZGWB 11 Includes wedands IWR
4 Includes wetland HBAC 12 Includes wetlands KVVJ, KWK, and KWL
s Includes wedand HB WP 13 Includes wedand MWO
6 Includes weTlands HWM, HWN, HWO 14 Includes wedand NWR
7 Includes wedands HWBB, HWII, HWL,L 1s Includes wedands MWH(2-8)
e Includes HWIYJ 16 Delineation data pxeviously venfied; no DWQ
9 Includes wedand IWG wedand xating foxms completed fox these wedands
3.5.4 JLJRISDICTIONAL ISSLJES
3.5.4.1 WATERS OF THE LJNITED STATES
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the
United States." The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principal
administrative agency of the Clean Water Act; however, the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) has the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and
enforcement of the provisions of the Act The USACE regulatory program is defined in
33 CFR 320-330.
Surface waters Oakes, rivers, and streams) and wetlands are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under the Section 404 program. Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act grants authority to individual states for regulation of
discharges into "Waters of the United States." Under North Carolina General Statutes,
113A "Pollution Control and Environment" and codified in NCAC 15A, the NCDWQ
has the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions
of the Act.
3.5.4.2 BUFFER AREA5
Streams within the study area are part of the Cape Fear River basin. Therefore, no
North Carolina River Basin Buffer Rules apply to streams in the study area.
3.5.4.3 PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been, or are in the process of decline due to
either natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Federal law (under the
provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended)
requires that any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected
be subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Prohibited actions
which may affect any species protected under the ESA are outlined in Section 9 of the
Act.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-47 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Species which are listed, or are proposed for listing, as endangered (E) or tlzreatened M
are recorded in Section 4 of the ESA. As defined by the ESA, an endangered species is
any plant or animal which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a sigizificant
portion of its range within the foreseeable future. A threatened species is any species
which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
As of September 22, 2010, the USFWS lists 11 federally protected species for New
Hanover County and 12 federally protected species for Pender County (Table 3-10). As
of September 22, 2010, the USFWS does not list any candidate species for New Hanover
or Pender Counties. Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best
a-vailable information as per referenced literature and USFWS correspondence.
Table 3-10. Federally Protected Species Listed for New Hanover & Pender Counties
Scientific Naine Corninon Name Federal
Status Habitat
Present County
Alligcator• ?rzississippiensis American alligator T(S;"1?) Yes Ne«- Hano?? er
Pender
Chelonica mjdCas Green sea turtle T No New Hanover
Pender
Ccarettca caretta Loggerhead
sea turtle T No New Hanover
Pender
Charadrius nzelodus Piping plover T No New Hanover
Pender
Picoides borecalis Red-cockaded
?vood ecker E Yes New Hanover
Pender
Acoenser brevimstrztm Shortnose sturgeon E No New Hanover
Pender
Trichechus nzcanatus West Indian
manatee E No New Hanover
Pender
Schzvcalbeca camericcana American
chaffseed* E Yes* Pender
Thalictrun2 coolgd Cooley's
meadowrue E Yes New Hanover
Pender
Carex lutea Golden sedb E Yes New Hanover
Pender
Lysinzachia casperzrlcaefolia Rough-leaved
loosestrife E YeS New Hanover
Pender
Anzcaranthuspumilus Seabeach amaranth T No New Hanover
Pender
E- Endangexed T- Thxeatened T(S/A) - Threatened due to Similarity of Appeaxance
* Historic xecoxd (the species was last obsexved in the county moxe than SO yeaxs ago)
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 3-48 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
American alligator
In North Carolina, alligators have been recorded in nearly every coastal county and many
inland counties to the fall line. The alligator is found in rivers, streams, canals, lakes,
swamps, and coastal marshes. Adult animals are highly tolerant of salt water, but the
young are apparently more sensitive, with salinities greater than five parts per thousand
considered harmful. The American alligator remains on the protected species list due to
its similarity in appearance to the Endangered American crocodile.
Suitable habitat is present for American alligator in the study area.
Green sea turtle
The green sea turtle is found in temperate and tropical oceans and seas. Nesting in
North America is limited to small communities on the east coast of Florida requiring
beaches with minimal disturbances and a sloping platform for nesting (they do not nest
in North Carolina). The green sea turtle can be found in shallow waters. They are
attracted to lagoons, reefs, bays, mangrove swamps and inlets where an abundance of
marine grasses can be found, as this is the principle food source for the green turtle.
Suitable habitat for green sea turtle does not exist in the study area.
Loggerhead turtle
The loggerhead is widely distributed within its range, and is found in three distinct
habitats during their lives. These turtles may be found hundreds of miles out in the open
ocean, in nearshore areas, or on coastal beaches. In North Carolina, this species has
been observed in every coastal county. Loggerheads occasionally nest on North Carolina
beaches, and are the most common of all the sea turtles that visit the North Carolina
coast They nest nocturnally, at two to three year intervals, between May and September,
on isolated beaches that are characterized by fine-grained sediments. In nearshore areas,
loggerheads have been observed in bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and
the mouths of large rivers. Coral reefs, rocky places, and shipwrecks are o$en used as
foraging areas.
Suitable habitat for loggerhead turtle does not exist in the study area.
Piping plover
The piping plover breeds along the entire eastern coast of the United States. North
Carolina is the only state where the piping plovees breeding and wintering ranges
overlap and the birds are present year-round. They nest most commonly where there is
litde or no vegetation, but some may nest in stands of beachgrass. The nest is a shallow
depression in the sand that is usually lined with shell fragments and light-colored
pebbles.
Suitable habitat for piping plover does not exist in the study area.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-49 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Red-cockaded woodpecker
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature stands of
southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and
nesting/ roosting habitat The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living
pine trees, aged 60 years or older, and which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30
years of age to provide foraging habitat The foraging range of the RCW is normally no
more than 0.5 mile.
Suitable RCW foraging and nesting/ roosting habitat is present throughout the study
area.
Shortnose sturgeon
Shortnose sturgeon occur in most major river systems along the eastern seaboard of the
United States. The species prefers the nearshore marine, estuarine, and riverine habitat
of large river systems. It is an anadromous species that migrates to faster-moving
freshwater areas to spawn in the spring, but spends most of its life within close proximity
of the river's mouth. Large freshwater rivers that are unobstructed by dams or pollutants
are imperative to successful reproduction.
Suitable habitat for shortnose sturgeon does not exist in the study area.
West Indian manatee
Manatees have been observed in all the North Carolina coastal counties. Manatees are
found in canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine habitats, salt water bays, and as far off shore as
3.7 miles. They utilize freshwater and marine habitats at shallow depths of five to 20
feet In the winter, between October and April, manatees concentrate in areas with
warm water. During other times of the year, habitats appropriate for the manatee are
those with sufficient water depth, an adequate food supply, and in proximity to
freshwater. Manatees require a source of freshwater to drink. Manatees are primarily
herbivorous, feeding on any aquatic vegetation present, but they may occasionally feed
on fish.
Suitable habitat for West Indian manatee does not exist in the study area.
American chaffseed
American chaffseed generally occurs in habitats described as open, moist to dryish mesic
pine flatwoods and longleaf pine flatlands, pine savannas, and other open grass/sedge-
dominated corrnnunities. This herb also occurs in the ecotonal areas between peaty
wetlands and xeric sandy soils and on the upper ecotones of, or sites close, to
streamhead pocosins. The species prefers sandy peat or sandy loam, acidic, seasonally
moist to dry soils in sunny or partly sunny areas subject to frequent fires in the growing
season. The plant is dependent on factors such as fire, mowing, or fluctuating water
tables to maintain its required open to partly-open habitat. Most extant populations, and
all of the most vigorous populations, are in areas subject to frequent fire. This species is
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-50 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
also known to occur on road cuts and power line rights of way that experience frequent
mowing or clearing. Soil series that it is found on include Blaney, Candor, Gilead,
Fuquay, Lakeland, and Vaucluse.
Suitable habitat for American chaffseed is present in the study area.
Cooley's meadowrue
Cooley's meadowrue, documented in the pine savanna natural community, occurs in
circumneutral soils in sunny, moist to wet grass-sedge bogs, wet-pine savannas over
calcareous clays, and savannah-like areas, o$en at the ecotones of intermittent drainages
or non-riverine swamp forests. This rhizomatous perennial herb is also found along
plowed firebreaks, roadside ditches and rights of way, forest clearings dominated by grass
or sedge, and power line or utility rights of way. The species requires some type of
disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, periodic fire) to maintain its open habitat The plant
typically occurs on slightly acidic (pH 5.8-6.6) soils that are loamy fine sand, sandy loam,
or fine sandy loam; at least seasonally moist or saturated; and mapped as Foreston,
Grifton, Muckalee, Torhunta, or Woodington series. Atlantic white cedar, tulip poplar,
golden sedge, and bald and pond cypress are a few of its corrnnon associate species.
Suitable habitat for Cooley?s meadowrue is present in the study area.
Golden sedge
Golden sedge grows in sandy soils overlying calcareous deposits of coquina limestone,
where the soil pH, typically between 5.5 and 7.2, is unusually high for this region. This
perennial prefers the ecotone between the pine savanna and adjacent wet hardwood or
hardwood/conifer forest. Most plants occur in the partially shaded savanna/swamp
where occasional to frequent fires favor an herbaceous ground layer and suppress shrub
dominance. Soils supporting the species are very wet to periodically shallowly inundated.
The plant can occur in disturbed areas such as roadside and drainage ditches or power
line rights of way, where mowing and/or very wet conditions suppress woody plants.
Poorly viable populations may occur in significantly disturbed areas where ditching
activities that lower the water table and/or some evidence of fire suppression threatens
the species. Tulip poplar, pond cypress, red maple, wax myrtle, colic root, and Cooley's
meadowrue are a few of its associate species.
Suitable habitat for golden sedge is present in the study area.
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Rough-leaved loosestrife generally occurs in the ecotones or edges between longleaf pine
uplands and pond pine pocosins in dense shrub and vine growth on moist to seasonally
saturated sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand (spodosolic soils).
Occurrences are found in such disturbed habitats as roadside depressions, maintained
power and utility line rights of way, firebreaks, and trails. The species prefers full
sunlight, is shade intolerant, and requires areas of disturbance (e.g., clearing, mowing,
periodic burning) where the overstory is minimal. It can, however, persist vegetatively
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-51 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
for many years in overgrown, fire-suppressed areas. Blaney, Gilead, Johnston, Kalmia,
L,eon, Mandarin, Murville, Torhunta, and Vaucluse are some of the soil series that
occurrences have been found on.
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife is present in the study area
Seabeach amaranth
Seabeach amaranth occurs on barrier island beaches where its primary habitat consists of
overwash flats at accreting ends of islands, lower foredunes, and upper strands of
noneroding beaches Oandward of the wrack line). In rare situations, this annual is found
on sand spits 160 feet or more from the base of the nearest foredune. It occasionally
establishes small temporary populations in other habitats, including sound-side beaches,
blowouts in foredunes, interdunal areas, and on sand and shell material deposited for
beach replenishment or as dredge spoil. The plant's habitat is sparsely vegetated with
annual herbs (forbs) and, less commonly, perennial herbs (mostly grasses) and scattered
shrubs. It is, however, intolerant of vegetative competition and does not occur on well-
vegetated sites. The species usually is found growing on a nearly pure silica sand
substrate, occasionally with shell fragments mixed in. Seabeach amaranth appears to
require extensive areas of barrier island beaches and inlets that function in a relatively
natural and dynamic manner. These characteristics allow it to move around in the
landscape, occupying suitable habitat as it becomes available.
Suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth does not exist in the study area.
3.5.4.4 BALD EAGLE AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION
ACT
The bald eagle was declared recovered, and removed (de-listed) from the Federal List of
Threatened and Endangered Species effective August 8, 2007. The bald eagle remains
federally-protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act)
(16 U.S.C. 668-668d). The Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and
provides a statutory definition of °take° that includes "disturb".
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forest in proximity to large bodies
of open water for foraging. Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically
within one mile of open water. Potential foraging habitat for bald eagle exists in the
study area in the form of a large open water cypress swamp immediately south of
Sidbury Road. This area was delineated as a wetland during field investigations and is
shown on Figure 10-F as wetland GWA. The open water component of wetland GWA
extends beyond the study area and encompasses approximately 17 acres. During field
investigations, two independent sightings of an adult bald eagle were observed in the area
of wetland GWA.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-52 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
3.5.4.5 ESSENTIAL FI5H HABITAT
The National Marine Fisheries Service has developed fishery management plans for
Essential Fish Habitats (EFF3) in various waters of the United States. The management
plans are directed towards maintaining functioning, profitable commercial fishery
populations with a long-term recorrnnendation of "no net loss" of existing habitat The
South Atlantic Region has developed mapping depicting in-land primary and secondary
nursery areas for certain corrnnercial species. A review of North Carolina Division of
Marine Fisheries maps in July 2010 did not indicate any anadromous fish spawning areas,
shellfish growing areas, or primary nursery areas present in the study area.
3.5.4.6 AREA5 OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN
An on-site field meeting was held in May 2010 with the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management to review the potential for Areas of Environmental Concern within
the study area. At the field review it was determined that no Coastal Area Management
Act Areas of Environmental Concern are present in the study area.
3.5.4.7 ANADROMOUS FI5H HABITAT
Anadromous fish are species that spend their adult lives in the ocean but retum to
freshwater habitats to reproduce. A review of North Carolina Division of Marine
Fisheries maps in July 2010 determined no anadromous fish spawning areas are present
in the study area.
Harrisons Creek and Island Creek are designated as inland waters under the jurisdiction
of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
3.5.4.8 SLJBMERGED AQLJATIC VEGETATION
There is no submerged aquatic vegetation present in the study area.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-53 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 3-54 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
4.0 ENVIRDNMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter identifies the beneficial and adverse social, economic and environmental
consequences of each detailed study alternative. Both human and natural environmental
resources within the study area, or alternative corridors, were identified in Chapter 3. A
preliminary design was established within each detailed study alternative corridor for the
purpose of assessing environmental and socioeconomic impacts. The direct and indirect
impacts presented in this chapter are based on preliminary design plans. A preferred
alternative will be selected following distribution of this document and after a public
hearing has been held. The selection will be based on impact analysis, public corrnnents
and agency review.
4.1 HLJMAN ENVIRONMENT IMPACTS
4. 1. 1 COMMUNITY IMPACTS
Community cohesion in most of the study area is not expected to be impacted by either
the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension or the proposed US 17 Hampstead
Bypass. However, in small focused areas, some changes are expected. The most likely
areas to experience change would be in the vicinity of the proposed Hampstead Bypass
interchange at NC 210. This area is characterized by rural residential development, with
a few nearby businesses. The stability of the rural community in these areas could be
affected by people potentially moving away if they don't feel that the new interchange is
compatible with their community.
Since Military Cutoff Road Extension will be limited control of access, it will provide
alternative access points to some neighborhoods north of Ogden Park. Access to
existing corrnnercial properties generally would be maintained, though the pattern of
access may change. No neighborhood or commercial access issues have been identified
for the Hampstead Bypass.
Development patterns may be affected by the Hampstead Bypass alternatives in areas
where new access is provided. It is expected that the market for development may shift
somewhat along NC 210 to include higher intensity residential uses and potentially
business uses clustered around the proposed interchange. All of the Hampstead Bypass
alternatives will cross proposed Bayberry Farms and East Haven developments.
It is anticipated that through traffic along existing US 17 through Hampstead will be
transferred to the Hampstead Bypass. Existing US 17 between the proposed Hampstead
Bypass northern interchange west of Grandview Drive to east of L,eeward Lane would
be converted into a service road. There would be no connection between the service
road and Hampstead Bypass where it ties back in to US 17 near Leeward Lane. Some
local traffic patterns will change. Traffic volumes along existing US 17 are expected to
remain high. However, businesses that rely on drive-by traffic would likely see a
reduction in those customers. For local traffic remaining on existing US 17, the resulting
reduced traffic delays should improve accessibility to businesses. The 2007 Pender
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-1 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
County Collector Street Plan recommends a"village boulevard" cross section for existing
US 17 in the Hampstead area. This concept would include a landscaped median and
buffers, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and improved access management Removal of
through traffic and restricted accessibility to existing US 17 through Hampstead will help
support this local vision of a pedestrian-friendly, main street-type facility.
Population growth in both New Hanover and Pender Counties is forecasted to exceed
the state's rate in the coming decades. L,ocal plans and zoning are in place to guide
anticipated growth. Future land use maps and zoning maps show that growth is
expected along the US 17 corridor and major adjoining roads, including NC 210. Both
Military Cutoff Road Extension and the Hampstead Bypass have been included in local
growth projections. It is anticipated that neither project would substantially alter growth
beyond what is already expected by local planners. Growth, particularly along existing
roadways such as US 17, is expected to continue with or without these projects.
4. 1.2 COMMUNITY FACILITIE5 AND SERVICE5
All of the Hampstead Bypass alternatives are in close proximity to the Topsail High
School and Topsail Middle School campus and adjacent to Holly Shelter Game Land.
Direct impacts to these facilities are not anticipated.
Both of the Military Cutoff Road Extension alternatives follow an alignment that goes
between the eastern and western portions of Ogden Park. The park boundary was
designed to accommodate a transportation corridor and the proposed project does not
cross park property. Military Cutoff Road Extension will be carried over Ogden Park
Drive with a bridge and current access between the park sections will be maintained.
Fences will be located along Military Cutoff Road Extension through the park area,
which will prevent visitors from having direct access to Military Cutoff Road Extension
from within the park. It is anticipated that pedestrian access to existing multi-use path
facilities and Ogden Park would be improved if pedestrian facilities are constructed.
Views will be diminished equally by either Military Cutoff Road Extension alternative
from Ogden Park. As vegetation is removed and replaced by asphalt, the roadway will
change views in a portion of the park from a more intimate recreational setting to a more
urban/disturbed environment.
Both Military Cutoff Road Extension alternatives will impact the driving range on
Market Street at Military Cutoff Road.
Both of the Military Cutoff Road Extension alternatives will affect two cemeteries:
Prospect Cemetery is located adjacent to Military Cutoff Road just south of its
intersection with Market Street The relocation of grave sites is not anticipated as a
result of the proposed project Currently, access to Prospect Cemetery is permitted
from Market Street via a service road and from Military Cutoff Road. Access to the
cemetery from Military Cutoff Road would not be permitted under either Alternative
M1 or Alternative M2. Access to Prospect Cemetery will be further evaluated during
final roadway design.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-2 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
¦ Mount Ararat ANIE Church, located at Market Street and Ogden Park Drive, has a
small cemetery adjacent to Market Street. Grave sites in this cemetery could be
irnpacted by Alternatives M1 and M2.
Hampstead Bypass Alternatives EH, O, and R will each result in the displacement of
three churches: St. John the Apostle Catholic Church, Angel Food Ministries, and
Topsail Baptist Church. Hampstead Bypass Alternative U will result in the displacement
of eight churches (St. Stephen ANIE Zion Church, Wesley Chapel United Methodist
Church, Scotts Hill Baptist Church and Administrative Office, First Saptist Church,
"Old" Scotts Hill ANIE Zion Church, St. John the Apostle Catholic Church, Angel Food
Ministries, and Topsail Baptist Church) and one pre-school (Creative Minds Pre-School).
Hampstead Bypass Alternative U will itnpact three cemeteries. It is anticipated that the
proposed US 17 interchange at Sidbury Road and Scotts Hill Loop Road uTould impact
grave sites at Pollocks Cemetery, McClammy and King Family Cemetery, and the
Wesleyen Chapel United Methodist Church cemetery. In all, approximately 647 graves
will be relocated as a result of Alternative U.
4. 1.3 RELOCATION 13F HOMES AND BUSINE55E5
Relocation reports were prepared for the proposed project. All of the detailed study
alternatives will result in the relocation of homes and businesses. Total anticipated
residential and business displacements for each detailed study alternative are shown in
Table 4-1. The number of minority-owned or occupied homes and businesses are also
slzowm in Table 4-1. Information regarding the NCDOT Relocation Assistance Program
and relocation reports are included in Appendix C.
Table 4-1. Residential and Business Relocations
AlternatiVe
M1+EH M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Residential Relocations 61 (13) 60 (11) 59 (13) 93 (36) 95 (36)
Business Relocations 84(11) $4 (11) 84(11) 106(22) 106(22)
Notes: Numbexs in paxenthesis indicate minoxity-owned or occupied homes and businesses.
Business xelocations include non-profits.
4. 1 .4 ENVIR13NMENTAL &IUSTICE
Executive Order 1289$, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, directs that "each federal agency make
achieving envirormental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-3 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations." Disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income
populations are defined as adverse effects that are:
• Predominantly borne by a minority population and/or low-income population, or
Will be suffered by a minority population and/or low-income population and are
appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effects that will be
suffered by the non-minority population and/or non-low-income population.
Demographic data were collected and analyzed to determine if there were concentrations
of minority persons and low-income persons. Block level data were used to evaluate
minority statistics. Poverty statistics were obtained at the block group level, which is the
smallest unit available from the US Census Bureau. The following blocks and block
groups were evaluated:
New Hanover Countv
Tract 116.01 Block Group 1 Blocks 1000, 1038
Tract 116.04 Block Group 2 Blocks 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2030, 2037
Tract 116.04 Block Group 3 Blocks 3000, 3048, 3049, 3050, 3051
Tract 117.01 Block Group 2 Blocks 2000, 2001
Tract 117.04 Block Group 1 Blocks 1009, 1013, 1014
Tract 117.04 Block Group 5 Blocks 5001, 5013, 5014, 5015, 5016
PendeCountv
Tract 9802 Block Group 2 Blocks 2081, 2085, 2087,2097, 2098, 2099, 2103, 2104, 2105,
2109
Tract 9802 Block Group 3 Blocks 3000, 3001, 3006, 3007, 3008, 3009, 3015, 3024, 3025
Tract 9802, Block Group 5, Blocks 5000, 5002, 5008, 5031
For purposes of this evaluation, a minority block is defined as one in which the non-
white population equals or exceeds twice the percentage of non-white persons in the
county. Census 2000 data indicate there are five blocks that meet this criterion in the
study area. All are located in New Hanover County. Four of the five blocks are located
predominantly between the US 17 Wilmington Bypass and the New Hanover County
line, with two found on each side of existing US 17. All of the project alternatives pass
through the two blocks located on the north side of existing US 17. Military Cutoff
Road Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 and Hampstead Bypass Alternatives EH, O,
and R pass through largely undeveloped areas and do not result in any relocations within
these census blocks. Alternative U would result in the relocation of approximately 12
homes, one church, a portion of a cemetery, and three businesses along Stephens Church
Road. Alternative U also passes through the two minority blocks located on the south
side of existing US 17 across from Stephens Church Road. Alternative U would result in
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-4 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
the relocation of a church, one business, and approximately five houses in these two
blocks.
The fifth census block meeting the criteria described above is located in the vicinity of
the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension interchange with Market Street This area
is predominantly commercial. It is anticipated that Military Cutoff Road Extension
Alternatives M1 and M2 would result in the relocation of two houses, two churches, and
eight businesses in this census block.
There are no minority census blocks in the Pender County portion of the study area.
The percentage of non-white persons in a large block located between existing US 17,
NC 210 and Island Creek Road is just below the threshold of two times the County
percentage. Because of the size of this block and the apparent lack of concentration of
minority persons (based on field review and discussions with local planners), it was not
included as an area of environmental justice concern.
For the low-income assessment, a block group is considered low-income if the
percentage of persons below the poverty level is at least two times the percentage of
persons below poverty in the county. Census data did not indicate any concentrations of
low-income persons in the study area. A windshield survey found there is housing
typical of low-income persons in the study area. This housing is generally widely
dispersed and includes individual homes and a few small clusters.
Planners in New Hanover and Pender Counties were contacted about potential locations
of low-income and minority persons in the area most likely to be affected by the
proposed project. Pender County contacts confirmed that there were no concentrations
of low-income or minority persons in the study area. New Hanover County contacts
indicated that homes in the Stephens Church Road area may be predominantly minority
occupied residences.
The relocation reports prepared for the project provide an estimate of minority
relocations (see Appendix C). The reports also provide an estimate of the income level
of households that would be displaced as a result of the proposed project All of the
current detailed study alternatives will result in the relocation of minority-owned or
occupied homes and businesses. Given the number of relocations and other
environmental impacts along the entire project corridor, the project is not expected to
have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on
low-income or minority populations.
In accordance with Title III of the Civil Right Act of 1964 and Executive Order 12898, it
has been determined that the project would not directly or through contractual or other
arrangements, use criteria, methods, or practices that discriminate on the basis of race,
color, or national origin nor would it have a disproportionate effect on minority or low-
income communities.
Public outreach activities have extended to the entire study area, including minority and
low-income persons. Three newsletters were mailed to property owners in the study area
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-5 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
and two workshops were held - one in Pender County and one in New Hanover County
Citizens were given the opportunity to comment or ask questions via comment forms at
the workshop, email, and a toll-free project information line.
4. 1 .5 ECONOMIC EFFECT5
It is anticipated that any new and/or improved access and mobility provided by the
proposed project will have a positive economic effect.
Complementary development such as highway-oriented uses is not expected to be
associated with either Military Cutoff Road Extension alternative. It is anticipated that
development would follow current nearby uses and zoning, which is mostly residential.
A mix of higher density uses could occur along either alternative. Complementary
development could be expected for all Hampstead Bypass detailed study alternatives
around the proposed NC 210 interchange. Rural residential uses may transition to higher
density residential development in the vicinity of this interchange, as well.
New roadway infrastructure combined with water and sewer availability could encourage
growth. However, the project will only provide new access in a few select areas, such as
along the Military Cutoff Road Extension corridor and at the proposed NC 210
interchange.
The Wilmington area in general is likely to continue to be a regional draw for
development Since the area around Military Cutoff Road is already built upon or
planned for development, it is not expected that Military Cutoff Road Extension would
have any influence on intraregional land development location decisions. All of the
Hampstead Bypass detailed study alternatives would make conditions more favorable for
commuters coming to the Wilmington area from the north. More favorable commuting
conditions combined with a desirable location near Wilmington could have some
influence on intraregional land development location decisions.
Substantial travel time savings (more than ten minutes) are expected for travelers using
the Hampstead Bypass because they will have a through route without the traffic signals
and congestion characteristic of Market Street and existing US 17. Although not as
substantial as the Hampstead Bypass, Military Cutoff Road Extension will also offer
travel time savings as an alternative to Market Street and a connection to the Hampstead
Bypass.
Property values may increase in areas where new access to developable land is provided
This could occur with the Military Cutoff Road Extension alternatives and the
Hampstead Bypass alternatives near the proposed interchange at NC 210.
A decrease in value to some properties could be possible. Where the roadway aligninent
extends very close to residential areas, such as existing neighborhoods near Military
Cutoff Road Extension or properties near the proposed Hampstead Bypass, properties
could decrease in value because of potential loss in aesthetics, increase in noise, or partial
taking of some properties.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-6 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
4.2 LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
4.2. 1 LAND USE PLANS
Wilmington and New Hanover County are generally supportive of growth, with an
emphasis on redeveloping degraded properties, protecting area resources, and ensuring
that proper infrastructure is in place. The proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension is
compatible with local public policy, since it will improve infrastructure and provide
access to areas designated for residential growth.
Pender County is supportive of growth, but also exhibits caution to protect the county's
resources and rural lifestyle. Plans adopted by officials show that in areas most likely to
experience growth from the Hampstead Bypass, growth has already been anticipated and
planned for.
The area between the Wilmington Bypass and the New Hanover County/Pender County
line is shown as "Wetland Resource Protection Areas" in the 2006 lVibnington-New
Hanover County CAMA Land Use Plan Update. Since there would be no access to
developable land in this area with the proposed Hampstead bypass, this project is not
considered to be in conflict with the Plan.
4.2.2 TRAN5PORTATION PLAN5
4.2.2.1 COMPAT191LITY WITH HIGHWAY PLAN5
Military Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) and Hampstead Bypass R-3300) are
compatible with New Hanover County and Pender County transportation plans.
Project U-4751 is included in the approved 2009-2015 NCDOT State Transporlation
ImprovementProgram (S77P) 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 2009-2015.5I7P as a US 17 bypass of Hampstead. Both projects are included
in the Dra$ 2012-2018 S"I7P.
4.2.2.2 COMPATIBILITY WITH TRAN5IT PLANS
The proposed project does not conflict with New Hanover County transit plans. Pender
County does not currently have public transit operations in place. The proposed projects
could benefit intercity bus service by reducing delay for bus routes operating on Market
Street The study area is not currently served by passenger rail service.
4.2.2.3 COMPATIBILITY WITH BICYCLE/PEDE5TRIAN PLAN5
The proposed project does not conflict with bicycle or pedestrian plans.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-7 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
All of the Hampstead Bypass alternatives will cross NC Bike Route 3 at NC 210. From
NC 210, NC Bike Route 3 ties into existing US 17 and continues north through Pender
County. Hampstead Bypass alternatives will tie into a section of existing US 17 that
includes NC Bike Route 3. Bicycle safe bridge railing will be provided on the NC 210
bridge over the Hampstead Bypass.
Military Cutoff Road is included as part of the Southside Route identified as Bike
Route 11, which connects the Middle Sound Area (near Ogden) to Carolina Beach Road.
Fourteen-foot outside lanes are proposed on Military Cutoff Road Extension to
accommodate bicycles.
The Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization (MP0) has requested the inclusion
of a multi-use path along proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension (see Appendix B).
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 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.
All of the Hampstead Bypass alternatives would construct a fully-controlled access
facility. No bicycle or pedestrian accommodations are proposed on Hampstead Bypass,
as bicycles and pedestrians are prohibited from using freeways. Any proposed bridges
carrying local roads over the proposed bypass will be constructed with an offset between
the edge of the travel lane and the bridge rail to provide a walking area across the bridge.
4.3 IMPACTS TO THE PHY5ICAL ENVIRONMENT
4.3. 1 NOI5E IMPACT5
A noise study was conducted for the project Details of the methodology and
investigations are provided in the February 2011 Noise Analysis report and the March
2011Review of Revised Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum, appended by reference.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has developed Noise Abatement Criteria
(NAC) and procedures to be used in the planning and design of highways to determine
whether highway noise levels are or are not compatible with various land uses. These
abatement criteria and procedures are set forth in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations
Part 772, Procedures forAbatement of Highway Traic Nozre and Conslruction Nozre
(23 CFR 772).
A summary of the noise abatement criteria for various land uses is presented in
Table 4-2. The L,eq, or equivalent sound level, is the level of constant sound which in a
given situation and time period has the same energy as time varying sound. In other
words, the fluctuating sound levels of traffic noise are represented in terms of a steady
noise level with the same energy content A summary of the criteria to determine
substantial increases in noise is presented in Table 4-3.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-B TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-2. Noise Abatement Criteria.
Noise Abaternent Criteria1 for Each FHWA Activity Category
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA)
Activity
C
t Leq(h) Description of Activity Category
a
egory
Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
A 57 significance and serve an important public need and where the
(Exterior) preservation of those qualities are essential if the area is to
continue to serve its intended ur ose.
67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas,
P' (Exterior) Parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and
hos itals.
C 72 Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
(Exterior) Cate ries A or B above.
D -- Undevelo ed lands.

E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools,
(Interior} ' '
churches, libranes, hos itals, and auditonums.
1 Tifle 23 Code of Fedexal Regulations (CFR) Paxt772, U.S. Depaxtment of Transpoxtation, FHWA
Table 4-3. Criteria for Substantial Increase in dBA.
Criteria for Substantial Increase 2
Hourly A-Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA)
Existing Noise Level in
Leq(h) Increase in dBA frorn
Existing Noise Levels to
Future Noise Levels
<= sa >= is
51 = 14
52 = 13
53 = 12
54 = 11
>= 55 >= 10
ZNoxth Caxolina Depaxtment of Txanspoxtation Txaffic Noise Abaternent Policy (09/02/04).
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-9 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
4. 3. 1. 1 TRAFFI C N O 15 E I M PACTS
Receptors expected to experience traffic noise impacts either by approaching or
exceeding the NCDOT NAC or by a substantial increase in exterior noise levels are
considered "impacted." Design year 2035 traffic noise levels are expected to approach
or exceed the NAC for 118 receptors for Alternative E-H, 95 Receptors for Alternative
O, 101 receptors for Alternative R, 163 receptors for Alternative U, 147 receptors for
Alternative M1, and 141 receptors for Alternative M2.
The maximum number of receptors predicted to be impacted is shown in Table 4-4 for
each alternative.
Table 4-4. Predicted Noise Traffic Impacts

Traffic Noise Irnpacts Alternative
M1+EH M2+C1 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Residentiol 187
167

1?6

209

204
Commercial 66 65 68 91 90
Churches/Schools 4 4 4 10 10
TOTAL 257 236 248 310 304
The 2035 predicted noise level increases for the proposed project range from -1 dBA to
+38 dBA for Alternatives E-H, 0 and R, -3 dBA to +24 dBA for Alternative U, and +1
dBA to +40 dBA for Alternatives M1 and M2.
4.3.1.2 TRAFFIG N015E ABATEMENT MEASURES
Measures for reducing or eliminating the traffic noise impacts were considered for all
impacted receptors for each alternative. The primary noise abatement measures
evaluated for highway projects include highway alignment changes, traffic system
management measures, buffer acquisition, and noise barriers, including vegetative noise
barriers. For each of these measures, benefits versus costs, engineering feasibility,
effectiveness and practicability, land use issues, and other factors were included in the
noise abatement considerations.
Substantially changing the highway alignment to minimize noise impacts is not
considered to be a viable option for this project due to engineering and/or
environmental factors. Traffic systems management measures are not considered
appropriate for noise abatement for this project due to their negative effect on the
capacity and level of service of the proposed roadway. The acquisition of property in
order to provide buffer zones to minimize noise impacts is not considered to be a
reasonable noise mitigation measure for this project. The cost to acquire property for
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-1 0 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
buffer zones would exceed the abatement threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor
plus the incremental increase of $500 per dBA average increase in the impacted
receptors. The use of vegetation for noise mitigation is not considered reasonable for
this project due to the substantial amount of right of way necessary to make vegetative
barriers effective. The cost to acquire right of way for these vegetative barriers would
exceed the abatement threshold of $35,000 per benefited receptor plus the incremental
increase of $500 per dBA average increase in the impacted receptors.
Based on the NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, nine noise barriers are expected
to meet feasibility and reasonableness criteria, as found in NCDOT Traffic Noise
Abatement Policy. Reasonable cost per benefited receptor is such that the cost of the
noise mitigation divided by the number of benefited receptors must be equal to or less
than $35,000 plus $500 multiplied by the average increase in predicted exterior noise
levels. A Design Noise Report with a detailed study of potential traffic noise mitigation
will be completed at the time of final assessment of this project Depending on the
selected alternative, an analysis of the following barriers is proposed:
• Barrier B3 located along existing US 17 southbound approaching the US 17
Wilmington Bypass interchange with Market Street (see Figure 10E). It is anticipated
that the barrier would benefit 36 receptors along Alternative U.
• Barrier C1 located along existing US 17 southbound (see Figure 10G). It is
anticipated that the barrier would benefit 8 receptors along Alternative U.
• Barrier F located along existing US 17 northbound (see Figures 101 and 101,C). It is
anticipated that the barrier would benefit 77 receptors along Alternatives E$, O, R
and U.
• Barriers H1 and H2 along Hampstead Bypass (see Figure 1013). It is anticipated that
the barriers would benefit impacted receptors along Alternatives E-H, O and R.
Barrier H1 would benefit 11 receptors and Barrier H2 would benefit 16 receptors.
• Barriers J1 through J4 located along Military Cutoff Road Extension between
Putnam Drive and just north of Torchwood Boulevard (see Figure 10C). It is
anticipated that the barriers would benefit impacted receptors along Alternatives M1
and M2. Barrier J1 would benefit ten receptors. Barrier J2 would benefit 42
receptors. Barrier J3 would benefit six receptors. Barrier J4 would benefit seven
receptors.
4.3.1.3 TRAFFIC NOI5E 5UMMARY
Nine noise barriers are expected to meet feasibility and reasonableness criteria based on
NCDOT's Traffic Noise Abatement Policy. During final design, more in-depth TNM
modeling will be performed at these locations to verify that mitigation is both feasible
and reasonable and included in the Design Noise Study. The final decision on the
installation of abatement measures will be made upon completion of the project design
and the public involvement process.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-1 1 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
In accordance with NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy, the Federal/State
governments are not responsible for providing noise abatement measures for new
developments where building permits are issued within the noise impact area of a
proposed highway after the Date of Public Knowledge. The Date of Public Knowledge
for the proposed project will be the approval date of the Record of Decision. For
development occurring a$er this date, local governing bodies are responsible for
ensuring that noise compatible designs are utilized along the proposed facility.
4.3.2 AIR QUALITY
An air quality assessment was performed for the project in July 2009. Details of the
methodology and investigations are provided in the Air Quality Analysis report,
appended by reference.
The project is located in New Hanover and Pender counties, which have been
determined to comply with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
proposed project is located in an attainment area; therefore, 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are
not applicable. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air
quality of this attaininent area.
Carbon Monoxide
Automobiles are considered the major source of carbon monoxide (CO) in the study
area. In accordance with 40 CFR 93.126, this project is an air quality neutral project It
is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable) and a
project level CO analysis is not required.
Ozone and Nitrogen Oxide
Automobiles are regarded as sources of hydrocarbons (F3C) and nitrogen oxides (NOx).
Hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides emitted from cars are carried into the atrnosphere
where they react with sunlight to form ozone (03) and nitrogen dioxide (NOz).
Automotive emissions of HC and NOx are expected to decrease in the future due to the
continued installation and maintenance of pollution control devices on new cars.
However, regarding area-wide emissions, these technological improvements may be
offset by the increasing number of cars on the transportation facilities of the area.
Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxide
Automobiles are not regarded as significant sources of particulate matter or sulfur
dioxide.
Lead
It is not expected that traffic on the proposed project will cause the NAAQS for lead to
be exceeded.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-12 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Mobile Source Air Toxics
This dra$ environmental impact statement (DEIS) includes a basic analysis of the likely
mobile source air toxics (MSAT) emission impacts of this project. However, available
technical tools are unable to predict the project-specific health impacts of the emission
changes associated with the alternatives in this DEIS. Due to these limitations, the
following discussion is included in accordance with CEQ regulations
(40 CFR 1502.22(b)) regarding incomplete or unavailable information:
Evaluating the environmental and health impacts resulting from MSATs on a proposed
highway project would involve several key elements, including emissions modeling,
dispersion modeling in order to estimate ambient concentrations resulting from the
estimated emissions, exposure modeling in order to estimate human exposure to the
estimated concentrations, and then final determination of health impacts based on the
estimated exposure. Each of these steps is encumbered by technical shortcomings or
uncertain science that prevents a more complete determination of the MSAT health
impacts of this project.
Even though reliable methods do not exist to accurately estimate the health impacts of
MSATs at the project level, it is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT
emissions under the project Although a qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure
health impacts from MSATs, it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the
potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, from the various alternatives.
For each detailed study alternative, the amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional
to the vehicle miles traveled, or V11iIT, assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are
the same for each alternative. The V11iIT estimated for each of the detailed study
alternatives will likely be slightly higher than for the no-build alternative, because the
additional capacity increases the efficiency of the roadway and attracts rerouted trips
from elsewhere in the transportation network. The increased V11iIT would lead to higher
MSAT emissions for the action alternative along the highway corridor, along with a
corresponding decrease in MSAT emissions along the parallel routes. The emissions
increase is offset somewhat by lower MSAT emission rates due to increased speeds.
According to EPA's MOBILE6 emissions model, emissions of all of the priority MSATs
except for diesel particulate matter decrease as speed increases. The extent to which
these speed-related emissions decreases will offset V11iIT-related emissions increases
cannot be reliably projected due to the inherent deficiencies of technical models.
Because the estimated VMT of each of the detailed study alternatives are nearly the
same, it is expected there would be no appreciable difference in overall MSAT emissions
among the various alternatives. Also, regardless of the alternative chosen, emissions will
likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of EPA's national control
programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions by 57 to 87 percent between
2000 and 2020. Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of
fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the
magnitude of the EPA-projected reductions is so great (even a$er accounting for V11iIT
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-1 3 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in
nearly all cases.
Because the project involves constructing a roadway on new location, with each
alternative there will be localized areas where ambient concentrations of MSATs could
be higher than the no-build alternative. However, as discussed above, the magnitude and
the duration of these potential increases compared to the no-build alternative cannot be
accurately quantified due to the inherent deficiencies of current models. In sum, when a
new highway is constructed closer to receptors, the localized level of MSAT emissions
for the detailed study alternatives could be higher relative to the no-build alternative, but
this could be offset due to increases in speeds and reductions in congestion (which are
associated with lower MSAT emissions). Also, MSATs will be lower in other locations
when traffic shi$s away from them. However, on a regional basis, EPA's vehicle and
fuel regulations, coupled with fleet turnover will, over time, cause substantial reductions
that, in almost all cases, will cause region-wide MSAT levels to be significantly lower than
today.
Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule Review
The proposed permit action has been analyzed for conformity applicability pursuant to
regulations implementing Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act It has been determined
that the activities proposed under this permit will not exceed de minimis levels of direct
or indirect emissions of a criteria pollutant or its precursors and are exempted by
40 CFR Part 93.153. Any later indirect emissions are generally not within the Corps'
continuing program responsibility and generally cannot be practicably controlled by the
Corps. For these reasons a conformity determination is not required for this permit
action.
4.3.3 FARMLAND IMPACTS
All of the detailed study alternatives will impact prime farmland. Prime farmland does
not include land already in or committed to urban development or water storage. Prime
farmland "already in" urban development includes all land that has been designated for
commercial or industrial use, or residential use that is not intended at the same time to
protect farmland in a:
1. Zoning code or ordinance adopted by the state or local unit of government; or
2. A comprehensive land use plan which has expressly been either adopted or
reviewed in its entirety by the unit of local government in whose jurisdiction it is
operative within ten years preceding the implementation of the project.
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service, the detailed study alternatives
in New Hanover County and portions of their study area in Pender County meet the
criteria and are exempt from evaluation of prime farmland impacts. Table 4-5 shows the
anticipated prime farmland impacts associated with each detailed study alternative.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-14 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-5. Prime Farmland Impacts
Alternative
M1+EH M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Prime Farmland Iinpacts
7
6;.48
55.10
58.12
49.88
49.88
(acres)
4.3.4 UTILITY IMPACT5
All of the detailed study alternatives will impact both private and public utilities. Impacts
will include the relocation, adjustment or modification of gas, water, electric, sewer,
telephone and fiber optic cable lines. The relocation of power poles also will be required
as a result of the proposed project.
Hampstead Bypass Alternatives EH, O, R and U will isolate water tanks for Belvedere
Plantation subdivision and cut off access to a cell tower. Military Cutoff Road Extension
Alternatives M1 and M2 extend onto the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority's well field
and water treatment plant property. Neither alternative is expected to impact structures
associated with on-site water treatment or storage. Both Alternatives M1 and M2 cross
existing and proposed raw water lines. Alternative M2 would impact more existing and
proposed water lines than Alternative M1. Information regarding impacts to Cape Fear
Public Utility Authority well sites is included in Section 4.5.3.1.1. Table 4-6 shows the
anticipated utility costs associated u7ith each detailed study alternative.
Executive Orders 13212 and 13302 require federal agencies to take actions to expedite
projects which will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy, or
which strengthen pipeline safety. The subject project is not energy-related, therefore
Executive Orders 13212 and 13302 do not apply.
Table 4-6. Utility Relocation and Construction Costs
Alternative
M1+EH M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
L7tility Relocation and
Construction Costs $1,838,580 $2,068,520 $1,886,700 $2,502,300 $2,654,120
4.3.5 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS
Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternatives M1 and M2 may impact five properties that
either have or formerly had underground storage tanks (USTs). The properties are
located along Market Street in the vicinity of the proposed interchange with Military
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-1 5 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Cutoff Road Extension (see Figure 10-B). Preliminary site assessments to identify the
nature and extent of any contamination will be performed on these sites prior to right of
way acquisition. The sites include:
• Kelly's Automotive, 6747 Market Street - This facility (formerly Ed's Brake & Lube)
presently operates as an automotive repair shop. One UST for used waste oil was
closed in 1998. This facility has one in-ground hydraulic li$ 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'L,eary's Auto Repair, 5905 Market Street - This facility currently operates 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 are no USTs currently in use at this site. The site is anticipated to
present low geoenvironmental 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 TTP project 4902B. The
site is anticipated to present low geoenvironmental impacts.
4.3.6 MINERAL RESOLJRCES
Whitehouse Creek Mine off of US 17 in Pender County (see Figure 10-G) is located
adjacent to Alternative U. HanPen Mine off of Sidbury Road in Pender County (see
Figure 10-F) is located adjacent to Alternative E$. The current extent of sand and
gravel mining activities at these sites will not be impacted by the project The HanPen
mine has recently requested an expansion. Alternative E$ may impact the future
expansion of mining activities at this site.
4.3.7 FLOODPLAIN/FLOODWAY IMPACT5
All of the detailed study alternatives cross floodplains. Hampstead Bypass alternatives
E$, O and R include major hydraulic crossings in a Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) detailed study Special Flood Hazard Zone. Hydraulic design for these
crossings will not create constraints to flow. Therefore, upstream floodways will not be
affected by placement of these structures.
In accordance with Executive Order 11988, the Hydraulics Unit will coordinate with the
NC Floodplain Mapping Program (FMP), the delegated state agency for administering
FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program, to determine the status of the project with
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-16 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
regard to applicability of NCDOT's Memorandum of Agreement with FMP (dated
6/5/08), or approval of a Conditional Letter of Map Revision {CLOMR} and subsequent
final Letter of Map Revision (LOMR).
This project involves construction activities on or adjacent to FEMA-regulated streams.
Therefore, NCDOT Division 3 shall submit sealed as-built construction plans to the
Hydraulics Unit upon completion of project construction, certifying that the drainage
structure(s) and roadway embankment that are located within the 100-year floodplain
were built as shown in the construction plans, both horizontally and vertically.
4.3.8 PROTECTED LAND5 IMPACTS
4.3.8.1 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
As noted in Section 3.3.8.1, no Wild and Scenic Rivers are located in the study area.
4.3.8.2 STATE/NATIDNAL FORESTS
As noted in Section 3.3.8.2, no state or national forests are located in the study area.
4.3.8.3 GAMELAND5 AND PRESERVATION AREA5
All of the detailed study alternatives will impact preservation areas (see Table 4-7).
Additional information regarding these sites is included in Section 3.3.5.3.
Table 4-7. Gamelands and Preservation Area Impacts
Gamelands and Preservation
Area Impacts (acres) Alternative
M1+EH M2+p M1+R M1+U M2+U
Holly Shelter Game Land 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Corbett Tract Mitigation Site 0.58 0.00 0.58 Q.Q$ 0.00
Corbett Tract Residual Strip 3.55 0.27 3.55 2.85 0.00
Plantation Road Site 0.30 13.28 0.30 0.31 22.()3
34-Acre Residual Site 0.00 25.81 0.00 0.04 12.37
22-Acre Residual Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Blake Savannah 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 4.43 42.94 5.01 3.24 34.40
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-1 7 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
4.4 CULTURAL RE5OURCE5 IMPACT5
4.4. 1 H15TORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCE5
As described in Section 3.4.1, there is one property witlzin 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 4-$.
Table 4-8. Historic Architectural Resource Effects

Historic Property Alternative
M1+EH M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
No No No _iLdverse Adverse
Poplar Grove Effect Effect Effect Effect Effect
Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse Adverse
Mount Ararat ANIE 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
The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with these effect determinations at a
meeting held on March 8,2011. A copy of the concurrence form is included in
Appendix B.
4.4.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RE5OURCE5
As noted in Section 3.4.2, archaeological surveys will be conducted for the project after
the selection of the preferred alternative.
4. 4. 3 TRI BAL LAN DS
As noted in Section 3.4.3, there are no American Indian tribal lands in the project study
area. In accordance with Executive Order 13175, it has been determined that the project
will have no substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-1 8 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
4.5 IMPACTS TO THE NATLJRAL ENVIRONMENT
4.5. 1 SOILS/TOPOGRAPHICAUGEOLOGICAL IMPACTS
There are geotechnical engineering concerns associated with all of the detailed study
alternatives due to the so$ organic soils in the creek crossings and Carolina Bays. Soil
improvement techniques may be necessary for the organic soils in order to control
differential setdement Side slopes of 3:1 or flatter are needed to establish vegetation and
assist in erosion control. Additional subsurface drainage may be necessary to assist in
drainage and/or consolidation of very wet or so$ soils.
4.5.2 BIOTIC COMMLJNITY AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS
4.5.2.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMLJNITIE5 AND WILDLIFE
I M PACT5
4.5.2.1.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMLJNITY IMPACTS
Impacts to terrestrial communities resulting from land clearing are unavoidable. Project
construction activities in or near terrestrial resources have the potential to impact the
biological function of these resources. Table 4-9 shows the anticipated impacts of the
project alternatives on terrestrial communities.
North Carolina Department of Transportation Best Management Practices for the
management of invasive plant species will be followed, which will comply with Executive
Order 13112.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-19 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-9. Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial Carnrnunity Alternative
Irnpacts (acres) M1+EH M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Maintained/Disturbed 310.2 270.16 310.78 497.25 459.36
Mesic Pine Flatwoods 235.86 93.65 171.60 175.68 150.91
Wet Pine Flatwoods 69.77 68.86 81.33 76.79 76.65
Pond Pine Woodland 83.63 222.71 83.63 59.62 133.68
Pocosin 51.63 60.27 62.34 21.66 21.66
Xeric Sandhill Scrub 49.59 49.87 47.83 18.00 18.00
Coastal Plain Bottomland
Hardwood - Blackwater Subtype 29.48 40.90 43.31 9.18 9.18
Nonriverine Wet Hardwood
Forest 0.06 0.06 0.06 49.72 49.72
Pine Savanna 20.13 16.72 16.72 0.00 0.00
Cutover 29.10 32.79 40.10 0.38 0.38
Coastal Plain Small Streaxn
Swamp - Blackwater Subtype 19.48 3.67 12.89 0.00 0.00
Cypress/Gum Swamp -
Blackwater Subtype 2.49 8.17 7.45 0.04 0.04
Nonriverine Swamp Forest 1.63 1.63 1.63 16.62 16.62
Small Depression Pacosin 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Small Depression Pond 1.49 1.49 1.49 2.05 2.05
TOTAL 904.78 870.95 881.16 926.99 938.25
4.5.2. 1.2 TERRE5TRIAL WILDLIFE IMPACT5
Temporary fluctuation in populations of animal species which utilize terrestrial areas is
anticipated during the course of construction. Slow-moving, burrowing, and
subterranean organisms will be directly impacted by construction activities, while mobile
organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities. Habitat reduction can occur when
project construction affects undisturbed areas surrounding an existing man-dominated
environment. When this occurs, competitive forces in the adapted communities will
result in a redefinition of population equilibrium.
Hampstead Bypass Alternative U will irnpact less wildlife habitat than the other
Hampstead Bypass alternatives because it has less construction on new location.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-20 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Fragmentation and loss of forested habitat may impact wildlife in the area by reducing
potential nesting and foraging areas, as well as displacing animal populations. Forested
areas provide connectivity between populations, allowing for gene flow, as well as a
means of safe travel from one foraging area to another. Table 4-10 shows the
anticipated impacts of the detailed study alternatives on forests in the study area.
Table 4-10. Forest Impacts
Alteriiative
M1+EH M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Forest Irnpacts (acres) 518 512 472 406 455
4.5.2.2 AQLJATIC COMMIJNITIES AND WILDLIFE IMPACT5
Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to the discharges and inputs resulting from
construction activities. Impacts usually associated with in-stream construction include
increased channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters
the substrate and impacts adjacent stream-side vegetation. Such disturbances within the
substrate lead to increased siltation that can clog the gills and feeding mechanisms of
benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species. The populations of these organisms are
slow to recover and may not do so once a stream has been severely impacted. The
anticipated impacts of the detailed study alternatives on streams in the study area are
presented in Section 4.5.3.2.1. Section 4.5.3.2.3 presents the anticipated impacts of tlze
detailed study alternatives on wetlands in the study area.
Appropriate measures -will be taken to avoid spillage of construction materials and
control runof£ Such measures will include an erosion and sedimentation control plan,
provisions for disposal and handling of waste materials and storage, stormwater
management measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. NCDO'I's Best
McanagenzentPracticesforProtection ofSurfcace Vaters (SMP-PSW? and Sedimentation Control
guidelines will be enforced during the construction stages of the project. Long-term
impacts to water resources may include permanent changes to the stream banks and
temperature increases caused by the removal of stream-side vegetation.
4.5.3 WATER RESOURCE5 IMPACTS
Primary sources of water quality degradation in urban and developed areas are non-point
sources of discharge, which include surface water runoff and runoff from construction
activities. Short-term impacts to water quality from construction-related activities
include increased sedimentation and turbidity in nearby water resources. Long-term
impacts include substrate destabilization, bank erosion, increased turbidity, altered flow
rates, and possible temperature fluctuations within the channel due to removal of
streamside vegetation.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-2 1 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material during construction
contributes to erosion and possible sedimentation. Erosion and sedimentation may carry
soils, toxic compounds, trash, and other materials into the aquatic communities at the
construction site. As a result, sand bars may be formed both at the site and downstream.
Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation may also increase
water temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life that
depends on high oxygen concentrations. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to
reduce the impacts by supporting the underlying soils.
The proposed project will impact surface waters, wetlands and ponds, as described in the
sections below. Construction activities associated with the project will strictly follow
NCDOT's BestManagement Practices for Conslruction and Maintenance Activities (BMP-CMA)
and Protection of Surface Vaters (BMP-PSW). Sedimentation control guidelines will be
strictly enforced during the construction stages of the project.
4.5.3.1 GROUNDWATER IMPACT5
Impacts to groundwater aquifers are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
4.5.3.1.1 WELL5
Alternatives M1 and M2 cross two existing well sites operated by the Cape Fear Public
Utility Authority.
Alternative M2 would impact two additional existing Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
well sites and a proposed well site. Alternative M2 would also impact raw water line and
concentrate discharge line infrastructure that provides a connection to several anticipated
future Cape Fear Public Utility Authority well sites. The Authority indicates that future
well sites were selected based on aquifer access, anticipated yields, and because the area is
undeveloped, which protects the well heads from contamination. Estimates by the
Authority indicate impacts to these future well sites could result in a loss of up to six
million gallons per day of anticipated future New Hanover County water supply
resources.
Alternative U impacts three existing transient non-corrnnunity water supply wells in the
vicinity of the proposed US 17 interchange at Sidbury Road and Scotts Hill Loop Road.
Transient non-community wells serve 25 or more people at least 60 days out of the year
at facilities such as restaurants and churches.
4.5.3.2 5URFACE WATER IMPACT5
4.5.3.2.1 STREAM IMPACT5
A total of 59 jurisdictional streams are located within the current detailed study
alternatives' study corridors (see Figures 10-A through 10-1,C). Anticipated impacts by
stream are presented for the detailed study alternatives in Table 4-11. Total stream
impacts for each alternative are shown in Table 4-12.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-22 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-11. Individual Stream Impacts
Stiveam Compeiisatory
Strearn Figure Corridor Strearn
Strearn Name Irnpact Mitigation
ID No. Alternativre-5 Deterrnination
(feet)* Required
BSA UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1, M2 294.71 Yes Perennial
BS UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1, M2 153.12 Yes Perennial
BSK UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1, M2 609.43 Yes Perennial
BSL UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1, M2 287.65 Yes Perennial
BSM UT ta Smith Creek 10-C M1, M2 732.16 Yes Perennial
BSN UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1, M2 970.20 Yes Perennial
M1-
2,329.25
BSO UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1, M2 Yes Perennial

2,321.95
M1-398.21,
BSP UT to Srruth Czeek 10-C M1, M2 yes Perennial
M2-328.11
M1-83.23
BSQ UT to Smith Czeek 10-C M1, M2 yes Perennial
M2- 82.13
No2
1
BDITCHI UT to Howe Creek 10-C NI1, M2 613.25 0 HWM
No3
E-H, R-
1,949.14,
T,
E-H Ul-
CSA UT to Island Creek 10-D M ?'es Perennial
1 2 079
> >
M1-
2,079.15
E-H,R-
10-C, E-H, R, U1, 257.70,
CSB UT to Island Creek yes Perennial
10-D M1 M1, U1-
270.64

CSC UT to Smith Creek M1 943.08 No2
10-D OHVIM1
10-C, Yes Intennittent
CSD UT to S
mith Creek M1 902.39
10-D Yes Petenrrial
CSE UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1 239.16 No2 OHWM1
CSG UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1 280.66 Yes Interrruttent
CSH UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1 230.00 Yes Intennittent
CSI UT to Smith Creek 10-C M1 231.87 Yes Perenrrial
E-H, R-
E-H, R, U1, 1,289.61,
CSJ UT to Island Creek 10-D yes Perennial
M1 U1, M1-
932.20
E-H
R, U1,
CSK UT to Island Creek 10-D ? 399.56 Yes Perennial

US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-23 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-11. Individual Stream Impacts continued
Strearn Cornpensatory
Strearn Figure Corridor Streain
Strearn Name Irnpact Mitigation
ID No. Alternativre5 Detennination
(feet)* Required
O-3 59.29,
DSA UT to Island Creek 10-C O, U2, M2 M2, U2- Yes Perennial
444.32
ESA UT to Mill Creek 10-G U1, U2 848.71 Yes Perenru'al
ESB UT to Mill Creek 10-G U1, U2 130.43 Yes Perenru'al
E-H, R-
2131.71,
E-H, O R,
FSA UT to Island Creek 10-D 0-16.03, Yes Perennial
U1, M1
M1,U1-
520.14
0-52.86,
O, U1, U2, U1, U2,
FSC UT to Island Creek 10-D Yes Interxiuttent
M1, M2 M1, M2-
37.42
FSE UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H, R 331.14 Yes Perennial
No2
FSF UT to Island Creek 10-F R 289.51 OHWW
No3
No2
l
OHWI??I

N
o3
FSH UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H 494.65
Yes Intermittent
Yes Perenru'al
E-H-
FSI UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H, R 273.54, R- Yes Perenru'al
266.68
FS UT to Island Creek 10-D E-H, R 858.61 Yes Intermittent
FSK UT to Island Creek 10-F R 81.02 Yes Inteimittent
GFSE UT to Island Creek 10-E 0 301.99 Yes Perennial
GSA UT to Island Creek 10-F O, FZ 417.82 Yes Perennial
10-E,
GSG UT to Island Creek O 190.25 Yes Intermittent
10-F
Yes Intermittent
HBSAA UT to Island Creek 10-F E-H 141.44
Yes Pesennial
Yes Intermittent
HBSC UT to Island Creek 10-F E-H 368.56
Yes Perenru'al
Yes Intermittent
HBSD(1) UT to Island Creek 10-F E-H 269.34
Yes Petennial
HBSH UT to Island Creek 10-F E-H 319.90 Yes Intermittent
UT to Hasrisons
HSB 10-H E-H 262.08 Yes Intemuttent
Creek
UT to HaszYSOns 10-F, '
HSC E-H 403.72 Yes Perenru
al
Creek 10-H
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-24 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-11. Individual Stream Impacts continued
Strearn Cornpensatory
Strearn Figure Corridor Streain
Strearn Name Irnpact Mitigation
ID No. Alternativre5 Detennination
(feet)* Required
UT to Harrisons
HSX 10-H E-H 305
5$ Yes Peiennial
Creek .
Yes Intermittent
ISA UT to Island Creek 10-F O, R 725.75
Yes Perennial
UT to Hazrisans 10-H O, R Yes Interrruttent
ISC 276.96
Creek Yes Petennial
UT to Hazrisons
ISD 10-H O, R 424.9 Yes Perennial
Creek
UT t
sons
IDITCHI 10-F O, R 397.01 No2
C e k OHVv'Mi
UT to Harrisons
LSB 10-H E-H, O, R 1,397.92 Yes Peiennial
Creek
LSC Harrisons Creek 10-H E-H, O, R 655.51 Yes Perennial
UT to Hazrisons 10-H E-H, O, R Yes Intermittent
LSCA 441.54
Creek Yes Petennial
UT to Hazrisons
LS?,?A 10-H E-H, O, R 208.86 Yes Perennial
Creek
UT to Haznsons
LSCB 10-H E-H, O, R 307.07 Yes Perennial
Creek
UT to Hasrisons
LSCC 10- E-H, O, R 130.65 Yes Peiennial
Creek
UT to Harrisons
LSCF 10-H E-H, O, R 119.60 Yes Inten-nittent
Creek
10-H,
LSD Godfrey Creek E-H, O, R 284.51 Yes Perennial
10-I
UT to Godfrey *
LSDA 10-I E-H, O, R 194.73 Yes Interm
ttent
Creek
E-H
O
R Yes Intermittent
NSA UT to AIWW4 10-K ,
,
, 441.60
U1, U2 yes Perennial

4 E-H, O, R, Yes Intermittent
NSF UT to AIWW 10-I 104.83,
U1, U2 Yes Perennial
ZSB UT to Futch Creek 10-E U1, U2 385.87 Yes Perennial
UT to Prince
ZSK 10-D E-H, R 849.12 Yes Pesennial
Geor e Creek
UT to Prince
ZSL 10-D E-H, R 40.23 Yes Perennial
Geor e Creek
*Impacts axe for all altematives unless othenvise noted. Individual irnpacts calculated fox Military Cutoff Road
Extension Altematives M1 and M2 utilize the coxrespondrng Hampstead Bypass Altemative U intexchange
configuxation.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-25 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-11. Individual Stream Impacts continued
1 Itesource detennined by USACE to be a jurisdictional tributaxy based on the pxesence of an oxdinaxy high
watex mark (OHWM) during field verification.
Z Tributaxy featuxe exists within the boundaries of an adjacent wetland and thexefoie does not xequixe
mitigation independent of the wetland.
3 Tributary featuxe does not xequixe stxeam mitigation but may xequixe mitigation by the USACE as a"Watex of
the US" dependent upon the type of impact pxoposed at the time of pemlit application.
4 Atlantic Intxacoastal Watexway.
5 U1 is Harnpstead Bypass Altemative U staxting at an intexchange witli US 17 Wilmington Bypass at Military
Cutoff Road Extension Altexnative M1. U2 is Hampstead Bypass Altexnative U staxting at an intexchange with
US 17 Wilrrungton Bypass at Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M2.
Table 4-12. Total Stream Impacts
Delineated Strearn Alternative
Impacts (linear feet) M1+EH M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Perenilial 17,98; 11,486 18,634 11,755 7,687
Intermittent 3,487 1,346 2,553 997 486
Other 1 3,057 1,010 3,384 2,698 613
Total 24,531 13,842 24,571 15,450 8,786
1 Txibutaxy watexs detennined to be jurisdictional duxing pxeliminaxy jurisdictional detexmination pxocess
based on the pxesence of an oxdinaxy high watex maxk (OHWM)
4.5.3.2.2 PoNO IMPacTs
Seventeen ponds are located within the corridors of the current detailed study
alternatives {see Figures 10-A through 10-Iq. Anticipated impacts for each pond are
presented for the detailed study alternatives in Table 4-13. Total pond impacts for each
alternative are shown in Table 4-14.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-26 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-13. Individual Pond Impacts
Pond Figure Corridor Connected Pond Impacts
ID No. Alternative(s)1 Appearance Feature Map ID (acres)*
BPE 10-C M 1, -1\4 2 Storm«ater Pond BSL 0.75
BPF 10-C M1, M2 Stormwater Pond BSO 0.41
BPJ 10-C M1, M2 Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.11
BPK 10-B M1, 1.22 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
0-0.11
R-
10-F O
R ,
GPC , Stormwater Pond GWA 0.06
GPD 10-F O, R Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.01
IPA2 10-F O, R Stormwater Pond IWT 0.14
IPE 10-H E-H, O, R Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.27
E-H O R U1
'
? ? Cypress/Gum E-H, O, R-
JPD 10-I No Connection 1.68, U1, U2 -
U2 Depression
1.65
E-H O R U1
'
? ? Cypress/Gum E-H, O, R-
KPB 10-I KWA/KWG 0.31, U1, U2 -
U2 Depression
0.55
KPC 10-I U1, U2 llZanmade/Maintained KWF 0.18
LPD 10-H E-H, O, R Vlanmade/Maintained LWA 0.02
LPE 10-H E-H, O, R Manmade/Maintained No Connection 0.23
E-H, O, R, U1,
10-I
NPC U2 Stormwater Pond No Connection 0.06
E-H, O, R, U1 Water Treatment
NPE 10-I ,
U2 Pond No Connection 0.05
1Impacts axe fox all altematives unless othexwise noted. Individual impacts calculated fox Militaxy Cutoff Road
Extension Altematives M1 and M2 utilize the coxresponcling Hampstead Bypass Altemative U intexchange
configuxation.
*U1 is Hampstead Bypass Altexnative U staxting at an intexchange with US 17 Wilmington Bypass at Militaxy
Cutoff Road Extension Altexnative M1. U2 is Harnpstead Bypass Altexnative U staxting at an intexchange with
US 17 Wilrrungton Bypass at Military Cutoff Road Extension Altexnative M2.
Table 4-14. Total Pond Impacts
Alternative
M1+EH M2+0 F M1+R M1+U M2+U
Delineated Pond Irnpacts
(acres) 3.90 4.32 4.18 3.68 3.68
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-27 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
4.5.3.2.3 WETLAND IMPAGT5
One hundred and eight (105) jurisdictional wetlands are located within the current
detailed study alternatives' corridors (see Figures 10-A through 10-K). Anticipated
impacts by wetland are presented for the detailed study alternatives in Table 4-15. Total
wetland impacts for each alternative are shown in Table 4-16.
Table 4-15. Individual Wetland Impact
VVetland Figure Corridor Cotvardin Hydralogic DWQ Wetland
ID No. Alternative{s}* Classification1 Classification Wetlaiid

R
ti Irnpacts
:?
a
ng (acres)
B«'B 10-C VI1,M2 PF04B Non-riparian 27 023
BWC 10-C M1,M2 PFO Non-riparian 25 0.1$
BWD 10-C M1,M2 PFO Non-riparian 34 1.90
BWI 10-C M1,M2 PF01/3/4B Non-riparian 34 M1-1.66,
M2-1.89
C)X7A 10-C M1,M2 PF03/4A Non-riparian 34 M1-6.37,
M2-4.80
10-C M1 E-H R E-H, R-1.11,
CWB 10-D ? iJ1 ?? PSS3/4B Non-riparian 36 M1-112.52,
U1-1.06
CWD 10-D E-H, R, U1 PSS3/4Bd Non-riparian 36 E-H, R-7.51,
U1-9.82
CWE 10-D E-H
R
U1 PF03/4Bg Non-riparian 36 E-H-36.83,
,
, R-36
83
.
,
Riparian U 1-23.89
E-H, R-
21.52, O-
CWF 10-C E-H O R U1
? ?
? PF03/4B Non-riparian 36 2.11,
10-D U2 U 1-7.23,
U2-1.05
E-H, R-0.13,
10-C, 0-92.65,
DWC 10-D, E-H M2 O
? PSS3%4B Non-riparian 36 U1-0.12,
10-E R U1 U2
' ' M2-92.50,
U2-77.36
EWF 10-E U1, U2 PFO Riparian 14 0.37
EWH 10-G U1, U2 PFO Non-riparian 20 1.18
EWH1 10-G U1, U2 PFO Riparian 20 1.23
EWI 10-G LJ1, U2 PFO Riparian 37 0.53
EWK 10-G U1, U2 PSS1C Non-riparian 25 0.06
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-28 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-15. Individual Wetland Impacts continued
Wetland
ID Figure
No. Corridor
Alternative(s)* Cawardin
Classificationl Hydrologic
Classification DWQ
Wetland
Rating Wetland
Irnpact?s
(acres)
EW_1\/1 10-G U1, U2 PF01C Ripariatl 19 5.26

F'WA 10-C
10-D
O, U1, U2
PFO
Non-riparian
30 0-0.67,
U1-0.45,
U2-0.48
FWB 10-D E-H, R PFO Riparian 20 5.01
FWCZ 10-D, E
H R PFO Non-riparian 48 E-H-1.46,
10-F -
' .
Riparian R-8.24
FWD 10-F R PSS3B Non-riparian 28 7.36
FWF 10-F E-H PFO Non-riparian 37 6.89
Riparian
FWHB 10-F E-H PFO Non-riparian 24 0.04
FWI 10-F E-H PFO Non-riparian 17 0.3$
FWL 10-F E-H PFO Non-riparian 19 0.03
FWY 10-D E-H, R PFO Non-riparian 20 0.18
GWA 10-F 0, R PEM/PSS Riparian 61 0-6.05, R-
7.94

GWC 10-C,
10-D,
10-E
O, U1, U2
PFO
Non-riparian
32 0-75.81,
U1-0.68,
U2-27.17
GWD 10-E, Non-riparian

10-F O PFO
Riparian 32 4.53
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 10-F E-H PEM/PSS Riparian 32 0.76
HBWK4 10-F E-H PFO/PSS Riparian 83 1.47
HBWT 10-F E-H PSS Non-riparian 14 0.39
HWB 10-H E-H PFO Riparian 50 2.36
HWD 10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian 21 0.35
HWGS 10-H E-H PFO/PSS Riparian 15 0.88
Non-riparian
HWH 10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian 26 0.15
HWH1 10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian 26 0.09
HWH2 10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian 26 0.03
HWH3 10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian 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 F'
10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian 26 0.23
HWAA' 10-F E-H PFO Non-riparian 40 15.40
Riparian
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-29 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-15. Individual Wetland Impacts continued
Wetland
ID Figure
No. Corridor
Alternative(s)* Cawardin
Classificationl Hydrologic
Classification DWQ
Wetland
Rating Wetland
Irnpact?s
(acres)
HWEE 10-F E-H PFO Ripariarl 25 0.15
HWHH 10-F E-H PFO Non-riparian 34 0.24
HWMX 10-H E-H PFO Non-riparian 40 0.05
IWA 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Riparian $0 0.03
IWA-MM 10 F'
10-H O, R PFO Non-riparian 39 4.81
IWB 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Riparian 25 0.09
IWC 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Riparian 20 0.13
IWD 10
H E
H
O
R PFO Non-riparian 3 0,R-17.43,
- -
,
, .
Ripanan 1
E-H-18.64
IWE 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Non-riparian 13 0.16
IWF' 10-H O, R PFO Riparian 69 7.61
Non-riparian
IWHg 10-H O, R PFO Non-riparian 53 7.67
Riparian
IWK 10-F O, R PFO Riparian 77 7.30
Non-riparian
IWN 10-F O, R PFO Riparian 79 4.89
IWQ 10-F O, R PFO Non-riparian 7 0.48
IWT9 10-F O, R PFO Non-riparian 41 14.57
Riparian
IWU 10-F O, R PFO Non-riparian 13 0.29
IWV 10-F O, R PFO Non-riparian 42 4.81
IwW 10-F O, R PFO Non-riparian 45 10.38
KWA 10-I U1, U2 PF03/4B Non-riparian 30 2.27
KWC 10-I U1, 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 U1
' U2 ' '
PF01/2G
Non-riparian
43 E-H,O,R-
0.57, U1,U2-
2.88
KWH10 10-I U1, U2 PF01/2C Non-riparian 42 5.70
KWI 10-G U1, U2 PF01/3/4B Non-riparian 49 32.18
KWN 10-G U1, U2 PF04B Non-riparian 46 24.01
KWO 10-G U1, U2 PF04B Non-riparian 37 18.02
KWS 10-I U1, U2 PF01/4B Non-riparian 33 U1,U2-0.52
LWA 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Riparian 70 0.13
LWB 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Riparian 72 7.$1
LWD 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Riparian 83 5.86
LWD1 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Riparian 48 0.08
LWE 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Non-riparian 29 8.22
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-30 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-15. Individual Wetland Impacts continued
Wetland Figure Corridor Cawardin Hydrologic DWQ Wetland
ID No. Alternative(s)* Classificationl Classification Wetland
R
i Irnpact?s
at
ng (acres)
L%X1G 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Non-riparian 46 0.1;
LWH 10-H E-H, O, R PFO Non-riparian 23 0.20
LWI 10-H, E-H, O, R PFO Riparian 80 2.50
10-I
LWJ 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
NWB 10-K E-H, O, R, U1, PENI/PFO Non-riparian 13 0.02

NWE 10-K E-H, O, R, U1, PEM/PFO Non-riparian 12 0.03

NWF
10-K E-HORU1
' U
' '
PEM/PSS
Non-riparian
12
0.04
2
E-H O R U1 E-H,O,R-
NWJ 10-K '
' ' PSS/PFO Non-riparian 12 0.02, U1,U2-
U2 0.02
NWK 10-K U1, U2 PSS Non-riparian 12 0.02
E-H O R U1
'
' ' E-H,O,R-
NWI?•1 10-K U2 PFO Non-riparian 22 0.68, U1,U2-
0.6 8
NWO 10-I E-H,O,R PF04 Non-riparian 17 3.11
E-H O R U1
'
' ' E-H,O,R-
NWP 10-I U2 PSS Non-riparian 17 29.13,
U1,U2-11.38
ZWJ 10-E U1, U2 PFO Non-riparian 26 1.37
ZWK 10-E U1, U2 PEM Non-riparian 16 0.08
ZWL 10-G U1, U2 PFO Non-riparian 20 0.24
ZWM 10-G U1, U2 PFO Non-riparian 20 0.04
ZWY 10-C 1141,M2 PFO Non-riparian 10 0.04
ZWCC 10-K E-H, O, R, U1, PFO Riparian 28 0.03

ZWDD 10-D E-H, R PFO Non-riparian 26 1.16
Riparian
PD-011' 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 M1,M2 PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 6.42
PD-15 10-I E-H, O, R, U1, PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.48
TJ2
PD-16 10-I E-H' OU
R' U1' PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.58
2
E-H O R U1 E-H,O,R-
PD-29 10-I '
' ' PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 8.58, U1,U2-
U2 8.56
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-31 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-15. Individual Wetland Impacts continued
Wetland Figure Corridor Cawardin Hydrologic DWQ Wetland
ID No. Alternative(s)* Classificationl Classification Wetland
R
i Irnpact?s
at
ng (acres)
PD-31 10-I E-H, L, R, U1, PFO; PSS Non-riparian N%A 2.91

PD-33 10-I E-H' OU
R' U 1' PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 0.82
2
Riparian
PD-34 10-I E-H, O, R, U1, PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 1.08

PD-35 10-I E-H, O, R, U1, PFO/PSS Non-riparian N/A 3.0$

1 Cowaxdin classifications axe based on chaxacteristics of each wetland at the specific time and location of
obsexvation. Wedands having `No ID' wexe not chaxactexized due to irnpacted appeaxance at the time of
oUsexvation.
Z Includes wetland FEW
3 Includes wefland HBAC
4 Includes wetland HBWP
7 Includes u%etland INXIG
$ Includes wefland IWI
I Includes wetlands IWIZ
5 Includes wetlands HWM, HWN, HWO 10 Includes wetlands K?, KWK, and KWL
6 Includes weflands HWBB, HWII, HWLL 11 Delineation data pxeviously vexified; no DWQ
wetland xating forsns completed fox these wetlands
*U1 is Hampstead Bypass Altexnative U staxting at an intexchange with US 17 Wilrnington Bypass at Military
Cutoff Road Extension Altexnative M1. U2 is Harnpstead Bypass Altexnative U staxting at an intexchange with
US 17 Wilmington Bypass at Military Cutoff Road Extension Altexnative M2.
**Impacts axe fox all altematives unless othenvise noted. Individual irnpacts calculated fox Military Cutoff Road
Extension Altematives M1 and M2 utilize the coxresponcling Hampstead Bypass Altemative U intexchange
configuxation.
Table 4-16. Total Wetland Impacts
Alternative
M1+EH M2+0 M1+R M1+U M2+U
Delineated Wetland
246.05 384
42 24
29; 215.35 283.77
Impacts (acres) . .
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-32 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
4.5.4 JLJRISDICTIONAL IS5UE5
4.5.4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATE5
4.5.4.1.1 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF IMPACT5
During the development of the detailed study alternatives, efforts were made to avoid
and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams wherever practicable.
Preliminary build alternatives (Section 2.2.4) 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
aligninents that minimized impacts. Impacts were calculated by section for each
aligninent 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 that met 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 recorrnnendations made by federal and state environmental regulatory and
resource agencies and comments received from two citizens informational workshops
held in Apri12007.
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 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.
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
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-33 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
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.
4.5.4. 1.2 COMPEN5ATORY MITIGATION OF IMPACT5
The purpose of compensatory mitigation is to replace the lost functions and values from
a project's impacts to Waters of the United States, including wetlands.
The NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation
opportunities once the preferred alternative has been selected. On-site mitigation will be
used as much as possible. 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 Departrnent of Environment and Natural Resources'
Ecosystem Enhancement Program In-Lieu Fee Instrument", dated July 28, 2010.
4.5.4.2 BLJFFER IMPACT5
As discussed in Section 3.5.4.2, no North Carolina River Basin Buffer Rules apply to
project streams.
4.5.4.3 PROTECTED SPECIE5 IMPACTS
As discussed in Section 3.5.4.3, as of September 22, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) lists ll federally-protected species for New Hanover County and 12
federally-protected species for Pender County. Following are the biological conclusions
rendered for each species based on survey results in the study area; species' habitat
descriptions are found in Section 3.5.4.3. Table 4-17 summarizes the federally-protected
species listed for New Hanover and Pender Counties and the biological conclusion for
this project's likely effect on each species.
American alligator
Biological Conclusion: Not Required
Species listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance do not require Section 7
consultation with the USFWS. However, suitable habitat is present for American
alligator in the study area in the form of large streams, ponds, and wetland swamps. A
review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NF3P) data, updated April 13, 2010,
indicates no known occurrences within one mile of the study area. An alligator was
observed dead in the median of US 17 in the area of Topsail High School by biologists
on June 11, 2008.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-34 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-17. Federally-Protected Species Effects
Scientific Cornrnon Federal Biological
County ?ternatives
Narne Name Status Conclusion
New
Alligator ?lmerican T(S/A) Hanover Not Required --
mississippiensis alligator Pender
New
Chelonia nzyclas Green sea T Hanover No Effect --
turd
e
Pender
Loggerhead New
Caretta caretta T Hanover No Effect --
sea turde
Pender
New
Charadrius Piping plover T Hanover No Effect --
nzelodus Pender
New May Affect,
Picoicles borealis Red-cockaded E Hanover Likely to E-H, O, R, U
woodpecker
Pender Adversely Affect
Acipenser^ Shortnose New

E Hanover No Effect --
breari?^ostr^unz sturgeon Pender
Trichechus West Indian New
E Hanover No Effect --
marzatus manatee
Pender
Schwalbea American New
E Hanover No Effect --
americana chaffseed* Pender
Tbalictruna Cooley's New May Affect,
E Hanover Likely to O, R
cooleyi meadourrue
Pender Adversely Affect
May Affect,
Carex lutea Golden sedge E Pender Likely to O, R
Adversely Affect
New May Affect,
Lysinzachia Rough-leaved E-H, O, R,
E Hanover Likely to
asperulaefolia loosestrife
Pender
Adversely Affect U, M1, VI2
Amar^anthus Seabeach New
T Hanover No Effect --
punzilus amaranth Pender
E- Endangexed T - Thxeatened T (S/A) - Thxeatened due to Similaxity of Appeaxance
* Historic xecoxd (the species was last observed in the county moxe than 50 yeaxs ago)
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-35 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Green sea turtle
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for green sea turtle does not exist in the study area. Waters within the
study area are freshwater and do not contain marine grasses. A review of NHP data,
updated April 13, 2010, indicates no known occurrences within one mile of the study
area.
Loggerhead turtle
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for loggerhead turtle consisting of open ocean, nearshore areas, or
coastal beaches does not exist in the study area. A review of NHP data, updated April
13, 2010, indicates no known occurrences within one mile of the study area.
Piping plover
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for piping plover does not exist in the study area. A review of NHP
data, updated April 13, 2010, indicates no occurrences within one mile of the study area.
Red-cockaded woodpecker
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging and nesting/ roosting habitat in the
form of open, mature stands of longleaf pine is present throughout the study area.
A review of NHP data, updated April 13, 2010, indicates two extant element occurrences
of RCW within one mile of the study area in New Hanover County and six extant
element occurrences of RCW within one mile of the study area in Pender County.
A combination of ground and aerial surveys were conducted by NCDOT biologists
between January 22 and March 17, 2008. Surveys of areas where element occurrences
were listed within one mile of the study area in New Hanover County revealed no cavity
trees within the project boundaries. The six known element occurrences within one mile
of the study area in Pender County are active clusters existing within the boundary of
Holly Shelter Game Land, and are part of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Recovery Unit.
Additionally, during aerial surveys, an unrecorded cluster was discovered within the study
area approximately 0.5 mile southwest of Holly Shelter Game Land. Additional ground
surveys were conducted on March 5, 2008 and a red-cockaded woodpecker foraging
habitat analysis (FHA) was completed in August 2009. Additional study area has been
added to the project since the completion of the initial RCW surveys and FHA.
Additional forest stand data was collected in November and early December 2010. An
updated red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat analysis (FHA) was completed in
January 2011.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-36 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Results of the 2011 analysis show few areas within the foraging partitions are considered
suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker. However, red-cockaded woodpeckers are
subsisting under these conditions. Potentially suitable and future potentially suitable
foraging habitat exists in the study area (see Figures 10-I, 10 J and 10-1,C). All of the
Hampstead Bypass alternatives would impact 7.39 acres of potentially suitable and 8.67
acres of future potentially suitable red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat No RCW
cavity trees will be removed or impacted.
All Hampstead Bypass alternatives include improvements along existing US 17 in the
vicinity of Holly Shelter Game Land. There is potentially suitable and future potentially
suitable red-cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat adjacent to both the east and west
sides of US 17 in this area. Roadway widening improvements associated with
Hampstead Bypass along US 17 in this area will not exceed a width of 200 feet in order
to maintain connectivity between the foraging habitats.
It is expected that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, the
red-cockaded woodpecker as a result of the removal of potentially suitable and future
potentially suitable foraging habitat of active red-cockaded woodpecker clusters.
Informal consultation for red-cockaded woodpecker has taken place between NCDOT
and the USFWS since 2006. Informal consultation includes project meetings,
NEPA/Section 404 Merger meetings, and correspondence between the agencies. The
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the USFWS regarding the potential effects of
the proposed project on the red-cockaded woodpecker. The US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) will serve as the lead federal agency with respect to compliance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act It is anticipated that the USACE will request
of the USFWS that formal consultation for red-cockaded woodpecker be initiated in
accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act after the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative for the proposed project has been identified.
Shortnose sturgeon
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for shortnose sturgeon consisting of nearshore marine, estuarine, and
riverine habitat of large river systems does not exist in the study area. Email
correspondence from the DMF dated September 12, 2008 indicates that the proposed
project will have no effect on shortnose sturgeon.
A review of NHP data, updated April 13, 2010, indicates no occurrences within one mile
of the study area.
West Indian manatee
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for West Indian manatee consisting of canals, sluggish rivers, estuarine
habitats, salt water bays, and off shore areas does not exist in the study area.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-37 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Additionally, streams in the study area are not deep enough to support manatee, which
require water depths from five to 20 feet deep.
A review of NHP data, updated April 13, 2010, indicates no occurrences within one mile
of the study area.
American chaffseed
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for American chaffseed consisting of open, moist to dryish Mesic Pine
Flatwoods, longleaf pine flatlands, Pine Savannas, road cuts, and power line easements
exists in the study area. However, appropriate soil series consisting of Blaney, Candor,
Gilead, Fuquay, Lakeland, and Vaucluse soil units do not exist in the study area. On
May 12, 2008, Dale Suiter of the USFWS stated the Service does not anticipate this plant
to be present in the study area and that surveys for American chaffseed would not be
required.
A review of NHP data, updated April 13, 2010, indicates no occurrences within one mile
of the study area.
Cooley's meadowrue
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for Cooley?s meadowrue consisting of plowed firebreaks, roadside
ditches and rights of way, and power line easements exists in the study area.
Additionally, soils that are loamy fine sand, sandy loam, or fine sandy loam; at least
seasonally moist or saturated, including Foreston, Muckalee, Torhunta, and Woodington
soil series are common in the study area. Biologists visited a reference population of
Cooley's meadowrue at the Sandy Run Swamp Savanna on June 3, 2008 prior to
conducting surveys of the study area on June 4-5, June 17-18, 2008 and June 2-4, 2009.
No individuals of Cooley?s meadowrue were observed in Pender County. A$er the 2008
surveys, a population of Cooley's meadowrue was discovered within the study area in
New Hanover County. This population is located adjacent to a gravel driveway off of
Sidbury Road approximately 1.75 miles west of US 17. This occurrence has been
recorded by NCNHP, and the USFWS updated its species list for New Hanover County
on August 5, 2009 to include Cooley's meadowrue (previously unlisted for New Hanover
County). Additionally, expanded study area was added to the project since the 2008
surveys were conducted. Suitable habitat for Cooley?s meadowrue within these
additional areas, as well as suitable habitat within the study area in New Hanover County
was surveyed by biologists on June 16-17, 2010. No new populations of Cooley?s
meadowrue were observed, however, additional stems were identified at the Sidbury
Road site. This population of Cooley's meadowrue is located within the study corridor
associated with Alternatives O and R.
A review of NHP data, updated April 13, 2010, indicates the Sidbury Road population as
the only occurrence within one mile of the study area.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-38 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
It is expected that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect,
Cooley's meadowrue as a result of potential indirect effects associated with the
construction of Hampstead Bypass Alternative O or Alternative R. Indirect effects may
include changes in habitat conditions that would negatively impact Cooley?s meadowrue,
such as hydrologic changes, isolating small populations by roads, or the introduction of
invasive species along the roadway. Direct impacts from the proposed project to
Cooley's meadowrue are not anticipated.
Informal consultation for Cooley's meadowrue has taken place between NCDOT and
the USFWS since 2009. The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the USFWS
regarding the potential effects of the proposed project on Cooley?s meadowrue. If
Alternative M2+0 or Alternative M1+R is selected as the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative for the proposed project, it is anticipated that the
USACE will request of the USFWS that formal consultation for Cooley's meadowrue be
initiated in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Golden sedge
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for golden sedge consisting of roadside and drainage ditches or power
line rights of way where mowing and/or very wet conditions suppress woody plants is
present in the study area. Surveys for golden sedge were conducted June 2-4, 2009. No
individuals of golden sedge were observed. The USFWS updated its species list for
New Hanover County on August 5, 2009 to include golden sedge (previously unlisted for
New Hanover County). Suitable habitat for golden sedge within additional study areas,
as well as suitable habitat within the study area in New Hanover County was surveyed by
biologists on June 16-17, 2010. No individuals of golden sedge were observed, however,
multiple stems of an unidentified sedge were noted growing in close proximity to a
population of Cooley's meadowrue adjacent to Sidbury Road. Though surveys were
conducted during the appropriate survey window, no fruiting bodies were found on
these plants. Because of the close association between golden sedge and Cooley's
meadowrue, it was determined there was a high probability for golden sedge to be
present at this site. This site is located within the study corridor associated with
Alternatives O and R. Suitable habitat within an approximately 0.25 mile range of the
Cooley's meadowrue stems identified at the Sidbury Road site was surveyed for golden
sedge on May 23, 2011. A variety of sedges with fruiting bodies were present. However,
no individuals of golden sedge were observed.
A review of NHP data, updated April 13, 2010, indicates no occurrences within one mile
of the study area.
Because of the close association between golden sedge and Cooley's meadowrue, it is
expected that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, golden
sedge as a result of potential indirect effects associated with the construction of
Hampstead Bypass Alternative O or Alternative R. Indirect effects may include changes
in habitat conditions that would negatively impact golden sedge, such as hydrologic
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-39 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
changes, isolating small populations by roads, or the introduction of invasive species
along the roadway. Direct impacts from the proposed project to golden sedge are not
anticipated.
Informal consultation for golden sedge has taken place between NCDOT and the
USFWS since July 2010. The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the USFWS
regarding the potential effects of the proposed project on golden sedge. If Alternative
M2+0 or Alternative M1+R is selected as the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative for the proposed project, it is anticipated that the USACE will
request of the USFWS that formal consultation for golden sedge be initiated in
accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Rough-leaved loosestrife
Biological Conclusion: May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect
Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife consisting of ecotones or edges between
longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins, roadside depressions, maintained power
and utility line rights of way, firebreaks, and trails exists in the study area. Surveys for
rough-leaved loosestrife were conducted June 2-4, 2009. No individuals of rough-leaved
loosestrife were observed. Suitable habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife within additional
study areas was surveyed by biologists on June 16-17, 2010. No individuals were
observed.
A review of NHP data, updated April 13, 2010, indicates three extant occurrences and
one historic occurrence within one mile of the study area in New Hanover County and
two extant populations within one mile of the study area in Pender County. The two
Pender County populations are located on Holly Shelter Game Land, while the three
extant populations in New Hanover County are located within the boundaries of
NCDOT's Corbett Tract Mitigation Site. Moreover, as of November 2009, two
additional occurrences of rough-leaved loosestrife located within a section of NCDOT's
mitigation site known as the Plantation Road Site were removed from the NHP dataset.
Prior to their removal, these two occurrences were listed as extant populations, having
last been observed in June 2000. At the request of USFWS, biologists visited these two
locations on June 16-17 and June 23, 2010. Multiple stems of rough-leaved loosestrife
were found in the vicinity of both element occurrences. One population is located
within the study corridors of Alternatives M2, O, and U at M2. The second population
is located within the study corridor paralleling the US 17 Wilmington Bypass between
Alternatives M1 and M2. Though surveys were conducted during the appropriate survey
window, no stems at either location were found in bloom.
It is expected that the proposed project may affect, and is likely to adversely affect,
rough-leaved loosestrife as a result of clearing associated with the construction of
Alternatives M2, O, or U at M2. These alternatives would directly impact occurrences of
rough-leaved loosestrife at the Plantation Road Site. In addition, the proposed project
may affect, and is likely to adversely affect, rough-leaved loosestrife as a result of indirect
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-40 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
effects associated with potential hydrologic changes at the Plantation Road Site resulting
from the construction of any of the proposed project alternatives.
Informal consultation for rough-leaved loosestrife has taken place between NCDOT and
the USFWS since 2008. The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the USFWS
regarding the potential effects of the proposed project on rough-leaved loosestrife. It is
anticipated that the USACE will request of the USFWS that formal consultation for
rough-leaved loosestrife be initiated in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act after the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative for the
proposed project has been identified.
Seabeach amaranth
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat for seabeach amaranth consisting of barrier island beaches does not exist
in the study area.
A review of NHP data, updated April 13, 2010, indicates no occurrences within one mile
of the study area.
4.5.4.4 BALD EAGLE AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION
AcT
As discussed in Section 3.5.4.4, potential foraging habitat for bald eagle exists in the
study area near wetland GWA and two independent sightings of an adult bald eagle were
observed in this area. Wetland GWA is located in the study corridors for Alternatives O
and R. Forested areas surrounding wetland GWA are primarily irrnnature and lack large
dominant trees. No eagle nests were observed by biologists in the study area or within
660 feet of the study area during field investigations. The project is not expected to
impact bald eagle.
4.5.4.5 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT IMPACT5
As discussed in Section 3.5.4.5, there is no designated Essential Fish Habitat present in
the study area.
4.5.4.6 AREA5 OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN IMPACTS
As discussed in Section 3.5.4.6, no Coastal Area Management Act Areas of
Environmental Concern are present in the study area.
4.5.4.7 ANADROMOU5 FI5H HABITAT IMPACT5
As discussed in Section 3.5.4.7, there is no anadromous fish habitat present in the study
area.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-41 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
As noted in Section 3.5.4.7, Harrisons Creek and Island Creek are designated as inland
waters under the jurisdiction of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC). Coordination with NCWRC concluded that no in-water construction
moratoria are necessary for these streams.
4.5.4.8 SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IMPACT5
As discussed in Section 3.5.4.8, there is no submerged aquatic vegetation present in the
study area.
4.6 INDIRECT AND CLJMLJLATIVE EFFECT5
The Departrnent of Environment and Natural Resources, in 15A NCAC 1C.0101
Conformity with North Carolina Environmental Policy Act, Statement of Purpose,
Policy and Scope, defines "Cumulative Effects" as those effects resulting "from the
incremental impact of the proposed activity when added to other past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future activities regardless of what entities undertake such other
activities." Cumulative effects can result when activities taking place over time are
collectively significant, even when individually those activities are minor. The Code
defines "Indirect Effects" as those effects "caused by and resulting from the proposed
activity although they are later in time or further removed in distance, but they are still
reasonably foreseeable."
Several factors are taken into consideration when evaluating the potential for indirect and
cumulative impacts, and to determine if further analysis is warranted. Examples may
include whether a project conflicts with local planning, whether it serves economic
and/or specific development purposes, if the project could stimulate complementary
development, and how the project could affect natural features.
Both Military Cutoff Road Extension and the Hampstead Bypass are included in local
transportation planning documents. Conflicts with the plans are not anticipated. The
project is not associated with an explicit economic development purpose nor is it
intended to serve a specific development.
Complementary development such as highway-oriented uses is not expected to be
associated with either Military Cutoff Road Extension alternative. It is anticipated that
development would follow current nearby uses and zoning, which is mostly residential.
Complementary development such as highway-oriented uses could be expected for
Hampstead Bypass alternatives around the proposed NC 210 interchange. Rural
residential uses may transition to higher density residential development in the vicinity of
this interchange as well.
The Wilmington area in general is likely to continue to be a regional draw for
development. Military Cutoff Road Extension would provide access to undeveloped
parcels allowing them to follow surrounding trends and develop as residential properties.
The Hampstead Bypass would make conditions more favorable for commuters coming
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-42 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
to the Wilmington area and coastal communities from the north. More favorable
commuting conditions combined with a desirable location near Wilmington could have
some influence on intraregional land development location decisions.
The evaluation of certain indicators helps to determine the potential for land use change
induced by transportation projects. These factors include change in accessibility, change
in property values, forecasted growth, land supply versus land demand, water and sewer
availability, market for development, water quality and the natural environment and local
public policy. Tables 4-18 and 4-19 show the relative rating of potential indirect and
cumulative effects to each of these indicators. Indirect and cumulative effects on water
quality have been evaluated based on the watershed in which actions have occurred or
will likely occur. There are eight watersheds in the study area (see Figure 20). Table 4-20
below provides baseline information for each watershed.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-43 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-18. Relative Rating of Indirect and Cumulative Effects, Military Cutoff Road Extension

Rating Accessibility/

Travel Tirne
Savings
Property
Values
Forecasted
Growth I'and
Supply/
Land
Demand Water/

Sewer
Availability
Market for
Develaprnent Water
Quality/
Natural
Enviramnent Local

Public
Policy
Strong x
? X X
x X X
?
X
?
Weak X
5ome land
Travel time
Land is
near Water and
Some effects
Generally
savings could Aready L,oca1 and Wilmington sewex Market for to water pro-growth,
impxove and regional available or
Cause access to the high in foxecasted Bypass could can
easily be development
. resources with

Wilmington value due
growth is be affected.
extended in undeveloped (wetlands) and conservation

Bypass will be to
high. ?ze rest is
within the axeas is high. potentially of xesources
location. ajxeady built- habitat. a majox goal.
provided. area.
out.
Table 4-19. Relative Rating of Indirect and Cumulative Effects, Hampstead Bypass

Rating Accessibility/

Travel Time
Savings
Praperty
Values
Forecasted
Growth I'and
Supply/
Land
Dernand Water/

Sewer
Availability
Market far
Development Water
QualityJ
Natural
Enviranment Lacal

Public
Policy
Strong x
T
X
? X X X X X
?
? X
?
Weak
Land is
alxeady
high in
value due

to location There is Water and
Some effects
Generally
Travel time and the Loca1 and a laxge sewer Market for to watex pro-growth,
savings will xegional land available in development

Cause
impxove at the pxoject
forecasted
supply
some areas'
in xesouxces with

local and will
growth is
and a
especially
undeveloped (wetlands) and conservation
regional level. mcrease high. large land along major areas is high. Potentially of resources
values in habitat. a major goal.
demand. routes.
some
areas near
access
points.
US 1 7 C?RRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-44 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Table 4-20. Baseline Watershed Data by Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
Wetlands in
Strearns in Wetlands Streams Perrnitted
Alternatives

Watershed HUC (acres) J
HUC Permitted by by USACE in
Located

(HUC) Percent of
(linear USACE in HUC siiice 2006
urithin
HUC that is in
Wetla,nds iniles) HUC since
2006 acres (linear feet)j
[linear rniles] HUC
03Q?U 302U401 4,040/38% 102 0.4 0/[0] U
030203020402 3,310/41% 54 8.6 90/[0.02] E-H, 0, R,
U
030203020403 8,160/38% 268 8.7 506/[0.1] E-H, 0, R,
U
030203020502 11,658/36% 319 3.8 3,940/[0.75] E-H, 0, R,
U, M1, M2
030300070803 9,909/77% 146 1.3 0/[0] E-H, 0, R,
U
030300070804 15,701/67% 174 0.6 25/[0.005] E-H, 0, R,
U
030300070805 14,054/58% 133 0.2 0/[0] E-H, 0, R,
U, M1, M2
030300070808 7,134/34% 61 82.8 2,287/[0.43] E-H, 0, R,
U, M1, M2

Tota1
73,966/48%
257
1
106.4 1inear feet/
6'848
, [1.31inear miles]
4.6. 1 EVALUATION DF INDIRECT EFFECTS
Population growth in both New Hanover and Pender Counties is forecasted to exceed
the state's rate in the coming decades. Local plans and zoning are in place to guide
anticipated growth. Future land use and zoning show that growth is expected along the
Market Street and US 17 corridor and major adjoining roads, including NC 210 where
proposed Hampstead Bypass alternatives cross. Both Military Cutoff Road Extension
and the Hampstead Bypass have been included in local transportation plans and growth
models. Neither project is expected to substantially alter growth beyond what has
already been projected by local planners.
Military Cutoff Road Extension could encourage residential growth if the land zoned as
residential directly south of the US 17 Wilmington Bypass is available for development,
and future access is allowed in this area.
Substantial travel time savings (more than ten minutes) are expected for travelers who
use the Hampstead Bypass because they will have a through route without the traffic
signals and congestion characteristic of Market Street and existing US 17. Although not
as substantial as the Hampstead Bypass, Military Cutoff Road Extension will also offer
travel time savings as an alternative to Market Street and a connection to the Hampstead
Bypass.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 4-45 TIP NOS. U-4751 & R-3300
Complementary development such as highway-oriented uses could be expected for all
Hampstead Bypass alternatives. Highway-oriented uses would likely cluster around the
proposed NC 210 interchange. Rural residential uses may transition to higher density
residential development in the vicinity of this interchange, as well. In addition, the
Hampstead Bypass may spur residential development pressures along NC 210 because of
the increased access provided by the proposed interchange.
Project-related growth could result in negative indirect effects to water quality and the
natural environment These effects could include a decline in water quality, an increase
in the amount and rate of stormwater runoff, and loss of wildlife habitat The
030300070804 watershed would likely experience higher indirect effects, as a result of
potential development around the proposed NC 210 interchange. However, this area is
expected to continue to build out regardless of the proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension and Hampstead Bypass projects. Local and state planning regulations and
controls can be used to temper these potential effects. Steps have also been taken during
project planning to avoid and minimize water quality impacts by developing alignments,
in coordination with the NEPA/Section 404 merger team, that minimize impacts to
wetlands and streams. In addition, the NCDOT will investigate potential on-site stream
and wetland mitigation opportunities once the preferred alternative has been selected.
On-site mitigation will be used as much as possible. Offsite mitigation needed to satisfy
the federal Clean Water Act requirements for this project will be provided by the North
Carolina Departrnent of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement
Program in accordance with the "North Carolina Departrnent of Environment and
Natural Resources' Ecosystem Enhancement Program In-Lieu Fee Instrument", dated
July 28, 2010.
4.6.2 EVALUATION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECT5
Cumulative effects to land development, travel times savings, and the natural
environment could result when the proposed projects are considered in combination
with other proposed transportation projects, past transportation and development
projects (most notably the US 17 Wilmington Bypass) and planned development.
Current actions are primarily the proposed projects, which would provide new access.
Past actions mainly include residential development, the widening of Military Cutoff
Road, the realignment of US 17 and SR 1561 (Sloop Point Road), the upgrade of
intersections along US 17 between the US 17 Wilmington Bypass and SR 1571 (Scotts
Hill L,oop Road), and the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, which improved east-west access in
the corridor. Reasonably foreseeable actions include proposed TTP projects (see Table
3-3) and residential development, primarily in the Pender County portion of the study
area.
The proposed projects could have a noteworthy effect on cumulative travel time savings
(greater than ten minutes).
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-46 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Future development could increase the amount of impervious surfaces in the study area,
causing an increase in stormwater runoff in streams and wetlands. There are a number
of planned transportation projects in the City of Wilmington that are located outside of
the project study area but within the 030300070808 watershed. The cumulative effect of
the projects should not result in substantial impacts to the watershed, since much of that
area is already highly developed. For Hampstead Bypass Alternatives E$, O, and R,
cumulative effects would likely be higher in the 030300070805, 030203020403, and
030203020402 watersheds as a result of increased impervious surfaces by planned
development, the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, and the proposed project. Impacts would
likely be higher in the 030203020401, 030203020403, and 030203020402 watersheds for
Hampstead Bypass Alternative U, when combined with planned development.
Increases in impervious area could result in increased sedimentation and stormwater
runoff, leading to deteriorated water quality and negative impacts to the natural
environment. Use of Best Management Practices, stormwater regulations and other local
ordinances regulating development will minimize adverse effects, particularly in areas of
environmental concern.
Cumulatively, the construction of Military Cutoff Road Extension and the Hampstead
Bypass combined with past NCDOT projects (US 17 Wilmington Bypass) that provide
improved east-west regional access, and continued commercial and residential
development in the study area, could affect regional land demand due to these favorable
conditions.
Substantial development resulting exclusively from this project is not expected. Any
development would be implemented in accordance with local ordinances and land use
plans. Since the project is not likely to result in a change in land use as a result of the
transportation impact causing activities associated with the project, cumulative effects
beyond those discussed above would be minimal or low.
4.7 CON5TRLJCTION IMPACTS
Construction of any of the current detailed study alternatives is expected to result in
similar temporary impacts as described below. Examples of construction activities
include clearing and grubbing, maintenance of traffic, bridge construction, utility
relocations, traffic signal construction, and roadway paving. Typical types of negative
impacts from construction would include noise from construction equipment, driver
time delays at existing road crossings, and dust from construction sites.
Since construction operations would be limited to the time needed to complete the
project, both benefits and impacts to resources would be considered temporary.
Utilization of NCDOT standards and specifications would ensure that these impacts are
minimized.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-47 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
4.7.1.1 ENERGY
A substantial amount of energy will be required to construct any of the build alternatives.
However, the energy use will be temporary and should ultimately result in energy use
reductions upon project completion, due to reduced congestion and increased
operational safety in the study area. Because of congestion reductions and increased
safety, construction of any of the build alternatives is expected to result in less total
energy utilization than the No-Build Alternative.
Executive Orders 13212 and 13302 require federal agencies to take actions to expedite
projects which will increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy, or
which strengthen pipeline safety. The subject project is not energy-related, therefore
Executive Orders 13212 and 13302 do not apply.
4.7.1.2 LIGHTING
Because construction activities could occur 24 hours a day, construction areas could be
lit to daylight conditions at night Night lighting would not be used near residential
areas.
4.7.1.3 VI5uAL
Temporary visual impacts would affect properties adjacent to areas where construction,
staging, and stockpiling operations occur. Upon project completion, the contractor
would be required to remove all equipment and excess materials, as well as reseed any
disturbed areas.
4.7.1.4 CON5TRUCTION NOI5E
Construction noise varies greatly with the type of equipment in use and the phase of
construction activity. Noise levels near a construction project therefore fluctuate greatly
from day to day and hour to hour. Construction noise sources include truck and
equipment engines, equipment noise from clearing and excavation, back-up alarms, and
truck tailgates. Noise generated by construction equipment can reach noise levels of 67
dBA to 98 dBA at a distance of 50 feet Noise impacts, such as temporary speech
interference for passers-by and those individuals living or working near the project, can
be expected during construction of any of the current detailed study alternatives.
NCDOT specifications require the contractor to limit noise levels to 80 dBA L,eq in
noise sensitive areas adjacent to the project NCDOT may also monitor construction
noise and require abatement measures where limits are exceeded. NCDOT also can limit
work that produces objectionable noise during normal sleeping hours.
4.7.1.5 AIR
During construction of the proposed project, all materials resulting from clearing and
grubbing, demolition, or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-48 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
otherwise disposed of by the contractor. Any burning will be performed in accordance
with applicable local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. Care
will be taken to ensure burning will be performed at the greatest distance practical from
dwellings and not when atrnospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the
public. Burning will be performed under constant surveillance. Emissions from
construction equipment are regulated.
During construction, measures will be taken to reduce the dust generated by
construction when the control of dust is necessary for the protection and comfort of
motorists or area residents. Dust control methods may include:
• Minimizing exposed earth surface
• Temporary and permanent seeding and mulching
• Watering of working areas and haul roads during dry periods
• Covering, shielding, or stabilizing material stockpiles
• Using covered haul trucks
4.7. 1.6 UTILITIE5
Construction of the proposed project will require some adjustrnent, relocation, or
modification to existing utilities. Any disruption to utility service during construction
will be minimized by close coordination with utility providers and property owners in
affected areas, as well as phased adjustrnents to utilities.
4.7.1.7 WATER QUALITY AND ERO510N CONTROL
Erosion and sedimentation caused by construction activities could affect drainage
patterns and water quality. Erosion and sedimentation during project construction will
be controlled through the specification, installation, and maintenance of stringent
erosion and sedimentation control methods. In accordance with the North Carolina
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act (15A NCAC 4B.001-.0027), an erosion and
sedimentation control plan will be prepared for the selected alternative. The plan will
follow guidelines established in the North Carolina Departrnent of Environment and
Natural Resources publication Eroszon and Sec&ment ConlrolPlanning and Deszgn and
NCDOT's BestManagementPracticesforProtection ofSurface Vaters.
Impacts resulting from erosion and sedimentation will be kept to a minimum by
employing Best Management Practices such as revegetating or covering disturbed areas
and the use of berms, dikes, silt barriers, and catch basins.
The NCDOT has Standard Speciications that require proper handling and use of
construction material. The contractor will be responsible for taking precautions during
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-49 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
construction to prevent the pollution of water bodies. These precautions include, but are
not limited to the following
• Pollutants such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, raw sewage, bitumens, and other
harmful wastes shall not be discharged into any body of water.
• Contractors may not ride or drive mechanical equipment across streams unless
construction is required in the streambed.
Excavated materials must be stored and disposed in a way that prevents erosion of
the material into surface waters. If material storage in these areas cannot be avoided,
best management practices must be implemented to avoid runoff.
4.7.1.8 GEODETIC MARKER5
The proposed project could impact geodetic survey markers. The North Carolina
Geodetic Survey will be contacted prior to construction in order to allow resetting of
monuments that would be affected. Intentional destruction of a geodetic monument is
violation of North Carolina General Statute 102-4.
4.7. 1.9 BORROW AND DISPOSAL SITES
Construction of the roadway and bridges may require excavation of unsuitable material
and placement of embankments. Specific locations of borrow and disposal sites will be
determined during the final design phase of the project.
Following award of the construction contract, the contractor will be responsible for
obtaining all necessary permits resulting from borrow and waste activities that impact
waters of the US. All construction waste material generated during clearing, grubbing,
and other construction phases will be disposed of by the contractor, either on-site in
retention areas or off-site, in accordance with state and local regulations. Prior to
approval by NCDOT of any proposed borrow source and the removal of any material,
the contractor will be required to provide certification from the State Historic
Preservation Office that the removal of the borrow material will have no effect on any
property eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Borrow
material from sources in any area under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) and the placement of waste materials in wetlands or streams will not
be allowed unless NCDOT has obtained a permit for those activities from the USACE.
4.7. 1.1 O TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE Sc DETOLJR ACCES5IBILITY
Detours and road closures may be required in locations where the proposed project
utilizes or crosses existing roadways. Maintenance of traffic and construction sequencing
will be planned and scheduled to minimize traffic delays within the project limits.
Temporary lane closures and detours may be required at times during construction. A
traffic control plan will be prepared during the final design phase of the project, which
will detail impacts to existing traffic patterns, as well as road closures or realigninents.
The plan will also define detour routes, designated truck routes, and parking areas for
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-50 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
construction equipment Signs will be used where appropriate to provide notice of road
closures and other pertinent information to the traveling public. Access to all businesse:
and residences will be maintained to the extent practical during construction.
4.7. 1.1 1 BRIDGE DEMOLITION
None of the detailed study alternatives will remove existing bridges. It is not expected
that any materials from existing structures will be dropped into Waters of the United
States during project construction.
4.8 IRRETRIEVABLE Sc IRREVER5IBLE COMMITMENT OF
RE5OURCE5
Implementation of any of the current detailed study alternatives would involve a
commitrnent of a range of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. Land used for
the construction of the proposed project is considered an irreversible commitrnent
during the time period that the land is used for a highway facility. However, if a greater
need arises for the use of the land or if the highway facility is no longer needed, the land
can be converted to another use. At present, there is no reason to believe such a
conversion will be necessary or desirable.
Considerable amounts of fossil fuels, labor, and highway construction materials such as
concrete, aggregate, and bituminous material would be expended to build the proposed
project Additionally, large amounts of labor and natural resources would be used in the
fabrication and preparation of construction materials. These materials are generally not
retrievable. However, they are not in short supply and their use will not have an adverse
effect upon continued availability of these resources. Any construction also would
require a substantial one-time expenditure of state funds, which are not retrievable.
The corrnnitrnent of these resources is based on the concept that residents in the
immediate area, region and state will benefit from the improved quality of the
transportation system.
4.9 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LONG TERM 8c SHORT TERM
U5E5/BENEFIT5
The most disruptive short-term impacts associated with the proposed project would
occur during land acquisition and project construction. However, these short-term uses
of human, physical, economic, cultural, and natural resources would contribute to the
long term productivity of the study area.
Existing homes and businesses within the selected alternative's right of way will be
displaced. However, adequate replacement housing, land and space are available for
homeowners and business owners to relocate within the study area.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-51 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
The project is consistent with the objectives of state and local transportation plans. It is
anticipated that the proposed project will enhance long term access and connectivity
opportunities in New Hanover County and Pender County and will support local,
regional, and statewide commitrnents to transportation improvement and economic
viability.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 4-52 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
5.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
This chapter identifies the public involvement and environmental resource and
regulatory agency coordination that is integral to the project development and decision-
making process.
5.1 AGENCY COORDINATION
This project was coordinated with the appropriate federal, state and local agencies.
Comments and concerns received throughout the project development process were
incorporated into this document.
5.1.1 NEPA/SECTioN 404 MERGER PROCE55
This project has followed the NEPA/Section 404 merger process. The merger process
is an interagency procedure integrating the regulatory requirements of Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act into the National Environmental Policy Act and State Environmental
Policy Act decision-making process. The agencies represented on the U-4751 and
R-3300 NEPA/Section 404 merger team are:
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• US Environmental Protection Agency
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• National Marine Fisheries Service
• NC Division of Coastal Management
• NC State Historic Preservation Office
• NC Division of Marine Fisheries
• NC Division of Water Quality
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission
• NC Department of Transportation
• Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization
The merger team has concurred on the purpose and need, alternatives to be studied in
detail and wetlands and streams to be bridged. Copies of the concurrence forms are
included in Appendix B. The merger team will concur on the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative for the project following the public hearing. The team
will also concur on further avoidance and minimization measures for the project
following the selection of the preferred corridor.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 5-1 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
5. 1.2 OTHER AGENCY COORDINATION
A project scoping letter announcing the start of the proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension (U-4751) and Hampstead Bypass (R-3300) project development,
environmental and engineering studies was mailed out to federal, state and local agencies
in August 2005. Comments on the project were requested from the agencies listed
below. An asterisk (*) next to the agency name indicates that a written response was
received in response to the scoping letter. Copies of this and other agency
correspondence are included in Appendix B.
US Departrnent of the Army - Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
US Environmental Protection Agency
* US Departrnent of the Interior - US Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh
National Oceanic and Atrnospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries
Service
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Emergency Management Agency - National Flood Insurance Program
* NC Departrnent of Agriculture
NC Departrnent of Emergency Management (NCDEM)
NC DEM - Division of Crime Control and Public Safety
* NC Departrnent of Cultural Resources
* NC Department of Administration - State Clearinghouse
NC Departrnent of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) - Division of
Marine Fisheries
NC DENR - Division of Coastal Management
NC DENR - Division of Water Quality
NC DENR - Groundwater Section
NC DENR - Division of Land Resources
NC DENR - Wildlife Resources Corrunission
* NC DENR - Division of Environmental Health
NC DENR - NC Division of Air Quality
NC DENR - Natural Heritage Program
NC Departrnent of Public Instruction
Cape Fear Council of Government
* New Hanover County
Pender County
* City of Wilmington
A project scoping meeting was held on September 29, 2005 to exchange information
about the proposed project Representatives from NCDOT and Wilmington
Metropolitan Planning Organization attended the meeting.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 5-2 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
5.2 PLJBLIC INVOLVEMENT
5.2. 1 CITIZENS INFORMATIONAL WORKSHOPS
Citizens informational workshops were held on April 23, 2007 in Hampstead and on
April 24, 2007 in Wilmington. Citizens received notification through the mail about the
workshops and also through local media advertisement The purpose of the workshops
was to introduce citizens to the project and receive their comments and concerns.
A total of 174 participants signed in at the workshops. The majority of comments and
questions related to project alternatives and the effects of the proposed project on
individual properties. Several meeting participants recommended a project website.
Concerns were voiced about potential properLy value and environmental impacts.
Eighty-seven comment sheets were completed at the workshops. Thirty-four citizens
indicated their support of the proposed Hampstead Bypass on the comment sheets and
six citizens expressed opposition to the bypass. Citizens submitting written comments
were generally in favor of the proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension. However,
support for Alternative M1 and Alternative M2 was split, with slightly more preferring
Alternative M2.
5.2.2 5MALL GROUP MEETING5
A small group meeting was held August 19, 2009 with the Greater Hampstead
Homeowners Association to discuss the project and its status.
5.2.3 OTHER PLJBLIC OUTREACH
Three newsletters were mailed to citizens and other stakeholders within the study area.
The first newsletter was sent in April 2007 to announce the citizens informational
workshops, as well as provide general project information. A second newsletter mailed
in September 2008 announced the alternatives selected for detailed study and provided a
project status update and a summary of the citizens informational workshops. The third
newsletter, mailed in September 2010, provided a project update, including information
on the detailed study alternatives and project schedule.
A toll-free project information line was established in 2007 to receive project comments
and questions. A project website (wunU.ncdotorg/projects/US17HampsteadBypass)
was developed in 2008 to make project mapping, newsletters, and other project
information available to the public. In addition, the website provides contact
information for project representatives, including the telephone number for the toll-free
information line. The website link was provided in project newsletters and handouts.
5.2.4 PLJBLIC HEARING
A public hearing for this project will be held following approval of this document and
prior to right of way acquisition. The alternatives still under consideration for the project
will be presented to the public for their comments at the hearing. The recommended
alternative for the project will be selected following the hearing. Citizen comments will
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 5-3 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
be taken into consideration in the selection of the recorrnnended alternative. A second
hearing will be held following the selection of the recorrnnended alternative to present
the proposed design within the recommended corridor.
5.3 U5ACE PUBLIC INTERE5T REVIEW
The proposed project will be reviewed in accordance with 33 CFR 320-332, the
Regulatory Programs of the US Army Corps of Engineers, and other pertinent laws
regulations and executive orders. The decision whether to authorize this proposal will be
based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts, of the
proposed action on the public interest That decision will reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefits, which
reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal, must be balanced against its
reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors, which may be relevant to the proposal,
will be considered. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, historic properties, fish and wildlife values, flood
hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and accretion, recreation,
water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people.
All public interest factors have been reviewed. The following public interest factors
included in Sections 5.31 through 5.3.20 below are considered relevant to this proposal.
Both cumulative and secondary impacts on the public interest were considered.
5.3. 1 CON5ERVATION
As described in Section 3.2.1, with the exception of properties near US 17, land use
north of the Wilmington Bypass is predominantly rural in nature and includes preserved
land, undeveloped forests, open fields, and wetlands. Conservation areas are addressed
in Section 3.2.1.3 in relation to the 2006 lVibnington-New Hanover County CAMA Land Use
Plan Update, the 2005 Pender County CAMA L.and Use Plan Update, and the Pender County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Section 4.2.1 of the DEIS provides information on
compatibility with local land use plans. Indirect and cumulative effects related to
development can be found in Section 4.6.
5.3.2 ECONOMIC5
In accordance with 33 CFR 320.4(q), Section 4.1.5 of this document describes how new
and/or improved access and mobility provided by the proposed project will have an
overall positive economic effect Indirect and cumulative economic effects are described
in Section 4.6. The proposed project is not expected to directly contribute to National
Economic Development, which is an increase in the net value of the national output of
goods and services.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 5-4 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
5.3.3 AESTHETICS
The proposed project is on new location, much of it through rural areas. While the new
roadway will visually alter the area, the proposed project is compatible with local land use
plans and future planned development Both Military Cutoff Road Extension and the
Hampstead Bypass will result in visual and aesthetic impacts. Views would be
diminished equally by either Military Cutoff Road Extension alternative from Ogden
Park, a recreational setting. All of the Hampstead Bypass alternatives would result in
some replacement of vegetation with asphalt and vertical and horizontal changes in the
view of the rural landscape, which would impact travelers using existing roadways and
nearby homes and businesses.
Hampstead Bypass Alternatives E$, O, R, and U will impact the views from a visually
sensitive property - Topsail High School. The back of the school includes recreational
fields that currently overlook a forested area. Alternative U is also expected to impact
low-income rural residents' views at NC 210 with the introduction of an interchange,
which would create horizontal and vertical changes in the landscape. This alternative
would also impact residents' views in the area of the Hoover Road crossing.
Section 4.7.1.3 addresses temporary visual impacts associated with project construction
5.3.4 GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
General environmental concerns, including beneficial and detrimental effects have been
evaluated in accordance with (33 CFR 320.4(p)). Section 4.1.4 of this document
evaluates Environmental Justice. Information pertaining to other environmental factors
is addressed in Sections 5.35 through 5.3.20 below.
5.3.5 WETLANDS
Wetland impacts have been evaluated in accordance with 33 CFR 320.4(b). Although
estimated wetland impacts for the project range from 218.35 acres to 384.42 acres,
depending on the alternative, no anadromous fish spawning areas, shellfish growing
areas, or primary nursery areas will be affected. Additionally, there is no Essential Fish
Habitat or Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern in the
project study area. Sections 3.2.1.3 and 4.2.1 address wetland conservation areas.
Sections 3.5.4, 4.5.4, and 4.6 provide additional specific information, including indirect
and cumulative effects, regarding wetlands in the project study area.
5.3.6 HISTORIC AND CLJLTLJRAL RE50LJRCES
In accordance with 33 CFR 320.4(e), impacts to historic and cultural resources have been
evaluated as a part of the project Sections 3.4 and 4.4 provide information on the
resources and impacts.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 5-5 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
5.3.7 FISH AND WILDLIFE VALLJE5
In accordance with 33 CFR 320.4(c), NCDOT has coordinated extensively with the US
Fish and Wildlife Service and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, as detailed in
Section 5.1 and Appendix B. Fish and wildlife resources are detailed in Sections 3.5.2
and 4.5.2.
5.3.8 FLOOD HAZARDS
Sections 3.3.7 and 4.3.7 address flood hazard issues. In addition, NCDOT has
coordinated with local planners to ensure the proposed project is compatible with local
plans, including hazard mitigation.
5.3.9 FLOODPLAIN VALLJES
As stated in 33 CFR 320.4(1}(1)(i), floodplains are valuable in providing a natural
moderation of floods, water quality maintenance, and groundwater recharge. All of the
detailed study alternatives cross the 100-year floodplain. In accordance with Executive
Order 11988, NCDOT will coordinate the project with the NC Floodplain Mapping
Program. Because hydraulic design for the crossings will not create constraints to flow,
upstream floodways will not be affected by placement of the proposed hydraulic
structures. Additional information regarding floodplains is located in Sections 3.3.7 and
4.3.7.
5.3.1 O LAND U5E
Land use information and itnpacts are detailed in Sections 3.2 and 4.2.
5.3. 1 1 NAVIGATION
At its closest point, the proposed project is approximately 1.5 miles from a channel
leading to the Intracoastal Waterway. The project will have no effect on navigation, and
no permits from the US Coast Guard are required.
5.3. 1 2 5HORE ERD5ION AND ACCRETION
The proposed project will have no effect on shore erosion or accretion, as it pertains to
33 CFR 320.4(g){2}.
5.3. 1 3 RECREATION
As stated in the Project Commitments and Section 2.4.2.2.2, the Wilmington MPO has
requested the inclusion of a multi-use path as part of the proposed project. The multi-
use path would tie into an existing multi-use path along Military Cutoff Road. The
NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the Wilmington MPO on the inclusion of the
multi-use path in the proposed project. It is anticipated that pedestrian access to existing
multi-use path facilities and Ogden Park would be improved if pedestrian facilities are
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 5-6 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
constructed. The Hampstead Bypass would not be conducive to pedestrian or bicycle
uses, and is not expected to affect pedestrian or bicycle access. Sections 3.1.3 and 4.1.2
discuss recreation in the area. Section 4.2.2.3 provides information related to bicycle and
pedestrian impacts.
5.3. 1 4 WATER SUPPLY
In accordance witlz 33 CFR 320.4(m), impacts to the project area water supply are
detailed in Sections 3.5.3 and 4.5.3.
5.3. 1 5 WATER C{1LJALITY
The proposed project will require a Water Quality Certification from the NC Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ). NCDOT has coordinated extensively with NCDWQ and
EPA regarding compliance with the Clean Water Act, in accordance with
33 CFR 320.4(d). Detailed information related to water quality compliance and
coordination can be found in Sections 3.5.4, 4.5.3, 4.5.4.1.2, 4.6, and 5.1 and
Appendix B.
5.3. 1 6 ENERGY NEEDS
As stated in Section 4.7.1.1, and in accordance with 33 CFR 320.4(n), the proposed
project will not increase the production, transmission, or conservation of energy.
However, construction of the proposed project is expected to result in less total energy
utilization than the No-Build Alternative, due to congestion reductions and increased
safety (refer to Section 4.7.1.1).
5.3. 1 7 SAFETY
The proposed project is expected to reduce the potential for accidents along existing
roadways, due to a reduction in traffic volumes. Both Military Cutoff Road Extension
and Hampstead Bypass are proposed as median-divided facilities, reducing the likelihood
of head-on collisions. Additional safety information is located in Section 2.6.
5.3. 1 8 FOOD AN13 FIBER PRODUCTION
Section 4.3.3 states that the proposed project will impact prime farmland in Pender
County, ranging from 49.$$ acres to 67.45 acres, depending on the alternative. These
impacts have been coordinated with the Natural Resources Conservation SenTice.
5.3. 1 9 MINERAL NEED5
The current extent of mining activities in the project area will not be impacted by the
project. The HanPen mine has recently requested an expansion. Alternative E-H may
impact the future expansion of mining activities at this site. Additional information
related to mineral resources is located in Sections 3.3.6 and 4.3.6.
US 1 7 C?RRID?R STUDY DEIS 5-7 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
5.3.20 CONSIDERATION5 OF PROPERTY OWNER5HIP
Considerations of properLy ownership have been made during evaluation of the
proposed project Every effort has been made to balance impacts to both the human
and natural environments. There will be no impacts to public rights to navigation. Any
unavoidable impacts, including to riparian rights, on individual property owners will be
handled during the right of way acquisition phase of the project Additional information
related to considerations of property ownership can be found in Sections 3.1.3, 3.1.4, and
4.1.1-4.1.3.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 5-B TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
6.0 LIST OF PREPARER5
Chapter 6 includes a list of the principal participants in the preparation of this Dra$
Environmental Impact Statement.
6. 1 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRAN5PORTATION
Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities
James McInnis, Jr. PE BS in Civil Engineering with 19 Project development and
Project Engineer years experience in project planning document review
and development
Olivia Farr BS in Education with 26 years Project management and
Project Planning Engineer experience in traffic engineering, document review
roadway design, and project
planning and development
Robert Hanson, PE MS in Civil Engineering and BS in Management oversight and
Eastern Project Civil Engineering with 24 years document review
Development Engineer experience in transportation
engineering
Gary L,overing, PE
Project Engineer
Ed Robbins, PE
Project Design Engineer
Anthony West
Project Design Engineer
Richard Tanner
Traffic Forecasting
Engineer
BS in Civil Engineering with 31 Functional and Preliminary
years experience in roadway design Design review
BS in Civil Engineering with 10 Functional and Preliminary
years experience in roadway design Design review
AAS in Civil Engineering
Technology with 23 years
experience in roadway design
Functional and Preliminary
Design review
Master of Economics and BS in
Mathematics with 7 years
experience in traffic forecasting
Benjetta Johnson, PE BS in Civil Engineering with 10
Congestion Management years experience in traffic
Regional Engineer engineering
Stephen Yeung, PE BS in Electrical Engineering with 6
Congestion Management years experience in traffic
Project Design Engineer engineering
Traffic forecast
Traffic Analysis Report
review
Traffic Analysis Report
review
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 6-1 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities
Amy James MS in Environmental Management Natural Resource Technical
Environmental Specialist and BS in psychobiology with 9 Report review
years experience in natural resource
investigations
Rachelle Beauregard BS in Fisheries and Wildlife Science Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Environmental Supervisor 13 years experience in natural Survey, Red-cockaded
resource investigations, Section 7 Woodpecker Foraging
field investigations, protected Habitat Analysis Report
species surveys review
Herman Huang, Ph.D. Ph.D. in City and Regional Community Impact
Community Planner Planning, MS in Environmental Assessment/ Indirect and
Science, and BS in Chemistry with Cumulative Effects
3 years experience in corrnnunity Assessment Review
planning
Steve Gurganus, AICP Master of Public Affairs and BA in Community Impact
Community Studies Team Anthropology with 13 years Assessment/ Indirect and
L,eader experience in community planning Cumulative Effects
Assessment Review
6.2 MULKEY ENGINEER5 AND CON5ULTANT5
Name
Qualifications
Primary Responsibilities
Liz Kovasckitz, AICP MS in Environmental Studies and Overall project management
Planning Group Manager BA in Geography with 20 years and development of the
experience in environmental and DEIS
transportation planning and project
development
J.A. Bissett, P.E. BS in Civil Engineering with 26 Quality Assurance
Principal years experience in transportation
planning and project development
Tim Jordan, PE BS in Civil Engineering with 20 Functional and Preliminary
Roadway Design Engineer years experience in roadway design Design
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 6-2 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Name Qualifications
Paddy Jordan Associates in Civil
Roadway Designer Engineering/Survey with 8 years
experience in roadway design
Johnny Banks Associates in Architectural
Technology with 22 years
experience in roadway design
Nicole Bennett, AICP
Project Manager
MS in Regional Planning and BA in
Economics with 15 years
experience in community and
transportation planning and project
development
Colista Freeman, PE
Senior Planner
Carl Furney, GISP, AICP
GIS Analyst
Andy Belcher
GIS Specialist
Mark Mickley
Environmental Scientist
Wendee Smith
Environmental Services
Group Manager
Cindy Carr
Senior Scientist
BS in Civil Engineering with 12
years experience in transportation
planning and project development
MA in Geography and BA in
Geography with 15 years
experience in planning and GIS
BA in History with Minor in
Geography and Program Certificate
in GIS with 6 years experience in
geographic information systems
and graphics
BS in Biology with 6 years
experience in natural resource
investigations
BS in Natural Resource Ecosystem
Assessment with Minor in
Environmental Science with 11
years experience in natural resource
investigations
BS in Natural Resource Ecosystem
Assessment and AS in Business
Administration with 21 years
experience in natural resource
investigations
Primary Responsibilities
Functional and Preliminary
Design
Preliminary Design
Community impacts analysis,
Indirect and cumulative
effects analysis,
environmental document
preparatron
Environmental document
preparatron
Alternatives development,
Community impacts analysis,
Indirect and cumulative
effects analysis
Impacts analysis, figures
Natural resource
investigations Principal
Investigator
Natural resource
mvestrgatrons
Natural resource
investigations
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 6-3 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities
Tom Barrett MS in Forest Management, MS in Red-cockaded woodpecker
Senior Scientist Environmental Health, and BS in foraging analysis, Natural
Forest Management with 9 years resource investigations
experience in natural resource
investigations
Ralph Costa MS in Watershed Management Red-cockaded woodpecker
Wildlife Biologist (Forestry) and BS in Wildlife foraging analysis
Biology with 33 years experience in
forestry, wildlife conservation and
endangered species policy and
conservation / recovery programs
Kevin Alford, PE, CFM BS in Civil Engineering with 12 Hydraulic investigations
years experience in hydraulic ?
hydrologic design
Matt Harvey, EI BS in Civil Engineering with 8 Hydraulic investigations
years experience in hydraulic and
roadway design
6.3 RSBcH ARCHITECTS-ENGINEER5-PLANNERS, INC.
Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities
Radha Krishna MS in Civil Engineering with 8
Swayampakala, P.E. years experience in traffic
Transportation Engineer operations and transportation
planning
6.4 5EP1 ENGINEERING GROLJP, INC. Traffic operations analysis
Name Qualifications Primary Responsibilities
Richard Drayton AAS in Civil Engineering Air Quality Analysis, Traffic
Project Manager Technology BA in Civil Noise Analysis
Engineering Science with
14 years experience as a
Transportation Engineer (9 in air
quality and noise analysis)
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS 6-4 TIP N OS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
I .,

50
\

X ?
P E N a
' E R y
?
'

53?*+

w v
` /n0
? :io a
i?
uf? ua no
E
z , 50
I
Mc,"i;

HANOVE?2
?
Wifmin
on
S 8? ?

- -,
;
`?;J •F ?%:a,s PROJECT
,
?
` VICINITY
S W 1 C K
??
jf/
?
87
r

?
. ? .. , . . . .
0A

Figure 1
PROJEGT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
tYk *0-" qi?
r?
? North Garolina
Department of Transportation
Holly ShelterGa melands

h

Qcs? _- ? .
- S?LaQeC?? `t?kRa NC.27p

•
, Hampstea
Rb
?^- . _
P
,i,
.
?

+HRd'?'R53301 yoYs..
V
51dbt
.
I . ??? •` 4? ?
.
ay?

o?
v
`

? scmt5 Niu ST U DY AREA
tt Yurrmq
8ton gypau
.,
.` J
?' ? Irr

S' rJ r

?? ! 1

0 0.5 1 2 3 4
zz?
MII25 N
Wilmington /1'/ '?
L E G E N D
No. of Vehlcles Per ~ Oay (VPDI ln IDOS Z~~ ~ m J
PM ~ } r DHV (tl.~D N v~-a p N i 3' \5 3Y~~i~ ~'6 J 60
DHV Deslgn Hourly Volume (%1 • Kso PM PM Peak Perlod
2 T 26 55 f= g'~ s65 D Peak Hour Dlrecdonal Spllt s0 l / J Po ~k ~w~ a.s a~4
( Duais.tes DITx~ ~}n of o Hot~ISR aoa} d tskatsRAO°21~a (a r) 12
pN' 12 ~ ~ J
~ ~
'Lfi /~a ~ ,q R ptl, r~~,~ N 'ps y sp
fsqls ~kR~ `~9 ~4G?so G+,~ o4?s o U
o s,• q ~o,~ T p P~ ~ o„ 0 I~ r~~ o
e~fs J.S~ O
~ o T O r
S i d q u 7 R d. (SR 1935) ,yo, Sr ~ o,P o 0
= ~Ca a~ ~ \.a3 sY 3~' 2`' J~pg e i~ f
PM Si ~q ,0 5 ~ r?\'y 12 { 4,6 fi5 64
182 26~ W SB
17 h,im/ ~rs,, 17 ~ ,~35 °
n9t~ @,ybd~ ,Zp
~ ~o P
$j4 P p/a%
- ~~9kq 65 ,~o ~
~
Murrayviiie Rd. (SR 7322) ,fl 6 S~ ~ so .f
ss ~ra a
4X~,2 o s A~ Ob ~~~~pl s.prs ~a6 r,s ~ I
9>
~
rs A,~ o 2
`~a ~ o ~A' ah5
~ Pa 'y~0 1b c A ~ J O
/~'P~O S'~•~ `L ~.1 O Qb
See Insef A 26o SS v p~3 ~'m~ ~ Na p /s~ A,y yc f
"OO aII ,q T0 /a;°' bo r?\'4y rs ~p J `e' 9 /'2 ?l O', 60 so` ~po
144aRin4-utherKing1rP s 9he ~ ~a
~ 0 ^qa h~ ~ O,, s sJ (sR 2849) ~ Martin LulherKing W~ 5 R~e ~9~ a ~oo
ti @ ~ni r\'~'i r'r a a ' o PM_,,y6p 9 ~ = Jr Ahµy q.2 kp5 ~60 kO5 Shr ip0 a ^
(sR2649) 55 b„P•P2 425 ~ S I
w J /s o0~ RO„ ry 11 ~q,zS 4~ 92 T
' '~OJ~pop II PM 55 2 5 t~ 73 426 IS °'Z sRf~~A 2'~ ~2 9n. " n S p ~7g~~ m ~ m
G~ Sta 'pp. 321 (4,2t 386qp 90 1N '0
w ~0 ~SRUOnR ~ s uo 5 p o. tno „a za. 24 +
~bs ~ .Nia'c' c ~ y~~. F'd ~1 ss. In N ~aN r1y0 ~ mo£ y y, '~71y0 ~ ~ r c m ~
cV~a pO0 0 ~ lnsef A
2008 Average Annual Daily Traffic
Prepared for. ~ Exisfing Conditions Not to ScaJe Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Sfudy ~ ScaJe
NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Figure Prepared 1I1712011 ired 1I1712011 2
New Hanover & Pender Gounties, NC

s% ~ , .
- ~ sa~Ru ° . _ : . . s
1 , m ~SR~y~ R
t / _ od'i N ~ i0 1663
GJ jYE'l'
i J4
Hl))icaiLC ~ ' [SeFk ~
rr
~ L~K~
I ° • ~10 i
(Sk t CT ek I ~
J Sluigemi Op21 . . . 1 lslaa . . ~ a
z Oeek e
~ltY 5~~ ~7\ _ . % ~ ` Hmu G ~
bTll a>'d O _ ' . CreeA ~ Chttt:nef ~ (1 G
. ' , / ~(G`et[s CieeA) L~
0 a
17 F_ I P
s;auwv i s~a ~
R v
a _
y H~u~~4~Rd C7nannet
s°°`Yy'xar
0
l.~,R~°r•~~~7)-^ . ''r:nr1F r
I
. m~r~yrinean.(se1azz) - ~(~~ah • ~ e`k Ra. 455
. ~ Tsh anky. )
4/~~ Chrcx,:F: - ~ L uenC~ R?'J tl c , s s;ywoo Level ofService ervice
A-C cyal ~ A-C . Signalized Intersection
p ~ D ~ Inlerchange
06 F ` ~~p31 es1^ ~ . . , ~,l`'R eek
Rd(3R~ q~,VddfaSaun~LooP... r- E E
F I l~ ~ ~ F
` -
Vh~M1in~umwKo g ~ saaa491 MajorlMinor Roads MajorlMinor Roads County Boundary
~ City of Wilmington
m~ Wilm'ngton ~ m ~p~ J aOy, ° 7 ' . ds[w f~ ~
F
Prepared i>y: 2008 Level of Service
MULKEY o 3,500 7,000 14,000 Exisfing Condifions Feef 14,000 Figure No.
~ Feet ~
Prepared for: US 17 COI'fICJOf StIJCIy Data Sources: NCDOT and Mulkey GIS NCDC)T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 U-47511R-3300Traffic OperationsAnalysis Report d Mulkey GIS 3 ns Analysis Report
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared: 10l21110 ll21/10

L E G E N Q ~o
xxx No. of Vehlcles Per Day (VPD) In 1005 210 K m A
DHV'd D ~ a Q' 'pN s0
DHV DesiqnHOUrryVOiume(!]•Kao 0, ~1~ 7 ~
PM PM Peak Perlotl q Vy ~,nsF'3 rl 3 o~ o
D PeakHOUrDlrecdonal5pllt~O 70'4 55 A= ~ g~ ~B~gR1y~ ~jM ss ^ y 9, ~ !00 sy, G
ouais.t~ oiTS (!'n or o HoAISR U63}Rd. ~S~a SR Oa }Rd. o ~OO b~h~ iy ~O
a+~ tix 1 6 ~ A~ ~sP Qo
02g gp~ A l44 c 'Dy ~b J J as 5 4(a~ q, CA~ Sj`
4 o-o
ya~k04 fsq ~5~3~ kRq 0 'AQ,
?o r~ '
, ~ (v ~i 60 ~f • ~.1 Os' G Q b` 1a s ~6
~~o r Sidbu7 Rd. (SR 1996) o y 02 0~' .a
PM ~so ss! ~o tt{4.b 55 ~~~•P•4~2 7~~ ~f('` 4~ 3b Q~h ~„?~.q, 'Aq, E~ ~ ~ \ \v
E~ 770 1541.1229 17 Pjrs
a
p
_ rJOn Rtl ~20
2 A ~og s ~2~ i v Mumayviiie Rd. (SR 7322) A4,
~ s 6 r ~'~o ~a• ~ J s ~ p
4 lo ~p S 5 o k~ C~00~~ fs,A+f, ~ I
% rs''r°A ~ `c
O b aa .o p0r~~a \ ~ ° y0
60 ti
h ~ 2 O
\g See lnsef A ~ p 9 l 'ob 4O0 s f \1 l"~~~I t~ A
.~l~2 Q~ ry a~ 60
Sp0
S qrs a a~ 1` lR' i ~ lYS R4aRr ~o G~r~ O` l 6s % n L isR 284 ~ Jr pkwy, ? ~
Martin LulherKin ti @ ~n r.Oy s0„ 9 R.~.h a~o
Jr p~ g R'/s~ 6 r'~ rS 6 ~ o tq,~ y1 g~ 20N~ 1 J 60r'B4 S q ~O ~q~~f /8O ZO F ~S oa~
(sK 2649) ~faa~ ~sbo J `o p ~55 w'~ ~ 45 av "5 5 S ~1 ~V ~'p~%
l1 i4 2} ~~32 56035b S~dr, 12~1 ~ 160~ a 120 (~p 660 a S~ ~ o %y,(djlol2il ~ 160 O N
1~ 0 ,`2j IQ N V N ss ~y a, ~ o
0 S ~J ~p~ tl pM 55 5 15 2[~ 00 33 v'3 `r3" ~9 a ~ ta ry 380 [ 4. 2 t~ 901 ~3 6 80 35 ~ o .qRUOn ~ zsy na 70 ao 3s ~ o
~ ' 45, ~
~~S ~ ~ a. 'c^ a ~ y~ ~ F'd ~l Ss. tn N r p N y B s c b
oq, w - o oy o ti~ a ~ InsetA Q
lpa, -
2035 Average Annual Daily Traffic
Prepared for. ~ N0 Bl!!ld Not to ScaJe Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Sfudy ~ ScaJe
NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Figure Prepared 1I1712011 ired 1I1712011 4
New Hanover & Pender Gounties, NC

,
&Z~
sa~ Ra ~O~ : . . s ~~l
Wi N ~ i0
GodJrel' ~
_
Xa>zcafu ~ ~ 6l ~ ' " - CS eek ~
I ° •
Ir qo~'~ ~y ~
'1d ~
, d ~ 54 an , RfS?3eekRd. oo~ Topsurl, [Seek lslan S[ui , . p gemi ~ p021 . . . . , . . ` ~ a
e
~„ltYS~ _ / J I % ~ G G ~
- ~ - aru e>eex ~H~ard 0 G
iaer~s c>eex~ ? , L~
0 a
17 Fal P~,
s;duwv ~ s - /a G ~3.R t
ff ~ ~,1 ~~~q `I
G"reex ~ . ~NIIl~o
y 4~Rd ~~hannet
17 s~a
zz!;

A~tlmaonRU. F ~
h ~G
. m~r~yrinean.(se1azz) - ~(~~nh • I Rtl.(SR~455
q,aTSliOOks. ) 1\~Zros _ f Leuent~
R?'J tl Y , s s;ywoo ~ri / Level ofService ervice
A-C cyal ~ A-C . Signalized Intersection
p ~ D ~ Inlerchange
06 F ` ~~p31 es1^ . . , ~,l`'R eek
Rd(3R~ q~,VddfaSaun~LooP... r- E E
F I l~ ~ ~ F
` - Pkwv. Sm \
Vh'M1in~umwKOg . ' ~ ; sa 26491 MajorlMinor Roads MajorlMinor Roads County Boundary
? ~ ~ 1 ~ City of Wilmington
m~ Wilm' gton m ~p~ J aOy, ° 7 ' . ds[w f~ ~
F
Prepared by: 2035 Level af Service
MULKEY o 3,500 7,000 14,000 No-Bu11d Feef 14,000 Figure No.
~ Feet ~
Prepared for: US 17 COffICJOf StlJdy Data Sources: NCDOT and Mulkey GIS NCDC)T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 U-47511R-3300Traffic OperationsAnalysis Report d Mulkey GIS 5 ns Analysis Report
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared: 10l21110 ll21/10

A
, ~~,i ~ ~s,~ ~ ? a
r
°@tr m 11 . ~ i ~.d vssa~
~f } G'adJre,l, ~eyCr p ~~f~ 4 0 ~ . f - f Cleek 4+p sYbE ~Ernixs
a ~ om ? ~ Cyeek r' \ R s 9 ~ ? dtq ~ ~ ~ ~
C:reek ~ •`S.? ~ O CO4 n!,6,....
2
~ ~i ?iii~y* ~
IsZmul /AA -
~0RM1~~~ /SRp3>"?e'ekR L11d7bpsa~l i 1~~ ~s1an aJ~ C3eek
SYRrgeah ~~y5ta ~ C \--r ~ O a
CSeek e
c~ O G 0
G
('Flzffs erzzx) ~
~ a
}
n~~. ~ sAnssel ti 1 I
~ ~ s;dUard R ' ~ s ~ f . l ~ ~ i °It> ? ,
Gieeif
C'YtaHYlel O \:3` ~ ~'L
17 S~%y"n/f ~~s~, Leaend
Preliminary CorrrdorAltema! y CorrrdorAltematives
~'1 r 9 tti weslrEaai ofNezao rNCZ1o westrEast otNC210
'i A!a°tvOnRU. Alternafive A o, Iternafive A Alternative N
c:ieek Alternafive B Iternafive B Alternative 0
Allernative C Iternative C ~ Alternalive P
rsd~,~ r,y~sy c,eek Alternafive D M,Imarvuie Re (sR Ian) 9 ~ ~ R?? SJ bck Iternafive D ~ Alfernalive Q
~ah T<55J ? ~ ~ Alternafive E ~nke ~ ~NErnse Iternative E ql(ernalive R
Alternafive F 55ruth T . - „,9 ~ : (6a,! t oZe e ' 2T ~ Iternafive F ~ Alternalive S
~ rsRejYV,,'v ~~~'n: r sX~ ~ Alternafive G i z>>~ , \ ` Alternafive H Iternafive G AlternaliveT Ilernative H Alternalive U
Alternafive I Iternafive I Allernalive V
1 , ,e Ra ~ .rrW~ 1 ~ Altemalive J V r Iternalive J Alternalive W
- - Alternalive K P~~ , . Iternalive K Aliernative Z
eek /3R ~idd~eSounALooP ~ i~ ~ Alternafive L Iternafive L
~ _ ~o% ~ i+ / Alternative M1 ternative M1
~ Alternative M2 a ~ o ~ Hwne / ternative M2
\~,.,r~ ' ~ Cleek n /
Marti~WCherKin9lr.~'~' Rd n ~ ~ ISR 26491`.... ~L O Inierchange Locatioi Interchange Locations County Boundary
MajorlMinorRoads Wilm ngton MajorlMinor Roads ~ CAy of Wilmington
12'~ WaterFeatures tw, ze Water Features
~R AN n - 5
Pre,'ared `'y: MuLKE,r Prelimina~/ Corridor Alternatives • J 0 3,500 7,000 14,000 14,000 Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Sfudy Feet ~Feet ~
Prepared tor: NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Data Sources: NCDOT and Mulkey GIS Mulkey GIS V
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared: 10121I10 1I10

knAOVCR GC JT" h04T4 CnR4iPla. /~E /Y~ \ ti II Obbl C3- .1_,64L58 STA: 193+23.694 1 E ./pFFSET: 114.ffi9 L STA: 193+23094 ./OFFSET: 114.829 L
I PfIOLD fi CFRSOPJCERl1FY 'IHkT THIS PLAT 4/AS DRAW'N UPJDEft 1'i L~V ' ~ IV ?Ofi80. "4' SIlPEP~51CM FPOA( :.N L'Nr.L GPS S~1N\/E'! NI.SfJE U^JDEP, hiY SUPEP ' S OIl E 23524t6.SBB$ NLS GAf~ l IONUM 'iT OE CRlPTlOP15 _ECDRDEO 5 SNOt PJ HER.EOPJ7; THAT TME IND( DU'HL 1 ? - , ~ IV 206807;24' E 23524-6.SBB5
BOIi'I~ARI 51.EFE IJOT 5l1R;E\EO . NO . RE CLE PL:I II'JCIC-,T 0 P,5 ORn'MI FROm ~ (°PfllPr COfJTPCL POINT' INIORId4T10 J CUND AS SHCYLV.I NERECk THAT THIS GPS SllR 1' WAS PERFORPoIED fJrO Oi P1GHT OF L4 DlSC f~ONTROL PO(! ) ,'6 1 ]6 ,
E<CEEOIIVb pPD R(C) 3 Cr THE FbCC SPECiFiC, 1CV5 PN D TH I USEO P~ ST4nC IIODt; GPS F1ELO PPOCEOUREs AnlD COOP,DfJ4TES wE E OB'nlNED a; _ E..STlIfG CO'vCRE'!T. '^oVU!J~fT . ~y "EPnGE IfE,4a imETHOJ OF 3 OR t!. RE 095ERV-lt01tl5 L41TH OF/Iri]lONS LE55 (CaJTROL POIS T) ' ~~l'' ? .
TH.ti1( 0.1 OF EACH POIPlT 5140'uVlJ NEREOPl; THAT TF115 SUR'JE} qA5 PERFOPbIEO ~-D E/ISTING !RO'd l Y I. 1`~i _~IJ \ IfJ APPfL -.fULY. 2005 1151M1(G (2) OPJO:d NWER L1/L2 P.ECIEVEP.S AMD ALL C!P= OLO f.RON P.PE COOROINATES AP.E Bo5E0 ON NAD 83. EI [ lSTPiG lROll r?O:) ,'y,...
' E iSTPlG fP01 PPe ~ ~ THAT THIS P AT !/PS PP.EPP.REO IN ACC/JROAIVCE WITH G.S. 97-30 AS AMEfJDED_ 6 E~' SP !l, 'h,
WITFJE55 f Y 09IGffJ4L SfGPt4NRE LfSCEIiCE NUA1@ER ANO SEAL THIS ~ pll PRGDLCTtO EL DHY OF _ :.D.. 00.. Pl} OBSER h`1Of 16 i_L ~y} (e! e' I~ T Io; (_'od
= 6=(IG SRPf1 AR l SEi1R 5fr m~s PLyr is oF PcrEN rA ac o coReooR anro is ani excc~rord -o ~ S - se4c, - sE- ,ac. rJl H£ oEFJI Ic o a suarJl rso'o' 3cc0reDlPJG 70 G5, 47-30 (f,()i)(q
SPr SE 'R An~D 5 PPEPrRSO !N .1C~CP'~~iCE 6niH G.S 153A -335(3] ~ ...GROJ. F e :isnu y C 6r4 ,FD . ROh~ hlHl iHOOh J PnC'ES ~ A~~y ~ f
%
jaL~ w r4.RSO R 5 L rE SE P,0 j ~Eyy)
se
~u ..ceoai8se "V
X-T s1k ~zE ' Or~sEc STM 229+88JS9
~3561 -oFFSeri na,eaa L ' ni 20e255 _7n75 23561M 3349
~ 1, I~j t Y ~ NNN_"
.<:1~` ~X / . . C •-y ~i.,.!p ..~~._~V ~;^V; _7
' '1-r~~~ . i.,~ . v j ; ~ / ~ ~ ~ 1\
, LLL
'y ,
~ ~^r?~.~i ~~~~r i ' I~} iJr _•S r., y i+5~~i t/ \ ~ F~Y~~ ( ~~(i~~ ~ ti'+~ / 1 'S~~~l tiF ~ Jty}" vX ~ ~ ~ Min~~fl~N FFEA nfincqTlpN kRE`
~
~ ~i`
~ ti I
~~EN*PuPh: I ~ ~ . ATER TGN~eR
~ ~ ~ ~
, i „
/ (
> S- y I
aR "mm__~-~ FEJ ~ HDAOW AMP
pGpE[ YOOR ~ ~ P'
M/L/TARY CUT-OFI rCJ I -~FF
~ ROAD E,XTENS/+DN =NS/+UN ~I
LJr, F- r3oRnoNaQan ro,- rso rso I '
i~~31Ya1 r~ N~, 1„11~11 aoumrmoa~ araoomn ITV "ORRI CHROLIfJA II I.~.6, _00$
~ I ti L l~ c1rvoFw~tata/+rGmiv S G7t7N '

PREL /M/NARY NARY
FaznEWEwowcr WLY
.vmrxow.awaarrtaFc
~
io~o:.m a' ioov zano' aao. zaoo awo' ~
I ' I ~ Prepared by: Clty 4f Wllflllf7gfOll MIIIt1I'~/ CUf-Off Road Extension
MIJLKEY Transportation Corridor Official Map Figure No.
US 17 COffldOf Sflldy Data Source: City of Wilmington (af Wilmingtan
Prepared for: NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Figure Prepai•ed: 10121110 A: 10l21/10 7
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC

~
~ ~ .
r~o
's,ps~ r
~wl ` ~ . . C~UJ' N , Cq ~ B.`~'i0 S~ISG3\
CiJdfYel^ ~Qt'~ F ~I A. ~ CleFk `~4 ~ ~yYb 1 @ V'zrafesf
) Ra ~ r v ? ~ ~y.~k ~f
} Owek ? '1 ~04~ ~60'~ /
, ~ ,4e' l~ ? ~s~ r ~Jy r ~ ~/Gbp~'
~ ~7
ISIi]H~f K C ~ (]I / ; j * ~ '~j~ 2 . 1` ~ p f t\
~10 r o
QLdTop5nrl
~ ~lsi rd~~ ~AaJ~- CS'eek ~ a
~C ek~ e
ci G ~
:LIiII Creek a O G
rVegs c>eRk} h~ 'k, L~
2 ~ a
~ Sld~ury ) `9~V .
' r 17 `
4 ~'S~oF(v CG)eelx Hq~~ o
17
49°
~ ~ o 's? i ~
G?~ 'J ~6ntler
Cleek
l ~ q~ yG~ hr~tch~
~ MurraYviiie Rd (SR 1322) 1 (S~°nhal ~ Ta e Cieek Legen 1455~
vsn Detailed SYudyAlternatives ks West f East of NG 210 YuclyAlternatives of NC 210 VUest J East of NC 210
AlternativeD -G 1 eleek r, rs B~+tr °v Alternative D-G Alternative P
Alternative E-H Rlternative E-H ~ Alternative Q
~ ~ , L ~ ~'aaeR ~i ~ Alternative F-I Alternative F-I Alternative R
a AltemativeM1 Alternative M1 ~ Alternative S
Pa,zr~ ~ ~,~zk AlternatrveM2 Alternative M2 Alternative U
~ 1~ AlternatweN Alternative N Alternative Z
ti ~__~i oqp Altern ative O Alternative O
s
~ ' elee~
Martin~ucn,rKing Rd~~ +~~~f 16a 2e49P•-_ O Interchange Locatioi ; ..~~5.:~ . ~ Interchange Locations L_ County Boundary
MajorlMinor Roads ~ CAy of Wilmington
Major,~MinorRoads WI~1711 tOll gr ' m Water Features
~Opv ' Water Features
F
Prepared by: MULKEY Detailed Study Alternatives
0 3,500 7,000 14,000 14,000 Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Sfudy Feef ~ Feet ~
Prepared for: NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Data Sources: NCDOT and Mulkey GIS Mulkey GIS 8
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared: 10l21110 21110

/
OO 37~ L
~~L J y avRa o ) a'
f ' sa nQ i' r m '
``7 ^ • rC 0 ..oqu ~~.t~ ~~15G3\
Godfi'eyr e Cree~AF rra
P ot Cleek ! dA N • C ~'O r $ a ? ~y
~ xhrrisatcc ` ~ ~y Ai0`Y~ / C5 eex ~ ~1 Co r ^~qd~ r/
t /
~ ~ Go~~~• ~ ~~~uo~~e ~ N,~ ~y
Creek = ~ J
~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~j ,i~~ o
/SR eeMRd. °Ao~ 01dTopsnil ! . ~l J' CSeek
~ ~ f~ Strngea~J 021 ~ si O a
~ 6>~ e
0 G /H°~4~ ~ 2 G 0
bTill Creek Chnnnel 5J ~ IBeHS Creek% - . f
~
• { < a 0 a
SSS.~ ~~,L1 s~ , ~ kSR,g~s~ ;
1
~'r ~ ~ ~l ~aF~NUl~„°n~, Cha ne1
x$ ~
17
ym
4~R~ ~O rsR ~f • ` o ~s 1( ~
~i A~amatlo~ R 1 j ~rFrd q4p ~ _ ~ Br~der
I 6Gk R h r~tch~~ ~
P / i~ MurreyvilleRd (SRt;Z3) Oeek / ~l~ ~ i d(3'C 455
~avsir-DUk4 ) ) HErnso
01,41voel Legend
Eurrenf Defarled StudyAlfen sfarled StudyAltemafives
4(Vest f East of NG 210 ~ bP of NC 210 West f East of NC 270
AlternaliveMl al[ernalive M1 Alternative E-H
l~~_ i Ii Y_' i~l pager ~ J ~ ~odn R r c,.xAlternalive M2 3lternalive M2 Allernative R
~rJ'~`` ~ ~Rd~sR a~esoune~~°` Alternative0 4lternative O Alternative U
rc
a / ( o ~ Haore
MaM1inWCnwKm9lr.f~Y ~ ~ ~ ISR 28491 InterchangeLocatioi Interchange Locations County Boundary
MajorlMinor Roads MajorlMinor Roads ~ City of Wilmington
Wilmi gton
WaterFeatures Water Features
F
Prepared by: MULKEY Current Detailed Stud Alternatives
Y 0 3,500 7,000 14,000 14,000 Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Sfudy Feef ~ Feet ~
Prepared for: : NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Data Sources: NCQOT and Mulkey GIS Mulkey GIS 9
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared: 10l21110 21110

jj~
~S`.,0~5~. ( :-~,H.•t : . W$:',./; . ~ l 0 ~r ~
~
v JaPr// ~
i )
/~~~.c e j : P . •a _ _ "'~t ,r ~
„ ~.6 ~ . ~~~M1'?a.. +~-~o~*? " ' 4 a / / i
~
pr.. ~ ~ ~
o; y ~
EL n ..qi r 1. _ ~ . Y ^ . +1 ~ Hflv 41 :_~m.lan Hflv 41 .lai~t%`X3~. _
I ..1 . / V
tm ~e5y d ~P . • 5. ) L~.f.~ ~al u ~ T I :....»I_ "t. _ 'Y. . .G\M1!".''- ' , . ' ,
. ~ ' 1
mr ~`~7.wy ~i . ~ . ~ nnr,e~i i
} ~k rj
~ ' O
ti
. v ap . ~ . . . - r - -
Leaend
L_f County Boundary Huily Shelt Huuy Shelter Gamelands ~ Noise 6arriers
P4ap Grids Signifcant Signifcant Natural Heritage Q Interchange Locations
Area & Ma Project Study Corridors Floaiplain; F1rea&ManagECiAre2 RCVJHabitat 'id01'S ~ Floodplains Future Potentralty Surfa6le ~
0 Wetland HistoncSit - PoientHlh'SuilaLle Histonc Site
0 Pond ~ HazmaVU`. ~ HazmaUUST IRCINHahltat ~uiteDle
- Stream Q Permitted P ttQW f ORW Q Hydraulic ` ~ Permitted MinefQuarry RCNiPartltlans Q Hydraulic Site ~ RCW CavityTree
A1teinatives
west/East ofNC210 West/East ofNC West/East ofNC210
-Alternative Mi ~ Alternative E - Alternative EH
~ Alternative M2 - Alternative F Alternative O Alternative l - Alternative R Alternative U
Prepared by: . MULKEY Current Detailed Stud Alternatives
Y 0 3,500 7,000 14,000 US 17 Corridor Sfudy Feet 14,000 ~ Figure No. ~Feet
Prepared for: NCDOT TIP PrOJeCE Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Data Sources[ NCDOT, NC NHP and Mulkey GIS Figure Prepared* GIS Figure Prepared. 3f14f11 1yp
vxtam, vam, aia s~aamxm~• esaieapyonmafe nntars as New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC He wk.~ wrt~ekGfa n~eMay p~~%s[5 r9~g a TMble Gea%TMH nmme nraiarc x rqarmwieeeatilttn
- - v.iNwpJOttESWmekiamvary. xr

Ua7 /s/~ 7f/ lt{. ~ US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
~'w ~ '~`~~M 5;' ~°.~°4 ~ ~ r~r~.' ° 8 a !3 Current Defaii ;urrent Defailed Study Alternafives
„ 1~, . f . , /NCDOTTIP Projec :DOTTIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
~ ~tr{ ~,v ~ _ ~!~N , ~ ~ . y'r r~;, ~ _t: New Hanover New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC
' 1 i i w~l.l ~ A~
~ ,y1 tC . a.~ ~...v,~ ~~I • /~I
iEi3'y l°4~ .ti}~ ~,f ~ f . ~O~~I~~ e ~ 'i . ~ ~ • ~ ?!II 4 . ~Y:
~S 'i! 't ! . a n~ , . n°~~.r'. r . •-ti;.: ~i~~~ 7~_.,.-v p~- ..'k~ fa ~ . i~i' Q ~'r~ t. ~ I ( e '1
,~r Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~I ~ ~y
~ ' .r,i. \l.(~~~~f - Ij~v~W3.1~`r~~t ;~.Mh ~ ~ I~~ ~ ( ~ ~ I / yY ,uAµyi~.• ~ ' • ~ ~ ~ r F^{~ ~
i
7.: ~ : 1 •a•- fi '~'i~ ~ ~~~y _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,S~ § ~ , ~ ~.f'~1 ~ OgdE/7
e
. ~ 't". ~ V:. ? wa~y~. ~,ls: 'I' •~("7- . ~ . ~ . h ~ 4i. AZ~'~. ,i .~AK' ` fVIM14: :
A ' 'r ~ . ' ~ ~ .v ' ,~ni • tr~ l..{~ - i'~ '',~`.`.~~,C ~{~''Y'~ ~1~'~ iN ~ r• ~h~> ~;~'A'lEL.nT..
, O
~ ' * #7~~~ • ~ .t iY I'~ A~ - ~~L. ~h' .P
`X~ t .r. . 'k ' (%j ~ f1.,': ? ~
f' ~
~ • } ~1
' f . . ~
A~W COD . j~ . . . . - ~ .
i - s . . ~ ~r ~e.,,±. ~ . V - ~ ~ .~L:,;V~ .fh"l , ~ r~ ! ? ~ ~ . r c fi •,i,., . r :.(~a t' .e~' • ...~A 3 T ~ ~y c F~ i
iY~dl e ~ r,>~
i .;w' ` • ' : . .
i ' i c%
~ ~ ~
Cb
Yl r r.
f.'
~ y
4 0` E.~.
A +J ~
.`~-~aF - a'.wr. s 'w 16 i.:
~ ~ '!3~i?~' 'k
` ° '~f ~ ? `;r C ~
AP'
f - ' . . ,~~?Iy+ i ~ 1l ~p'y, * 5 w ?
(:.ciufrty Bounrlary Holly Shelfer Gamelancls ~ Ploise 6arriers M~V, ' o
fvlap Gnds Significanf Nafurel Henfage Q Intemhange Locations Area & Managed Area ftCNl Habifat F ~ Fufure PofenfiaBySuifable 'S/ R.~'y'1~'f y 'x`.~•/ x'f ~ . r' ' :T.p,~~ ~ ~r~, . i r 9 ~ ' ~ hrj~' Projecf Study Corridors Floodplains F ° ~ ~ • ~K ~
N,I -~F, • e.~.~'1~ ~j~ ~ .~y1 ~ . r ~ Y' S; ~ 0 Wefland HisforicSife - PoknJti~l bSfioftaLk J~ ~r • { • y ' ~rp ~n, Poncl P,CV~fHabifat s~4,S.f fv !lyy.:: . r
0 ua ' 4',~ l+lr t T , `t~ 41. 6 ~ .A A _ Y ~ HazmaflUST SilNe i ! d ~ ~ " ~ `F
Stream i 0 Permdfed Mine/Quarty RGW Partitions r' ~,x.; -,i,,w i 4. ~~ti ~ ~ f ~ dr~~~R?~~~~y~.
HQNf / OP,V~1 Q Hydmulic Site ~ RCW Cavify Tree . l, Cy,~~~3" k • el s< ~ ~ F"~s;-. ? i r~~ o ?c° ?~I ~5.~.' , 't"~~ v`Y}~~ia'~,~ey Y.. f ,y; #~~N~ `~-~{yty4,'•°,,.~
West/East ofNC270 IAksf/Easf ofN0210 ~ ;4'~~~:'9~ ir1 y~ ~ ~ J'~.y~ Ap ~ O . ,
- Alfernafive M1 -Alfernafive E-H - AlfernafiveM2 IilfernafiveP. 2
- Alternative O Alferna6ve U 1 n 3 ~ r~~ r~~ ~ ~L~bif'16 < , ~ :G`P ~d f..~~ ~~~~.i•. ~/~~•~`H"
0 600 1,200 2,400 Figure No.
Fe et DataSOUrces:NCDGTNCNHPaMMulkeyGlS FgurePrepared:3114M1 neizm.vom a,asrczmemvezziezouaxmnewaso~g ~ ~ l ~affiA ~ r,'j'e~',~~ 10B
s.e.a..r~cam'~eru.ar.<morarmses~s~zarmwieeeatilnn ~.s r ~arp~' ~;a~. .r ; ? ~!~'"j

` • I~
US 17 CORRIQOR STUDY
~ GurrentDetailed SfudyAlfernatives e, ;~*r4;~~
NCDOTTIP Pro ect Num6ers U-4751 & R-3300 ~ ~ ~ + .
New Hanover & Pender CounUes, NC `N ~
1
/ r~. ~q, ? ~ .R M 3ayy ~p s~.Ja ii~ r- r ~ K .h~ 4 . . ~Md
, +.tti'?'~'':~.~ `~~,~:~~r A-~'-~. ;-',~a ~*~s~. . . ~``~'~~,~i''~"~ ~ ri~ : f~, Planfation Road Site ~
+ f~ _ .k3~'I ~''4°~~ a: ^,~~'~~?!~,4~` .r ,,~~n ,h.~` r _~yd~~y~a31-n~i.~-~"~~~~`~ T .6~~. ~ ~
tiAM~^ < 'W,~"a~ ? ~ J,//ry,, ~ . . . t
dr-tf',~ wnA4't`~': ~Z ~ ~ ~.y ? ~
~ 3Mq'. - y~~, ~ ~A 1.~~ •1~':~IaT~, ~0 I 'S ~~~v' :A. . .
~\A;.Y - cs w-~,~~,~?°'
~ Q ~ ~ v ~ y~ . . . . . ,
i ,
Site 3 ~ ~
~ . , v~? .
..3Y, Vk .6 k4.13M*
. . 1 . ,
,
- 34-Acre Residual Sife ~ , , _ . "ldLIal slt@
' a~ rt J3 ` • a~~~' • . ~ I.•~ ; r ~ 1`.
r
Ogden Park
. t 1 , a . ..i . . ,
~ : k - . . ~~":;'~~~;;i . ~ •e p • ` o ; • "A~ ~
y re ~ ~ • ~ ,;y~ L.' ~dp~ n ~r 1~ ~ . X , h tit 4~ + ~ ;
~ u~~1~~~' n AI~
' ~qQ1~~~ 5 ? . +
~ . , t ~ ~T.:'"` :~M~R+ ~ o rF~.:t ~'i~ L~~ ~ h~' ,~'yr\i:. •'x'UR f~, , , ~ ~ , a ~ ~ - o ~ ~ , . b ! ~ - q~i'~;%S,~ it,R~ ~y yy~ ; .
. t, , • ' ~ {
~ .i
~ ~ ~ :^c~ r.,/i.: • ~ . _ , ~ , e: aE~ ~ I ~4:. y_ r+ • I W , r
J ~ 1,
r t r! t ~
~`rJ, 1r
T. y t • ~~•1 l~ . OF
••5 I' _ ,+a+3~ . _ n Y' .'a'i,.q ~ ~ ~ s ~o
~'~F+.~"~7 s ' ' .r '~~~;~8 ~s1°;~r~~; y Leqend
CouMy Boundary Holly Shelter Hally ShPlter Gamelands ~ Naise 6arriers Significard Nafural Henfage Q Interchange Locations
fvlap Gnds Significanf N^ bu~' H- ~ . dx rr","" _ ' y ,t~ ~ ~ ~Jl ~ "S~: ~y~,~ . *:9 a : Area & Manz ~L t' ~ ~ rt' i : ~ . ; = ~ Y~[ ~ ~ , - . 7 Prajecf Sfudy Corridors Area & Managed Area P,CNf Habifat 9or5 Floodplains Fufure Pafenh'aBySudable
i ~ ~'f..a~~~~1~• ~ r~ iy~~y ~Yi:~Y f:~ k'. Wefl ~...Floodplains ~ and HistoncSife HisfoncSife - Poknti~ly5wlf-aLk
]Pand ~L . I e.. ~t , ' :W ' - : . .1 ? v. ~ •~v ~ ~f!"~ V HazmaflUST ~ HazmaflUST RCNI Habifat SuitaNe
- r ~ MounfAraraf Stream Q PermiffedMir 0 Permiffed Mine/Quarty P.GW Partitions
,,yy~ ~ • ~ HQWlORW Q Hydraulic5iti Q Hydraulic5ite ~ RCW CavifyTree
a ME Ch urch Alternafives i' • ' 1 ~ +A~U~asf;'East ofNC270 IAksf/Easf ofNC2 IAksf/Easf ofNC210
~ ~,r--' •-Y ~T+ ' ~ ~ ~~~~I" ,r : 'Z . . ~ ~ 'Alternative M1 -Alternative E-h ~ ~ ~ - ' ~ , m ~ ~ w'• ~ 4 , t 4. . -3' ~ , " , . -Alternative E-H
r?/~~ ~f ~ - Alternative M2 Alternative R yy ~ ~y q ~ Alternative O Rlternative U `C I l !Y t ~y s p -Alternative R Alternative U
~ • i d ' T ' S~ . • yr ~s ~~~y~ J ~.-r o soo 1,200 ,zoo 2,400 Figure No.
i~~.~~ ~~K .~r ~ F• ` .~.'S. ~ w+~ - ~u ~:4~.~~~,er±~,~yf4~~~0 ~i'% ~1?I'.'~~fll''JII- ~~E~ ~v~' ~wAf'.... :vy .R.•.~ - 4A >,i~ -4~~.~r~ .:'S ~ 1; -s,.°~~1C';-~?x!'ji7ylyf.i~~'~a'`!',.'.'.,.r"°'~,~'~~9,y~ J-r~a~,6'~.$? 1 . .r,y ~ . ` ~ i; r,*,' ~ T ~ 6 4 ~ . ~ ~ . ./1~ ~~ga'/ 4 ~in Saurces:NCDCT NCNHPaMMNkev GIS F5uaPavan q ~ - ' / Yk1aM VoM atO512amkalvesai[apyakmilep~5orea ~Feet ~ aM triulke~ GIS Fgure Przpared:3114M1 A/ln k'6iu'2.diEC0Y0NrrolGbalOrsa ~ `jt~
.Al~' F~rk, r:~- ~ i ".1 '..s, ~5~~1;..~ Y. ~ ~~1'~ ~~,E.~iPi?~~~I~~~"DY .~~"~f r'~.,~ ,S~lf t~/' he.a.~w.:deverrn.emmwrases~s~5armmieczav.Tr, :moy a~p~s~s.,s.q a rmmie ceaxlmn .us~rrc~iau,.a~.

~ _ ' ~ • ' , ~st
Ua7 7 f/ L US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
CurrentDefaii ;urrent Defailed Study Alternafives
NCDOTTIP Rrojec :DOTTIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
New Hanover New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC
s~
k.x _ •
. ~ ^ f:I ~ •
. Corbeff Tracf
~
. , ,
yt ~
~ f s•
~ ~ :.:3. ~'y ' •'r,~.,, 'p \ IS l
V, y' \
t ~ t
i ~
/ 4 1i ~
I
3 ~

.i ,a
.
F
.
, .
~ ~ ~ •
• ~ i,
Site 10 : .
''6 "y~`-- '~k*
Corbeff Sfrip Residual Sife
•,,r •;K , ~ Leqend
c;oufrtygoundary HollyShelterGamelands ~NoiseBarriers Site 21 Site 22 Site 11
fvlap Gnds Significanf Nafurel Henfage Q Intemhange Locations Area & Managed Area ftCNl Habifat Projecf Study Corridors Floodplains Fufure PofenfiaBySuifable Wefland - RGV7 Habifat ~ .
HisforicSife Pokntia~lyS~ofaLk .
0 Poncl P,CV~f Habifat . ~ HazmaflUST
Stream SuiWIe Q Permdfed Mine/Quarty RGW Partitions ~ t
HQNf! OP,Vd Q Hydmulic Site ~ RCW CavifyTree .
West/East ofNC270 IAksf/Easf ofN0210
- AlfernafiveM1 -AlfernafiveE-H y- ~lii.•~ •
- AlfernafiveM2 - IilfernafiveP. . - Alternative O Alternabve U
0 600 1,200 2,400 ~w • ~ DataSOUrces:NCDGTNCNHPaMMulkeyGlS FgurePrepared:Fet Figure No.
4M1 I/ ~ 'I ~ I~ Yk1aM.VOM a~JSreamkalvesaieapyaAmileba5orsg ~ Y d'.Y-... - 10D
Hewkavawrt~efCfp'h~eMdyp~~%s[5r9, aTlrrbleGe¢`ITMX ~ i.iNSUxIOJJS~YYMYIaDYlMy.

,
U t US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
Currenf Defa 7 ;urrent Defailed Study Alternafives
NCDOTTIP Projec i :DOTTIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
New Hanover r R' i ~ New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC
. I: a ~ 1
U ~
12
/ 4 ~ -__.a? ~e

~ J . .17
rR..' t I k ~ ii : . . . • I j..i:. 1 O
°t~ (7
~j Sidbury Rd Savanna o ~ •
.
S .
22-Acre Residual Sife
Wes(eyan Chapel United ~
Mefhodlsf Church
Site 1
r .y ;
. y
_ y . \~~S
~I
~ i.` ~ ~ y .
~ , .
• ' ~f~. ' „yp~~' 14'~~~:. ' . _ ~ a 7. ~ . , - - . A14.
_ ~iy
~ • e , °
o ' • - • ` - ' `ary R i ~ ~ ~ ~ _
i ~ ' Poplar Grove ~
Legen t i L p,
c;oufrty Bounclary Holly Shelter Gamelands ~ Ploise 6arriers g... ~
fvla Gnds Significanf Nafurel Henfage Q Intemhange Locations Y.' w k'' a ~ P Area&ManagedArea RCW ,,ab;fat :NC Clean Wafer Managemenf , • Projecf Study Corridors ~ Fufure PofenfiaBySuifable 0 • +P- ~
0 Wefland Floodplains - RGV7Habifat Trusf Fund Easement HisforicSife Pokntia~lyS~ofaLk ~ "i •
0 Poncl ~ HazmaflUST Suih~e abifTt ? ~ ~
Stream Q PermdfedMine/Quarty RGWPartitions kv`qVa O
HQNf f OP,V~J Q Hydmulic Site RCW CavifyTree ! i~' ~e r" 1
f., st/East ofNC270 IAksf/Easf ofA1C210 We
- AlfernafiveM1 -AlfernafiveE-H ~
- Alternabve M2 - Alternabve P. - Alternative O Alternabve U .
0 800 1,200 2,400 k ~ - ~ ' ~I rsY ? d H 'R ~n r-!(o.. ~ Figure No.
Feet m DataSOUrces:NCDGTNCNHPaMMulkey615FyurePrepared:3114M1 " y' ~'y ~~~~ji~ r ' ~ Yk1aM.VOM a~JSreamkalvesaieapyaAmileba5orsg : 9 ~ ~.p 14E
Hewkavaw efCfp'h~eM • mr dra.mxs~s~5armwm~ea+~Tnn , e _;y ~ ~ ~.~a'. J$j'~t= _d .e ri; wnsYaoius~mrrwiaorav. ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o 'T r~~ ~

US 17 CORRIQOR STUDY v14 ~
GurrentDetailed SfudyAlfernatives
NCDOTTIP Project Num6ers U-4751 & R-3300 New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC .L
~ Site 25

` .
.i b E • ~s
~~,r w • ~t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
. ff ~ t ~e ~ ~ / ° ~ • " ~7 .
~ i7q~ ~ ~ F;,i"+ " ~
Island Creek O'
Estates •Q', ' ` ° ~ `r r, , de ~
. 3 S ite 16 i
r/'~ . " ~~o~.w~~ ,~r.- ~ .
i P • r r, Z~ ~ji . w . "
W~ ~\h? ~ Vj 1. . y
, •Ykp.: " . ~ . _
~ Site 15
eb, a ~ : l ~ . ~ ~ - o~.
(~p~ .n ?
0 r ~ ° 0 0 ~ J
Site 6
y .,;s. 4. _ - ~ ~ . ~
Z.`~ Site 5
,
~ ~ Legend
(:.oufrtq Boundary Holly Shelfer Hally Shelfer Gamelands ~ Ploisz 6arriers Significard Nafural Henfage Q Interchange Locations
fvlap Gnds Significanf N~ ProjecfSfudyCorridors . :'-Flrood&nz Area & Managed Area P,CNf Habifat 9or5 Floodplains Fufure Pafenh'aBySudable
Wefland ~ Plas Blake Savanna 0 HisfoncSife HisfoncSife - Poknti~ly5wlf-aLk
POnd ~ HazmaflUST ~ HazmaflUST RCNI Habifat SuitaNe
r1V i,4y ~ryu i, - Stream Q Permiffed Mir 0 Permiffed Mine/Quarty P.GW Partitions
HQWlORW Q Hydraulic5iti ~ A Altereafives Q Hydraulic5ite ~ RCW CavifyTree
U*,st;'East ofNC270 IAksf/Easf ofNC2 IAksf/Easf ofNC210
- Alternative M1 -plternative E-h -Alternative E-H
~ - Alternative M2 -Alternative R - ° - - ~ ~ - Alternative0 RlternativeU -Alternative R Alternative U
0 600 1.200 _ r ,zoo 2,400 Figure No.
r ~t - iDatiSaurces:NCDCT,NCNHPaMMNkeyG15 FgurePrepan i Yk1aM.VOM.atO512amkalvesai[apyakmilep.5orea ~Feet ~ aM triulke~ GIS Fgure Przpared:3114M1 1~lllC k'6iu'2.diEC0Y0NrrolGbalOrsa r
, I Nev.ukx~awrcpyck4lmn~eTOyp~qse5u9~gaThibleGea%TP, xiN s~(poY.JS~GVreb~aroap. :MOy qlq~sesr4ig a TMble GeaXTMH !J5~(1YrcNIaUUIYp.

~ map ~ ~n \ O.. DO- STUDY
z . _ . 'r Study ' ' ' a .e " . .
- . - U-4751 : 00 _ • Map 10G .i~~ ' _I . . .
New _ . d- . . . ..,F'I_'1.. . ~ .
~ . ; ' ~ i ~ • ~ ~ ~ ; t
~ • - . ~ . 2 '
- . ..'.~.-r '~~yf>~+i ' . ' ' i . ~ ~ 9 - ~ ~ ~ ~
vA '
. . . ~ w.~ . -r- ~ ; . ~ , • ~ . , ~ ' ~ p1 'y'' . , . ' Ra - , \.l r •~S,{~A,v .1i ~ 1~ I,~~~f. -
'Y \
v ~~_t ~ ~y. ~q S + ai~ +
1~~Y _ '-t' ~ ~ ` ' _ 's rs Xhi" i ~ ,k . i ~~J r ? ~ ^'Y P~ , 4At Y..;. Site 2
% ~ . !"•.ti: . ~l~otd s. . ^ ~ r~ 1~.3 i~ ri ` " v
^[H ia v. . .
- - . ~ . P ~ ~ .
. ' t( .,c;, aL.: I ,T~ . ' A.
~ V AA A ~ro S~I f /
~ 000.0
.n ' ' S, e Y ~~.~r `'~a s. f- .y r • ,~yyF IMfi.~' - - ~.4r .".rh 41 4 ~ r .'y, t', ~ y A ~;4i• o tl 1~1. ~ ~ ~ .l rSF.~ 1j~ ^n
~Yc~c! . . : . '
.5 AY ~ ~ 3r\i < Y._.~. ~,y '4:4 .i~..`~ .M~ h~' 11 G ~ yf ~R4~ i . O
i
~ ?~:.~:.~4 6_ ~4•
r ~ A .
m
_ _ , . -
„rt~~ ~ ; ' ; r ~ AM3~' .
I ~ j US 17 ~ - r ~ f, d r'
, ; ;
i F f 1~ w' + ~ E!
'X IEU . ~ • ' ' yl _ , ,
:d
t ' %.t d~t _ , . T % lr~/i i%~i'4~ ~I. ~f• , Y .r / r? /
i' Hampstead
-Ta _ . ~ ' ~~~7 - _ " _ / ' . - • . ~ I , y~~~~'f ~,i ~l ~ ~
. ~ ~Y i . IAE ~ C . M . a . . . .
~ h,\i . ~ .i~,~' . - . • `I . 1 ~r._ ` '`,~~i_~ ; ~ _ - ir * ' ! !
I.T ~f,f~ ~ 1 ~I . llY~.. 3r•• s.~~ 4~ y . r f < t•~~• _ ege •
1 Y 'y Y; ' ~ t , 1''Ia-OJ U • ` S~ U) Hally Shelfer Gamelands ~ Ploise 6arriers Significard Nafural Henfage Q Interchange Locations
Area & Managed Area P,CNf Habifat 9or5 Floodplains Fufure Pafenh'aBySudable
l Flmdplains . T 1.,~ µ~f ~ ~ ij~ ,a ~ i 1 ' 7 5 ~`A' .J. \ 3~ ~ I ~ ~ / / - [ I Z+ 4 ,J 4~) hM1 ~ N i` e~~ V0• HisfoncSife - Poknti~ly5wlf-aLk
~ HazmaflUST RCNI Habifat SuitaNe
Ks 0 0 Permiffed Mine/Quarty P.GW Partitions
HydraulicSiti Q Hydraulic5ite ~ RCW CavifyTree
9 Si1T; _ IAksf/Easf ofNC210
-Alternative E-H
Alternative _ _ . • - •yW_cy M': .n ~ Alternatve • -Alternative R Alternative U
1,200 600 ,zoo 2,400 Figure No.
~ ~Feet ~ aM triulke~ GIS Fgure Przpared:3114M1 ~ lll~ k'6iu'2.diEC0Y0NrrolGbalOrsa ~lV
~1 .:yg f_~'` ~ ~'sk.5.`Y~. ~ f~~ :v .?k.. ~w 777 - :moy a~p~s~s.,s.q a rmmie ceaxlmn .us~rrc~iau,.a~.

US 17 Ct US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
Current Defaii ;urrent Defailed Study Alternafives
' ? . ~ ° ~~s NCDOTTIPProjec 4~ + ; r~ , •cy.. .o,~ ~ r+~ . 1~.- ~ r~'~Cross Creek " --a ~ New Hanover :DOTTIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
: - ' New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC
"~.T.<~ + ~1 • _
YlV~ ~

~ ~t • . P ~ Y ` I . • .
r.~
s ,
t •x ~ r 1. i
a ~ 0 Mi: . .
- f ' ~ 1;,4 f + ~ .
_ _ '1~ W~.~. ? _ ~ ! ~ _ ~ , • . ~o -
+ ~1 ~ •
~j.' Godfrey Creek Estates ~
t~. , ' • "'r~,~ . E f F. 4
~}h ,;1. . y'~?'Y •-5" + ~ ^.,n ,
Site 17 ; „ J .
• o. , / ~ pr , ~ , 4-
~V .0
I`xl
~V
e~h+ A"'t
i
,
~
• . . Y 1 ~ " A ~ n ~ O r r/
q~
s Site 7 ~ „ ~ `e' r.• ' A } ~ ~ .
Leqend
e;ouMy Boundary Holly Shelter Gamelands Pl ~ oise 6arriers Site S tr I j± ~ .
fvlap Gnds Si9nificanf Nafurel Henfa9e 0 Intemhan9e Locations ° p Area & Managed Area ftCNl Habifat Projecf Study Corridors ~ Fufure PofenfiaBySuifable p r~ ,i
Floodplains 0 Wefland HisforicSife RGV7 Habifat - Pokntia~lyS~otaLk - ~ F+'
0 Poncl P,CV~f Habifat * ~ HazmaflUST Suihble ~ ..~6. i .
Stream Q Permdfed Mine/Quarty RGW Partitions
HQNfJOP,Vd Q HydmulicSite ~ RCWCavifyTree AlternaiJves ~ y f ' y Site 23 i`
West/East ofNC270 IAksf/Easf ofA10210
- AlfernafiveM1 -AlfernafiveE-H
- AlfernafiveM2 - IilfernafiveP. ~iF~ - Alternative O Alternabve U = E
0 600 1,200 2,400 Figure No.
Feet ~ DataSOUrces:NCDGTNCNHPaMMulkeyGlS FgurePrepared:3114M1 Yk1aM.VOM a~JSreamkalvesaieapyaAmileba5orsg ~ ' 10H
He wk avs wrt~ef~Cfp' h~eMdy p~~%s[5 r9~g a T(rrble Ge¢`ITMX v.iNSY+IOJJS~YYMYIaDY/MY. . . . • I . _ . _

~ ' ~ < ~w> US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY F ~ i' ~ - _ , ,
~ ~ Currenf Defailed Sfudy Alfernatives ~„r~
~ ~ ~ NCDOTTIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-33d0 ~ ( ,
- +t New Hanover & Pender Couniies, NC . " ~ . l
~ , ' ~ v. _ - ~ r ~ ~ y ~ 1 j 4 A ~
i - . ~ ~ 6 ` 1 ~
_ Site 23 ~~~i~ - ? K . ~ ~ i .u. . , NCEEP ~
~
, , rti~ ;''s ~
• r • , ~ . 1 - ~ I ' ~ , _ ~ ~ ~D ~
; ~~_e~~~ , , .~y ~ ~ . ~
' Sauth Tapsail ' ~ ~
, e 2 Elementary ~ ~ ~ ' " ! . ~ ~
, ' ~ ~
_ x-, f,~,f~~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
, , : / :R',~" 9` ~ ~ ~ J ~
. . ~ ~ ' ~ rFr~ ~,v~`~ ~ . . . . . ' ~ J' ~ ~ y ~
. ,f ~ - , . . ' . . . r
~ r i ~ ~ ~ G~~ ( ~
a - W
a Yd { ~ r ~ ~ Y < ~ N. , ~ ~ a a jF .a, , ~ ~ ~~,fi ' f, ~ ~ ~ ~ • F * ~
` ~~S .~n .G~ ~ ~ P ''.~I.~ _ ~ l . _ 1 ~e.. ~~~rp
i y', ~ , , 1~ ~ ; ° ' ° `Tapsail Schaols ~ . !F!-~ ~ ~ . A ~ P ~ 1 q .t h f ~ ~ ~ f ~
l , ~ tp 1
1 4y~
• ~ ~4,~}y ~l' - . . i.:.~2 - t ~ _ .-i-.. .r , _ 'y~ \ ~ ''1 " < li q 'C`.`a ~+rti r , ~j ~ /'/7..` ~ ~ ~ ~ , t~ a C '~d . c~ 1~ ~~,~~~~f'f ~'x ~
i 'I.T.~~.~~~yy r ~~t. c. e k~~
,I ~ I +~'rl . ~'P~.~`nl r F'.~ { 'tii . ^cs i~~~~ds~` ~~-F~a . 1~ ' 1 r ~ •`T ~ ~ r~ i ~ ~ ~ ~+t $.r~~f'~ ~ i a:..- : 1N. J~ ~~~1~:~ _ ~ ~i. j~ . . ~ ~T~~,~, i~ ~ ~ : a •1k ~ ` v~' 4N ~ p ~ ,~,J ? >N, v ~ ~ ~4~~~`~i' ~Q~"°.t t~' ~h 1 ' s 7Y A `i _ _ i y~.w"~ 4 ~ ~
• ,~r ~ , ~ . ; ~ - d . ~ ~ ' - : y`~~~~ . . ~'A-'~,~ . . _ ~ ,ir,~°' i~S~~~~p~'`yy_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~,/1~ ' ~ ~~~.~C.N,. , ~~;..A~- 1.'. i . ; ~j}. -l7~~~M'~;~•~ ~k:~; ,.,'~...i'!'c1~Fy _ 1
? :r ~'?'.y~~ S- ~ 1~ ~t.~iira~.~..~~ / ti p ~ ~ „ ...s~.:~e~~ t j ~I ~ ~ '.r _
r r, ~ .s~ ~''i ~ ~ , • ' s;t. , ~ ~~'~rJ3I~Prl~?• ~ l~ce'~:: ~ ~,qjr i~ 4 _ ~
~ 8~; , ~ ~ f ~ . :4
. [4!r= ~ ._r, ~ ~ 9. .
G" 4r - M: d Topsail Consolidated e~~k; ~ g,~~~+~ '~4 • , : ~ ' , ,
,
School ~ ~ ~t,4~,~~, ~r~ ~ , , _ ~ ~~~y~y ~I ~~1 ~ : ~ ~Fr V1
,~9~ =M • ~
3' £ •~,pp +rf . 3'^~'7 ~Y~„~%{ , ~ I~.i6°j ~ _ a ~ ~ ~ ( ~w 1 { c~ • i..~e~ ~ .;s, ~ ea.'Z ; ~~p ~ {~:a~; ~'n~i ` «~.lA~ ~ ~~irT*~~c ~ F h.~'M'~ ~ 'p ' ~ y ~y, / ~ ~ ~~i ii S ~~py ~ . ~ y y~r ~~~•~`;Yp~~~ ~ } / V7L ~ ~ ~.~.M1 \ ~--~:?i ~
~ ~ r~ . S. / y ~4~r" H`,~, ~r .~y..` ? ~ ~yy ~~.n''. ~ f ~ ~~q.~~~{~~~.ry - f /
~~b~, r ~.~^I'r~ .s~'r • I ,n_y~~ ~ ~~y`S.e'~"a~Jfi" ~ ~.F+~~ .n ~ ~ '~YJ~"4 :e ~ ~ j d ~ .Y
Le e n d ~ ~ ; h~, , ~t.~ , ,5 ~ ~ / , ~a y' ~ t !
Bounclary • •Holly'ShelferGamelancls ~f.loise6arriers ~~{y~`'c^~F' ~ ~ ~'I ~ ; y~'6~ ~
fvlap Gnds Significanf Nafurel Henfage Q Intemhange Locations i( ~ `y ~ MF ti~~ _ f , ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ` {,~=s~ ,,L I' Area & Managed Area ftCNl Habifat i ~ ~ , A ~ ~ P . ~ P~o ecf Sfud Corcido~s Fufure PofenfiaB Suifable -"V ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~
Wefland Y Floodplains RGV7Habifaty ~ ~ ~~t . _d;~~~ ~ ~r~ t~ R w {~~++7C 0 Hisforic Sife - Pokntia~lyS~ofaLk 1 ~ ~ , ~y~ ~ ' ~ r : f a = , F. ~
0 Poncl ~ HazmaflUST Suih~eabifTt ) ~ j ~ ~ ..,~."..1~ „~t , t~ . •
~ Stream ~Y~ e~l ~ j e. 6. , ~Y' / ~ PermdfedMine/Quarty RGWPartitions y ~~.~~e ~ ~ f~.y~'.~ "~x ~ ~9
HQNf! OP,V~J Q Hydmulic Site ~ RCW Cavify Tree ~ ~ O ~ ` 4 r ~ ~ / ,m¢ y.~ •A ~ ~ K AlternaiJves ~.A~.,. S ' ~ 4 ~ •;~,s~,~ ,
West/East ofNC270 IAksf/Easf ofnIC210 ~~~.~~~fi ~ ~ "~I - ~r
~AlfernafiveM1 ~~AlfernafiveE-H l~~ ~ ~k'~ ~ ~ ~ g~ ~ s 1y~•.-G /~.JY~. x'~~ ~ . . y iY ~ ~ t ~1
~AlfernafiveM2 ~~IilfernafiveP. F~ $ / ~ y~~-+~""' ' S~'~~ • ' Ji _ Ci ~ Alternative O Alferna6ve U ( \ S ~ f ~ p ,5!'t~ r . ~ y~ ° 1 . Y ~ . T ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~1 ~ I Of, ~
o soo t,2oo ~~4Feet ~ f /~1~~ / ~ : PF ~ a, ,Z~ : ~ _ ~ ~ Figure No.
~ataSOUrces:NC~~TNCNHPaMMulkeyGlS FgurePrepared:3114M1 / ~ qT ~`~7( 3 4y`"_l,u. neiam.vom a,asreamemvesaiea yaxmnewaso~g r « TM ~ aj °"`~F 141
° ,j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~I"1 s.e.a..r~cam'~eru.ar.<morarmses~s~zarmwieeeatilnn : ~ 'S`f ~..;ns~paonus,urrwiaorav. a7 d r i ~ J,

~ US 17 Ct US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
Current Defaii ~ f ;urrent Defailed Study Alternafives
NCDOTTIP Projec 01 New Hanover ;DOTTIP Projeci Num6ers U-4751 & R-3300
New Hanover & Pender Couniies, NC
` ' ~ .I /
,
F: ,S
I
/ OAF
1"~
~~,qy/ aYlI
I
% ~i
. 09, O,Fd
h. ,
~
~ ~
.6 . I ~
.
. ~ , y. r
~
. ~ ~ s
Holly Shelter Gamelands ~
_zo
A ~.+~lv r,r'..`, ? 0 )
~Jl~ ~~4. . _ ~ ~ ~
, s ^r • ~ ' _n
5
Casfle Bay Preserve '
~M E;`C ~G >y ~ tf / A ti
Leqend
OFJ ~ tl~` kxegryp}4.i4yJ. p;•;~ # I. ~ ol I, ly [;r~ufrty Bo~.irodary Holly Shelfer Hally Shelfer Gamelands ~ Ploise 6arriers Significard Nafural Henfage Q Interchange Locations
~ fVlap Gnds Significanf N~ 10 Projecf Sfudy Corridors _Flroodpla snz • lf~,''~ . ;_~A' 1' Area & Managed Area P,CNf Habifat 9or5 Floodplains Fufure Pafenh'aBySudable
;E Wefland Histonc Sife HisfoncSife - PokntiHly5wlf-aLk
. • Castle Bay PO"d HazmaflUST ~ HazmaflUST RCNI Habifat SuitaNe
Stream Q Permiffed Mir 0 Permiffed Mine/Quarty P.GW Partitions
HQWlORW Q Hydraulic5iti i^^,. !t „=:•a,.' a Altertiafives Q Hydraulic5ite ~ RCW CavifyTree
r _ U~sf;'East ofNC270 IAksf/Easf ofNC2 IAksf/Easf ofNC210
- AlternativeM1 -plternativeE-h -Alternative E-H
- Alternative M2 -Alternative R f s . .9Gd-` _ • - Alternative O Rlternative U -Alternative R Alternative U
i ~ o soo 1,200 ,zoo 2,400 Figure No.
`^r paaSaurces:NCIDCTNCNHPaMMNkeyG15 FgurePrepan Yk1aM VoM atO512amkalvesai[apyakmilep~5orea ~Feet ~ aM triulke~ GIS Fgure Przpared:3114M1 d/l 1 k'6iu'2.diEC0Y0NrrolGbalOrsa ~ 1j11
Ne v.uk x~s wrcpyckdtm n~eTOy p~qsesu9~g a Thible Gea%TP, xiN s~(poY.JS~YVreb~aroap. :MOy qlq~sesr4ig a TMble GeaXTMH !J5~(1YrcNIaUUIYp.

US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY
` ~ .a~~ ' Current Defat ;urrent Defailed Study Alternafives
NCDOT TI P Projec ;DOTTIP Projeci Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
New Hanover e ~ New Hanover & Pentler Couniies, NC
EP
,•~c, /
? ~ : 1
7 A Holly Shelter Gamelands ~
.
/
+a.: ~'l. ' ;:•t'. ' t_ 'i+,
~ i ~ ~ a r'~; h.? ,~4 A," ' 'QI
~~o~•~ ` ~.~~a~~~,~ iy ; . ~ i-+U;,, - a `w ~
/'6~ ~ . _ • . + ~ ~ • , i f~. , th _
~ J ~ r-~- V^:' ~ ,~k 4 1 ur ti~: Q
~
P~~'/~ ( c' r ~I
Qi~. ~ "~4~ ~~f~~~~m~ - .aw~!r- ~ ~ '",t~ ? , ~ ~ w ~
1~:1~t' ~ r. , ~a ~;;a~ P~s , ~j~' ? • 1 ~'f, ~i ~ . ,
'9 x i , •
.A1 ~i'3Y~~1~~~ 1 ~ ,~7± g ~~'1.~ ~ r~' ra~ 1`~,p~~~
J~ ~yfr~s. ~5 i fi' -~rr e .3~f~,~ l~' • _ ~ m .~...s . ?ft r _ , T ~ ' d y , %f e . ~ ~ •ri1~ '~j; ~M~sa. ~ +„'•I.
nz~o p ~ M ~ ~ ~ . (~'~g • -'/-i ~ .~t~ ~ r~l ,~i .ta1!`~y~~y
v ~`a.~u / / k1; : . . . _ ~I ~ 1'~~,-d rf- P w; ir~~ ~ ~1~?~!^4 S ~A M+V~; ~C1~ L ' ~r~~'•£a-•
+
~ ~ .'s.y. : i . . . - ~ r' . ~ j. ~,~~$`,~9~`~4 A R\ ~k '~'f ' . r ~+"'".'~'i • ~ ~8~1~,~. ~ ~ ~ • ~
~ ~i•• 'i~~/,~ ~ s ,i;~4. ~ ' .,v' .n ~'~:A ~ tlp~•' 2? `r O ~:l }.fS~i .hJ fl~,~U '"q.'"r ~ . ~~~~i'..
S Fl~., , f , _ ~s L
.i~'.s»~P:~
Le end ~ ~'~t . . ~ } ~ ~ ~1` ' 46~ 4 ~ ~ '~r r_ ' . i ' ~?,J, . .
~r''•'~_~[;ciunty8oundary HollyShelfe ~ '~a~` c~ 1r~, ~ ~ ~ 't ~ ._"fj`.!f r ~ • .._x .t, Si nificard N~ Hallq Shelfer Gamelands ~ Ploisz 6arriers Significard Nafural Henfage Q Interchange Locations
fvlap Gnds A ea & Manz PrajecfSfudyCorridors . Area & Managed Area P,CNf Habifat 9or5 Floodplains Fufure Pafenh'aBySudable
~~~?P~ y.,.~~/6P';, . 6A1!FN'wit.e~ _f Y! ~ r t 1" ~;'~Y ~r_'.S~ M~~' .j WeEland ,.Floodplains Hisfonc Sife HisfoncSife - Poknti~ly5wlf-aLk
~ ~l , $e , 4 fy ~~r r~ ~i ~ : u% p? ~4.)~ ~ ai'~ . :~i ~~~~~.i~~i~' . ~ • ~2.l. , i. ~ 3 ~~p ] Pond 0 HazmaflUST N ~ HazmaflUST RCNI Habifat SuitaNe
tc Stream Permiffed Mir 0 Permiffed Mine/Quarty P.GW Partitions
~:-4f ~;,+~.t,~~~ d" a y~W': . •qr~ '-~a.,;~ , „b''~ '~~,nfd HQWlORW Q Hydraulic5iti AlterrtafiVes Q Hydraulic5ite ~ RCW CavifyTree
IAksf/Easf ofNC210
Be~Vedefe Pl;::inL~:liL~~n 0,esfi6ast ofNC270 IAksf/Easf ofNC2 ~~,.e ~ ~~,v ' , , ; ~ • , . ~ Alternative M1 -Alternative E-h -Alternative E-H
~ . 4 y ~C y 1` . ' '.t ~..+5~ ,q"• ~ ~ a~y, ~Alternative M2 -Alternative R t /~"4~ ~ ,~s ~s ~ t„~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ Alternative O Rlternative U -Alternative R Alternative U
~T ' ~G~ E> ~~r~ }~ti ~ }s ~1'1 ~ +1 ~ ' ~`T ~ 600 1.200 % ,zoo 2,400 Figure No.
' V x V v 5urePre an p.~t~~ Saurwei mCOom aias am ~vesakeapP'axmnen~sorea ~Feet ~ aMtriulke~G15 FgurePrzpared:3114M1 10K k'6iu'2.diEC0Y0NrrolG balOrs a
he.w.~w.:ycfeetrmemoypr s rmmieczaxTr, ~ ~s a d I11~ IpM~' „ns,roovasw.reeiam.a.~. GIG :MOy qlq~sesr4ig a TMble GeaXTMH !J5~(1YrcNIaUUIYp.

~
MOIL
---~~r-
12' 12' 12' 12'
Poved Shld Poved Shld. Paved Shld. Paved Shld.
30' 14 12' 12' 12' 14' 14' 12' 12' 12' 14' 18' ' 1( ' 10'
pr yy,G„urdm;l) 46' Median p7' VdGuuidra;q
3 0' - 350' PROPOSED RIGHT OF W Y
Alfemafives EH, O and R- From Proposed Hampstead Bypass Inferchange af US 17 Wilmingfon Bypass fo Proposed Hampsfead Bypass Inferchange at NC 21, nge af NC 2'10
A(fernafive U- From Proposed Hampstead Bypass Inferchange at Exisfing US 17 fo Proposed Hampsfead Bypass Inferchange af NC 210 '10
~
~
~
72 , 46, 12Shld. Pored Shld. Shld. Sh d.
3014' 12' 12' ' 12' 12' 14' 18' 6' 10 10'
07`vwGuardmip 46' Median prWGoardmif}
250' - 300' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
Alfemafives EH, O, R and U- From Proposed Hampsfead Bypass Inferchange af NC 210 fo Exisfing US 17
Prepared by: MIJLKEY Hampstead Bypass Typical Section Nos. 1 and 2
Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Study Not to 5cale ~ Scale
Prepared ror: NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 1red 211512011 ~ ~
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared 211512011

Concrets Median Bamer
bMng us n 5mtrng us n
2' 12' 5 Pored Sh .
30' L11W4' 0'-12' 8'-12' 12' 12' 12` 22' Median 12' 12' 12' 0' 12' 0' 12' 14' 18' 6` 18' G' 100
07'VdGuord'nil) voFioble Voiio6ie VAR. 250'-300' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY CONTROL OF ACCE55 Yorioble Yoriable 0 7'WiGuandmil}
Rlfernafive U- From Proposed Inferchange wifh US 17 Wilmingfon Bypass fo Exisfing US 17 Wilmingfon Bypass Inferchange af Markef Sfreef Streef
concrero Median eamer
~y R
~
---~-_--~L 2 ,z-
Sh ' VAR. 9' TYP. 18' 1,' '-12' 12' 12' 12' ' 22' Ahedion 12' 12' 12' 12' -12' 14' 10, YAR 3' iYP. . 12' S.
pl'YEGuu~aq ~r1 rtG+~didp 7Sp t~9cwo~ald YAR.I$'-66' 4 l1tNFS TO 5 lANES YAR.48'-60' 4 U4NE5 TQ 5 IANES g. ql'tVWon*oq m veauzabu
VAR. 900'-520` PROPOSED ItIGFR OF WAY
Alfemative U- From Exisfing US 17 Wilmingfon Bypass Inferchange at Market Sfreet to fhe Proposed Hampstead Bypass Inferchange at Exisfing US 17 sfing US 17
Prepared by: MIJLKEY Hampstead Bypass Typical Section Nos. 3 and 4
Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Sfudy Not to 5cale ~ Scale
Prepared ror: NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 red 211512011 11 B
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared 211512011

1'-6s Curb & Gutter
~ 2'-6" Curb & Gutter 2'-6" Curb & GutFer
~

2'
Variabls 10' 14' 12' ~ 121 30' Mediqn 12' 12' 14' 10' Varioble
04'wiGuardmil? VAR.150' 250' PROPUSED RIGHT OF WAY 04`WGuardroi4
R(fernafives M1 and M2 - From Markef Sfreef fo Approximafely 1.0 Mile NorEh of Torchwood Boulevard
~r
12 12' lY 12'
Poved Sh , ared Shl , d Shld. Sh d. I iO!
30' 14 12' 12' 12' 14' 14' 12' 12' 12' 14 18 ' 1 prWc,,,rdroiq 46' Median nTWcuardmiQ
300' - 350' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
Alfematives M1 and M2 - From Approximafely 1.0 Mile Norfh of Torchwood Boulevard fo US 17 Wilmington Bypass
Prepared by: MIJLKEY Military Cutoff Road Extension Typical Section Nos. 1 and 2
Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Study Not to 5cale ~ Scale
Prepared ror: NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 ired 211512011 12
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared 211512011

w
m L E G E N D ~
~ ~ b5 ,7e
xux No, of Veni<ies aer Oay (VPD~ In 1005 210 - Proposetl Roadway 4 5 3 °~6!v
b 6
,p w 13 = /'S DHV ~tlPM D fS ~Y / O ?
DHV Oeslqn Hourly Volume (°fi] • Kso 93 5$ pm 48Z yp y196
PM PM Peak Perlod (f-~12
D PeaktiourDirectionai5piit(%} xo~~Y5pelterRd• ,ana~tagk~ ~~6 tZ ~5,5 N yo ~~~+s ~ P O^ p0
~ Intllcates Dlrxtlon of D (SR1002) 4M 15F~~002) ( tl, t J Duals. TTSTS (%1 55 p r.y0 C r b~ Fy s ~il~ eg ~ ~ P4t
(3. 1"~ L * o P 69 rkp • ~ ~ A~ ~ ~ 61.l ' a
x~k~h e B~~" r 4, 0 ~9jr(i410 e S ~ 6
~ fs ~e i d .o a a e a R fs~3 kRq ~ve
EH ~
EH+R
Sidbu7Rd.(SR1996} M) $ ~a~ ,~y'L ~9'~ o- • R r \ 1 7 9o0 ~2 p~ ~ ylbtl
b.•
13 ~2 ~P,b
12 ~ 6 60 1701' 110 I2 FM ( EE~~ ~ f a. a es pz S2 S j°iy 2pp~ ("2)"80 a/1I~f, r3~ ~2 S~
770 900 631y253 4
17 h?im` d~ ir a~ o„'oo 33 $ j6 "Pn Rtl l 1ppa ss
Pfg 4 1Z (3 f~ r2
~ ~ A,q6 ~p c' 130 554 2. 13p 55 (f 2, r) ro 62S' ~ a4
p s Murrayville Rd. Sf322) ~2 ( - o P,a~ ~ 0 ~q0 '6+~ so rayville Rd. (SR 1322 ) a ~ o
~ 6 o
~r~o 5~ ti 6 rS.p~o cy !e r 'Odr Yj6 A ,~e l Q S r M C~ ~2 dr d j v
~pj, ~J r ~2 ti
0 5 S0 S q~ ~7,
fk4um3yviffe Rd. (SR 7322) A ~l SC6 ~ so y1~` So a A ~y~ °g r % ~rb rJ ~ py'6 v s
vyp ~'s!a
O" 0 b1 SJ. ~~52 'F~qap S e
v^~ ~5 ss so ~ 2 a
~ A fY1 f < `y ~
r 6° ays`
$2E i175@f .Q n a l~ ~"'.~2
Ir~ fYl7 co^pO~~~~
r~~.. s'Qaao !i'd v 3~ ~r 'J'ye r 1e r~~
144artrn LutherKin
3 JrPkwy. o MartinLutherKrng C° m r~~~' ~ r'~ri ~'r•p ~ sJ t R284 ) ~~'Sp~~y'Gp ~
JrAlnyy a~ ~ 5a4 o ~a' 10 2~ 0 6.. a, o hr 0 6 .av"5 SS~ tV 'pO%
(sK 2649) nil aa~s op ~o J Nw ~ ss ' Ss ? w O~J lS,~ 4' O^ a o 11 C55 0}AO~ 52 5 035 ~5 S'`~ry (2 A~~ 12~4
~ g y. (S o l 2 d ~pal~p II PM ~55 58 IS 2~ 122 6p0 33 Y93 SS R`~27~V v S ~2 12 I ~l P
'pp. 776 86~5 m ~ m v~ B~ ( ~m /SRUoh ~ 25~L 178 70 N Z ~l ~l B0
Qs ' U ~ GS.I, y
A
y "'~~0 3e ou o ~ °y u ~ o °a o rnset a
Prepared for. ~ 2035 Build Conditions - Alternafives M1+EH and M1+R Figure No.
Not to ScaJe US 17 Corridor Sfudy ~ ScaJe
NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Figure Prepared 1I1712011 ired 1I1712011 13~
New Hanover & Pender Gounties, NC

L E G E N D ~o
b~ ~ 6
#x# No.olVehlclesPer ge m Day (VPD) In 1005 210 m ,~5¢d' g6
- Proposed Roadway v~ aiz
ls~BCR-~~~3> t v a y s PM y 3 2`-' 4- oHV ~ r\r 4e rN~Oih~~0
Jt
DNV DeslqnHOUriyvoiume(%)•Kao 9~ 5$ p~ 47Z ~D6 ~s 90 (Ld. 5 ~~12 P560 PM PM Peak Perlotl
¢d• D Peak Hour Dlrecllonal Spllt Ho}{y Shelter C 1062) lslana~oo21 770 ' o ~2~ 5, 5 N jb+
~ a Indlcates Direcdon of D (SR 4~ ,z ( d, t) Duals. TTSTS 551) o s
e$ +~~y a~~ p P'~
Soa 0 ~ ~b•~, 46 c
/Sq Cree q Wj ~ q q `rs~6
~a
~ ss a~ T ~OC~ a6 s
Sidbu7 Rd. (SR 1996) r
bQ
CI
1260 1795 12 PM (4 . 6 E-~ y (4.6 55 Q 17 Bbo o
750 8fi0 64 ry\~3' ~'L `a,~10 O ~ ss $5 58 ~l•249 17 4R, v az M ~ ~ pM
lb/ Pl p~~a 3 f~ 2 q~ ~~60
"sr~e~ /~Sj2 y aa ~ 7 41~n$ ssflp~ \ ao fi
o d\ ~l ''9 ~ ~ ~SeQ ~32? 9to ~S~ 37Ap~ ~ 2/~ /p h ~ 6\ 9q B.Ypass h
~ ~2 a~2 s Q I \
i~ ~ p~A?pd ` b0 50~ ~9~ l 6~ l2 A'lr 2 r
J ~B ~ ,~O
0, ta~ z ~r ql b ,1
? ~.A7 r~6~ ~2~ y so SS °,y~a q Mumayviffe Rd. (SR 7322) ti
- c Ci ~s J s° q[' /'J r R.+Je R.lp'I,O" ar ' oo ~ ~s~,y~ S6 ~~o a 1~~ ~yo 0 F:1e q,'ip 2~ sS
\ti i ~,O p~2 'Is
n~ L 2 i vy~~ b~ t5 fYl 'f~p J ,p ~ Py ph .o hrbkx ss rs~~ ~
sN MZ C,o 1 /a\
'0 ^e H9 R o S J~' b S2 iJ i' ~ y0 d'1a
See lnsef A A~~'' T. 4
r,~A,,_ il
a !2 q'1~' fC~l. ~ °,'p ~\]+s q ~ ~R ~ \ Y •~e ~
~0 /s 4~ 5 `ro• o~ rl ~ o b ~eJ qa y ~ y 'P MarL'n Luther Gor a,~1 ~Q~ l a.s ~ys S KingJrPlMy a
Marti~ AkherKing ti vm~ ~~np, e~~~A as0 J t R26497 1 A~ a o PM.aS~ ~oop N vt
N ~7/ A3 /S ~s 1 ~,D ~4,2} yk 'L~ S~ II h ~ g 1 II 61V
(3K2649) I~~ ~'20 aaa ~'ho„ WpT~j0584 ~co ~8 S P 6 0 o P?~.~?55 ~'i 558g~Sr43
`z J ~S.p~i Q 9~ 2S ~ S.y 2~ 139 ^ ~ w ~ ~ n ( A. 660 3 R (~4 f!o l P o° a
~ V W V p
G~ S OOp'p ]7fi ~55 58T'~)5 23'~ 122 ~0 33.Y+'3 S,9 79 B 35 EJ~ y ~ ~k °Jo rd R' 486 y N~ ~SR,~~°nRa a 25, i78 70 35 T 0 E"~ o v
45 el N 45 ~N
~S ~tt ~tpa.. m K Y m
~~C~ ~.,7 ~ w = y o ~ ~60 O vw o Q ~ Q ~ lnset A
~'a n a ~ h'v Ry ,
Prepared for. ~ 2035 Build Conditions -Alfernafives M2+0 Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Sfudy Not to ScaJe ~ ScaJe
NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Figure Prepared 1I1712011 ed 1I17/2011 13B
New Hanover & Pender Gounties, NC

L E G E N D 0
No. of Vehlcles Per Day (VPD) In tODS 210 ~ m
- Proposetl Roatlway Rd• 55~ 3a ~q31 S ~ so
oxv Ttlo rft'O~ Q., _6p
` \y ?YSS ~ l~ g 'S y ~i\ ~•u~ o%
µ DHV Deslqn Hourly Volume (°1,) • K30 6 ? ss j2~
D Pak HouPDlro ctlonal Split r%1 She~teSRd" G(~k~a O 7 32 s 0~4 }}pity y,10na hap2) ~ A ~+l G 2il ~3y
~ Indl<alesDlrectlonofD ~SFt10D2~ 4~ ,Z tSFI 2p ~ ~ b (d.c~ ouais.Trsrs(°~) 55~ . 6~~ h9
148 ( 3\~ ti,L 5• g o\'L f r~h,'S~ i
~ 60 i
ya T$ n e J~ , A~A A~ ~s .o ~ R ~5~3~ kRa 70 ~ ~e ~ 4 a ~3`~~4 ~6~7 S~ QA
~ ~s F
4' ~ b „ ~ °1f o S~,SQ 6S IC P~o
7
(SR 1996} 3 1 Sidqu7 Rd. t~~ 17 B66 pv ~~U:]
~ 5S SR s~ 3 Pb
0PM a. S2 S
12 74 6 60 1908 IZ ~ 0
E~ ~ t 4. 6 5866 vpRh 2~n p ~ rr ~b°n 786 771y246 o~~,y >0 RC - ~ ~BtOh
17 ~ 33
y7 55.L PM ~ (3, ~'f2 Pfg 4 42
55+- P~ ~ 130 (2, 130 55 (f'z ,j ro
lwurrayville Rd. (S rayville Rd. (SR 1322 a ) 0R,~ 7
L/ J / a~R r ~A~ ~ ~ 10 ~llan~d
2p t@ ft
9 2 ¢ 0~ M. J/ (i ~Z tV
~ /J A~ ~1t ~a, s A 4~60 Mumayviffe Rd. (SR 7322) 60 ~O ~aJ• a'p S0 S q v ~7,
A.QO I
d~iO ~'L ~.t,0 0, r2 A?s
M9 ' ° 3 s 97, ~ a, ~p
y
,'O fYl J ! S,P°'c~ rJ ~ ~CJr Q~' \ s'l a O ~a+Cy
See lnsef A "Op 6o A / t b ~~i 1 Q ~ A C ~ ~ D ~ ti
4'0
+~TO' ~O C,f rS N IS ~'~l~l \~2 a~ 600 41 o.a m
~ o S°4
aII 9-~~ 4~ a~ 110, ~s? ~r~ F~O^`''~ ~s ~YSJ 84aRrn L (sR 2849j JrPlony
Martin LutherK V° m ~n so a,o • o pM 60 ~'S~ yti ~ ~60 ~'S~Y Y"Gp P a~1
a?~r 1~ ( k Z O ~b~ O Jr pkwy .19 q 0 6N
(sKY649) Nw 1 ai 60584 6r 5~^ lY ~ ~~J~SS ~ ?o py8 aS Qa' o pp~.?55 }AF~ ~ p •Y"5 S~ ~~„rs~ ~
£ J !s oV a° tt 35 124 12 /,~~ffon ~ ~ N o
4' 2)055 5~ ~15 25'~ 122 6p0 33 ~3 ~0 g 52 S TRa 9 V,
780 ~7 G~ Srd J p, ~ 490~ ~5 F w N~ ~SR.u~°nRy o zs~. na 7z r,~ pM Bo 3~ ~ o
~ 73s r'7J U v o ~+y l~ 3Y ~ p 45' ~ 45 V N
N m i
~ y M~~GOop. 9B0 U O oq, w = ~tnsef A € ~
4a,' ~ ~ Q
Prepared for. ~ 2035 Build Condifions - Alfernatives M1+U Figure No.
Not to ScaJe US 17 Corridor Sfudy ~ ScaJe
NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Figure Prepared 1I1712011 ired 1I1712011 13C
New Hanover & Pender Gounties, NC

L E G E N Q
*41
xxx No. of Vehlcles Per Day (VPD) In 1005 210 OC m
- Proposed Roadway T~~`'' a c 5¢d 5~~ ¢d• 55~ ~ ' . ig'9~ cr• ~0~ $4 / 6p
x ` ,S o v1g ~ N ¢159~1 oHV ~tl~o m N f ~ l ~n r o ~
DHV DesignHOUriyVOlume(%)•Kaa 68 ,0 I(,/ I 36 ~ s.n ~2~ PM PM Peak Perlotl ~ o A6 ~ ~r' \g `~d^. s P4
D Peak tiour Directlonal Spllt Ko~~y ShryQa21Rd' S~G ~~a ~2p ,32a 2~ ~bk
~ Indlcates DIrectlon of D (SR PM ~ y0 O ( a, t) ouais. TT sTS (°r,t 55A.1Z 6 e° ~ s° a~, ~ +a~ Qp 'P
~ d
l48 rN /
~ a(9 n~'e J , A~ e~ s~O m N'1 2be 62`e ~ ~ F 7.'l~''t'~ ( •09. ~ip
~(b
6 9' T a rsP ~e~j O
M ~ ~1
Sidqu7 Rd. (SR 1996) O y
PM d' p
12t4.6 60 197 102 1255 O'Pli r%' . 17 B40 J2 °M ~ r~?SS U
782 E~ ~ (4.6 840 S; 781 231 O 92 92 pta~tatk(~
17 ° Plaptaf;
l?p $Sf, ~ Rtl ~'tAO~ o~~ 8fh117ryg~ T26
(S~hiq ~2~ip o ypa~ n
$ a ~ R7g~j~a ~ ae 164 9A ~`5 ~''H
r' o l '~~i bb ~ p 2 b
r~~9kd u ,~A'l 7~60 .)e \ \ti ao ~
0 ~ ~ 60 2~ ~ a~ 'l 2 ~y oy 2 ~
e~ z~ ~z '~y sp Ss -pa J~ Mumayviiie Rd. (SR 7322) ,2 ~R' ~A• s~ so rJ ~ q 2 e rti~ ar
00 ~y
~~o s,prp~ r G S. 00 ~/~2 0
FJ~\scM1 yr b fYl '-e~a J ss p/6 ~ o ~ A ~ Pv . I T,~~ r2 'Odr
\h M2 ~J ss s~ 'l c SS so
4 r 'S. I~ ~ ~ •r'~ ~9'nf rs.p~qy5 '~f ? C~b 1 ~k `3~1 6~ f 60 ` Lr,t~l ~2`~'
" S aiJ r b~ ~p'~
See lnsef A ,0 °''hp^ Sc~ q%m
'16 2 A
a Ti1.A~a~ 41 a Q~yo ~ h 2 A o-~220 ~ Nw p N ~'~o~f 2 h
~ lps ao
taartin Lu#herKin ~ w ?t~3 ~p'~hati ~ ~ a~ ~ N o
~3R 2649 Jr AtMy o y ~C..71 ~ J ) 4SA~ 60 2'b ro r Mar$in o ~ 60 % ~ 4"
J AlherKing U rrn~ q,Zj kSt 2 N al ~7r 7sg /S '~s -J y i 1h 'L c 5 a,
(sK 2649) O' ~^WQ l a~ J 60585 ~45 ~ ss ~ SN ~_ry ~s ~J
Al $643~ 66 a s o i 41 12~ N
351'v"1 4 12 SS / Sfa~U a ~opp II P~55 5645 23S' 122 B~ E^ o O ~ °em
~ g~u ~pa 380 F„ 49 7 a'°5 w ~ N ~3\ l 3E-~ g a ¢ N /sR~ ~ a 3 ~z 178 Q y W~3 N N a / rc' 45 U fY 35? ~ °
45 V
~ N ' U N V /~t 3! ~ N N p, m V m y
l11 ~ ? .m. y ' Opanl O ~ ~ ryp 0 Oa~ ~BO O rn e 't Q ~ If15Ef A
q
Prepared for. ~ 2035 Build Condifions - Alfernatives M2+U Figure No.
Not to ScaJe US 17 Corridor Sfudy ~ ScaJe
NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Figure Prepared 1I1712011 ired 1I1712011 13D
New Hanover & Pender Gounties, NC

V-
s~
, s~
lIl1'fFH r ~ ,
M1+R S,~ r
~10 G ~8~~^ ~~~~563\
G01J,~71 ~~y,p A ~3m~ ~ yd ~
J . _
~ g
4 f 5P 'r
1, ~ ~ ~ \ k `P1+ ~i o ~ apsurl , r e d mRrs ~ T ~ ~
i Smugea:~ i i - ~ ~
I ~ ¢ ~ek.Rd. 'I [Seek eek. ° e
0 G ~
ehaRr: ~ G .~G
~
M1+R ~ a
c2 'J
s;abwv
/ R ~ / v
Green
C'ahnel
~ - 17 AP'~
a7 7~ Raue
~.,6> yr o
I J
. m~~mYV~~iie Rn. (sR 1szz) . O ~ jr .\f
~arsh Onky.O' ~ .\iro:~. ~ Le-gend
Level of Service srvrce
A-C pRa . ~ D A-C . Signalized Intersection
~ D ~ Interchange
FP31
E ,Rtl(s,p qE\ddte5aun~LooP¢ . . E
~s ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~F
s '4 r o
~ ~ .
MartioLUmwKin9 qd~O~ ~ 4 ~ . MajorlMinorRoads MajorlMinorRoads I L_ _J I CountyBoundary
`r~Q'-^ . . 4 t~bHCSanarysswaspertorcne W HCSanarysswaspertorcnetlhr ~ Nsimerchargesincefiemainlinxani CityofWilmingfon
~1v' amPSarem ~nirolledhYuPNre Wilmi gton ~ w p o~A ~ dawrsireamsgna5. m p? y,3 ry . ampsarecontmlled hy upstream' dawrstream sgna5.
F
Preparea by: MULKEY 2035 Level of Service
Alfernafives M1+EH and MI+R o s,5oo ~,ooo ~a,ooo 14,000 Figure No.
Feet iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiFeet ~
Prepared for: : US 17 Corridor Study Data Sources: NCDOT and Mulkey GIS NCDC)T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 U47511R-3300TrafficOperationsAnalysisReport d Mulkey GIS 4A ns Analysis Report
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared:4l7l11 4!7l11

V-
,
s,%) AOh'r< ,
_ _ < Co r
~210 ^ ~o
G07f,=71 ~ . ; ~ ~ueer: °kRv .~.°3.. •p•~ ` .
1 i ~
:
!11 l ~ . t ~ ~y, , .
I >1t3T opsuil, 0~ ~f C a 1
c, eek S " . ~ ~ ~ 4d, ~ ~ ~ ,j mugea.i ~ ~
1T O eek e ~~t M 5 ~I v Q~ e
Q G G ~
a arue>eex efi«Ri:~t ~ G . . .~G
. , r~ (B~HS C>eeAl , : ~ ~
~ a
al F-. ~
s;abwv syy ll
Gi-cen
o~ , - ~~O~~HnrtoanR~~ ChaM el 0
17 ~ l
~ . ss Z'm ~CyO _ oeA S), h . , r , ,t ~9yFR
Plaetta ~ .c oo~ ~F Gy • I / eto 7/ n Rtl. Rufle
I J
. murmYVIiie Rn. (sR 1szz) ~,aTSh~nky.P
( Lec~end ' @~2+ . Level of Service srvrce
R2'J v Y
A-C pRa . ~ D A-C . Signalized Intersection
~ D ~ Interchange
E ,Rtl(s,p qE\ddte5aun~LooP¢ . . E
~s ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~F
s '4 r o
~ ~ . d~O
oLUmwKin9 q~ ~ 4 ~ . Marti m MajorlMinorRoads MajorlMinorRoads I L_ _J I CountyBoundary
Hmerchayesoce i Ns heman W HCSanarysswaspertorcnetlhr ~ Nsimerchargesincefiemainlinxani CityofWilmingfon
ampsaremnirolledhyupstre: WIlI711 l~tOtl ~ w p oA ~ dawrsireamsgna5. m p? y,3 -ry . ampsarecontmlled hy upstream' dawrstream sgna5.
F
Prepared by: MULKEY 2035 Level of Service
Alfet'nafives M2+0 0 3,saa ~,aoo ia,oao 14,000 Figure No.
Feet iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiFeet ~
Prepared for: : US 17 Corridor Study Data Sources: NCDOT and Mulkey GIS NCDC)T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 U47511R-3300TrafficOperationsAnalysisReport d Mulkey GIS 14B ns Analysis Report
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared: 417111 417/11

V-
,
s,%) AOh'r< ,
_ _ < Co r
~210 ^ ~o
G07f,=71 ~ . ; ~ ueer: °kRv .~.°3.. •p•~ ` .
~ ~ IIU)'LSOP15 ~ " ~ rr
~
0
,0
' Jr e4d~ (ItR7SCreekRd. °oo )1dTapsuil,
Oee7l. U. I` ? m,gea., ,~oov1 - . . ~s~ . ; - ~ L\ s ~ ~
~J-., Ci eek0~0tp.b.15~ \ ~ ~ ea e
0 G G ~
arue,eex ~ ~e~«Ri:d ~(aEr~s e>eex~ ~ _ .~G
- ' ~
- ~„~r'v~~ • ~ ~ ~1 T ~ a
/ i
Y" ?
~ F-: ~
sidUiav
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`Ot'~HnrtoanRd Channel
17
4"
~ y FR ~Ors ~ ' ,r d ~ 'Sj R'/
PhM
I J
. m~~mYV~~iie Rn. (sR 1szz) . ~ ~SR nh~9 • 6 k Rd.
. . (1 ~q,aTS~'~oky.P ~ .\Zror. / L end
~•J ~ Clv~ivrr,l g /S . . { ~ T 0, Level of Service srvrce
& h o ~p'~`~ l 2)~
A-C D A-C . Signalized Intersection
a~V . . i . . ~ D ~ Interchange
E ~Rd(s,p qE\ddte5aund~-p°P¢ ~ ~ . E
~s ~ ~ ~ ~ F ~F
s '4 r o
~ ~ .
MartioLUmwKin9 'saaa~A1~~~. MajorlMinorRoads MajorlMinorRoads I L_ _J I CountyBoundary
"r~Q ~ . . 4 t~bHCSanarysswaspertorcne n W HCSanarysswaspertorcnetlhr ~ Nsimerchargesincefiemainlinxani CityofWilmingfon
ampsarem~nirolledhyupstre Wilmi gton ~ g `O ~p o A ~ ' dawrsireamsgna5. m p? y,3 ry . ampsarecontmlled hy upstream' dawrstream sgna5.
%
F
Preparea by: MULKEY 2035 Level of Service
Alternaftves M~+U o 3,500 7,000 14,000 14,000 Figure No.
Feet ~Feet ~
Prepared for: : US 17 Corridor Study Data Sources: NCDOT and Mulkey GIS NCDC)T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 U47511R-3300TrafficOperationsAnalysisReport d Mulkey GIS 4G' ns Analysis Report
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared: 3114111 3/14l11

V-
,
s,%) AOh'r< ,
_ _ < Co r
~210 ^ ~o
G07f,=71 ~ . ; ~ ueer: °kRv .~.°3.. •p•~ ` .
~ ~ IIU)'LSOP15 ~ " ~ rr
~
0
,0
' Jr e4d~ (ItR7SCreekRd. °oo )1dTapsuil,
Oee7l. U. I` ? m,gea., ,~oov1 - . . ~s~ . ; - ~ L\ s ~ ~
~J-., Ci eek0~0tp.b.15~ \ ~ ~ ea e
0 kCfiH~ G ~
ar Gu e,eex «Ri:~t sidU .~G
~
~ a
iav
Gi-cen ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~`Ot'~HnrtoanRd Channel
17
. ~ ~ 1'nass 4" y F,~c Ro~sa ~ I r
PkaaemnRU. Oe~~ yr o ~

I J
• ~SR nh~9 ` ~N'9,~.6 ~ I ^ i . murmYV~Iiie Rn. (sR 1szz) ~ r .\f
. . • Ooky.P ~ .\Zror. / L end t Clv~ivrr,l
. ~ To 0, R?'J tl Y Level of Service srvrce
A-C D A-C . Signalized Intersection
a~V . . i . . ~ D ~ Interchange
. 4'o
E ,Rtl(s,p qE\ddte5aun~LooP¢ / . . E
~s ~ dIE~ ~ ~ F ~F
s '4 a
MartioLUmwKing 1saaa~A1~~~. o MajorlMinorRoads MajorlMinorRoads I L_ _J I CountyBoundary
`r~Q'-^ . . 4 t~bHCSanarysswaspertorcne n W HCSanarysswaspertorcnetlhr ~ Nsimerchargesincefiemainlinxani CityofWilmingfon
ampsarem~nirolledhyupstre Wilmi gton ~ g `O ~p o A ~ ' dawrsireamsgna5. m p? y,3 ry . ampsarecontmlled hy upstream' dawrstream sgna5.
F
Preparea by: MULKEY 2035 Level of Service
Alternaftves M2+U o 3,500 7,000 14,000 14,000 Figure No.
Feet iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiFeet ~
Prepared for: : US 17 Corridor Study Data Sources: NCDOT and Mulkey GIS NCDC)T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 U47511R-3300TrafficOperationsAnalysisReport d Mulkey GIS 4D ns Analysis Report
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared: 3114111 3/14l11

• f-^~ ~1 ~ 7k~uepefersSwamp J~
r^^~ ~ '
/ ~ • ~S ~s r :
~ 210 <A d ,
"O,s~ ~'F', ~G" i ~ `a 1
/ 1.. 73nrLSaf+,c
(seek~ d Lc~ hz ~ ~-e i i
i piob0o~ ;
~ Islmnrl - '
i . ~ d j
210 ' . / ~11
~5R1 mr[9 ~'U '~'f~ ~V % C ~ ~
K • ~ 'ao OldTopsnil j ~ ~SR'r"eeWRL. ~~~~:land~ee Creek i Ql 0
OG G 0
G
, , • -111/I Cr-]r Chnnnel ~ / ~
~ (BeHCCYeeA%~ ~ t i ~ a

~l- aYRd.lSRh ~ ~ f
17
~~WLOHIf Green ~ U y [ ~ ~°apR CAimerreZ j ,
17 KciM%nsmn ~ I A jLeciend
GeneralizedZoning ~ 'zed Zoning
G ~y ; s Plan~~o ; r~~oo, F_ G~, Agriculture ¦ Agriculture - Office and Institutional
C:reek - Commercial ¦ I Commercial - Pianned Development
Creek Flood Area C % MurrariilleRtllSRt32Y) (SR~~h,y ~3.~-6 , _ \\i , , ~7~ ~/Q ~ ~ckRd ISRTq55~ _ ~ ? ~ If1dU3tf18l 1 Flood Area ~ Residential
~J I Indusirial
- L onh0a¢s ~H`trnrt i
55ru~ln o. 3" B~, ~ C'heuowel ~ ~ ~ CSeek A
Alternafrve SYudy Corridor: a ve SYudy Corridars
West f East of NC 210 J ` ~ ,~R c-fv, ~ , iast ofNC210 WeslJEast ofNC270
v~~- a • Altemative M1 ~aP31 F4Qe6~ ~ Altemative M1 ~ ~ Altemative E-H
C'.reek ~ Altemative M2 ~ Altemative M2 ~ ~ Altemative R
43R q~~ddle5aundLooP. ~ ! : Altemative O ~ Altemative O Altemative U
s '
G= Hwne ~ ~ . C:reek~ f Interchange Locati~ Interchange Locations ~ Alfemative Corridors
~ thM Kin 9 J r. PI(~Y. ~ NuRiff LU
f5R2649j.... . J` L MajorlMinorRoads MajorlMinorRoads I L_ _J I CounlyBoundary
Wilm ngton ~
a O~ ~ '°o ~ r
Prepared by: MULKEY Generalized Zoning 0 3,506 7,000 14,006 14,000 Figure No.
Feet US 17 Corridor Sfudy ~Feet ~
Prepared Por: NCQOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3304 Dala Sources: NCDOT, Pender Co, New r enderCo, ~J uikey GIS
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC HanoverCo. and Muikey GIS Figure Prepared: 10121110 121110

D U 1 L I N C 0 U N 1 Y rF^ 1 , N _ LEGEND
ys...~ ~f•~.~~-Lh - • - . IXISi1NG PROPOSED
0 I IMEA.RAIfS urteRSrnhs ~ I I I 1
• , -10 omeR rRwara unaw o ~ O7MER PIUNQPAL A1R9tIAl
, MWOA AtI9LLLL a I ~ S AvJOA COIlFGT01l MINOR AIlT9l1Al MAIOR COLLFCfOR m ¦
~ MINOR COLLECf00. MINOR COLLEROA ~ - URBnN MAIOR I
~ r URB,N MAJOR , a
V ~ s n £ NiBICKANGE - a ~ ~r 1 UALW RNINMG MFA INT9lC1UNGE • URBKN HANNMG MFA lOUNDARY
0
i
? / ~ ~ JL yy ~ ~ a ~ fi'~'`C~/ , ~ 7r • 1 oG ADOPTED BY:
p
ti 1 • . ~ • , ~ ~ ~ , . A PENDER COUNTY_ PENDER COUNTY 6-2-97
~ PUBLIC ME4WNG5_ ~ ~ '1 • " p•~ , PUBLIC HEARINGS 6-2-97
~ 1 a I ~ ~ yu • . ` . h ~ n RECOMMENDED API RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY •
STATEVJIDE PIANNW STATEWIDE PLANNING BRANCH 8-15-97
~ / r.. .ti r ~ • , NORTH CPROl1NA NORTH CAROUNA
~ • l ~ ~ S ~ - - ~j , 1 ~ • „ ~ ~ 1 DEPARiMENT OF TR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 9-5-97
~ • o.~, ~ ml n,~ .+ow~ ~ 'o . 1 ww ~ ~ ~
p a F ~ \ ti.. 1 r w. we 1
z
n
~i' ~ ~ , • 0 m
y . 'L. ~ 7/ . I , i ? ~ r
~ • ,l ~ z ~ ~ .
~ / " ` . ~ . ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ FI( u ` ~ ' FIGURE 2 - A
10
~ , y• ,l' ~i° . % i ~ Jl JUNE 2, 1997
o C THORO O THOROUGHFARE PLAN
Y'
FOR
PENDEI ti w ar , . PENDER COUNTY
~ G ~ 0 S r/ f ~ V N w0 N! w M A N 0 v [ 1 ~ . ~ NORI NORTH CAROLINA AViiD w M
s • ~ HoxrH cnROUw, i w~ C 0 U r+ T Y DIVISION OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF MIGHVlAYS - STATfWIDE PLANNING
C • C , k C 0 V N T Y i US.OEPMI U.S.DEPARiMBYT OF TRANSPORTATION
. P FEDERAL P FEDERAL MGMWAY ADMINISTRATION ~uw
' -aFn-°--'r- 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0 1 2 3 m6 9 12
/ 0 7 2 3 ~P kilomolera BASE MAP DA7F
MAY 30,1997
Prepared by: MULKEY Pender County Thoroughfare Plan Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Sfudy Dafa Source: PenderCounty Thoroughfare Plan Jun prepared for: NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbe?'s U-4751 & R-3300 ioroughfare Plan June 2, 1997
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared:10121N 0 i: 10/21/10 16

i
N?
l
? ?R9
!
-?
l ly S?
1- ` 1
?
? .
`?_. ? x? ? , ; --; -- -- --,._
? ? ? ---,
:?. ?.
.
?-
. ..... o : P ?
r . y
?
.
.
. ... "• \ .. ..
' ....:
• ...... ... ?k
.4_1 0 o.
?-
???
. , .EOR
• ? y =
; ?.. ??, F°o? r d N? ?F
;.,? ? ?I p ? , ?roA =
o ? ? ?rlYPROHX ffnnh?`t ooRu
, •. ...... . . . . . . . ..... . ...... & •. . . . . . . . ... .. ?? . ?
?h
\ ^ e,:
z
' ; r! Greater Wilmington Urban
4 g 1 Area Thoroughfare Pian
Freeway
.
i • Proposetl Freemray
.?' ?,`- ? AAajorThoroughfare
. m - - Proposetl Major
? - MinorThoroughfare
_
? - Proposetl Minor
? 'I ¦ Plannetl OverPass
Plannetl In[ercliange
In[erchange
O
Over Pass
irlater Features
. / g
City Limits
. ?_ _IIr?IMP08oundary
I
; s
? ?? ? oMiles
U 6.5 1 2
( CnyMWiniirgnnGLS
?-°'?Figure No. 17
71~'ur~pefers ~n~p a
l~ r ~~r r-~.~r~ ~ ? ~ ~ .
h I ~ 8a ' °QA \ \O

~ S ~ ,'1 / C°~ 2 ti • B'Jd ~I563\
1 , ( ~dfYey RtY P e ? 3 .
o . R~y / r " >2 CSeek
}
1612>
~ ~~t Y f'~ ~ ? ~Ciubo„~' 3
lsf v:~' r"n I G~
1 zio 1I ~ r' S~~ ;i ~`/7?
I i~ ~ ~ a
. eri.•~ . Ry ek.R"d. ~ , 'JO OldTapsail ~ CSeek e
5hugean ! C, eek 0 x Rd' S ~ 1 G ~
G
? dTll OeeA Chr~ruref L~
Weffs L>eexj • a ~ a
.
. ~ • ~ ~
~ SidUatY } l'-' ' \yyvGp
'Y . , ~P`~sR , 17 j` Lecrend t
i
d° ~ d~ ~S ~2i /~Saoy~Hn1 Grsen SOfIS
A11B JO'"' . i C~3 " 17 To AnB Jo'"'" ~ Mu
r,~,~~ ) y q., t , K AuB Ku6 / AuB Ku6 No6' K Wd'
BaB K Le BaB K Le ~ On" WY"
. PIan~IIo \ .c 4' oolc ~Y `~l'bi ~
C3 Cr` ~ LnA 71 ~ Cleek Cr" LnA ~ Pn'"'
_ y G Fr~tch r~ ~ FO LS" Fo Ls" C~3 Ra"
- Murrav~iue an. (se 1522)L `q V~~ ` ~SR`~h~~ .~tTr"ya Cleek l JO Mk l 7~yoJ p, I lY r~ ~ clrRy R,455~ l~J i JO Mk C Se
~ ~ K b x ` oo,~s.o' ~ ~rvErn,e "'Primef2rmiand "'"'Primefan
~ snu7h !,a D wg"' ..rsR~ Ctia~,~et / armland "Primefarmlandifdrained
1 I` CSeek AlternativeSYudyCorridor. ve SYudy Corridors
Wesf 1 East of NC 210 :ast ofNC210 WestlEast ofNC270
.
Altemative M1 - Altemative M1 ~ - Altemative E-H
crzzx Altemative M2 - Altemative M2 ~ - Altemative R
f ' Midalesoundl °p~`~ °Nl Altemative O - Altemative O Altemative U
y J v ~
o ~ Hwne - Oeek.~ O ~ Interchange Locati~ Interchange Locations ~ ARernative Corridors
~rtln wtn~,~r K"n P 9 Rd n ~r"~-T~~ ~ SR 28091 _ . f r
MajorlMinorRoade c ~ ~ ~ S 1 f MajorlMinorRoads I_ CountyBoundary
Wilm ngton =fl ~ WaterFeatures Water Features ~ City of Wilmington
a S
Pre,'ared `'y: M LJ LK EY Predominant Soils and Prime Farmland Soils
0 3,506 7,000 14,000 14,000 Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Sfudy Feet ~Feet ~
Prepared Por: NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Data Sources: NCDOT, NRCS and MWkey GIS and Mulkey GIS 18
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC figiive Prepared:10l21l10 21l10

~
~ I a ' }
O
r ~
~ . . . u
l
9' m~r ~
V~t4.C . fi" . ....r k` a
i{ k
i ~ ~°Y - ~
~a
~ y.`1. ,`f~ ~ 4_... ~
1f1~,~

. ~ r.. . . ~ r.. . . i
Leaend
County eaundary
Map Grids ry Mesic Pine Flalwoods Nonriverine SWamp Forest
N RTR Study Are a Nonriverine Wet HarUwood Furest _a
Coastal Plain 8ottomland Hardwood Atomland Hardwood Pine Savanna
- Bl2ckwater Subtype btype Pocosin
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp - Blackwater Subtype nall Stream Swamp / ~0 pontl Pine Woo<iland btype
Cutover Small Depression Pocosin
GypressfGum SWamp wamp Small Depression Ponci
- elackwater Subtype Maintainedl6isturbed brype Wet Pine Flatwoods
irbed ey,A Aeric Sandhill Scrub
Prepared by: MULKEY Natural Communities
0 3,500 7,000 14,000 US 17 Corridor Sfudy Feet 14,000 ~ Figure No. ~ Fe et
Prepared for. NCDDT TIP Projecf Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 Data Sources NCDOT and Mulkey Field 06servations ield 06servations 19A
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared: 10121110 !10

US 17 CORRIDOR STUC RIDOR STUDY - Natura! Communities
, `~yn'"' . . ~ NCDOT TIP Project Nu T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
New Hanover & P I ry9( ITi~ • ~~~~I ew Hanover & Pender Couniies, NC
/ ,,n p ? ~ •
N s R
.
T ? , ~ r, t'"; R ` ' ~ .
FF Y j µ
4ti.. _ . . . . . , . . . . . , ~ y~~~ ~ r,Q r
:a ~ .9
. . ~ y ' ~ ~vf'~1`'. . .
~ .
.
-
~ . Y fr._ v ~ ~i~ ~ (~i : • • i OA~ ~~l.'.4 a ~ f} ,1. ~pt=~,~ k~ _ ~r_.~ •Y, i ~ . o . .
t. ,r ~ ~ ~ y~ ' ~ r.~~ ~ t~ ~ ~ti ~ ` t. f4r.. ? ~ ~ r ~~t t~~~4$: +~h~~'' r J~~~ • •
y'~,` ~ '~~~t, • ~'yf 8 ~
~ yl• rf 41M
'17""'~ 5`w. ~p~y•~ :3~ +E+~0 j - d +
~ . ~ r ; • , 'ya - ; . > - ~8' n S _.,Y:. ! . ~'J ~y,Y ,r~~ ) . - . ~ ,(h'ti-1 i . • .t ~ _ ~ G
C 'Fj -f 1~! A
. 1 ;l _ , 1~,~~ _ ~ ~n#~x ~•i~ '~''SJ f" ~ ~
ti ti . • : ' l y ~iv
.44
. z • ; ~ „A" ~ ` ~ 4,;~
~ ~ ~ ~ , "ry ~ -.f ~ h ~
' ~ ' • .
c
~ • .._r~ . ~ . ^ . , . i.• _ ' . _ _ _ . ~I .>F
r k' ~ ' ~ ~ A ~ 4?'4A
A~ g ~
~ • - - , , • ~ ~ ~ ~R.~g ~ . _ . ~ ~ / / C y /A
~t ~ { at ~
a y ~
/ /J• 'l~` 'f~. ~ ~ • r ,4 rv ~
.~,~y~'., y ~ Leaend . t .
y ' , I ~ . County BOUndary Mesic Pine Flatwoods 1 ~ ' o •
; Nonriverine SWamp Forest / ~ x ~ ~ - • ~ ~ ^a ~ . ~ MapGl'idS
NRTR StudyArea Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest ~ ~ ~ ..,y ~ • ~ _ ~ ~ } , _ ~ ~ . • * 1. , d:.. ":'G (iF t: . '`_r
CoaslalPlainBOttomlandHardwooU PineSavann2 ffmi- ~ ~.tl•~_ ) .
L/ , - - - . r~ _g~~ ~ / • ~ : • • r ~ r+ ~.~,1 - -BlackwaterSuptype . Pocasin ~ CoasTal Plain Small Stream Swamp ^a .~i~ A
pond Pine Woodland ` '~~~R ~7 ' ~ r~ rr ~ ~ r ~ ~ •6 1~y•- {x. ,.l ~ o o. I. ~ - BlackwaterSubrype ~ F~ p. n. ` A • . ~
« F Cutover Small Depression Pacosin ~ O
~ Small DePression Pond Ly/Press/Gum SWamp ~ A .t ~ . ti,,; Rr' i` '[p s~ r- . . e - y ~ ~ ~ j,.~A . ' i ~ 71 -6lackwaterSubtype WetPineFlalwoods 7~ ~ r. II II .
MaintainedfDisturbed rm%PO Xeric Sandhill Scrub "n
0 600 1,200 2,400 Feet Pigure No. 4 9B
~ ~ . oana soumes:NCOOTaoaMuikeyFamonseNatam w f. x;y t r ~p~? ~ Fgure Prepared: 10121110

" w US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY - Nafura! Communifies ° ~ • . ~F ~
~ ? NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
New Hanover & Pender CoLmiies, NC ~+~;,,~t ~ r. ; i.~. - , • ' ~ r• . -a
~ + ` -A ~1 d ~ ~.ahr • 1~ 1 ti ~1M1 e."^ M?~, ~
~ ~-~C N t ( :a b' t 'hL f . . e1 ~ ~
t ~ 9Y,) ~ pr s ^ .Y~ z ~ 4 rt ~`f P. nF:. • ~ MI d -
, ~ . ' ,.h~ ~ }xAA~rkd~ ~ 1'f ~ 1G1."'.~~ . ( ~ ~ t • ~ ~ ` . ,
~7' ~?~,~~~s(,. J~~~ tl~~ .
I
~ ~
_ ` 3M ~ ~ - y`ap 9~,~ • 1~ . faT O ~ 1 ~ o
4 ry.,i-£'. •''~r~'_•' ''i'. ° r~T.Y~ewS%i'~ ~~~Yi 1,;
~Jn~a'l~~r • ~ ~ .~j~~ ~
00 tti''~.t~' ' . ~
IN IN ,
~ ~'i ~ ~ i ^T 'S~Y ~`~y tlM;~yr.p- {~a S~.' ~1~'fit~. VA'~'i ~+l ?Wr-~
IKJZ a+'lM1~S
t . q ~ ~ ,y 1~: t ~ ~ y t"~ '~~~~i?
1 ~ ; .
A?t.
twa»~~ . ~ ~ t ~ ~ "r 1 , . •iN ~ '.l.. ~r. ~ . ! y ~~ys.~ ~ t a ( . ~ 7 •
~ ~,~..~As -.J'~{ i' ^Y i~ A ~ ~ ~y .i ~ ~ed,t ~~~^'"~!.i'~~ 'a ~ •
1~
~ k ~ i i• W. ( 1 A
, ~ -~'`"~.y' • ' • , ' . . V .
•
. . . s. • " ~ ~ . 6 • . . f__ . . ~ f w, , , ~
• ~ „ `ky~~14.r. ..'»r"..-.~. ~ v e.," O ~.r ~'~,eLY;,~_,1~ e-K. ~ , 1. y
;
~ ~ ~ I «s~~. ~ rs~-' ~wn1~ o ~ ~
~1 F_ ~ .t .a/'.',",~r'F' •1 r~ i' - - r - ' ' ~i~. ~ yi~q1 i . ~ `I~ . . . , ~ . ~
o.~~ _ -'#ty~',9F1~'~ ~i'~•. - i~,~~ -
~ , ~15 " n •~~y--~ l
7q ~ i SEbK ~
~ r rf, /y
~ ~ ~ V • a, •~'gq»~„- . . ~
Leqend
County 8oundary Mesic Pine Flatwaxts
tt f,{ ,~,.~d r ~Lt ~,rr.' . ~4?..~ . ~ . ,l' a , ~ , . e~ ~~y8 R ~.-,C _ ~ ~ . 3. , - . ~ 6 ' IN2p Grids tdonriverine Swamp Forest
6 4T ~ ~ . tdRTR StudyArea fdonriverine Wet Hardwootl Forest a
W"6 1p, ' Coastal Plain 6ottomland Hardwood ttomland Hardwood Pine Savanna
8lackwater SubType py , irype . . . Pocosin iall Stream SWamp pond Pine Woodland
1 Coastal Plain Small Stream SWamp 8lackwater Subrype wa;' . ` ~ • itype
r s~'o ~a ~k; ~ ~,y~'~ cucov~ Smali Oepression Pocosin
!7 CYpreGumSwamp s ~ Vt , ~ j. ~ ~ . • -6lackwaterSubrype vamp Small Depression Pond irype Wet Pine Flatwoods
MaintainedfDisturpeci r6ed Xeric Sandhill Scrub
1- I I~. ~.M .Y ? ~ '1~ 3 n t~ . ~ . ~ , , iuC)
~p5 0~ 600 1,200 2 ,zoo 2,400 ~ Figure No. ~ Feet
~ 4 • ~ ' ~ ':~`h Y 1.} -.e~s Mw s~p' QafaSOUZa:NC~OTandMWkeYFnYJDhservatbns 1n• r +r ; 1 1 : ~ " ~ M 1r -A..n .k. . . ' e } Ir' 2 ~ - ^ "~.a~• 1"~~n'w_ ' I .~1 ~w,~ ~ ~ Fi9urePreFa~:10121110 f MWkey FieN Dhservatbns =.{a~: 10#1110

. , , . f . . 4~ . ' _
US 17 CORRIDOR STUC RIDOR STUDY - Natura! Communities
, ~ • " NCDOT TIP Project Nu T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
New Hanover & P ew Hanover & Pender Couniies, NC
s~
. IIq ' s
,v~.
F:
! ~ - i
y'~ t
\ \ ,
t ~ \ t~~ \
~ v\ \
llI1~A~
~
. . . i'
~ • a
~
~ ` ' •
\1`\ '
` .
, ~ ' • -
~ g ~ e~-~ '~5y ; • ~ ~ \ \ : yy~' 'V•,~s .
:~'•1' ~ ~ . aS~M. - ~
Jill?~'. 'fr ~ { ~ ~•~'`~c' ~ ~ ~~c _ ~ ' .
Legellf~
County Boundary Mesic Pine Flatwoods ~ ~ •
Map Grids Nonriverine SWamp Forest ~
NRTR StudyArea Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest
Coastal Plain 8ottomland HardwooU Pine Savann2
- BlackwaterSuprype . Pocasin CoasTal Plain Small Stream Swamp pond Pine Woodland - \
- BlackwaterSubrype
Cutover Small Depression Pacosin r J , . ~ ` - ' ~ • . . . . . . . . . ,
Lypress/Gum SWamp Small Depression Pond F 6lackwater Subtype , Wet Pine Flalwoods
MaintainedfDisturbed rm%PO Xeric Sandhill Scrub '~(;i; . •
. 0 600 1,200 2,400 Fe et Figure No.
o=soumes:NCOOTaoaMuikeyFamonseNatam F5urePreVared:101211W ^ \ . . . . . 19D

, 3~ ~il~. US 17 CORRIDOR STUC
RIDOR STUDY - Natura! Communities
~ i • :2 - ~ NCDOT TIP Project Nu T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
~ • • ~ 'I New Hanover & P ew Hanover & Pender Couniies, NC
~ . ~
' - - f
.
y I
~ I ~ , . .li . .
~ i
(D `
C
~ "(p I (t
~
~
~
~ •
a
, - - s~ ~ _ • - _ ~ ,~vt.' ~ e
~ y ,
h
~ , i N 'I ~ i~ s~k~?14 ~ ~ i. ~
F9r.~'"aJw~44OWWWWS'X"W"Ti
~re`I ~~a~~~~ ~ ~
01~~}~!~~A:j~~ .W'~SY;~~ u'~~~~~.~e.i~.f.~.i.?n.r.~.~~.+. ~~I~~' _ ~ ~
*..3~ 'i ~ ~•.~r~~' ti .'~ri~ ' ~ ~ , _ :;1" ~ ~ / c~ ~~i~cT~•~ i~~''
s~ ~ ~ r~ • ~ i ~ , . ;~,~ij~ 4 - ~ ~ ,~µ`I?~. , . ~
. . , . . .
' -
- I~ - ~
Leaend •
County Boundary Mesic Pine Flatwoods
L--- . - ~ Map Grids Nonriverine SWamp Forest + . _ _ li ~ ~ ,i~ ' ?
r ie : ,r. ^ !,il f .O Nonriverine Wet Hardwood Forest NRTR StudyArea
Pine Savanna L/ CoaslalPlainBOttomlandHardwooU
~ - BlackwaterSuprype . Pocasin CoasTal Plain Small Stream Swamp ~
Blackwater Subrype pond Pine Woodland 9
Small Depression Pacosin • ~ ' ~e k;;~ . ~ ~y i~; - r Cutover Small Depression Pond ~ . g, - . ~e:: ? a~~x w ? ~ . .i. . f R9' ~a c~r. „ F•.
Lypress/Gum SWamp r ' • -6lackwaterSubrype , WetPineFlalwoods
MaintainedfDisturbed r.,e Xeric Sandhill Scrub k''~{, o' lc>- ~
A ~ Ir . ~ ?
0 600 1,200 2,400 s . .T . . . ~ t Feet I Figure No.
o=sou~s:NCOOTaoaMuikeyFamon~Natam F5urePreVared:101211W 19E

US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY - Nafura! Communifies s
NCDOT TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 '
New Hanover & Pentler Couniies. NC
I' ,y . , .r~
0 ~ ? • - b n . . _~~r,~ ~ s .
i
? ~;q~.<; . - . . . . . _ _ - . . .
~
V`~h
`
: ~ ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ / , y
f r?--~~ ' ~
~It~~~''
~z'.
.Y
41 'Z . t.' .Ci ~ •.:~i'.~' ~1 rI-~'ll ~ A ux ~
ti~~` ~.y. (fl i . . . . .1 k .',lf.` ~ ~ / _ in r ~ •~A ~ ~'r`~~plY .
(D ~
• Yi~~ ~ - ..~.r~. e ~ . . ^ . . . ~ . . - , ~I
.
~ - - - ~ I
• o c)~; ~ ~ -
,r • o t+ i
O'li ~ ~ , . _ . . . .
' _i ;~y II I.~ ~`~i
D
y+~ ? i
Leaend
Coun 8oundary Iwesic Pine Flatwoais
2p Grids .h IN tdonriverine Swamp Forest
td RTR Study Are a fdonriverine Wet Hardwootl Forest a
Y Coastal Plain 6ottomland Hardwood ttomland Hardwood Pine Savanna
8lackwater Subtype rp Coastal Plain Small Stream SWamp irype . . . Pocosin iall Stream SWamp pond Pine Woodland
8lackwater Subrype itype
7D' ~ CuWVer + rti~~ I Smali Oepression Pocosin
CYpress/Gum Swamp -6lackwaterSubrype vamp Small Depression Pond irype Wet Pine Flatwoods
V f ~ . , - I , W.'i'~.~ • • ' S MaintainedfDisturpeci r6ed Xeric Sandhill Scrub
0 600 1,200 2 ,zoo 2,400 ~ Figure No.
~ i. QafaSOUZa:NCDOTandMWkeyFnYJDhservatbns ~ ~ FigurePre{a~:10121110 ~ I ' Feet 19F f MWkey FieN Dhservatbns !{arcd: 10#1110

map ivn :.y:
O- D• - STUDY . . - -r•,-_ •C N' .
~ DO I ' 4751 & R 330 ~
- . . - : - . - Map 19G . ° i r r
~ • ( v• ~ ~ 1 i r• - . . . . ' 5~
r i~
~ `
, ;
.
:2,
~ ~ • . ' r -r - : . . ..r,r~,y 4 \r
a'r . •.s:; . _
~ Nr ' ~ T'..ti. ~d~.~~+~ 1 . . ' _ ' ~":`Y .s ~ '3~ ? . 1
¢ . . ~R.~ . . . . . . . . •I ~ ~~rr h
~ ~ \ `
;
\ - `~YT ji
.
' 4- ~ ~ ••y, . . - ~ ,I` . . . ~ ' . . . . . . . _ - • ` . , ' ~
4% • , '
~ ,i._' _ '..rti_' ~ k ' ~ ~A~.
~ ~ ~ A
j . i . ~c,. . . . . . • • . . . . - > y a_: t . . . µ3, _ ~ . 1 ~ ? • • • ? ? : - 1 1A~, _ . .
ra Q . rn . • ? F~,'~ • • ? • • • • • ? ? • . ~ ~ . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ r3~. ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ c .t ~ -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . fi'~ .
. . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ . . . ~ . . . . ~ . . • . • . . . . • - ~ ~ • ~
. . . . . • . . . . . ' ~ , , . • ~ . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . / , . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . s ~ . . . • . . . • • ~ ~ ~US 17 - ~~•~(T~ ~ p~
~ ~ * " - ' •
. - 'y : - - . . . , ; . ^ ,,nw .
' i ~-d' . . • . . . . . ~ ? . ? w. e y ~ y . e f . - ..r r e .i- .'a _ e ? _ ~'Q .y ~ . i t . ' • ' : . • . . • i ? .r .r • _ . . '
. . . . ' 1 a~.`e::e. 1 r~~ - 1 o: : . ?~e • a{ r _ . . . - • pF . . , . . .
. : . . ' .r . • . ~ . • • ' y, i . . . . . ' • . . _ i ~ y • ~..5' ..-~.i ' ~ . , ? ~ _ 1( '.~i ~ . 1
' C ~ .N ' N 1. • ? _ y~j `y~ •
S - ` _ J / ? ~ '~R ~ • • • ~ • • • _ l . . A W ~tA l . ' . . f1 • f ? 'w • - 3 . ~ y a R:1 s F . - ~ ( . . . W~P ~ , i ~ ~ , H
. • r' i,. i r~.~ . .v'-. ~ i! . F> v'~ ~ . x ~ ~ ~ , ' ' . : y,JY+ . . t~ i . ~i:l'_ ' . ' •n i~ . . . . ~ a ' ~ „ 1 ' ~ • ~ k
C~
_ - - ` ` i • ' 'IC`~b ~ _ f•._
' g' ~
County z • Boundary I'Oesic Pine FlalWUats
At ~ . ~ ~ i i tdonriverine Swamp Forest
fdonriverine Wet Hardwootl Forest a
' r Q 0- ; ttomland Hardwood Pine Savanna
° irype . . . Pocosin iall Stream SWamp pond Pine Woodland
itype
I` ~ r, p 5 4 1 •F: I~ ~ N ~4 ..+~c~'4 ~ 1L t ; 1. P .,I.y 2 vi~/• Smali Oepression Pocosin
. ~i. . A ~H ( 3 N 1 i '4 / q1 • v vamp Small Depression Pond irype Wet Pine Flatwoods
f.-• ' t . :i ~ +an~'~''L .I~. ~ ~i.• •,ry 6, »5L .tS4, ~ . . ~ ~ ,•'M~1„ n. ~K- r?: 4 p r:. ~ „ ~ - ` N _ f ~ • ' r6ed Xeric Sandhill Scrub
~.`gT"'_ J 1 600 11 ,zoo 2,400 ~ Figure No.
' _ Figumpmp~AWVIO ' Feet 19G f MWkey FieN Dhservatbns !{arcd: 10#1110
N

. - I~'~ +F~ - - ~,e. ;l~-• ' ~'t' ` , y R.. ~~~t . . .
O' RIDf ' STU] „ F--- - RIDOR STUDY - Natura! Communities
D• • T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
' o ' : ew Hanover & Pender Couniies, NC
- ~a r
W ,
4
. • - ~ . • ' !~t ' :rX~F F ` , 1 f - ~ Vl,S ? y. tl~ - x. . ' . .~r~.•r~ - ~ t _ ~
y
~rr? ' . ' ' .~b~ n J: 1~rqLx t aaw, . . .l O..
> - •1 - ~ ~ .w JJ~~ ~ ~ ~y~ , y ~ . ~ ~ ` r n t / ~ ~ ~ •
. ~ . . . . e ,h~ . ~ ~ ~ . ? l.i~:~ y . . " - ~ ~ .
a ? - y . .~r ~J % . ~ ( f_ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ C) r._ ~ . ' - r'', .
c . ' 1 . . . / . ' ~ ..a~ ya, ` ; • • y ' • ~ -:~"4a~._...e:tr r~ ~ ~ ~'fe~~.~~.,,`lv ~ .~''ty't ~ K. \ f t~ 4~. 3 A. ~ ~P~'~
x h . .
, v . [ M1.~ ,.L ~ o .
~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ± ~ ' . . . ~ ~ ~~4~~ >°°'TDq . i ~sx ]'T . . { . ' ` a y. S 5 • . ~ . ~ .
~
,
• - ~ ~ ~ Flt~ Vi~ ~ Y, . ~ Y { . .t~. . N~ ) ~':~jk t h4i ~ ` '~•'r ~ykft .'J'a~~„'!`t~.i~'` a~J ~+•7% ~ A
I~ ( 1 ; „ J .

w"''!~~" 4 ~
. ~yO~ ' • p? 4 ~ ~t ~ ~}t
W.r~,~~., V~
~ kyil
~ 3 • w~ _ ~ - . • w! • I ~~ri ~ • ~ . . .r. , r"
~ . : 7• . . , ~ _ . ' ~h ' f . . . l. . ` ~ / r~
. • • a y? r~I ' , a. .n..~ . • ? , ' ~
• e • s +Mw I ~ , r~~' ~ . ' ~ .e':• . s , • • ~ ~ - ~ ° ~ ? 9 . 'q~Yw„ . ~ e 1~1!'r .''y+ l
~i ' . a M , . , . . . ~ : . o • . ;
M'~!" • . • 44%
; ' y~~ •
Jf; 3.r- • ~ ~
i ~ . ` . \ ~ '~•1~~
o 1 ~ . - • ~ • } ' ~ ~ ~ ' , • .
• l ~
f
y. . ~ • . ~ 1: ~..d. ~ Y ~ ~q> ~ Jy '"L •P ' ~1 ~ • /M,J •,a'~~-~.. <
Depression Pocosin 1 0 ~ . . • ? - _ ' ' + e a.~ • • r~~~.~? ~ .
Depressi , • + • • • Y~r..~%'PY1~1.~~ - ~ . f ~ ~ . . ? ? • . • ?
tfL. . . . . Map 19H - - • MaintainedfDisturbed .~J a > ,
'4' _ ^ ~ b~~. ky , . ' .1~~..
~ - ' - :l~. 8 r-. . . 0 600 1,200 2,400 i . Feet Figure No.
_ . ' ~ . , . • . . . Mulkey .Ob,te_tiam 0 : , , . Map 19G 19H , ~t

0'? a ` ~ - • ~
~~•ti Pill .~~q~~_ W " fj~ US 17 CORRIDOR STUDY - Nafura! Communifies ~
NCDOT TIP Projeci Numbers U-4751 & R-3300 ~
New Hanover & Pender Couniies, NC »
~ • .p ~ ~ + ~ ~ .a
q / o
.i
3 !
•~r~ :eaae
A/ r ~.~c~~ r '~'S~'' / ~ ' ..~~?..ra... Ary,!.._.
,
„A, ~ 1 •
• •°0° ~ . / •.a`a e~o
C;.~ ~e`#' -~c ,/•'~''1 1B~ ~r d • •tl ~ ~~y= 1 J ~~Y ~ r ~ ;~a4"~ - ~ ~ • ?
? ? • • • •
( ,i~F ~ . ~ : p q~ C .r_~,y ` ~ n.~1 1 a ? / ~ ~ ~ O .~i.~ ~Z..~~ 1 ~t__ G A ~ Is M ~ • •
y/ 4. C € 'j_jln . r .r .
' ~ .T~F - ~ , L TqIy ~ ~ ~1J~,~1 • < ~ , f~ A ~ ~A~'R,`.Y 1 . - ~ )i ~
, ` , # T , J • ~ f" ~ ~ . . ~y • ' 1. - 4:~r
Y~ - p !f"`~ ~~{Y. `7~(' ~ ~ :~M~ Ft~ 11 ~1 ' M~
'~=iz t~ :,/f: ~i, .I t~~i~ • .+.~e. 7. ~ ~ t ` .
~ ~i' ~?'s ' J, ~ J ~ 'I :L~ ~'r 5f ~ +r ',~yY~~ a" [j- y6 - . ~f' ".~'rAk ~ . _ _ I:l ~ ~ . f~.1•~• - . ' • ~ ar .
' " ~r~~ , .y-~ `~'rk~ 1 ' , ~i~;-- ' ~ ~ ~_9 - ~ ? • • • I s
_ _r { ' ''~~?'i~~~ ~ ~'"~~r~ F ~ i~J ~y •~r.. ~'Il~;r, ~.E'.yll[`~Ii~I~~ ~'slrj"~ r •
,~I~+S~. ~ ~is ~;t' ,~r. i } ,~z ~ ' l~~~ •
5
a ~ p
rf,~kN,''
, cri
fff,~r"~„ Y ~i {
t~:: - w , y rF•~ i.. ~
L q,
"'`^r' ~ ~j .~..s ~ County BOUndary` Mesic Pine Flatwoods M
k F~ ? 1 Map Grids Nonriverine SWamp Forest
NonriverineWetHardwoodFOrest ~ y Y' "i ..1~~ ,`'~b+ ~ NRTR StudyArea ~
Pine Savanna Coastal Plain 8ottomland HardwooU ~
- BlackwaterSuprype Pocasin Ir / CoasTal Plain Small Stream Swamp ~ pond Pine Woodland i .
- BlackwaterSubrype
~ Small Depression Pacosin - ' R+4 Cutover ~ ~ . Y T ~~t" 1 I - '~.r
Lypress/Gum SWamp Small Depression Pond -6lackwaterSubrype , WetPineFlalwoods
.i .n t MaintainedfDisturbed XericSandhillScrub
~ - ~ . ~ • 't . `!~'~r,, -
0 600 1,200 2,400 Feet ~ . ~ so~ . ; .
o=soumes: NcooT aoa Muikey Fam onseNatam - , FgurePrepared:101211W 4 ~

" US 17 CORRIDOR STUC RIDOR STUDY - Natura! Communities
NCDOT TIP Project Nu T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
New Hanover & P I i ~ ew Hanover & Pentler Couniies, NC
I~ ~ r . F.
riI ` r • I,
. • . ~ II I ~i ~i •r .
- av .5. '~i - - _ ` I .
..~I' . . ' i. ' . \ .L_ 4_ ~ . . . . _ ' . ' _ . . ' . ~ . . a~ .
. 4~
~ .

tt" `
a r ;
~ ~
~ ' . . . ~ . . . . "
I :
r .
' Hally Shelte lally Shelter Gamelands
:r i
.
c~.~.s'~':'j? ~`_r
^
-~..._...s. ~ ~ ~ `~i~, ` ; ;e,Arr`
rk rJ
1.4
~ . / f' *A'~ J ~ .1
f.~Jy b R .M+ '
li[~~p ~A~,ytA sj ' L q '~6 my ea .ew,.ea a
' . ~dF'n ~ q a ~Yy 9k ~ 4~ I Le end y. ~ kx~~ry yy4~o S: Q ~
? C"',r~ Counry eoundary Iwesic Pine Flatwoais
M2p Grids tdonriverine Swamp Forest
0 tdRTRStudyArea fdonriverine Wet Hardwootl Forest a
Coastal Plain 6ottomland Hardwood ttomland Hardwood Pine Savanna
"iy, (L~~. ~ ~ . - 8lackwater Subrype Coastal Plain Small Stream SWamp irype . . . Pocosin iall Stream SWamp pond Pine Woodland
-8lackwaterSubrype itype
A a ti Cutuver ! Smali Oepression Pocosin
A CYpress/Gum Swamp ' ~ ~ ~ ,w ~ ~ 6lackwater Sub t/Pe vamp Small Depression Pond irype Wet Pine Flatwoods
r~.... s 4t .~,Ni . ,y rti~? ~ :r ~ ~ ' ~mn • i` ~ MaintainedfDisturpeci r6ed Xeric Sandhill Scrub
?~'~"~~4:~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ A~.~?t'~~
~?`~p, . ; ' ~ Vt- 600 1,200 z ,zoo 2,400 ~ Figure No.
EafaSOUZa:NCDOTandMWkeyFnYJDhservatbns ~ Figure Pre{a~: 10/21/10 ' Feet 19J f MWkey FieN Ohservatbns !{arcd: 10#1110

I O" Df' STU] RIDOR STUDY - Natura! Communities
D• • T TIP Project Numbers U-4751 & R-3300
~ - . o - : ' ew Hanover & Pender Couniies, NC
il
p.
l ~ 4
I t ~ ~'L''`IkPt1 . . . . . ' i -
iT. ~ r Q . - - _ - - tiP . - ' . ~ ' ' . _
~ic ~
T~FL- r Y 7 x , L
?/~t . . t I ~Fi3`/ ~F i _r_l~ . - _ +~ci1 - - . "4 „ +w~! ~r , .
, o
~ ;
~ _ • r r . s7 ':c ~,rJy ~ ~?~e; - • _ ' ' . . ~j `,.u v r: / ~ i y yt! . r,
.
y, 3 yL . Y Y.,'•: ! + i ,
FF ~
.y,~~t~d~ ` F
r ry^.~ \ R
.I~y'. { I~:~•~
, ~ I ~ ug 17' ' - . , ' ~ ~
_ . ~ .
. . ~ .~n • ~-.e ~S!. ~h . e ? a . HyF . Y'~l I } ~ I~ . . ~~~4~ ~ k I F ' . + y ';i• J~ N : - ,~.t ~ , -,~r. y~ , e I~~j ~e '~rt
~ I ` • ~ . ~ '.W f +i~ 1 h j~. ~
a ~ ~ ~n ~ ~ t ` ~ • ~ ~.~7~ ~ '~i ;
~ pµ• , _ . ~ .aR . ~ •`Ii~,~ I ~j; ~~M~s~ ~ Y ,°,fi a, C n
.9lP
, o . ; r: ..~Ie i ~~`j'. ~ , k T~. a~..ari yn •Yy' j+'s~.~
~ 1lJ-J
~ C~ 7 ~ , yf ~ i } - ~ - ~6~ ~ ~ '.t _ ~ ~ . - ~ ~ T~?_ ~ 5i ~L ~s ~ ' ;
.y, ' , ...p Y tiJ~ •
Vk 'yi'.` ~ ? ' y ~ i ~~•y ~ ' '
County ` . 6- ~Y`_~ " ~ ~ ~ t ~.1~ .fj~ L:;... ~ 'L I'Oesic Pine FlalWUats
v~~ ~ ~ ~ d_1 Mk} ~4 ^~r~l I.CP~' ~eli:,'• c ; . ~~:'1~ Boundary tdonriverine Swamp Forest
;~~.r . ~ , ~ ~ ~ s ~`/y~ ~ ,w. p~,:~_ , ~:i - , . ~.r;e fdonriverine Wet Hardwootl Forest a
ik ~ . v?(~, ttomland Hardwood Pine Savanna
T -1 f/ r,r•ASZ1~T. . I . ~ _ 7~ h4-a . t . ~ ' t . . ~ i ~~'~'~if ~L. ~f i.~'.~. ~S ,~f+~'M1'+~,r 9 irype . . . Pocosin iall Stream SWamp pond Pine Woodland
itype
re-~~-~ *Aaiiil;~ , ~ 4 ~ ~ . w~,. ~I`v , 7~~_s^vu'` (~I ~+`T ~ , :YCi CLitover Smali Oepression Pocosin
~ ~~''ry. - ! u~ . r r. ~ .v ~ y - ~ _ . ~ a ~`s~ - ~ .6. ~ • vamp Small Depression Pond irype Wet Pine Flatwoods
~ • . ~ y . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t,r~'v.>. Maintained/Disturbed r6ed Xeric Sandhill Scrub
~ , ^a .
C 600 1,200 ,zoo 2,400 ~ Figure No.
.1`~ ..y• ~ x Y f t~~~ y~Y~fl ~ 1~ ' ~ ' Feet 19K f MWkey FieN Ohservatbns !{arcd: 10#1110

~ a. ~
~ g f` } \ 7 ?
D¢ 030300070803 ~ pV° ~
~ lf Qa~ t ~ J ~ . , o ' i C ~i
~ q q q ~ a ~ o ~ a
4d O ! G11 f.E'l, . ,.p ,y C~reeX 1~LYaStS j r
l. ~ cseex ~d qr ~d
Hiiirisaf~c A • • RNxY CSeek A
~ ~ G4~+'" [y o. p~B~''. a.
~ 151.~wd ? ~ s ~ ~ n dr o 'Y ~
v~...~ ' a. ,
~ / - . ,10
7 .
~ ~ ~ ~\5 ? * ~ • ~ 0~ + ~ t J ~ O1dTopsn' s(3'
j `t5~ rA° ~ creek Q ~Cd :w C Siru'gem~ 10021 l gs a
0 eek 4 a Hdryst$tae~~' . ~ B t/ , ~ e G e
• o G 0
b1iII Cre~~ek Ch'awsoel ~r 9 % Atl • O 16et[s Cl~eek%
~
0 a
s;aaua 96 ° O vt., y eQ
a ~ R9 ~s ~ o a xR~ 17 ~ o
ti~ ~.'J • . Greew
~ ! ~ Chan~ael
17 ""`'imr~sro~ g ~ 5 $ 7;
y s qf~''` )
~ o
"Q„ fs. ~i~t Q~ 1~_ Br~ILer t-+.,' (~y,y Creek
y Fatch ~ 1
mumayvnieaa.(seI:za) . ~ Creek ~
~ .\Lran
01,41voel Legend Snti7h n Creek O °~~p~ ~ ~ • 1 Q
Currenf Defarled StudyAlfen sfarled StudyAltemafives
03. 3~}~~, e (J West f East of NC 210 of NC 210 West f East of NC 270
AI[ernalive M1 al[ernalive M1 Alternative E-H
Pager Alternalive M2 ~d~~ . Creek 3lternalive M2 Allernative R
(sq Alternative O 4lternative O Alternative U
!a ~OXa~ s p ` ° ° 0 O
~ ~ •Haona o-
r~'~ ~ 030203 Interchange Locatioi ' ~c Qkwv- Interchange Locations ~ HUC Boundary
A IY~rtio W SR 2649) ~ Major Roads MajorRoads CountyBoundary
~ DWQ Streams O City of Wilmington
WIlfYll gt011 DWQ Streams
~ ~ ry ~ NGCREWS Wetlani N4CREWS Weflands
F T- i
Prepared by: MULKEY Current Detailed Study Alternatives
14,000 Figure No.
Hydrotogie Unifs o 3,saa ~,aoo 14' Feet ~Feet ~
Prepared for: : US 17 Corridor Sfudy NCDOT TIP Projecf Numbers U-475'1 & R-3300 ~ata Sources: NCDOT, NCDENR and MWkey GIS nd Mulkey GIS LV
New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure P~•epa~~ed: 6/29l11 29111

APPENDIX B
AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
SECTION 4O4/NEPA INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
C O iV CU R R EN CE PO 1 NT N O. l
PURPOSE AI?l? NEE?
PROJECT TITLE: US 17 Corridor S??ud??, Ne«r I-I?iio?Tei ?ncl Pc.ric3er Counties, TIP Nc?s.
L'-4751 ai?d R-3300, St?itc Project No. 401 ?1. 1.1 _
P LJ R P O S E A h! a IV E E ? O? T F--i E P R O P O S E ? A C T I O N: 1?1 e?J L7]'?7 U ti E: C? f CF1 C?7 2 O? e C t
i5 rc? ini??ro?-e tli? tr?tftic carr?-in? cap?acit5r :tnc3 s?Fet?r of [l?e LJS 17 ?tnd I??larkcC SYrccit corridor
iiZ tl?e? ??rojcc-t <irt??t.
S-ruo?- AFZE.o.: Tl?e_ proposecl stLZC?3? ?ie;i is locatcc3 ?,??itl?iii poitic?ns c?f iiortheriZ \IeEv
N?no?-er Cotint?r and sou?h?-ii? Pendei CoLint??. Tt iti roL?gli15* Uoiiiielecl on ?vest U5r I-40, oFa
tlie n<?rTh b?- thc? \TOitlic.?st C:sipc? F?e?tr ?2itrer, Hc?]1>> S13eltei G?iiZCl?nds to tlic e?st, ?iid CJS 17
r? ? Tl?c sc ?uTli.
'I`h? ??ic?jc.ct tcai?i ti.is c,c?ncLiricd «ritli tl?c l?ui:pose ?iZd iZCCd fc?r tii? l?roposcd ?uc?jcct as
clcscri???d abc??-c.
_ NAME AGENCY ?ATE
,?--?---?-_ ._ .. .?.-? , J??` ?_
- -?'
/?? L%
?'?-// l -'? ? -??

? USt?C?.

NCDV?C?

?cvc?-r ? f ?
% ?r'- } ? c? z ?

`? _ I ??cC
i
f -?/- 0 6
?-?. =-/? ' ? ? --? u S ? Pt? ?, ? 2 ? i v ? -
1
_ ? ?, !
?- %
-
r.rc???izc
?- ,2./- o?
/`_ ?"`'
??'?j? ?"???? USf?\VS
NC:SHPO `>??!/??sC t_ -
G - ? 1 ? '??
rt???? -i?--?-- NCDCI?I ?,??'?/??? ??
f
??D\??' -
?L?'t-'vI %? - - - tY?1 IP rJ 7 ?Z ? / GF ?
'E, 1 i:, 14: 59 2 52 ??='O r 8 4 ,
Fra?_iE i_l?, F9;-
.'? EC'TIC7N 404INEPA 11`JTERAGEt*ICY AL°.?.REEh+1ENT
CCIhJCI.JRRENGF- POINT NL`]. 2
DErAiL.F?0 5's'uDy AL.'retar.,.aTtvCs r-ARRIFry rnRwARO
PRL),JF-r.r rtl-rLF-_ US ,l7 f?c,rri.dot Seucly, Netv .E-I1nov?? and T'etac{?z ?ae,,tiries, TII' Nos. U-4751
(Hatnpstead E3ypass) and R-3300 (Nti.ltkary Cuto.fEZtoad Ei:tcnsiarij, Sr,atc riroject No. 4019i,.1.7.
PuRpa?EAW-) NF-co OF r?-iE PRf.]PC1SEC7 Ac`rtOna-.The purpose of the Tiy 'I7 Cot,-.t?oar
Study is to irx,.pto-vc ehe td•a:FBc carrying c2paciiy and s<yfety Qf tk,e Y1S 17 -and 1vCarkct Stter,* coxizclor.ilt
thz, pr,oje:cr. arca.
AL-rERraArtlvE-q TO SruDr rt-4 C?E`P•ArL:
t A1t!''9:CI167C U-G ? i eS ? Nc, 3. .l1ltem?.tivc 1;. r?7 Yes D No
t;, /i).wmcitirre E-H ? Yes Na ?). 11J.ter:aativc S 1-7 Xes MNo
3. 11,1.kurnativ<: F-I ? Yes 0 No 10. l1,l.teinativc tJ ?YeG ? No
4. Aiter,r,auvc N Yes N riTo 11. 111teznntivc T_, ?Yp-5 E"l Nc±
5. Al.ter.native 0 ? Y-s ??10 12. Atte.rnari?c?e 1b'C.l ??.'es ?-] No
6. Altemarive P E] Yes Q Na 13. 111tettxatiw*e 1V[' X yes F--1 I\1
"+. A,ltem:irive Q E] Yes MNo
7'lxe project tcaan ?ias concttrred witb the a1teKna#ivcs to be carried far.?rard foe the proj?o4ed.
praject us indicate:d abave, This Concuxz4nce Pditit 2 form super,srdcs the (:oneurrence Pnint
2 frrttr? signGd oii A.ugnst 23, 2007.
NAM1?? AMENOY_ C7'ATE ?.
? --- ---- USrlCE??
r-- t
1-135El'11 ?-? ? 2z•s f o
- - T-IS .FWS
r ?
,
NMr_
J' L~
NC;I704 ? Z z iv
-?----?-? --- --?-
??.k.k ? ?.r\r? NCSHPC7
NcnN47 ? f
,
_ 2.?<-..?%' ?.?--? ? ?? -------- -
-• ----NC7-f?.:L r? ; c.>a„?---- -- -

---- NC1,'RC --
---m-?---
r f'? CL V 1 ? Lr^4r' ~ °r" ?? ? ??
WNW? ?12- a r,0
r
5ECT1(7N 404/NEPA INTERAC.,ENCY AEB'REEMENT
CONCLJRRENGE POINT NO. 2A
BRIQGING AND ALIGNMENT REYIEW
PROJEGT TITI_E: US 17 Corricior Study, N2w H1X10VeY 111d PCT1CICr CQU11TieS, TIP Nos. U-4751 (IYfilitary Cutoff
Itoad Estensiori) and R-3300 (I-Iainpstead Bypass), State Project No. 40191.1.1.
PURPDSE ANq N EEd OF"THE PROPD5ED ACT117N: `I'he purpose of tlie US 17 Corridor Study is to
improve d1e trafFic carrying: c1plcity anci "safety af the US 17 ancl Markel5treet coriidor in the pLOjcct area:
HYDRAULIG REGOMMENDATIDNS:
Site No. Strearn Name (I.D.)/Wetland I.D.
1 U'I' Futch Creek ('LS13)
2 ---
3 U I' Smitli Creek,(13SP)
4 ---
5 ---
6 U'I" Island Cxcek (ISA, ISB)
7 UTIIarrisons' Greek (ISI7)
8 I Iarrisqrzs Creek (I.SC, L5GC-, LSCF)
10 U'T' Island Creek (CSik,11S31)
11 UT Island Creek (rSH;FSI)
15 Island Creek, UT Tsland Gr. (FIBST, H13SFI)
16 U'I' Island Cxeelc (I IBSI32)
17 UT Harrisons Creek (HSX)
21 UT Island Creek (rSA)
22 UT Island Gieelc (FSE)
23 Godfrcy Creek (L,SD)
25 UT Island Crecl. (I-iBSG)
"Wetland I.D. I-Ivdraulic Structure
?%VF Retaui & extend existing 1@12'x8'
ICWD 1@9'Y8' RCBC
I3WI 2@7'x12' 1tCBC
D1tIC 1@9'x8' RCBC
UWA 3@12'xT RCIiC
IWN Minimum F-Iydraulic Bridge
IWI' 3@11'x8' RCBC rAtrilrnwr? H4dr?11c. #'?pe,
L?,? ???g?? or wlve?t
--- ?n???„?t>nr,uc M?riim?rn N?tckdu.l?? Pipp,
-- 1 r@12'x9' RCF3r an' (?.R.lmr.,rt
I313V(/I{ Minimum I-I}'draulic J3ridge
HBWll Dual 200' long bridges
1IIMii.' 3@10'19' RCBC
1AVFi 2 ir 11'x9' RCI3G
I'%Y/C 2@"12'x7'ItCIiC .
LlkvI 2 cr 9'x7' RGI3C:
F-IIiWF 1@9'18' RCBC
The project team has concutred on the major hydraulic structures and. sizes for the proposed project as
listed above.
N Annr•_ Au-r• tvcY
. -- -------- - :.._. -
-•-
_ -- l ti,\< 1:
_. ----
_. :=---- - --------- --
9???.c Us?.,,-S,
Ni 111:
_, .. . . _. _. .. '_ '__
! > < <?fU, '1 1/?tI (/ `((1,1
I ?
?.:./:6tL?.'-_?l.l)??1?
--
?
..Ncoml?
-
s'--?-": ?-? f / 1s-------- _
? - - ?- W,???c>
D f>Tc
S/z
6/ •'
??1?`f (! (J
. `?/J?ll! --
`?"-
7/q
/-= '? ------ -
v?
?..._
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed Military Cutoff Road extension
from US 17 (Market Street) to the proposed I-140 in New Hanover County (TIP No. U-4751)
and tlze proposed US 17 Bypass of Hampstead in New Hanover and Pender Counties (TIP No.
R-3300). These comments provide scoping infarmation in accordance with provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
A view of recent aeriai photographs of the project study area reveals a significant amount of
forested wiidlife habitat. Much of this forested land is likely wetland. New location projects in
uildeveloped land can have large negative effects on fish and wildlife habitat through direct
habitat loss and fragmentatiorl of remaining habitat. The effects of farest habitat fragmentation
usually extend well beyond the project footprint and can lead to local extirpation of forest
interior species and wildlife species which require large home ranges or that travel extensive
distances for all or part of their life history (e.g. black bear (Ursus americanus)). Roads often act
as physical bairiers to wildlife movernent andlor cause significant wildlife inortality in the fornl
of road killed animals. Forest fragmentation can lead to increased predation of some species and
iiiviiJt,tJV°d bivwii EiLUi.-7.:c?d nV?-.V•?i'llll rl ('Y?i(ltlG7VL ftL1.?vt? AJ U.L fv/J?l .»,.l »?.-nn??f-LLlti 1Ci. Q1 ? t1?+0'v y?Vlv 5+q nfr+p^}.-.-...?v..nI t-••',..4
? v YlnUSm EA 11 Vl11VVtlVplval 111Lb1(a11t
birds. Habitat fragmentation also often facilitates invasive andlor nonnative species colonization
of fragmented lands.
The two proposed projects are especially problematic for federally listed endangered and
tlireatened species. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected species known
to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can be found on
our web page at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countvfr.html . The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) database reveals several relatively recent occurrences of the federally
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and rough-leaved loosestrife
(Lysiniachia asperulae,f'olia) within the project study area and near potential alignments for the
two projects. These occurrences are clustered to the west of US 17 and north of the existing
terminus of Military Cutoff Raad. There is also a large concentration of red-cockaded
woodpecker clusters within the Hol1y Shelter Gaine Land. These birds are part of a designated
primary core population of the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Recovery Unit. The project study
area needs to be thoroughly surveyed for red-cockaded woodpeckers and rough-leaved
loosestrife and, if suitable habitat exists, any other species listed for New Hanover and Pender
Counties. It is important to note that even if no federally protected species is directly affected by
the project, the indirect effects of isolating small populations by roads may be an issue.
Sectian 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to j eopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process.
If you determine that the proposed actian may affect (i.e., Iikely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
For road improvement prajects such as widening, realignment, bridge replacement and culvert
replacement, the Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecalogical value important to the
watershed or region should be avaided. Proposed highway projects should be aligned
along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors or other previously disturbed
areas in order to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation. Highway shoulder and median
widths should be reduced through wetland areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated we±land systems should use existing crossIngs and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for sufficient wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
3. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydralogical functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough ta aileviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
Off-site detours should be used rather than constructian of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area sliould be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation,
including trees if necessary;
6. If unavoidable wetiand or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
7. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
far anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
8. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
9. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning pracess in order to resolve any conflicts that may arzse and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a"no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly ar indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be deterrnined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be empioyed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid o'r minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opporiunity to comment on this project. It is understood that a
scoping meeting will be held for this project. The Service would like to attend this scoping
meeting. Please inform Mr. Gary Jordan of the meeting location and date by phone at (919) 856-
4520, ext. 32 or by email at ga-y 'ordan gfws. ov. Also, if you have any questions regarding
our response, please contact Mr. Jordan.
?es Supervisor
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

` RECEIVED.OR4'
DEPARTMENT aF THE ARMY Division of Highw.*
WlLMING7'OW DISTRICT, CQRPS OF ENGINEERS P. o. aox 1890
QEC 10
WIL?AENCTON, NORTH CAR6LINA28402-'f890
IN REPLY REFERTQ December 3, 2047 t?ee«mstr?on "' .
PraJect Devebpment and
Enuironmentat A?natysis Srandt
Re,gulatory Division
SU137ECT: Actian DD 200101386, North Garolina Department of Transportation Projects U-:
` 4751 and R-3340;1VIilitary Cutoff Raad Extensian, and Hampstead Bypass
Mr. Matt Willcerson
Archealogy Group Supervisar
North Carolina Department ofTranspartation
Human Environment Unit
15$3 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1583
Dear Mr. Wi]kerson:
Reference is made to your letter dated November 16, 2007, in which you requested that
we define the undertaking and establish #he Area(s) of Patential Effects (APE) or perrnit area for
both historic structures and azchaeolagy for the construction of the Hampstead Bypass as well as
the Military CutaffRoad extension, Wilmingtan, New Hanover and Pender Counties, North
Carolina. These projects aze currently being reviewed gursuant to the NEPA/404 Merger process
and on which NCDOT and the State Historic Preservatian office are participating members.
Since the project daes not utilize federal funds, the Coxps of ?',ngineers will serrve as the
lead Fed.eral agency with respect to campliance with Section 106 of the National Histvric
Preservation Act. Based on the infarmation ive have available to us at this time, a section 444
permit will be required for canstruction of the project as it appeazs that it will require the
discharge of fill material into waters of the United States in any of the corridors cunently under
consideratian. However, as this project has only pragressed to.Cancurrence Point 2 and
delineations of waters and wetlands have not been conducted an a selected alternative, we aze
unable to provide specific information regarding the extent of the permit.azea or define the
undertaking pursuant tcs Appendi3c C of our regulations.
We have conduoted a preliminaiy review of the latest published version of #he National
Register of Historic Places and have reviewed the information that was provideti in the memo
da#ed Octaber 4T 2005 from Mr. Peter Sandbeck to Mr. Greg Tharpe and have no additional
information to pravide at this time. As this project moves through the NEPA/404 precess and a
preferred corridor is selected, we will be abte ta mare accurately define the permit area(s) as
requested. Qf course, we alsa wauid expect that as a member of the 1VBPA./404 Merger Team
-2-
that yaurs as well as SHPU's input into the evaluatian of cozridors will a11ow NCDf)T to fully
consider any impacts ta historiclarcheolagical praperties prior to selection of a LEDP,A and by
copy of this letter are requesting tha# SHPO provide any additional information concerning such
resowrces they may have to your affice.
If additianal surveyslstudies are warranteci as a xesult of the Merger Process, it is our
intention to further coordinate with your office in order to fulfill our obligations in the Section
106 process. If you have further questions, piease cantact me at (910) 2514611.
Sincerely,
-&'? yl?'k..
Brad snaver, Project Manager
VYilmington Regulatvey Field t3ffice
Copy Furnished (wlout enclosure)
Renee Gledhill-Earley
Enviranmental Review Caardinator
Administration Branch
North Carolina Historic Freservativn Office
4617 Mai1 Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-4617
DEPAR7MENT OF THE ARMY
WELN!lNGTQN DISTRICT, CC}RPS OF ENGfNEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENiJE
wILMiNGroN, NQRTH CAROLINA 2$403-1343
RbPLY TO
ATT£N'FION OF:
June 2, 2010
Regulatory Division
Action ID Na. 2007 1386
Mr. Jay Mclnnis
NCDOT,PDEA
1598 Mail Service Center
Ra.Ieigh, NC 27699-1598
Dear Mr. McIzanis.
Reference is made to Transportation Improvement Project U-4751 and R-3300, also
referred ta as the Hampstead Bypass, which originates near the current terminus of Military
Cutoff Road at US Highway 17, extending to the north of Hampstead as a bypass, north
and west of the of the existing Highway 17 corridar, New Hanover and Pender Counties,
North Carolina.
Based on coardinatzon within the Merger process and jurisdictional effarts to date it
is clear that any praposed improvements along the study carridor wili likely impact
multiple stream systems, rnast natably Harrisans Creek, Godfi•ey Creek, and Island Creek,
an.d their nuznerous tributaries. Tlaese resource areas provide a number of benefats to
receiving water including the attenuatian and de-synchronization of flond events,
improvements to water quality ip dawnstreatn receiving waters, and the uptake and
transformation af many bialogically active eompouncis. These areas also provide valuable
wildlife habitat for a variety of birds, mammals, amphibian.s, and reptiles. In addition, a
number of the aforementianed Creeks znay provzcte suitable spawning and foraging habifiat
far thxeatened and endangexed speczes. Yau should be aware that we cansi.der these
wetlands and tributaries to be of high quality and therefore believe that aIl efforts should be
undertaken to avoid and minimize impacts. These effarts sbould include when practicable,
brzdgzng fia avoid wefiland, stream arid/nr flood piain impacts, utilizing off site detiours,
eznploying temporary work bridges during prpject construction, and the rernoval of any
approach fills not necessary for this pxoject.
As there zs no Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) fixnding for this praject and it will
require a pennit frarn the Wilmington Distxzct, U.S. Aimy Corps of Engineers {Coxps} under
authority of Section 404 af the Clean Water Act and/or Sectipn 10 of the R.zvers and Harbors Act,
the Corps will be the lead federal agency for ensuxing coxn.pliance with National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Although FHWA wzll not be involved, we believe that this project should
cantinue to be caxxied farward thraugh the Merger Process in accordance with the 2005 Merger
2
agreement. In addition, we suggest that you revzew Appendix B of the Carps of Engineers
regulations (found at 33 C.F.R. § 325, Appendix B) regarding NEPA eompliance and Sectian 404
of the Clean Water Act to assist in your NEPA planning efforts.
Based on aux inxtial evaluation af the project, we believe that this project will require an
Environmental Irripact Stafierzaent (EIS). Altliough we will not require that a third party contract be
executed for the preparation of this document, we want to stress that it is our intent that this
document will becoTne the Corps of Engineers' NEPA document for this projec-t. To this end, we
will need ta ensuxe that the contractor preparing the EIS does not have any finarzcial interest in the
outcome of the NEPA or 404 pennit process. T have enclosed a diselosure statement that must be
signed by the Iead eontractor developing the dacument and returned ta us for our ?'iles. In
addition, we will need to be invited to any public scoping meetings and/or puhlic hearings yau
may hald eonceming this project, and may need to hold hearings or scoping rrieetings of our own.
In accordance with the Cauncil an Environmental Quality (CEQ) requirements, we have
pubiished a Notice of Intent (NOI) ta prepare an EIS in the Federal Register and will be
responsible for distribution of the draft and final EIS to EPA and the public far review and
camznent. Fina.liy, it is caur intention to prepare our own Recard af Decision (ROD) for the
project once the EIS has been f nalized. As the Corps will be the lead fed.eral agency on the
project, a.nd holds ultirnate responsibiiity for the content of the EIS, it will be incumbent upan
NCDOT to provide advance copies oft the ETS to the Corps far revievv and appraval pxior to NC
D4T's circulation of the document to any otiier agency or to the pubizc.
Department of the .A.rxny (DA) permit authorization, pursuant to Sectian 404 of the Clean
Water Act of 1977, as amended, vvill be required for the discharge of excavated nr fill material in
waters of the United States including streams and wetlands in conjunction with this project,
ineluding disposal of constxuction debris. Under our mitigation policy, ixnpacts ta wetlands should
first be avoided and minimized. We will then eansider cornpensatory mitigatiozz far unavoidable
impacts. When final plans are compieted, including the extent and location of ariy work in
wetlands, aur zegulatory branch would appreciate the opportunzty ta review these plans for
project-specific determinatians of DA perznit requirements.
During the alternatives analysis phase, the Corps, as lead Federal agency, would reeommend
that ali investigatinns for Historic Psoperties, Essential Fish Habitat ar3d Threatened and
Endangered species be conducted in accordance wath survey level investigations as canducted
now on any Federal aid project. In order to ensure that our requirements pursuant to Sectian 146
of the Historic Preservation Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Canservation
Act, and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act are met, we must be invited to any coordination
and/or cansultation meetings with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMF'S), ancllor the US Fish and Wzldlzfe Service. 4nce the Corps
effect(s) determinations have been rzxade, we expect that NC DOT will prepare appropriate
clocumentation (eg, Biological Assessments, Surveys for historic/archealogical features, EFH
doctunentatian) and forwa.rd to the Corps for review prior to transmittal to the apprapriate agency.
Environrnental Justice (EJ) issues {if a.ny} will need ta be clea.rly identified and adequately
addressed in the NEPA dflcument. Depending on the level and sevexity of zmpacts, addztional
public invalvement anci autreach rnay be necessary in order to fully satisfy our requirements
under the EJ Executive Order,
If you have any question as tlie project maves forward, please do not hesitate to
contact Brad Shaver, Div 3-DOT Project Manager in the Wilnnington Regulatory Field
Offce at 910-251-46I 1.
SincerelY,
qScott Mc endan
Aeting Chief, Regulatory Division
Enclasure
Copies furnished (wzthout enclosure):
NCDOT, Division Three
Attn: Mason Herndon
124 Division Dzive
Wiiming,;ton, NC 28401
Mr. Pete B en jamzn
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Pos# Office 8ax 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Chris Militscher
United States Environmental Protection Agency
4ffice af Environment Assessmant
310 Nevv Bern Avenue, Room 206
Raieigh, North CaroIina 27601
Mr. Travis Wilson
North Carolina Wiidlife Resources Comanission
1142 1-85 Service Road
Creedmaar, Nozth Carol`zna 27522
4
Mr. Steve Sallod
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
2728 Capztal Bivd.
Raleigh, Noi-th Caroiina 27604
Mr. R.on Sechler,
NOAA Natianal Marine Fisheries Service
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
Davzd Wainwrigh.t, Nozth Ca.rolina Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Depart-ment aE Environment anci Natural Resources
1550 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. 2007 1386 County: New Hanover/Pender U.S.G.S. Quad: Multiple puads
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Applicant: NCDOT - PDEA Agent: Mulkev Engineers and Consultants
Address: attn: Amy James attn: Mark Micklev
1598 Mail Service Center 6750 Trvon Road
Ralei2h, NC 27699-1598 Carv, NC 27518
Property description
Size (miles) approximatelv 13 Nearest Town Hamnstead
Nearest Waterway Multinle tributaries River Basin Cane Fear
USGS HUC 03030007 Coordinates N 34.3500 W 77.7622
LocaCion description The nroiected corridor orisinates iust north of Wilmin2ton near Militarv Cutoff Road New
Pianover Coijntv and tercminaxes iust north of Hamnstead adiacent to Hollv Shelter game lands Pender Countv.
Indicate Which of the Followin2 Applv:
A. Preliminary Determination
X Based on preluninary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have
this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of the Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a
jurisdictional deternunation must be verified by the Coips. This preliminary detemunation is not an appealable action
under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331).
B. Approved Determination
_ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described properry subject ta the permit requirements of
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Unless there is a change zn the law ar
our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ There are wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be
relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your property delineated. Due to the size of your properiy and/ar our
present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. For a more timely
delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps.
_ The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps.
Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property
which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed
five years.
The wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps
Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change zn the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the C1ean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at [phone] to determine
their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this
determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Brad Shaver at 910-251-4611.
C. Basis For Determination
The subiect features had both an ordinarv hi2h water mark and characteristics described in the 1987 Corps
Delineation Manual.
D. Remarks
The site was reviewed with Mulkev Engineers and Consultants from Apri12008 to Apri12010. This preliminar_y
determination is based on the delineation packa2e submitted bv Mulkev dated June 2010. The CD information which
represents the preliminarv JD is covered bv Figures 3-1 throush 3-23 and covers over 500 aquafic resources.
Corps Regulatory Official: i-a A.'(-
Date 8/30/2010
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to
do so, please complete the attached customer Satisfaction Survey or visit
http:.`/-,vww.saw.usace.armv.mil/WETLANDS/index.htznl to complete the survey online.
Copy furnished:
NCDENR-DWQ attn: Mr. David Wainwright 1650 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
NCDENR-DWQ attn: Mason Herndon 225 Green Street, Suite 714 Fayetteville, NC 28301-5043
NC DOT Division 3 attn: Anneliese Westphal 124 Division Drive Wilmington NC 28401
ATTACHMENT
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATiON FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL
DETERMINATION (JD): A?f.?J f. 3p,Zc??c
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Amy E. James
NCDOT Natural Fnvironment Unit
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Nj,??''?1?j?,
f-4 _4r.,J By? ff C k? Y? s?), 204 ?- r3a6
D. PRO ECT LOCA ION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE ATTACHED TAB1.E TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE
WATERBODIES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: New Hanover/Pender City: Hampstead
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat. 34.350017° Long. -77.762207° Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Island Creek/Godfrey Creek/Narrison Creek
Identify (estimate) amount of waters in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: (Stream) 147,172.9 linear feet: (Pond) 33.0 acres.
Cowardin Class: see waters upload table
5tream Fiow:
Wetlands: 2,858 acres.
Cawardin Class: see waters up/oad table
Name of any water bodies on the site that have been iden#ified as Sectian 10
waters:
Tidal: N/A Non-Tidal: N/A
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT
APPLY):
? Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
r;? Field Determination. Date(s): multiple dates Apri12008 through Apri12010
1. The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional waters of the
United States on the subject site, and the permit applicant or other affected party
who requested this preliminary JD is hereby advised of his or her option to
request and ohtain an approved jurisdictional determination (JD) for that site.
Nevertheless, the permit appficant or other person who requested this
preliminary JD has declined to exercise the option to obtain an approved JD in
this instance and at this time.
2. In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or
a Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other generaf permit verification requiring
"pre-construction notificatian" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting
NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an
approved JD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware of the
following: (1) the permit applicant has e(ected to seek a permit authorization
based an a praliminarv ,JD, vvhich does not make an official determination of
jurisdictional waters; (2) that the applicant has the option to request an approved
JD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and
that basing a permit authorization on an approved JD could possibly result in less
compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) that
the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting
the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4)
that the applicant can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply
with all the terms and conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation
requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5) that undertaking
any activity in reliance upon the subject permit autharization without requesting
an approved JD constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use o# the
preliminary JD, but that either form of JD will be processed as soon as is
practicable; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a preliminary JD constitutes agreement that all
wetlands and other water bodies on the site affected in any way by that activity
are jurisdictional waters of the United States, and precludes any challenge to
such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement
action, or in any adminis#rative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether
the applicant elects to use either an approved JD or a preliminary JD, that JD
will be processed as soan as is practicable. Further, an approved JD, a proffered
individual permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual
permit denial can be administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331,
and that in any administrative appeal, jurisdictional issues can be raised (see 33
C.F.R. 331.5(a)(2)). If, during that administrative appeal, it becomes necessary
to make an official determination whether CWA jurisdiction exists over a site, or
to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional waters on the site, the Corps will
provide an approved JD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable.
This preliminary JD finds that there "may be"waters of the United States on the
subject project site, and identifies all aquatic features on the site that could be
affected by the proposed activity, based on the foflowing information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for preliminary JD (check all that apply
- checked items should be included in case file and, where checked and
requested, appropriately reference sources below):
29 Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the
applicant/consultant: .
?2 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the
applicanUconsultant.
RC3ffice concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
? Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
? Data sheets prepared by the Corps: .
? Corps navigable waters' study:
? U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
? USGS NHD data.
? USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
X U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: .
? USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
? National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
? State/Local wetland inventory map(s): .
? FEMA/FIRM maps: .
? 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum
of 1929)
? Photographs: ? Aerial (Name & Date)
or ? Other (Name & Date):
? Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Signature and date of
Regulatory Project Manager
(REQUiRED)
?
5 2`f
Signatu e a date of
person requesting preliminary JD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
ROther information (please specify): L:?2-
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
Subject: Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form NRCS-CPA-
106
i 4407 Bland Road, ?
Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
[phone] ?
[e-mail] ?
1899
C E N 1 E N N I A L
Date: August 26, 2010
File Code: 310-11-11
The following information is in response to your request asking for infonnation on farmlands for the US 17
Corridor Study, which includes Military Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover, and the Hampstead
Bypass in New Hanover and Pender Counties.
Prime farmland does not include land already in or committed to urban development or water storage.
Prime Farmland "already in" urban development includes all land that has been designated for commercial
or industrial use or residential use that is not intended at the saine time to protect farmland in a
To: Andy Belcher
Planner/GIS Technician
Mulkey Engineers & Consultant
Cary, NC
1. Zoning code or ordinance adopted by the state or local unit of government or,
2. A comprehensive land use plan which has expressly been either adopted or reviewed in its entirety
by the unit of local government in whose jurisdiction it is operative within 10 years preceding the
irnplementation of the project.
According to the zoning maps provided, the area in New Hanover County meets the above criteria.
NRCS-PA-106 forms have been completed. The area is exempt. No need to evaluate impact on fannland.
The area in Pender County was evaluated following the same procedure. Areas that are not exempt were
evaluated. NRCS has coinpleted Parts II, IV and V as required by the Farm Land Policy Act Register.
If you have any question please feel free to call me at [phone].
?
Cortes
it State Soil Scientist
The Natural Resources Conservation Service works hand-in-hand with the
American people to conserve natural resources on private land AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106
Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev. ?-s1)
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CQRRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
PART i(To be complefed by FederalAgency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request
3I9l10
sneet 1 ot 1
1. Name of Project Military Cutoff Road Extension, U-4751 S. Federal Agency Involved
State Funded
2. Type of Project Roadway extension on new location 6. County and State New Hanover County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) 1 Date Request Received by NRCS 2 Pglson ompleGng Form
L/; % I C. G v-fc- !;
3 Does the corndor aontain prime, urnque statewide or local important farmiand?
(If no the FPPA does not apply - Do nat completP addiUonal parts of this form)YES ? MG ? 4 Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
5 Major Crop(s) 6 Farmable Land in Government Junsdiction
Acres: / 7 Amount of Farmland As Defined m EPPA
Acres: /o
8 Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
. ,? , 9 Name of Local Site Assessment Sysfem 10 Date Land Evaluation Relumed by NRGS
PART Ill (To be completed by Federa! Agency)
Alternative Corridor For Segment
M1 M2
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 118.62 119.75
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services 0 0
C. Total Acres In Corridor 118.62 119.75 0.00 0.00
PART IV (To be compJeted by NRCS) Land Evaluation lnformation
A Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B Total Acres 5tatewide And Local lmportant Farrnland (J
C Percentage Of Farmland m County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted ;
D Percentage Of Farmland in Govt Junsdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V(To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Infomtation Criterion Relafive
value of Farmland to Be Serviced or Converted Scale of U- 700 Poinfs
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor
Assessmenf Criteria (These criferia are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Maximum
Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10
3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed ZU
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Gavernment 20
5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10
6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25
7. Availablilit Of Farm Su ort Services 5
8. On-Farm Investments 20
9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25
10. Compati6ility With Existing Agricultural Use 10
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POIN7S 160 p 0 0 0
PART VI I(To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total CorridorAssessment (From Part VI above or a locai site
assessment)
160
0
0
0
p
TOTAL POIMTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 0 0 0 0
1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be
Converted by Project: 3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES [-] NO ?
5. Reason For Selection:
Signature of Person Completing this Part: DATE
NO7E: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE NRCS-CPA-106
Natural Resources Conservation Service (Rev. 1-s1)
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FOR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
PART I(To be completed by Federal Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request
3/9(10
sneet 5 of 5
1. Name of Project Hampstead Bypass, R-3300 5. Federal Agency Involved
State Funded
2. Type of Project gypass of Hampstead on new location 6. County and State New Hanover County, NC
PRRT (I (To be Completed by NRCS) 1 Date Request Received by NRCS 2/ P{ers n Completing Form ?
3 Does the corridor contam prime: unique statewide or local important farmland? YES ? No ?
(if no, the FPPA does not apply - Do nut complete additional parts of this form) 4 Acres Irrigated Average Farm SizE
5 Major Crop{s) 6 Farmable Land in Governmern Junsdir.tion
Acres % 7 Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
8 Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
?
-. f ? , 4 I _s, 9 Name of Local Site Assessmeni Sysiem 10 Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
?{
? / // ?V ?d
enc
PART III (To be com
leted b
Federal A
) Alternative Corridor For Segment
p
y
g
y EH3 03 R3 U3
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 261.07 274.65 245.86 185.60
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services 0 0 0 0
C. Total Acres In Corridor 261.07 274.65 245.86 185.60
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation lnformation
A Total Acres Pnme And Unique Farmland 6'
B Total Acres Statewlde And Local Important Farmland
C Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt Unif To Be Converted
D Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Junsdiction With 5ame Or Higher Relative b'alue 0
PART V(To be completed by /YRCS) Land Evaluation Information Criferion Relative
value of Farmland to Be Servfced or Converted Scale of 0- 900 Points
PART VI (To be compJeted by FederalAgency) Corridor
Assessment Criferia (These criteria are exp/ained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Maximum
Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10
3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20
4. Proiection Provided By State And Local Government 20
5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10
6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25
7. Availablilit Of Farm Su ort Services S
8. On-Farm Investments 20
9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25
10. Compatibiliiy With Existing Agricultural Use 10
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 p 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by FederalAgency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 160
Total CorridorAssessment (From Part VI above or a local site

assessment)
160

0

0

0

0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 0 0 0 0
1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be
Converted by Project: 3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES [-] NO ?
5. Reason For Selection:
Signature of Person Completing this Part: DATE
S
NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
FUR CORRIDOR TYPE PROJECTS
NRCS-CPA-106
(Rev. 1-91)
PART I(To be completed by Federai Agency) 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request
3/9110
Sheet 4 of 5
1. Name of Project Hampstead Bypass, R-3300 5 State FUnded olved
2. Type of Project gypass of Hampstead on new location 6. County and State pender County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) 1 Date Request Received 6y NRCS 2 Person Completing F rm ?(/ -
' i C,?-?e (s k G o?
3 Dnes the corridor contain prime, uniyue statewide or local important farmland?
(If no, rhe FPPA does not aoply - Do not compleie additional parfs of this form) YES ? No ? 4 Acres Irrigated AveragP Farm Size
/?? 4CV,?,S
5 Major Crop(s)
C 0? v1 6 Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction
Acres: 1'I2- 7 ?,:? y °/, 76 Z 7 Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres 3V 30 %{po2
8 Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Tev,8e,v 9 Name of Local Site Assessment System
,r /'? 10 Date Land Evalua ion Retumed by NRCS
t? /iI *,v / d
PART III (To be com
leted 6
Federa! A
enc
) Alternative Corridor For Segment
p
y
g
y EH2 02 R2 U2
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 312.84 294.22 294.18 167.46
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly, Or To Receive Services 0 0 0 0
C. Total Acres In Corridor 312.84 294.22 294.18 167.46
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation lnformation
A Total Acres Pnme And Unique Farmland 67.19 59• / 0 • T. -93
B Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland "] 2,. 3 6 d Z(jj. '1 . Cj
C Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted . cy0i 010306 0.0306 U. d
D. Percentage Gf Farmland in Govt Junsdictian With Same Or Higher Relatlve Value j, 7,1
PART V(To be compieted by NRCS) Land Evaluation Irrformatlon CriEerton Re/ative
value of Farmland to Be Serofced or Converted Scale of 0- 400 Pornts ?? y ?? ?L
PART Vl (To be completed 6y Federa/ Agency) Corridor
Assessmenf Criteria (These criferia are expJained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Maximum
Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15 7 ?J
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10
3. Percent Of Corridor Being Farmed 20 p?
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0
5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10
6. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmiand 25 a a
7. Availablilit Of Farm Su ort Services 5 3Z o2
8. On-Farm Investments 20
9. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 a a
10. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 p tat? 0 ? 0 ? 0-1'?
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
Total CorridorAssessment (From Part VI above or a local site
assessment)
160
Q
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 Irnes) 260 Q 0 0 0
1. Corridor Selected: 2. Total Acres of Farmlands to be
Converted by Project: 3. Date Of Selection: 4. Was A Local Site Assessment Used?

YES E] NO ?
5. Reason For Selection:
Signature of Person Completing this Part: DATE
NOTE: Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternate Corridor
? w S?'Atp
Nlichael F. Laslc}-, Govcmor
Lisbcth C. f ?,vans, Secrctary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
October 4, 2005
MEMORANDUM
Office of;lrehivcs and History
Division of Ftistorical 12csourees
David Brook, Dircctor
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Bxanch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck
SUBJECT: Military Cutoff Road Extension in New Hanover County and Hampstead Bypass in
Pender County, u-4751 and R-3300, New Hanover and Pender Counties, ER 05-2123
Thank you fox your letter of September 8, 2005, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and lacated the following structure of historical ox
architectuYal importance within the genexal area of this project:
?(NH 558) St. Stanislaus Catholic Church, SW corner of NC 133 and SR 1377.
?(NH 562) (Former) Ft. Fisher Barracks, NW corner of SR 1002 and Orange St.
?(PD 3) Poplar Grove, SE side US 17, S of jct. with SR 1572.
?(1'D 255) Lillington Cemetery, N of NC 210, on Study List.
?(1'D 254) Governor Samuel Ashe Grave, S side of SR 1411, (Old River Rd.)
?(PD 224) Jesse Batson House, E side SR 1411, 1.7 miles NE of jct. with US 117.
?(PD 206) Houses, SR 1418 W of US 117 both sides, on Study List.
?(PD 36) Sidbury House, E side US 117, 0.3 miles S of jct. with SR 1411, Locally Designated.
?(I'D 223) Roland Batson House, E side US 117.
We recommend that a Department o£Txansportarion architectural historian identify and evaluate any
structures ovex fifty years of age within the project area, and report the findings to us.
We have reviewed the scoping information sheets for the Military Cutoff Road Extension and the Hampstead
Bypass and would like to comment.
Concerning the Nlilitary Cutoff Road Extension to the Wilmington Bypass, only the area in the immediate
vicinity of the Military Cutoff Road and US 17 intersection has been previously surveyed for the presence of
archaeological resources.
? D
??? ?
?
?
-od
North Carolina Department of Cu7.tural Resour
State Historic Preservation Office v) "V Af E N'?:..
?._..
I'cter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Locarion Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Rlount Stccct, Ratcigh NC 4617 Mail Setwice Centcr, Ralcigh NC 27C,')I-4117 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Stceet, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801
SURVEY & PLANIVING 515 N. 131ount Steeet, Raleigh, NC 4617 NSail Scizicc Center, Ralcigh NC 27699-4117 [phone]'715-4801
Concerning the US 17 Hampstead Bypass, none of the area indicated on page 3, "Construct Bypass of US17
around Hampstead on new locarion", has been surveyed for the presence of archaeological resources.
Please be aware that both ptojects may require archaeological surveys to be performed within the project
corridots when they are selected. We would be pleased to assist you in the development and xeview of any
scopes of work, proposals, or other documents relating to this matter. If significant archaeological sites axe
identified, appropxiate measures should be taken to minimize adverse impacts.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Secrion 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919 733 4763. In all future
communicarion concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Kate Husband, PDEA/OHE
Federal Aid #: NA TIP#: U-4751/R-3300 County: New Hanover & Pender
,
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Military Cutoff Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass
On March 8, 2011, representatives of the
EeNorth Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
? North Carolina State Historic Pr servation Office (HPO)
? Other USACE Q?
Reviewed the subject project and agreed on the effects findings listed within the table on the
reverse of this signature page.
Signed:
?hl?f ?A4? 3/9/ rr
Representative, USACE Date
Representative, HPO Date
State Historic Preservation Officer " Date
1",
so
?
b
a
d
a
?
d
O
?
?
?
z
?
?
?
v
0
0
M
M
?
?
?
?
?
r?
Ez
z
Q
?
?
0?
M -- ] I T
?
11
....C.?- M
? ?
?CI

?-- ?n

r ?
,?-`"

ti„ ?
CL J?
..
et

cl-

?
C4 . ,

?
W
IiI
ii

U
•M
m4
lz?

CL Or., al ? ? ? •° '?' v
?
a ?
a. ?
a;U U
oW
v?Q
..yt
C ??U
aW
HQ ?U
oW
?Q a? o•?,
a??
3?U
?
?
?
w
Q
?
?
46
?
Q
U
z
.y
?
I':I,EARIP?GNOUSE COORD REG'ON C
CAPz FEAR CC)C3
14 8G Hkl'kBGL'R D3iIVE
WTl,PhzNGTOt+! idC
RrVIEW DIS'FRIBiJmION
CAPE 1"EAR COi?
CC&PS -^ DEif, NEi ?'
X3EFtislt - CqASx'AL h1G`.l'
DEFJ?' LEG:CS,T..FsTIVE ATrAxRS
pEPT CL•' AGRICi3L^URE
DEF'7' Ok' CCTW RESO{7RCES
bEP'f QF mcR,A?dSPqRTAi2qN
? PRG„E:':T 7IiE"C`rltMAilGiN
APPLiCAt,7T: N.C. Cepsrtment Of T???ZppL9ta.or.
TYPE: National Environmental Paliay Act
k;:cL' : _Qr_ ssping
DE5C; Miiztax3: Mutogf extension fraat JS 7.7 (MaxkPt Street) to Lhe pzoposed I-I4C a.r New
Hanover caun:y & ttS 17 bypass of Hampstead Ln New liaaover b Fenfler Cpuntit3.
"<he attac;led pxojecr has baen suhmiLtac3 to the tJ. C. ?otate Cleari,?Yghouae ?or
xntergcsver:?rhental rev?,cw. Ples?te review and submit your resgar??e i?y the nborre
a.cidica;.ed ci&d:E to 130; N,a;;,1 aqrva,ce Centez, Raleigh NW 27699Y1301.
_k addi-`anal revzew t:4ne 3.s naedsd, plaase cor,tact this pff-'ce at ;919130"-2425.
A5 A RESC3i1T 02' T5iI"a RFvIStI THE rQLLqWrNG 78 808MiTTED,
ID PaQ CGMMENT
?
SIGNEJ HY:
C1A'S k :
('? ?v
DEPARTNiEfVT OF ENViR4NMENT AND
NATURALRESQURCES
DIVfSIOfV C)F ENV1RONMENTAL MEALTH
o6-o1o7
COUC1ty
New Haiiovex•
lnfer-Agency Fraject Review Respanss
Project Name NC DQT Type of Project Military Cutoff Road I;xtezlsian
from US 17 (Marlcet St?°eet) to tlie
Camm?nts provided ?y: proposed I-140 in New Hanavex•
Regiona! Prngram !'erson CoLinty & US 17 Bypass.
? Regiona! Supervisor fnr Public Wa#er Suppiy Section
? Centrai Office program person.
Name: Debi•a Ben4y-Wilrnangtora RO pate; 11-02-05
Telephone number:
Program within Division of Env'sranrr?enfaf Health
CI Public watar supply
? Other, Name af Pragram:
?
Response (check alf applicab3e): ? 0
? No objec#ion tca project as propased ?, ?
? No comment -A-
? Irtsufificient informatian to complete review
`a
o cornments atcachea
See comments be[ow
c 4

?
Retur„ to:
#'ublic Wafer Supply Sectinn
EnvironrnentaE Review Caordinafar
far the
Division of Enviranmental Health
7NOC!V 0 7
?UU7
DEPARTMENT tJF ENVIRGNIUIENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES
DIVISfON QF ENVIR?'JNMENTAL HEALTH
Inter-Agency Project Review Response
Project Name
SAM.E AS QN THE .FRONT
Pro ect Nurnber
oa,o7
County
Nerw HaTiave:•
Type of Project
? The applicant should be advised that plans and specifications far a1l water system
improvements must be approved by the Division of Enviranmental Fiealth prior ta the
award of a cnntract or the initiation af construc#ian (as required by 15A NCAC 18C
.0300et. seq.). For infarmation, contact the Pub[ic Water Supply Section, (919)
733-2321.
? This proje.ct will be classified as a ncsn-community public water supply and must comp[y
with state and federaf drinking water monitoring requirements. For more information the
appiicant should contact the Public Water 5uppiy 5ection, [phone].
[] It this praject is constructed as proposed, we will recorrtmend closure of feet af
adjacent waters to the harvesf of shellfish. For information regarding the shelifish
sanitafion pragram, the applicant should contact the Shellfish Sanitation 5ection at (252)
726-6827.
Q 7he soil disposal area(s) praposed for this prqject may produce a mosquita breeding
problem. For information concerning apprapria#e rrtasquitn control measures, the
applicant should confact the Public Health Pest Management Section at [phone].
? 7he appEicant shauld be advised that prior to the re?noval or demolition of diiapidated
structures, a extensive radent control program may be necessary in order to prevent the
migration of the rodents to adjacent areas. For infnrmation concerning rodent control;
contact the Eocal health depar#ment or the F'ublic Fiealth Pest Management Sectian at
[phone].
? The applicant snould be advised to contact the lacal health department regarding their
requirements for septic tank installations (as required under 15A NCAC 18A. 1900 et,
sep.). Far infarmatian concerning septic tank ancf other on-site waste disposal rriethads,
contact the Qn-Si#e Wastewater Section a# [phone].
? The app4icant shou(d be advised to contact the lacal health department regarding the
sanitary facilities requirerf far this project.
IK If existing water lines wEil be reEacated during the construction, plans for the water line
relocakian must be submitted to the Divisian of Environmental Health, Fublic Water
5upply Section, Technicai 5ervices Branch, 1634 Mail Service Center, Rafeigh, North
Carolina 27699-1634, [phone].
For Regianal and Central Office comments, see the reverse side of this fvrm.
Jim McRight PWS 11-02-05
Reviewer Sec#ionlBranch Date
S:1PwslAngela VV1CiearinghousetRevievv Response Pgs 1 and 2 for inpu#.doc
43-04.1 PD-q 9103952684 P.02t03
adw,sN.um
M.S.{8RTMEb9.b4 OA i!'d4J6•dINtA.7J.RA,??A IV?S
TYTERG(?VE L3T? REVIEW
S:CATE ATiJtMERr 06--t-4220-810'7
F3ATE RECEZVEHI 10j10/2005
AGErrcY REsFONSr: 11f07l2005
REv?EW r.LOsEn; 31t10/2005
CLEP.RLtJGF3qUSE Ct1OF.I7 R?GIt?N ?7
CAF'r FEAR COG
1480 HARB(JGR DRIVE
WII,MINGTON NC
REVIEinJ CtTSTRIBUTZUiV
rAPE FEAR CpG
CC4z^S - DEM, NFI?
?EMNFt - COASTATW N,GT
UENR LEGZSLATIVE 13,FrRIRE
DEFT OF AGRICi7LTURE
DEpT oF cUL REsauRcES
aEPT UF 7°FtANSPORiAT:t9N
PR4JECT INFORM.STroN
:?.' 4
OCT Ms
-f?j?
AEP.i.,ICANT: 2d.C, Department Of 'Fxanspqratx9Sl
T'CFF;: National Environme*atal Policy Act
EAD: SC013iStg
DESC: Mikltaxy cuCr,ff e:stension fram US ;-' (Mazket 5treet) ta the propased Z-Yqq in New
Hanover County & U5 l7 bypass of HampsCead fn Newr Hanover & Pena,Rr ao,anties.
The attached project has been subzr<itted tcs the 4q. C:. SGate Clearinqhouse fvr
intergpvQrssmental review. ?Iease re*_Ticw an?[ *ubmat your respdnse by the abavv
zndicated date w.o 1301 Mail Servicc Center, Rti.leigh 1VC 27699-2301.
-7f add5.tional xev4ew time is needed, pZease co11tact this office At [phone].
AS A,?'tESl7LT dF T}ixa REViEW THE F'OLLL1WING IM 3UBIN7T?`Ep:
ND C?At?I?N'?'
? COAiMErITS AT ACNED
SIGNED B'{:
,•'`_
DATE: L?)
Fa2
A???
NCD NR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Pertlue Coleen H Sullins
Governor Director
August 16, 2010
Mark Mickley
Environmental Scientist
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, NC 27518
Subject: NCDOT TIP # U-4751 and R-3300, New Hanover and Pender Counties
Cape Fear River Basin
On-Site Determination for Applicability to the Mitigation Rules (1 SA NCAC 2H.0506(h)
Dear Mr. Mickley:
Dee Freeman
Secretary
Between January 4, 2009 and April 16, 2010, at your request and in your attendance, David Wainwright, NC
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) staff, conducted numerous on-site determinations to review drainage and
isolated wetland features associated with the proposed Hampstead Bypass (US 17 to north of US 17) and SR
1409 (Military Cutoff Road) to US 17 for applicability to mitigation rules (i 5A NCAC 2H .0506[h]). The
drainage and wetland features are approximated on the attached maps initialed and dated August 16, 2010.
Please note that only the portion ofthe feature located within the study area (see attached maps) where evaluated.
Drainage features are summarized in the following table:
DRAINAGE FEATURES TABLE

NUMBER ATTACHED
FEATURE
MAP PAGE JD
PACKET
FIGURE FEATURE
ID JURISDICTIONAL
STATUS * M[TIGATION
REU
Q IRED LOCATED
ON USGS

MAP
1 1 3-1 ASA Perennial Yes Yes
2 2 3-11 BSA Perennia] yeS No
3 2 3-2, 3-11 BSJ Perennial Yes No
4 2 3-2, 3-12 BSK Perennial Yes No
5 2 3-11 BSL Perennial Yes No
6 2 3-12 BSM Perennial Yes No
7 2 3-13 BSN Perennial Yes No
8 2 3-14 BSO Perennial Yes No
9 2 3-15 BSP Perennial Yes No
10 2 3-16 BS Perennial Yes No
11 1 3-2 BDITCHI Tributary No No
12 2,3 3-15 CSA Perennial Yes No
13 2,3 3-15 CSB Perennial Yes No
14 2,3 3-15 CSC Tributa No No
15 2,3 3-11, 3-15 Intermittent Yes N

16
2
3-11 CSD
Perennial
Yes o
No
17 2,3 3-11 CSE Tributa No No
18 2,3 3-11 CSF Tributary No No
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Location 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX: [phone]
Internet: http:Hh2o.enr.state.nc.uslncwetlands/
NorthCarolina
;Vatura4
dn Fniial Mnnrlunifv 4 dffrmaiiva drtinn Pmnlnvar
DRAIlNAGE FEATLTRES TABLE (continued)

NUMBER ATTACHED

FEATURE
MAP PAGE JD

PACKET
F[GURE
FEATURE
ID
JURISDICT[ONAL
STATUS x
MITIGATION
REQUIRED LOCATED

ON USGS
MAP
19 2 3-11 CSG Intermittent No No
20 2 3-11 CSH Intermittent No No
21 2 3-11 CSI Perennial Yes No
22 3 3-15 CSJ Perennial Yes No
23 3 3-15 CSK Perennial Yes No
24 2, 3, 10 3-12 DSA Perennial Yes No
25 9 3-6 ESA Perennial Yes Yes
26 9 3-6 ESB Perennial Yes No
27 3 3-15 FSA Perennial Yes No
28 3 3-15 FSB Intermittent Yes Yes (partially)
29 3 3-15 FSC Intermittent Yes No
30 3 3-15 FSD Intermittent Yes No
31 3 3-16 FSE Perennial Yes No
32 3,4 3-16 FSF Tributary Yes No
33 3 3-16 Tributary No No
34 3,10 3-16 FSH Intermittent Yes No
35 3, 10 3-16 Perennial Yes No
36 3, 10 3-16 FSI Perennial Yes No
37 3 3-15 FSJ Intermittent Yes No
38 4 3-16 FSK Intermittent Yes No
39 4 3-17 GSA Perennial Yes No
40 3,10 3-16 GSB Intermittent Yes No
41 3,10 3-16 GSG Intermittent Yes No
42 10 3-16 GSX Perennial Yes No
43 3,10 3-12 GFSE Perennial Yes No
44 4, 5 3-22 HBSA Perennial Yes No
45 4 3-22, 3-23 Intermittent Yes No
46 4 3-22, 3-24 HBSAA perennial Yes No
47 4,5 3-23 HBSB Intermittent Yes No
48 4,5 3-23 HBSC Perennial Yes No
49 4,5 3-23 Intermittent Yes No
50 4,5 3-23 HBSD(1) perennial Yes No
51 4,5 3-23 HBSD(2) Perennial Yes Yes
52 4,5 3-23 HBSE Perennial Yes No
53 4 3-22 HBSF Perenniat Yes Yes
54 4 3-22 HBSG Perennial Yes Yes
55 4 3-22 HBSH Intermittent Yes No
56 5 3-28 HSA Intermittent Yes No
57 S 3-18 HSB Intermittent Yes No
58 5 3-23 HSC Perennial Yes No
59 5 3-23 HSCA Intermittent Yes No
60 5 3-23 HSD Intermittent Yes No
61 4,5 3-23 HSE Intermittent Yes No
62 5 3-18 HSX Perennial Yes No
63 5 3-23 HSZ Perennial Yes No
64 5 3-23 HDITCHI Tributary No No
65 5 3-23 HDITCH2 Tributary No No
66 4 3-17 Intermittent Yes No
67 4 3-17 ISA Perennial Yes No
68 4 3-17 ISB Perennial Yes Yes
69 4, 5 3-18
SC Intermittent Yes No
70 5 3-18 I perennial Yes No
71 5 3-18 ISD Perennial Yes No
72 4,5 3-17 IDITCHI Tributary No No
DRA]NAGE FEATURES 'I'ABLE (continued)

NUMBER ATTACHED
FEATURE
MAP PAGE JD
PACKET
FICURE FEATURE
ID JURISDICTIONAL
STATUS " MITIGATION
REQUIRED LOCATED
ON USGS
MAP
73 6,7,8 3-8 Tributary No No
74 6, 7, 8 3-8 JSA Intermittent Yes No
75 6, 8 3-8 JSB Intermittent Yes No
76 7,8 3-8 JSC Intermittent Yes No
77 7 3-9 Intermittent Yes No
78 7, 8 3-9 Jsp Perennial Yes Na
79 5 3-18 LSA Perennial Yes No
80 5 3-19 LSAA Perennial Yes No
81 5 3-18 LSAB Tributary No No
82 5,6 3-18 LSB Perennial Yes No
83 6, 8 3-14, 3-19 LSC Perennial Yes Yes
84 6, 8 3-19 Tntermittent Yes No
85 6,8 3-19 LSCA Perennial Yes No
86 6,8 3-19 LSCAA Perennial Yes No
87 6,8 3-19 LSCB Perennial Yes No
88 6,8 3-19 LSCBA Tributary No No
89 6, 8 3-14 LSCC Perennial Yes No
90 6,8 3-19 LSCD Intermittent Yes No
91 6,8 3-19 LSCE Intermittent Yes No
92 6,8 3-14 LSCF Intermittent Yes No
93 6,8 3-8, 3-14 LSD Perennial Yes No
94 6,8 3-14 LSDA Intermittent Yes No
95 6 3-14 LSE Perennial Yes No
96 6,8 3-8 LTRIBI Tributary No No
97 7 3-20 MSA Intermittent Yes No
98 7 3-20 MSAA Tributary No No
99 7 3-20 MSB Perennial Yes Na
100 6 3-19 MSC Perennial Yes Yes
101 6 3-19 MSCA Perennial Yes Yes
102 6 3-19 MSD Perennial Yes yes
103 6 3-19 Tributary Yes No
104 6 3-19 MSDA [ntermittent Yes No
105 6 3-19 Perennial Yes No
106 6 3-19 MSE Perennial Yes No
107 5,6 3-19 MSF Perennial Yes Yes
108 6 3-19 MSFA Perennial Yes No
109 6 3-19 MSFB Intermittent Yes No
110 6 3-19, 3-20 Tributary No No
111 6 3-19, 3-20 MSI Intermittent Yes No
112 6 3-19 MDITCH 1 Tributary No No
113 6 3-19 MDITCH2 Tributary No No
114 6 3-19 MDITCH3 Tributary No No
115 6 3-19 MDITCH4 Tributary No No
116 6 3-19 MDITCHS Tributary No No
117 6 3-19 MDITCH6 Tributary No No
118 6 3-19 MDITC57 Tributary No No
119 6 3-19 MDITCHB Tributary No No
120 6 3-19 MDITCH9 Tributary No No
121 6 3-19 MDITCHIO Tributary No No
122 6 3-19 MDITCHII Tributary No No
123 6 3-19 MDITCHI2 Tributary No No
124 7 3-10 Intermittent Yes No
125 7 3-10 NSA perennial Yes No
126 7 3-9 NSB Tributary No No
DRAINAGE FEATURES TABLE (continued)

IYUMBER ATTACHED
FEATURE
MAP PAGE JD
PACKET
FIGURE FEATURE
ID JURISDICTIONAL
STATUS * MITIUATION
REQUIRED LOCATED
ON USGS
MAP
127 7 3-9 SF Intermittent Yes No
128 7 3-9 N Perennial Yes No
129 7 3-1 NDITCHI Tributary No No
130 1, 2, 10 3-4 ZSA Intermittent Yes No
131 9, 10 3-5 ZSB Perennial Yes No
132 g 3-7 Tributary No No
133 8 3-7 ZSC Intermittent Yes No
134 8 3-8 ZSD Perennial Yes No
135 8 3-13 Tributary No No
136 8 3-13 ZSE Intermittent Yes No
137 2,10 3-4 ZSF Intermittent Yes No
138 2 3-3 ZSG Perennial Yes No
139 1 3-1 ZSH Perennial Yes Yes
140 7 3-9 ZS1 Tributary No No
141 3 3-21 ZSK Perennial Yes No
142 3 3-21 ZSI, Perennial Yes No
143 6, 7, 8 3-8 ZSM Intermittent Yes No
144 8 3-7 ZDITCHI Tributary No No
145 8 3-7 ZDITCH2 Tributary No No
146 8 3-7 ZDITCH3 Tributary No No
147 8 3-7 ZDITCH4 Tributary No No
148 8 3-7 ZDITCHS Tributary No No
149 8 3-8 ZTRIBI Tributary No No
150 8 3-13 ZTRI132 Tributary No Yes
'* Features labeled as "Tributaries" were classitied as pitcnes ana/or ratea epnemerar cnererore no mmganon is requirea oy
the DWQ. This term was retained to be consistent with the JD package.
In addition to the drainage features listed above, the following iso(ated wetlands were also identified:
ISOLATED WETLANDS TABLE
NUMBE ATTACHED FEATURE MAP JU PACKET FICURE FEATURE DELINEATED SIZE (acres)
1 9 6 EWP 039
2 9 6 EW 0.07
3 9 6 EWR 0.44
4 9 6 EWS 0.13
5 5 18 HWH 0.15
6 5 18 HWH1 0.09
7 5 18 HWH2 0.03
8 5 18 HWH3 0.07
9 5 18 H WH4 0.02
10 5 18 HWHS 023
11 5 18 HWH6 0.10
12 5 18 HWI 0.02
13 5 23 HWJ 0.03
14 5 23 HWK 1.05
15 5 23 HWL 0.32
16 5 23 HWL1 0.06
17 5 23 H WP 0.26
18 6, 8 14 LWH 0.20
19 6,8 14 LWJA 0.16
20 7 9 NWN 1.64
21 9 5 ZWK 0.08
22 9 b ZWM 0.04
23 1 2 ZWY 0.08
Please note that sites identified in the jurisdiction verification request package but not reviewed on site by
NCDWQ will be considered accurate as presented.
This letter only addresses the applicability to the mitigation rules and does not approve any activity within
Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. Any impacts to wetlands or streams must comply with
404/401 regulations, water supply regulations (1 SA NCAC 2B .0216), and any other required federal, state
and local regulations.
The owner (or future owners) ar permittee should notify NCDWQ (and other relevant agencies) of this
decision in any future correspondences concerning this property and/or project. This on-site determination
shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter.
Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by NCDWQ or Delegated Local Authority
that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the mitigation rules may request a determination by the
Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o Brian
Wrenn, NCDWQ Wetlands/401 Unit, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650. Individuals that
dispute a determination by NCDWQ or Delegated Local Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the
mitigation rules may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you
receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the
affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. NCDWQ
recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made
in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh,
N.C. 27699-6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask for a hearing within 60 days.
ff you have any additional questions or require additionai information please contact David Wainwright at
[phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
"?V?
David Wainwright
DWQ, Transportation Permitting Unit
Attachments: Signed and Dated Feature Map Pages 1-10
cc: Brad Shaver, US Army Corps of Engineers - Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
Jay McInnis, NCDOT, Project Development
Mason Herndon, NCDWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
File Copy
R.ESOLUTION
RECARDINC THE STATE TR:AN.SPORTATIt3N 1MPROVFMENT
. PRdGRAM
WHEREi AS; Pender Cotin.ty has been repoi tec1 as tlie 85eki fastest growing county in ths
nation ai-id the 6c" fastest growing cqunty in. Nord-i Caroliiia; azid
WI-IEItEi AS,,ilxe populatian of Pender County increased by 42% fraiia 1910 to 2000, and
projections are forl-kae zncrease in the next decade to exceed aiiother 50°la.
?ERLi A.S, the a vast n2ajority of Gounty's grovatlz has occttned in 1he I-lanipstead area,
wlzere avsr 60% of the Cotiiity's builciii1g perinits were issraed in 2006; alid
VVHEREA,S, ti-ie Depailnient of Tianspartat'ron is curreaafiy aocepi.ing corzitneiits on the
Draft 2009-2015 Siate Trazisportatioal Irnproveinent Prograrn (TIP); antl WHE REAS, the Draft STIP daes not atld any additional pxojccts for Pencier Coiuity, lazit the
existizag 2007-2013 STIP aLurently includes the Hainpstead Bypass praject, a project thal has elearly
becQme incxeasingly i?iipartant dite to tTuffie congastioii, whicll creates.a publia safety ooncem; azid
WH]CRL, AS, tl-ie public safety cancezras and traf'fic valunle vvilt caii#inue to zaicroase with
i;he opening o£the new Topsail High School, -aie addition of an.otlier elenztntary aahool, and the
construction of numeraus hnuszxlg ctevelopinents wkzose resideiyts wi11 xely on Higliway 17 as thEir
primary transpoxtatian corriclor, and
WHL, REAS, Higlltnray 17 is a. majox tralispoiiatxan and ec4noinic cnxz•idar foz Easlern
Carolina ftom the SoutTi Carol.i.na border to Virginia; atid N'OW, TIlERLi F4?RIC, BE IT Jf2.E SOLVED that the Petlder Cawity I3oard of
Cazxunissioncrs urgcs the North Caralina Depa,rtment ofTrarzspartatioz7 to 1) f-ully Iund and
accelerate the Han:ipstead Bypass px4ject; 2) Fusid a si.udy of tlze Higlzway 17 Corridor; and 3)
explore allcrnatives to imprnvc safety befoxe the bypass can Ue constxucted other than the 6-laniiig
of I Iigllway 17. .
FUR'1"HER BE IT RE Sf3LVED that copies af this resolution be transmitted to tk1c
n7ezilbers af tile General Assezixbly xepresenting Pander CouYlty.
Adopted tilis the 22lid day ofJa?itiary, 2008
CA?t` 6204;W,6WI
J. Da'vid Williams, Chaixinaii
-WJ16W
Lori A. Bxill, Clexlc to the Boarci
l??SOLUT'ION
IN SUPPORT C}F Th1E HIGHWAY 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS PROJFCT"
WHER.EAS, Pe;ider Cpunty hks been reported as fl-ie 85'h fastest growxng county in the
nation aiid the 6t" fastest growing couaaty in Nartla Cai•alirza; and
WHEItEAS, the populatian of Pendei° Couiaty increased by 42%, from 1990 to 2000, az1d
projectiaiis are far the increase in the fiext decade 0 exceed axzather SO%.
'V6'HEi REAS, the avast majority nf Couiity's growth has occuzrcd ixz the Haznpstead area,
wheze ovex 60R/a of the County's building pennits were issued izx 2046; aild
WHEREAS, The N.C. Departrnent of Traiasportation has p;rpposed 19 atS;emai;e roukes
£ar this highway bypass praject, 17 af which pass through Peiider County; and
WHEREAS, the Ctiusi-ty has liniited resaurces available to pi•event deveIoXnlient un azid
to preserve aiiy of the designated alteriaate routes; and
WHE REAS, lhis Board of Commzssioiiers daes not believe, based oii the volunze of
subdivision applications, rezaning reguests aiid special use perinit applications pending far the
T-lampstead area, that the County cmi responsibly preserve this area fi•om developnient for the
next two (2) years.
NOW, THERErORE, BE IT R]CSC)LVED fliat flae Peiider Cnunty Board Qf
Commussinners urges the Noxfh Caralilla Depaxttuent af Transportation to worlc with the
ruszdeiits of the Cawnty and to hasten the selaction process of the Hax.npstcad Bypass Corridor,
wliile ensuring this project reccives adequate fuiidiiag as apriority inaprovemetit.
T"'URT?ER BE IT RS ULVED taat copies of fhis resolutioiz be tra.nsmitted to the
members af the General AsseraibXy represetitizag Pender County. •
Adopted tlxis the 7tli day af 1V.[ay, 2007 ? .??..?-
'
?
F.D. Riveiabark, Chaixinan _? E?ii A. Brill, Clerk to the Baard
4ctaber 18, 2005
Jay NI.clnnis, P.E.
?EW HANOVER COUNT'.i.
Engirleeling Departmeni iWater and Sewer District
230 Markes Place Drive • Suite lbfl
Wilinington, Narth CarQlina ?84t?3
Telephone {910} 798-7139
Psx [phone]
Pxaject Development Unit Head
1 548 Niai1 Servic:. Cerzter
LNarth Caroiina Department uf "I'ransportatiun
Raleigh, I4Yortla Caroli!ia 27699-1>48
Gregory R. Tbornpson, P:E., P,L.S.
(;ounry Engrneer
James S. Crsig, P.E.
Dcputv County Engi73eer
RE= Access (Iimited) from Miiitary Cutaff Road Extensian to New Hanover Countv WeII
Fi+eld aud Water Trea.irnent Ptant Site. {NCDCIT U-4751, NHC project #I85.1}
Dear VIr. Mclnris:
Thanlc you fQr providing =nput during our teiephone k-liscusszon today regatdinu direct
access from the iutureMilitary Cutoif Road Exiension to the \Tew Hanover County well tie!d
and,%vater trea-unent piant site, Tha 'vtiliiany C'utozf Road Extension corridor crasses the
northuest porti4n of this County-owned properry (parcel R03-3600-003w18%-000). As we
discussed, liznited access (right 'sn, right out) would be beneficiai ta the waier treatment planc
graject. This arran.geznen[ would alsa me-It the interit of the highway. project because rc wnu.`•d
relfeve U.S. 17 (Market St.reet) fram plant re:a?ed det'ivery arad serviee traSfzc.
i*Iew Hanover County respeets the public :e,.iew process tnr the Mzlitaxy Cutoff Road
Fxtension, We understaxad thai your conc;,prual abreem.ent to provide lirnited access io the p.ant
site is contingent upon any chazxges to the project necessitated by this upcorning puUlic cozn..-nerst
period. Tha.rtk you fo* }rour caaperation in this maiter, 1 can be *Cacheci at (910) i 9b-:1t)79.
SiI1CeIt' l)'>
4 p ?? '.?
Garv D.Nic5nnith, P.E.
t:hzef Proiect Engineer
New Hanaver Cou.nty
cc: William Casior, New Hanover Counry Commissioner
Greg Thompson,, P.E., New Hanover County Engineer
Allen Pape, 1'.E., NC DOT Division Engineer
Dan Dawsan, P.E., W. K. Dickson
NEW HANOiTER COUNTY
Engineering Department / Water and Sewer District
230 Market Place Drive • Suite 160 Gregory R. Thompson, P.E., P.L.S.
County Engineer
Wiltnington, NOrth Carolina 28403 James S. Craig, P.E.
Telephone [phone] Depury County Engineer
Fax [phone] RECElVED
• CHV1,1310N RE?1,C-M-lEER
TFffiel:D ??NIP,810N
JUL 20 2005" '
July 18, 2005
H. Allen Pope, P.E.
Division Engineer
Highway Division 3
North Carolina Departm.ent of Transportation
124 Divisian Drive
Wilmington, North Carolina 28401
Ccnst
opr. Fa.;. . r?s?3+.• -
O?tl?ars? -
61vi:.ior, o11{ghways
RE: Alignment of Proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension at New Hanover
County We11 Field and Water Treat-ment Plant Site.
Dear.Mr,.Pope:
New Hanover County develaped a well field and is in design phaseot a water
treatrnent plant at County owned property in Ogden adjacent to Diane Drive (parcel
R03600-003-187-000). Currently, there are two new wells on the property and contract
award is pending to connect the wells ta our water system by construction of a 16-in.ch
water line. One of these welXs now appears to be in the path of the proposed corridor of
the Military Cutoff Road Extension.
The well construction contract cost was $45,000 in 2004 (not including
r!?';i11Za?.?'.+i., cvI''.:1LC:i:7i ?'iL.?i aSJ:.:ciu:Ci cos?sj. siii i?uu,?i.eici, iV-Ll11
LTtIities Engineer Design Services Unit and Greg Stevens, P.E. NCDOT Utilities Squad
Leader Project Services Unit previously indicated that it might be possible to adjust the
aligzunent to zniss the 100 foot radius wellhead protection zone around the well. Given
recent information regarding the proposed road alignment and corridor width, the well
will need to be properly abandoned and replaced prior to road construction under the
NC DOT Military Road Extension Project.
Additional conflicts with New Hanover County and Sewer District utility assets
(watex and sewer izn.es, etc.) are anticipated given the scope of the Road Extension
project. Please farward this letter to the appxopriate authorities in NC DOT sa that
funds wi11 be programmed and available to offset the cost of restoring all New Hanover
County Water and Sewer District assets impacted by the project.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. I can be reached for questions at
(910 798-7079.
Sincexeiy,
40 J/ 4J(0?
Gary D. McSmith, P.E.
Project Engineer
New Hanover County
cc: Greg Thompson, P.E.
Greg Stevens, P.E., NC DOT Utilities Squad Leader
Ali Koucheki, NC DOT, Design Services Unit
??ECE[??; ??? ??
JIJL ` 200?i
N.C. DEPI' GF
?'L F?Y?? G ON OFF!?E OF THE SECRE iAR'; '
? rraxrf-i cnRO?A
6 vci n.v ` l.. PO -?
y- 3?-
Development Services
' Engineering
? . 305 Chestnut Street
n3s .- PO Box 1810
Wilmington, NC 28402-1810
910 341-7807
910 341-5881 fax
wilmingtonnc.gov
Dial 711 T7YNoice
July 15, 2005
???
?11G 02
Mr. Lyndo ? ippett
Secretary of Transportation
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1501 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1501
Re: Transportation Corridor Official Map for Military Cutaff Road Extension
Dear Mr. Tippett:
The City of Wilmington entered into a municipal agreement with the North
Carolina Department of Transportation to prepare and file the Transportation
Corridor Official Map for the proposed extension of Military Cutoff Road from
Market Street to the proposed I-140/US 17 Bypass. The New Hanover County
Commissioners voted to approve the City preparing and filing the map at their
February 7, 2005 meeting. The City entered into a contract with The LPA Group
of North Carolina to prepare the map shortly after this approval.
The map has been prepared and a public hearing has been scheduled for August 2,
2005 at the City Council's regularly scheduled meeting. The meeting begins at
6:30 PM in the City Council Chamber, City Hall, 102 N. Third Street. The public
hearing is being advertised in the Star News (the local paper) and letters are being
mailed to affected property owners infonning them of the public hearing. In
add'ztion, a copy of the map has been posted at the door of the New Hanover
County Court House in accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes. I
am enclosing a reduced size copy of the map for you information.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
J'A ?
William C. Penny, P?
City Engineer
CC: Lanny Wilson
Allen H. Pope, PE
WILMINGTON URBAN AREA
Metrapolitan P{anr?ing Organization
Members:
City of
WILMINGTC?N
Lead Pianning Agency
Townof
cRRoLINA BEAcH
Tawn of
KURE BEACH
P.O. sox 1810
Wilmington, Narth Caroiirsa 28402
910 341 3258 910 341 7801 FAk
actober 18, 2005
Ms. Beverly Robijisan
Noi-tli Carolina Department of Trarispar-tation
Project Develapiiieiit and Environiiiental Azlalyszs Brancli
1548 Mail Seivice Center
Raleigh, Nartil Cal-oliiia 27699-I548
Su€bject: Mi[itary Cutoff Road Extension (U-4751) and Hampstead
Town nf Bypass (R-3300)
WRIGHTSVILLE F3EACH
NEw HANUVER TI7e Noilli Caroliila Deparfriient of Ti-anspaztatioii Projeet I3evelopnielit and
county Eiiviranxneiital Analysis Branch is working to asse3iible camments for the
Townof p3"np!)Se{i MllltaI'y (.7.ItQl'? Extie37S1.021 (U-4751) a11CI Ha]7l(3fitead I?ypaSS (R-3300)
BELViLLE projeets located zza New 1-lai3over and Pender Counties,
Town af
LELqNa
Although no permits wi11 be required from the Wilmingtozl Metropolitan Plazaning
Orgaiizzatiail, the proposed Military Cutoff Extension project and a portioia of the
Town of Harnpstead Bypass projcct are located within the Wilmington MPO's planning
NAVASSA ax•ea bounciary. A.dditionally, the Wilrnii-igton MPO is exploring Chc optian of
BRt1NSWIGK expandiiig the current boundary to eilcompass the etitire Harnpstaad Bypass and
Cnunty unincorporated area of Hampstead. For these reasons, I would like to particzpate ira
the scoping meeting aiid envit'atiinental review process for the Military Cutaff
North Caralina Exteiision and Harnpstead Bypass projects.
BDARC3 OF
TRAPJSPOR'fAT[ON if yau have aiiy questians, please contact rrse via e-mail at
mike.kozlosky(Zbwilmin.gtonnc.aav ar by phone at {910} 342-2781.
SincereIy>
,
Mike K(
p osky
Sr. 1'rai inn Planner
?.
=l
ILMINGTON URBAN AREA
etropolitan Planning Organizatian
P. J. Bax 1810
Wilmington, Noeth Carolina 28402
910 341 3258 910 349 7801 FAX
Febri.iary 28, 2007
Members:
Mr, Rob I4anson
Noirtli Caralina Departmezif of'lransportation
C°tY °f 1'roject Develapinent and Environmental Analysis Brattch
W ILMINGTUN
Lead Planning Agency 1548 Mail Sez-vrce Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Town of
CAROLENA BEACH Re: Request far aiiiuIti-use path as pai•t oi'the Pr'iilitary Ctitoff Raad Extesisiall (U-4751)
praject
Town of
KURE BEACH Dear Mr. I-3anson:
Town °f The Military Cntoff Exfensian is cun°eiTtly progran3med in tlae State Trazisportation In3pravement
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH prQgram (STIP) for Planr7ing and Erre)lronrnental Anctlysis wit13 fi.tndiiig for right-of-way acquiSiEiott zn
NEW HANQUER fiscai year 2012 atad consiruction in post year. Military Cutoff Road extension is identif ed as a
Caunty "reconiinended 6ouievard" on Govenior Easley's and the NorUi Carolina Uepartniet3t of
Tz•ansportatioxx's (NCDOT's) Strategic i-iighway Coti-idor's Iiiitiative ai3c1 is iiiiportant io tlie future
Town of iilobility of tI1e regian.
BEE.ViLLE
As part of the Military Cutofff Road widening project (U-2734) iliat zs cuxa-ently under construclion,
Town of NCDO`.f will construct a n?ulti-use patla witJiizi the existaz2g Y•ight-af-way. A goal oftlie 2030 Long
?ELAND Range Transportation Plan is to prrovide "a contlnuous and direct system of regional hicycle facitities
within the Greatar Wilinidgtan llrban Area." The MPQ's "t'ranspoz-tation Advisory ComiTiittee endorsed
Tawn of staff to request tlle "East Caast Greenway Coas#ai Corridar" designatinn on Mi3itaiy Cutoff Road
NAVASSA }??tween Wrightsville Aveiiue and Market Street. The coi7stFVCtioti of aiiiulti-use path aloiig M'ilitary
Cutoff Road extension would provide for a continuous azici direct reginnai bicycle facility, could
BRUNSW ICE( potentially be designated as part of #lze East Coast NC Greenway Coastal Can•idor ancl would provide
Caunty an important future cozanection between the cities of Wilanzngton and ,Taeksonville.
PENDER Thc Wilmington MPO rcquests that the NCT3OT Planning, Development and Environmeatai Analysis
C°un#Y .8ranch consider the consiruction of ainulti-use palli as pat-t of the Military Cutoff Road extensiori
project {U-475 1}, Ifyou kave any questions regarding this request or require any additional
CAPE FEAR izifnz-macioil, piease contae# me via e-inail at anike.3cozloskyrz,wilininQtonnc.go oz• ca11 ine at (920) 342-
Pub[ic Transportation 2781.
Autharity
Sit?cerely,
North CaroEina
B4ARa 0F
TRANSPORI'ATION g
t
Planner ?
,
cc: Laimy Vililson, 'I'AC Chainnan, Vdilmington MPO
Alleii T'ape, Divisinn Engzneer, NCDOT
APPENDIX C
NCDOT RELOCATION ASSISTANCE
PROGRAM/RELOCATION REPORTS
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
DIVI5ION OF HIGHWAY5 RELOCATION PROGRAM5
It is the policy of NCDOT to ensure comparable replacement housing will be available
prior to construction of state and federally-assisted projects. Furthermore, the North
Carolina Board of Transportation has the following three programs to minimize the
inconvenience of relocation:
• Relocation Assistance
• Relocation Moving Payments
• Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or Rent Supplement
As part of the Relocation Assistance Program, experienced NCDOT staff will be
available to assist displacees with information such as availability and prices of homes,
apartrnents, or businesses for sale or rent and financing or other housing programs. The
Relocation Moving Payments Program, in general, provides for payment of actual
moving expenses encountered in relocation. Where displacement will force an owner or
tenant to purchase or rent properLy of higher cost or to lose a favorable financing
arrangement (in case of ownership), the Relocation Replacement Housing Payments or
Rent Supplement Program will compensate up to $22,500 to owners who are eligible and
qualify and up to $5,250 to tenants who are eligible and qualify.
The relocation program for the proposed action will be conducted in accordance with
the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-646), and/or the North Carolina Relocation Assistance Act (GS-
133-5 through 133-18). The program is designed to provide assistance to displaced
persons in relocating to a replacement site in which to live or do business. At least one
relocation officer is assigned to each highway project for this purpose.
The relocation officer will determine the needs of displaced families, individuals,
businesses, non-profit organizations, and farm operations for relocation assistance
advisory services without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The
NCDOT will schedule its work to allow ample time, prior to displacement, for
negotiations and possession of replacement housing which meets decent, safe, and
sanitary standards. The displacees are given at least a 90-day written notice a$er
NCDOT offers comparable replacement housing. Relocation of displaced persons will
be offered in areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and commercial
facilities. Rent and sale prices of replacement properLy will be within the financial means
of the families and individuals displaced and will be reasonably accessible to their places
of employment The relocation officer will also assist owners of displaced businesses,
non-profit organizations, and farm operations in searching for and moving to
replacement property.
All tenant and owner residential occupants who may be displaced will receive an
explanation regarding all available options, such as (1) purchase of replacement housing,
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS C-1 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
(2) rental of replacement housing, either private or public, or (3) moving existing owner-
occupant housing to another site (if possible). The relocation officer will also supply
information concerning other state and federal programs offering assistance to displaced
persons and will provide other advisory services as needed in order to minimize
hardships to displaced persons in adjusting to a new location.
The Moving Expense Payments Program is designed to compensate the displacee for the
costs of moving personal property from homes, businesses, non-profit organizations,
and farm operations acquired for a highway project. Under the Replacement Program
for Owners, NCDOT will participate in reasonable incidental purchase payments for
replacement dwellings such as attorney's fees, surveys, appraisals, and other closing costs
and, if applicable, make a payment for any increased interest expenses for replacement
dwellings. Reimbursement to owner-occupants for replacement housing payments,
increased interest payments, and incidental purchase expenses may not exceed $22,500
(combined total), except under the Last Resort Housing provision.
A displaced tenant may be eligible to receive a payment, not to exceed $5,250, to rent a
replacement dwelling or to make a down payment, including incidental expenses, on the
purchase of a replacement dwelling. The down payment is based upon what the state
determines is required when the rent supplement exceeds $5,250.
It is a policy of the state that no person will be displaced by the NCDOT's state or
federally-assisted construction projects unless and until comparable replacement housing
has been offered or provided for each displacee within a reasonable period of time prior
to displacement No relocation payment received will be considered as income for the
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 or for the purposes of determining
eligibility or the extent of eligibility of any person for assistance under the Social Security
Act or any other federal law.
Last Resort Housing is a program used when comparable replacement housing is not
available, or when it is unavailable within the displacee's financial means, and the
replacement payment exceeds the federal/state legal limitation. The purpose of the
program is to allow broad latitudes in methods of implementation by the state so that
decent, safe, and sanitary replacement housing can be provided. It is not believed that
this program will be necessary on the project, since there appears to be adequate
opportunities for relocation within the area.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS C-2 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? QESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
1NB5: 40191.1.1 COUNTY NE1N HANOVER Alternate MIW of 2 Alternate
I.D. No.: U-4751 F.A. PROJECT N/A
oESCRiPTioN oF PROJECT: MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD. EXTENTION WITH CONTROL

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 15 3 18 6 2 8 4 4
BUSIn2SS2S 39 24 63 6 VALl1E OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 ? 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 2 0 2 1 o-zoM $ a1so g 0-20M $ o-1so
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 20-40M $ 150-250 1
Yes No Explain a!! "YES" answers. 40-70M 2 250-400 40-70M 3 250-400 5
X 1. Wiil special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M g 400-600 70-100M 10 400-600 10
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uP 5 600 ur 100 uP 50+ soo uP 25+
displacement? TOTAL 15 3
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (R2SpOtld by NU117IJ@r)
after project? 3. There is an ample supply of buisnessess not affected by
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, this project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
4. See attached list
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
X 6. Source for available housing (list). 6114. MLS Services, local realtors, newspapers, etc.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 8. As mandated by law
)( 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. New Hanover County
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. Yes, or built as necessary
X 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 24-36

10/12/2010
Dwayne Draughon Date
Ri ht of Wa A ent Relocation Coordinator Date
FKM1S-t Kevised Uy-U1 Original & 1 Copy: Relocation Coordinator
2 Copy Division Relocation File
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? QESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
1NB5: 40191.1.1 COUNTY NE1N HANOVER Alternate M2W of 2 Alternate
I.D. No.: U-4751 F.A. PROJECT N/A
oESCRiPTioN oF PROJECT: MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD. EXTENTION WITH CONTROL

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INCOME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 16 4 20 6 6 11 3 'I
BUSIn2SS2S 39 24 ft 6 VALl1E OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For Sale For Rent
Non-Profit 2 0 1 o-zoM $ a1so g 0-20M $ o-1so
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 150-250 1 20-40M $ 150-250 1
Yes No Explain a!! "YES" answers. 40-70M 4 250-400 40-70M 3 250-400 5
X 1. Wiil special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 10 400-600 70-100M 10 400-600 10
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uP 2 600 ur 100 uP 50+ soo uP 25+
displacement? TOTAL 16 4
x 3. Will business services still be available REMARKS (R2SpOtld by NU117IJ@r)
after project? 3. There is an ample supply of buisnessess not affected by
x 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, this project.
indicate size, type, estimated number of
employees, minorities, etc.
4. See attached list
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
X 6. Source for available housing (list). 6114. MLS Services, local realtors, newspapers, etc.
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? 8. As mandated by law
)( 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. 11. New Hanover County
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? 12. Yes, or built as necessary
X 11. Is public housing available?
x 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
x 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 24-36

10/12/2010
Dwayne Draughon Date
Ri ht of Wa A ent Relocation Coordinator Date
FKM1S-t Kevised Uy-U1 Original & 1 Copy: Relocation Coordinator
2 Copy Division Relocation File
U4751 Business Relocations
ALTERNATIVES M1 and M2
GROUPING NAME TypE NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES MINORIN
1 Ogden Volunteer Rescue Business 15-20
2 BPA Business 25-30
3 Pages Creek Marina Pages Creek Marina Business 5-10
4 Pages Creek Marina Truck Pump Business 1-3
5 Pages Creek Marina Blue Water Works Business 1-3
6 Pages Creek Marina MK Design Business 1-3
7 Dentist Offce Business 5-8
8 Children Daycare Bus/School 0
9 BT Imports (Boating) Business 5-8
10 Shopping Center Painters Alley Business 2-4
11 Shopping Center State Farm Insurance Business 2-4
12 Shopping Center Landscape Business Business 4-6
13 Shopping Center Sun Trust Bank Business 5-10
14 Shopping Center Cardinal Bowing Lanes Business 5-10
15 Little Cesar's Pizza Bus/Rest 5-10
16 Leon and Dick's Rib Shack Bus/Rest 5-10
17 Pet Boarding/Care Business 4-6 Minority
18 Shepps,LLC Business 2-5
19 The Pop Shoppe/CITGO Business 10-15
20 Live Oak Center Allure Hair Studio Business 2-5
21 Live Oak Center Port City Closets Solutions Business 2-5
22 Live Oak Center Mamdi's Ice Cream Business 2-5
23 Live Oak Center Lily's Nails Business 2-4 Minority
24 Hardees's Business 15-25
25 Baker's Curiosity Shop Business 2-4
26 Zimmer's Center Food Lion Business 15-25
27 Zimmer'sCenter SzechuanBuffet Business 5-10 Minority
28 Zimmer's Center LA Nails Business 3-5
29 Zimmer's Center Brookl n Pizza Co Business 5-10
30 Zimmer'sCenter Cubbies Business 5-10
31 Zimmer's Center Liberty Tax Business 3-5
32 Zimmer's Center Urgent Care Business 5-10
33 Zimmer's Center All Star Subs Business 5-8
34 Zimmer's Center Vacant Unit Business 0
35 EXXON Service Station Business 5-10
36 DollarGeneral Business 8-10
37 Walgreen's Drug Store Business 10-15
38 CVS Drug Store Business 10-15
39 O'Leary'sAutoService Business 5-8
40 Marine Warehouse Business 3-5
41 South Wnds Business 2-3 Minority
42 South Hair Salon Business 3-5
43 Mamia'sAttic Business 2-5
44 Jackson Hewitt Tar Service Business 2-4
45 Benjamin Moore Paint Business 3-5
46 Coastal Storage, INC Business 3-5
47 Stone Garden Landscaping Business 4-8
48 Costal Cash Exchange Business 3-5
49 Coastline Mower Shop Business 3-5 Minority
50 Nixon Associates, LLC Business 2-4
51 Golf Driving Range Business 2-4
52 Fabric Solution Business 4-6
53 Priscilla McCall's Business 4-6
54 Four Season's Dry Cleaning Business 3-5 Minority
55 Enoch Chapel Church 5-8
56 Enoch Chapel Graveyard (in back) Graves
57 Golf Range Business 2-4
58 Stone Garden Business 5-10
59 Nixon's Oyster's Business 4-6
60 Mini-Storage Business 3-5
61 KFC Restaurant Business 5-10
62 Kingfsh Restaurant Business 10-15
63 BB&T Bank Business 5-10
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS: 40191.1.2 COUNTY New Hanover and
Pender Alternate EH of 4 Alternate
I.D. No.: R-3340 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRiPTioN oF PROJECT: Extension of SR 1409 to the VVilmington Bypass and Construction of
Hampstead Bypass from Wilmington Bypass to US 17 North of Hampstead

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INC(?ME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 23 20 43 7 Q 9 6 12 16
BUSIn@SSeS 8 8 16 5 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 owners Tenants For Sale Far Rent
Non-Profit 3 0 3 2 n-znM Q $ 0-150 p 0-20M p $ n-15o p
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M Q 150-250 4 20-40M 2 150-250 Q
Yes No Fxplarn a1! "YES" answers. 40-70M 2 250-400 g 40-70M 7 250-400 p
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M g 400-600 g 70-100M 27 400-600 1
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uP 12 600 uP 1 100 uP 402 600 uP 23
displacement? TOTAL 23 ZO 438 24
X 3. Will business services stitl be available REMARKS (ReSFJOIId by NUtl7b@C)
after project? 2. St. John the Apostle Catholic Church, Angel Food
Ministries, and Topsail Baptist Church are all displacees on
this alternate.
)( 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Business Services will remain in the area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of

employees, minorities, etc. 4. AtlantlC Tool and Die Co.
Noelle Holdings, LLC
Carolina Storage
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? D& D Glass
6. Source for available housing (list). Carolina Outboard
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed? Tri-County Electric Inc.
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? Kld's Kofner Daycare
)( 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Bug Off Termite and Pest Control
families? Ocean Breeze Heating and Air
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Hidden Pond Mulch Co.
X 11. Is public housing available? Images Salon and Spa
)( 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing Last Request Properties, LLC
housing available during relocation period? Coastal Mini Storage along with 630 +/- storage units
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within Cypress Pond Tree Nursery
financial means? Pender County Offices -10 Different Qepartments
)( 14. Are suitable business sites available (list Small Auto Sales Business (name unknown)
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 24 6. & 14. Realtor.com, MLS, newspaper, local ads
8. As mandated by Law
11. New Hanover and Pender County

12. Plenty of houses listed on Realtor.com alone.
'PLEASE NOTE: A Cell Tower will be isolated by this alternate, as well as the Utility Water Tanks for Belvedere
Plantation subdivision. The water tanks service the entire subdivision.
6/2/11 6/2/ 11
of
2 Copy Division Relocation File
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS: 40191.1.2 COUNTY New Hanover and
Pender Alternate C? of 4 Alternate
I.D. No.: R-3340 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRiPTioN oF PROJECT: Extension of SR 1409 to the VVilmington Bypass and Construction of
Hampstead Bypass from Wilmington Bypass to US 17 North of Hampstead

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INC(?ME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 29 11 40 5 Q 4 7 13 16
BUSIn@SSeS 8 8 16 5 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 owners Tenants For Sale Far Rent
Non-Profit 3 0 3 2 n-znM Q $ 0-150 p 0-20M p $ n-15o p
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 1 150-250 4 20-40M 2 150-250 Q
Yes No Fxplarn a1! "YES" answers. 40-70M p 250-400 7 40-70M 7 250-400 p
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M q 400-600 p 70-100M 27 400-600 1
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uP 24 600 uP p 100 uP 402 600 uP 23
displacement? TOTAL 29 11 438 24
X 3. Will business services stitl be available REMARKS (ReSFJOIId by NUtl7b@C)
after project? 2. St. John the Apostle Catholic Church, Angel Food
Ministries, and Topsail Baptist Church are all displacees on
this alternate.
)( 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Business Services will remain in the area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of

employees, minorities, etc. 4. AtlantlC Tool and Die Co.
Noelle Holdings, LLC
Carolina Storage
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? D& D Glass
6. Source for available housing (list). Carolina Outboard
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed? Tri-County Electric Inc.
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? Kld's Kofner Daycare
)( 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Bug Off Termite and Pest Control
families? Ocean Breeze Heating and Air
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Hidden Pond Mulch Co.
X 11. Is public housing available? Images Salon and Spa
)( 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing Last Request Properties, LLC
housing available during relocation period? Coastal Mini Storage along with 630 +/- storage units
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within Cypress Pond Tree Nursery
financial means? Pender County Offices -10 Different Qepartments
)( 14. Are suitable business sites available (list Small Auto Sales Business (name unknown)
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 24 6. & 14. Realtor.com, MLS, newspaper, local ads
8. As mandated by Law
11. New Hanover and Pender County

12. Plenty of houses listed on Realtor.com alone.
'PLEASE NOTE: A Cell Tower will be isolated by this alternate, as well as the Utility Water Tanks for Belvedere
Plantation subdivision. The water tanks service the entire subdivision.
6/2/11 6/2/ 11
of
2 Copy Division Relocation File
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS: 40191.1.2 COUNTY New Hanover and
Pender Alternate R of 4 Alternate
I.D. No.: R-3340 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRiPTioN oF PROJECT: Extension of SR 1409 to the VVilmington Bypass and Construction of
Hampstead Bypass from Wilmington Bypass to US 17 North of Hampstead

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INC(?ME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees
Owners
Tenants
Total
Minorities
0-15M
15-25M
25-35M
35-50M
50 UP
Residential 26 15 41 7 Q 7 7 7 20
BUSIn@SSeS 8 8 16 5 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 owners Tenants For Sale Far Rent
Non-Profit 3 0 3 2 n-znM Q $ 0-150 p 0-20M p $ n-15o p
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M 1 150-250 7 20-40M 2 150-250 Q
Yes No Fxplarn a1! "YES" answers. 40-70M 1 250-400 5 40-70M 7 250-400 p
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 2 400-600 $ 70-100M 27 400-600 1
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uP 22 600 uP p 100 uP 402 600 uP 23
displacement? TOTAL 26 15 438 24
X 3. Will business services stitl be available REMARKS (ReSFJOIId by NUtl7b@C)
after project? 2. St. John the Apostle Catholic Church, Angel Food
Ministries, and Topsail Baptist Church are all displacees on
this alternate.
)( 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Business Services will remain in the area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of

employees, minorities, etc. 4. AtlantlC Tool and Die Co.
Noelle Holdings, LLC
Carolina Storage
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? D& D Glass
6. Source for available housing (list). Carolina Outboard
X 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed? Tri-County Electric Inc.
x 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? Kld's Kofner Daycare
)( 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. Bug Off Termite and Pest Control
families? Ocean Breeze Heating and Air
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project? Hidden Pond Mulch Co.
X 11. Is public housing available? Images Salon and Spa
)( 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing Last Request Properties, LLC
housing available during relocation period? Coastal Mini Storage along with 630 +/- storage units
x 13. Will there be a problem of housing within Cypress Pond Tree Nursery
financial means? Pender County Offices -10 Different Qepartments
)( 14. Are suitable business sites available (list Small Auto Sales Business (name unknown)
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 24 6. & 14. Realtor.com, MLS, newspaper, local ads
8. As mandated by Law
11. New Hanover and Pender County

12. Plenty of houses listed on Realtor.com alone.
'PLEASE NOTE: A Cell Tower will be isolated by this alternate, as well as the Utility Water Tanks for Belvedere
Plantation subdivision. The water tanks service the entire subdivision.
6/2/11 6/2/ 11
of
2 Copy Division Relocation File
EIS RELOCATION REPORT
M E.I.S. ? CORRIDOR ? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
WBS: 40191.1.2 COUNTY New Hanover and Alternate U of 4 Alternate
Pender
I.D. No.: R-3340 F.A. PROJECT
DESCRiPTioN oF PROJECT: Extension of SR 1409 to the VVilmington Bypass and Construction of
Hampstead Bypass from Wilmington Bypass to US 17 North of Hampstead

ESTIMATED DISPLACEES INC(?ME LEVEL
Type of
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
Residential 52 23 75 30 Q 20 19 13 23
BUSIn@SSeS 16 16 32 16 VALUE OF DWELLING DSS DWELLING AVAILABLE
Farms 0 0 0 0 owners Tenants For Sale Far Rent
Non-Profit 9 0 9 5 n-znM Q $ 0-150 p 0-20M p $ n-15o p
ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS 20-40M Q 150-250 5 20-40M 2 150-250 Q
Yes No Fxplarn a1! "YES" answers. 40-70M 12 250-400 17 40-70M 7 250-400 p
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 13 400-600 1 70-100M 27 400-600 1
X 2. Will schools or churches be affected by 100 uP 27 600 uP p 100 uP 402 600 uP 23
displacement? TOTAL 52 23 438 24
X 3. Will business services stitl be available REMARKS (ReSFJOIId by NUtl7b@C)
after project? 2. SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR DISPLACED NON-PROFITS
)( 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. Business Services will remain in the area.
indicate size, type, estimated number of 4. SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR LIST OF DISPLACED
B USINESSES
6. & 14. Realtor.com, MLS, newspaper, local ads
employees, minorities, etc. 8. As mandated by Law
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage? 11. New Hanover and Pender County
6. Source for available housing (list). 12. Plenty of houses listed on Realtor.com alone.
x 7. Will additional housing programs be
needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc_
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? $Q
**PLEASE NOTE: A Cell Tower will be isolated by this alternate, as well as the Utility Water Tanks for Belvedere
Plantatian subdivision. The water tanks service the entire subdivision.
6/2/11 6/2/ 11
FRM15-E Revised 09-02 Original & 1 Copy: Relocation Coordinator
2 Copy Division Relocation File
Displaced Non-Profits (9 Total)
1) St. Stephen AMG Zion Church
2) Wesley Chapel United Methodist Church including 395+1- graves
3) Creative Minds Pre-Schaol
4) Scotts Hill Baptist Church and Administrative Office
5) 1 St Baptist Church
6) "OId" Scotts Hill AMG Zion Church
7) St. John the Apostle Catholic Church
8} Angel Food Ministries
9) Topsail Baptist Church
Please note that in addition to the graves shown above, the McClammy and King
Family Cemetary cantaining 17+1- graves, as well as the Pollock's Cemetary containing 235+)-
graves will have ta be relocated due to this alternate, for a total of 647+1- graves.
Displaced Businesses (32 Total)
1) A. Gil Pettit, DDS
2) Stone Development and Restoration
3) Martin Self Starage - Storage Units
4} Eden's Produce Stand (Seasonal)
5) Fred's Beds
6) City Electric Supply
7) Humphrey Heating and Air
8) Carolina Financial Solutions
9) Scotts Hill Pet Resart
10} Dr. Christina Baram Gray, Chiropractor
11) www.ScottsHill.org Computer Office
12) Black Dog Fence Co.
13) Port City Doors and Windows
14) Atlantic Surgi-Center
15) Sullivan Design Ca.
16} Chas F. Riggs and Assoc. Inc.
17} Scotts Hill Grille
18) Poplar Grove Historic Plantation
19) Tasteful Creations
20} Elite Pure Spa and Boutique
21} HELP (Healing, Encouraging, Loving, People)
22) The Good Samaritan House Thrift Store
23} Cottage Crafts (inside historic Browntown School / Scotts Hill Rosenwald School)
24) New Business under construction
25) Small Businees {name unknown}
26} Kid's Korner Daycare
27) Images Salon and Spa
28} Last Resort Praperties, LLC
29} Coastal Mini Starage {630+/- units}
30) Cypress Pond Nursery
31) Pender County Offices - 10 Different Departments
32) Small Auto and Boat Sales business
""PLEASE NOTE: A Cell Tower will be isolated by this alternate, as well as the Utility Water
Tanks for Belvedere Plantation subdivision. The water tanks service the entire subdivision.
APPENDIX D
LIST OF REFERENCES
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh.
Cape Fear Commutes Corrnnittee of the Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning
Organization. October 8, 2010. Cape Fear Corrnnutes 2035 Transportation Plan, Final
Draft.
City of Wilmington. wunU.wilmingtonnc.gov
City of Wilmington. Cape Fear Regional Household Travel Survey, Final Report 2003
City of Wilmington. August 2004. Choices, the Wilmington Future Land Use Plan,
2004-2025.
City of Wilmington. November 2004. Market Street Corridor Plan.
City of Wilmington. 2005. Transportation Corridor Official Map of Military Cutoff
Road Extension
City of Wilmington and New Hanover County. May 8, 2006. Wilmington-New
Hanover County Joint Coastal Area Management Plan 2006 Update.
City of Wilmington. January 2007. City of Wilmington 20-Year Transportation Needs.
City of Wilmington. Code of Ordinances. wunU.municode.com/resources/gatewav.asp
City of Wilmington. Land Development Code.
wunU.ci.wilmington.nc.us /Degartrnents /DevelogmentServices / Planning/LandDevelog
mentCode
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Inc., EDR DataMap Environmental Atlas.
October 18, 2006. US 17 Corridor Study (ITP Proj No U-4751 + R-3300) Pender, NC.
Inquiry number 01776198.1r
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Federal Highway Administration. September 1996. Corrnnunity Impact Assessment, A
Quick Reference for Transportation.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS D-1 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Federal Highway Administration. October 1997. Title Code 23 of Federal Regulations
Part 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise
(23 CFR 772).
Hampstead Chamber of Commerce. wunU.hamgsteadchamber.com
Kimley$orn and Associates, Inc. July 2010. Market Street Corridor Study, Final Dra$
Kimley$orn and Associates, February 2004. Wave Short-Range Transit Plan.
L,eGrand Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh.
L,ogIn North Carolina. Economic Census Data.
wunU.data.osbm.state.nc.us/pls/linc/dpn linc main.show
Martin, Alexiou Bryson and Hayes Planning Associates. March 2008. Wave Transit
Satellite Transfer Stations.
Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. August 2010. Historic Architectural Resources
Survey Reoprt. Military Cutoff Road and Hampstead Bypass. New Hanover and Pender
Counties. NCDOT TTP Nos. U-47 51/R-3300.
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. May 26 and 27, 2010. Bridge and Aligninent
Review. New Hanover and Pender Counties. TTP U-4751 and TTP R-3300 - US 17
Corridor Study.
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. April 20, 2010. Bridge and Alignment Review.
New Hanover and Pender Counties . TTP U-4751 and TTP R-3300 - US 17 Corridor
Study.
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. January 2007. Corridor Alternatives Screening.
New Hanover and Pender Counties . TTP U-4751 and TTP R-3300 - US 17 Corridor
Study.
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. May 2007. Evaluation of Preliminary Alternatives.
New Hanover and Pender Counties . TTP U-4751 and TTP R-3300 - US 17 Corridor
Study.
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. August 2010. Natural Resources Technical Report.
New Hanover and Pender Counties . TTP U-4751 and TTP R-3300 - US 17 Corridor
Study.
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. December 2008. Natural Resources Technical
Report. New Hanover and Pender Counties. TTP U-4751 and TTP R-3300 - US 17
Corridor Study.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS D-2 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. January 2009. Preliminary Hydraulics Study for
Environmental Impact New Hanover and Pender Counties. TTP Project No. U-4751
and R-3300, Hampstead Bypass and Military Cutoff Road Extension.
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. August 2006. Purpose and Need. New Hanover
and Pender Counties. TTP Project No. U-4751 and R-3300. US 17 Corridor Study.
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. August 2009. Red-Cockaded Woodpecker Foraging
Habitat Analysis Report, TTP U-4751 and TTP R-3300 - US 17 Corridor Study.
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants and EcoScience Corporation. June 2009.
Community Impact Assessment and Qualitative Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Assessment New Hanover and Pender Counties. TTP U-4751 and TTP R-3300 - US 17
Corridor Study.
New Hanover County Government wunU.nhcgov.com
New Hanover County, June 5, 2006. New Hanover County Flood Damage Prevention
Ordinance.
New Hanover County, Planning Departrnent. May 1978. Middle
Sound/Ogden ... Future Directions.
New Hanover County, Planning Department June 1989. Porters Neck...Facing the
Future.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal
Management 2008. CAMA Handbook for Development in Coastal North Carolina:
Section 2. dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/handbook/section2.htrn
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Health. 2010. Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality.
Shellfish Closure Maps by County. wunU.deh.enr.state.nc.us/shellfish/mags.htrn
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Environment, Public Water Supply Section (PWSS), 20060901, Public Water Supply
Water Sources, Including Ground Water and Surface Water Sources: NC DENR
Division of Environmental Health, Public Water Supply Section, Raleigh, North
Carolina. wunU.nconemap.com
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Land
Resources Mining Program. Permitted Active and Inactive Mines in North Carolina.
2010. httg://wunU.dlr.enr.state.nc.us/gaaes/miningprogram.htrnl
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. June 2006. Chps. 3,
6, 8 revised March 2009. Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS D-3 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine
Fisheries. 2010. Fishery Nursery Areas. Maps 22, 26, and 27.
wunU.ncfisheries.net/maps/FNA maps/index.htrnl
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine
Fisheries. 2008. Shellfish Growing Areas GIS Data Layer. Updated April 2008.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2008. Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (Revised Draft 2008
303(d) List and Final 2006Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
h2o.enr.stote.nc.us/tmdl/GeneroI 303d. htrn
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2005. Cape Fear
River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality Basinwide Planning
Program. h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ basinwide/dra$CPFAgri12005.htrn
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2004. Basinwide Information Management System: Water Body Reports.
h2o.enr.stote.nc.us/bims/Rel2orts/rel2ortsWT.htmI
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resource, Division of Water
Quality. 1999. Internal Guidance Manual - N.C. Division of Water Quality Stream
Classification Method.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth
version.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. Draft 2012-2018 State Transportation
Improvement Program.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2009-2015 State Transportation
Improvement Program.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2011-2020 Dra$ State Transportation
Improvement Program.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Geotechnical Engineering Unit. March
2009. Geotechnical Pre-Scoping Report. New Route from Military Cutoff to the
Proposed Wilmington Bypass (R-2405 and US 17 Hampstead Bypass from US 17 to
US 17 North of Hampstead.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Branch. June
2008. Traffic Forecast for TTP Projects R-3300 & U-4751, New Hanover & Pender
Counties.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS D-4 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
North Carolina Department of Transportation. April 2008. Survey Report Red-
Cockaded Woodpecker, TTP U-4751 and TTP R-3300 - US 17 Corridor Study.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. January 2011. Red-Cockaded
Woodpecker Foraging Habitat Analysis Report for US Highway 17 Bypass of
Hampstead (R-3300).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2007. Invasive Exotic Plant List for
North Carolina. Unpublished.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. June 2006. Travel Analysis Report for
Military Cutoff Road Extension and Hampstead Bypass, TTP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Traffic, Engineering and Safety Systems
Branch. 2005-2007 Three Year Statewide Crash Rates.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Traffic Noise and Air Quality Group.
March 17, 2011. Review of Revised Traffic Noise Technical Memorandum. US 17
Corridor Study.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. Feasibility Study, Military Cutoff
Road Extension From Existing Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) in Wilmington to
Proposed TTP Project R-2405A (US 17 Wilmington Bypass).
North Carolina Department of Transportation. September 2, 2004. Strategic Highway
Corridors Map
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2004. Strategic Highway Corridors.
Concept Development Report.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2003. Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1999. Dra$ Feasibility Study, R-3300
US 17 Bypass, Pender County
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1997. Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters.
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation, Bike Maps and Routes.
wunU.ncdotgov/travel /mappub s /bikemaps /defaulthtrnl
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Relocation
Assistance
wunU.ncdotgov/download/construction/roadbuilt/ RelocationBooklet 07.gdf
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS D-5 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
North Carolina Employment Security Commission. wunU.ncesc.com
North Carolina Museum of History. American Indians in North Carolina.
http://wunU.ncmuseumoEhisto ,p.org/workshops/AI/TribalInfo.htrn
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2000. Executive Summary, Natural Area
Inventory of Pender County, North Carolina.
North Carolina State Demographics. wunU.osbm.state.nc.us/ncosbm.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Holly Shelter Game Land.
wunU.ncwildlife.org
Pender County Government wunU.pendercoun , nc.gov
Pender County. June 21, 2010. Pender County Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Pender County. 2010. Pender County Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
Pender County. May 16, 2005. Pender County CAMA Land Use Plan 2005 Update
Pender County Planning Departrnent 2005. Future Land Use Plan Map. wunU.gender-
coun!y.com/documents/12lonning/Ma
p s
Pender County. June 2, 1997. Thoroughfare Plan for Pender County.
Personal Cornrnunication, 2010a. Email correspondence with Mr. Kenneth E. Vafier,
Pender County Planning and Community Development on October 6, 2010 regarding
status of proposed developments in Pender County.
Personal Communication, 2010b. Email correspondence with Ms. Jane Daughtridge and
Mr. Sam Burgess, New Hanover County Government, regarding status of proposed
development activity near the proposed Military Cut-0ff corridor.
Personal Communication, 2010c. Telephone correspondence with Mr. Dale Suiter,
USFWS, on June 30, 2010 regarding golden sedge at Sidbury Road site.
Personal Communication, 2010d. Email correspondence with Mr. GaryJordan, USFWS,
on July 12, 2010 regarding golden sedge at Sidbury Road site.
Personal Communication, 2010e. Email correspondence with Mr. Travis Wilson,
NCWRC, on August 5, 2010 regarding construction moratoria for inland waters.
Personal Communication, 2008a. Telephone correspondence with Mr. Dale Suiter,
USFWS, on June 5, 2008 regarding abnormal blooming of endangered plant species.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS D-6 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Personal Corrnnunication, 2008b. Telephone correspondence with Mr. Fritz Rhode,
NCDMF, on September 12, 2008 regarding NCDMF surface water designations and
endangered species.
Personal Communication, 2008c. Telephone correspondence with Mr. Ron Sechler,
NOAA Fisheries Service, on September 18, 2008 regarding NOAA protected essential
fish habitat.
Personal Corrnnunication, 2008d. Telephone correspondence with Mr. Stephen Lane,
NCDCM, on September 18, 2008 regarding CAMA areas of environmental concern.
Personal Communication, 2008e. Email correspondence with Mr. Gary McSmith, Cape
Fear Public Utility Authority, on November 12, 2008 and telephone correspondence on
October 8, 2010 regarding water treatrnent facility and infrastructure near Military Cutoff
Road Extension alignment.
Personal Corrnnunication, 2008£ Telephone correspondence with Mr. Travis Wilson,
NCWRC, on November 20, 2008 regarding construction moratoria for inland waters.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. 1183 pp.
Rhode, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press. 222 pp.
RS&H Architects, Engineers and Planners, Inc. August 2010. Traffic Operations
Analysis Report, Volume 2 Build Conditions Analysis Dra$. New Hanover and Pender
Counties. TTP Nos: U-4751 and R-3300. Military Cutoff Road Extension and
Hampstead Bypass.
RS&H Architects, Engineers and Planners, Inc. August 2009. Traffic Operations
Analysis Report, Volume 1, Existing and No Build Conditions Analysis. New Hanover
and Pender Counties. TTP Nos: U-4751 and R-3300. Military Cutoff Road Extension
and Hampstead Bypass.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Corrnnunities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, North Carolina. 325 pp.
SEPI Engineering & Construction. February 2011. Traffic Noise Technical
Memorandum. US 17 Corridor Study. New Hanover and Pender Counties. NCDOT
TTP Nos. U-4751 and R-3300.
SEPI Engineering & Construction. July 2009. Air Quality Analysis Final. New Hanover
and Pender Counties. TTP U-4751 and TTP R-3300 - US 17 Corridor Study.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS D-7 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
Simon Resources, Inc. April 2007 U-4751 and R-3300 Citizens Informational Workshop
Summary.
Toole Design Group. 2009. Walk Wilmington: A Comprehensive Pedestrian Plan
Topsail-Island Information. www.tol2soil-islond.info/wordi2ress/index.]2h]2/hom]2steod
Town of Hampstead, North Carolina. wunU.hampsteadchamber.com
United States Census Bureau. www.uscensus.aov.
United States Census Bureau. Office of State Budget and Management, Multiple access
dates.SocioeconomicData. http://wunU/osbm.state.nc.us
United States Departrnent of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
1998. Hydrologic Units-North Carolina (metadata) Raleigh, North Carolina.
United States Departrnent of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
1990. Soil Survey of Pender County, North Carolina.
United States Departrnent of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
1977. Soil Survey of New Hanover County, North Carolina.
United States Departrnent of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
wunU.soildatamartnres.usda.aov
United States Environmental Protection Agency. wunU.ega.QOV/ngdes/stormwater
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina
Ecological Services. 2009. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina:
New Hanover County. Updated 5 August 2009. wunU.fws.gov/nc-es/es/clisttexthtrnl
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 4: Southeast Region, North Carolina
Ecological Services. 2009. Threatened and Endangered Species in North Carolina:
Pender County. Updated 31 January 2008. www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/clisttexthtrnl
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. National Wetland Inventory GIS Data
Layer. Statewide, North Carolina. Updated 18 May 1999.
United States Geological Survey. 1970. Hampstead, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series). Reston, VA: 1 sheet.
United States Geological Survey. 1970. Mooretown, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series). Reston, VA: 1 sheet.
United States Geological Survey. 1970. Scotts Hill, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series). Reston, VA: 1 sheet.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS D-B TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300
United States Geological Survey. 1970. Topsail, North Carolina, Topographic
Quadrangle (7.5-minute series). Reston, VA: 1 sheet.
United States Travel Association for the North Carolina Division of Tourism, Film and
Sports Development 2008 Economic Impact of Travel on North Carolina Counties.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Matninals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. 255 pp.
Weiss, Martin H. and Roger Figura. 2003. A Provisional Typology of Highway
Economic Development Projects. Federal Highway Administration. wunU.Ehwa.dotgov.
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. wunU.wmgo.org
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, Bicycle & Pedestrian
Transportation. wunU.wmpo.org/W1yIBPC/index.htrnl
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2009. City of Wilmington
Cross-City Trail.
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. May 21, 2007. Coastal
Pender Collector Street Plan.
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2005. Greater
Wilmington Area Thoroughfare Plan
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Transportation
Improvement Program 2004 - 2010.
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Transportation
Improvement Program 2007 - 2013.
Wilmington Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2006. Wilmington Urban Area 2030
Long Range Transportation Plan. wunU.wmpo.org/LRTP.htrn.
Wilmington Urban Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2008. Wilmington
Metropolitan Area Bicycle Map.
LJS 1 7 CORRIDOR STUDY DEIS D-9 TIP NOS. LJ-4751 & R-3300