20161268_Avoidance and Minimization_20130206

AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
PROPOSED US 1 7 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER AND PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 401 91.1.2
NCDOT TIP PROJECT R -3300
CORPS ACTION ID 2007 1 3B6
FEBRUARY 20, 201 3 AT 1 ❑:❑❑ A.M.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
STRUCTURES CONFERENCE ROOM, NCOOT CENTURY CENTER BUILDING A
1 000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE, RALEIGH, NC 2761 O
Prepared By
Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
6750 Tryon Road, Cary NC 27518
919- 851 -1912

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MeetingAgenda ......................................................... .............................ii
1.0 Introduction and Project Summary ............................................ ..............................1
1.1
Purpose of Today's Meeting .............................................................. ..............................1
1.2
Project Description ............................................................................. ..............................1
1.3
Purpose of the Proposed Action ....................................................... ..............................1
1.4
Project Status ....................................................................................... ..............................1
1.4.1 NEPA /Section 404 Merger Coordination ......................... ..............................1
1.4.2 Public Involvement .............................................................. ...............................
2
1.5
US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E- H ..................................... ..............................2
1.5.1 Northern Interchange History ............................................. ..............................2
1.5.2 Alternative E -H Description ................................................ ..............................6
1.5.3 Typical Sections ...................................................................... ..............................6
1.5.4 Access and Right of Way ...................................................... ..............................6
1.5.5 Hydraulic Recommendations ............................................... ..............................6
2.0 Environmental Evaluation ....................................................... ...............................
7
2.1
Streams, Wetlands and Other Surface Waters ................................ ..............................7
2.2
Historic Architectural Resources ..................................................... .............................12
2.3
Gamelands and Preservation Areas ................................................. .............................12
2.4
Federally- Protected Species .............................................................. .............................12
3.0 Avoidance
and Minimization .................................................... .............................15
3.1
Section 404 Avoidance and Minimization Measures .................... .............................15
3.2
Additional Avoidance and Minimization ........................................ .............................15
3.2.1 Red - cockaded Woodpecker ................................................ .............................15
3.2.2 Water Quality and Erosion Control ................................... .............................15
3.2.3 Community Impacts and Relocations ................................ .............................15
3.3
Other Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts Evaluated ...... .............................16
List of Tables
Table1. Hydraulic Structures ........................................................................................ ............................... 7
Table 2. Individual Stream Impacts .............................................................................. ............................... b
Table 3. Individual Surface Water Impacts ................................................................. ............................... 9
Table 4. Individual Wetland Impacts ............................................................................. .............................10
Table 5. Post - Project Cluster Level Analysis Using Proposed SMS Guidelines for RCW Clusters.. 12
Table 6. Summary of US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H Impacts ............. .............................14
Appendix A — Figures
Appendix B — Corridor Public Hearing Summary
n

NEPA /Section 404 Merger Meeting
Concurrence Point 4A
Proposed US 17 Hampstead Bypass
New Hanover and Pender Counties
ck °� NCDOT TIP Projects R -3300
State Project 40191.1.2
Corps Action ID 2007 1386
February 20, 2013
Meeting Agenda
1. Sign -in and Introductions
2. Purpose of Meeting
3. Overview & Project Status
4. R -3300 Avoidance and Minimization
5. Conceptual Mitigation Plan
6. Concurrence on Avoidance and Minimization
7. Completion of Concurrence Point 4A Signature Form
ii
a
WS Army Corps
of Engineers,.
Wilmington District

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT SUMMARY
1.1 Purpose of Today's Meeting
The purpose of today's meeting is to reach concurrence on avoidance and minimization
(Concurrence Point 4A) for US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H. Formal concurrence on
avoidance and minimization will be requested during this meeting.
1.2 Project Description
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) 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
2012 -2018 STIP.
For project R -3300, NCDOT proposes to construct the US 17 Hampstead Bypass as a freeway on
new location. The US 17 Hampstead Bypass will connect to the proposed Military Cutoff Road
Extension at the existing US 17 Wilmington Bypass (John Jay Burney Jr. Freeway) and extend to
existing US 17 north of Hampstead. Full control of access is proposed for the US 17 Hampstead
Bypass. The project area is shown in Figure 1 in Appendix A.
Project R -3300 is programmed for right -of -way acquisition in 2017. The draft 2013 -2023 NCDOT
Program and Resource Plan includes the construction of R -3300 in 2023. Current anticipated costs
for R -3300 are $213 million. Updated construction and right -of -way cost estimates reflecting
avoidance and minimization measures will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS).
1.3 Purpose of the Proposed Action
The purpose of the US 17 Corridor Study project is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and
safety of the US 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area.
1.4 Project Status
The US 17 Corridor Study Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was signed on July 28,
2011.
1.4.1 NEPA /Section 404 Merger Coordination
The NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team for the US 17 Corridor Study agreed on the purpose of and
need for the project at their September 21, 2006 meeting.
The NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team reviewed project alternatives at three meetings between
February 2007 and August 2007. During these meetings, the merger team dropped alternatives from
further consideration, added alternatives for evaluation, and combined some alternatives. The
Merger Team concurred on alternatives to be studied in detail at their August 23, 2007 meeting.

The NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team reached concurrence on Bridging and Alignment Review (CP
2A) on May 27, 2010.
The NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team met on December 15, 2011 to review the project status,
discuss comments on the DEIS and to identify any additional information needed prior to the
selection of the LEDPA.
Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M1 and US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H were
selected as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) at the
NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team meeting on May 17, 2012. EPA conditionally concurred on
selection of Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M1 as the LEDPA for U -4751. EPA
abstained from concurrence on US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H as the LEDPA for
R -3300.
The NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team met on June 14, 2012 to discuss Avoidance and Minimization
(CP 4A) for Military Cutoff Road Extension (U- 4751). The Merger Team concurred on Avoidance
and Minimization for U -4751 on August 8, 2012. The CP 4A meeting for Military Cutoff Road
Extension was conducted separately from the CP 4A meeting for US 17 Hampstead Bypass in order
to maintain the U -4751 project schedule. The CP 4A meeting for US 17 Hampstead Bypass was
postponed so NCDOT could evaluate the northern interchange design and location in response to
comments received from the public at the U -4751 and R -3300 corridor public hearings.
1.4.2 Public Involvement
Citizens informational workshops were held on April 23, 2007 in Hampstead and on April 24, 2007
in Wilmington. A total of 174 participants signed in at the workshops.
Corridor public hearings were held on October 17, 2011 in Wilmington and October 18, 2011 in
Hampstead. A total of 384 citizens registered their attendance at the meetings. Fifteen individuals
provided verbal comments and 92 written comments were received. The majority of the written
comments pertained to the location of the northernmost interchange for the US 17 Hampstead
Bypass, with most stating the lack of direct access to existing US 17 from the bypass at the northern
end of the project was unacceptable. A copy of the Post Hearing Meeting Summary is included in
Appendix B. Verbal comments received at the hearings begin on page 3 of the summary. Written
comments pertaining to the US 17 Hampstead Bypass portion of the project begin on page 13 of the
summary.
A design public meeting was held for U -4751 on August 28, 2012 in Wilmington. A total of 222
citizens registered their attendance at the meeting.
Other public involvement activities conducted to date have included the distribution of several
newsletters, small group meetings, a project website and a toll-free information line.
1.5 US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H
1.5.1 Northern Interchange History
The original proposed northern US 17 Hampstead Bypass interchange was located north of the
Topsail School complex (Topsail High School, Middle School and Elementary School), near the
project terminus between Leeward Lane and Sloop Point Loop Road. The results of a red - cockaded
2

woodpecker survey in 2008 and foraging habitat analyses in 2009 (updated in January 2011 and
December 2012) showed the interchange was located within the foraging habitat for active red -
cockaded woodpecker clusters. Several of the clusters are located within the boundary of Holly
Shelter Game Land and are part of the Mid - Atlantic Coastal Plain Recovery Unit. In response, the
project team revised the design and the northern US 17 Hampstead Bypass interchange was moved
from its location north of the Topsail Schools complex to south of the schools to minimize impacts
to red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat.
The relocated northern interchange, to the south of the schools (approximately 0.7 mile west of
Grandview Drive), was shown on the public hearing map presented to citizens at the October 2011
corridor public hearings. The design limited thru- traffic on existing US 17 north of the schools. In
their comments at the hearings, the public strongly specified maintaining access on existing US 17
was very important locally.
In response to the public's demand for continued access on existing US 17, a Value Engineering
study was conducted in December 2011. Several interchange configurations that maintain thru-
access on existing US 17 and minimize impacts to red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat were
considered and narrowed down to two options considered to be conceptually viable. Traffic
analyses and preliminary designs were prepared for several variations of the two options between
December 2011 and December 2012.
The initial goal of the project team was to replace the currently proposed interchange south of the
Topsail schools with an interchange north of the schools. Adjustments were made to the alignment
of the bypass and a reduced design was used to develop an interchange that would fit between the
school property and the red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat.
When detailed capacity analyses were performed on this design, it was discovered that traffic would
back up onto the bypass from the traffic signal at Topsail High School. Adding a third lane onto
existing US 17 at the school would alleviate this queuing, but the signal at the school would still not
operate at an acceptable level of service.
Concerns regarding the operation of existing US 17 at the schools led the project team to consider
keeping the currently proposed interchange south of the schools in addition to the newly designed
interchange north of the schools. When traffic capacity analyses were performed on the dual
interchange option, it was found that the signal on existing US 17 at the Topsail Schools complex
would operate acceptably and there would be no queuing onto the bypass.
Option 6TR, with two interchanges, is the preferred option for the US 17 Hampstead Bypass
Alternative E -H northern interchange configuration because:
• The northern interchange is adjacent to three schools. Two interchanges will reduce the
traffic and congestion in vicinity of the Topsail Schools complex.
• Traffic studies for the northern interchange options showed a single interchange would
present queuing issues at the signal in front of the Topsail Schools complex. This queuing
would result in traffic backing up onto the US 17 Hampstead Bypass. To address this issue,
an additional lane was added to existing US 17 in each direction in the vicinity of the schools
to help prevent cars from backing up onto bypass at this location. However, the signal in
front of the schools would continue to function at level of service F with one interchange.
3

• An increase in traffic or a traffic incident on existing US 17 in front of the Topsail Schools
complex, such as those that might result from an accident or special school events, would
have a greater potential to cause backups onto the US 17 Hampstead Bypass under Option
6R.
• The second interchange provided under Option 6TR will result in better traffic circulation
for the Hampstead area. With the single interchange option, there would be over five miles
between interchanges.
• The northern interchange has a reduced design in order to minimize impacts to red -
cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat and the schools, while restoring access to existing
US 17. This reduced design is more appropriate for a local access interchange than for a
major interchange.
• No service roads are required to provide access to existing development on the east side of
existing US 17 north of the Topsail Schools complex with Option 6TR.
The two interchange variations considered in the final analysis (6R and 6TR) are described below.
Both options would construct an interchange between the Topsail Schools complex and red -
cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat. Both would avoid a Pender County water tower located
adjacent to the schools. Both options would use a reduced design to fit between the constraints of
the schools and red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat.
Option 6R would construct an interchange north of the schools in place of the current proposed
northern interchange south of the schools. Option 6R includes a service road to provide access to
existing development on the east side of existing US 17 north of the school.
Option 6TR would construct an interchange north of the schools in addition to the current
proposed northern interchange south of the schools.
M

Both Option 6R and Option 6TR are located within the US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H
corridor. Both options would increase impacts to wetlands and streams and decrease impacts to
red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat when compared to the current northern interchange
configuration. Option 6R would increase stream impacts by 1,019 linear feet and wetland impacts
by 0.82 acre. Option 6TR would increase stream impacts by 681 linear feet and wetland impacts by
17.89 acres. Option 6TR would increase construction costs by approximately $10.1 million over
Option 6R. Due to their close proximity, a third lane is proposed in each direction between the two
northernmost interchanges on US 17 Hampstead Bypass under Option 6TR. The additional lane
serves as an auxiliary lane to allow for acceleration, deceleration and weaving. Option 6R requires a
third lane on existing US 17 between the interchange and Country Club Drive to prevent cars from
backing up onto the bypass.
With the addition of a lane in each direction on existing US 17 to reduce queuing issues, both
options improve traffic conditions over the existing interchange configuration. Overall traffic
operations are better with Option 6TR. Option 6TR distributes existing US 17 traffic between two
interchanges, resulting in better level of service, while all traffic is concentrated at one interchange
under Option 6R. Due to the proximity of the downstream traffic signal at the Topsail School Road
intersection, there would be higher potential of queue backups onto US 17 Hampstead Bypass under
Option 6R, when compared with Option 6TR. Traffic operations in front of the Topsail Schools
complex are better under Option 6TR.
5

Note: Text in Sections 1.5.2 through 1.5.4 below includes revisions to what was presented in
Section 2.1 of the Concurrence Point 3 packet. All changes are noted in italics. Text that is
removed ism and text that is added is underlined.
1.5.2 Alternative E -H Description
Alternative E -H begins in New Hanover County at a proposed interchange with the US 17
Wilmington Bypass, approximately midway between I -40 and Market Street. The alternative extends
northwest past Sidbury Road into Pender County. Land use between the bypass and Sidbury Road
is mostly undeveloped property. Alternative E -H turns to the northeast and continues to a
proposed interchange with NC 210 east of Island Creek Road.
From its interchange at NC 210, Alternative E -H extends northeast across several minor roads that
include lightly developed residential areas and through undeveloped forested areas. Alternative E -H
crosses Hoover Road north of South Topsail Elementary School and continues northeast through
undeveloped property to a proposed interchange with realigned US 17 approximately 0.7 mile west
of Grandview Drive. Alternative E -H continues north behind the Topsail Schools complex and
then turns east to tie me a proposed interchange with existing US 17 near Leeward Lane. Alternative E -H
continues north on existing US 17 to Sloop Point Loop Road.
Alternative E -H is shown on Figures 2A through 2F and on the Figure 3 series in Appendix A.
1.5.3 Typical Sections
From the proposed interchange at the US 17 Wilmington Bypass to the proposed interchange at
NC 210 and from the proposed US 17 Hampstead Buss interchange with realigned US 17 aproximately 0.7
mile west of Grandview Drive to Sloop Point Loop Road 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 to thepro�osed US 17 Hampstead Bypass
interchange with realigned US 17 04mo mately 0.7 mile west of Grandview Drive: Four 12 -foot lanes (two in
each direction) with 14 -foot outside shoulders (12 -foot paved). A 46 -foot median is proposed.
US 17 Hampstead Bypass typical sections are shown on Figure 4 in Appendix A.
1.5.4 Access and Right of Way
Full control of access is proposed for the US 17 Hampstead Bypass from the US 17 Vilmington By ass
to Long Leaf Drive. Access is proposed at interchanges with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass, NC 2101
existing US 17 approximately 0.7 mile west of Grandview Drive, and existing US 17near Leeward
Lane. Interchange locations are shown on Figure 2 in Appendix A.
A variable right of way width of 2-00 225 feet to 350 feet is proposed.
1.5.5 Hydraulic Recommendations
Table 1 lists the proposed major hydraulic structures for US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H.
The NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team concurred on the size and location of the structures on May
26 and 27, 2010. The locations of the structures are shown on Figure 2A in Appendix A.
6

Table 1. Hydraulic Structures.
Site No.
Stream ID
Wetland ID
Existing
Structure
Recommended
Structure
8
LSC, LSCC, LSCF
LWD
3 @48 "CMP'
2 @6'x5' RCBCZ.3
10
CSA FSA
- --
1 @72 "RCP4
Retain existing and add
two 1@ 72" RCP5
11
FSI
- --
- --
1 @12'x9' RCBC
15
HBSF, HBSH
HBWK
- --
Dual 230'Long Bridges
16
HBSD 2
HBWD
- --
Dual 200' Long Bridges
17
HSX
HWB
- --
3 @10'x9' RCBC
21
FSA
FWB
- --
2 @11'x9' RCBC
22
FSE
FWC
- --
2 @12'x7' RCBC
23
LSD
LWI
- --
2 @9'x7' RCBC
25
HBSC
HBWF
I 1 @9'x8' RCBC
1 Corrugated metal pipe 2 Reinforced concrete box culvert
3 Preliminary designs also include dual 135 -foot long bridges to maintain neighborhood access.
4 Reinforced concrete pipe
5 Retain existing 72" RCP pipe under Wilmington Bypass and add 72" RCP at two interchange ramps. Supplementation
of existing 72" pipe or enlarging of proposed ramp pipes will be investigated during final design.
2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Figures 2A through 2F in Appendix A show environmental features in the project area. A summary
of potential environmental impacts is provided in Table 6 on page 14. Detailed information
regarding impacts to jurisdictional resources and federally- protected species are described below.
As noted above, Alternative M1 +E -H was selected as the LEDPA for the project on May 17, 2012.
Impacts for US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H are calculated using an impact boundary that
includes slope stake limits plus 25 feet. At the US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange, the impact
boundary does not include the area evaluated for Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M1 at
the U -4751 June 14, 2012 CP 4A meeting.
2.1 Streams, Wetlands and Other Surface Waters
Water resources in the study area are part of the Cape Fear and Onslow Bay River Basins (U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS] Hydrologic Units 03030007 and 03020302). A total of 24 jurisdictional
streams, 67 jurisdictional wetlands and 13 other surface waters are located within the Alternative E-
H impact boundary. Impacts to Waters of the U.S. would occur at various locations throughout the
length of the project. Anticipated impacts for individual streams, wetlands and other surface waters
are presented for Alternative E -H in Tables 2 through 4 below.
7

Table 2. Individual Stream Impacts
Stream
ID
Stream Name*
Figure
No.
Stream
Impact
(feet)
Compensatory
Mitigation
Required
Stream
Determination
DWQ
Score
USACE
Score
FSA
UT to Island Creek
2 -13
1,481.37
Yes
Perennial
36.75
45
FSE
UT to Island Creek
2 -13
331.14
Yes
Perennial
28.75 **
50
FSH
UT to Island Creek
2 -13
135.40
Yes
Intermittent
27.5
44
FSI
UT to Island Creek
2 -B
273.54
Yes
Perennial
37.75
45
FSJ
UT to Island Creek
2 -B
858.61
Yes
Intermittent
22.5
32
HBSAA
UT to Island Creek
2 -C
141.44
Yes
Intermittent
24.5
69
HBSC
UT to Island Creek
2 -C
350.19
Yes
Perennial
**
53
HBSD(1)
UT to Island Creek
2 -C
116.54
Yes
Perennial
32.75
42
161.22
Yes
Intermittent
26
42
HBSH
UT to Island Creek
2 -C
319.90
Yes
Intermittent
26
40
HSC
UT to Harrisons Cr.
2 -D
407.74
Yes
Perennial
20.5 **
54
HSX
UT to Harrisons Cr.
2 -1)
309.65
Yes
Perennial
30.5
67
LSB
UT to Harrisons Cr.
2 -D
1,397.92
Yes
Perennial
37.5
66
LSC
Harrisons Creek
2 -D,E
861.25
Yes
Perennial
41.5
64
LSCA
UT to Harrisons Cr.
2 -D
335.91
Yes
Intermittent
**
58
107.15
Yes
Perennial
30
58
LSCAA
UT to Harrisons Cr.
2 -D
206.03
Yes
Perennial
20.5 **
39
LSCB
UT to Harrisons Cr.
2 -D
298.17
Yes
Perennial
26 **
44
LSCC
UT to Harrisons Cr.
2 -D
272.97
Yes
Perennial
28 **
52
LSCF
UT to Harrisons Cr.
2 -D
120.32
Yes
Intermittent
27
39
LSD
Godfrey Creek
2 -E
277.95
Yes
Perennial
45
48
LSDA
UT to Godfrey Cr.
2 -E
194.97
Yes
Intermittent
22.75
24
NSA
UT to Nixons Creek
2 -F
110.32
Yes
Perennial
**
31
344.21
Yes
Intermittent
16
31
NSF
UT to Old Topsail
Creek
2-F
290.02
Yes
Perennial
**
29
483.38
Yes
Intermittent
22.25
29
ZSK
UT to Prince
Geor ge Creek
2 -B
593.51
Yes
Perennial
18.5 **
35
ZS
UT UT to Prince
George Creek
2 -B
40.23
Yes
Perennial
30.5
35
* Island Creek, Harrisons Creek, Godfrey Creek, and Prince George Creek are classified C; Sw. Nixons Creek and Old
Topsail Creek are classified SA; HQW.
Stream HBSF (Island Creek) is bridged at Site 15, eliminating impacts to this stream.
* *Initial stream determination was revised based on conditions at the time of the regulatory agency field review.

Table 3. Individual Surface Water Impacts
1 Island Creek is classified C; Sw. Old Topsail Creek is classified SA; HQW.
2 Tributary feature does not require stream mitigation but may require mitigation by the USACE as a "Water of the US"
dependent upon the type of impact proposed at the time of permit application.
3 Tributary feature exists within the boundaries of an adjacent wetland and therefore does not require mitigation
independent of the wetland.
4 Tributary waters determined to be jurisdictional based on the presence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM).
These waters are classified as 'Waters of the US' (impacts calculated in sq. ft.) and will not require compensatory
mitigation.
5 ZTRIBI and NDITCHI were added during Jurisdictional review based on current site conditions.
9
Connection or
Feature ID
Figure
Appearance or
Compensatory
Impacts
No.
Name
Mitigation
(acres)
Additional Information
Requirement
IPE
2 -D
Stormwater Pond
No Connection
0.27
No permit found
Cypress /Gum
JPD
2 -E
Depression
KWG
1.71
KPB
2 -E
Cypress /Gum
KWA /KWG
0.34
Depression
LPB
2 -E
Manmade /Maintained
LWF
0.38
LPD
2 -D
Manmade /Maintained
LWA
0.02
LPE
2 -E
Manmade /Maintained
No Connection
0.36
NPA
2 -F
Small Borrow Pond
No Connection
0.01
Permit No. SW8 040431,
NPC
2 -F
Stormwater Pond
No Connection
0.06
Coastal Mini Storage & Caison
Yachts, High Density Project,
Valid: 7/20/04-7/20/14
Water Treatment
NPE
2 -F
Pond
No Connection
0.70
Compensatory
FSH
2 -B
UT to Island Crcck
Mitigation Not
2,327.58 sq. ft.
OHWM4, USACE Score 44
Re uired2
Compensatory
FSH
2 -B
UT to Island Creek'
Mitigation Not
905.67 sq. ft.
OHWM4, USACE Score 44
Re uired3
UT to Old Topsail
Compensatory
NDITCH15
2 -F
Creeks
Miti ation Not
g
1,558.08 s ft.
q
OHWM4
R uired2,3
UT to Old Topsail
p
Compensatory
ZTR1B15
2 -E
Creek'
Mitigation Not
181.2 sq. ft.
OHWM4
Re uired3
1 Island Creek is classified C; Sw. Old Topsail Creek is classified SA; HQW.
2 Tributary feature does not require stream mitigation but may require mitigation by the USACE as a "Water of the US"
dependent upon the type of impact proposed at the time of permit application.
3 Tributary feature exists within the boundaries of an adjacent wetland and therefore does not require mitigation
independent of the wetland.
4 Tributary waters determined to be jurisdictional based on the presence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM).
These waters are classified as 'Waters of the US' (impacts calculated in sq. ft.) and will not require compensatory
mitigation.
5 ZTRIBI and NDITCHI were added during Jurisdictional review based on current site conditions.
9

Table 4. Individual Wetland Impacts
Wetland
ID
Figure No.
Cowardin
Classification'
Hydrologic
Classification
DWQ
Wetland
Rating
Wetland
Impacts
(acres)
FWB
2 -B
PFO
Riparian
20
5.01
FWC2
2 -B
PFO
Riparian
48
1.45
FWF
2 -C
PFO
Non-riparian
37
5.81
Riparian
37
1.08
FWHB
2 -C
PFO
Non-riparian
24
0.04
FWI
2 -C
PFO
Non-riparian
17
0.38
FWL
2 -C
PFO
Non-riparian
19
0.03
FWY
2 -B
PFO
Non-riparian
20
0.18
HBAA3
2 -C
PSS /PFO
Riparian
32
0.06
HBAB
2 -C
PSS /PFO
Non-riparian
27
1.09
HBWD4
2 -C
PSS /PFO
Riparian
83
1.19
HBWF
2 -C
PEM /PSS
Riparian
32
0.78
HBWK5
2 -C
PFO /PSS
Riparian
83
1.47
HBWT
2 -C
PSS
Non - riparian
14
0.39
HWAA6
2 -C
PFO
Riparian
40
1.64
Non - riparian
40
8.52
HWB
2 -D
PFO
Riparian
50
2.31
HWD
2 -D
PFO
Non - riparian
21
0.35
HWG7
2 -D
PFO /PSS
Riparian
15
0.87
HWH
2 -D
PFO
Non - riparian
26
0.15
HWH1
2 -D
PFO
Non - riparian
26
0.08
HWH2
2 -D
PFO
Non - riparian
26
0.03
HWH3
2 -D
PFO
Non - riparian
26
0.07
HWH4
2 -D
PFO
Non - riparian
26
0.02
HWH5
2 -D
PFO
Non - riparian
26
0.23
HWHH
2 -C
PFO
Non- riparian
34
0.90
HWMX
2 -D
PFO
Non - riparian
40
0.05
HAW
2 -C, 2 -D
PFO
Non- riparian
26
0.17
HWZ
2 -C
PFO
Non - riparian
21
0.01
IWA
2 -D
PFO
Riparian
80
0.03
IWB
2 -D
PFO
Riparian
25
0.09
IWC
2 -D
PFO
Riparian
20
0.13
IWD
2 -D
PFO
Non- riparian
31
17.53
Riparian
31
0.39
AVE
2 -D
PFO
Non- riparian
13
0.16
KWG
2 -E
PF01 /2G
Non - riparian
43
0.71
LWA
2 -D
PFO
Riparian
70
0.13
LWB
2 -D
PFO
I Riparian
72
7.81
10

Wetland
ID
Figure No.
Cowardin
Classification'
Hydrologic
Classification
DWQ
Wetland
Rating
Wetland
Impacts
(acres)
LWD
2 -D, 2 -E
PFO
Riparian
83
5.84
LWD1
2 -D
PFO
Riparian
48
0.08
LWE
2 -E
PFO
Non - riparian
29
0.49
LWF
2 -E
PFO
Non- riparian
11
0.10
LWG
2 -E
PFO
Non - riparian
46
0.01
LWH
2 -E
PFO
Non- riparian
23
0.01
LWI
2 -E
PFO
Riparian
80
2.50
LWJ
2 -E
PFO
Non - riparian
40
5.40
LWK
2 -E
PFO
Riparian
78
0.04
LWL
2 -E
PFO
Riparian
76
0.28
MWA
2 -F
PSS /PFO
Non - Riparian
36
0.00
MWM(2)
2 -D
PFO
Riparian
68
0.09
Non - riparian
68
2.61
NWA
2 -F
PFO
Non- riparian
12
0.01
NWB
2 -F
PEM /PFO
Non - riparian
13
0.04
NWE
2 -F
PEM /PFO
Non- riparian
12
0.03
NWF
2 -F
PEM /PSS
Non - riparian
12
0.05
NWJ
2 -F
PSS /PFO
Non - riparian
12
0.10
NWK
2 -F
PSS
Non - riparian
12
0.04
NWM
2 -F
PFO
Non - Riparian
22
1.01
NWO
2 -E
PF04
Non - riparian
17
3.11
NWP
2 -E, 2 -F
PSS
Non- riparian
17
30.00
PD -11
2 -F
PFO /PSS
Non- riparian
N/A
0.04
PD -15
2 -F
PFO /PSS
Non - riparian
N/A
0.53
PD -16
2 -F
PFO /PSS
Non- riparian
N/A
0.63
PD -29
2 -E, 2 -F
PFO /PSS
Non- riparian
N/A
9.34
PD -31
2 -F
PFO /PSS
Non- riparian
N/A
2.02
PD -32
2 -F
PFO /PSS
Non - riparian
N/A
2.44
Riparian
N/A
0.92
PD -33
2 -F
PFO /PSS
Non - riparian
N/A
7.79
Riparian
N/A
0.67
PD -34
2 -F
PFO /PSS
Non - riparian
N/A
2.30
PD -35
2 -F
PFO /PSS
Non - riparian
N/A
7.24
ZWCC
2 -F
PFO
Riparian
28
0.06
ZWDD
2 -B
PFO
Non - riparian
26
0.92
Riparian
26
0.24
1 Cowardin classifications are based on characteristics of each wetland at the specific time and location of observation.
Wetlands having `No ID' were not characterized due to impacted appearance at the time of observation.
2Includes wetland FEW 3 Includes wetland HBAC
413ridging at Site 16 reduces wetland impacts to HBWD from 1.71 acres to 1.19 acres.
11

5 Includes wetland HBWP, Bridging at Site 15 reduces wetland impacts to HBWK from 1.61 acres to 1.47 acres.
6 Includes wetlands HWBB, HWII, HWLL 7 Includes wetlands HWM, HWN, HWO
2.2 Historic Architectural Resources
US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H will have No Effect on properties listed on or eligible for
listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred
with effect determinations at a meeting held on March 8, 2011.
2.3 Gamelands and Preservation Areas
Alternative E -H will impact 0.04 acres of the Corbett Tract Mitigation Site. Project work in the area
of impact is within the existing right -of -way limits.
2.4 Federally- Protected Species
As of September 22, 2010, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 12 federally - protected
species for New Hanover County and 13 federally - protected species for Pender County. Pedestrian
surveys were conducted for listed plant species on May 29 -30, 2012.
US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H may affect, and is likely to adversely affect red - cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis). No other impacts to federally- protected species are anticipated from
Alternative E -H.
A Foraging Habitat Analysis conducted for the project shows Alternative E -H would result in a
cluster -level take in Holly Shelter Game Land (HSGL) Cluster 17 as shown in Table 5 below (see
Figures 3M and 3N). HSGL Cluster 17 does not meet the proposed regional red - cockaded
woodpecker (RCW) Standard for Management Stability (SMS) foraging habitat guidelines pre- or
post - project using the 200 -foot or 300 -foot wide corridors.
Table 5. Post - Project Cluster Level Analysis Using Proposed SMS Guidelines for RCW Clusters
Cluster
300 -Foot Corridor Cluster-
Level Take? (Yes /No)
200 -Foot Corridor Cluster -
Level Take? (Yes /No)
PVT1
No
No
HSGL 17A*
No
No
HSGL 17
Yes
Yes
HSGL EC
No
No
*Assumes no pine removal within partition.
12

Informal consultation for red - cockaded woodpecker has taken place between NCDOT and the
USFWS since 2006. The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the USFWS regarding the
potential effects of the proposed project on the red - cockaded woodpecker. The USACE will serve
as the lead federal agency with respect to compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
All US 17 Hampstead Bypass alternatives include improvements along existing US 17 in the vicinity
of Holly Shelter Game Land. There is red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat adjacent to both
the east and west sides of existing US 17 in this area. A commitment was made in the DEIS that
roadway widening will not exceed a width of 200 feet in areas where there is adjacent red - cockaded
woodpecker foraging habitat along existing US 17 in order to maintain connectivity between
foraging habitat partitions. During the evaluation of how the project could minimize impacts to
both the public and red - cockaded woodpecker foraging habitat, the design was modified through
this area to limit project - related clearing, or right -of -way, to 200 feet. However, it was later
recognized in Cluster EC that although the project's right -of -way or clearing limits were less than
200 feet, the alignment was such that the tree -to -tree distance was actually greater than 200 feet. It
was also determined there is no way to avoid a take in Cluster 17.
The addition of a third lane in each direction increases the right -of -way limits through this area to
250 feet in Cluster 17 and 225 feet in Cluster EC. The project team evaluated shifting the US 17
Hampstead Bypass alignment to the west (landward) to maintain a 200 -foot clearing limit (tree -line
to tree -line) in Cluster EC, for as great a distance as possible. It was determined that shifting the
alignment would result in an impact to Holly Shelter Game Land property. Because shifting the
alignment west would result in impacts to Holly Shelter Game Land property and would not affect
the conclusions of the red - cockaded woodpecker cluster evaluation, the alignment was not shifted.
13

Table 6. Summary of US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H Impacts
US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H
Feature
Impact
Length (miles)
13.9
Delineated Wetland Impacts acres
148.32 ( +4.35)1
Delineated Stream Impacts (linear feet )
10,821 ( +750)
Delineated Surface Water Impacts
Stormwater ponds with a connection to tributary waters (acres)
Stormwater ponds with no connection to tributary waters (acres)
Tributary waters determined to be jurisdictional based on the presence of
an Ordinary High Water Mark OH (square feet /acres
2.45 ( +0.45)
1.4(+0.79)
4,972.53/0.11
Displacements
Residential
Business
Non-profit
40(-3)
12(-4)
2(-l)
Red - cockaded Woodpecker Cluster -Level Take
Yes
Other Federally - Protected Species Impacts
No
Natural Heritage Program SNHA, Managed Areas and Wetland
Mitigations Sites acres
0.04
Prime Farmlands /Farmlands of Statewide Importance (acres)2
68
Forest (acres)
410(+8)
100 Year Flood lain and Floodway Impacts (acres) 3
28.69 ( +0.53)
Historic Properties no.
0
Noise Receptor Im acts4
110
Recorded Archaeological Sites (no. )
0
Wildlife Refuge/Game Lands (acres)
0
Recreational Areas /Parks (no.)
0
High Quality Waters Watershed (HQW, ORW, WS Protected or
Critical Areas) (acres)
17.06 ( +10.92)
Cemeteries (no.)
1 ( +1)
Potential UST / Hazmat Sites no.
1 +1
Total Cost (in millions)'
$213
1 Red numbers in parentheses reflect changes in impacts as a result of avoidance and minimization measures
incorporated into the design since the December 2011 CP3 informational meeting.
2 Farmland impacts will be updated for the FEIS.
3 Recently released NC Flood Maps Data Service used to calculate impacts.
4Impacted noise receptors will be updated in a Design Noise Report and recommended noise barrier locations will
be reviewed.
5 Updated costs will be included in the FEIS.
14

3.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H minimizes impacts to resources. However, it is not
feasible for the proposed project to completely avoid impacts to the Waters of the US and still meet
the purpose and need of the project. The following avoidance and minimization efforts have been
incorporated into the proposed project:
3.1 Section 404 Avoidance and Minimization Measures
■ 3:1 slopes are proposed in wetland areas and adjacent to streams.
■ US 17 Hampstead Bypass was realigned between Station 443 +00 and Station 529 +00 as it
approaches and crosses Harrison Creek Road. Wetland impacts were reduced by 4.77 acres.
Impacts to streams were reduced by 5.93 linear feet. (Figures 3E and 3F)
■ US 17 Hampstead Bypass was realigned in the vicinity of the NC 210 interchange between
Station 553 +00 and Station 601 +00. Wetland impacts were reduced by 0.78 acre and stream
impacts were reduced by 258 linear feet. (Figures 3G and 3H)
■ US 17 Hampstead Bypass was realigned in the vicinity of Holiday Drive between Station
650 +00 and Station 714 +00. Wetland impacts were reduced by 7.99 acres. However, the
shift results in additional impacts to streams of 332 linear feet. (Figures 3I and 3J)
3.2 Additional Avoidance and Minimization
3.2.1 Red - cockaded Woodpecker
The original proposed northern US 17 Hampstead Bypass interchange was moved from its
location north of the Topsail School Complex to south of the schools to minimize impacts to
red- cockaded woodpecker (RCW) foraging habitat. The public was opposed to the interchange
location south of the schools because it limited thru- traffic on existing US 17 north of the
schools. In response, a new interchange configuration is proposed north of the Topsail Schools
Complex. The interchange minimizes impacts to RCW Cluster PVT1 and avoids impacts to
HSGL 17A (Figure 3NI).
3.2.2 Water Quality and Erosion Control
■ Old Topsail Creek and Nixons Creek are designated as Commercial Shellfishing, High Quality
Waters (SA; HQW) by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality. Tributaries of these
streams (NSA, NSF, NDITCHI and ZTRIBI) are designated SA;HQW due to the classification
of their receiving waters. Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented for
NSA, NSF, NDITCHI and ZTRIBI during project construction. (Figures 2E and 2F)
3.2.3 Community Impacts and Relocations
■ The interchange added north of the Topsail Schools Complex to maintain access along existing
US 17 uses reduced design criteria to minimize impacts to RCW habitat and the Topsail Schools
Complex, and avoid a Pender County water tower. The interchange will increase impacts to
streams by approximately 681 linear feet, wetlands by approximately 18 acres and ponds by 0.73
acre.
15

Control of access was reduced along the west side of existing US 17 near the project's northern
terminus to minimize impacts to a business and a church (Figure 3N). A new relocation report
and right of way cost estimate will be prepared and included in the FEIS. It is expected that
design modifications will result in three fewer residential relocations, four fewer business
relocations and one less non - profit relocation overall.
3.3 Other Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts Evaluated
A shift in the alignment was evaluated between Station 298 +00 and Station 368 +00 in the
vicinity of Sidbury Road (Figure 3C) to see if impacts to several wetlands and streams could be
reduced. It was determined shifting the alignment in this area would result in a slight increase in
impacts to both wetlands and streams.
An alignment shift along existing US 17 between the Holly Shelter Game Land access road and
Sloop Point Loop Road was evaluated to see if clearing on the east side of the road in Cluster
HSGL EC could be minimized. It was determined the shift would result in impacts to Holly
Shelter Game Land Property. (Figure 3N)
16

Appendix A
Figures

Y l
Lo (4-1�
A a -- �
3 �aw4 li•
lawn �- / wined p
4
vun
,
a
Panee•las 11
VertmA
W Ina an• I) MaPI
+
`
Nrll
P N$ E R
�+
11E
wo ro4
C. r, eo,y w
\ 5G'
Saint
H..".
f I HeM a la
1
Holly R'A
:or norl n l S I I)
\
/ ulnc _
210 8
Rocky Pont
I37 /
Ile a
A 411
1 Haingteaa
5O
If
` SNIIf 1
'.
Nan
a� 133
f
I
/ 4
f�
H9 ov nI /t
on
OXt
o �� NAro(ntrt
PROJECT
MASONBO'O
ISLAND
VICINITY
Cu I'na ItrurN (nlrr
'.8) Sea B or. ,:
I
1
I tt . CatoBna Beach
�t
uie aQaa�
PIEASUNI
711 _ 9✓
Hams 133 .
o till
`.HOak Island Ca, SMITH ISLAND
SAW NEAD
ISLAND
i cAIE If-
A 7
�5 A,
Figure 1
PROJECT VICINITY
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Nos. U -4751 and R -3300
New Hanover and Pender Counties
OF NORTH Cy
yP� North Carolina
Department of Transportation
v9 Q1v
0
6� OF TFI
`f r
R -3300 CORRIDOR
17
eY 'C
X96.
�� s -
Igton Bypass � � Scott
-
_ _ 0- 4751. RRIDOR'
.�1
K
Wilmington
ad
Holly Shelter Gameland,
ac
ca
O
ac
P
S
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Miles ).N

Prepared by: y'
�MULKEY
Prepared for:,
,`�-51
Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H
US 17 Corridor Study
NCDOT TIP Project Number R -3300
Pender & New Hanover Counties, NC
Map 2F
Legend
Alternative E -H
Holly Shelter Gamelands
Pre - minimization
Alternative E -H
HQW I ORW
___
i_i 1 Map Grids
Significant Natural Heritage
Project Study Corridor
Area & Managed Area
County Boundary
® Floodplains
771 Wetland
Historic Site
[� Pond
Q Well Head Protection Area
— Stream
River Basin
0 2,500 5,000 10,000
Feet
Oab Sources: NCOOT, NC NHP end Mulkey GIS
Wetland, Pond, and Stream features are approximate locations as Figure Prepared: 211M13
the work was mmpleted fori mentor' purposes using a Tdmhla Aedal Imagery: 5/2)112
G"XTIXH wiM supposed sub -meter accuracy.
+ Hazmat/UST
0 Permitted Mine /Quarry
O Hydraulic Site
Interchange Locations
- RCW Habitat
(I-W- Pgtantlally SWtabla and
Suitable Habitat)
Q RCW Partitions
RCW Cavity Tree
Figure No.
2A

lro
J -9s
s
/sp vRy
73o9,p�
I4gND
\REEK R0.
NgMPSTFgO B
HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
N
�C
W
� o �Po
lei
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
010
�
ss NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
o
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
M
t
�I
° uS,17
Iry-
us 17 BUSINESS
r n "o 0
.:, . •, 0o
o� G-os
PaaEa,aMaNAaar° (� 0 �' '.. �O CA P S
HoT Asa mR
r
ti •lox � � � � � , .
PLANS PREPARED BY: ±'. � � - � 70
MULKEY
yjl
�ENOINEER9 6 CCNBULTANT9 _ • �" "� } r�?� � A ' - ' -
PC Sox 331 27
RALEIGH, N.C. 27636
(91 9) 951 • 1 1
(919) 951-1 9919 2 (FAX)
W W W.M IJLKEYINC.CCM
RP
� 9
o �
°tl o
m� RP
3A 0
�r Op TRA14S4
�G
ti
c
Z�
h
�s
�p
Q
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3-1

:9 alq
ISLAND
CREEK R
i0
CJ� ,
U4 � .
,,s- Fcs
'PO
>, NOR
i'
PI8LhIN4IN
PLANS PREPARED BY:
MULKEY
ENGINEERS 6 CONSULTANTS
PO Sox 33129
RALEIGI, N.C. 27636
(91 91 551 -1 9 1 8 2
(91 91 551-1 91 (FAX)
WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
v
2
D�
—I�
OZ
Z N
T
m
v
P �
5 �
9
b
3P �4
�r °p 7a AKS4
r
m
W
r
>
�
°
r-
yr-
O
a
r
X 00 3
O
°
m
-„
D
WvzO
��
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 3 -2

IL
1 � I
_ (}P 3so
r1 n
PRELIMINARY PLANS
m ear 11rr enr mwnucnon
PLANS PREPARED BY:
-- MULKEY
ENGINEERS 6. CONSULTANTS
PO a 3312
(9191GBB51 -1912
1919) 51-1918-cu
Www.MULKEVINC.cUen
11 I
(I _ _ MATCHLINE 3P
-- - - -;
I I CWE v-
11
CORBETT STRIP 'p `\
O REAL SITE
SIDU ' 11
I
co
A 4D
, ly I
/ A
so
mr
/ % t
�- s -, - -- - L -
I
�I
II `
bwF
1 Id
JI r,
1 ,
T
,
I I.
Q 2 \ 1 Y
7 I �
,o
1 1 i
1
a �I
Q11
II
I
MATCHLINE 3Q
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
ov
1' Po
P
f�
F.I 0
ys
°F zan"
NAD $3
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
1S MITIGABLE STREAM
JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3A
SCALE

Q
M
W
Z
J
V
gH
2
�1
I
VORT(t�
0 �
0 ?o
f
O
a/
0I
PRELIMINARY PLANS
m ear llrs enr cownucnon
PLANS PREPARED BY:
4-MUL—KE-ve
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
Pa❑ a x 3312'l
r. N.C. 2....
191916851 -1912
191 91
ww.MULKE.ULKE 1 t3 (PAX)
wYINC.COM
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
1
s
J
V
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
1S NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
-� RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure EB
SCALE

0
m
M
W
J
U
R
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. loa aBelxurnoK
PLANS PREPARED BY:
*- MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PU Box 33121
RnLEIGN N.C. 27-
(9191 851 -1912
WW.MLILK
19191 EYI
. 1918 NC.CO
WCOM
s
4
T l
NoltTq C
o� v
9 Q Nas,4,q g
/ -- - --
c ors
i
/ 1 7i�
t i / i
�� I �/ �� \
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
a
4
7
\ s
\ s /
T�
d
f�
\ G
LEGEND
c - - - -- F
SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE —MIN)
—_•,—
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
-n, --
JS NON — MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
—
STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( —Ml —)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
—F—
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT —OF —WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3C
SCALE

A
r
HBSG
a
L IO
OF N0 m Ty C
r
HBSD(2)
M
y y v
�'F o
Yr np fRA*yP
p O
ZZ
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. loa aBelxurnoK
PLANS PREPARED BY:
4--MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PU Box 3312')
RnLEIGN N.C. 27-
(9191 851 -1912
191 91 S51 1 91 B (FAXI
W WW.MLILKEYINC.COM
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
161
�p0
W
M
W
_Z
J
V
H
Q
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE —MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
- -_ -- JS NON — MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
— STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( —Ml —)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT —OF —WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3D
SCALE

Z
V
r�
J5 MIS
yak
o �
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. loa aBelxurnoK
PLANS PREPARED BY:
-- KEYENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PU Box 3312')
RnLEIGN• N.C. 27-
(9191 851 -1912
WW.MLILK
19191 E
. 191YI8 NC.CO
WCOM
;a
�ANA,v' "'
i
s
1%.-
I
J, OF No Tq
�P
-�000,
C
(I Y
tai 9
v--
�V 'fY \ i/ /1 V ' -i r - -) • �.
Cl
1p
I If
- 1--- - - - - -- - - -� - -- — \
-.- - --
--- - - - - -- - - --
o -
�\
r.
-�_ 41.
Xy (10
-�_ -44,
MINIMIZATION AREA 1
C (STA.443 +00 TO STA.529 +00(
WETLAND IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 4.77 ACRES.
STREAM IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 5.93 LINEAR FEET.
y�
It
J
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
I Gr_G�In
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
- - JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3E
SCALE
46
41,
2�,r
II i1/
11
1 1
1
lily
i �
o
Z
V
r�
J5 MIS
yak
o �
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. loa aBelxurnoK
PLANS PREPARED BY:
-- KEYENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PU Box 3312')
RnLEIGN• N.C. 27-
(9191 851 -1912
WW.MLILK
19191 E
. 191YI8 NC.CO
WCOM
;a
�ANA,v' "'
i
s
1%.-
I
J, OF No Tq
�P
-�000,
C
(I Y
tai 9
v--
�V 'fY \ i/ /1 V ' -i r - -) • �.
Cl
1p
I If
- 1--- - - - - -- - - -� - -- — \
-.- - --
--- - - - - -- - - --
o -
�\
r.
-�_ 41.
Xy (10
-�_ -44,
MINIMIZATION AREA 1
C (STA.443 +00 TO STA.529 +00(
WETLAND IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 4.77 ACRES.
STREAM IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 5.93 LINEAR FEET.
y�
It
J
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
I Gr_G�In
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
- - JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3E
SCALE
i
s
1%.-
I
J, OF No Tq
�P
-�000,
C
(I Y
tai 9
v--
�V 'fY \ i/ /1 V ' -i r - -) • �.
Cl
1p
I If
- 1--- - - - - -- - - -� - -- — \
-.- - --
--- - - - - -- - - --
o -
�\
r.
-�_ 41.
Xy (10
-�_ -44,
MINIMIZATION AREA 1
C (STA.443 +00 TO STA.529 +00(
WETLAND IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 4.77 ACRES.
STREAM IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 5.93 LINEAR FEET.
y�
It
J
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
I Gr_G�In
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
- - JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3E
SCALE

f
I
II
I \
= I -
�I ,
sl I
N) I II
I I s
I I p
r)
Is
i u
a ;
r �
Fm
Y
NoltTq C
/ / m
nF
OJ �f
c
Z 9
r
r
' ywc
1\
Ir,
LJJ - --� - - -� ---
-� - -- -
/r
- - -- h4,
1
_ -- -- -- -- \ 1
\ lrl
�%
MINIMIZATION AREA 1 �J'O�
(STA.443 +00 TO STA.529 +00)
WETLAND IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 4.77 ACRES.
STREAM IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 5.93 LINEAR FEET.
hl�
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. loa aBelxurnoK
PLANS PREPARED BY:
4'—MULKEY R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
Po Box 33 C.
RnLEIGN� .3 '2' 2']636
(9191 851 -1912
IW 191 B51191B 1FAX1 STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
WW.MLILKEYINC.COM
0
co
W
Z
--J
U
F-
E
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
- -_ -- JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3F
SCALE

u-
c')
W
Z
J
U
Z
1 %
AND I�r \
J
A /
_ F
Nw/
Nw0
9
NwE �
ti
�\ O
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. loa aBelxurnoK
PLANS PREPARED BY:
-- KEYENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PU Box 3312')
RnLEIGN N.C. 27-
(9191 851 -1912
191 91 S51 1 91 B (FAXI
W WW.MLILKEYINC.COM
r
I
MINIMIZATION AREA 2
(STA.553 +00 TO STA. 601 +00)
WETLAND IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 0.78 ACRE.
STREAM IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 258 LINEAR FEET.
s
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
tis
HW4
M
W
z
J
V
Q
a
m
0
2�
LEGEND
OF Nun lq\
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
- -_ -- JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3G
SCALE

41S,o
' 7
/i
SP
LSAA W
l A
n
�
=
W> z
>A
� �
C. \
Z, R
8
W
/W4
4
_ � ,
- -----------------
r
tW
a
/Wp
°
MINIMIZATION AREA 2
(STA.553 +00 TO STA.601 +00)
—'
WETLAND IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 0.78 ACRE.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. loa aBelxurnoK
STREAM IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 258 LINEAR FEET.
PLANS PREPARED BY:
' 7
-- KEYENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PUB'. 3 127
RALEGN N.C. 27-
(9191 851 -1912
WW.MLILK
19191 E
. 191YI8 NC.CO
WCOM
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
0
a>r a
m
9
4�
\Y�.` \Y� // 8
B
/PF
�Q
m
M�''N(2) of Nokzq
L
J,
0
Ie
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE —MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
JS NON — MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
— STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( —Ml —)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
B- CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT —OF —WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
� ZOO- 0 Z ° °' F i 9 u re 3 H
SCALE
/i
"
W
- --
- -----------------
/Wp
°
MINIMIZATION AREA 2
(STA.553 +00 TO STA.601 +00)
WETLAND IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 0.78 ACRE.
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. loa aBelxurnoK
STREAM IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 258 LINEAR FEET.
PLANS PREPARED BY:
-- KEYENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PUB'. 3 127
RALEGN N.C. 27-
(9191 851 -1912
WW.MLILK
19191 E
. 191YI8 NC.CO
WCOM
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
0
a>r a
m
9
4�
\Y�.` \Y� // 8
B
/PF
�Q
m
M�''N(2) of Nokzq
L
J,
0
Ie
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE —MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
JS NON — MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
— STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( —Ml —)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
B- CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT —OF —WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
� ZOO- 0 Z ° °' F i 9 u re 3 H
SCALE

Al
MINIMIZATION AREA 3
(STA. 650 +00 TO STA. 714 +00)
WETLAND IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 7.99 ACRES.
Q�. I STREAM IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 332 LINEAR FEET.
C�
0-
n
`OP b�`
LSC-
-� _CPq --
VIA
It
- - - -- --- --- - - - - --
i I
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. loa aBelxurnoK
PLANS PREPARED BY:
*- MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PU Box 3312')
RnLEIGN N.C. 27-
(9191 851 -1912
191 91 S51 1 91 B (FAXI
W WW.MLILKEYINC.COM
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
OF Nun lq\
a
z�
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
- -_ -- JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 31
SCALE

M WAA
Cn ,.
y-
yJ
t
Y
1301)"'V CREEK Rp.
MINIMIZATION AREA 3
(STA.650 +00 TO STA. 714 +00)
WETLAND IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 7.99 ACRES.
STREAM IMPACTS WERE REDUCED BY 332 LINEAR FEET.
m
cv �� LSC
LWL
j
1
"I
i
.I
If
L s'
'y S
,Y v
r
e_
L WJA
or
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. loa aBelxurnoK
PLANS PREPARED BY:
-- MULKEY R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
Po NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
Box 3312')
R nLEIGN� N.C. 2']636
(9191 851 -1912
IW 191 B51191B 1FAX1 STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
WW.MLILKEYINC.COM
Qs
O
LWI
���
Z0 Az
h
�s0
LPC
LWK
I �
i
r y
1 �
P
I L LWK
i
1
I
I
i
(
----- --
I
i
I
I
LWJ
,m
Y
M
W
Z
.J
FU—
►1
OF Nun lq\
M
0
z
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
- -_ - -- JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3J
SCALE

PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o Nor ur roR coNrlxurnoN
PLANS PREPARED BY:
-k—MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PU a 27
27636
19 1 91Ga 5 1- C9 1 2
`19­1 - 19IS("X)
WWW.MULKEYINC.CCM
f
S
It
4
KWF KWSr M K -S.5 V V V J I/ rIAN%r a I CHV C3 T I'HJJ
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
NA
OF Nun lq\
I -0
0
5 Z
1 Gr_GtlIn
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
- -_ -- JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3K
SCALE

PLANS PREPARED BY:
- -MULKI
ENGINEERS & CONSL
PO B 27
Rn LE) N.C. 2.1... 1
19191 . 851 -1 91 2
91 91 851-191 B (FAX)
WW W.MLJLK EYINC.COM
PRELIMINARY PLAN
w emm uea roa camLUrnoK
w
M
W
J
U
C
q
ST. JOHNS
CHURCH RD.
��
J
0
y
V
n ✓Aq �
lAG
�g0
i
I
COI
07 Z 1,
lAP
AO
AO
�J
2'OS
IOLD US 17 I
I ✓` N
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
J
U
G
1J
J
I aralln
OF Nun lq\
e�
P�
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
- JS MITIGABLE STREAM
1S NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -M1 -)
0 RCW FORAGING HABITAT
(INCLUDES POTENTIALLY SUITABLE AND
SUITABLE HABITAT)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3L
SCALE

PLANS PREPARED BY
PRELIMINARY PLANS
' MULKEY
ENGINEERS 6 CONSULTANTS
PU a 27
27636
1919165 I' -C912
9) "T 1-191 H AXI
WWW.MUI_KEYI.COM
PVT 1
I
[•r
�y
pn 3"
�\
j �`
�I
I
W_ McMinn
�`
S3 V '"
M °V° v '
I PD _-�?6
\
T
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
41h,1
19
0
NI.yN
d
HSGL 17A
r
I I
1
J
Npo \
a \
Nws
e�
V
DF Nun lq\
MINIMIZATION AREA 4
(INTERCHANGE)``vr
WETLAND IMPACTS WERE INCREASED BY APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES. °F TRaus
STREAM IMPACTS WERE INCREASED BY APPROXIMATELY 681 LINEAR FEET.
POND IMPACTS WERE INCREASED BY 0.73 ACRE.
0
2
HSGL 17
NSF � NPq
l
(
I
i
NIVF co
N'_ -
i
Y'
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
RCW FORAGING HABITAT
(INCLUDES POTENTIALLY SUITABLE AND
SUITABLE HABITAT(
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3M
SCALE

I
HSGL 17
I
W
{
0 ✓ ✓✓
Zi \
I
�1 \
J
r-\\--, / /
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o BOI' �. lox aBelxurnoK
PLANS PREPARED BY:
4- MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PU Box 3312')
RnLEIGN N.C. 27-
(9191 851 -1912
19191.0 1918 (
W WW.MLILKEYINC.CO .COM
q�9 HSGL EC
"Ole
✓/_
i
HSGL EC
V�
9
I
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
(
I
I
�o
N
MOO
� 0
U
O,;u
woo
z
DF Nun I9
I
Z $�
I Z APO
�n
m
v
g m
y
W
US 17/NC210
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
RCW FORAGING HABITAT
(INCLUDES POTENTIALLY SUITABLE AND
SUITABLE HABITAT
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
?` CONTROL OF ACCESS
-� RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3N
SCALE
R
O
B
E
V�
F
q�9 HSGL EC
"Ole
✓/_
i
HSGL EC
V�
9
I
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
(
I
I
�o
N
MOO
� 0
U
O,;u
woo
z
DF Nun I9
I
Z $�
I Z APO
�n
m
v
g m
y
W
US 17/NC210
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
RCW FORAGING HABITAT
(INCLUDES POTENTIALLY SUITABLE AND
SUITABLE HABITAT
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
?` CONTROL OF ACCESS
-� RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3N
SCALE

III
CORBETT TRACT
MITIGATION SITE
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ro nar ws roa camnucnox
PLANS PREPARED BY:
4-MUL—KE-ve
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
Pa❑ a x 3312'l
r. N.C. 2....
191916851 -1912
191 91 851-1919 (PAX)
www.MULKEYINC.COM
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
Df Noary ' �1
ww '�
a/
2F ]
L
6u
Z
J
U
I
EGEND
o�
Z
E STAKE LIMITS
UDOR
ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
ITIGABLE STREAM
ON- MITIGABLE STREAM
AND BOUNDARY
CTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -M1 -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 30
SCALE

0
M
W
Z
J
U
I
C
MI
of .0 ox rK
0 Po
0
a�
of T
CORBETT TRACT
MITIGATION SITE
PRELIMINARY PLANS
m NOI' �..�. mwnucnox
PLANS PREPARED BY:
- �-- MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
P❑
a9a x 33127
r. N.C. 2....
11916851 -1912
19191 (PAX)
ww.MULKEYI .1 1-
wEYINC.COM
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
it
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -M1 -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
@ CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
I TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure :3P:l
SCALE
5

W � ,� � SR HEIFlS ET pL
z�
FWA ` WILM( NG 7O/I�I -1 BYPASS
M GWC
LV - - --
Z
J
CWF�2010 ROUGH -LEAVED LOOSES STEMS
AND POPULATION BOUNDARY (ALL LL 2 STEMS
BOUNDARY)
WERE LOCATED WITHIN THE 2010 BOUNDARY)
PLANTATION ROAD SITE
PRELIMINARY PLANS
m NOI' �..�. mwnucnox
PLANS PREPARED BY:
4-MUL—KE-ve
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
Pa❑ a x 3312'l
r. N.C. 2....
191916851 -1912
191 91 851-1919 (PAX)
www.MULKEYINC.COM
DSA
D
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
GW C
EYi',,',- ,;,,,�
s
4
Of NoxrX
ww '�
0
a�
LEGEND
p ]
la
Z
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
JS MITIGABLE STREAM
JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -M1 -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
@ CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
I TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3Q
SCALE

�A
F
I�
PRELIMINARY PLANS
PLANS PREPARED BY
-- KEYENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
PU Box 3312')
RnLEIGN N.C. 27-
(9191 851 -1912
191 91 S51 1 91 B (FAXI
W WW.MLILKEYINC.COM
US 17 BUS.
I
3K
W
_Z
c 1
m
1
Ll
U
3a
aW
za
c
OLD US 17
R -3300 US 17 HAMPSTEAD BYPASS
NEW HANOVER & PENDER COUNTIES
STATE PROJECT 40191.1.2
g
ZSM-
1; 4�
r
N_.
OF Nun lq\
�QO °FYT c°
�\ ST':-'JOHNS
CHURCH RD.
JSA
I`
n
I
D
I
Ill
LEGEND
c - - - -- F SLOPE STAKE LIMITS
CORRIDOR
CP3 ALIGNMENT (PRE -MIN)
- _• -- JS MITIGABLE STREAM
-n, -- JS NON - MITIGABLE STREAM
WETLAND BOUNDARY
- STRUCTURES
U -4751 PROJECT ( -Ml -)
EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
CONTROL OF ACCESS
RIGHT -OF -WAY
TRAFFIC SIGNAL
200' 0 200'
Figure 3R
SCALE
J
M
W
Z

30'
1 12'
12'
12'
12'
12'
46' Median
12
12'
12'
12'
12'
18'
Paved Shld.
14'
Paved Shld.
14'
Paved Shld.
14'
Paved Shld.
14'
(17' W/1;uardrail)
225'—
(17' WiGuardrail)
350' PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY
'_ 1 _10'
Alternative EH - From Proposed Hampstead Bypass Interchange at US 17 Wilmington Bypass to Proposed Hampstead Bypass Interchange at NC 210 and
From Proposed Hampstead Bypass Interchange with Realigned US 17 Approximately 0.7 Mile West of Grandview Drive to Sloop Point Loop Road
Alternative EH - From Proposed Hampstead Bypass Interchange at NC 210 to Proposed Hampstead Bypass Interchange with Realigned US 17 Approximately 0.7 Mile West of Grandview Drive
Prepared by: — MUILKEY Hampstead Bypass Typical Section Nos. 1 and 2 Figure No.
US 17 Corridor Study Not to Scale
Prepared for: NCDOT TIP Project Number R -3300 4
a New Hanover & Pender Counties, NC Figure Prepared 1/15/2013
'77

Appendix B
Corridor Public
Hearing Summary

STn�g
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM
To: Post Hearing Meeting Attendees
FROM: Gary Lovering, P.E.
Roadway Design Project Engineer
DATE: January 19, 2012
EUGENE A. CONTI, JR.
SECRETARY
S U BJ ECT: Post Hearing Meeting: Proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and Proposed
US 17 Hampstead Bypass, New Hanover and Pender Counties, North Carolina
State Project 40191.1.2, TIP Projects U -4751 & R -3300
POST-HEARING MEETING SUMMARY
A post- hearing meeting was held on December 1, 2011 at 1:30 p.m. in the Structure Design Conference
Room. This meeting was held to review comments provided at the public hearing, as well as those submitted
afterwards. The following people attended the post - hearing meeting:
Omar Azizi
Johnny Banks
Jay Bennett
Kim Gillespie
Benjetta Johnson
Liz Kovasckitz
Gary Lovering
Ron McCollum
Jay McInnis
Art McMillan
Glenn Mumford
Keith Paschal
Allen Pope
Jackson Provost
Jamille Robbins
Doug Taylor
Anthony West
NCDOT — Structure Design
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
NCDOT — Roadway Design
NCDOT —PDEA
NCDOT — Congestion Management
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
NCDOT — Roadway Design
NCDOT — Preconstruction
NCDOT — PDEA
NCDOT — Hydraulics
NCDOT — Roadway Design
NCDOT — Structure Design
NCDOT — Division 3
NCDOT — Division 3
NCDOT — PDEA /HEU
NCDOT — Roadway Design
NCDOT — Roadway Design
Gary Lovering opened the meeting and asked for introductions. Liz Kovasckitz followed the introductions
with a brief summary of the project. Two Pre - Hearing Open Houses and Corridor Public Hearings for the
Proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension (U -4751) and Proposed US 17 Hampstead Bypass
(R -3300) were held as follows:
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FAX: [phone] CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
ROADWAY DESIGN UNIT
BUILDING A
1582 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
WESSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG 1000 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC 27699 -1582
RALEIGH NC

• Monday, October 17, 2011: Noble Middle School, 6520 Market Street, Wilmington
Pre - Hearing Open House from 4 p.m. — 6:30 p.m. and a Formal Presentation at 7 p.m.
One - hundred eighteen (118) citizens registered their attendance at the meeting.
• Tuesday, October 18, 2011: Topsail High School, 245 N. St. Johns Church Road, Hampstead
Pre - Hearing Open House from 4 p.m. — 6:30 p.m. and a Formal Presentation at 7 p.m.
Two hundred sixty -six (266) citizens registered their attendance at the meeting.
Fifteen (15) individuals provided verbal comments after the formal presentations. As of November 28, 2011 a total of
ninety -two (92) written comments have been received. A summary of the decisions made during the post- hearing
meeting concerning the main project issues is below. A summary of the written and verbal comments follows the
executive summary.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF POST-HEARING RESOLUTIONS:
1. The southeast quadrant (Loop D) of the Military Cutoff Road Extension and Market Street interchange will be
realigned to the west to avoid impacts to a residential area.
2. Access to Putnam Drive from Military Cutoff Road Extension will remain as shown on the public hearing map.
3. The extension of Ruth Avenue to provide access to a church will remain as shown on the public hearing map.
Ruth Avenue will be brought up to state road standards. No new connections to other roads will be made and
Ruth Avenue will continue to be a cul -de -sac.
4. Improvements to Gordon Road beyond what are shown on the public hearing map will not be made as part of this
project. Other improvements to Gordon Road are included in the Long Range Transportation Plan.
5. The construction of a multi -use path on Military Cutoff Road Extension as part of the proposed project will be
dependent upon a cost - sharing and maintenance agreement between NCDOT and the Wilmington Metropolitan
Planning Organization (WMPO). The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the WMPO on the inclusion of
the multi -use path along Military Cutoff Road Extension.
6. Murrayville Road will not be extended as part of the Military Cutoff Road Extension project.
7. Covil Farm Road will not be signed as a detour route during the construction of the Military Cutoff Road
Extension and Market Street interchange.
8. In regard to concerns about six lanes of traffic on Military Cutoff Road Extension converging into four lanes on
Market Street it was noted that traffic will be divided at the Market Street interchange and the interchange is
expected to have an acceptable level of service.
In regard to concerns about noise, traffic and other disruptions to Ogden Park it was noted Military Cutoff Road
Extension follows 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. No changes to the current design that carries Military Cutoff Road Extension over Ogden Park Drive
with a bridge are proposed. Current access between the park sections will be maintained as shown. The current
design includes fences along Military Cutoff Road Extension through the park area. Noise walls are not proposed
along Military Cutoff Road Extension between the eastern and western portions of the park.
10. The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be maintained on
existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for the
Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to
the human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.

11. Because of financial constraints the current project limits will not be changed to include the extension of
Hampstead Bypass further north to NC 210 near Surf City. Improvements to this and other sections of US 17 may
be considered under future projects.
12. Potential wildlife crossings will be evaluated in coordination with environmental agencies after a preferred corridor
is selected.
13. All of the Hampstead Bypass alternatives would construct a fully- controlled access facility. No bicycle or
pedestrian accommodations will be included within the Hampstead Bypass right of way. Bicycle and pedestrian
accommodations outside of the Hampstead Bypass right of way would fall under the purview of New Hanover and
Pender Counties. 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.
14. Based on existing conditions, a diamond interchange is the preferred configuration at the proposed northern
Hampstead Bypass interchange at NC 210. Access around alternative interchange designs would be similarly
controlled.
VERBAL COMMENTS FROM THE HEARINGS:
MONDAY, OCTOBER 1 7, 201 1, NOBLE MIDDLE SCHOOL
Dawn Thompson, 7233 Savannah Run Loop, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Thompson stated that the maps at the hearing were inaccurate because her neighborhood did not show
up on them. She is concerned the project will result in noise, property, safety, and traffic impacts to her neighborhood
and home. Ms. Thompson was concerned access from Military Cutoff Road Extension to Putnam Drive would impact
traffic flow on Putnam Drive, affect how her children went to school and limit how emergency vehicles could get to her
house. Ms. Thompson commented that going from a six -lane road to a four -lane road would create a bottleneck. She
also expressed concerns that grading issues could result in drainage issues and insect problems, graves would be moved
at Mt. Ararat Church cemetery, and Ogden Park would be impacted.
Response: Access to Putnam Drive from Military Cutoff Road Extension will remain as shown on the public hearing
map. Traffic moving from Military Cutoff Road Extension to Market Street will be divided at the Market Street
interchange and the interchange is expected to have an acceptable level of service. The proposed project is expected to
result in the relocation of grave sites. Efforts to minimize those relocations will be made during final design. Military
Cutoff Road Extension follows 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. No changes to the current design that carries Military Cutoff Road Extension over Ogden Park Drive with a
bridge are proposed. Jamille Robbins responded during the hearing that updated mapping will be obtained and
additional noise studies would be completed during final design. He clarified the turnaround would have a two -phase
signal to allow for left - turns. Mr. Robbins indicated drainage issues would also be looked at during final design.
2. Auley Crouch, P.O. Box 4, Wilmington, NC 28402 with Jon Wayne assisting, 805 Wood Cove Road, Wilmington,
NC 28409 (Speaking on behalf of the Covil Crossing Developer)
Comment: Mr. Crouch indicated he believed the preliminary design for Military Cutoff Road Extension could be
shifted from its current proposed location. He stated that the corridor, as currently designed, would impact Covil
Crossing drainage and setbacks, as well as impervious surface calculations for their stormwater permit. Mr. Crouch
stated the currently proposed corridor would result in significant costs to taxpayers, residents and the developer.
Wetlands would also be impacted. Impacts to Covil Crossing include the sale of three lots and a recent buyer is
concerned and considering options. Mr. Crouch suggested that moving the corridor 40 feet to the west would avoid
numerous impacts without impacting traffic patterns or turning radiuses. He noted moving the corridor would impact
a small amount of Prospect Cemetery Association property, but no gravesites.
Response: The southeast quadrant (Loop D) of the Military Cutoff Road Extension and Market Street interchange
will be realigned to the west so that it does not extend across Covil Crossing property lines. The proposed change will

resolve noted concerns and no gravesites will be impacted as a result of the realignment.
3. Barbara Johansen, 8417 Sidbury Road
Comment: Ms. Johansen questioned why the Hampstead Bypass in the Sidbury Road area did not go through an area
with less wetlands and woodpeckers, and fewer residents.
Response: A wide range of preliminary alternatives were developed and evaluated for their ability to meet the purpose
of and need for the project and minimize impacts to the human and natural environments. The current detailed study
alternatives were selected based on those evaluations. Opportunities to further minimize the impacts to the human and
natural environment will continue to be evaluated as the project progresses.
4. Tom Allgaier, 107 Ti Wind Court, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Allgaier stated that he did not think that the design at the north end of the Hampstead Bypass would
be safe for residents, the fire department or school traffic as they would have to travel Hampstead Bypass south in
order to go north on existing US 17. Mr. Allgaier stated it would be unsafe to make a left across traffic to access the
Hampstead Bypass interchange south of the schools. He noted the No Build option from the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement had not been discussed.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs. The No -Build Alternative was
evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It was determined that the No -Build Alternative does not
meet the purpose of and need for the proposed project and has been removed from further consideration.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1 8, 20 1 1, T❑PSAIL HIGH SCHOOL
5. Michael Nadeau, 465 Chapel Pond Road, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Nadeau stated that he was in favor of the Hampstead Bypass project but the current design of the
northern interchange would have a profound negative impact on the entire community. He noted the creation of a
dead end on existing US 17 would hurt existing businesses and property values. Traffic from the north going to and
from the schools would need to make a four -mile round trip each way, twice a day. He stated some of that traffic
would detour onto Country Club Road and Sloop Point Road. Mr. Nadeau stated there is an alternate plan he has
discussed with NCDOT that relocates the interchange to north of the schools but NCDOT's response was the
interchange would not meet the design requirements for ramp speed. He stated that lowering the design speed from 45
mph to 35 mph would eliminate the dead end on existing US 17, save money, reduce wetland impacts, avoid cut -
through traffic on Country Club Road, and would not increase impacts to woodpecker habitat.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
6. John Tomlinson, 101 Shearwater Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Tomlinson stated he didn't think it was fair the RCW habitat was impacting the location of the
interchange.
Response: Comment noted.
7. Toro Castoro, 638 Crocus Ferry Road; Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Ms. Castoro stated she was speaking on behalf of the Coastal Better Business Lines and the Chamber of
Commerce and noted her family owns Hampstead Furniture on US 17 in the area that would be cut off. Ms. Castoro
stated that both organizations believe the Hampstead Bypass is needed but the creation of a dead end would affect

dozens of businesses, schools, EMS, the library, etc. Ms. Castoro noted her personal concern was the school traffic
having to use the bypass, including drivers with limited driving experience, which would make the trip longer and
ultimately put additional traffic on Sloop Point and Country Club Road. Ms. Castoro said they would like a bypass with
an alternate interchange that allowed traffic to move freely through Hampstead and allows southbound drivers to
choose between Highway 17 as a bypass and as a business choice. Current alternatives would be a taking of her and
other businesses, devalue commercial property, and increase traffic flow through residential neighborhoods.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
8. Harold Eller. 653 Sawgrass Road. Hampstead. NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Eller said it would be disastrous to have US 17 become a one -way street as it will impact businesses
and the growth of the community and there needed to be a balance between protecting woodpeckers and economic and
human needs.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
9. Nick Ferrante, 308 Olde Point Loop, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Ferrante remarked that the impact of an interchange going back into the middle of Hampstead and the
impact to Sloop Point Road and Country Club Drive cannot be underestimated. He noted school buses would also be
impacted. Mr. Ferrante asked several times who other than NCDOT could be contacted regarding the interchange
location in relation to woodpecker habitat.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs. During the public hearing,
Mr. Robbins stated the EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and his Congressmen and local representatives could be contacted. Mr. Robbins noted the agencies he
mentioned would receive a copy of the comments submitted during the comment period, including the public hearing
transcripts.
10. Tames Dyer, 207 Golf Terrace Court, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Dyer indicated he agreed with all of the previous speakers. He also asked who should be contacted
about concerns besides NCDOT.
Response: Mr. Robbins suggested comments be submitted to NCDOT. In addition, the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement could be used to obtain the contact information for the agencies he previously mentioned.
11. Frank Malando, Hampstead
Comment: Mr. Malando stated the first speaker of the evening [MicbmI Nadeau] nailed it dead on regarding what needs
to happen. He asked where submitted comments would be sent.
Response: Mr. Robbins stated he would serve as a clearinghouse for all comments submitted. The comments would
be made available to the aforementioned agencies.

12. Representative Carolyn -justice
Comment: Ms. Justice stated she had met with Allen Pope and the secretary of Transportation, Mr. Conti, regarding
some of the concerns she heard expressed this evening. She noted the Secretary told her the same thing that everyone
now knows, it is a federal issue. Ms. Justice indicated she was making contact with organizations to try and arrange an
opportunity for them to come speak to local citizens. She also noted she was researching where a similar rule may have
been waved. She requested that NCDOT evaluate if Mr. Nadeau's proposed drawings would work if the speed on the
interchange ramp were slowed down. Ms. Justice stated she wanted to let everyone know what was being done at the
State level to try and address the issue and she thanked everyone for their presentations.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
13. Audience Participant, Sidbury Road
Comment: A resident of Sidbury Road stated their home could be directly impacted by the proposed project. The
citizen was concerned about destruction of a number of animals' habitats.
Response: Comment noted. NCDOT will evaluate potential wildlife crossings in coordination with environmental
agencies after a preferred corridor is selected. Avoidance and minimization measures for impacts to natural resources
will be further evaluated as the project progresses. Efforts to minimize impacts to RCW habitat has been and will
continue to be an important component of the proposed project.
14. Tom Vargas, Hampstead
Comment: Mr. Vargas stated his concern was that the Hampstead Bypass did not go far enough north, noting
tremendous daily traffic between Wilmington and Camp Lejeune. He stated the project should be extended eight -to-
ten miles further north to NC 210 where it goes over to Peach Tree and Surf City.
Response: Because of financial constraints the current project limits will not be changed to include the extension of
Hampstead Bypass further north to NC 210 near Surf City. Improvements to this and other sections of US 17 may be
considered under future projects.
15. Wilbur (William ?) Sutton, Scotts Hill Loop Road
Comment: Mr. Sutton indicated he worked at Poplar Grove Plantation and the proposed project would result in the
loss of a valuable historic site. Although the project would preserve the site, it would result in additional noise and
traffic.
Response: Of the current detailed study alternatives, Alternatives M1 +U and M2 +U will have an adverse effect on the
Poplar Grove historic site. Avoidance measures were incorporated into the preliminary design to avoid direct impacts
to the site. The adverse effect finding for Alternatives M1 +U and M2 +U will be considered during the selection of the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative.
WRITTEN COMMENTS:
CORRIDOR ALTERNATIVE RANKINGS
The public hearing comment form provided the opportunity for commenters to rank the order of their corridor
preference(s) from among the five Current Detailed Study Alternatives. Several respondents stated their preferred
alternative(s) within their written comments instead of numbering the alternatives on the comment form. Preference by
alternative as indicated by commenters is shown below.

Alternative
1St Choice
M1 +E -H
15
M2 +0
15
M1 +R
11
M1 +U
5
M2 +U
10
2nd Choice 3rd Choice 41h Choice
1 2
3 4
4 1
2 3
3 2
5th Choice
1
MILITARY CUTOFF ROAD EXTENSION (U-4751)
1. Alicia Nixon, 7041 Ruth Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Alicia Nixon is concerned about the use of Ruth Avenue by the public, as it is a private street located
off of Ogden Park Drive.
Response: The extension of Ruth Avenue to provide access to a church will remain as shown on the public hearing
map. Ruth Avenue will be brought up to state road standards. No new connections to other roads will be made and
Ruth Avenue will continue to be a cul -de -sac.
2. Ruth Nixon, 7049 Ruth Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Ruth Nixon is concerned about the use of Ruth Avenue by the public, as it is a private street located
off of Ogden Park Drive.
Response: The extension of Ruth Avenue to provide access to a church will remain as shown on the public hearing
map. Ruth Avenue will be brought up to state road standards. No new connections to other roads will be made and
Ruth Avenue will continue to be a cul -de -sac.
3. Mary Parson, 200 McCormick Lane, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Parson stated that it would make more financial sense to widen Gordon Road to I -40 and tie into the
Wilmington Bypass at the M1 interchange location.
Response: Improvements to Gordon Road beyond what are shown on the public hearing map will not be made as
part of this project. Other improvements to Gordon Road are included in the Long Range Transportation Plan.
4. George Spicer, 7034 Market Street, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. Spicer asked how much of his property would be affected. He is also concerned about effects to the
two properties across Market Street from him, because he is responsible for them.
Response: It is anticipated there would be ten feet or less of permanent right of way impacts to the property located at
7034 Market Street according to current preliminary design plans. The plans show a temporary construction easement
would be needed along Market Street. Properties directly across Market Street from 7034 Market Street may also have
minimal right of way impacts and are showing a temporary construction easement as well.
5. Todd Brohaugh. 274 Emerald Ridge Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Brohaugh stated that a wide shoulder is needed along Military Cutoff Road Extension to
accommodate bicycles and that a bicycle path be included along the Hampstead Bypass to allow Hampstead bicycle
traffic to ride to the current path along Military Cutoff and ultimately to the Cross City Trail in Wilmington. Mr.
Brohaugh thinks the woodpeckers should be able to be moved, since there are probably other places they can live.
Response: Preliminary plans for Military Cutoff Road Extension include wide outside lanes to accommodate bicycles.
A multi -use path may be constructed along Military Cutoff Road Extension as part of the proposed project, depending
upon a cost - sharing and maintenance agreement between NCDOT and the Wilmington Metropolitan Planning
Organization (WMPO). All of the Hampstead Bypass alternatives would construct a fully - controlled access facility. No
bicycle or pedestrian accommodations will be included within the Hampstead Bypass right of way. Bicycle and

pedestrian accommodations outside of the Hampstead Bypass right of way would fall under the purview of New
Hanover and Pender Counties. 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 an area for pedestrians and
bicycles to cross the bridge.
6. Dale Williams, Covil Amenities
Comment: Mr. Williams, on behalf of Covil Amenities ( Covil Estates community organization), expressed concern
about the use of Covil Farm Road as an alternative or detour route during interchange construction because it would be
dangerous to pedestrians, bicyclists, golf carts, and school buses use the road. He added that there is no bike path on
the road, and drivers regularly speed. Mr. Williams submitted a number of questions:
a. Will NCDOT be using Covil Farm Road, and marking it as a detour or alternate route? If so, can another
route be used? What is the load- bearing capacity of Covil Farm Road? Will the capacity be exceeded? Will a
limit on weight for trucks be required and enforced? What plan is in place to control speeding along Covil
Farm Road?
Response: Covil Farm Road will not be signed as a detour route during the construction of the Military
Cutoff Road Extension and Market Street interchange.
b. Covil Farm Road already has potholes and damaged areas — are there any plans for repairing or improving this
road?
Response: This question will be referred to the NCDOT District Office.
c. A bike path has been planned for Covil Farm Road. Will a bike path for the protection of joggers, walkers, and
bicyclists be constructed before the interchange work begins? If so, when? Will it impact the wetlands along
areas of the road? If so, how?
Response: A bike path along Covil Farm Road is not part of this project. The City of Wilmington should be
contacted for additional information regarding the specific plans for the bike path.
d. Will there be a noise barrier constructed along the section of Military Cutoff Road next to Pebble Cove,
Longboat Drive, and Covil Crossing? If so, when?
Response: A noise wall is not currently proposed in the vicinity of the Military Cutoff Road Extension
interchange with Market Street. Additional noise studies will be conducted during final design and barrier
recommendations will be reviewed with the public at the design public hearing.
7. Eileen Sahlin, Pepper Tree at Covil Estates HOA, Inc.
Comment: Ms. Sahlin, on behalf of Pepper Tree at Covil Estates HOA, expressed many of the same concerns and
submitted a number of the same questions as Dale Williams (see Comment 6 above). She also submitted several
additional comments directly related to the Pepper Tree subdivision. She stated that existing noise on Military Cutoff
Road and Market Street currently impacts residents in Pepper Tree, and that they are concerned that construction work
and increased traffic on the new road system will cause further noise impacts. The following are questions and
comments that specifically relate to their noise concerns.
a. Will sound /noise barriers be constructed along the section of the interchange by Snug Harbor and Covil
Crossing? If so, when? If not, why? If noise barriers are not proposed, a sound testing program is requested
to be conducted prior to construction. Noise barriers should be built before construction begins.
Response: A Design Noise Report will be prepared for the selected alternative. Noise wall recommendations
will be reviewed with the public at the design public hearing.
b. Strongly encourage the use of a 2011 satellite map for planning, as opposed to the 2005 map currently being
used. There are neighborhoods and homes in areas not shown on the 2005 map.
Response: Updated mapping will be obtained prior to final design.
c. In order to address the encroachment on homes in Snug Harbor and Covil Crossing, we suggest moving the
whole project 40 -60 feet west to protect existing homes and neighborhoods.
Response: The southeast quadrant (Loop D) of the Military Cutoff Road Extension and Market Street

interchange will be realigned to the west so that it does not extend across the adjacent residential property lines
to the east.
8. Kelly Allensworth, 573 Montego Court, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Allensworth is a resident of the Copperfield community and is concerned about how the Military
Cutoff Road Extension will impact her property.
Response: Jamille Robbins provided a map via email noting current plans show permanent right of way would be
required from the rear of the property. Mr. Robbins noted NCDOT will be back out next summer with more detailed
designs. He provided Ms. Allensworth with the handout from the public hearing and contact information for the local
right of way agent.
Comment: Ms. Allensworth submitted a second comment after receiving the map. She stated that she would much
rather be bought -out rather than have a six -lane highway in her backyard.
Response: Comment noted.
9. Edwin and Patrician Leipelt, 8523 Sidbury Road, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. and Mrs. Leipelt stated that the western -most alternative makes the most sense, because it is most
centrally - located between US 17 and I -40 and allows more possibilities for future development. They also stated that
existing US 17 at Sidbury Road is a good alternative for now, as it is less costly, until population increases dictates an
inland bypass.
Response: Comment noted.
10. Nina Brown, Stone Garden, 6955 Market Street, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Brown asked to be kept informed of the Military Cutoff Road Extension project. She rents ten acres
from the Nixon family for her stone yard and a warehouse unit at 6981 Market Street.
Response: Ms. Brown's street and email addresses are included on the project mailing list.
11. Ben Hughes, 305 Hixon Place, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. Hughes asked that consideration be given to extending the multi -use path on Military Cutoff Road
along the new extension to at least Murrayville Road, because there are many homes west of Market Street that have no
viable way to cross Market Street to get to the existing path. He suggested NCDOT's Complete Streets policy be
applied. He also noted that the connection with Murrayville Road is listed as a future connection. He recommended
that the connection be made and the road upgraded as a part of this project, as it would remove heavy traffic from
residential neighborhoods.
Response: The construction of a multi -use path on Military Cutoff Road Extension as part of the proposed project
will be dependent upon a cost - sharing and maintenance agreement between NCDOT and the Wilmington Metropolitan
Planning Organization (WMPO). The NCDOT will continue to coordinate with the WMPO on the inclusion of the
multi -use path along Military Cutoff Road Extension. Murrayville Road will not be extended as part of the Military
Cutoff Road Extension project.
12. Derrick and Miranda Saul, 7282 Copperfield Court., Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: The Sauls expressed several concerns about Military Cutoff Road Extension:
a. They are concerned that there is no alternative route to the section of M1 and M2 that passes through West
Bay Estates and Ogden Park. They suggested that Military Cutoff Road Extension be moved farther north on
Market Street in order to displace fewer residential properties and not divide Ogden Park in half. The
proposed bridge over Ogden Park Road will not mitigate disruption to the park.
Response: Military Cutoff Road Extension through this area follows a preserved transportation corridor. The
alignment goes between the eastern and western portions of Ogden Park. The park boundary was designed to
accommodate the transportation corridor and the proposed project does not cross park property. No changes
to the current design that carries Military Cutoff Road Extension over Ogden Park Drive with a bridge are

proposed. Current access between the park sections will be maintained as shown. The current design includes
fences along Military Cutoff Road Extension through the park area. Noise walls are not proposed along
Military Cutoff Road Extension between the eastern and western portions of the park.
b. They asked why a six -lane road is proposed, when I -40 entering Wilmington is only four lanes. They indicated
that drivers traveling from Ogden to Porters Neck would not use Military Cutoff Road Extension, but would
use Market Street.
Response: The Military Cutoff Road typical section is based on future traffic projections.
c. They are concerned about the area behind their house, since it holds water in and above the soil most of the
time. They asked if it would be considered a wetland, and if it would be carefully evaluated in the
environmental document. In addition, they asked if the DEIS is the final, in -depth document, and if the
projected route of Military Cutoff Road Extension will change after the final document is completed.
Response: Areas within the project's corridor alternatives are evaluated for wetland impacts. After the
selection of the preferred alternative, additional environmental documentation including the Final
Environmental Impact Statement and a Record of Decision will be prepared. Final designs will be prepared for
the selected alternative and presented to the public at a design public hearing. Minor changes to the design may
occur as a result of public input. However, major changes to the project's alignment would not be anticipated.
d. They are opposed to the impact of the project on at least two cemeteries.
Response: Comment noted.
e. They expressed concern that NCDOT has already decided to build Military Cutoff Road Extension without
securing funding for the Hampstead Bypass. They asked where Military Cutoff Road Extension would lead if
the Hampstead Bypass is never built.
Response: Military Cutoff Road Extension is an independent project with termini at Market Street and the US
17 Wilmington Bypass. The projects are being evaluated together in the environmental document because they
are expected to join at an interchange with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass.
f. They are concerned about the close proximity of Military Cutoff Road to their home. They indicated that there
is 10.1 feet from the corner of their house to the proposed road's right of way. They are concerned about
safety in their yard. They stated that they would not want to keep their home if they could not have a fence to
separate them from the roadway. They requested that NCDOT considers purchasing their property in full.
Response: After decisions are made regarding the final design, the proposed right of way limits will be staked
in the ground. If you are an affected property owner, a Right of Way Agent will contact you and arrange a
meeting. The agent will explain the plans and advise you as to how the project will affect you.
g. They indicated they were told that a noise barrier will be built in the area near their home, although it was not
shown on the designs at the hearing. They expressed concern about the close proximity of a noise barrier to
their home. They are also concerned that it would not be effective and they would still be able to hear traffic
and feel the vibrations in their home. The asked about the estimated vibrations that would be transferred from
construction equipment and road traffic to their home.
Response: A Design Noise Report will be prepared during final design, after a corridor alternative has been
selected. The location of proposed noise barriers will be presented to the public at the design public hearing.
NCDOT will contact all property owners and tenants who are expected to receive at least 5 decibels noise
reduction due to the proposed barrier. Each owner and /or tenant will be provided a ballot so they can vote
their preference for or against the noise wall. The noise barriers will be constructed unless a simple majority
vote by these property owners /tenants indicates they do not prefer noise wall construction.
h. They asked how response times of emergency vehicles will be affected by Military Cutoff Road Extension.
Will Copperfield Court have direct access to the extension, or will emergency vehicles have to U -turn to access
their road?
Response: Military Cutoff Road Extension will provide new access at Putnam Drive, Lendire Road and
Torchwood Boulevard between Market Street and the US 17 Wilmington Bypass. Response times to some
locations may be improved as a result of the new access and redistribution of future traffic from existing
roadways. Copperfield Court will not have direct access to Military Cutoff Road Extension.
10

i. They would like to know what type of easement is currently shown crossing their property and how it will
impact them.
Response: Copperfield Court was extended and the Sauls home was constructed after mapping was prepared
for the project. It appears a construction easement shown in the preliminary plans would affect their property.
An evaluation of potential permanent right of way impacts will be made when updated mapping is received.
j. They asked if the extension will affect water runoff and the amount of water that runs across their property.
Response: NCDOT will develop detailed plans to handle runoff from the project during final design.
k. They asked how long construction of the road in their area will last.
Response: The current schedule for Military Cutoff Road Extension has construction beginning in 2017. A
construction schedule has not yet been developed.
1. They are concerned about impacts to their property's value. They asked how they would be compensated.
Response: If permanent right of way is required, professionals who are familiar with real estate values will
evaluate or appraise your property. The evaluations or appraisals will be reviewed for completeness and
accuracy, and then the Right -of -Way Agent will make a written offer to you. The current market value of the
property at its highest and best use when appraised will be offered as compensation. The Department of
Transportation must: Treat all owners and tenants equally; Fully explain the owner's rights; Pay just
compensation in exchange for property rights; and, Furnish relocation advisory assistance.
13. Jeffrey P. Lin, 411 Putnam Drive, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. Lin opposes the current proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension and its potential effect on his street
and adjacent community. He is concerned that with a major interchange at Putnam Drive, traffic and speeds will
increase greatly. He listed several other reasons to reconsider the proposal: Putnam Drive will need to be raise and
widened, causing more encroachment onto small residential front yards; Increased traffic will negatively impact home
values; Crash potential will increase for traffic backing out of driveways, bicyclists, pedestrians, and small children;
Increased traffic back -ups during rush hour due to frequent school bus stops and garbage truck stops; and, Better
locations for an interchange include Lendire Road and Torchwood Road because they have no street- facing homes.
Response: Access to Putnam Drive from Military Cutoff Road Extension will remain as shown on the public hearing
map.
14. Deanna Lataille, 403 Putnam Drive, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Lataille is concerned about the adverse effects of making Putnam Drive a major interchange for the
proposed Military Cutoff Road Extension. She state that it will further reduce housing prices in the area, increase traffic
speeds and make the streets in the community unsafe for pedestrians, runners, cyclists, and buses that make frequent
stops. She asked if there a reason this interchange cannot be on a street without street- facing homes.
Response: Access to Putnam Drive from Military Cutoff Road Extension will remain as shown on the public hearing
map. An at -grade intersection is planned, not an interchange. Access from southbound Military Cutoff Road
Extension will be right -in /right -out only. A left -over will be provided from northbound Military Cutoff Road
Extension to Putnam Drive.
15. Donna Hogan, 478 Biscayne Drive, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Hogan does not think access should be provided at Putnam Drive because of safety and traffic issues
and would prefer the road become a dead end street. With access to Military Cutoff Road Extension, she believes
Putnam Drive would become unsafe for children playing and walking from bus stops, pedestrians and joggers, garbage
collection, and delivery trucks. Ms. Hogan noted that unlike Putnam Drive, Lendire and Torchwood have direct access
to Market Street. She stated that if NCDOT uses a portion of existing yards and driveways to widen Putnam Drive
then cars would need to park on a busy street.
Response: Access to Putnam Drive from Military Cutoff Road Extension will remain as shown on the public hearing
map.
11

16. Deborah Godfrey, 577 Montego Court, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Godfrey is concerned that her home would likely be acquired, although they will likely not know
anything for certain until 2014. She asked that NCDOT consider making (and informing citizens of) a decision sooner.
Response: The earliest that right of way acquisitions will begin for Military Cutoff Road Extension is the tentative
right of way date of June 2014.
17. Barbara and Roger Wood, 7150 Copperfield Court, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. and Mrs. Wood oppose the project because a six -lane highway would go through their family
neighborhood and they would have no backyard. They are also concerned their home value will depreciate.
Response: The Wood's opposition will be made a part of the project record.
18. John Brinker, 209 Mendenhall Drive, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. Brinker stated that his family owns 17 acres on the proposed M2 route, and that construction of M2
would result in the inability of the family to enjoy the peaceful nature of the property. He indicated that M1 would
have less impact on the property, as well as the total environment. He stated that M1 would allow more of the pocosin
in Gleenview Ranches to be contiguous. He also stated that if M2 is chosen, they would prefer to sell the entire
property.
Response: Comment noted.
19. Mary C. Palazzolo, 429 Riviera Drive
Comment: Ms. Palazzolo is against Military Cutoff Road Extension because it is going through established
neighborhoods, cause people to lose homes, disrupt the park environment, and create traffic issues with a six -lane road
putting traffic onto a four -lane road.
Response: Ms. Palazzolo's opposition will be made a part of the project record. Military Cutoff Road Extension
through this area follows a preserved transportation corridor. The alignment goes between the eastern and western
portions of Ogden Park. The park boundary was designed to accommodate the transportation corridor and the
proposed project does not cross park property. No changes to the current design that carries Military Cutoff Road
Extension over Ogden Park Drive with a bridge are proposed. Current access between the park sections will be
maintained as shown. The current design includes fences along Military Cutoff Road Extension through the park area.
Noise walls are not proposed along Military Cutoff Road Extension between the eastern and western portions of the
park. Traffic moving from Military Cutoff Road Extension to Market Street will be divided at the Market Street
interchange and the interchange is expected to have an acceptable level of service.
20. Morgan Heath, 7323 K onlack Court, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Heath stated the use of outdated maps and numbers before a plan is selected misrepresents the
impacts of the project. She is concerned about noise and access impacts to the park. Ms. Heath doesn't understand
how the project will relieve traffic issues with a six -lane road funneling into four -lane Market Street and believes
accidents will happen in new locations rather than being decreased. She suggests traffic lights and police would be
more effective than a new road.
Response: Updated mapping will be obtained prior to final design. Noise walls are not proposed along Military
Cutoff Road Extension between the eastern and western portions of the park. Current access between the park
sections will be maintained. Additional traffic lights would not improve the traffic carrying capacity of Market Street
and US 17 in the project area. The potential for crashes is decreased on median - divided roadways. Separating through
traffic from the local traffic that is using the existing roadway to access schools, shopping and residential areas will
enhance safety.
21. Sam Parkinson, 7208 Grizzly Bear Court, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. Parkinson prefers that Military Cutoff Road Extension not be built. However, if it is built he would
prefer that the route that would cause the least pollution and noise impacts between Torchwood and the Bypass be
selected because of health concerns.
12

Response: Comment noted.
22. Artie G. and Nancy L. Peterson, 7209 Grizzly Bear Court, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: The Petersons believe a sound barrier will be necessary behind Grizzly Bear Court.
Response: A Design Noise Report will be prepared during final design, after a corridor alternative has been selected.
The location of proposed noise barriers will be presented to the public at the design public hearing.
HAMPSTEAD BYPASS (R -3300)
23. Thomas Allgaier, 107 Ti Wind Court, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Allgaier submitted the following comments and questions related to existing US 17 access: How would
Sloop Point Fire Department respond on US 17 north of the interchange at Leeward Lane? He expressed concern that
in order to travel north on existing US 17 from Vista Lane, traffic would have to travel south before travelling north,
which would cause safety issues and traffic congestion in Hampstead, and would increase mileage and fuel costs. He
asked if a "right only" entrance (possibly elevated) be built to access existing US 17 from "Old 17" near Leeward Lane.
He asked if NCDOT will be liable for residential property value loss (due to traffic and lightly enforced traffic laws),
particularly in the Leeward Lane and Old Point /Vista Lane area..
Response: The current detailed study alternatives would provide access from Sloop Point Fire Department to
Leeward Lane via the Hampstead Bypass to the US 17 Business interchange near Grandview Drive, then north on US
17 Business to Leeward Lane. The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow
traffic to be maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be
conducted for the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study
new concepts that could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations,
safety, impacts to the human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs. Any
property directly impacted by the project will be appraised and offered fair market value based on the damages.
24. Mike Becker, 345 Hughes Road, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Becker asked that US 17 not be rendered a dead end because the community will be split.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
25. Randy Cox, 2211A S. Shoe Street, Surf City, NC 28445
Comment: Mr. Cox asked that NCDOT find an alternative that will allow traffic to flow north and south on existing
US 17. He is concerned about increased neighborhood traffic, diminished property values in the commercial area, and
the loss of existing local businesses.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value- engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
26. Karna Godridge
Comment: Ms. Godridge stated that the bypass should begin farther north, so that southbound traffic (trucks, school
buses, fire trucks, and local traffic) is not continuing to travel together on what should be a higher speed alternate to a
portion of Highway 17 which passes through a growing town. Ms. Godridge stated that RCWs will adapt and relocate
and that it is unfair to people to spend the money and not have the project serve its full purpose because of RCWs. She
noted the project is cutting off Main Street for people heading south on US 17 and is concerned about US 17 coming to
13

a dead end northbound at Leeward Lane. She asked how Sloop Point fire trucks would access a fire at Topsail High
School. She asked what will eventually happen to Sloop Point Road and Country Club Road since they will become an
alternate route for people located north of the bypass connection traveling south and if improvements to these two
roads been included in the cost estimate?
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs. Under current plans, the
Sloop Point Fire Department would access Topsail High School via the Hampstead Bypass. Improvements to Sloop
Point Loop Road and Country Club Drive are not included in the project's cost estimate.
27. Victor Malanga, 422 Lakeview Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Malanga suggested that the northern interchange should be located north of the school, closer to
Sloop Point Loop Road. He also suggested that the interchange should be similar to the one located south in Porters
Neck near Lowes, which would allow US 17 South to continue as a business route that would not impact businesses,
schools, and churches.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
28. John Richter, 803 Royal Tern Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Richter indicated that he would support the project if traffic had the option to continue north and
south on US 17 Business.
Response: Comment noted.
29. Ruth Shepherd, 135 Palm Cottage Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Ms. Shepherd asked that US 17 not be made "one way."
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
30. Sandra Smith, 329 Dogwood Lane, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Ms. Smith stated that the northern bypass interchange needs to allow traffic to choose between existing
US 17 or the bypass because: The current location of the northern interchange divides Hampstead; Local residents want
to shop and dine at Hampstead businesses, but loss of mobility will encourage residents to travel to Onslow or New
Hanover County to spend their money; Country Club Drive will bear the brunt of heavier traffic. Many homes are
close to the right of way, curves and ditches are hazardous, and traffic is already hazardous (fatal crashes have
occurred); and NCDOT will have increased costs to repair roads and improve safety along Country Club Drive and
other local roads that will be used as options for local Hampstead traffic. A connector road (right -turn only onto
northbound bypass and existing US 17 North) between Transfer Station Road (or that area) and the bypass is necessary.
She suggested that mitigation of RCW concerns follow what has been done successfully at Fort Bragg and Camp
Lejeune. Ms. Smith stated that existing Washington Acres Road, Long Leaf Drive, and Topsail Greens are dangerous
with a center turn lane.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
14

could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs. All available tools for
avoidance and minimization of red- cockaded woodpecker habitat are being considered in coordination with
environmental agencies. The project does not propose to add a center turn lane to Washington Acres Road, Long Leaf
Drive, or Topsail Greens Drive.
31. Richard Spillane. 104 West Goldeneve Drive. Hampstead. NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Spillane is concerned that each of the alternatives cuts off southbound access on existing US 17 for a
section that includes schools, a recycling center, and several churches. He doesn't oppose the bypass if existing US 17
access remains.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
32. Edward Weingart, 334 Creekview Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Weingart supports the bypass and accelerating its schedule, but is opposed to cutting off existing
US 17 in the Belvedere area. He suggested that there should be a compromise between impacting RCWs and the safety
and convenience for humans.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
33. Mary Weingart, 334 Creekview Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Rank (Only): 1: M2+0,2: M1 +R, 3: M1 +U, 4: M2 +U. Response: Comment noted.
34. Lois Berlin
Comment: Ms. Berlin thinks that a bypass of Hampstead is needed, but opposes the lack of direct access from the
bypass to existing US 17 South.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
35. Steve Donatone
Comment: Mr. Donatone believes the proposed lack of direct access to existing US 17 South will be "disastrous for
local business" and that safety problems will be created along Sloop Point Loop Road and Country Club Road with
increased traffic using those roads to reach Hampstead from the north. Mr. Donatone stated that the needs of the
people of Hampstead should prevail over the concerns about RCW habitat. He stated that RCW has relocated itself
several times over the years as its environment has changed.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
15

36. Jeff and Joyce Keller
Comment: The Keller's emailed a comment to Representative Carolyn Justice and copied the NCDOT public hearing
officer. The email stated opposition to construction of a bypass without an interchange that allows local traffic to move
freely past the northern tie -in. The Keller's believe the lack of southbound access to existing US 17 will harm business
tax revenues and commercial property values, increase local travel times, and decrease safety. They expressed support
for a citizens' proposed solution for the interchange as detailed in an email distributed by the Hampstead Chamber of
Commerce.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red- cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
37. Paul R. Woodin, 15 N. Burning Tree Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Woodin supports the idea of a bypass, but opposes the concept of making existing US 17 a dead end
at the north end of the bypass. He voiced support for the interchange proposal by Michael Nadeau.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
38. Gary Miller, 425 Lakeview Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Miller opposes the project because none of the alternatives includes an option to maintain north -south
traffic on existing US 17 in Hampstead. He stated that a 35 -mph ramp to access US 17 from north of Sloop Point
would be acceptable.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
39. Mike Bain
Comment: Mr. Bain supports the bypass project, but opposes the proposed northern interchange that does not allow
free -flow traffic along existing US 17. He suggests the interchange should be similar to the one at Porters Neck. He is
concerned that traffic problems would occur on Country Club Drive.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
40. Wayne Bennett
Comment: Mr. Bennett suggested that a superstreet be built at the northern end of existing US 17 and the bypass,
which would require less right of way and would maintain two -way traffic on existing US 17. He commented that
Alternative M2 +U would alleviate the two most congested areas and could be completed sooner than other options.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
16

41. Karen Chodnicki, Hampstead, NC
Comment: Ms. Chodnicki opposes forcing all existing southbound US 17 traffic to use the bypass because of the
following reasons: Three schools are located just south of the proposed dead end and school buses and parents will be
forced to drive past the schools then head north, then will be forced to turn left into the school parking lots. The left
turns will cause northbound traffic to back up on existing US 17; Residents living south of the dead end will be
prevented from going north of the bypass on existing US 17; and, Country Club Road will become congested with
traffic using it as a "cut- through" to go southbound. Ms. Chodnicki asked why there isn't an option for local traffic to
stay on existing US 17.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
42. Kristy French
Comment: Ms. French opposes having to drive all the way to Military Cutoff Road Extension just to be able to access
Hampstead. Local businesses will be hurt.
Response: The current design includes an interchange in Hampstead. The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated
for possible changes that would allow traffic to be maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A
value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions
that have been proposed and study new concepts that could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking
into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the human and natural environments, including red - cockaded
woodpecker habitat, and costs.
43. Ryan Johnston, Deputy Chief — Sloop Point Fire Department
Comment: Mr. Johnston is concerned about the impact of the current design on emergency services response times.
He also indicated that Hampstead is growing and the area north of the schools will eventually become what the middle
of Hampstead is now. He stated that the bypass should start near or on I -140 and extend to the area of, or north of,
Sloop Point Road.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
44. Marjorie Miller, 425 Lakeview Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Ms. Miller stated that the bypass should connect to existing US 17 at the NC 210 intersection (the
Lowes /Harris Teeter intersection). Converting a large portion of existing US 17 to a one -way section is an imposition
on local businesses, because a long detour would be required to get from Belvedere to existing US 17 at NC 210 where
businesses are located. She also expressed concern that 45 -mph exit ramps are too fast, and that there is nothing wrong
with 25 -mph ramps.
Response: Because of financial constraints the current project limits will not be changed to include the extension of
Hampstead Bypass further north. Improvements to this and other sections of US 17 may be considered under future
projects. The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be maintained
on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for the
Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
45. Nicole Jo Moss, 610 Ravenswood Road, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Ms. Moss expressed concern that families living north of the proposed northern terminus of the bypass
17

would be inconvenienced when trying to travel to Hampstead for school and community events or to visit businesses.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
46. Cindy Parker
Comment: Ms. Parker asked that NCDOT investigate other options for the Hampstead area. She lives in Olde Point
and is concerned about increased traffic, school travel problems, and safety issues that could be caused by the proposed
project. She is also concerned about the impact on local Hampstead businesses. She indicated that lowering the speed
limit on the interchange could work in the Holly Shelter area.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
47. Gail Ayers
Comment: Ms. Ayers stated that traffic should be able to choose whether to take the bypass or existing US 17 South,
so that southbound traffic would not have to back -track to their destination in Hampstead. Ms. Ayers commented that
animals are experts at adaptation.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
48. Ronal Pannesi, Hampstead resident
Comment: Mr. Pannesi requested that NCDOT reconsider the proposed project in order to allow free movement into
and through Hampstead.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
49. Carol L. Noris, 650 Sawgrass Road, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Ms. Noris opposes all of the bypass alternatives, because converting existing US 17 to a one -way road does
not benefit Hampstead residents. She also believes it will create more safety issues for school children because they
would have to travel longer distances in heavy, speeding traffic. Ms. Norris stated that a "few (if any) red cockaded
nests should not endanger our lives or our property."
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
50. Ken Cockrum, 250 Quarter Horse Lane, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Cockrum is opposed to removing the median and requiring people to make U- turns, stating that they
are less safe. He suggested that a short -term solution to traffic problems in the area is to install traffic signals at: North
18

Sloop Point intersection (flash yellow except during rush hour); North end of the business area where Ace Hardware is
located; and, south of Hampstead near the Beacon building (flash yellow at times). The traffic signals would control
speeds and give drivers a break in traffic in order to safely merge into traffic along existing US 17. Mr. Cockrum stated
that the most logical place for the northern bypass interchange is at the existing US 17 intersection by Lowes at Surf
City. He suggested using the electrical easement to go through Holly Shelter.
Response: This comment may be referencing a separate study being conducted in the area as the project does not
propose to remove the median in the area of Sloop Point Loop Road. The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated
for possible changes that would allow traffic to be maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A
value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions
that have been proposed and study new concepts that could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking
into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the human and natural environments, including red - cockaded
woodpecker habitat, and costs. Because of financial constraints the current project limits will not be changed to include
the extension of Hampstead Bypass further north to NC 210 near Surf City. Improvements to this and other sections
of US 17 may be considered under future projects. The project will not use Holly Shelter Game Land for a new location
alternative.
51. Catherine McCrann
Comment: Ms. McCrann is a resident of Olde Point and opposes the current bypass alternatives. She suggested
moving the bypass northern interchange to Holly Shelter and including a ramp speed of 35 mph, instead of 45 mph,
would prevent the bypass from destroying Hampstead business.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
52. Doreen Thornton, 315 S. Belvedere Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Ms. Thornton supports the idea of a bypass, but opposes creating a dead end on existing US 17 as it would
increase traffic on Long Leaf Drive, Sloop Point Road, and Country Club Drive. In addition, a major housing project is
underway on Country Club Drive, which will add even more traffic and create more safety issues for vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists (including children who often ride to Kiwanis Park). She stated that the bypass should
connect to existing US 17 farther north of Sloop Point Road. She also requested that NCDOT send her all of the
agency contacts residents need to protest the right of way acquisition for Hampstead.
Response: Jamille Robbins provided contact information for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. EPA and N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission in an email response. The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible
changes that would allow traffic to be maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value -
engineering (VE) study will be conducted for the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that
have been proposed and study new concepts that could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into
account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker
habitat, and costs.
53. Michelle Wells, The Paint Store of Hampstead
Comment: Ms. Wells supports the idea of a bypass but opposes creating a dead end on existing US 17 in Hampstead
because of the negative impact to small businesses.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
54. Bob Cramblitt, Cramblitt & Company. 811 Jetty Court, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Cramblitt expressed concern that the proposed bypass project will cause undue harm and create safety
19

issues and asked that NCDOT explore ways to avoid forcing southbound Hampstead traffic to exit existing US 17
north of Hampstead and travel the bypass several miles. He suggested that the estimated project cost could be reduced
by eliminating land acquisition and construction of the intersection and connector road. He recommended a bypass
corridor be designated before options for a bypass route are further reduced. He suggested that mitigation of RCW
concerns follow what has been done successfully at Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs. All available tools for
avoidance and minimization of red - cockaded woodpecker habitat are being considered in coordination with
environmental agencies.
55. Jeanne O'Donnell, 629 Hughes Road, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Ms. O'Donnell expressed concern that the proposed bypass project will cause undue harm and create
safety issues and asked that NCDOT explore ways to avoid forcing southbound Hampstead traffic to exit existing
US 17 north of Hampstead and travel the bypass several miles. She suggested that the estimated project cost could be
reduced by eliminating land acquisition and construction of the intersection and connector road. She recommended a
bypass corridor be designated before options for a bypass route are further reduced. She suggested that mitigation of
RCW concerns follow what has been done successfully at Fort Bragg and Camp Lejeune.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs. All available tools for
avoidance and minimization of red - cockaded woodpecker habitat are being considered in coordination with
environmental agencies.
56. Roger and Jennie Nolette; 208 Champion Drive, Hampstead; NC 28443
Comment: Mr. and Mrs. Nolette oppose the bypass, especially since it will take away the direct link from Topsail
Greens to Hampstead Corners.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
57. Robert Reid, 119 White Heron Cove Road, Hampstead., NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Reid is concerned about increased traffic along Country Club Drive. He suggested making the
junction of the bypass and existing US 17 a signalized intersection, which will help slow traffic leaving the bypass.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
58. Mr. and Mrs. William Taylor, 421 Lakeview Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. and Mrs. Taylor requested that NCDOT not dead end existing US 17.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
20

could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
59. Mardi Sutton, 575 Island Creek Road, Rocky Point, NC 28457
Comment: Ms. Sutton supports the idea of a bypass, but opposes the proposed northern interchange option. She
suggested considering other options, including moving it north to NC 210 and changing the slope and exit ramp speed
limit. Ms. Sutton is opposed to a median on existing US 17. She suggested that the speed limit could be lowered
through the center of Hampstead, instead of installing a median.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red- cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
60. Mike Nadeau, 15894 Highway 17, P.O. Box 56, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Nadeau opposes the current proposal of a mid -town Hampstead on -off ramp and a dead end of
existing US 17 in both directions. He provided a "citizen proposal' with a suggested interchange design. He stated that
at least one ramp on other interchanges in the area are posted at 25 mph, so his proposed interchange should be
considered.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
61. Boyd and Rebecca Baldwin, 149 Olde Point Road, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. and Mrs. Baldwin oppose the current proposal for the bypass, as it would require them to drive at least
two extra miles to return home each time they travel north on existing US 17. Because there are 500 lots in Olde Point,
it could potentially create 1,000 extra miles traveled per day by Olde Pointe residents. They are also concerned about
the impact of the proposal on local businesses in Hampstead. Mr. and Mrs. Baldwin stated that while concern for RCW
is important, it should not be as important as people, resources, and the local economy.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
62. Tames Tam, 136 South Belvedere Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Taylor copied NCDOT on a comment he submitted to Congressman McIntyre. He supports the idea
of a bypass, but opposes it connecting to existing US 17 south of Sloop Point Loop Road in a way that eliminates both
north and south access to existing US 17. He expressed concern about additional traffic on Sloop Point Loop and
Country Club Roads. He suggested that the bypass should reconnect to existing US 17 north of Sloop Point Loop
Road (maybe at NC 210) and allow northbound and southbound traffic movement along existing US 17 (like the
Porters Neck interchange).
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
21

Several citizens included the same typed statement on their comment forms (Comments 63 through 69
below.)
63. Rick Dixon, 832 Sound View Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
64. Gordon and Margaret Hampton, 147 Pine Needle Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
65. Carol Barber, 100 Pine Needle Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
66. Brian and Kim Knotts, 1091 Washington Acres Road, Hampstead, NC 28443
67. Chris Golden, 1311 Washington Acres Road, Hampstead, NC 28443
68. Debbie and Michael Klettner, 97 Scotch Bonnett, Hampstead, NC 28443
69. Aidene and Henry Coton, 148 Pine Needle Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: These citizens stated their support any of the following three alternatives: M1 +E -H, M2 +0, or M1 +R.
They live on the eastern side of existing US 17, but believe people living on the western side of existing US 17 should
determine which of those three alternatives is chosen, since they would be most affected. They recommend that there
should be an option to allow traffic to continue on existing US 17 or take the bypass (similar to the Porters Neck
interchange). They stated that the current proposal would be detrimental to business access, access to areas north and
south for residents, and residential road traffic. These citizens stated that RCW habitat should be protected, but does
not think the small amount of area needed for an interchange will affect their habitat. They suggested that the EPA and
other agencies should allow the area to be used for an interchange.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
70. Barbara and Joe Carnazza
Comment: The Carnazza's requested that NCDOT consider other ways of changing the traffic pattern along existing
US 17, other than a dead end at Hampstead. They are concerned about increased traffic along Country Club Road, as
traffic is already heavy there. They requested that NCDOT expedite an alternative solution to the current proposals.
The Carnazza's stated that residents' safety should come before RCW concerns.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
71. Robert Brown, 717 Castle Bay Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Brown stated that M1 +E -H should not be built as it would be a waste of time and money. He also
indicated that the Hampstead Bypass should not be built unless an interchange is built between Country Club Drive and
Sloop Point Loop Road.
Response: Comment noted. The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow
traffic to be maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be
conducted for the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study
new concepts that could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations,
safety, impacts to the human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
72. Susan D. LoRusso, 1973 NC Hwy 210 West, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Ms. LoRusso is concerned that alternatives other than M2 +U would impact her property. She thinks there
should be an option to allow traffic to continue on existing US 17 or take the bypass.
Response: Comment noted. The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow
22

traffic to be maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be
conducted for the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study
new concepts that could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations,
safety, impacts to the human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
73. Duane M. Finn, 8049 Sidbury Road, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Finn expressed concern about wildlife's ability to travel from one area to another without being hit by
vehicles.
Response: NCDOT will evaluate potential wildlife crossings in coordination with environmental agencies after a
preferred corridor is selected.
74. S. Randall
Comment: This citizen opposes the idea of a bypass, stating that it is a waste of time and money and will negatively
impact local businesses. This citizen expressed concern that the bypass would endanger animals and damage the
environment.
Response: Comment noted. The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow
traffic to be maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. NCDOT will evaluate potential wildlife
crossings in coordination with environmental agencies after a preferred corridor is selected. Avoidance and
minimization measures for impacts to natural resources will continue to be further evaluated as the project progresses.
75. Barbara Morrow and John M. Baldridge, 1217 N. Topsail Drive, Surf City, NC 28445
Comment: Ms. Morrow and Mr. Baldridge requested that NCDOT choose a corridor that does not encroach on RCW
habitat, as ensuring the viability of this species is more important than the convenience of motorists.
Response: Efforts to minimize impacts to RCW habitat has been and will continue to be an important component of
the proposed project.
76. Caryl A. Finn, 8049 SidbuQy Road, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Ms. Finn is concerned about the migration of local wildlife through the boundaries that will be created by
the bypass, and wants to know if wildlife access or tunnels are planned. She indicated that there have been many
vehicle -deer crashes in the area over the years.
Response: NCDOT will evaluate potential wildlife crossings in coordination with environmental agencies after a
preferred corridor is selected.
77. Gregory W. Harts, 459 Putnam Drive, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. Harts asked if his house is going to be taken.
Response: Preliminary design plans show the home would be displaced by the proposed project.
78. Susan Jordan, 1112 Sheffield Court, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Ms. Jordan commented that Murrayville Road should be completed during, or before, this project.
Response: Murrayville Road will not be extended as part of the Military Cutoff Road Extension project.
79. T. Robert Fullerton (Bob), 4201 Farm Road, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. Fullerton stated that access information has not been provided to potentially affected homeowners
along Alternative M1 +E-H. He noted that he currently accesses his property from Farm Road, and noted that Sidbury
Road is proposed to be elevated at Farm Road. He is concerned that the possible selection of M1 +E -H will affect his
ability to sell his home because he cannot show prospective buyers how the home would be accessed. His home is
currently for sale and he indicated that he is moving and must be able to sell it as soon as possible.
Response: It is expected that a preferred alternative for the Hampstead Bypass will be selected in early 2012. Citizens
will be notified by mail of the selected corridor.
23

80. Stephen Jeffcoat, 2403 Grayswood Court, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. Jeffcoat stated that he would rather have no bypass than to have Alternative U constructed.
Response: Comment noted.
81. Michael Spahr, 47 Millard Lane, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Spahr stated that his private property on Millard Lane is posted, and he requires contact in person
prior to anyone coming onto the property.
Response: Comment noted.
82. Tom Gale, 8715 New Forest Drive
Comment: Rank (Only): 1: M1 +E -H, 2: M2 +0. Response: Comment noted.
83. James (Mac) Taylor, 326 Howards Lane, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Taylor supports the proposed concrete medians.
Response: Comment noted. This comment may be referencing a separate study being conducted in the area as the
project does not propose to remove the median in the area of Sloop Point Loop Road.
84. H.C. Richardson
Comment: This citizen lives in the Hampstead area and stated that traffic congestion dissipates on existing
southbound US 17 between Topsail High School and the Washington Acres area. In addition, much of the traffic that
does exist is local, which the bypass will not affect. H.C. Richardson suggested that instead of a bypass, existing US 17
should have right turn lanes, and traffic should flow in one direction, much like what was done in the Scotts Hill area.
The center turn lane should be removed, and the signal at the Hampstead Fire Department should be activated (instead
of blinking yellow).
Response: The Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs.
85. Thomas J. Henn, M. Photog,
Comment: Mr. Henn opposes an interchange at Hoover Road because the road currently has traffic problems during
the school year. There is only one way in and one way out. In addition, he commented that there are multiple oak trees
(over 100 years old) at 310 Hoover Road that cannot be impacted by NCDOT, which would cause another problem for
the M1 +U alternative.
Response: The Hampstead Bypass does not include an interchange at Hoover Road. Hoover Road would be elevated
over the bypass. Preliminary plans indicate that neither right of way nor a construction easement will be required at the
property located at 310 Hoover Road.
86. Jonathan Costa, 8600 SidbuU Road
Comment: Mr. Costa lives on Sidbury Road, which is impacted by the R and O corridors. Although he prefers the E-
H corridor, he feels that R or O has fewer environmental impacts; therefore, he suggested that if the proposed road is
moved westerly within the R or O corridors (more toward his property), it would be on higher ground. He asked that
NCDOT inform him of a decision at the earliest possible date.
Response: It is expected that a preferred alternative for the Hampstead Bypass will be selected in early 2012. Citizens
will be notified by mail of the selected corridor. Shifts to the alignment within the corridor to avoid additional impacts
will be evaluated during final design.
24

87. Martha Robinson, Harrison Creek Road
Comment: Ms. Robinson and her family (Sidberry Thomas heirs) live on Harrison Creek Road (at 1150, 1146, 1142,
1138, 1135, 1134). She asked if they will be displaced and if any of their wetlands at the entrance of Harrison Creek
Road will be affected.
Response: Jamille Robbins responded in an email that based on current mapping, if Alternatives O or R were selected
the family property would be impacted, including wetlands. Mr. Robbins provided a clip of the public hearing map
with the property referenced.
88. Molly Schumitsch, Hampstead, NC
Comment: Ms. Schumitsch commented that she is concerned about US 17 traffic and supports the bypass idea.
Response: Comment noted.
89. Paul Williams, 503 Green Acres Drive, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. Williams supports Corridor U because it is a shorter distance and will cost less to complete. He is
concerned about Harrison Creek (Holiday Drive crossing) because it currently overtops the road during heavy rains
(12 " -24" at times). He asked about NCDOT's plan to handle this issue if a corridor other than U is chosen, since a
bypass would increase runoff.
Response: The NCDOT District Office will contact the property owner about concerns regarding current flooding
problems at the Harrison Creek Holiday Drive Crossing. NCDOT will develop detailed plans to handle runoff from
the project during final design.
90. Rodney King, 4221 Farm Road, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Mr. King is concerned about impacts to the value of his property, access to his property, noise pollution,
and quality of life if Alternative M1 +E -H is chosen, since it would be close to the back of his home. He asked why an
alternative was not proposed through the undeveloped property west of Farm Road and Island Creek Estates. He
stated that if M1 +E -H is chosen, he would prefer to have his entire property acquired by NCDOT.
Response: A wide range of preliminary alternatives were developed and evaluated for their ability to meet the purpose
of and need for the project and minimize impacts to the human and natural environments. The current detailed study
alternatives were selected based on those evaluations. Opportunities to further minimize the impacts to the human and
natural environment will continue to be evaluated as the project progresses. Any property directly impacted by the
project will be appraised and offered fair market value based on the damages.
91. Donald and Sandra Warnick, 407 Island Creek Drive, Wilmington, NC 28411
Comment: Rank (Only): 1: M2 +U, 2: M1 +U, 3: M2+0,4: M1 +R, 5: M1 +E -H. Response: Comment noted.
92. John and Sylvia Watson, 50 Brick Yard Road, Hampstead, NC 28443
Comment: Mr. and Mrs. Watson would be affected by the Hampstead Bypass western -most NC 210 interchange.
They would like to see the interchange be built similar to the one located at I -40 and Holly Shelter Road as they believe
it appears to work well with minimal impacts to residents on the north side. The Watsons submitted a sketch of the
referenced interchange.
Response: Based on existing conditions, a diamond interchange is the preferred configuration at the proposed
northern Hampstead Bypass interchange at NC 210. Access around alternative interchange designs would be similarly
controlled.
25

PUBLIC OFFICIALS
The following correspondence from public officials was not submitted directly to NCDOT for inclusion in the public
record. However, NCDOT would like to recognize and respond to the comments and concerns made by these elected
officials regarding the proposed Hampstead Bypass project.
1. U.S. Congressman Mike McIntyre (Press Release)
McIntyre Pushes For New Solution to Highway 77 Hampstead By
"Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Mike McIntyre announced today that he is pushing for a new solution to the
current proposed Highway 17 Hampstead Bypass.
The current proposal does not include an interchange for southbound travelers to choose to continue onto Bypass 17
or exit onto Business 17. This will force drivers to take a 4.5 mile detour to access a business, residence, or school
located on Business 17 between Grandview Drive and Sloop Point Road.
Congressman McIntyre stated, "This situation is unacceptable, and we need to find a common -sense solution to the
Hampstead Hwy 17 Bypass issue! The current proposal is not economically desirable, practical, or safe for the citizens
of Hampstead and Pender County. I strongly urge the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) to work collaboratively and find a new solution that will ensure ease of and
secure access to Business 17 for southbound travelers."
The current proposal does not include the necessary northern interchange because location of the interchange would
encroach on the Red Cockaded Woodpecker which uses Holly Shelter as a forging area.
McIntyre has written letters to the NCDOT Secretary Gene Conti and USFWS Director Daniel Ash asking them to
find a new solution that is workable, safe, and practical."
2. Rep. Carolyn H. justice
(Response to citi .Zen Charles Wilson email to Al Freimark and Mike Ko�losky on which Carolyn Justice and David Williams were copied.
Mr. Wilson's did not submit his email to, or copy, NCDOT and is therefore not included as part of the public record. A copy of Mr.
Wilson's email, without noted attachment, was included in Ms. Justice's email.)
Charles,
After the DOT meeting I got Andy Woods (Audubon) together with Allen Pope outside the building. Andy says that
he has facilitated the application for mitigation of the woodpecker before and would be glad to help with this one. He
says they want 2 for 1 on the property (in our case 16 acres for the 8 acres that are in question) and they want someone
to monitor the site, which Audubon does and would be willing to do in this case. Allen gave Andy's card to his engineer
and they are getting together this week. Will let you know when I hear more.
3. George Brown, Chairman of the Pender County Board of Commissioners, 805 S. Walker Street, Burgaw, NC
28425
Commissioner Brown wrote to Congressman Mike McIntyre to express concern over changes to the interchange of the
proposed Hampstead Bypass and existing US 17 near Hampstead due to potential adverse impacts on red - cockaded
woodpecker habitat. He indicated in the letter that the resulting design is substandard, will not achieve project goals,
and will result in new adverse impacts to the community. He urged the Congressman to work with Congress and
federal regulatory agencies in considering future regulation.
In response to the above statements from Congressman McIntyre, Representative Justice and Chairman Brown,
NCDOT notes that the Hampstead Bypass design will be evaluated for possible changes that would allow traffic to be
maintained on existing US 17 at the northern end of the bypass. A value - engineering (VE) study will be conducted for
the Hampstead Bypass. The VE team will consider the solutions that have been proposed and study new concepts that
could be implemented to maintain access on US 17 while taking into account traffic operations, safety, impacts to the
human and natural environments, including red - cockaded woodpecker habitat, and costs. All available tools for
avoidance and minimization of red - cockaded woodpecker habitat are being considered in coordination with
environmental agencies. The NCDOT thanks Congressman McIntyre, Representative Justice and Chairman Brown for
their interest and involvement in the Hampstead Bypass project.
26