20181598_CP3 (revisited) Meeting Minutes (1)_20121023

Stan
US 70 Havelock Bypass, TIP Project No. R -1015
Section 404 1NEPA Interagency Merger Process Team Concurrence Meeting for
Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
Meeting Date: April 10, 2012
Distribution: October 23, 2012 Revision (Original September 10, 2012)
Place /Time: NCDOT Structure Design Conference Room, Raleigh 9:00 am
Attendees: Jessi O'Neal Baker, NC Division of Marine Fisheries {via phone)
Amy Billings, NCDOT — Hydraulics Unit
Gordon Box, NCDOT — Geoenvironmental Unit
Joseph Carter, III, J.H. Carter & Associates
Gordon Cashin, NCDOT — Natural Environment Section
Hardee Cox, NCDOT — NCDOT TIP Unit
Andrea Dvorak - Grantz, Stantec
Tristram Ford, NCDOT — Human Environment Section
Mary Frazer, NCDOT — Natural Environment Section
Rob Hanson, NCDOT — Eastern Project Development Section
Phil Harris, NCDOT — Natural Environment Section
Jim Hauser, NCDOT — Natural Environment Section
Larry M. James, Jr., NCDOT — Utilities Unit
Gary Jordan, US Fish & Wildlife Service
Drew Joyner, NCDOT —Human Environment Section
Paul Koch, Stantec
Neil Lassiter, NCDOT — Highway Division 2
Ed Lewis, NCDOT — Public Involvement & Community Studies
Ron Lucas, Federal Highway Administration
Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT — Natural Environment Section
Kevin Markham, Environmental Services, Inc.
Scott McLendon, US Army Corps of Engineers
Art McMillan, NCDOT — Hydraulics Unit
Colin Mellor, NCDOT — Natural Environment Section
Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency {via phone)
Glenn Mumford, NCDOT — Roadway Design Unit
Cyrus Parker, NCDOT — Geoenvironmental Unit
Mark Pierce, NCDOT — Eastern Project Development Section
Rachelle Powell, US Forest Service
Chris Rivenbark, NCDOT — Natural Environment Section
Jeanette Sabo, J. H. Carter & Associates
Ron Sechler, NOAA- Fisheries
Amy Simes, NC DENR
Matt Smith, Environmental Services, Inc.
Steve Sollod, NC Division of Coastal Management
James Speer, NCDOT — Roadway Design Unit
Mark Staley, NCDOT — Roadside Environmental Unit
Tom Steffens, US Army Corps of Engineers
Greg Thorpe, NCDOT PDEA Unit
James Upchurch, NCDOT — Transportation Planning Branch
David Wainwright, NC Division of Water Quality
Allison White, NCDOT — Roadway Design Unit
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Brian Yamamoto, NCDOT — Eastern Project Development Section

April 10, 2012 Meeting Summary
Page 2 of 11
Reference: R -1015 US 70 Havelock Bypass Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
PURPOSE OF MEETING:
The purpose of the meeting was to reinitiate the merger process due to the amount of time
elapsed since the last interagency team meeting. The purpose also included selecting the
Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) based on updated studies
and the updated (2003) Red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) Recovery Plan. The currently
recommended LEDPA is Corridor 3. An exhibit showing alternative Corridors 1, 2, and 3 is
attached.
AGENDA TOPICS:
The Concurrence Point 3 handout included the following agenda for the meeting:
1. Meeting Purpose and Agenda
2. Project Information
3. Merger Process History
4. Reinitiate Merger Process
5. Updated Technical Reports & Environmental Documents
6. Comments on Draft EIS
7. Comments from Corridor Public Hearing
8. Evaluation of Corridors and Impact Matrices
9. Corridor Selection Discussion
10. Next Steps
11. Summary & Action Items
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION:
The following paragraphs summarize the discussions and decisions resulting from this
meeting:
Project Information and Merger Process History:
An overview of the project's history was presented that included previous decision points and
milestones. NCDOT presented a graphic on the white board showing how the project had
progressed through Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA) and Concurrence Point 4B (Hydraulic
Design). It was explained that due to elapsed time and project developments, specifically
changing the document type from an Environmental Assessment (EA) to an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and the update of the RCW Recovery Plan, the merger process is
being reinitiated at Concurrence Point 3. Below are project milestones that were reviewed in
the discussion of project history:
(1996) Original CP3 Meeting
(1997) NCDOT purchased Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank
(1998) Approved Environmental Assessment
(2000) CP 2A Agreement on bridge lengths
(2002) CP 4B, 30% hydraulic review
(2003) RCW Recovery Plan
(2003) Determined EIS as appropriate document format
(2006 — 2010) Updated Environmental Studies
(September 2011) Approved Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(December 2011) Corridor Public Hearing
Reinitiate Merger Process:
StanteC The team discussed reinitiation of the merger process at Concurrence Point 3 (LEDPA). It
was also discussed that there has been inconsistent reporting of the proposed bridge lengths
for hydraulic crossings along the project. Specifically the lengths previously shown for
Concurrence Point 2A (Bridging Decisions and Alignment Review), Concurrence Point 4B

April 10, 2012 Meeting Summary
Page 3 of 11
Reference: R -1015 US 70 Havelock Bypass Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
(30% Hydraulic Review), and within the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are
not the same. The group discussed that the re- initiation of the merger process would begin
with Concurrence Point 3 and then the associated bridge lengths would need to be re-
verified.
Updated Technical Reports & Environmental Documents:
A summary was verbally provided to the team listing the status of the environmental
document and updates of associated technical reports. The DEIS was approved in
September 2011 and the FEIS is currently in development. Reports that are in the
process of being updated since the approval of the DEIS include the Proposed,
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) species surveys and report, the RCW
presence/ absence surveys and report, and the traffic noise analysis and report. These
studies are all being conducted in 2012.
Comments on Draft EIS:
Comments that had been received on the DEIS were discussed to provide clarification or
to discuss their relevance to the selection of the LEDPA. The comment discussions, by
subject, are provided below:
Traffic Forecasting and Capacity Analysis
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) comments requested clarification of the
traffic analysis summary in the DEIS. Specifically that the results show levels of service
(LOS) on US 70 will still be at failing levels in the Build condition.
NCDOT responded that if the bypass is in place, the traffic forecast shows it would divert
10,000- 15,000 vehicles per day (vpd) off of US 70. Although many of the intersections along
existing US 70 are predicted to still have undesirable design year LOS in the Build scenario,
this reduction of vehicles will result in a major reduction in delay and queue lengths.
NCDOT also described the City of Havelock's plans for existing US 70 once the bypass is
constructed, which include transforming existing US 70 to a "complete streets" facility.
The EPA requested providing more detailed traffic summary information prior to the next
meeting. The EPA stated that this traffic information is critical to their selection of a LEDPA
and needs to be presented in more detail in the environmental document.
Stream Mitigation
During the meeting, the EPA asked how stream mitigation was being provided for the project
and if the Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank (CWMB) was intended to provide stream
mitigation. NCDOT responded that the CWMB is intended to address stream mitigation
needs for the project, and that details of the stream mitigation elements of the CWMB would
be included in the FEIS.
Red - cockaded Woodpecker and Section 7 Consultation
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ( USFWS) comments on the DEIS indicate that the USFWS
does not oppose Corridor 3 as the Preferred Alternative and that formal Section 7
consultation is not needed. USFWS clarified that these comments are based on the
assumption that NCDOT allows road closures and that USFS is able to conduct prescribed
Stantec burns per the NCDOT prescribed burn commitments.
The group discussed that there were some inconsistencies in the DEIS regarding
agreements and discussions to -date with respect to RCW impacts. USFWS pointed out that
there were several inconsistencies within the document regarding whether or not the project

April 10, 2012 Meeting Summary
Page 4 of 11
Reference: R -1015 US 70 Havelock Bypass Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
would have an adverse effect on RCW. Some of these inconsistencies were due to the
timing of final documentation of NCDOT's commitment to closing the bypass for prescribed
burns versus the publication of the DEIS. The USFWS and others confirmed that, with the
NCDOT commitment and agreement to allow prescribed burns, there would not be an
adverse effect on RCWs. NCDOT responded that the commitments to prescribed burning
and bypass closure; and the associated no adverse effect would be clearly stated in the
FEIS. The group also acknowledged the potential for some small effects to other T &E
species that are currently being studied in technical report updates. These affects, if any, will
be clearly represented in the FEIS.
NCDOT noted that updated PETS Species Surveys, including RCWs, are being conducted
from April 2012 to September 2012.
EPA asked which corridor has the most impact regarding RCWs. USFWS responded that
based on the RCW guidelines, all three corridors are below the threshold for a "take" and
therefore it is a "no adverse effect" for each of the three corridors.
Hickman Hill Convenience Center
EPA commented that the project may result in the loss of the only solid waste facility in the
area (the Hickman Hill Convenience Center). EPA asked where citizens will take their trash
if there is not a transfer facility and commented that this is an unresolved issue. In the
discussion, USFS noted that they had been approached by Havelock to use National Forest
Service lands for a new transfer facility. However, the USFS has told the city this would not
be an option.
NCDOT responded that during right of way acquisition, NCDOT will work with Havelock on
purchasing and relocating to a new site, but it is up to the city to choose the new site. As an
action item, NCDOT is continuing to coordinate with Craven County to ensure that the
County is aware of the impact to this facility.
US 70 Median Project in Havelock
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) asked how the recent median construction on
US 70 was currently affecting traffic. NCDOT responded that there have been reductions in
left turn movements and that the project was considered a safety improvement.
Residential Relocations for Corridor 2
USACE asked about the residential relocation numbers in the impact summary table;
specifically that they show Corridor 2 a magnitude higher than Corridors 1 or 3 for
relocations.
NCDOT responded that the estimated relocations were based on preliminary plans and right -
of -way relocation reports. The group added that there was a HUD apartment complex on
Lake Road accounting for many of the 133 relocations on Corridor 2. The apartment
complex is shown in the footprint of the proposed interchange and indicated on the relocation
reports in the DEIS. USACE asked if the relocations at the proposed Lake Road interchange
could be minimized.
Comments from Corridor Public Hearing:
StanteC A summary of the December 6, 2011 public hearing comments was presented to the team.
The summary provided statistics of the written and verbal comments. Of the 37 written and
21 verbal comments, roughly half of the input opposed the project and /or supported study of
an Improve Existing Alternative. It was pointed out that this feedback is consistent with other

Stantec
April 10, 2012 Meeting Summary
Page 5 of 11
Reference: R -1015 US 70 Havelock Bypass Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
regional projects where locally impacted residents are not necessarily the beneficiaries of the
intended regional travel benefits.
It was noted that an NCDOT project to install medians on US 70 had gotten underway just
prior to the hearing. Many citizens were unhappy with the median project, and that
sentiment was carried into the Havelock Bypass Hearing.
EPA asked if the citizen comments opposing the project seemed to mostly be based on
environmental effects or on effects to existing businesses and properties. NCDOT
responded that most of the comments verbalized seemed to be based on effects to
businesses and properties.
Evaluation of Corridors and Impact Matrices:
The comparison matrix of alternatives was presented in the Concurrence Point 3 packet.
The Impacts comparison table is shown below:
Updated Comparison of Bypass Alternatives from DEIS (2011)
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
Alternate 3
Length (miles)
10.85
9.91
10.31
Costs (year dollars)
Construction (08)
$156,400,000
$138,800,000
$149,600,000
Utility Relocation (07)
1,600,000
2,800,000
2,800,000
Right of Way (09)
9,800,000
29,000000
10,600,000
TOTAL
$167,800,000
$170,600,000
$163,000,000
Relocations (2009)
Residences (minorities)
13 (0)
133 (18)
16 (0)
Churches (members)
0
0
0
Businesses (employees)
1 (2)
3 (9)
1 (2)
Non - profit
_L L31
LL31
TOTAL
15
137
18
Physical Environment (Based on ROW)
Croatan National Forest (acres)
189
225
240
Potentially- Contaminated Sites
1
1
1
Major Stream Crossings
3
3
3
Natural Resources (Acres)
Prime Farmland by Soils in RIW
66
112
71
Jurisdictional Areas (Based on Slope Stakes +25 feet on each side)
Wetlands (acres)
109
78
115
Streams (lin. ft.)
2,581
3,094
2,505
Neuse River Riparian Buffers (sq. ft.)
69,534
142,025
106,647
Jurisdictional Areas on National Forest System Lands (Based on Slope Stakes +25 feet on each side)
Wetlands (acres)
81
67
88
Streams (lin. ft.)
1,012
1,764
1,387

April 10, 2012 Meeting Summary
Page 6 of 11
Reference: R -1015 US 70 Havelock Bypass Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
Updated Comparison of Bypass Alternatives from DEIS (2011)
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
Alternate 3
RCW (USFS Field Survey, Fall 2011)
Active clusters (58 & 902)
2
2
2
Inactive clusters
2 N, 2 R`
1 N, 2 R`
2 N, 2 R`
N= Natural, R= Recruitment
Corridor Selection Discussion:
After presenting the comparison of impacts for each alternative, NCDOT asked if the
team concurred with reaffirmation of Corridor 3 as LEDPA. Reasons for recommending
Corridor 3 as LEDPA are listed below:
Corridor 3 provides:
• 2nd lowest number of relocations
• Lowest stream impacts
• 2nd lowest prime farmland impacts
• 2nd shortest project length
• Best compromise between impacts to the Croatan National Forest and Town of
Havelock
• Lowest cost
The following items were discussed in relation to the selection of LEDPA.
The N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) noted that Corridor 3 has the highest wetland
impacts and that although the reasons for selecting it as LEDPA were understood, asked if
further reduction of wetland impacts could be considered. NCDOT noted that Corridor 3 was
recommended as a compromise between Corridors 1 and 2 (Corridor 1 has greater impacts
to USFS lands and Corridor 2 has greater relocation impacts).
EPA pointed out that the impacts table indicates that Corridor 1 has the least impacts and
could be considered LEDPA. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) responded that Corridor 1
would have greater effect on RCWs because it would make prescribed burning extremely
difficult; it would make it more difficult to manage RCW clusters and would make it difficult to
access and manage lands. USFWS reinforced that Corridor 1 would make it more difficult to
manage RCW clusters.
WRC stated concurrence with Corridor 3 as LEDPA, noting that indirect and cumulative
effects and fragmentation are higher with Corridor 1. EPA suggested that the impacts table
should attempt to capture some of the decision - making features, such as habitat
fragmentation, so that the LEDPA decision is more clearly presented in the FEIS. DWQ also
commented that it would be important to carefully document these other LEDPA- decision
factors in the FEIS.
StanteC NCDOT noted that the results
Corridor 3 as LEDPA and
correspondence. EPA asked
regarding LEDPA. NCDOT
recommendations.
of the latest PETS studies still support recommendation of
that these recommendations have been documented in
if any of the updated studies changed the decision factors
- onfirmed that none of the updated studies changed the

April 10, 2012 Meeting Summary
Page 7 of 11
Reference: R -1015 US 70 Havelock Bypass Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
The USACE reminded the group that the proposed bridge lengths for the project are
inconsistently reported between the DEIS and the Concurrence Point 4B recommendations.
NCDOT acknowledged the inconsistent documentation of lengths and responded that the
bridge lengths will be reviewed and follow -up coordination will be conducted with the
Interagency Team.
The group discussed the need to create a new concurrence form. But it was decided that
since the current form had not been rescinded and the recommendation for LEDPA was
unchanged, there was no need for a revised form. FHWA confirmed that the current CP3
Concurrence Form was still valid and that the minutes of this meeting would be sufficient to
verify the previous LEDPA decision.
Concurrence Decision:
Team members representing the following agencies at this April 10, 2012 meeting verbally
reaffirmed and reached concurrence on Corridor 3 as the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative ( LEDPA):
• Federal Highway Administration
• US Army Corps of Engineers
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• NC Wildlife Resources Commission
• US Forest Service
• NC Department of Transportation
Corridor 3 was selected for the following reasons:
• 2nd Lowest number of relocations
• Lowest stream impacts
• 2nd lowest prime farmland impacts
• 2nd shortest project length
• Lowest cost
• Minimizes fragmentation of Red - cockaded Woodpecker habitat
The EPA abstained from concurrence stating that no significant updates regarding the
previous LEDPA decision had occurred and that more clarity is needed in the documentation
of the decision factors. EPA did not state any opposition to the recommendation of Corridor
3 as LEDPA.
Summary of Action Items:
The following items discussed at the meeting warranted further action or follow up. An
update on the resolution or continuing efforts for each of these action items is described in
the next section.
• The EPA requested further clarification on the details of the traffic analysis.
• The USFWS requested that NCDOT's prescribed burn commitments and the associated
No Adverse Effect for RCW need to be better clarified in the FEIS.
• The EPA requested further clarification on the relocation of the county waste transfer
facility (Hickman Hill Convenience Center).
• The EPA requested more information regarding stream mitigation for the project.
• The group discussed the need to clarify and finalize the proposed bridge lengths
StanteC associated with Corridor 3.
• The USACE requested further discussion of relocation impacts, specifically the higher
estimates for Corridor 2 (how they were estimated, opportunities for minimization) as the
project moves forward.

April 10, 2012 Meeting Summary
Page 8 of 11
Reference: R -1015 US 70 Havelock Bypass Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
Update on Action Items Since CP3R Meeting:
The following action items were generated prior to or during the April 10, 2012 meeting. An
update on the resolution of each action item is presented in italics.
Traffic Forecasting & Capacity Analysis
Mr. Chris Militscher (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) requested clarification of the
capacity analysis summary that was presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
and requested more detailed information regarding traffic volumes.
Resolution - Mr. Militscher, Mr. Darryl Austin ( NCDOT Transportation Planning), Ms.
BenJetta Johnson ( NCDOT Congestion Management), and Mr. Mark Pierce ( NCDOT
Project Development) met by telephone on May 3, 2012 to review the presentation of the
traffic volumes and capacity analysis in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The
group discussed the no -build and build forecasts, the traffic forecast diagrams, the level of
service tabulation, and the anticipated volumes on the proposed bypass. Mr. Militscher
requested and Mr. Pierce agreed that NCDOT will expand the discussion of the capacity
analysis and the discussion of the benefits of the proposed bypass in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
Red - cockaded Woodpecker
Mr. Gary Jordan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) stated that, with prescribed bums, there
would not be an adverse effect to the Red - cockaded Woodpecker species and formal
Section 7 consultation would not be needed. However, Mr. Jordan requested that the
discussions regarding impacts to RCWs need to be documented more clearly in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement.
Resolution- NCDOT is preparing an update of the RCW Analysis that will be documented
and submitted to the resource agencies during late 2012 or early 2013, and included in
the Final Environmental Impact Statement. NCDOT will clarify the RCW discussions to be
included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement and will continue coordination with
USFWS on this issue.
Hickman Hill Convenience Center
Mr. Chris Militscher (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) requested that NCDOT
coordinate further with Craven County to ensure that the waste transfer station (Hickman Hill
Convenience Center) can be relocated prior to construction of this project.
Resolution- On May 22, 2012, Mr. Mark Pierce ( NCDOT Project Development) and Mr.
Rusty Cotton (Director of the Craven County Department of Solid Waste & Recycling)
spoke by telephone regarding the proposed bypass project with respect to the waste
transfer station (Hickman Hill Convenience Center) and the closed landfill immediately
adjacent to the transfer station. Mr. Pierce summarized the telephone conversation via an
e -mail to Mr. Cotton on May 22, 2012. Mr. Pierce also provided Mr. Cotton with a link to
the Public Hearing Map and a graphic showing the bypass corridors, parcels owned by
the U.S. Forest Service and other parcels in Township 6 of Havelock.
Mr. Pierce called Mr. Cotton on July 11, 2012 to follow up on the County's review of the
mapping and information e- mailed to him on May 22, 2012. Mr. Cotton said that Craven
StanteC County is aware that the bypass will affect the convenience center and will require
relocation of the facility. Mr. Cotton also said that the County is reviewing their options for
relocation of the facility to private lands. NCDOT will continue dialog with Craven County
on relocation of the Hickman Hill Convenience Center during the Right of Way Acquisition
Process, which is currently scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2014.

April 10, 2012 Meeting Summary
Page 9 of 11
Reference: R -1015 US 70 Havelock Bypass Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
Stream Mitigation
Mr. Chris Militscher (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) inquired about mitigation for
stream impacts. Mr. Mark Pierce ( NCDOT Project Development) responded that the
Croatan Wetland Mitigation Bank provided mitigation for wetland impacts, stream impacts,
and habitat fragmentation.
Resolution - Mr. Pierce further responded to this issue via the an e-mail to Mr. Militscher
on April 30, 2012 including a copy of the " Croatan Mitigation Bank Addendum to the
NCDOT UMBI (May 2009)." Pages 9 and 10 describe the determination of credits.
Approximately 140 acres of riverine wetlands have been classified as riparian headwater
stream mitigation, which resulted in almost 61,000 linear feet of stream, or approximately
34,700 credits. Mr. Militscher reviewed this information and determined that stream
mitigation issues have been addressed as noted in an e-mail dated May 1, 2012.
Bridge Lengths
During a telephone conversation with Mr. Mark Pierce ( NCDOT Project Development) on
December 1, 2011, Mr. Tom Steffens (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) noted a discrepancy in
the bridge lengths listed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (September 6, 2011)
as compared with the bridge lengths presented in the minutes from the Avoidance &
Minimization (CP4B) Concurrence Meeting (June 20, 2002). Mr. Steffens also documented
his comment on the bridge lengths in a December 2, 2011 letter including this and other
formal comments by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, which were discussed during this meeting.
Resolution - The NCDOT Hydraulics Unit reviewed their files including the original Bridge
Survey Reports and meeting minutes. They concluded that the bridge length for the
Southwest Prong of Slocum Creek was incorrectly stated at the CP4B Meeting as 899
feet rather than 925 feet. After review of the East Prong of Slocum Creek, they noted that
the approximate length of 1,476 feet was for a skewed crossing and that the adjusted
perpendicular length is 1,618 feet. Therefore, NCDOT is now recommending the
following for the three major crossings and requests that the Interagency Merger Process
Team offer their comments or concurrence. An e -mail dated July 17, 2012 was sent to
the Interagency Merger Process Team providing more details on the bridging decisions
summary and revised recommendations.
Tributary of Tucker Creek: Double Box Culvert at 9 'x 7 'x 384'
Southwest Prong of Slocum Creek: 925 -foot Bridge
East Prong of Slocum Creek: 1, 618 -foot Bridge
Corridor 2 Relocations
Mr. Scott McLendon (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and Mr. Tom Steffens (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers) requested that NCDOT review the relocations for Corridor 2 since they
are much higher than Corridors 1 and 3. In particular, Mr. McLendon and Mr. Steffens
requested that NCDOT review the type and location of the Lake Road Interchange to
determine whether shifting to the east or west would reduce the number of relocations for
Corridor 2.
Resolution - Mr. Steffens, Mr. Robert Woodard ( NCDOT Right of Way Branch), Mr. Fred
StanteC Barkley ( NCDOT Right of Way Branch), and Mr. Mark Pierce ( NCDOT Project
Development) met in the Transportation Building in Raleigh on May 9, 2012 to discuss
types of interchanges that could be utilized at Lake Road and Corridor 2. Shifting the
interchange to the east or west, to further minimize residential relocations in that vicinity,
was also reviewed. As discussed during the meeting, the location of Corridor 2 was

April 10, 2012 Meeting Summary
Page 10 of 11
Reference: R -1015 US 70 Havelock Bypass Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
selected to "hug" the western limits of Havelock in order to minimize impacts to the
Croatan National Forest, and, in particular, RCW Cluster 902. Therefore, numerous multi-
family dwellings located on Lake Road would be directly affected. We also discussed that
NCDOT had previously studied a diamond interchange, a compressed diamond
interchange, and a half - clover interchange to minimize relocations in this vicinity, and
previously studied shifting the interchange eastward or westward to minimize relocations.
NCDOT concluded that the interchange could not be shifted enough eastward or
westward to avoid impacts to the multi- family dwellings. Mr. Pierce summarized the
May 9, 2012 meeting via an e-mail to Mr. Steffens on May 23, 2012.
CORRECTIONS & OMISSIONS: This summary is the writer's interpretation of the events,
discussions, and transactions that took place during the meeting. If there are any additions
and /or corrections please inform Mark Pierce at (919) 707 -6035 or at mspierce @ncdot.gov,
or Paul Koch at (919) 865 -7394 or at paul.koch @stantec.com.
� r�
4�k , �)
Paul R. Koch, PE
Project Manager
paul.koch @stantec.com
PRK/
attachment: corridor map
cc: attendees
file
Stantec

April 10, 2012 Meeting Summary
Page 11 of 11
Reference: R -1015 US 70 Havelock Bypass Corridor Selection (CP3 Revisited)
Stantec

Study Corridors Presented at the Corridor Public Hearings in 1998 and 2011
0 0
o �
0 .0
0
.0 .00
a. v,
0
cD o•
0
0
o a
0 0
a CD
0
c'
co
a
P 0
0 CD
•
o_
0
CD
C
H
0
0
0
0
0
n
O
0
0
0
°'
0
0
0
0
•t
0
•
0
•
aQ
0
0
N
0
Cr
0
cia
CD
0
cn
cn
0
0
CD
co
O
0
cn
CD
0
O
0
O
0
0
Uci
0
0
0
0
0
o
cD
vQ
d
rn
N
O
b
c'
g
0
0
0
01-1
0
co
cia
O
a
cr
a
vQ
ca
174
co
5
cr
0
0
y
cr
0
arQ
0✓
0
.0
cr
0
0
0
0
0
.t
0
n
0
H
0
0
0
(IQ
0
0
0
0
0
0
cD
0
v,
0
d
rri
0✓
C
0
Cr
`c
P2-� �05'E>
oCD ° .
+ g'0o
Owcn fD "-h a„ ''t 0
nOAo'o0a, rUW
•t —i
0 co 0 0
0 Q°�� a via
O n 0 - 0 .. 0 0
CD .••0 cCto0 pc„
cep 2 a ' 0 0 o
cr a '-' .0 crQ rQ O A) C O
p 5 a: C. 0 0 0 CD 0
CA0+0�P5 0a
_�
o t�i oP tr1ci3L O ° v'
o y o 5' e 0 0 0 c CD
cra'rs vOQ, 0
cn 0 P) - 0 `.1 0
° 1 a�5'� �o 0
c•0 VI fa, 0 a
° 0 '°
A:...Q„� 0 0
CD
0 -t P OQ '0 O 'O
co co a 0� 0 �. 5
0 v) �� 0
0 ri 0 o 0 0
a0 0 p 0 K 0
0 -0 o' P. 0 0
0a. ►t O 0 A, a
. 0 0 07 0 0
0
to o a 0 O. 0 0 0
oCD 0bq �C 0 0
20 0° 0 o afr. ; 5' �' 0
a r* A� 0 0 O
Po 0 N p `� a i
c.�a00~•ati' " o 0
00
0 o
r* 0 0 Coq
°r4 a
° °-h UJ 0 W r '•
a r 0 a O P
u CD coopa 0 0. pa •0
0. 0 0 ciocAP O Cog cm?P8,
cn
cD
0 < o- 0 UQ C=i °
E.
°s� 0,C 1'Ca.
0
x
A
oCD00co
0-• w
•0,�
5. 0
co 0 0 r 2
a Q.
cii
P • 0
0
cao •fit 0
0 _' C
g a 0
0 -.
cn En IV
o 0 cr
1-3
w
ID
'c
0
0'
0
0
0
'o°
i: 'PaL Pirl
CD
a0�5•
.O 0 a'.
0
co
0, 7)•
P. d '0
0 mti
2 O
'd o' CD
c° o AD
Q„O 0 PJ
Cr dIR-
`c 0
5
0
0
0
5,
0
•CD
t
0
N
CO
w
n
5
0
0
5'
0
0
0
0
`pue `sluauiuioo asoip
Agency comments
EIS and NCDOT
of sasuodsai
1JeiU aul uo
•
0n,�
o•
o
0 0
- �.
x
its
rrn CD
0
•
n 'C3
0
`anilBuially pauaJa.id aul
zopirtoD SUOS
SE paloalas sum
•
-ear aul Jo uoissnosip palirlap d
:apnloui IITM luauinoop sills
The next step in the planning and design process is the preparation of the Final EIS.
• • • yyci)
CD
yo �o ° 0CD"
0 c•
v2 -+ 0 0 CZ '' .1, O O
CrJ w w O. ,-' -
o
. : C7 0 0 y 011
0 0 o ►-7
a 0 o o -
0 0 c
N P a 5 N
O' p 0 0:,
it
o 0 N
v2 0 y � Cr1
a 0 O
' 0cia ,-- R
0
0
o o 0 C7
0 - y
S• " r
a o y
o 0
0too
0 4 5.ry
� 0 y
0 ►-�
oo IRA
0 0 0 0 0 n
`0° o- o• OO
00 0 0
0-1
P.
a
4' w wtio' P
•t
o.
No p
0 N. 0a. 0 Iv 0
0 a.
CD v2 o, O Q„
a _
O. ° o
°O 0 0 -. 9.
.0 a
.O 0 0
r. o ° w
o. o CA
0 ,Y
Pr 0 0
Pa E 0
P. 0o
sloiduii iui

NCDOT Project Newsletter
(NCDOT Project No. R-1015)
tion of Corridor 3 as the Preferred
PROJECT HISTORY
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
it balanced
U
U
a)
a)
.Si
c
b
U
as
U
U
0
cn U z
- •-, ^• C
a O2 a
cn a)
atcn
a)
M H
6. 0 O
•> 0 rn
au 0) —
i
�aCI
)
•.s~ a)
4
O
O
r
a)
a)
0
•
cn
N
0
0
After the EA was distributed for
bo
Cr"
0
•
cn
.0
Q)
U
6,
H
0
U
z
O
U
a)
•
cn
an
•
a,
a)
cn
cd
a
G�
0
0
•
E
a
0
ad
H
U
z
o
• a)
CD' 78
0) a
H
cn
a
M
C
•E
y 0
U
0 .O
CI)U
ti
.0
bA
a)
0
0
•
• •
CS"
cat
4-.
0
bo
•
cn
0)
O
O
cd
N
a)
0
0
E
0
U
0
a)
a)
a)
• cn
N
0
cn
a)
N
•�
a)
i.
ti•
~"
O. b
75, an
Ocd
U
E
0
as ca,
E
a)
H E
project study area.
•
0
cn
0
U
^d
0
a)
a)
H
N
•
b
�d
0
a)
c
0
0
a,
fl
a) .2 a)—
)
--. 0 g 4
O O. c) 'ZS
.•;•, t. > U O
W x 0
� N �5. > O,
'0 _0 y cd
z
Ecad Q ..�". "\`_'
a) U
g.
7: '
N 6 U
0 ��
U a) >:"t
0 2).
C7U,q
V) w .--, q
Wal
to U o
?
�0o�
m/ U el)Z'
O U ' a) U
i
0 al - -•5 �
.b 73 - 0L4 -a �I
C .0) a cd 'b
a " x , 0 `3
e.6.
0•Zw y
b E—*,—'E-,�
U o
.0 to j cn
0 �, O cd
N `d 3 O ai x
W 0.a.: 0'.-0
L
tal i
E
0
0
b
on
a)
vi
O
•N
ao
O
b�A
a)
0
0
0
a)
0
0
a)
0
0
M
0
construction
tin
•
ell
CU
b
0
U
,.D
0
bOq
0
a)
d
d
it
41,
a)
0
z
Alternative.
tion in the document for the selec-
2
O~
Continued on page 2
•
U czt
0
an
a)
3
an C U
ri p•,
o
cd
tea)
a, c
a) en
V, U
•
bA E
an
U
.45 cd
O .g
O
'C O
a)CA
CI a)
al 0.
"0
•
rn
cd
E
0)
3
0
•
U
a)
0
a)
..
c
0)
c
a)
0
0
a)
a
C
O a`)
U a
U
67>
0
w
0
U
U
� U
co o
a) 2
co
ct
3
c
c
U
t a
o • .
0
c o
co in
U�
Q
•0
C
co
0
O
Q)
•U
0)
0
c
0
U