20161268_Meeting Minutes 08302013_20130820

MULKEY"
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Meeting Participants
FROM: Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
DATE: August 30, 2013
S U B J E C T: Merger Team Concurrence Point 4A Meeting, Avoidance and Minimization, New
Hanover and Pender Counties, NCDOT TIP Project No. R -3300
A NEPA /Section 404 Merger meeting was held on February 20, 2013 for the subject project in the
NCDOT Structure Design conference room. The purpose of the meeting was to reach concurrence
on avoidance and minimization (Concurrence Point 4A) for US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative
E -H. Meeting participants are listed below and a summary of the meeting follows.
MEETING PARTICIPANTS
Paul Atkinson
NCDOT
- Hydraulics
Omar Azizi
NCDOT
- Structures
Johnny Banks
Mulkey
Rachelle Beauregard
NCDOT
-NES
Tim Coggins
NCDOT
- Structures
Karen Eason Fussell
NCDOT
- Division 3
Kim Gillespie
NCDOT
-PDEA
Rob Hanson
NCDOT
- PDEA
Mason Herndon
NCDWR
Gary Jordan
USFWS
Liz Kovasckitz
Mulkey
Mike Kozlosky
Wilmington MPO
Stephen Lane
NCDCM
(by phone)
Gary Lovering
NCDOT
- Roadway Design
Jay McInnis
NCDOT
- PDEA
Colin Mellor
NCDOT
- NES
Mark Mickley
Mulkey
Chris Militscher
USEPA (by phone)
Kevin Moore
NCDOT
- Roadway Design
Glenn Mumford
NCDOT
- Roadway Design
Jackson Provost
NCDOT
- Division 3
Fritz Rohde
NOAA -
NMFS (by phone)
Brad Shaver
USACE
Adam Snipes
NCDOT
- TIP
Steve Sollod
NCDCM
Tyler Stanton
NCDOT
- NES
Henry Wicker
USACE (by phone)
Travis Wilson
NCWRC
MUL,KEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NO 2751B P❑ Sox 33127 RALEIGH. NQ 27636 PH: 919.851 -1912 FAX: [phone] WWW,MULKEYINC.CCN

MEETING SUMMARY
Kim Gillespie opened the meeting and introductions were made around the room. Liz Kovasckitz
noted an update to the graphics on page 5 of the packet.
Presentation
After reviewing the meeting agenda, Ms. Kovasckitz presented a brief summary of background
information for the US 17 Corridor Study, comprised of NCDOT Projects U -4751 (Military Cutoff
Road Extension) and R -3300 (US 17 Hampstead Bypass) in New Hanover and Pender Counties.
The summary included a description of the project, the project purpose, the current schedule, and a
synopsis of prior Merger Team meetings. Ms. Kovasckitz noted today's meeting addressed
avoidance and minimization for the US 17 Hampstead Bypass portion of the project only. The
Concurrence Point (CP) 4A meeting for Military Cutoff Road Extension was held on June 14, 2012
in order to maintain that project's schedule. The Final Environmental Impact Statement will
address both projects.
Ms. Kovasckitz noted avoidance and minimization has been part of the project development
process since CP 1. Examples of early avoidance and minimization include revisions to the initial
study area to avoid Holly Shelter Game Land and the use of a suitability surface model to aid in the
identification of the preliminary study corridors.
Impact Calculations
Ms. Kovasckitz reviewed the methodology used to calculate project impacts. Calculations for
individual resource impact tables incorporate an area that includes slope stake limits plus 25 feet.
Prior to the selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA),
US 17 Hampstead Bypass alternatives used their respective interchange configuration at the US 17
Wilmington Bypass. For Military Cutoff Road Extension alternatives, the Alternative U interchange
configuration was used because it was the best representation of impacts without the US 17
Hampstead Bypass project. After the selection of Alternative M1 +E -H as the LEDPA, individual
impacts were broken out with the appropriate interchange configuration. At the CP 4A meeting for
Military Cutoff Road Extension, Alternative M1 impacts were calculated using the full US 17
Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H interchange configuration south of the US 17 Wilmington
Bypass and an interim interchange design north of the US 17 Wilmington Bypass. The interim
interchange design will be constructed and used until the US 17 Hampstead Bypass is built. Because
project U -4751 would be constructed first, CP 4A impacts for US 17 Hampstead Bypass are
calculated using the portion of the US 17 Wilmington Bypass interchange area not accounted for
under Military Cutoff Road Extension Alternative M1. The overall impact boundary (slope stake
limits plus 25 feet for the combined M1 and E -H alignments) will be presented in the Final EIS.
Impacts presented in the Final EIS will reflect avoidance and minimization measures concurred
upon by the NEPA /Section 404 Merger Team.
Overview of R -3300 Avoidance & Minimization (Figure 2A)
Ms. Kovasckitz provided an overview of the four main areas identified for additional avoidance and
minimization measures along the proposed US 17 Hampstead Bypass since the selection of the
LEDPA. Minimization areas 1, 2 and 3 include alignment shifts along US 17 Hampstead Bypass. In
these three areas, wetland impacts were reduced by more than 13.5 acres. In the area where the
greatest wetland impact reductions were achieved, stream impacts increased by 322 linear feet, this
increase in stream impacts was offset somewhat by reductions in other areas, resulting in an overall
increase in stream impacts of 58 linear feet.
2

Minimization Area 4: From the Northern Interchange Located West of Grandview Drive to
the Northern Project Terminus
Ms. Kovasckitz reviewed the history of the project development process related to Minimization
Area 4. Minimization Area 4 extends from the US 17 Hampstead Bypass interchange west of
Grandview Drive northward to the project terminus at Sloop Point Loop Road.
At the October 2011 corridor public hearings, the public voiced strong opposition to the northern
interchange location south of the Topsail Schools complex because it would result in the loss of
direct access to a section of existing US 17. Most of the comments from the corridor public hearing
pertained to the US 17 Hampstead Bypass northern interchange location. Ms. Kovasckitz noted
Appendix B of the packet contained a summary of the comments from the corridor public hearing.
In response to the public outcry, NCDOT evaluated several new potential interchange options for a
location between the schools and the RCW foraging habitat. A value engineering study was
conducted in December 2011 and two viable options moved forward for more detailed analysis.
Alternative E -H Interchange Impacts: Comparison of the Interchange Located West of
Grandview Drive (CP 3) and the Initial Northern Interchange Location (Pre -CP 3)
In response to a request made by Mason Herndon and Brad Shaver prior to the R -3300 CP 4A
meeting, Ms. Kovasckitz reviewed a table with a subset of impacts for the northern section of the
project. The table compared the Alternative E -H interchange south of the schools (described at
CP 3 and shown to the public at the corridor public hearings) and "E -H Original." "E -H Original"
was the initial interchange design located north of the schools, but was dropped from further
consideration at the CP 2A pre -field meeting because of impacts to RCW habitat. Ms. Kovasckitz
noted "E -H Original" would have had fewer impacts to wetlands, streams, ponds, and residences.
However, it would have affected 10 additional businesses, a cemetery, and resulted in at least one
additional Holly Shelter Game Land RCW Cluster level take.
Chris Militscher asked if impacted residents were notified. Jay McInnis responded they were not
specifically notified. However, if the residents attended the public hearings and reviewed the map
they would have seen the impacts. Ms. Kovasckitz clarified "E -H Original," which was located
within RCW foraging habitat, was never shown to the public because the interchange location had
been moved to the south of the schools prior to the DEIS and public hearings. Steve Sollod
summarized that Alternate E -H was what was selected as part of the LEDPA and "E -H Original"
was no longer in consideration at that time. Mr. McInnis agreed. Ms. Kovasckitz noted both
interchange locations were within the Alternative E -H corridor.
Mr. Militscher stated the Merger Team had agreed to the interchange south of the schools as part of
the LEDPA. Ms. Kovasckitz affirmed Alternative E -H was selected as the LEDPA and the impacts
that were shown at the CP 3 meeting were based on the interchange located south of the schools.
Mr. McInnis noted since the public hearings, the Merger Team was kept informed there were
ongoing efforts to address the public's outcry regarding the interchange location south of the
schools. Although a solution to the public's concern was being investigated, it was determined
proceeding with CP 3 was not an issue because changes to the design at the northern end of the
project would have been the same regardless of which alternative was selected as the LEDPA.
Mr. Shaver noted the reason he and Mr. Herndon were interested in seeing a comparison between
Alternative E -H and "E -H Original" was because one of the interchange options that is now under
consideration in response to public comments is located north of the schools. Mr. Shaver indicated

he and Mr. Herndon wanted to have a background comparison of the impacts associated with the
original northern interchange location because it too was north of the schools.
Mr. Militscher asked if the LEDPA was being modified. Mr. Shaver responded the LEDPA was not
changing as all of the interchange options being discussed are located within the LEDPA corridor.
Mr. Militscher asked if the impacts were the same for the different interchanges. Mr. Shaver said
they were not, which was why the comparison was requested. Mr. McInnis reiterated the same
design changes would be under consideration regardless of which alternative was selected as the
LEDPA.
Northern Interchange Option 6TR ( NCDOT Preferred)
Ms. Kovasckitz explained that in order to address citizens' concerns, NCDOT developed an
interchange that would fit between the school property and the RCW foraging habitat using a
reduced design. Detailed capacity analyses performed on this design determined traffic would back
up onto the bypass from the traffic signal at the Topsail Schools complex. Adding a third lane onto
existing US 17 at the schools would alleviate queuing onto the bypass, but the signal in front of the
schools would still not operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS). Concerns regarding the
operation of existing US 17 in the vicinity of the schools led the project team to consider retaining
the interchange south of the schools and adding the reduced - design interchange north of the
schools (Option 6TR).
Ms. Kovasckitz stated Option 6TR is the preferred option for the US 17 Hampstead Bypass
Alternative E -H northern interchange configuration for several reasons:
• The northern interchange is located 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.
• Mr. Herndon stated he thought that was why a third lane was added. Ms. I ",ovasckitz
affirmed with one interchange located north of the schools, an additional lane would have to
be added to existing US 17 in each direction in front of the schools to help prevent cars
from backing up onto the bypass. However, the signal in front of the schools would
continue to function at an unacceptable level of service with one interchange. Mr. Shaver
asked if that was the signal in front of the schools or the signal at Country Club Drive and
Jenkins Road, which is the new route for the high school students. Mr. McInnis stated it
was both. Ms. Kovasckitz directed meeting participants to the graphic showing intersection
LOS for Options 6R and 6TR on page 5 of the packet.
• An increase in traffic or a traffic incident on existing US 17 in front of the Topsail Schools
complex, such as might result from an accident or special school events, would have a
greater potential to cause backups onto the US 17 Hampstead Bypass with a single
interchange.
• 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.
4

An interchange north of the schools requires a reduced design in order to minimize impacts
to RCW foraging habitat and the schools. 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.
Ms. Kovasckitz noted Figure 3M shows design details of the interchange north of the schools. The
figure shows there is a very limited area to site an interchange. The proposed new northern
interchange uses reduced design criteria to fit between the constraints of the school property, a
water tower and RCW foraging habitat. NCDOT is willing to consider the reduced design criteria
because this is a transition area. Ms. Kovasckitz stated the interchange will increase impacts to
streams and wetlands. Associated improvements will also cause new impacts to a cemetery, a
potential UST site, and increase impacts to a High Quality Waters watershed.
Red - cockaded Woodpecker Foraging Habitat
Mr. Shaver and Mr. Herndon asked why the RCW foraging habitat shown on the slide didn't match
what was shown in the packet. Mr. McInnis noted the slide shows sketches of interchange
configuration options at the concept development stage. The base map used for those sketches
displayed the RCW data available at the time. Mr. Militscher asked if the slide showing interchange
Option 6TR was showing the current RCW data, as RCW habitat was shown in an area where the
proposed road was located. Mr. McInnis noted the partition Mr. Militscher was referencing was
associated with the cluster that occurred on private land.
Gary Jordan said terminology referencing the type of habitat (suitable, potentially suitable and future
potentially suitable) should be ignored because it is the habitat the RCWs are currently using. He
noted there has been a change in the nomenclature and what is being used now is the Proposed
Regional Standard for Managed Stability (SMS) Guidelines. Mr. Jordan noted this was a very recent
change based upon new data for RCWs using habitat that is not what has been traditionally
considered habitat. The change stems from the findings of studies of a number of RCWs in the
northeastern part of the state near the US 64 Improvements project. RCWs in that area are using
cypress swamp lands and other types of wetland habitats that include few scattered pine trees. Mr.
Jordan noted interim guidelines are being used and it may be some time before they are finalized.
Mr. Jordan indicated what is shown on the slide should be considered habitat the RCWs are using
and need. Rachelle Beauregard noted very detailed information from the report was simplified on
the map to depict what was considered habitat when evaluating a cluster level take. Ms. Beauregard
noted the level of detail contained in the report would have been difficult to depict and was
therefore simplified.
Mr. Jordan pointed out the foraging habitat partitions shown on Figures 3M and 3N. To be
considered a take, he noted the habitat within the partition would need to be taken below a certain
threshold. Because two of the partitions are already below the threshold, if any pine forest is
removed from these it is considered a take. Mr. McInnis noted the partition labeled HSGL 17A on
Figure 3M was one of two that did not meet the threshold. He stated the project team tried to avoid
HSGL 17A when designing the interchange north of the schools. The proposed interchange design
will not result in a take in the partition referenced by Mr. Militscher (labeled PVT1) even though it
encroaches into the foraging habitat. Mr. McInnis indicated to completely avoid the habitat in
Cluster PVT1, the design would take the school's ball field.
Ms. Kovasckitz noted a commitment was made in the DEIS that a 200 -foot maximum clearing limit
would be maintained along existing US 17 through the RCW habitat area. The design was modified

through this area to limit project - related clearing to 200 feet. However, it was later recognized that
although the project's right -of -way limits were less than 200 feet, the alignment was such that the
tree line -to -tree line distance was actually greater than 200 feet in Cluster EC.
Ms. Kovasckitz stated 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 R -3300 alignment to the west to maintain a 200 -foot tree line -to -tree line clearing limit
in Cluster EC for as great a distance as possible. It was determined shifting the alignment would
result in an impact to Holly Shelter Game Land property. Due to this issue and because shifting the
alignment west would not affect the conclusions of the RCW cluster evaluation, the alignment was
not shifted. Mr. Jordan explained the reason the conclusion regarding whether or not there would
be a take did not change was because the Proposed Regional SMS Guidelines are being used. Before
the SMS Guidelines, the habitat on the south side was needed to avoid a take. Under the SMS
Guidelines, more habitat is available on the northwest side of existing US 17. Therefore, restricting
right -of -way limits to 200 feet became a moot point.
Ms. Kovasckitz emphasized in this area the control of access on the west side of US 17 was pulled
back to Long Leaf Drive (Figure 3N). This change allowed access to driveways for a church, a
business and Holly Shelter Game Land to be maintained.
Mr. Sollod noted the project would result in a take in Cluster HSGL 17. He questioned if the
interchange north of the schools could be shifted a little further north out of the wetland and stream
complex. Ms. Kovasckitz responded such a shift would result in impacts to Cluster HSGL 17A,
which would be an additional take.
US 17 Hampstead Bypass Typical Section Changes
Ms. Kovasckitz summarized changes to the US 17 Hampstead Bypass typical sections at the
northern end of the project (shown on Figure 4 in Appendix A and described in Section 1.5.3 of the
packet).
The project team originally intended to leave the US 17 Hampstead Bypass as four lanes from
NC 210 to Sloop Point Loop Road. However, the detailed traffic analysis for the interchange north
of the schools showed traffic from Sloop Point Loop Road would back up onto the bypass if
existing US 17 was left as a four -lane roadway. In order to address the queuing issue, a third lane is
required in each direction along the bypass from the new interchange north of the schools to the
northern project terminus.
The traffic analysis also shows three lanes in each direction are required along the US 17 Hampstead
Bypass between the interchange south of the schools and the proposed interchange north of the
schools. The design has been revised to include three lanes in each direction on Hampstead Bypass
between the two interchanges. The third lane would serve as an auxiliary lane to allow for
acceleration, deceleration and weaving between the two interchanges.
Discussion of Northern Interchange Options 6R and 6TR
Mr. Militscher referenced the first bullet under Section 3.2.3 (Additional Avoidance and Minimisation —
Community Impacts and Relocation) on page 15 of the packet. He noted the bullet stated stream
impacts would increase by 681 linear feet and wetlands impacts would increase by approximately 18
acres. Ms. Kovasckitz stated that was correct and noted the item was not included under Section
3.1, Section 404 Avoidance and Minimi .Zation Measures. The bullet noted the addition of an interchange
north of the schools would restore access along existing US 17. However, as a result, there are
additional impacts to streams and wetlands. Mr. Militscher stated that was not avoidance and
6

minimization. Ms. Kovasckitz indicated impacts to the public and RCW habitat were minimized.
Therefore, the bullet was included in Section 3.2, Additional Avoidance and Minirniation, as opposed to
Section 3. 1, Section 404 Avoidance and Minimi .Zation Measures.
Mr. Shaver indicated he would like to discuss Alternative E -H interchange Option 6R (single
interchange north of the schools) versus Option 6TR (dual interchanges: current interchange south
of the schools and new interchange north of the schools.) Mr. Shaver noted several reasons had
been provided why Option 6TR was preferred over Option 6R. He asked if Option 6R met the
Purpose and Need of the project. Mr. Shaver noted the difference between Options 6R and 6TR is
$10 million and 17 acres of wetlands.
Ms. Kovasckitz responded from a design standpoint the project team did not believe Option 6R
should be selected because of the amount of traffic that was moving through the area. She noted
under normal circumstances there would not have been as much attention given to the existing
roadway. However, in this case more attention was given to existing US 17 to make sure the schools
would not be negatively impacted and traffic would not back up onto the bypass.
LEDPA and Purpose and Need Discussions
Mr. Militscher asked if the LEDPA had changed. Ms. Kovasckitz responded it had not. She
explained interchange options north of the schools were evaluated because the public had a huge
issue with the location of the interchange south of the schools and resulting impacts regarding
access. Mr. Militscher stated the team concurred on the Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative and it was subsequently determined after the public hearing it was not a
practicable alternative because of safety and traffic issues. Mr. McInnis responded the same design
would be applied to any of the US 17 Hampstead Bypass alternatives considered for LEDPA. If the
Merger Team had chosen another alternative for LEDPA, we would still have the same discussion
because the public has demanded more access at the northern end of the project. Mr. McInnis
stated NCDOT was fine with the design at LEDPA; however, the Department is trying to address
the public's concerns. Mr. Militscher noted his understanding is NCDOT determined the LEDPA
was not practicable after the hearing. Rob Hanson responded NCDOT is fine with the LEDPA. It
is the design within the LEDPA corridor that is under discussion now, and CP 4A concurrence
needs to be determined based on the details of that design. Mr. Hanson indicated NCDOT does
not intend to revisit LEDPA for the project.
Mr. Shaver stated there was discussion in prior meetings questioning whether the project met
Purpose and Need because the northern section ended with a LOS F. Resolution to that question
followed after a discussion of the different levels of service F. Mr. Shaver noted the DEIS shows
Alternative E -H 2035 Build LOS is an F at the northern end of the project. Now with Option 6R, it
is still LOS F. Mr. Shaver asked if it is a better LOS F under Option 6R. Mr. McInnis stated the
concern with Option 6R is the proximity of the schools to the interchange. When the project team
began evaluating options to address the public's concerns about the lack of access to existing US 17
north of the school, a very detailed capacity analysis was prepared. The detailed capacity analysis
showed the signal on existing US 17 near the school influenced how the bypass functioned.
Although the signal is positioned somewhat away from the interchange, it is close enough to cause
traffic to back up onto the bypass. Mr. McInnis stated adding a third lane in front of the school
under Option 6R would resolve the queuing problem onto the bypass; however, the signal at the
school would still not function well. With one interchange there are close to 40,000 vehicles per day
at the school. With two interchanges, traffic patterns change, resulting in less traffic at the school
and less potential for traffic to back up on the bypass. Mr. McInnis reiterated that although it is not
7

typical to focus so heavily on the road being bypassed, in this case the analysis shows it will affect
the project.
Mr. Shaver noted there are two design elements to help alleviate queuing: a third travel lane on
existing US 17 [with Option 6R] and six lanes instead of four lanes from the interchange south of
the schools to the end of the project [with Options 6R and 6TR]. Mr. McInnis stated Sloop Point
Loop Road is the first signal after coming off of the bypass. The detailed analysis showed six lanes
are needed to that signal to prevent traffic from backing up onto the bypass. Vehicles coming off of
the bypass traveling at 65 to 70 miles per hour will encounter stopped traffic. In this area the
project transitions from a freeway to more of an expressway or a boulevard. It is sometimes difficult
to determine the best way to make that transition, but you want to avoid surprising people. Six lanes
will keep the queuing closer to Sloop Point Loop Road. With six lanes, travelers will come off of
the bypass and start to see intersections, which will help them identify they are no longer on a
freeway. With four lanes, there is a greater likelihood traffic could come around the curve on the
bypass near the school and encounter stopped traffic on the freeway.
Biological OaLn_i�on Discussion
Mr. Shaver stated he cannot issue a permit that would jeopardize the existence of an endangered
species. He asked if there was a possible design change that could be incorporated into Option 6R
in the vicinity of the RCW habitat that would not result in a jeopardy call. Mr. Shaver said the
current situation is difficult as the USACE cannot issue a permit with a jeopardy call; however, at
this time there is not a jeopardy call. He continued NCDOT has also not shown avoidance and
minimization because Section 404 impacts have increased. Mr. Shaver asked if NCDOT could state
Option 611 does not meet the Purpose and Need. Mr. McInnis replied that he could not state
Option 6R does not meet the Purpose and Need, but he also did not believe that was the correct bar
to set for determining the appropriate design option. Mr. Shaver said he wasn't suggesting we create
a project that results in a backup. If NCDOT can present a case that Option 611 does not meet the
Purpose and Need, then he would be fine with that. If not, he asked if there was a design change
for Option 6R in the endangered species habitat area that would reduce impacts.
Henry Wicker stated it is very hard to defend a LEDPA with Option 6TR because of the increase in
impacts when you have these questions with Option 6R. He continued the USACE understands
there are some issues with Option 611 but they do not seem substantial enough to state that Option
6TR is preferred at this point. If NCDOT can demonstrate there is an overriding safety issue with
Option 611 the USACE would then need to authorize the additional impacts. If that cannot be
demonstrated, Mr. Wicker asked if there is a design change for Option 6R that could move the
interchange to the east. Mr. McInnis responded there is no design change that could move Option
6R east because it would be located in the RCW foraging habitat.
Mr. Shaver noted that was his next point: The USFWS has not expressly stated that if the project
causes two RCW cluster takes it will result in a jeopardy call, under which circumstances there is no
way the USACE can issue a permit. Mr. Jordan responded that cannot be stated at this point. Mr.
Jordan continued the RCWs in this area are of greater importance because they are part of the
primary core recovery population. Mr. Jordan stated the USFWS has not yet conducted a jeopardy
analysis and will not be able to do that until the final project details are available. He indicated the
project impacts are in the realm of a jeopardy Biological Opinion; however, he would not pre -judge
it one way or another. Mr. Jordan stated the difference between one take and two takes is profound:
The project would be much closer to a jeopardy Biological Opinion with two takes than with one.

Mr. Militscher questioned how a decision can be made if it is not known if it will ultimately result in
a jeopardy Biological Opinion. The result is then an agreement to incorporate design changes with
more impacts than what was accepted under the LEDPA. Mr. Jordan responded even if jeopardy
was not a possibility, the USFWS would still only want one take as opposed to two takes. Mr.
Militscher questioned if the Merger Team was going to sign a form and end up with a jeopardy call,
or conversely, no jeopardy issue but other issues related to impacts.
Mr. Jordan explained the NCDOT is currently looking at options to offset one take, which has been
a struggle. He continued he did not see how an offset could be achieved per his discussions to date
with NCDOT if there are two takes.
Overall Pro 'ect Impacts Discussion
Mr. Militscher indicated he had a question regarding Table 6 where it showed there was an increase
of 10.92 acres of impacts in the High Quality Waters watershed. He requested additional details on
the location and type of impacts. Ms. Kovasckitz responded Figures 2E and 2F showed the High
Quality Waters watershed. She noted the specific tributary (SA; HQW) waters listed under Section
3.2.2 on page 15 of the packet. Mr. McInnis noted the impacts in the table were associated with
additional areas within the watershed.
Ms. Kovasckitz noted the proposed design provides avoidance and minimization and addresses the
public's concerns. The proposed design will function well, avoid impacts to important community
features and minimize impacts to a protected species. She noted upcoming information in the
presentation will show other areas along the US 17 Hampstead Bypass alignment where Section 404
avoidance and minimization was achieved.
Mr. Sollod asked if there was any potential to reduce median or shoulder width. Mr. McInnis replied
there was not.
Mr. Militscher referred to Table 6 and noted he was having trouble reconciling where it indicates
delineated wetland impacts are 148.32 acres and it shows ( +4.35). Ms. Kovasckitz replied the
current total wetland impacts are 148.32 acres. This includes the reduction in wetland impacts in
Minimization Areas 1, 2 and 3 and the increase in impacts in Minimization Area 4. The overall total
change in wetland impacts from LEDPA is an increase of 4.35 acres. Mr. Autscher asked for
confirmation the actual net change from LEDPA impacts after avoidance and minimization is an
additional 4.35 acres and not 18 acres. Ms. Kovasckitz confirmed that was correct. Mr. Militscher
said while that was still an increase, it is not a magnitude of difference over what was estimated at
LEDPA. He summarized after avoidance and minimization along the project in other areas, there
are 4.35 acres more wetlands and 750 linear feet more streams impacted. Ms. Kovasckitz indicated
that was accurate.
Mr. Militscher said the table should quantify the RCW impacts rather than only indicate "yes." Mr.
Shaver noted that during the LEDPA decision there was one take, as it is now. Mr. Militscher said it
should be shown as "1" in the table so there is some quantification. Mr. Militscher asked if USFWS
concurred. Mr. Jordan indicated he did. Ms. Kovasckitz said that would be noted in the minutes.
Ms. Kovasckitz followed up on the point about overall impacts. When Military Cutoff Road
Extension Alternative M1 avoidance and minimization is considered, the increase in impacts to the
full project LEDPA (M1 +E -H) is 1.45 acres of wetlands and 73 linear feet of streams. Mr.
Militscher noted that was not a significant change in impacts. He stated over the years NCDOT has
done an "above and beyond" job of trying to quantify impacts at the LEDPA stage, and he
understood why and what drove that. He continued it is great impacts can be quantified to a 100`1'
9

of an acre at an earlier stage in the process. However, the danger in this is when design issues come
up later on and you are trying to show avoidance and minimization, but you end up with a net
increase. It makes it harder to justify the permit for the permitting agencies when you are showing a
greater impact post- avoidance and minimization than what was published in a public notice. He
noted when it is stated that E -H combined with M1 (and it has been said this is one in the same
project from the utility standpoint) the overall net increase in impacts are 1.45 acres of wetlands and
73 linear feet of stream, that is statistically within the realm of reasonableness.
Mr. McInnis agreed when you look at the big picture, it is not a big increase. Mr. Militscher said the
change in design needs to be justified with an explanation of why, even with avoidance and
minimization, there is an increase in impacts. He noted the increase is not as drastic as what is
described on page 15 of the packet. Mr. Militscher said an increase of 1.45 acres of wetland impacts
could be resolved with a steepening of a side slope or handled with a retaining wall. That increase is
not a large percent of total impacts over what was signed off on for the LEDPA. Mr. Militscher
asked if Mr. Shaver agreed. Mr. Shaver indicated he did not realize it was an overall increase of 1.45
acres in wetland impacts. Mr. Shaver stated he had been focused on the differences of two
interchanges versus one, as well as the statement saying there is a potential to cause backups, as
opposed to a stronger statement noting Option 6R would not work. Mr. Militscher followed there
needs to be additional documentation provided as to why the original LEDPA design is not safe or
will not work from a traffic standpoint. He noted as long as it is properly documented and justified,
he is fine with the avoidance and minimization as presented.
Mr. Wicker said he agreed with the comments. He continued the USACE is not for or against any
alternative; however, they have to be able to explain why a design change that would result in
additional impacts is needed. He noted it would help if the information could be presented more
clearly. When first looking at the information, it appears there is a significant increase in impacts.
Mr. Hanson asked if there was a graphic that could be developed that would show the traffic issues
and potential for backups to reflect the information that has been discussed. Mr. McInnis said that
was possible. He noted the figures on page 5 of the packet were indicative of what was being said.
Mr. McInnis noted we cannot state that Option 6R does not work. However, the issue with Option
6R is it does not work very well - it just barely works. Option 6TR works better. Karen Fussell
commented she did not want to explain to citizens as soon as the project opened why NCDOT
would construct an intersection that operated so poorly when we knew how to construct one that
would work well. Mr. McInnis followed the concern is the amount of traffic in the vicinity of the
schools. With a single interchange south of the schools, existing US 17 in that area becomes a local
road with limited traffic. With one interchange north of the schools, it becomes a main road. With
two interchanges, the effect on the community is softened in the area of the school. Access is
maintained, but not all of the traffic is focused right at the schools. The bulk of the traffic would
utilize the larger interchange south of the schools that is designed to accommodate more traffic. Mr.
McInnis directed meeting participants to the figure on page 5 of the packet showing the level of
service at the school intersections. When considering the overall project, wetland impacts increase
by less than 1.5 acres while conditions at the schools improve greatly.
Mr. Shaver and Mr. Herndon indicated a more definitive case with stronger language than what was
included in the packet needs to be made considering the difference in wetland impacts between the
two options.
10

US 17 Hampstead Bypass Avoidance and Minimization Areas 1, 2 and 3
Ms. I-.'-ovasckitz continued the presentation with a review of the other avoidance and minimization
measures incorporated into US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H since CP 3. Changes to the
design and impacts as a result of the avoidance and minimization measures are listed below by figure
number in the order they were reviewed.
Figure 30
Slope stakes are within the existing ROW. Slope stakes plus 25 feet results in a 0.04 acre impact to
the Corbett Tract.
Figures 3C and 3D
Ms. Kovasckitz noted a shift in the alignment was evaluated at the Sidbury Road crossing. Overall
impacts to wetlands and streams were slightly higher as a result of the shift. Therefore, no design
changes are proposed in this area.
Figures 3E and 3F (Minimization Area 1�
Beginning on Figure 3E and continuing on Figure 3F, the alignment is shifted to minimize impacts
to wetlands and streams. As a result of the shift, wetland impacts are reduced by 4.77 acres.
Impacts to streams are reduced by 5.93 linear feet.
Figures 3G and 3H (Minimization Area 2�
Beginning on Figure 3G and continuing on Figure 3H, the alignment is shifted again. The alignment
shift occurs as US 17 Hampstead Bypass approaches the NC 210 interchange. Wetland impacts are
reduced by 0.78 acre and stream impacts are reduced by 258 linear feet.
Figures 3I and 3T (Minimization Area 3�
The US 17 Hampstead Bypass alignment is shifted again starting in the vicinity of Green Acres
Drive and Holiday Drive. Wetland impacts in this area are reduced by 7.99 acres. However, the
shift results in an additional 332 linear feet of stream impacts.
Mr. Herndon stated the summary information on Figure 3J indicates stream impacts are reduced by
332 linear feet. Ms. Kovasckitz apologized and stated that was an error on the sheet. Stream
impacts would increase through this area with the alignment shift.
Figures 3K and 3R
Figures 3K and 3R show the current interchange south of the schools, just west of Grandview
Drive. Mr. Shaver asked if it was possible to shift the interchange to the west to minimize impacts.
Mr. Herndon followed, asking if the interchange loop could be moved out of wetland NWO. Ms.
Kovasckitz noted an earlier design configuration positioned the interchange slightly to the west.
However, upon closer inspection of roadway geometry, it was determined there were site distance
concerns at Hoover Road.
Ms. Kovasckitz then reviewed Table 6, Summary of US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H
Impacts, on page 14 of the packet.
Conceptual Mitigation
Colin Mellor provided an update on the status of the conceptual mitigation plan for US 17
Hampstead Bypass. Mr. Mellor stated NCDOT had been in the field with agency representatives
looking at a few potential mitigation sites. One potential site is over 400 acres. US 17 Hampstead
11

Bypass would cross part of this property and NCDOT is evaluating purchasing the remainder of the
property for wetland restoration and preservation. There are a few additional properties that would
be considered on -site mitigation under evaluation at the northern end of the project near the
interchange. Mr. Sollod asked where the 400 -acre property is located. Mr. Mellor replied it is
located in the vicinity of the US 17 Hampstead Bypass crossing of Sidbury Road (Figure 3C). Mr.
Shaver asked if NCDOT would contact the USACE if the financial review process determined the
purchase could work as the rules indicate banks or in -lieu fees should be used before on -site
mitigation. Mr. Mellor noted he did not interpret the referenced section of the regulations in the
same way. Mr. Shaver agreed there is an opportunity to waiver from that, but he would think
NCDOT would want to obtain the waiver before moving forward with the purchase. Mr. Mellor
stated until there is an appraisal on the property, NCDOT cannot evaluate the cost against the
mitigation value. Mr. Mellor noted some preliminary estimates have been run. However, once an
appraisal is available and a more direct comparison can be made, NCDOT will prepare a preliminary
mitigation plan to discuss with the USACE.
Concurrence Form — Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Ms. Kovasckitz reviewed the CP 4A signature form. She noted the form will be revised to reflect
the following change requested by the team:
■ Additional Avoidance and Minimi .Zation, Community Impacts and Relocations: the last sentence under
the first bullet will be removed from the signature form.
Mr. Shaver asked if there will be additional public involvement as a result of adding the second
interchange. Ms. Kovasckitz replied a design public hearing will be held for the US 17 Hampstead
Bypass after the Final EIS is signed. Mr. McInnis clarified the public hearing after the Final EIS is
standard procedure.
Mr. Jordan referenced the information included under "Additional Avoidance and Minimization"
for red- cockaded woodpecker. He asked if the reference to reducing cluster level takes from two to
one was in comparison to what the project had at LEDPA. Ms. Kovasckitz responded the
referenced reduction was prior to CP 3. Mr. Jordan noted over the course of the project study,
potential takes were even further minimized. Mr. Militscher stated because this is a sequential
process, the information included on the CP 4A form should reflect what has changed since
LEDPA. Other avoidance and minimization should be included in the administrative record. Ms.
Kovasckitz stated the form will be revised to reflect the discussion:
■ AdditionalAvoidance andMinimi�,,ation, Red - cockaded Voodpecker— the last sentence will be
removed from the signature form.
Mr. McInnis stated additional documentation providing justification for dual interchanges at the
northern end of the project will be provided to the Merger Team.
Mr. Herndon asked if some of the increase in stream impacts at the northern interchange might be
associated with tributaries. Mark Mickley noted those impacts should be accurately reflected as
associated with streams because the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) surface water impacts
have been separated from the stream impacts as shown in the packet tables.
Mr. Sollod asked if removing the last sentence from the concurrence form under Community Impacts
and Relocations would result in the overall change in impacts not totaling correctly on the form. Mr.
Shaver replied since the change was not avoidance and minimization it should not be included on
the form.
12

Mr. Shaver followed up on Mr. McInnis' statement regarding supplemental information. He stated
the additional wetlands impacts as a result of one design change were high. The CP 4A information,
the Final EIS and ultimately the USACE's Record of Decision will need to document why the
design changes were needed. Ms. Kovasckitz stated the supplemental information would be
provided, and noted it was several factors combined that made the dual interchanges a better choice
for the community and traffic operations overall. Mr. McInnis agreed and recapped a large portion
of the overall alignment had been shifted to minimize impacts, and potential mitigation sites total
over 400 acres. Even with the additional interchange, there is just over a four -acre increase in
wetland impacts for R -3300 and less than 1.5 acres when considering the entire project. Mr. Shaver
commended NCDOT for the avoidance and minimization efforts associated with the project.
However, there needs to be clarification why it is acceptable to incorporate and issue a permit for a
design change resulting in more than 17 acres of additional wetland impacts.
Ms. Kovasckitz asked for any other comments. Hearing none, the meeting was adjourned.
Post Meeting Notes
In response to an April 23, 2013 email from the USACE, NCDOT added the following statement to the R -3300
CP 4A signature form under `Additional Avoidance and Minimization- Red- cockaded Woodpecker"
and under `Additional Avoidance and Minimization- Community Impacts and Relocations ":
If RCW foraging habitat ceases to exist at the northern interchange at the time NCDOT
applies for authorization from the Corps of Engineers to construct the project, the
Department will revisit the original interchange design, known as Alternative E -H
ORIG. As currently described, Alternative E -H ORIG would further minimize wetland
impacts compared to Alternative 6TR, which is NCDOT's preferred.
In an April 29, 2013 email to the Merger Team, Jay McInnis distributed the revised R -3300 CP 4A signature
form. The email also provided supplemental information pertaining to the northern interchange options in response to
requests made at the R -3300 CP 4A meeting. The email and attachments are appended to these meeting minutes by
reference.
EPA abstained from concurrence on R -3300 CP 4A. A copy of EPA's R -3300 CP 4A abstention brief
submitted to the NCDOT and USACE on May 15, 2013 is attached to these minutes.
The R -3300 CP 4A Concurrence Form was signed on June 13, 2013, with the exception of the EPA Merger Team
representative as noted above. The concurrence form was signed based on the design presented in the US 17
Hampstead Bypass Avoidance and Minimisation Packet at the February 20, 2013 R -3300 CP 4A meeting. The
R -3300 CP 4A packet is appended by reference. The R -3300 CP 4A signature form is attached to these minutes.
In a June 19, 2013 letter, the USACE requested NCDOT prepare a Supplemental DEIS to address the changes
that have occurred to the proposed pr ject since the release of the DEIS. The USACE 's letter notes the purpose of the
Supplemental DEIS is to provide the affected public and federal and state agencies an opportunity to comment on the
revised project. The Supplemental DEIS will not serve to revisit the concurrence point determination of Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative. A copy of the USACE's June 19, 2013 letter is attached to
these minutes.
The NCDOT will prepare a Supplemental DEIS to document the addition of an interchange north of the schools.
The interchange was added to the R -3300 US 17 Hampstead Bypass design to address the concerns presented by
citi .Zens after the release of the DEIS and subsequent public involvement. In addition, the Supplemental DEIS will
present information on service roads under consideration for inclusion in the pr ject. A public meeting presenting the
R -3300 interchange north of the schools and potential service road locations was held on August 15, 2013.
13

cc: Jessie Baker, NCDMF
Anne Deaton, NCDMF
Renee Gledhill - Early, NC HPO
Stonewall Mathis, NCDOT Division 3
Attachments: R -3300 CP 4A Concurrence Form
EPA R -3300 CP 4A Abstention Brief
USACE Supplemental DEIS Request Letter
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 Kim Gillespie at klaespie e,ncdot.gov or the writer in writing within
seven (7) business days.
14

NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process
Abstention Brief
May 15, 2013
To: Jay McInnis, P.E., NCDOT Project Manager
THRU: Heinz J. Mueller, Chief, NEPA Program Office
Cc: Merge oject Team r
From: Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM, USEPA Merger Representative
1. Project Name and brief description: US 17 Hampstead Bypass, R -3300 (and Military Cut-
off Road Extension, U- 4751), New Hanover and Pender Counties. Abstention from CP
4A, Avoidance and Minimization
2. Last Concurrence Points (signed): CP 4A for U -4751 on 8/8/12 and CP 3 for R -3300 on
5/17/12.
Explain what is being proposed and your position including what you object to. It is the
EPA Merger Team representative's position that the NCDOT substantially revised the
LEDPA following the CP 3 meeting (including the addition of a second interchange
near the northern terminus and a 6 -lane section) and since the issuance of the 9/11
DEIS. EPA does not believe that a substantial increase in impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands and streams is justified without a full environmental analysis of all of the
feasible alternatives previously considered during the CP 3 meeting for R -3300. As
stated in NCDOT's e-mail of 4/29/13 and in the handout provided, the new LEDPA
Alternative for R -3300 results in 4.35 acres and 750 linear feet of additional impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and streams, respectively. EPA notes that NCDOT reduced the
increase in jurisdictional impacts by designing one interchange to be a smaller
interchange than is typically desired.
4. Explain the reasons for your potential non - concurrence. Please include any data or
information that would substantiate and support your position. The DEIS did not identify a
second interchange for the northern terminus area. EPA also notes that the USACE
has requested a commitment that NCDOT re- examine the very original northern
interchange referred to as EH -ORIG based upon future ESA consultation for RCW
foraging habitat.
A second interchange was not included in the original E -H corridor presented in the
DEIS and it is anticipated that NCDOT will require additional right -of -way for this
interchange not depicted in the DEIS. NCDOT and USACE now seek concurrence on
avoidance and minimization for R -3300 without updating the DEIS or formally going

back to an appropriate concurrence point (Please see Merger MOU page 2, Concept of
Concurrence).
NCDOT has provided an analysis that now combines U -4751 with R -3300 for the
purposes of documenting avoidance and minimization measures. The Merger team's
acceptance of the `savings' of 2.9 acres of wetlands and 677 linear feet of streams under
CP 4A is now added to the additional impacts from the changed design resulting in a
`smaller loss'. Currently, the U -4751 and R -3300 LEDPAs combined result in a net
increase of 1.45 acres of wetlands and 73 linear feet of streams. EPA does not dispute
potential traffic conflicts with an interchange near Topsail High School. However, EPA
believes that the `need' for a 6 -lane facility should have been addressed in the DEIS.
The analysis provided did not address the wetland and stream impacts for Alternative
U, only the residential and business relocations, impacted noise receptors, and cultural
resource effects. Alternative U was not selected as the LEDPA and it should have been
comprehensively compared to the revised E -H Alternative. Alternative U also
potentially avoided impacts to RCW.
EPA does recognize that the new LEDPA for R -3300 avoids and minimizes impacts to 3
fewer residences, 4 fewer businesses and 1 less church than the original LEDPA that the
Merger team concurred on for R -3300.
In total with U -4751, this proposed project results in 248.2 acres of wetland impacts,
and 22,379 linear feet (4.2 miles) of stream impacts.
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated or jeopardized if the
proposed action were implemented and explain the basis for violation. Please attach a copy
of the relevant portion of the law or regulation or provide an email address where the
documents may be located.CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. See comments above and
additional LEDPA information below. EPA has previously provided technical
comments on the DEIS. http: / /water.epa.gov /lawsre$!s /guidance /wetlands /mitigate.cfm
"Avoidance. Section 230.10(a) allows permit issuance for only the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative. The thrust of this section on alternatives is avoidance of
impacts Section 230.10(a) requires that no discharge shall be permitted if there is a
practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact to
the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse
environmental consequences. "
6. What alternative course of action do you recommend? The transportation project sponsors
NCDOT and USACE should formally re- evaluate the CP 3 LEDPA decision of revised
Alternative E -H for R -3300. This abstention brief should be considered by NCDOT,
USACE, and NCDWQ as a formal request to revisit a concurrence point under the
Merger MOU. The NCDOT and USACE might also consider supplementing the DEIS
to address the new LEDPA. Deferring these substantial design changes and substantial
environmental impacts for disclosure in the FEIS is not recommended by the EPA
Merger Team representative. Another alternative evaluated in the DEIS may now be
the LEDPA.

FYI: Additional Information on LEDPA DETERMINATION
40 C.F.R. section 230.10(a), the basis for the LEDPA determination, states that, except as
provided in CWA section 404(b)(2), a permit will not be issued "if there is a practicable
alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem An aquatic ecosystem is an ecosystem located in a body of water. Communities of
organisms that are dependent on each other and on their environment live in aquatic ecosystems.
The two main types of aquatic ecosystems are marine ecosystems and freshwater ecosystems, so
long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. The
LEDPA requirement is an attempt to avoid environmental impacts instead of mitigating for them.
The Corps may only approve a project that is the LEDPA. The LEDPA involves two separate
determinations; it must be both practicable and the least environmentally damaging. The LEDPA
requirement's purpose is "avoiding significant impacts to the aquatic resources and not
necessarily providing either the optimal project location or the highest and best property use."

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9C94FCDE- 7996- 4779- 851C- 4025EIE38CD7
Section 404 /NEPA Interagency Agreement
Concurrence Point No. 4a
Avoidance and Minimization
Project Title and Project Numbers:
Proposed US 17 Hampstead Bypass, New Hanover and Pender Counties, TIP No. R -3300, State Project
No. 40191.1.2, Corps Action ID 2007 1386
LEDPA /Recommended Alternative:
US 17 Hampstead Bypass Alternative E -H
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:
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.
• 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.
• 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.
Additional Avoidance and Minimization
Red - cockaded Woodpecker
Prior to Concurrence Point 3, the 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. At the corridor public hearing, 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 local interchange is proposed north of the Topsail Schools
Complex (Option 6TR). This additional interchange uses a reduced design to avoid affecting RCW
foraging habitat. If RCW foraging habitat ceases to exist at the northern interchange at the time
NCDOT applies for authorization from the Corps of Engineers to construct the project, the Department
will revisit the original interchange design, known as Alternative E -H ORIG. As currently described,
Page 1 of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9C94FCDE-7996-4779-B51 C-4025E1 E38CD7
TIP Project No. R -3300
Concurrence Point 4A
Alternative E -H ORIG would further minimize wetland impacts compared to Alternative 6TR, which is
NCDOT's preferred.
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.
Community Impacts and Relocations
In response to public input and concerns over lack of access, an interchange has been added north of
the Topsail Schools Complex to maintain access along existing US 17 (Option 6TR). This
interchange will provide the access requested by the public. It uses reduced design criteria to
minimize impacts to RCW habitat and the Topsail Schools Complex, and avoid a Pender County
water tower. If RCW foraging habitat ceases to exist at the northern interchange at the time
NCDOT applies for authorization from the Corps of Engineers to construct the project, the
Department will revisit the original interchange design, known as Alternative E -H ORIG. As
currently described, Alternative E -H ORIG would further minimize wetland impacts compared to
Alternative 6TR, which is NCDOT's preferred.
■ 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. It is expected that design modifications
will result in three fewer residential relocations, four fewer business relocations and one less non-
profit relocation overall.
Page 2 of 3

DocuSign Envelope ID: 9C94FCDE- 7996- 4779 -B51 C- 4025E1 E38CD7
TIP Project No. R -3300
Concurrence Point 4A
The project team has concurred on the Avoidance and Minimization for the proposed project as
listed above.
Name Agency Date
Do.; cuSlgned by:
�; S USACE 06/10/2013
J
AF:;, USEPA 4 ( i3
�DocuSlgned by:
i�u u�i�9n dte n USFWS 06/11/2013
�—EgAAWEE2574F
WMPO e. li 3 1
Project i5 wit n Wilmington MPO area, Cape Fe; RP does not need o sign.
a e ear ((��
Page 3 of 3
oy:
SO16AD677C42452...
PiUZ;GU,b11gnea
NMF
06/11/2013
— MIDD3tCME4AC...
— DocuSlgned by:
54ve S'6-L
NCDCM
06/13/2013
ocu gne y:
D2330461)7248414...
�-V� -Ub''"
NCSHPO
06/11/2013
AC28D78C939246E...
cuSlgned by:
F_; 7AU 1014Zon,
NCDMF
06/10/2013
DocuSigned by:
— A4DFC0B6EECE412...
r 4�7aao.a. �at<wdon
NC_ DW4
06/10/2013
--- E795F358CW438...
DocuSigned by:
Travis W. WI1SOn
NCWRC
06/11/2013
�D ocuSigned by:
°�iyw ,�iQQr�pi�
315B5DOBME436..
NCDOT
06/07/2013
�—EgAAWEE2574F
WMPO e. li 3 1
Project i5 wit n Wilmington MPO area, Cape Fe; RP does not need o sign.
a e ear ((��
Page 3 of 3

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343
SrgrF.S OF
Regulatory Division
Action ID No. SAW -2007- 1386
Mr. Jay McInnis
NCDOT,PDEA
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1548
Dear Mr. McInnis:
June 19, 2013
Please reference transportation improvement project U -4751 and R -3300, also referred to as
the Hampstead Bypass, which originates near the current terminus of Military Cutoff Road into
Highway 17 and will extend to the north of Hampstead as a bypass along Highway 17. This
proposed project would cross County lines from New Hanover into Pender County, North
Carolina.
As you are aware during your scoping process for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) the citizens of Hampstead had traffic concerns with the preferred alternative. In order to
address their concerns, the North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) proposed to
construct a second interchange designed on the northern end of the project as well as two
additional lanes between the proposed interchanges. These additional changes have not been
presented to the public through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) seoping
process and the question has been raised as to whether or not the NCDOT would need to provide
a supplemental DEIS to the Corps for circulation of the aforementioned project. It is the Corps'
opinion, based on Sec. 1502.9 of Council of Environmental Quality Regulations for
Implementing NEPA, that changes which have occurred since release of the DEIS are
substantial and need to be further described in a supplemental DEIS. This supplemental effort
would then be re- circulated through the Federal Register as well as a public notice soliciting
comment.
This supplemental effort should clearly describe the changes that have occurred subsequent
to the release of the DEIS and provide the history and rationale for such changes. This
supplemental DEIS will not serve to revisit the concurrence point determination of Least
Environmentally Damaging and Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) in accordance with the Merger
Process. The decision to process a supplement provides the affected public and federal and state
agencies an opportunity to comment on the revised project and these comments will then be
addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

-2-
Following this correspondence the Corps will forward a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Federal
Register for publication. In order to provide an accurate NOI, please provide the Corps an idea
as to when the supplemental document may be forwarded for comment. This will provide the
Corps a sense of timing to place on the NOI alerting interested parties of a projected release date.
In closing, this decision was not taken lightly. However, the Corps believes this decision
best follows the procedures and intent of NEPA. If you have any questions regarding this
decision or desire to discuss further, please don't hesitate to call me at (910) 251 -4930 or Brad
Shaver at (910)251 -4611.
Sincerely,
4
1
Henry Wicker
Assistant Chief, Regulatory Division
Copy Furnished:
Mason Herndon
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Fayetteville Regional Office
225 Green Street, Suite 714
Fayetteville, NC 28301