20070047 Ver 1_More Info Received_20070109

-1
~~
.~
Z
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O
m m m m m m m cu m ~ ~ ~ cn
D (") V7 CTt V1 Ut A A W _ cn ti W N o
~.
~ D ~ r
' Zr~~~--I' Cn
0 ~~
G7 m m m m m m m m
3 3~~~ 3 3 ~
a"i ~
m
n
-
~
Q
~ _
°
Cn a ~ o
O c
} ~ N
~
}
+
~
O
C C ~ C C C C
N
N N
~
N ° }
O A
O }
O .
A
O t
~ `
U7 I }
O O W
O O O ~ 0 fn
z N
0
7
N
° 0 0 0 0° o
n m m
m rn ~ fD ~ ~ ~
~ ~
~
r r
~ ~
r ~ r ~ r ~ ~~
o o
m }
,~ m d ~ m d m m
m m~~ m rn m ~
m ~ _
° ~
~ ~
o ~
o ~
~
o
~ '
o
~
O 1 1 1 1 1
r~
~ 3 ~ 3 ~
~ a
~
~
~
~
O
m~O0pp0 ~~ p C ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ m ~ D D N fn
m m o o m m m ~
D r m
~ n
~ G7 ~ ~ ~ ~ p p m
m° o 0 0 0 0 o =
~ ~ -~ D D °
~ W m m m a m m m y D ~ G ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ rn

r
p
~ ~ ~ T ~
°
~O~ ~~~,~ ~~ r
- ~ ~ z ~ Z ~ ~ ~

~ a m ° ° m m ~
T C7 in ~ ao ao
n~ ~ m m
~ >
w
w
o
o ~ m
m Tt
~
>
r
N ~ N N
~
A
~ °
N ~
O m m = n
i
n

m m o "Q,~ m
~ co N
r
r D
n
m N ° o o m -~
° o o Z ~
m -' m
m = ~

m N

p D m
z n
~ ~ ~
_~ z
°
o ~ ?
~
~

m
~ o'
~
m °

D
N ~' ~
m o o "'~ n CD c i
D n n n n
cnoo 000 0o ~ ~ , ~ m~~
Z
Q 0 0 0 0 0 O O
T
~ O
0 0 0 ~ A v
~ ~~ ~
(D ~
O
~
N
j .
to a ~
m n ~ n ~ n n ~ rn
C7 m m m co m m m ~ o ~ C7 3
= N N (n (R fn fA (A ~ QO o
O =
~
~ "" ~~ N N ~
N N O
o f7 N ~, 7
"a ~ a
~
N ~ '0
x z ~ ~
o
~
~ ~ _ o o ~~~~ c
~
~ ~
o d a
o ~~ C~ o 0 0 ~~ ~~ ~ ~

~' ~ z N ~
~
~ W m
~~ OO
4 m c~m
"
~ ~
D
O `~
~ .
~ -
o ~
~ ~ ~
~~ x~ v~ N ~~~ ~

~
•o ~
~
m ~
n'
~ n
N '-3 9 .d
~ ~
o
i
~ -
i
~
~
~ ~ y CD (O
~
~ p~~
(D
~ (~ (D C

O
` 41
.~ 3 N

~:7
W
~~
u
c_.. n
Z
D ~ Z
O

A _
W _
N _
O o ~
v z~
p ~.
m
~ ~
m

to
~
N

N
N
N
N
W
N
p
1
~
O
OD

v
~
+
~
~
~
~
pp
~
~

~
~
+
~
N
W
D

O. ~I
(~
~
Q1
J
t
r
+
+
O
N
t
{.
O
v
CT +
~ O
7
O
U' +
CD
i
O
s O
U C7
t I'T
I T
Cn
O N
~, y CD C
CJ7 U
i
~ ~
~ i
U
~ ~
C1t O
~ 0 ~
~ r ~
~, ~= ~
~ p
~:.. O
~ , O N
Cn O
3 v

~
r Q o ~ a ~ o $ ~ o ~ o ~ o t p
~
~ ~ N
~
CD
O O O O O O ~ n

~
m ~
N~cn
~
n> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ n
y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .< c
~
~ T T

r T T T T T ~ ~
T N p
rn
o r
r
r r
r r
r r
r
~
~
'
n~
a w o o -~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ^~ T m
~ ~ O O N

° ~

° O O O

° ~~ -3
N - N
s v cD o w w o
o ~ rn o `" a i m
m m ~
v
coo Z ~mT~
=
~ ~ ~ v _
~
v
7~
0 3 ~ m
~

~
~ m
~ ~

i
°7
~~< z
~
t
n ~
~ m
~
~
O °' ~
D 2
~

m _. ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o ~ n ~ ~
Cr
A O
ao O
A -~

A N O

N O O

N V ~
~ ;~, N p~j
~ Z
C
D ~ C
D ~ p N ~. p
d ~
N Q
(
D ~
~ a rn

0
N 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
~ 0
O 0 0

O ~~ n=
CU •~• 7 N v ~
'
~
W W _
Cn C~II ~ W ~ p C7 N -~, 7 _
~ O
~

[z~ ~ o
O CD ~
a d o ~ c41i m~ m C
'U C=J ° v ~ m 3
iC~ "b ~ 3
~
~
~l
~Cd o
~ ~ ~
O
~
~ o o ~
~ ~ ~
~
Z 0 v
~
A
'
3
~ D
Z
w~ O m
Z
~
~ ~
-An OO
Ox '~~7 N
o , ,,
O rn~~X
~~~ w ~ D
~
m
x ~' _,~~>>.
~O ~~ ~~,mcn ~
'
'-
~ ~Z v
'_'3 ~ ~ N N ~ N 'p N ~ ~
(~ to (D (D
~
p (n Z
~ v
~ fn (D C

O
~ (U ~
" ~ ~ m

°s=
~
~ -

~ N N
O ~
(O s
00 _
~ .
I ~
Q) ~
C17 Cn
O
~ (D

N
0 v
0 W °
~ rn
A ~
O
(~O c
CJ n
1 W
QA
j A
OW
p W
ti -~
N
~
cD t
A ~
O I ~
O CT
O' 7
1 t
~ N
Cn N
~ A
O -
O ' N
Cn W
O W
Cn t
~ N (~
O
(D O
r-
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
r, W
r-
3 m
o'
t ~ ~ ~

o ~ $ $ ~ g ~ o ~
~ a ~
~ o
~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O ~
O

c

m
~ m
~ m m m m T ~ m
~ ~ ~
A
N N
W O ~
O O O O O ,..~ N T1 ~
.Op W
00 A
N O ~ N

cn W

~ O

W n v- v

--a~
~
N ~
(CD T ~
n ~ - ~
v a ~ ~ ~
y m

~ m
~

~ .v
n
~ z
<
m
~~ o,
~
~ ~
D ~
m
~~ ~ ~ -
-i
~ o O o 0 0 0 0 ~ ~? n ~
~ ~°
cn N
rn c°D
~ °
N °
o .OA p n~ v m
~- v
= Z
O
cn ~ im
a~ m ~
y a m

°
p ~
~ j o
O o
O O
p ^~ n
N~ ~' ~ p~ 3
'~
A ~ ~ WO ~
A O Sll ~ ~
" O ~'
y ~
x z ~ ~
~
`°
~.
~ d ~~~~ c
~ b ~, ~ ~
~
o da
-<
Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -3
O o D
Z ~ m
w~~ z
'" ~ p m c~ m ~
~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ v x~ -D-i

~
x
z

~ ~
~ ~
~
~~ v~
~ ~ ~~
~ ~
~ ~°~~
"' ~ fp cD ~
z =~°-'

c~
'~--
O
f,

D cNO w ~ rn cNn ~ w nN i o~
m~
r
N .

_~
~
W N
~ N
Cn N
~ N
W N
N N
p N
1
~ N
O
N ~
cD
1 ~
O
~ ~
O
~
~- ~
+ t
Ul t
O t
N ~ t
N ,{,
.A ~
, O O
t W
O ~
t W (~D + (D ~
TI
~ O O ~ O ~ C1t ~ U1 O O WO U1
U7 t
~l 0011 OD O O N
' + + + t + + + r r- r r o ~
+ + + +
~ + +
'
o r
.~
o ~
.~
o r
.~
0
0
0
0
~
o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

c

TI TI Z1 TI T_ ~i T1 7'I ~ (D
r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r r
r
v
U1 ~
O O N N O -+ ~~~
~
N "• =
~ N O ~ ap
OD ~
O W
~ _
n~ N
A v O W ~--
~~
y
N
T1 ~

n 7 -~
a~ ~
~ m

~ m
~

'°. , m
n
~ z

~
<
n~
~~ v ~
a ? D

~~ ~ ~ ~
-~ 0 0 0 0 0 o ~~nc~Di ~ ~

m
~ -- v
a ~ ~•
~
m a m.

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~~ C7 ~
~ ~ ~ O O1 ~ O O tV N "~ j' p~j N
N ~

1a
CO
N
~
W
~
~
co
O
m
v
cD
n
~. 7
" > > a _

~
m ~° D

z ~ ~ ~
n ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~~ c
'b ~ m m ~

~~ C7~ ~ ~
o ^~
~ ~

D
~ O Z ~ m

~ ~
00
~
~ ~3SX
~
Jx ~~.~ ~ ~. m

~o ~~ ~. ~
c xz ~~~X D
~
N`'~ `CO ~ ~ ? 5 ~
~ ~ ti-I N fD (O

~ Z
~
~ m , N
F
-+ ~ N ~ C
O \ " ~ 3 v

~'
Z
A
- m ~ O D ~ .A w N °' o o
- g m m ~
y cn D
~
~ '~
~
' D
C7
~
(n
~
Cn
O
W
N
N
a w
~ ~ O cn
~ rn
+ + m
~ Z A
+ o. ~
Z ~
~ ~
a H
Z C +
rn ~
CJ7 N
+ +
~
~Cn
~ ~ ~.
m ~ l~D A
v' rn
~
+ Cn
~ ~
~ ~ Z
c7 m
:(1 = Z
n m
~ = O
fi cn
- A
O1 cn
~ O~
3
.
~- to N
~
~ +
~ ~ O ~ ~ n~ 0 y j p ~ r' ~
~ ~?
~ D ~ ~ „ ~ T m ~ + + o
r 3 ~ ~ r-
, -~ ~ -~ ~ g o
~' a ~
m m v
m
D
-~
~
~ ~
a ~ ~
~ n
~ O ~ O
~ O
~ O
p
N Cn
x O a

~"'
~ ~ ~ ~
~ S
~ ~ _ '~ ~ ~ `C C
Vl
~ ~ ~ TI n ?~ ~ T T -T1 ~ (D

~ ~
r ~
C7 r n rr' r r
O j'
n (D
(D
(p X
d
~
~
~
~
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
~
N T~
~
N
.
-.
~ c
D
N
O .
p
~I ~ ~
.A
W
~ N _
n
~'' a O 7
~ ~ (D
~ O
7 01
Q
Z
O
(~D ~1 ~
-
~

~/~- ~ a
~ _
n. ~ ~
~

n1 0 ~' D
~ ~
~
~ ~
--I
o X
m
~
rn N ~ v~ ~
~
~ p
_
D ~ rn v a ~
n f/1 > y m
o o ~n~ ~
~„~ .. D

a~ m ~
u, a m

0 0
0 0
0 0
o ~~ n
. m~
d ~D ~
-i
~ O o ~ _
v= ?.~ ~_
`~ ~ D
z ~ ~ ~
n ~
~ ~
o ~ ~
~~ ~~ ~

~ ~ b y ~ ~
OCO C~ ' ~
~
er
~~ o ° ~
~ c ~
pp
,,
~~
e rn ~ ~ ~ ~~ T
Z
~ O
~ ~ m
Z
~
-~' ~ '~
-p 00 ~
CD~~x ~
D
~ x '~7 "rJ cn _
cn ~ m m ~ ~ m
~ .
n
^
m
~O
~ ? ~
,
c ~
~ Z C~ D O ~ 3 S x n
/
N~ y'ti o O
o ~ ~ m ~ ~.
v ~
~ (n ~ ~ y !D CD

Z
'-7
,--,
. N
~` Uf ~ C
O v~ ~ N

'r.
K r
2
A ° ~'
~ z
~
O
k

Z
~ O
~ ~ D rn ° ~
m ~ ~
g
~' ~ ~ ~ D
cn (D
~ w O
D m'
~
s N
° C7
m
~
~
° ~ r
~ m
m +
~ cn
cn Cn
cn o fn
m
~ ~
m
~ +
~ ~
O ~ o'
o ~
~
r ~
~ ° p
~
' N
~
a
m m
m D

°'
~ C7
m
~ c

cn n
m
-
~ g cn ~~_
N
w Z7 '~
p ,~ C
~ m
N ~ ~l
~
~'
0 ~
r
w'
m ~
~ ~
m
~
Q- w
is ° o
o m
~
m
=m
~ w o
o °o ~
vQ= ~
~ ~ °
n~
v
~ o
o
Z ~
v :° T m
m ~ O ~
°m=
~ _
~
~ N m
o ~
rt~
° D
n m
~ ~

_. ~, z
~ °
~ a ~ ~ ~
to ~ m

r.~
m ~
~c?~
c~n ~
5

°' _
N ~ q~j SU Z
= v , _. v
a~ ~ ~
v, n m

is o

o o

° ., ~ C7
c~
~~
m ~

-~
° ° o
o °
' j
~ m
> > ~
~' ~ D

z
~ o 3~ ~
~~ ~
~
e o
~ ~~
v~ ~v ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~~
~ ~ ~
Cd
o
~
~ o ^~
-~ c ~
~
nC ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~z o~ y ~
~ Z
m
~ ~_
~~ O O
~ N ~~ S X D
Ox
~ N ~N d 7 ~^.
v m
1~ \ J x ~--j N ~ N (O ~
0
~ ~ Z
.~ C~ m
-I ~ ~ x. D
~-C N .~ ~ v ~ '",
~
> Cn
"C O
~~ >
~, min
~
~
~ ~~'m
~ ~ ~ C
0 v ~ ~ 0I

0 V
~ ~
/JAS ~ ~ 6
~~
~ . ' 0
X40 ~ '~~
~~~ t ~E 6 ® ~ ~ ~ A
~ ~.
~~ x~~~ am ~ ~ "
~~ ~ °~~,
i
®~~ ,.
~ o
,~I 4
I
® ~
,.
~.w~ ~ ..
as , ~.'
'I
~~ ~
~/, °
~ ' o : ,•
iL ]87+50.00 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ Oz ~
5[n rn
~` N
\ ~' N
• ~~ ~ y`,"
~ d~ \ ~
l • ®0 i~
~ 8 i~
~i ~
~ i
• ,~ ~
. .~ ~ `~ N
.' ~ ` !
~~"
\~
m
1
'~\ ~~
\~\~ ~~.
~\
,: I ' ~ ~ i
~ ~ o e
'~~ e ~ f"Y~ r^~®
~ ~ ~ m w~ o
k E®~ ~ ~ . ~~ 1 ~~
Y ~ o I~ ~~ ~ ~ 9 1
., ' ,
` ®~ ~.r
~ $
~~
.~ ~ ~ b®
~ _ ~
` ` ~ ~ a
`~p8 \ • •'
' 1
8a~'~r~ ~ ~ ~ Y i - ~
v
i
~ ~ ~
~ r~ i
~ i ~ ~.
~~~*~ i , ~
go~ • ~i .
s~~~~ i ~
~ . ~
~~
~~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~•
~~ g~ • . •~T1CH I.tt111E SlsB SF168T 18
P= rn
~ ~
o N ~ /
~ ~ n, ~ ~
~ ' ~ /
~ ~ Z
~ /
•' ~ / '
~~ '

.~ ,Hem
~;
~ ~.
~ o ~
N
~~ °~~ •
~ ~ , •
/' . •
~ •
c
• '
~~ ~
•
i
`'~.. ~~ '
•
~ ~
.'
i
\ ` ~ •
• I
1 •~ ~ ,
• ~ i
1•` ~ ` ' • '
• • ~• \ /
` ~ ~ ! • •
•\ ` ~ •
\\
• \ • \\ •
• ~~~~`
~ •
4 ,
~\ ~ . ~
~~~
~ ~~~ ~
sii
~~ I
\ ~°
m \ `a o
m ~
°~ 1
~~ ~
~ 0
m~® a
0 ~
~ ~~0 ,a®
1
•
• • ~ •
• • •
•
a N
• • • • F
T ~
• rn
~ ~~ N
~~
•
• ~~~°ao
• , ~ie~i~
• • b~~y
• • • ~U y0
• • • b~~y
• ~~
. ~
obi
~~~~
• ~ac~
•6 x~ta
~• • • w b~
. 6 • • • ~~
• • • ~y
• •
• h
• •
• •
• .
---~
~ •
~ `• .
' ~m
.,
.~
•
• .
• .
• ~
•
•
• ~
• ~s y
° s -~
a m ~~
\-. ~ N 1
• n N N f:
• • ~
--. ~ ~;

~-
SECOND BRIDGE TO OAK ISLAND (TIP NO. R-2245)
NEPA / 404 MERGER TEAM
MEETING FOR REVISED CONCURRENCE POINT 4A
Stantec
Meeting Date: April 11, 2006
Place /Time: NCDOT Board Room, Raleigh, 9:00 am
Attendees: Ron Sechler, NOAA Fisheries Service
Pace Wilber, NOAA Fisheries Service
Scott McLendon, US Army Corps of Engineers
Dave Timpy, US Army Corps of Engineers
Kathy Matthews, US Environmental Protection Agency
Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Melba McGee, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Amy Simes, NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Steve Sollod, NC Division of Coastal Management
Brian Wrenn, NC Division of Water Quality
John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Ron Lucas, Federal Highway Administration
Joe Blair, NCDOT Division 3
Mason Herndon, NCDOT Division 3
David Chang, NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Ray Lovinggood, NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Max Price, NCDOT Hydraulics Unit
Stacy Baldwin, NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Rob Hanson, NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Joseph Qubain, NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Greg Thorpe, NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Deborah Anderson, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Brett Feulner, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Phil Harris, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Colin Mellor, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Leilani Paugh, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Chris Rivenbark, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
Debbie Barbour, NCDOT Preconstruction
Victor Barbour, NCDOT Project Services Unit
Doug Allison, NCDOT Right-of-Way Branch
Hugh Thompson, NCDOT Right-of-Way Branch
John Williamson, NCDOT Right-of-Way Branch
Glenn Mumford, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Tatia White, NCDOT Roadway Design Unit
Lonnie Brooks, NCDOT Structure Design Unit
Emily Murray, NCDOT Structure Design Unit
Ray McIntyre, NCDOT TIP Development Unit
Tyler Bray, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch
Robert Memory, NCDOT Utilities Coordination Unit
Don Eggert, Cape Fear Rural Planning Organization
Keith Lewis, Stantec
Paul Koch, Stantec

APRIL 11, 20D6 MEETING MINUTES
Page 2 of 4
Reference: Second Bridge to Oak Island Meeting for Revised Concurrence Point 4A
PURPOSE OF MEETING:
To reach agreement on Revised Concurrence Point 4A (Avoidance and Minimization).
ITEMS OF DISCUSSION:
The following paragraphs summarize the discussion and decisions resulting from this
meeting. (See attached concurrence form for background information).
The meeting opened with a brief introduction by Dave Timpy who noted the absence of the
State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) representative and stated that the SHPO did not
have any concerns about the revisions. Mr. Timpy then turned the meeting over to Joseph
Qubain. Mr. Qubain explained the Revised 4A Concurrence form, which was displayed
onscreen and distributed to the Merger Team, then opened the discussion for questions.
In response to a question asked by Travis Wilson, Leilani Paugh stated that animal
passages under private roads within the conservation easement are included in the project.
She added that $100,000 has been allocated to each of the two landowners to be used for
animal passage construction. The concurrence form was revised to reflect this information.
Chris Militscher noted that the USEPA had been added as a party to the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) and expressed concern about lots within the St. James Carolina Bay
that appeared to be within wetlands. As a result of subsequent discussions, the
concurrence form was revised to state that the wetlands within the St. James Carolina Bay
would be restricted from development.
Mr. Militscher requested that additional parks and recreational areas shown on the
Williamson Tract Master Plan be added to the conservation area. Ms. Paugh stated that
she would discuss the request with the landowner, but did not anticipate a favorable
response.
During the previous discussion, Mr. Timpy recalled the USACE's request for apre-
application meeting between the USACE, NCDOT, and the developers to discuss wetland
impacts within the vicinity of the access points. Mr. Qubain responded that that was beyond
the scope of the project and that those issues would be resolved through the developer's
permitting process with the USACE. Scott McClendon stated that the USACE was
concerned that the access points would generate development. Ms. Paugh noted that
development is occurring in the area regardless of the project and that acquiring the
conservation areas and easements is generating protection for upland areas that would not
be protected under Section 404 regulations. She also noted that the Williamson Tract no-
access plan has greater wetland impacts than the plan with access.
The remaining portion of the meeting focused on the southwest access (SW) at access point
number two. (i.e., the southernmost access point on the west side of the proposed roadway).
With the addition of a right-in/right-out access on the Williamson Tract, members of the
Merger Team requested that the SW access point be eliminated. The discussion of this
s>~n~C issue spanned a large portion of the meeting, with the Merger Team breaking into several
small group discussions.
The following bullets summarize the main items of discussion.
The SW access point would provide access for a landlocked parcel owned by MAS.
The parcel is currently accessed from the west by Sunset Harbor Road. Travis
Wilson and Brian Wrenn [referencing the Yellow Banks Environmental Assessment]
noted that MAS and Coastal Communities are the same company and reasoned

APRIL 11, 2006 MEETING MINUTES
Page 3 of 4
Reference: Second Bridge to Oak Island Meeting for Revised Concurrence Point 4A
therefore that access to that parcel from the east was not needed, as it could be
accessed from the Coastal Communities property.
• The USACE recommends that the access point be moved to an upland area along
the USACE easement for the Yellow Banks Disposal Area. If the access point
cannot be relocated, it should be eliminated.
• Greg Thorpe stated that moving the access point further south would not be an
option due to proximity to the bridge.
• If the access point is eliminated, Mr. Milischer requested that the design include a U-
turn opening in the median at this location.
• Debbie Barbour stated that there is a strong possibility that the SW access point can
be eliminated; however, the NCDOT would like to research the history of the access
point to determine its origins before making a decision to eliminate it.
• - Mr. Timpy stated that the access point as designed does not meet the commitment
to avoid. additional wetland impacts. He also noted that the project is not removing
existing access to the MAS property.
• In response to a question asked by Mr. Wilson, Ms. Paugh stated that the NCDOT
would investigate the origins of the SW access point and attempt to redesign the
access to avoid potential legal issues resulting from the elimination of the access
point. She added that eliminating the access point after following this process would
be consistent with the original commitment that the access points should be located
such that there are no additional wetland impacts. If this commitment cannot be met
due to the presence of wetlands, the elimination of the SW access point would be
justified under this commitment.
• Mr. Timpy reiterated that the USACE recommends eliminating the SW access and
proposed that the Team sign a Revised 4A form indicating as such. Should the
access point be needed, the Team would reconvene to discuss.
• In response to the USACE proposal, NCDOT proposed that the access point be
redesigned (shortened or lengthened, and realigned) so that it is in, and can be
accessed from, entirely upland areas. NCDOT would pertorm wetland delineations
to identify upland areas.
• In response to a request made by Mr. McClendon, Ms. Paugh stated that the Record
of Decision (ROD) and public hearing mapping are documentation of the need for
this access point.
• In response to a comment made by Mr. Timpy that the Merger Team not reach
concurrence at that meeting, Ms. Paugh stated that a signed concurrence form
would aid in negotiations with the landowners as it would demonstrate the Merger
Team's willingness to move forward with the project.
• It was resolved that the concurrence form would state that NCDOT will redesign the
SW access point to allow connection without incurring additional stream and wetland
S~CII'1~12C impacts and that NCDOT would provide rationale for the access. If either of these
items cannot be accomplished, the access point would be eliminated.
The meeting also included discussions of the following items:
The Merger Team briefly discussed access control for the conservation easement, with Gary
Jordan stating preference that it be fenced to deter human intrusion.

APRIL 11, 2006 MEETING MINUTES
Page 4 of 4
Reference: Second Bridge to Oak Island Meeting for Revised Concurrence Point 4A
Ms. Paugh informed the Team that the NCDOT proposed to reduce the length of access
control on the St. James access point to the intersection with the first development street
In response to a comment by Mr. Timpy regarding the wetland delineations/jurisdictional
determinations for the Williamson Tract and St. James, Mr. Qubain stated that the NCDOT
would provide copies of wetland information on file.
In response to a question asked by Mr. Militscher, Ron Lucas stated that the NCDOT,
Project Development would be preparing a consultation and would not be preparing a
revised ROD. Mr. Militscher requested that this information be provided to the Merger
Team.
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 the writer in writing within seven (7) days.
Keith D. Lewis, PE
Project Manager
[e-mail]
KDLlacs
Attachment: Revised Concurrence Point 4A Form
Exhibit
cc: Attendees
File
~it,art'bec

NEPA / 404 MERGER TEAM AGREEMENT
Revised CONCURRENCE P4YNT NO.4A.
Federal Aid Project Number: STP-1145(6)
State Project Number: 8.2231201
TIP Number: R-2245
TIP Description: Second Bridge to Oak Island
From SR 1104 (Beach Drive) to NC 211, Brunswick County
$ac round
Agreement on Concurrence Point 3 was reached on June 19, 2002. The description of the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) (Alternative B) was amended to
include the acquisition of an easement connecting the two Cazolina Bays with an animal
crossing. Agreemern on Concurrence Point 4A was reached on November 19, 2003. As part of
the avoidance and minimization measures for the project, it was agreed that NCDOT would
make every effort to acquire the two Carolina Bays on each side of the road phis 200 feet around
each Bay and acquire a 10-foot wide conservation easement adjacent to the right-of way on each
side of the road. During the initial implementation stage, NCDOT encountered difficulty
meeting these three commitments. The status of these commitments was discussed in meetings
with the Merger Team on April 20, 2005, July 21, 2005, and January 19, 20(}6, during which
NCDOT described the legal issues involved with the coxmitments. NCDOT proposed
alternative commitments that would fulfill the intended purpose of the original commitments, but
that were within the Department's statutory authority. A package was mailed to the Merger
Team on February 6, 2006 that included detailed information on the proposed alternative
cozz~mitments. Field meetings were held February 7 and S, 2006 to view the proposed
conservation areas. Based on the comments received on the package and negotiations with the
landowners, the project commitments are described herewith.
• Acquire three Carolina Bays.
Carolina Bay West of R-2245 (Williamson Pro.Qerty)
The Carolina Bay west of the proposed R 2245 roadway alignment, including park areas
PR6 and FR4 with the exception of a planned Club House/Amenity Center (PR7}; three
additional park and recreation area PR3, PRi l & PR13; the approximately 300' wide
animal corridor leading from the bay to the Carolina Bay east of the roadway alignment;
and a section ofthe bay east of the proposed R-2245 roadway alignment.
Carolina Bays East ofR-2245 LSt_ James Property
The Carolina Bay east of the proposed R-2245 roadway alignment, with the exception of
existing platted lots on upland areas around the bay rim, a 300' wide animal corridor
leading north to another new Carolina Bay, to also be acquired, with the exception of a
small piece of upland. The delineated wetland of the Carolina Bay east will be restricted
from development.
• Acquire two animal crossing easements. One approximately 300' wide connecting the two
Carolina Bays, in addition to another 300' wide easemern leading north from the Carolina
Bay east of R 2245 to the new Bay. NCDOT has committed to provide $100,000 per

landowner to provide crossings under the private development roads within the preserved
wildlife corridors.
Provide full control of access from NC 211 to the Intracoastal Waterway, except at the
following street access points: -L- Station 79+SO {Full Movement}, -L- Station 191+45
{Right-in Right-out Only), and approximately -L- Station 151+55 (Right-ix~ Right-out Only).
NCDOT wdl redesign the western access point from -L- Station 79+50 to allow the
landowner to connect to the access without incurring additional stream and wetland impacts.
NCDOT will provide rationale for the western access. If this cannot be accomplished, this
western access point will be eliminated.
Maintain Control of Access by the following:
1. The Control of Access on the NCDOT plans will be designated as "Special Control of
Access" with a unique symbol, legend and note.
2. A Memorandum of Understanding between NCDOT, USEPA, NCDENR, and FHWA
will be executed. The memorandum will stipulate that any future break in the control
of access would require the agreement of all the signatory parties.
3. A special condition will be added to any USACE permit that would perpetually prohibit
any future break in the control of access without modification of the permit.
Additional avoidance and minimization measures are attached to this concurrence form.
The Merger Team has concurred on this date'of Aprt`~ I1, 2006 an the alternative commitments.
~~ • n . ~
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
US Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
NCDEN)(2, Division of Water Quality
NCDENR, Division of Coastal Management
NCDENR, Division of Marine Fisheries
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
State Historic Preservation Office
Federal Highway Administration
NC Department of Transportation .
`-~~C~.bea..-ter

Avoidance and Minimization Measures
Protect-Soeci is Avoidance and IYfinimization Measures
Due to the large amour of wetlands within the study area, it is impossible to construct the proposed
project without wetland impacts. Measures have been taken, however, to avoid and m~nimi~e these
impacts to the maximum extent passible, while still effectively meeting the purpose of and need for
the proposed project. Project-specific measures include the following items:
The project right-of--way was set at 150 feet (4b meters) to avoid impacts to wetlands
within the larger project corridor; and,
• The proposed alignment and resulting right-of--way was set within the corridor of the
Preferred Alternative to avoid and minimize impacts.
The avoidance and minim17ation of potential lC1s from the proposed project were also considered
during this phase of the planning process. These measures are listed below.
• Residential street access is precluded from the right-of--way of the proposed project to the
planned development roads for Williamson and St. James properties. Access control
would also be reflected by a continuous fence along the roadway. These measures aid in
minimizing induced development along the project; and,
The Phase II National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater
program would be adopted and enforced by local governments for the area bound by AtC
211, Sunset Harbor Road, the AIWW, and Beaver Dam Creek. The stormwater program
mandates would be applied to new development within the specified axes. (Brunswick
County currently has a Stormwater Ordinance that it has adopted in anticipation of the
Phase Il NPDES regulations. This ordinance is included in the Brunswick County
Commissioners' correspondence in FEIS Section 3.0.)
Avoidance and Minimization Measures for the Construction Phase
In addition to the measures above, the following avoidance and m~izziznization procedures should be
irnplemented during construction:
Strict adherence to procedures contained in Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997) and Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish
Passage {NCDOT, 1999), as well as the NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR), Division of Land Resouxces, Land Quality Section's North
Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual {NCDENR, 1993)
would aid in avoidzng and minimising impacts to water resources and aquatic
communities;
• Native vegetation should be planted along roadsides #o deter the spread of exotic and
inva~~ve sp~c~es. ~'he FHWA guidance handbook, Roadside Use of Native Plants
(~'I~WA, 2402} provides information on ro~dsid~ restoration and management;

• Implementing NMFS construction moratoriums and USFWS construction guidance can
mininvze dizect impacts to essential fish habitat and primary nursery inhabitants and
manatees. Table 2.7.1 contains these moratoriums;
TABLE 2.7.1
NMFS CONSTRUCTION MORATORIUMS
USFWS CONSTRUCTION GUIDANCE
~liiY, ~iY;~~;.~"TY•' ~SR• ~Cy~, w;Ymvw^Riy'u'?^~:^0'~a~r
"'.~:=~'! J Y1n f,~~ t '4y
s ~~t"~ t . t_i ~Rr~'"~~r?~1~y~'!`:CS~~4f`y-~i.,2s:`~.t'~F-:'~w„ ~

b ~{' 0 T
`~.t,{~~~~4~~L'.iJ:faS "r Y ~~ i Y ~
~` :;~`""~~Fd~"' '~,,, '~w ...~i y'~~5~+~;M :i~. r+~~~~°~ ~
''~r.er~?w?~~~~~..;3s::: ~.'~'..^.t.e WV:.Si. 4~T .T SC1.~: "ti v - ~,:~_..r~. ~~~
~. ,} •; ~ ~3.. ..r . ~'yf`~i~rr,~rr~.'~1 ~ S, tY•.2rF
,/~.:2~ .~~:'rn'~~F ,"y.,~"~t'Tt•"i ~~y ~ ~T

~~ ~ ~ ~bT R i. ~~~
•'w"j~~,~.rss+~ zF, Y~ F7' F~1?d"i~'~
;,~Y":~= .f'AL.~ _1..r~ ~ ~~.`1'%!i
cK~a'~S'~r~.3~u-_~^_„r~`N~a^vi::v~V4;~..wsF~:c'~b"~SW^ r%~•'/i:J,w u:1/;'Y `.'.i'tiC. ~:.Y~. v:~~="i
3µ ~w ~ ,f'. _.;: v
S~ ~•~v~t;.~ ~j`(j<"F.~.ir, y.I.k.
r~~' 3~.El.ly' '~
k~ T.. ~Y^4 J'f 4 a
'T. `;~.y~~GENC'S~~-'~~.•,`~
, 1. n.+1~. ,,-~„~'~
Sturgeon February 1 -June 30 NIvIFS
Primary Nursery Areas February 15 - Septeu~ber 30 NMFS/NCDMF
Manatee (in-water activities) June -October USFWS
50URCE: IJSACE, Aneust 2002. httoJlvv~vw.saw_usace.armymillwetiands/Policies/M O1tATORILJMSB-02.pdf
• The use of a vacuum machine to clean up and transfer of spoil material generated during
the installation of bridge piles can minimize impacts to wetlands, aquatic communities,
and riparian buffers;
Cleating and grubbing activities should be minimized to reduce impacts to riparian
buffers;
• Judicious zr~anagemeirt of herbicides and pesticides; and,
• Litter and debris control

R-2245_easement.dgn 042G!200G 02:41:27 PM

~Y . • -, ,
„rry
.~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAR'I~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Draft Minutes of the Interagenc~ydraulic Design Review
"4B" Meeting July 20, 2004
R-2445 (Second Bridge To Oak Island)
State Proiect 34407.1.1
New Route From SR 1104 (Beach Dr.) To NC 211
Brunswick County
Team Members: David Timpy, USACE (present)
Nikki Thompson, NCDWQ (present)
Gary Jordan-USFWS (not present)
Travis Wilson, NCWRC (present)
Chris Militscher-EPA (present)
Steve Sollod, NCDCM (present)
Bill Arrington, NCDCM (present)
Ron Schley, NMFS (not present)
Elizabeth Lusk, ONE (present)
Stacy Baldwin- PDEA (present)
Glenn Mumford- Roadway Design (present)
Participants: (See attached list)
Plan Sheet 4 & Big Davis Canal Bridge: Max Price explained that the beginning of the project
was a typical beach road; i.e., water sheet flows off of the roadway and infiltrates into the sandy
soils. Ditches are not typically utilized to convey water to established outfalls. Instead of ditches
we propose to use drop inlets and "storm chambers" to provide temporary underground storage
and infiltration of stormwater that usually occurs in the beach roadway shoulders and right of
way.
This project will require CAMA Major Permit and so will therefore require a State Stormwater
Permit. Apre-application consultation with regional DWQ staff will be conducted prior to final
Hydraulic design and the 4C Permit Drawing Review meeting.
MAILINI3 ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ~
F'IYDRAUI.ICS ~1NIT
1590 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1590
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWVV.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
BUILDING B
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC

R-2245, 4B Meeting
July 21, 2004
Page 2 of 7
There aze sliver fill areas in the coastal marsh wetlands left and right of -L- Sta. 17+00 and
20+00 (+/-) with impacts less than one acre (0.4 acres +/-). These impacts were created when the
proposed grade across the Davis Canal was changed in order to drain bridge deck runoff to the
north and not to the south as shown on the 25% roadway plans. Placement of infiltration basins
(or other BMP devices) to the south would be impractical due to the above mentioned wetlands
and would result in greater impacts. At the northern end of the bridge, it is possible to treat the
stormwater runoff without wetland impacts.
A proposed location for "storm chambers" for infiltrating the deck stormwater is shown on plan
sheet 5. This design will be coordinated with regional DWQ staff and finalized prior to the 4C
meeting.
The question was raised if "box beams" could be used for the bridge's superstructure rather than
the proposed 21"cored slabs. Box beams would allow longer spans and a reduction in the
number of interior bents from four to two with the subsequent reduction in fewer drilled shaft
bents. NCDOT Structure Design staff answered that box beams would necessitate raising the
grade in order to preserve the vertical clearance of the existing bridge. Raising the grade would
result in additional impacts to the coastal marsh. Due to additional impacts to the coastal marsh,
the decision was made to use a cored slab bridge and not box beams.
NCDOT Geotechnical Unit staff stated that based on geology, drilled shaft bents would probably
be the required foundation type. It was also stated that the temporary work bridges could be
supported by pile bents.
Temporary work bridges will be required for construction of the new bridge. Two work bridges
will be required in order to maintain a navigable channel during construction. Temporary piles
will support the work bridges. The elevation and location of the work bridges will be determined
during final design and presented at *h~ 4C meeting.
Plan Sheet 5: Treatment for bridge deck storm water is envisioned as the "storm chambers"
shown on the right side of the road just north of the bridge. This is an urbanized area and use of
the underground infiltration storm chambers appeaz the more appropriate method of treating the
storm water rather than an open infiltration basin.
Plan Sheet 6: Upon approval by regional DWQ staff, urbanized azeas will utilize the same drop
inlet and "storm chamber" infiltration concept discussed on plan sheet 4.
Plan Sheet 7 & Intracoastal Waterway Bride: Max explained the azea on the southern end of
the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) bridge has room for. stormwater management. The Public
Hearing map shows expected property takes for Right of Way acquisition and these parcels
should provide adequate room for some type of stormwater BMP device. The design and
treatment method on the northern and southern end of the Intracoastal Bridge will be coordinated
with regional DWQ staff and finalized prior to the 4C meeting.

R-2245, 4B Meeting
July 21, 2004
Page 3 of 7
Bill Arrington of the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management requested the design
maintain access to the gravel pazking area and board walkway shown under the south end of the
proposed ICW bridge. According to the current Bridge Survey Report, the design provides
approximately 32' of vertical clearance over East Yacht Drive. No one expressed any design
concerns with maintaining this access.
Dave Timpy of the US Army Corps of Engineers mentioned there is an on-going "land swap"
deal in progress, involving the land developers on the north east end of the bridge and the Corps
of Engineers. He couldn't say what the current status of this swap might be or how it could
affect the project.
Construction of the bridge was discussed. Max Price stated barges and work bridges would
probably be used for the construction. Also discussed was the use of barges that would be
allowed to settle on the bottom during low tides. The elevation and location of the work bridges
will be determined during final design and presented at the 4C meeting.
Max talked about the overall bridge length as shown in the previous Bridge Survey Report, dated
Apri13, 1998. In it, there were proposed bridge spans over the dredged spoil area for a length of
greater than 250'. There is no hydraulic reason for the additional span lengths since the 100 year
flood elevation is well below the elevation of the dredged spoils. Research by the Hydraulics
Unit has found no evidence for the need for the additional spans. Keith Lewis of Stantec
responded that sometime in the past, "someone in NCDOT wanted the bridge to cross over a
portion of the dredged spoils." However, he didn't remember who it was or if there was a given
reason. Nobody in the meeting expressed objection to shortening the bridge, however,
coordination with the Corps of Engineers is required to determine if the additional bridge length
was required for access to the spoil area.
Some members of the 4B meeting questioned if shortening the bridge would allow for shifting
the access point towards the south and out of the wetland azea. Glenn Mumford, NCDOT
Roadway Project Engineer, showed a larger scale plan with additional wetland areas depicted.
He explained the bridge probably couldn't be shorted enough to allow shifting the access road
without impacting a greater azea of wetlands. Complicating the design are the requirements for
guardrail and tapers for a turn lane which combine to require significant distance between the end
of the bridge and the access road.
John Hennessy asked if there is a moratorium on working in the water. No answer was given and
John requested the answer be available for the 4C meeting. ~ . ~ - _._
~~; ..
(Subsequent to the 4B meeting and during the compilation of these minufes, reference to~
moratoriums was found on the "green sheets " of the Final EIS - Ed.)
A question was raised about utilities on the bridge. Max responded it is too early in the design to
know.
Plan Sheet 8: Max Price explained the general roadway typical section from the northern end of
the ICW bridge to the northern project terminus: Four lanes divided with a mounded grass

R-2245, 4B Meeting
July 21, 2004
Page 4 of 7
median and open shoulders on the outside. In tangent sections, roadway storm water would
sheetflow down the grassed fill slopes, but in curves, runoff would be collected by catch basins
in the median and piped to the roadway toe of slope.
Currently, the plans show the standard NCDOT rip rap outlet pad at all catch basin outlet pipes.
The 2 and 10 year storm outlet velocities will be evaluated to determine the possible need for
preformed scour holes. A request was made by DWQ that outlets near wetlands discharge with
non-erosive velocities. The final design will address this request.
Plan Sheet 9: Max stated the access point design most likely will require changing the drainage
as presently shown near the double 42" pipes.
There was discussion on the "stream" conveyed by the double 42" pipes. It shows as a "blue
line" on the USGS quad map, but was not delineated as a jurisdictional stream.
Although the NCDOT standard rip rap is shown at the downstream end of the 42"pipes, rip rap
will not be used unless outlet velocity dictates its use.
There was much discussion about the location, and impacts associated with the access point.
There may need to be further coordination between the agencies, planning and design prior to the .
final design and the 4C meeting.
john Hennessy asked that all wetland information for the access points be made available for the ,
4C meeting.
Plan Sheet 10: The conceptual drainage plans presently show double 48" pipes to convey the
"blue line" stream as shown on the USGS quad rnap. Mason Herndon, NCDOT Division 3
Environmental Officer, stated this is the only stream that was identified as a jurisdictional
stream. It was classified as "intermittant."
It was emphasized that all fill slopes within the wetlands should be 3:1.
Plan Sheet 11: The need for rip rap at the pipe outlets will be verified once outlet velocities are
checked.
Plan Sheet 12: The plans currently show a 42" pipe laid in the existing dirt logging road,
maintaining the present drainage pattern. While this doesn't match the USGS quad, which shows
a blue line crossing the dirt road, it is the current drainage pattern. Discussion centered on the
possibility of reconnecting the two wetland areas. NCDOT will investigate if it is feasible. One
possible problem would be the need to raise the roadway grade to allow placement of an
adequately sized pipe. As shown, the pipe is down low in the old logging road, but reconnecting
the two wetland areas would require a pipe at a higher elevation. Raising the roadway grade will
impact more wetland due to the larger footprint. If the agencies see the need for a field review of
this site someone from the Hydraulics Unit would like to attend.

R-2245, 4B Meeting
July 21, 2004
Page 5 of 7
There was discussion among the agencies that there might be a chance for on-site mitigation
credits if these wetlands are reconnected. How the credits would be measured or accounted for
was not determined at this time.
Plan Sheet 13: Travis Wilson (North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission), discussed
providing a small animal passage through the roadway embankment between the two Carolina
Bays. The Hydraulics Unit will coordinate the size and location of the of the passage with
NCWRC and USWFS prior to final design and the 4C meeting.
The status of NCDOT purchasing the two Carolina Bays was discussed. Brett Fuelner and
Elizabeth Lusk of the Office of Natural Environment (ONE) replied that right of way acquisition
won't begin until April or May of 2005. It was commented on that the process of acquiring the
Carolina Bays could possibly begin prior to the project Right of Way acquisition. DWQ stated
that they may not issue the 401 Certification if the bays are not purchased.
Plan Sheet 14: No Comments
Plan Sheet 15: Nicole Thomson requested the catch basin outlets be routed to discharge in the
wetlands rather than on the upland side of the road. She explained the wetlands performed as
natural filters for the stormwater running from the catch basins. She did state the outlet
velocities would need to be non-erosive. Dave Timpy disagreed and requested the pipes not
outlet into the wetlands. After reviewing the quad map, Max mentioned that a wetland or
Carolina Bay is on the other side of the road and that consideration will be given to the above in
the final design phase.
A suggestion was made to place a note on the plans indicating where the two large Carolina Bays
are located and Hydraulics will do this.
Plan Sheet 16: Discussion focused on whether or not the equalizer pipes should be buried.
It was decided that they should they be buried since they are in the wetlands. A note will be
added to the plans so that it is clear to construction personnel that the pipes will be buried.
Plan Sheet 17: There was much discussion about the location, and impacts associated with the
;_
access point. There may need to be further coordination between the agencies, planning and
design prior to the final design and the 4C meeting.
Plan Sheet 18: No Comments.
Plan Sheet 19: No Comments.
Plan Sheet 20: Hydraulics will field investigate the stream or ditch currently shown on the
plans, between stations 233+00 Lt and 235+50 Lt (+/-) to determine if the drainage design
requires changes.
Plan Sheets 21, 22, and 23: Max explained the existing drainage along the south side of NC-
211: Ditches currently provide drainage, flowing to the west from approximately station 22+00

R-2245, 4B Meeting
July 21, 2004
Page 6 of 7
and flowing to the east from that same high point in the ditch. Flows to the east go to the box
culvert under NC-211 and then flow north into "River Swamp." The proposed drainage design
maintains the same design philosophy: lateral ditches alongside NC-211 that are approximately
the same width, depth, and slope as the existing ditches. These ditches are limited in depth by
the pipes and culverts they must tie to. It was determined that possible impacts to the wetlands as
a result of moving the ditches should be evaluated during the final design process.
The presence of underground storage tanks on the Midway Trading Post property, located at the
intersection of SR 1500 and NC-211 was discussed. Hydraulics said that while it is not shown
on the half-sized plan sheets, channelization curb can be used in this area instead of roadway
ditches to avoid excavation on this property outside of the existing right of way.
The existing box culvert shown on plan sheet 23 will be retained and extended.
No other comments were provided and the meeting was terminated.
ACTION ITEMS
• Hydraulics will review the drainage design and stormwater management plan with regional
DWQ staff prior to the 4C meeting.
• Hydraulics will check velocities on pipe outlets near wetland areas to see if rip rap can be
omitted where practical. Use of preformed scour holes will be evaluated.
• Hydraulics will check the constraints involved in connecting the wetland areas on both sides
of the roadway at the existing soil road crossing on sheet 12. Required fill height over the
proposed pipe and the resulting additional wetland impacts are a concern.
• Hydraulics, NCWRC, and USFWS will coordinate as to the type/size of an animal passage
structure between the Carolina Bays located on sheets 13 through 15.
• Equalizer pipes will be buried in jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands.
• Roadway Design will investigate the use of channelization curb at the Midway Trading Post
property.
• Roadway Design will address providing access to the gravel parking area and board walkway
under the proposed ICW bridge.
• NCDOT will proceed with attempt to acquire the two large Carolina Bays located between -
L- Sta. 120+50 Lt and 190+50 Rt.
• PEDA will coordinate.with USACE to determine the status and affect of the "land swap"
deal and southern access point involving land developers and the Corps of Engineers on the
northeast end of the ICW bridge.
• Hydraulics will coordinate with USACE in determining if the area below the north end of the
ICW bridge is required for spoil disposal equipment to travel from one side of the roadway to
the other .
._ ,__
~ Oi~vE viii coordinate deliiieatlGii Gf " `t" ^"'^" +l. ~~'' ^^ *•
all ,ae«ands rear access points ~riivi tG u~c ~., ~~~ee~u-~g.

R-2245, 4B Meeting
July 21, 2004
Page 7 of 7

d~~~~
m n.,
ti '
N.
~~ auw vim'
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Team Members:
Participants:
General Comments:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTN~NT OF TRANSPORTATION
Draft Minutes of the Intera~ency Permit Drawings Review
"4C" Meeting Apri120, 2005
R-2245 (Second Bride To Oak Island)
State Proiect 34407.1.1
New Route From SR 1104 (Beach Dr.) To NC 211
Brunswick County
David Timpy, USACE (present)
Gary Jordan, USFWS (present)
Travis Wilson, NCWRC (present)
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (present)
Chris Militscher, EPA (present)
Rob Ayers, FHWA (not present)
Bill Arrington, NCDCM (present)
Steve Sollod, NCDCM (present)
Ron Sechler, NMFS (not present)
Stacy Baldwin, PDEA (present)
Mason Herndon, Divison 3 (present)
Joe Blair, Division 3 (present)
Glenn Mumford- Roadway Design (present)
Lonnie Brooks, Structures (present)
Elizabeth Lusk, ONE (not present)
(See attached list)
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Dave Timpy requested an explanation for the use of rip rap as energy dissipaters in the
wetlands. Max Price explained that for the cross pipes, of which there are four on the project,
the outlet velocities for the 10 year storm events will be much greater than non-erosive
velocities and the receiving ground structure could not withstand the high velocity. The
swales where the cross pipes are located are not well defined. They have no banks, but
consist of large, low areas with flat side slopes. The lack of a defined channel means the tail
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
F'IYDRAUL.ICS ()NIT
1590 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1590
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW. DOH. DOT. STATE. NC. US
LOCATION:
CENTURY CENTER COMPLEX
BUILDING B
1020 BIRCH RIDGE DRIVE
RALEIGH NC

R-2245, 4C Meeting
April 20, 2005
Page 2 of 8
water depth is relatively low. As water flows through the pipe, it may begin at the upstream
face flowing full, then the water level will drop to the "normal depth" within the pipe. As the
depth drops, the velocity increases and with the quantity of flow these pipes are anticipated to
convey, the velocities are high. The low tail water contributes to the problem. When the
water depth in the pipe is higher than the tailwater, the velocity coming out of the pipe will be
high; there is no high tailwater to buffer the flow. But with use of a rip rap energy dissipater
pad, the Q2 and Q10 velocities will be non-erosive. Travis Wilson asked if the addition of
parallel pipes would aid in reducing the outlet velocities to something less than an erosive
velocity. Max Price answered that not a reasonable number of additional pipes would
sufficiently reduce the outlet velocities to be non-erosive.
• Chris Militscher requested Q2 and Q 10 flows and velocities, for pipes discharging to
wetlands, be provided with the permit.
Erosion Control devices in wetland impact areas should be described in the permit
documentation. The items they will use can be placed within the mechanized cleared areas
that are already delineated on the permit drawings. The impact of the devices are not to be
calculated nor tabulated since the areas have already been accounted for by the mechanized
clearing.
Dave Timpy stated there is a difference between the recorded impact to wetlands in the FEIS
and the NCDOT Wetland Permit Impact Summary. The current impact as determined by
NCDOT is 17.81 acres (Permanent Fill In Wetlands) while the FEIS shows only 16.1 acres.
Joseph Qubain of PDEA will obtain information from Stantec and coordinate with the
Hydraulics Unit so site by site comparisons can be made.
• Dave Timpy requested a description of the bridge construction be placed in the written
documentation portion of the permit package. The construction of the Intracoastal Waterway
could effect navigation along the ICWW. He also stated a description of construction for the
Davis Canal bridge also be included.
• Dave Timpy requested that the Intracoastal Waterway centerline, as supplied by the Corps of
Engineers, appear on the both the plans and permit drawings.
• Dave Timpy requested NCDOT provide the community type for wetland and stream impacts.
• Bill Arrington asked NCDOT to add "Coastal Wetlands" to the Wetland Permit Impact
Summary Sheets. Sites 1, 2, and 4 are the only locations of coastal wetlands.
• ONE will include a note in the permit application that rip rap at the ends of pipes in wetlands
will be considered as permanent fill in wetlands.
• Max Price asked if there would be any objections to audio tape future 4c meetings. There
were no objections.

R-2245, 4C Meeting
April 20, 2005
Page 3 of 8
Site Mans: (The 8.Sin x llin site maps created with the USGS quad maps used as a
background): Dave Timpy requested a north arrow be placed on the four sheets.
Applicable Permit Plan Sheets: Dave Timpy requested tributaries crossed by the project be
named and if the trib is unnamed, show on the plans the name of the first named tributary
downstream.
Plan Sheet 4: Dave Timpy requested the overall length and elevation of the existing bridge over
the Davis Canal be provided on either the permit drawings or the narrative.
For Sites 1 and 2, change the impact from mechanized clearing, which used a 10' offset width
from the toe of slope, to "Hand Clearing". Decrease the offset from 10' to 5', as measured from
the toe of slope.
Max Price requested clarification on the impact of keying in rip rap. The question: How is it
measured? Should it be measured as an excavation in wetland and a permanent fill in wetland?
Or, should the entire area, including the area keyed in, be tabulated as a permanent fill in
wetland? The answer: Tabulate the final configuration. In this case, provide an area of fill in
the wetland. Include the area keyed in.
Plan Sheet 7: Max Price explained relocating of the existing timber bulkhead on the southern
bank of the Intracoastal Waterway will be required, due to the interference of the complex pile
group with the bulkhead. The new bulkhead will be shown in the final permit drawings in plan
and cross section.
Plan Sheets 8-9: Dave Timpy requested Max Price to check and verify the area of impact for
Site 6. Dave calculates the area near to 0.8 acres as opposed to the 1.321 acres shown in the
tables.
There was much discussion between several parties about the location of the access roads and
whether or not they were to be "right in, right out" designs. It was resolved the design as shown
on the plans met the commitments. The southern access point provides a full at-grade
intersection with access points on both sides of the project route. The northern access point,
located on the east side of the alignment, uses a "right in, right out" design. Two turn-around
points are provided for this access point which will allow access for emergency vehicles while
maintaining the "right in, right out" design.
Also, Allen Pope stated that DOT will not build a road within the access point areas. If a
developer builds a road within the DOT Right of Way, it will be at his expense and by an
encroachment permit.
Plan Sheet 12: Max Price discussed the issue of reconnecting the two wetland areas which are
now divided by a logging road. Max stated it would be unfeasible to rejoin the two wetlands.
The wetland on the eastern side of the road alignment is lower than the one on the western side,
but the USGS quad map shows the water should flow from the east to the west. Recreating the

R-2245, 4C Meeting
April 20, 2005
Page 4 of 8
flow pattern would require filling the eastern side, thus burying the wetland. It would also
disrupt the existing drainage pattern, which has been well established over a number of years
Small animal passage pipe installation was discussed and it was agreed to backfill the pipes as
they are installed. Backfill with soil to a depth of one foot throughout the entire length of the
pipes. Joe Blair requested the plans and permit drawings include a note, in large type, stating this
requirement.
Plan Sheet 16: Travis Wilson requested changing the equalizer pipe at Sta 179+00 to a small
animal passage pipe.
Plan Sheet 17: Chris Militscher requested an equalizer pipe be placed within the wetland at
Site 22.
Plan Sheet 18: Travis Wilson requested the equalizer pipes at stations 206+00 and 209+90 be
relabeled as "Small Animal Pipe." As with the other small animal pipes, label it to be backfilled
with one foot of soil and buried one foot.
Dave Timpy requested a reference note describing the extents of the wetlands.
Plan Sheet 19: For Sites 26 and 28, change the notation from "Mechanized Clearing" to "Hand
Clearing."
Plan Sheet 20: Dave Timpy and Chris Militscher requested an additional equalizer pipe
reconnect Sites 29 and 30.
Chris asked if the DI at station 233+00 could be piped to an upland area rather than to the
wetland as currently designed. Ray Lovinggood will investigate and make the change, if
possible.
Plan Sheet 21: There was much discussion about the drawdown effect to the wetland on the
right side of -Y7- and the left side of -L- at Site 32. While it appears the existing ditch along the
south (right) side of-Y7- (NC-211) has no drawdown effect, the team members agreed to
determine the impact caused by the proposed project according to Dr. Wayne Skaggs
methodology and account for the drained wetlands in the permit summary table.
Plan Sheet 23: The culvert shown on the permit drawings and roadway plan sheets is not the
final design. After the permit drawings were mailed out, additional work ensued on designing a
replacement culvert that can be built with staged construction. The staged construction will
permit continuous two-way traffic through the project area. The final design will show a culvert
with a longer length than what was shown on the drawings at this meeting. The final permit
drawings will reflect the new culvert design and its impacts.
Carolina Bays, 10' conservation easement, and Animal Passage Easements
NCDOT is working on purchasing the two Carolina Bays. It is the opinion of the North Carolina
Attorney's General Office that for the bays to be acquired by NCDOT, they must be purchased

R-2245, 4C Meeting
April 20, 2005
Page 5 of 8
and not condemned. In order to purchase, the current owner must be a willing seller and the
property must have a "fair market" value. The 200' buffer for the Carolina Bays would be
pursued as an "incidental purchase" to the Carolina Bays.
There was much discussion about the ability to condemn or not condemn. According to Fred
Lamar of the AG office, condemnation for mitigation has not been done before. NCDOT does
not have the authority. NCDOT can not condemn for offsite mitigation and this aspect of the
project is similar to offsite mitigation. Nikki Thomson and Dave Timpy stated it was not
mitigation but "avoidance and minimization." Representatives from NCDOT countered stating
the alignment did avoid the bays and acquiring them would be for mitigation.
A question was asked if NCDOT would be allowed credit for the bays and the answer was yes, at
a ratio of 10:1.
Then, Robert Hanson stated if there is a willing seller, a fair market price, and NCDOT is
allowed credits, NCDOT will purchase the bays. He asked Nikki Thomson if it would be
acceptable to purchase the bays if the 200' buffer around the exterior of the bays could not be
bought and the answer was "yes."
Nikki Thomson clearly stated that if the bays are not purchased, there will be no permits issued
for the project. Robert Hanson stated the verbiage in the concurrence points and Record of
Decision was different and did not state the purchase was mandatory, but that NCDOT "...will
make every effort to acquire the two Carolina bays on each side of the road plus 200 feet around
each bay..."
Fred Lamar discussed the 10' conservation easement. He stated the legal opinion is that NCDOT
cannot purchase this land outside of the roadway right of way then transfer the property to a third
party. Options for maintaining an unbroken right of way along the project were presented by Art
McMillan. They are:
• Label the roadway plans (and permit drawings) with a special label for the Right of Way
line /Controlled Access lines.
• Make a provision of the permit that states any request to break the C/A fence and install a
new access road will be denied by NCDOT.
• Link the requirements for refusal of all encroachment agreements with permits.
• Provide a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between NCDOT, DENR, USACE, and
DCM.
Subsequent from the meeting, the following note has been added to the plans and is in the
review process as these minutes are being prepared.
NO REVISIONS CAN BE MADE TO THE CONTROL
OFACCESS WITHOUT APPROVAL OFNCDOT,
DENR, AND USACE.
Chris Militscher and others requested written proposals for the options.

R-224, 4C Meeting
April 20, 2005
Page 6 of 8
For the animal crossing easements, again, Fred Lamar and Robert Hanson stated NCDOT may
not be able to fulfill this comment due to the policy. It wasn't clear if it was a policy or a legal
issue. What may be possible is to tie the permit to the need for the animal crossing easement.
Fred didn't have an answer if condemnation was available to acquire the land. Travis Wilson
will write the permit conditions requiring granting of the permit will be tied to the purchase of
the animal access easements. He stated that if the bays can't be purchased, then there would be
no need for the animal access easements.
The last item discussed during the meeting was a contingency plan. If the Carolina bays can't be
bought, or if the 200' easement around the bays can't be purchased, or the animal access
easement can't be bought, what is the contingency plan? It was noted the Record of Decision
does not have a contingency plan and Alternative "B", the selected alternative, is the only option
available.

R-2245, 4C Meeting
April 20, 2005
Page 7 of 8
/,~,
/• ~--
~~~-~~~~.at!i1~~~: ~~~:src.~ t4~3~,' ~'ER~iTT DI2.1ti~'tT~`C;fi ra~•a rt~~ rr~~~
Location: Location t~ Sur~i~- C'onferenca~ Room, I}CYI' C~entnsw Center
TIP\C}: ~,, I}A"[7"s: 3:. ;,.,
C{}!i D'I'Y: ROCT'Is:

__
--, -~
--~ r .:.
}~,yr '
,j ~y^~~~/^ ~ ,.p 1.
...._.t.:^s.,k....7.4"r.....LN..'__`~~.~y-....:LY ea ! ........_-_i~6.t~Eit 1!.~ ~~~.~s..~~.°._.
_ _.._ - _
~ ~...
.,, : .._ _. a , ~~ ,_