20161268_Merger Process Documentation_20100902

0
0

+, v a? co N
N
Z3 r >
C O ° 4J C
°
0 ?
.
m J C
Q7
to
Q _ - - J
O ? ? N O
C ? T ,>

C UO -O Q )
Cam
O N P .

+ N C
D ca O O N

m =
W _? O L O
O O N

•?
7 N
N
N
m Q U p W m
F L O
M cd C O m
O C)
_ - - •_

O O
O
'? U C O O
m O O C N
CL 'a o U c
` 0 0 N
O
O C ? m W
V) O _
2 C C _ 'C
CL L 20 O bA
- .- O
F-- a ?. N
O a .0
_
-'
7C) C - O
Tt *
p cv O «.
V y O C } -D V

<n ?
QJ O
N N
¦ O cn Cr C r`- C cp
m U O -
}r c U ?<
> ° < _ U)
Q a--
IB
C W - 0
C N C ? ? ? S N
?.d x O
_
'O
O
41

C LLI +- O Q N C
??
¦ m
C o
d
W 0 °
O
N
m
=
L
a)
L of 3:
N = +.
M ' m L Q
U
O j T Ln O O
} U in °
(° c N
o
O H W L

C Q
O E )
C > _ -0
cB Of w m

M
70 _

cn
N
N w

En
O
C
N

O
d
D U
U 4J
C
O
a"
cu N
C i
fC i

(p
C
FO C
a) a X O = m 7D

F-
M
LO Q
cu
d
Q L

' ZT r-L) C3?
,? EC
X r
(D
QD (D
Qn4 C?
co (D
O 7 Q V CL)
W Q] (D
C/) 1-4- rs h7j,
' C CD QU
C?
cl) ?
- MOT Cry Co
% CD c CU CD - , C?? -
? - r o
. 0 co -
-'`
? wry I`li r-+-
CD `,-
m CSC} 0 ?
C) Cf)
C) co
3 a) ?s
C) =3 C CD
c? CL
, -t o
° , i
I" -t
C
70 CD w
CD r-) =
. C) CID CDI
--?
* c
.
. C)
,., .
::E- CID
rm4w co
CID C13 - -0 C=
T` a = f? r Cab
CZL
a) 3 C? 'U _0
< CD
(D
C) :z T co
J C/) 00
DO 1%4
-V
00 77- CD
- QC] Cam]?
? ?+C rQ 7D CD
C
cf)
C'D OD
CD ?
00 ? C
'--?
t,
C? t
0 4 • 0
0 ULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Meeting Participants
FROM: Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
DATE: September 2, 2010
SUBJECT: Merger Team Concurrence Point 2A Meeting, US 17 Corridor Study, New Hanover and Pender
Counties, NCDOT I'IP Project Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
A NEPA/Section 404 Merger team meeting was held for the US 17 Corridor Study in two parts. The fast
meeting was held on April 20, 2010 in the Board Room of the NCDOT Highway Building. The purpose of the
meeting was to review detailed study alternatives and discuss hydraulic structure recommendations prior to the
field visit segment of the Concurrence Point (CP) 2A meeting. The field review portion of the CP 2A meeting
occurred on May 26, 2010 and May 27, 2010. A summary of both portions of the CP 2A meeting follows.
MEETING PARTICIPANTS.-APRIL 201 201 .0
Kevin Alford Mulkey ,
Johnny Banks Mulkey
Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT - NEU
Olivia Farr NCDOT - PDEA
'Rob Hanson NCDOT - PDEA
Mason Flerndon NCDOT - Division 3 '
Heiman Fluting NCDOT -. HE.U/ Pubfic'Involvement &" Community Studies
' Corbin Jackson NCDOT - Quahty Eulnancement -
Amy James NCDOT NEU -
Paddy Jordan' Mulkey
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey -
• -.MikeKozlosky WilmingtonDIPO -,., ..
Stephen Lane NC Division of Coastal Management (by phone)
Gary:Lovering NCDOT - Roadway'Design;
Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT - NEU"
Jay McInnis NCDC)T - PDEA
Mark Mickley Mulkey
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Jessi O'Neal NC Division of Marine Fisheries (by phone)
Missy Pair NCDOT - PDEA
Allen Pope NCDOT - Division 3.
John Richards NCDOT - PDEA
Marissa Rodman NCDOT - NEU
Brad Shaver US Army Corps of Engineers
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics
Steve Sollod NC Division of Coastal Management
Thomas Stoddard NCDOT - TIP
Greg Thorpe NCDOT - PDEA
David Wainwright NC Division of Water Quahty '
Anthony West NCDOT - Roadway Design
Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Shane York NCDOT - TPB

Mlll, al.v INC. 611. T-.. .... 0-. NC 3')519 PO BOIL 33127 RA4£1GM. NC 27636 PH: 919'8311912 CAl: 919-851-1918 W W W.MULKEYINC.COM
-MULKEY
ENGINEERS S CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
To: Meeting Participants
FROM: Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
DATE: September 10, 2010
SUBJECT: Merger Team Concurrence Point 2A Meeting, US 17 Corridor Study, New Hanover and Pender
Counties, NCDOT TIP Project Nos. U-4751 and R-3300
A NEPA/Section 404 Merger team meeting was.held for the US 17 Corridor Study in two parts. The first
meeting was held on April 20, 2010 in the Board Room of the NCDOT Highway Building. The purpose of the
meeting was to review detailed study alternatives and discuss hydraulic structure recommendations prior to the
field visit segment of the Concurrence Point (CP) 2A meeting. The field review portion of the CP 2A meeting
occurred on May 26, 2010 and Mav 27, 2010. A summary of both portions of the CP 2A meeting follows.
MEETING PARTICIPANTS - APRIL 20, 201 O
Kevin Alford Mulkey
Johnny Banks iiMulkev. .
Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT - NEU
Ohvia Farr NCDOT - PDEA
Rob Hanson NCDOT - PDEA\
Mason Herndon NCDOT - Division 3
Herman Huang NCDOT - HEU/ Public Involvement & Community Studies
Corbin Jackson NCDOT 7 Quality E.nhancenncut
AmyJames NCDOT' NEU
Paddy Jordan Mulkey.
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Mike Kozlosky Wilmington MPO, -
Stephen Lane NC Division of Coastal Management (by phone)
Gary Lovering NCDOT - Roadway Design
Elizabeth Lusk NCDOT - NEU
Jay McInnis NCDOT - PDEA
Mark Mickley Mulkey
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agency
Jessi O'Neal NC Division of Marine Fisheries (by phone)
Mussy Pair NCDOT - PDEA
Allen Pope NCDOT - Division 3
John Richards NCDOT - PDFA
Mlarissa Rodman NCDOT - NEU
Brad Shaver US Army Corps of Engineers
Jerry Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics
Steve Sollod NC Division of Coastal Management
Thomas Stoddard NCDOT - TIP
GrcgThorpc NCDOT-PDEA
David Wainwright NC Division of Water Quality
Anthony West NCDOT - Roadway Design
Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Shane York NCDOT - TPB

Mlll.a5v INIT. 6750 "1.. .... .-1. NC 2151 9 PO Sox 33127 RALEIGH, NC 27635 PH: 919-951-1912 1-AI: 919-B51-1918 WWw.nULKCYINC.COM
MEETING SUMMARY
Olivia Darr opened the meeting and introductions were made around the room. Liz Kovasckitz began the
presentation by noting than an updated packet, dated April 20, 2010, was distributed prior to the start of the
meeting and extra copies were available at the front of the room. The updated packet contained revised tables
and figures based on the final field review of jurisdictional streams, wetlands and ponds.
Ms. Kovasckitz reviewed the agenda for the meeting and noted the purpose of the meeting was to review
alternatives and major hydraulic structure recommendations for the US 17 Corridor Study. Ms. Kovasckitz then
provided an overview of the projects. The current project schedule includes a Final Environmental Impact
Statement under the State Environmental Policy Act in 2011, with a Record of Decision later that same year.
The project is in the 2009-2015 Slate Tramportation Improvement Program TIP}. The US 17 Corridor Study includes
two projects: Military Cutoff Road Extension (TIP No. U-4751), and the Hampstead Bypass (TIP No. R-3300).
Ms. Kovasckitz stated the project's Purpose and Need as agreed upon at the Concurrence Point (CP) I meeting
September 21, 2006: Improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the US 17 and Market Street Corridor in
the project area. Following CP 1, project alternatives were reviewed at three Merger team meetings. The Merger
team concurred on Detailed Study Alternatives on August 23, 2007.
Liz Kovasckitz reviewed the current project alternatives. There-arc'two'new location alternatives for 1lilitan,
Cutoff Road Extension. There are ten new location'alternatiVes'and one improve existing alternative for
Hampstead Bypass. Ms, Kovasckitz then introduced design•options for Hampstead Bypass Alternatives E-H, O,
R, and U. "These design options were developed in response to concerns presented by Gan- Jordan (USFWS)
during the''p'rojec€ development process and the resulis of a'rcd-cockaded woodpecker (RC\X? foraging habitat- "
aiialysi's. The design options' minimize impacts to,IZCW fotiiging habitat by moving the northern interchange •,
near the project's terminus away from existing US 17 to south and west of the Topsail School complex for ;s,
Alternatives E Il O, R; aril U.
Ms. Kovasckitz noted that because they were unable to attend today's meeting NCDOT met with Gary Jorlon •
atnd Renee Gledhill-Early the previous week (April 14, 2010) to review what would be presented. Chris' • .
-Militscher gild Tra<,is \tlilson also attended the meeting. Topics of discussion. at the April 14th meeting-included '
the wetland mitigation site along_Wilmiiigton By p 's ,,the status of the historic architecture study and dropping
some alterllailves' from further study based oil iinformatio-n obtained'through field studies "1\Is. Kovasckitz noted
NCDOT would like to, discuss dropping alternatives that would not be selected as the LEDPA based on this
more detailed information if Merger team members were open to it.
Ms. Kovasckitz reviewed the impacts summary table and alternatives mapping for Hampstead Bypass
alternatives. .
Altematives F-1, P and S
Alternatives F-1, P and S follow the yellow alignment to the east of NC 210. When compared within each
grouping of alternatives that share an alignment west of NC 210, alternatives that follow the yellow alignment
east of NC 210 have higher impacts to several resources including streams, residential and business
displacements, and RC\t' future potentially suitable and potentially suitable habitat. Attendees at the April 14,h
meeting were agreeable to dropping these alternatives.
RCW Minimization Options for E-H, O, R and U
The RCW Minimization Options were displayed as a dotted line on mapping and denoted by a (2) in the impacts
table. By moving the interchange away from existing US 17, impacts to RCW foraging habitat (potentially
suitable and future potentially suitable), for Alternatives 11-I I O, It, and U were reduced. Impacts associated
with some of the other environmental features were also reduced.

Alternatives D-G, N and Q
Alternatives D-G, N and Q follow the pink alignment east of NC 210. These alternatives cross through RCXV
foraging habitat. It was not possible to develop an option to minitnize impacts to RCW foraging habitat for
these alternatives. For this reason, NCDOT suggested these alternatives be dropped from further study.
Attendees at the April 1411, meeting agreed Alternatives D-G, N and Q should be dropped.
Alternative Z
The "improve existing" alternative, which runs along existing Market Street and US 17, has very high residential
and business displacements. The typical section required to move traffic along existing US 17 in future years also
results in higher impacts to future potentially suitable and potentially suitable RC\Cl foraging habitat. One
historic site on the National Register of Historic Places and four other potential historic sites undergoing
additional study are located along existing US 17. Gan' Jordan noted at the April 14'h meeting that several
alternatives, including Alternative Z, could result in a jeopardy call because of RCW impacts. Merger team -
members at the April 14'h meeting were open to discussing dropping this alternative, but wanted to hear input
from other merger team members not present at that meeting before they reached a decision.
Ms. Kovasckitz then asked for input from merger team members on dropping alternatives. Chris Militscher
recommended clarifying what the impacts were based on. Ms. Kovasckitz replied that the impacts were
calculated based on what is currently shown in the preliminary design using slope stake plus 25 feet. - (Post meeting
note.' For the.RCIV [1lioimitation Options. _concept designr were used. Impacts were urladatef based on edge ofparement plans 25.
feel).
I Alternatives D-G, N and Q - ' .'•"' i-' `
Discussion: Brad Shaver asked for clarification on Gary Jordan's comment 'regarding impacts to RCW
foraging habitat and a potential jeopardy call. Rachelle Beauregard indicated that at this time there isn't
enough information to determine if impacts would result in a take or a jeopardy call. The level of detail .!.- e .
deeded would come later in the Biological Assessment process. Claris Militscher noted that
approximately 53 acres of future potentially suitable-RCW habitat would be affected. Travis Wilson'?'-+ ° - -
' ' .
stated that impacts to clusters that reside within Holly Shelter woiuld'-be highly subject to a'jeopardy ?call.
Mr. Shaver asked about the relationship between future potentially suitable and potentially suitable . .
habitat impacts. Nis. Kovasckitz noted Mr. Jordan is more concerned aboutpotentially suitable habitat
impacts. Nis. Beauregard noted that most of the habitat is future potentially suitable and does not
currently meet the guidelines for suitable habitat, such as age or basal area. Mr. Wilson noted the birds • '
are currently using the area classified as future potentially suitable-Foe habitat: -
Outcome: The merger team agreed to drop Alternatives D-G, N and Q because of impacts to the
RC\\t foraging habitat and other environmental features associated with these alternatives.
2. RCW Minimization Options for E-H, O, R and U
Discussion: There was no further discussion on incorporating the RCW Minim nation options into
Alternatives E-H, O, R, and U.
Outcome: The merger team agreed to incorporate the RCW Minimization options into Alternatives L-
H, O, R, and U because they minimized impacts to future potentially suitable and potentially suitable
RCW foraging habitat.
3. Alternatives F-I, P and S
Discussion: Steve Soiled asked for clarification on where the RCW impacts were occurring with these
alternatives. Liz Kovasckitz explained that during project development, the merger team was interested
their name) do not have DWQ scores because the data was provided by others and not delineated by biologists
working on this project. Meeting attendees agreed that a day and a half should be allocated to looking at
hydraulic sites and some of the non-riparian. wetlands. The afternoon of the second field day would be set aside
for looking at RCW habitat. Mr. Militscher indicated he would review the wetlands table prior to the field
meeting and provide a list of potential wetland sites for review. Project biologists could then remove pine flats
and those wetlands that are no longer applicable as a result of dropping alternatives from the list. It would not
be necessary to include those in the field review. Mr. Mickley indicated he would confer with Brad Shaver and
David Wainwright during site selection. Mr. Shaver noted that a GIS review would help identify potential field
review sites that are bays. Mr. Wilson noted that it would be good to get an idea regarding the quality of some of
the wetlands sites for future LEDPA discussions. Mr. Sollod indicated that some hydraulic site locations may be
AFC's, which will also need to be evaluated in the field.
Ms. Kovasckitz summarized that the upcoming CP 2A field visit will include: review of the hydraulic structure
sites; review of wetlands sites that will be identified prior to the meeting, including their quality for future
LEDPA discussions; review of potential AFC's; and, review of RCW habitat.
Ms. Kovasckitz noted that based on further NCDOT review and more recent guidance with respect to FEMA
Limited Detailed Studies, there were revisions to hydraulic structure recommendations at four locations. Ms.
Kovasekitz summarized the following recommendation changes for Sites 6, 8, 16, and 17:

Site 6 Site 8 Site 16 Site 17,

• LSC(P), LSCC(P),
VISA (1/P),;ISB (P) LSCF(I) I-1BSD(2) (P) HSX (P)
Stream e
(type)
U Island Creek I-Iarrisons Creek UP Island Creek 'UT Island Creek
& UTs
Wetland (DWQ
rating) IWN (79) LWD (83) I-IBWD (83) 11X B (SOj`' '

Drainage Area ,,;>. 2.85 rril.z 1.40 xni.c 4.16 mi.- 3 68 rrit:?;
Prior Dual 360' long Dual 565' long Dual 380' long Dual 185'•long
Recommendation -'. `'bridges bridges bridges bridges....
Revised 2 @ 9'x5' RCBC 1 @ 9'x7' RCBC Dual 150' long 3 @ 6'x6.'•...
Recommendation bridges RCBC - •.

I
t
Jerry Snead explained that in the past, and at the time of the project's hydraulic study, it was recommended that
FF_MA regulated non-encroachment widths be spanned. Over time it has been recognized that a lot of errors are
associated with this methodology and corrections were consistently needed Mr. Snead noted there is not
enough information to say a culvert would not work at Sites 6, 8 and 17 at this time. Based on the drainage area,
a culvert is recommended for these sites. The recommended bridge length at Site 16 has been modified to the
minimum required bridge length. Mr. Snead recognized there are other considerations, but based on drainage
area size and from a hydraulic standpoint, NCDOT did not want to indicate a bridge is needed when a culvert
would work.
Mr. Militscher asked how the changes in recommended structures affected stream and wetland impacts at those
locations. Ms. Kovasckitz indicated those numbers would be made available at the field meeting.
The April 20, 2010 portion of the CP 2A. meeting was adjourned.
1•G
s
MEETING PARTICIPANTS - MAY 26 ANO 27, 201 O
Kevin Alford Mulkey
Johnny Banks Mulkey
Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT - NEU
Anne Burroughs NCDOT - NEU
Olivia Farr NCDOT - PDE..A
Mason Herndon NCDOT - Division 3
Tommv Hughes NC Wildlife Resources Commission "
Amp James NCDOT - NEU
Gant' Jordan US Fish & Wildlife Service
Liz Kovasckitz Mulkey
Stephen Lane NC Division of Coastal Management
Jay McInnis NCDOT - PDEA
Scott McLendon US Army Corps of Engineers
Mark Micklev Slulkev
Chris Militscher US Environmental Protection Agencv
Jessi O'Neal NC Division of Marine Fisheries (by phone) - "
John Richards NCDOT - PDEA
Chris Rivenbark NCDOT - NEU
Brad Shaver US Army Corps of Engineers
Ken Shughart NC Wildlife Resources Commission .- •"
Jerry, Snead NCDOT - Hydraulics. • -
David Wainwright NC Division of Water Quality,' -
Logan Williams NCDOT - NEU
Travis Wilson NC Wildlife Resources Commission -
MEETING SUMMARY
: .,,
Concurrence Point 2A field meeting attendees met in the NCDOT Traffic Services conference room in Castle.
I-layne at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 261h. Olivia Farr opened the meeting and introductions were made
around the room.
Liz Kovasckitz reviewed the field packet. The packet included tables and figures shown at the April 20'h
meeting, updated to reflect the approved detailed study alternatives. Detailed mapping for each major hydraulic
structure location was provided in the packet. Table 1, Comparison of Build Alternatives, was updated to show
impacts based on current preliminary design. Revisions were made to Table 5, U-4751/R-3300 Summan' Table
of Hydraulic Structure Recommendations, for four sites since the April 20" meeting:
Site
No. Prior Recommendation
(4/20/10) Current Recommendation
(5/26/10)
6 2 @ 9'x5' RCBC 3 tt 1 Px8' RCBC
8 1 @ 9'x7' RCBC • Dual 565' Long Bridges
16 Dual 150' long bridges Dual 200' Long Bridges
17 3 @ 6'x6' RCBC 3 @ 10'x9' RCBC
7
Meeting participants reviewed the hydraulic structure recommendations at Sites 21, 22, 15, 16, 6, 5, 7, and 17
during the field visit on Wednesday, May 26th. Recommended structures as shown in the field review packet for
Sites 21, 16, 5, 7, and 17 were deemed appropriate. Travis Wilson noted that Site 22 could be considered
representative of the best wetlands in the project area. Mr. Wilson indicated he would like time for additional
consideration and discussion. The merger team agreed to come back to a decision on the hydraulic structure at
Site 22.
At Site 15, merger team members asked what the total stream impacts would be without factoring in the tributary
stream (I-IBSH). Stream impacts at Site 15 were listed as 913 feet in the packet. Without HBSH, stream impacts
would be 592 feet. Merger team members asked NCDOT to revise the hvdrauhc structure from the
recommended 3 @ 12'x8' RCBC to a minimum hydraulic bridge because of the length of stream involvement
and surrounding wetlands at this location.
At Site 6 it was noted that stream impacts were missing from Table 5-1. Impacts to stream ISB would be 325
feet. Due to the topography of the stream and its tributary and adjacent wetlands, the merger team asked
NCDOT to revise the hydraulic structure at this location from the recommended 3 @ 12'x8' RCBC to a
minimum hydraulic bridge.
On the walk in to Site 5, meeting participants stopped near Sidbury- Road to sec Cooley's Meadowme stems that
r
mere found during previous field investigations. The plants are located in the project srudy area but outside of
s proposed right of way limits. Gan Jordan requested a map showing the location of the plants in relation to the
project (xen1 uia'emaiI V 1 / 10). (Pont rneetiug-note: Sumys by biologists on June 16-17, •2010 ident fed additional.rtemi at the
Sidbug Road site. T his population'of Cooly's meadowme is located within the study tvr idor associated with Alternatives O and
1 R. No individuals o/'golden sedge were observed, however, multiple stems ofunidentified sedge were notedgrowing in. clone proximity
to the population of Cooley's meadinvrue.:Though sumqu were conducted during the appropriate survey window, no forting bodies. ,
were found on these plants. • Because of the close association between golden sedge and Cooley' meadownre, there it a high probability
-.'.., fo Id,, sedge4o be present at this site.) ''' :. -" 1 .,...'. i11t <. '
r At Site o meeting attendees assessed potential impacts of the recommended 3'@ 12'x7 RCBCstructure on a.. i ,
beaver unpoundment After discussion the merger team deterrmm d the recommended structure was ;rtq
s 1 Tpropnate
The merger team reviewed information provided in the field review packet for'Sifes•.l l 3,4;,l and 2 3t,was
determined that on site visits were not required. for these locations. Recommended structures as shown in the
<- fieldiregiew packet for these sites were deemed appropriate.
Meeting, participants reviewed the hydraulic structure recommendations at Sites 10, 8, 25, and 23 in the field on
Thursday, May 27th. Recommended structures as shown in the field review packet for Sites 25 and 23 were
deemed appropriate. While at Site 25, meeting participants noted that fox Merger Concurrence Point 4a,
NCDOT should review areas where there are broad floodplams to determine if culverts or equalizer pipes are
needed. -
Site 10 is located within the Ml interchange at Wilmington Bypass between the Corbett Tract Mitigation Site and
the Plantation Road Site. Rough-leaved loosestrife (RLL) was transplanted onto the Corbett Tract Site. RLL
had previously been shown on the Plantation Road Site in Natural Heritage Mapping, but the data points were
removed in 2009. Travis Wilson indicated that although the plants were last observed there in 2006, the points
should have remained in the database. Gary Jordan noted that even if upcoming additional field studies do not
find RLL, it should be assumed that the plant is there as it can remain dormant until suitable conditions are
present. Merger team members indicated that the hydrology of the site should be maintained and runoff from
the interchange would need to be managed. (Port meeting note: At the request of USFIVS, biologists visited NCDOT s
Plantation Road Site on June 16-17 and June 23, 2010. Aluluok stems ni rough-leaved loosestrii e were found at the site. One
population is located within the study corridor of Alternative M2, while the second is located within they-line study corridor
paralleling the US 17 IFumington Bypass between Alternative MI and A12.)
Jerry Snead noted the existing 72" RCP under Wilmington Bypass should be retained and supplemented as
needed rather than replacing it with the recommended 1 @ 12'x'11 RCBC. Mr. Snead stated the need for

replacing the existing structure would be investigated during final design. Mr. Snead indicated an additional
structure in Loop D of the interchange may also be needed at this site. The merger team determined a minimum
hydraulic pipe or culvert would be appropriate at Site 10.
At Site 8 Jay McInnis noted the recommended 565-foot long elual bridges are not required hydrauhcallv. The
bridges were included at this location in order to maintain access to a residential area. Mr. McInnis stated there
may be design options that would maintain access without a long bridge. The merger team determined a
numm nn hydraulic pipe or culvert would be appropriate at Site 8.
After the site visits were completed, the merger team concurred on hydraulic structures as follows:
Site No. Stream Name (I.D.)/Wetland I.D.
1 UT Finch Creek (ZSB)
2 ---
3 UT Smith Creek (BSP)
4 ---
5 --
6 UT Island Creek (ISA, ISB)
7 UT I-larrisons Creek (ISD)
8 Harrisons Creek (I-SC; LSCC, LSCF)
10 UP Island Creek (CSA, FSA) ..
11 UT Island Creek (FSH, PSI)' .
15 Island Creek, UT Island Cr. (HBSF, HBSH)
16 UP Island Creek (i-IBSD2)
17 UT Harrisons Creek (I-ISX)
21 UT Island Creek (FSA)
22 UT Island Creek (FSE)
23 Godfrey Creek (LSD)
--25 - UT Island Creek (I IBSC)
Wetland I.D. Hvdraulic Structure
EWF Retain & extend existing 1@12'x8'
K\\ID 1@9'x8'RCBC
BWI 2@7'x12' RCBC
D\\%C 1@9'x8' RCBC
GWA 3@12'x7' RCBC
IWN Minimum Hydraulic Bridge
IWF 3@11'x8' RCBC
1.,\NTD Minimum hydraulic pipe or culvert.:
--- Nhttimnm hydraulic pipe or culvert
--- 1@12'x9' RCBC
I-IB\NTK ' MinimumHydrauhc Bridge ..... _:
HB\\,D; ' , - Dual 200' long bridges
FIWB 3@10'x9'RCBC
FWB 2@1 l'x9'RCBC
FWC 2@12'x7' RCBC
LWI 2@ 9'x7' RCBC
FIBWF... .1@9'x8' RCBC .
During the afternoon of Nlay 27'h, meeting participants visited areas of future potentially suitable and potentially.,
suitable RCW foraging habitat at the northern end of the proposed Hampstead Bypass project. Jay McInnis -
reviewed the preliminary design for the detailed study alternatives, noting how interchange design elements. were.
.
modified:to minimise impacts to RCW foraging habitat. Mr. Nlclnnis stated NCDOT was looking at acquiring
an option on property adjacent to Holly Shelter Game Lands (I-ISGL) that is currently proposed for
development. The property contains future potentially suitable RCW foraging habitat and is located across US
17 from the potentially suitable RCW foraging habitat. NCDOT obtained appraisals on the property and
conversations with the property owner regarding the cost of a four-to-five year option are ongoing.
Gary Jordan explained the RCW population on HSGL is part of a core recovery population. The RCWs on
I-ISGL are being managed to federal recovery standards. The RCW foraging partitions extend off of HSGL. Mr.
Jordan noted there is not enough acreage within FISGL to support RC\N7s per the recovery, plan; therefore, ,.
habitat outside FISGL is needed. Because the existing foraging habitat is below standards, any removal of habitat
would be considered a take and a jeopardy evaluation would ensue as part of a formal Section 7 Consultation
process. If it was determined the proposed project would preclude the recovery of the primary core population,
it would likely result in a jeopardy call. Mr. Jordan commented that the term "future potentially suitable foraging
habitat" is not used in the recovery plan. Although technically the habitat is not adequate, the RCWs are
currently using the areas identified as future potentially suitable habitat in the studies conducted as part of the
proposed project.
The project schedule was reviewed. Mr. Jordan noted Section 7 Consultation could begin after LEDPA but if
any refinement of the design is anticipated after that point, it would be prudent to wait until Concurrence Point
9
4A to begin the process. This would start the Section 7 Consultation process at the end of 2011. At that time, it
would be important to have formal commitments to factor into the jeopardy analysis. If an option was secured
on the property under NCDOT review, it could be counted as reasonable and prudent minimization of
incidental takes associated with the foraging habitat of existing RCW clusters. If in the meantime the property is
cleared and developed, it would reduce the environmental baseline that would be considered in the Section 7
Consultation. Rachelle Beauregard noted it was her understanding that although XXItC can not count land that is
not theirs toward the goals established in the recovery plan, the birds on that land can be counted toward
recovery goals. Ms. Beauregard suggested that if foraging habitat impacts would include trees off of HSGI., with a
diameter equal to or greater than four inches, trees of that size should also be considered toward available
habitat.
Meeting participants discussed aspects of the property NCDOT is investigating an option on. Representatives
from \VRC noted the property needs work now in order for it to be managed for suitable RCW foraging habitat
in the future. Initially, mechanized clearing would be required to reduce midstory. Management by fire is
difficult at this location because of winds and proximity to US 17. It was suggested that management of the
property for RCW habitat could be incorporated into the contracted option as this would not affect the future ?
development of the property. Mr. McInnis suggested if NCDOT secured the option then WRC may have the
' ability to manage theproperty. .Mr. McInnis noted he was not aware of other instances where NCDOT funded: _
habitat management.on private property. Representatives from \\BC indicated the management would need to .. ..
be contracted out and there was not money available in their budget to do that.
- • - A meeting participant note&the Department of Defense is currently investigating a reduction in recovery goal y , .
- . ; •'requirements at Camp LeJeune. '.This could in turn result in an increase in RCW. recovery goals. at other sites
.....including,HSGL .. .. _. ,. .. r. _
- •?? Gan Jordan stated tt` is vnportant that any clearing regiured for the proposed project between the foraging c
habitat areas on either side of US 17 be kept less than 200 feet wide: He also said it would be helpful to stay out
' of the partition, the refined preliminary design avoids. Mr. Jordan indicated it would be- beneficial for senior...
management at,NCDOT and USFWS to meet and discuss the proactive measures currently being pursued b}
jl NCDOI to reduce incidental takes and avoid impacts to recove} plan goals tI
The meetmg was' aidjo'umed
cc: Rence Gledhill-E, ady, SHPO
Attachments: Detailed Study Alternatives Figure 2 from May 26, 2010 packet
Signed Merger Concurrence Point 2 Form
Signed Merger Concurrence Point 2A Form (pending signature)
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
Olivia Farr at ofarr(6?,ncdoteov or the writer in writing within seven (7) clays.
10
•D
m
v
m m
•v
m
fD
n o fD
C.
0
3
C

r
,A
/Z
l I
O
Z Cc
^
,
l J
o a• O
CD a O z o 0
cD D
D D
c) CP v
o JC, < r^
N
(D C
N 1
z PO
C)
W
W
O
O
0
a
0 0
CD
CD
z
0
? a
? U
v ?
Z rn
m Z o
Z
n ?
C
o X44
m o
a
O CD d H 3 u Q G1 '7 C.
j' b D O C ? W
O C C
Sv V (? m
.r
O 0
to O
oo+'
? .e o a A" N m? o
o'i n u a i a
Z. .2. C R = 0 2S N
to ;1. 't (4 K 0
z
C :D S a
m ? m
a m
O
a m ?

3
N
9
P1>

vL
. -,4 :.
?r>