The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20161268 Ver 1_Meeting Minutes 09072012_20120907-MULKEY U U ■ ! 0 ■ U' To: fleeting Participants FRO m: Liz Kovasckitz, Mulkey- Engineers and Consultants ATE: September 7, 2012 SUBJECT: Merger Team Concurrence Point 3 Meeting, Proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and Proposed US 17 Hampstead By-pass, New Hanover and Pender Counties, NCD()T TIP Project Nos. U -4751 and R -3300 A NEP A /Section -l04 Merger meeting was held on May 17, 2012 for the subject project in the NCDOT Structure Design conference room. The purpose of the meeting was to reach concurrence on the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDP A). Meeting participants are listed below and a summary of the Concurrence Point 3 (CP 3) meeting follows MEETING PARTICIPANTS Paul Atkinson NCDOT — Hydraulics Jessie Barer NCDIIF (by- phone) Johnny- Banks Mulkey- Rachelle Beauregard NCDOT - NES Jai- Bassett Mulkey- Mary- Pope Furr NCDOT — HES Karen Fussell NCDOT — Division 3 Kim Gillespie NCDOT - PDE A Renee Gledhill-Earley NC Dept. of Cultural Resources, HPO Rob Hanson NCDOT - PDE A Phil Harris NCDOT - NES Mason Herndon NCDWQ Benjetta Johnson NCDOT - Congestion Management Gale Johnson NCDENR — Public Water Supply- Gary- Jordan USFNVS Luz Kovasckutz Mulkey- Alike Kozlosky- Wilmington 1IPO Gary- Lovering NCDOT - Roadway- Design Jay- McInnis NCDOT - PDE_ Scott McLendon USACE Colin Mellor NCDOT - NES 1lark 1licklev Mulkev Chris Militscher USEPA� Glenn llumford NCDOT - Roadway- Design Emily- hurray- NCDOT - Structures Management LeiLani Paugh NCDOT - NES Jackson Provost NCDOT - Division 3 MWl.KCt I -0. 6750 TR,(:). Ritar o Cart,, NQ 2751 8 PC) Beau 33127 RA NQ PH 919-'a5'o -191:3 FAx: 919 - 8,99 -19IS i6.KiV,s iw 0.e,G). Suraiva Rashid Chris Rivenbark Brad Sharer rnv Simes Caleb Smith Steve Sollod Mark Staler Greg Thorpe Jai- Twisdale David Wainwright Travis Wilson Stephen y eung u MWFINNEMPYWISTSYTTEM Wilmington :NIP(-) NCDOT - NES U SACE NCDENR NCDOT - _archaeology NCDCM NCDOT - Roadside Environmental NCDOT - PDE A NCD()T - Hydraulics NCDNVQ NCNVRC NCDOT - Congestion Management him Gillespie opened the meeting and introductions were made around the room. Liz hovasckitz reviewed the agenda for the meeting and noted the purpose of the meetingwas to review the project status and reach concurrence on the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable _alternative (LEDP A - Concurrence Point 3) for the US 17 Corridor Study. PRESENTATION 11s. Kovasckitz noted a few changes had been made to the appendices of the packet. In _appendix A, the Figure 10 series now depicts the Cape Fear Public Utility- _authority's ((.FPU_A,) Wellhead Protection Area and river basin divide as requested at the December 11, 2011 Merger Team informational meeting. Appendix B was updated and now contains EPA's comments on the DEIS and NCD()T's response. _additional information on groundwater well impacts is included in _appendix C. Other revisions within the body- of the packet were reviewed. 11s. Kovasckitz then provided an overview of the project. Project Overview 11s. Kovasckitz described the current project alternatives. There are tvo Current Detailed Stud- _alternatives (DSAs) for Military Cutoff Road Extension: Alternatiyes 1I1 and 112. There are four Current DSAs for Hampstead By-pass: _alternatives E -H, O, R, and U. Ms. Kovasckitz described the background and progress of the Merger Team's previous concurrence point meetings and public meetings held to date. It was noted most of the comments and concerns from the public pertained to the lack of access to existing US 17 from the proposed Hampstead Bypass at the northern end of the project. 11s. Kovasckitz noted in response to these concerns, interchange alternatives are under review that would accommodate the public's needs, as well as continue to minimize impacts to the red - cockaded woodpecker (R(.N\). Other comments from the public resulted in a shift at the intersection of Military- Cutoff Road Extension and Market Street to minimize impacts to a neighborhood. A citizen comment stq gested potentially- incorporating animal crossings into selected corridors. In addition, a separation between the edge of pavement and bridge rails for local roads elevated over the by-pass will be included to accommodate pedestrian traffic. Jurisdictional Resources Ms. Kovasckitz then reviewed impacts to jurisdictional resources and related tables in _appendix B of the packet. The estimated number and quality of streams, surface waters and wetland areas that would potentially be affected were reviewed for the detailed stud- alternatives. 11s. Kovasckitz noted pond impacts were comparable among the different alternatives. Historic Resources 11s. Kovasckitz referred to Table 2 in the packet, which showed effects to historic properties. The NC State Historic Preservation Office provided effects determinations at a meeting held on March 8, 2011. Avoidance and minimization measures have been incorporated into the design at properties with effects. A review of these additional measures took place on December 13, 2011. The effects determination at Scotts Hill Rosenwald School was revised. Mary Pope Furr clarified the determination is now "No _adverse Effect" at Scotts Hill Rosenwald School for Alternative U. Alternatives MI and :NI2 will have an "Adverse Effect" on one historic property and Alternative U will have an "Adverse Effect" on tvo historic properties. None of the other alternatives will affect historic properties. Preservation Areas 11s. Kovasckitz reviewed Table 3 from the packet, which presented the anticipated impacts to gamelands and preservation areas. NCDOT purchased fire sites (a total of 27 parcels) for wetland and Threatened and Endangered species impact mitigation associated with the US 17 Wilmington Bypass: Corbett Tract, Corbett Tract Residual Strip, Plantation Road, a 34-acre Residual Site, and a 22 -acre Residual Site. NCDOT purchased all land in fee simple and there are no easements on the properties. All sites contain wetlands, but only the Corbett Tract has been used for wetland mitigation and its alteration is prohibited by the USACE's permit for the US 17 Wilmington Bypass. All fire sites contain rotigh- leaved loosestrife habitat, but only the Corbett Tract and Plantation Road sites have documented populations at this time. _alternatives 1I1 +EH, 1I1 +R and 1I1 +U have considerably lower overall impacts to preservation areas. However, they have higher impacts to the Corbett Tract Mitigation Site and Residual Strip. Ms. Kovasckitz showed a slide illustrating impacts to the Corbett Tract and Plantation Road Site from Alternatives 1I1 +EH, 1I1 +R and 1I1 +U, which are predominantly a result of the additional 25 feet added to the slope stake boundary when calculating impacts. Earthwork in this area is within the existing right-of-way, with the exception of a very tiny piece where the Corbett Tract and Corbett Tract Residual Strip come together. A similar situation occurs at the Corbett Tract Residual Strip for Alternative 112 +(). Protected Species Ms. Kovasckitz then summarized information related to federally - protected species. All of the alternatives "May _effect" and are "Likely to _adversely _effect" at least one protected species. Protected species information will be updated after surreys are conducted this spring. The USFNVS has indicated the biological conclusion for golden sedge remains to be determined. If additional and appropriately -timed surreys do not reveal any specimens of golden sedge, the USFNVS has stated they would concur with a "No Effect" conclusion for this species. 11s. Kovasckitz noted tvo figures provided in the handout showed the location of known occurrences of Cooley's meadownie and rough- lea�-ed loosestrife. Cooley's meadownie stems were found in 2009 and 2010 in very close proximity to the right-of-way for Alternatives 112 +0 and 1I1 +R. Roti gh -leaved loosestrife stems «%ere found on the Plantation Road Site. A number of stems «%ere found within the right-of-way for _alternative M2, which would affect _alternatives M2 +0 and 112 +U. Water Supply As requested at the December 2011 informational meeting, Ms. Kovascl itz provided additional information on public water supply- wells. Shifts were made to the Military- Cutoff Road Extensloll alignment to maintain a minimum 100 -foot buffer from well heads. In most cases, the distance is much greater. The revisions to the alignment also resulted in a small decrease in wetland and stream impacts, but increased forest impacts. Ms. Kovascl itz noted the CFPUA developed a Wellhead Protection Plan (Rv'HPP) in coordination with the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Public Water Supply (PNVS) Section. The CFPU A's NVI- PP is non- regulatoryr and identities strategies to manage the wellhead protection area for their northern water system. Existing state riles and re7tilations are relied on to manage risks associated with transportation infrastnictlire located within wellhead protection areas managed throtigh the non - regulatory- approach. Ms. Kovascl itz stated the proposed project is not expected to result in impacts to CFPUA's groundwater water supply- wells. Impacts to the availalbility- of the water supply are not anticipated as a result of the proposed project. The project is not expected to decrease the capacity- of the existing and planned water supply- infrastnicaire or the source aquifers. In addition, the NCDENR PNVS Section has expressed the opinion, and the CFPUA has agreed there are no design elements, such as hazardous spill catch basins, that need to be added to the project. The PNVS Section recommended NCDOT assist with providing training to first responders in dealing with hazardous materials spills in the wellhead protection area. Ms. Kovaschitz noted that prior to the completion of the final environmental document for the project, NCDOT will meet with the CFPU A, local fire departments and other appropriate agencies to discuss additional protection measures for the wellhead protection area. Measures requiring NCDOT participation will be identified in the project commitments. Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative The presentation transitioned to the selection of the LEDPA, with Ms. Kovasckitz indicating NCD()T's recommended alternative is Ml +EH. Slie followed with a review of the reasons NCD()T selected Alternative M1 +E -H as the preferred alternative: • Alternatives M1 +U and X12 +U are not recommended because they have more residential and business relocations, greater noise impacts, greater impacts to cultural resources, more impacts to High Quality- Waters, and greater total costs than _alternatives Ml +E-H, M2 +0 and 1I1 +R. • Alternative X12 +0 is not recommended because it has more impacts to: federally- protected species, proposed fiiaire CFPUA water supply- infrastnicaire, wetlands, ponds, and preservation areas. • _alternative MI +E -H is expected to have the fewest impacts to federally - protected species. Cooley's meadownie stems were found in very close proximity- to the right -of -way for _alternatives M2 +0 and :NI1 +R. A number of rough leaved loosestrife stems were found within the right -of- way for Military Cutoff Road Extension _alternative 1I2, which would affect _alternatives M2 +0 and 112 +U. • _alternative 1I1 +E -H would have fewer impacts to preservation areas than _alternatives 112 +(), 112 +U and 1I1 +R. M • _alternative 1I1 +E -H has fewer wetland, pond and stream impacts than _alternative 1I1 +R. • _alternative 1I1 +E -H improves the traffic carrving capacity- and safety of the US 17 and 1larket Street corridor in the project area. DISCUSSION Military Cutoff Road Extension 11s. Kovasckitz requested that meeting attendees begin the LEDPA dismission with 1lilitary- Cutoff Road Extension _alternatives 111 and 1I2. She summarized the project's impacts and noted _alternative 112 would have fewer impacts to streams, but would have a greater impact to preservation areas, protected species, wetlands, and future water supply- infrastnicture. Garr 1lcSmith with the CFPUA later clarified 1lilitary Cutoff Road Extension _alterative 1I2 would also go directly- throtigh existing infrastnicture that supplies twenty- percent of the water in New Hanover Count-. Garr Jordan stated the USFNVS supports _alternative 111 as the LEDPA and they would not be able to connir on either of the alternatives that include 1lilitary Cutoff Road Extension _alternative 1I2. Air. Jordan noted this was primarily- because _alternative 1I2 impacts the Plantation Road Site, which was in part set aside as a preservation area for rotigh- leaved loosestrife as a result of a 2002 Biological ()pinion. 11s. Kovasckitz asked for arty other comments regarding the selection of Alternative 111 as the LEDPA for 1lilitary Cutoff Road Extenslotl. ConcetUtllal 1litirTation Chris AIilitscher noted he had submitted comments requesting a conceptual mitigation plan and the response provided indicated one would not be provided. Air. 1lilitscher went on to say- his office has indicated concurrence on arty of the alternatives would be dependent on that plan. Air. AIilitscher noted this was not the first time he had requested this information. Similar requests had been made on other projects with high impacts. 11s. Kovasckitz noted for the 1lerger Team the response to Air. 1lilitscher's request stated NCD()T does not ty- pically- extensively- extensively- investigate on -site mitigation opportunities until the LEDP A has been chosen. NCDOT's memorandum of agreement with the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) limits on -site mitigation to sites adjacent and contiguous with the roadway- corridor. Therefore, NCD()T can only- pursue sites adjacent to the LEDP A corridor and not on arty of the others. Scott McLendon commented the timing of looking for onsite mitigation opportunities is after a preferred alternative has been selected and staff should not have to conduct investigations on all alternatives. Air. 1lilitscher agreed mitigation plans do not need to be prepared for each alternative, but added the general mitigation opportunities available in the study- area should be addressed because project impacts include hundreds of acres of wetland and thousands of feet of stream. 11s. Kovasckitz displayed a slide from the December 2011 informational meeting that showed overall stream and wetland mitigation opportunities available at that time for the Gape Fear and White (.yak (Ortslow Bay-) River Basins. Air. 1cLendon asked if both projects were nirrently funded for right-of-way and constniction. Air. 11cInnis responded right -of -way- is funded for both projects but only Ahlitary- Cutoff Road Extenslotl is funded for constniction. Military- Cutoff Road Extension is ahead of the Hampstead By in terms of the project schedule. Mr. McInnis stated the general conceptual mitigation plan for the project includes investigating opportunities adjacent to the selected corridor. Mitigation sites that cannot be located along the selected corridor would be provided by EEP. Mr. McInnis noted this process must be completed in order to receive a permit and construct the project and he was therefore not clear why this would delay- the selection of a LEDP_. Mr. Militscher noted the amount of stream impacts associated with NCD()T's preferred alternative (23,498 linear feet) was more than what was currently- identified as available (13,862 linear feet). Mr. Militscher noted as EPA's letter on the Draft EIS indicated, lie will not be able to concur on a LEDP A until they have some idea of where the rest of the mitigation is going to come from. Mr. Militscher asked what would happen if there wasn't suitable mitigation available, noting there is another project currently- in that situation. Mr. McInnis explained in such a situation it would be expected that the project let date would be delay -ed. In response to a question from Mr. McInnis, Mr. McLendon stated the US ACE would not issue a permit for the project without a final mitigation plan. He noted lie understands Mr. Militscher's comments and agreed that although it would be nice to know where the mitigation would come from, the US ACE requirements clearly- state a permit cannot be issued without a final mitigation plan, as NCDOT is aware. Mr. McInnis reiterated the procedure would not be affected or change as a result of selecting a LEDP_. Mr. McInnis asked if there were any other team members with objections to selecting Alternative M1 as the LEDPA for Military Cutoff Road Extension. David Wainwright asked if there was enough mitigation available to corer impacts associated with _alternative M1. Mr. Militscher responded _alternative MI had 11,503 linear feet of stream impacts. Mr. Wainwright stated similar to the USACE, NCDWQ would not be able to issue a permit without appropriate mitigation. Mr. McInnis suggested the discussion should focus on whether the mitigation issue should delay- concurrence on a LEDP_. Mr. Militscher responded NCDOT is asking the agencies to select a Least Environmentally - Damaging Practicable _alternative yet NCD()T's preferred alternative, M1 +EH, has more wetland and stream impacts than _alternative 1I1 +U. Mr. McInnis agreed, but stated _alternative 1I1 +U has more impacts to historic properties, homes and businesses and LEDP A selection includes an assessment of balance. Mr. Militscher agreed, but noted the magnitude of impacts of the different alternatives is the reason EPA is requesting a conceptual plan showing there is available mitigation in this basin. Karen Fussell asked for clarification regarding how the requirement for mitigation would impact the selection of an alternative if all of the alternatives would require mitigation. Mr. McInnis answered all alternatives would require mitigation, but some alternatives would require less than others. Ms. Fussell was unclear how mitigation requirements would affect the ability- to select a LEDP_. Mr. Militscher stated in other cases they had been told mitigation would be in the ground before a project was permitted. In a recent case where NCDOT has inadequate mitigation available they are providing preservation in lieu of enhancement or restoration. EPA has a general policy- stating they do not prefer preservation versus either enhancing or restoring impacted streams. EPA is currently at odds on at least one project with very large impacts like this project, where ultimately the transportation agencies are not actually- proposing mitigation; they are proposing preservation, which is viewed differently by EPA. Rob Hanson stated the level of information provided for this project at this stage was comparable to what is provided for other projects. In addition, it has been disclosed what mitigation opportunities Ei are known at this time. From NCDOT's perspective, avoidance and minimization has been appropriately addressed throughout the project development process, and this project should not differ from the way other transportation projects are handled. Mr. Hanson noted as far as following the sequential requirements for avoidance and minimization, NCDOT is progressing on track and a detailed mitigation plan will be provided later. Chris Rivenbark agreed this project is not different than other NCDOT projects and the Department does not typically provide preliminary mitigation plans prior to the LEDP A. Ms. Fussell asked if NCDOT has changed any of their procedures regarding mitigation in regard to the project. Mr. 1lcInnis indicated NCD()T's procedures have not changed. However, for this project there has been additional investigation into mitigation opportunities. Ms. Fussell asked if mitigation is an issue that arises at every meeting at this stage. Mr. 1lcInnis responded that it was not. :Nis. Fussell inquired if the EPA's policies have changed. Mr. 1lilitscher stated they loop at each project individually, and conceptual mitigation was requested due to the magnitude of impacts of this project. Mike Kozlosky asked if this is the stage where this information is needed. Mr. 1lilitscher stated EPA needs the mitigation information at this stage, before the)- can concur on LEDP_, as stated in their letter. Mr. Kozlosky questioned if the Merger Team typically- loops at this information at this point in the process. Mr. 1lilitscher responded that typically- EPA does not require it at this stage, but given the magnitude of the impacts they requested a conceptual mitigation plan. :Nis. Fussell asked if a certain amount of impacts would trigger the request. Mr. 1lilitscher responded it is based on EPA's knowledge of what is in the area. As seen, there is not a lot of excess mitigation available and mitigation is supposed to corer all projects in the area. EPA is trying to identify if this will be an issue. EPA's perspective is if a LEDP A is selected that cannot be permitted, then there is no reason to concur on it. Mr. McLendon noted the USACE needs to beep the tvo issues separate as opposed to looping at alternatives in the context of available mitigation. Renee Gledhill - Earley questioned why NCDOT could not respond to EPA's request. She noted as Mr. 1lilitscher indicated, EPA does not request this type of information except when there is a large magnitude of impacts. Mr. McInnis offered a conceptual mitigation plan has been presented. Mr. Rivenbark followed known, existing mitigation opportunities in the basin were provided. Brad Sharer asked if the numbers provided were from EEP or if they also include mitigation banks, noting there were likely at least tvo private banks that extended into this watershed. Mr. McInnis stated every year NCDOT calculates impacts on funded projects and this information is provided to EEP so they can investigate mitigation. Information has been submitted to EEP for this project. LeiLani Paugh confirmed that Military Cutoff Road Extension and Hampstead By-pass are in the projections pro�-ided to EEP, as all funded projects for the area, for inclusion in their strategic plan. She noted impacts included in NCDOT's requests to EEP are generally higher than what would be expected after final design is complete. Ms. Paugh indicated what is typically- included in the environmental document for a conceptual mitigation plan is a statement saying on -site mitigation opportunities will be investigated to see if they are feasible and approved by the agencies. Any additional mitigation needs would be covered by EEP within the Hydrologic Unit Code (FIUC). Ms. Paugh stated actual compensatory mitigation cannot be discussed without concurrence on the LEDP_. Consideration of detailed compensatory mitigation before selecting a LEDPA is in violation of the law; therefore, a thorough investigation of compensatory mitigation is conducted after the LEDPA is concurred upon. She noted avoidance and minimization are another matter and they are 7 part of the project development process. Per standard process, NCDOT has provided EEP with projected impacts for their strategic plan. The plan evaluates the impacts and loops at what is available for potential mitigation, including NCD()T's on -site findings, and mitigation available from bankers and Design- Bid - Build. If more mitigation is required, then EEP will advertise anv additional mitigation needs at the appropriate time. Mr. McInnis noted the information would be included in the Final EIS and asked what additional information 1Ir. llilitsclier needed to progress. Mr. Militscher said lie needed the information Ms. Paugh provided in writing as it included more details than what was provided in the DEIS. :Nis. Kovasckitz asked Mr. Militscher if the meeting minutes would serve as satisfactory documentation of the information he needed. Mr. Militscher noted that decision would be up to the US ACE as the lead federal agency- and the permitting agency-. He said EPA has put forth their concerns in writing. If the request is completed then he would be willing to motive toward after the information is reviewed and determined to be acceptable in consultation with others at EPA. 'PostAfeeti , dote: A »,�itteia conceptual ulitz.gatioa plali » as subMilted to the ulo er teapl by' e -Mail oa Julie 5, 2012. . Ir. McInnis asked the other Merger Team members if the)vwere in agreementwith selecting _alternative M I as the LEDPA for Militar- Cutoff Road Extension. Several team members indicated they supported Alternative M1 and no other concerns were presented. Hampstead Bypass The discussion mowed to the Hampstead By-pass. Mr. McInnis noted _alternative E -H was NCD()T's recommended alternative. He noted with the selection of Alternative M1, Hampstead Bypass _alternative O is removed from further consideration as it only ties to Militar- Cutoff Road Extension _alternative M2. Mr. McInnis asked if anyone was opposed to, or had comments on, selecting _alternative E -H as the LEDPA for the Hampstead By-pass. Mr. McLendon requested clarification on how impacts were calculated at the interchanges, inquiring if they were based on everything inside the outermost lanes, plus an additional 25 feet. :Nis. Kovasckitz confirmed that was the methodology used. Mr. Jordan stated the USFNVS supports NCD()T's preferred alternative because _alternative MI +E -H will avoid adverse effects to Coolev's meadownie and avoids any potential conflicts with golden sedge. Travis Wilson stated the NC Wildlife Resources Commission had no objections to Alternative :NI1 +EH. David Wainwright asked for clarification regarding altering the Corbett Tract Mitigation Site Section 404 permit that was issued for the Wilmington By-pass. Mr. McLendon indicated modifying the permit is not desirable; however, this is weighed against potential impacts to Threatened and Endangered plants. Mr. McInnis noted the impacts to the site were predominantly the result of adding the additional 25 feet to the project slope stakes. :Nis. Kovasckitz reviewed a slide that showed the Hampstead Bypass interchange where it ties in on the south side of the US 17 Wilmington By-pass adjacent to the Corbett Tract. Ms. Kovasckitz noted there is no real defined point where the Corbett Tract meets the Residual Strip, but there is a verve tin)v section of land affected in the area where the tvo meet. Mr. McLendon asked if it was currently- possible to actively manage the site for the plant. Mr. Jordan noted this was discussed at a prior meeting; it needs to be managed, but it is difficult. Mr. Jordan stated the proximity of the road alone may lead to a determination of an adverse effect on the species because it makes it more difficult to manage the site. He further stated even with these potential effects, _alternative MI +E -H is a far better choice than the alternatives with M2, which would have taken plants. 8 Mr. Jordan then pointed out a correction that needed to be made in the DEIS and the handout. He explained that on Page 9 (Table 3) of the handout, the footnote says the project does not affect Holly- Shelter Game Land. He suggested that due to the management implications, the statement should read the project does not "directly-" affect this game land. Mr. Wilson noted that was in his comments as well. 1Is. Kovasckitz responded the change will be included in the FEIS. Mr. McLendon asked if there were traffic numbers that show the number of vehicles Military Cutoff Road Extension will divert from Market Street prior to constniction of the Hampstead By-pass. Mr. McInnis responded there is no interim traffic analysis. 1Ir. McLendon asked if progress has been made on addressing the concerns citizens have expressed regarding access to existing US 17 from the Hampstead By-pass. Mr. McInnis responded the team is continuing to wort; on the issue and information will be presented at the Concurrence Point 4A meeting. Concurrence Point 4A On the subject of Concurrence Point 4 A, Mr. McInnis asked the Merger Team for any comments or thotights on minimization for Military Cutoff Road Extension. Mr. Jordan stated lie would like to see action taken to avoid the 0.3 acre of direct impacts to the Plantation Road Site as it is intended to be a preservation area per the 2002 Section 7 Consultation. If direct impacts can be avoided, there would be no need to amend the Biological Opinion. Mr. Jordan requested direct impacts to the Corbett Tract and the Corbett Tract Residual Strip, which were included in the Section 7 Consultation, also be avoided. Mr. Jordan noted with the selection of Alternative :NIl +EH, the biological conclusion for golden sedge and Cooley's meadownie can be revised to "No Effect" unless future saidies show different results. Mr. McLendon commented lie believes there is a conservation easement associated with the West Bay- development north of Ogden Park that is not shown on the map. Mr. McInnis noted both right -of way (201 1) and constniction (2017) for 1lilitary Cutoff Road Extension are funded. Mr. McInnis indicated if the Merger Team was in agreement, NCD()T would like to hold the Concurrence Point 4A meeting for the Military Cutoff Road Extension portion of the project only in June in order to maintain the project schedule. voidance and minimization for Hampstead By-pass, in particular at the northern interchange, is still undencav and would be reviewed at a future Concurrence Point 4A meeting. The Concurrence Point 3 signature form was circulated and the meeting was adjourned. Attachments: CP 3 Concurrence Form (2) 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 Km Gillespie at k1 illesl2ie(a),ncdottgov or the writer in writing within seven (7) days. 9 - ------- . .... SECTION 41141 INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY DAMAGING PRACTICABLE IL,LTERNATIVE (LE(YY, ice! A) Proposed SR 1409 (Nfilitary Cutoff Rom]) 1,*.xIrct7sionan(i Prolmsed LIS 17 Hampstead Bypass, New Hanover and Pen(ler Counties 'I'll) Nos. 1.,L,1751 (Militaty Cutoff Rom] kxtension) and R-3300 (I lampstead Byl)ass) State Project No. ,1i1191.1.2, Corps \Ction 117 2007 1386 'I'lle purpose of ilic 17 Corridor StLId%' is to iIIII)rOVC dIC ttaffic carrying capacity and safety of the I'S Pan(] Market Street corticlor in the project area. LEAST ENVIRONMKNYALt-Y DAMAGING PRACTICABLE ALTERNATIVE (LEDPA): I. Alternative Nit -4-F.-H Yes No 4. Alternative t\11,41' El Yes E No 2. Altertiative, N121 0 ] Yes No 5. Mternative 112+1' EJ Yes E No 3. Alternative,\11-1-It U 'Yes 0 No The project team has concurred on the LRDPA for the proposed project as listed above. NAME SECT113N 404/NEPA INTERAGENcy AGREEMENT CON13URRENCE P13INT No. :3 LEAST F—NVIRnNMENTALLY DAMAGING PRATI CAISLE ALTERNATIVE (LEDPA) PROJECT TITLE AND PROJECT NUMBERS: Proposed SR 1409 (Military Cutoff Road) Extension and Proposed US 17 Hampstead Bypass, New Hanover and Pencler Counties 'I'll? Nos. U-4751 (Military Cutoff Road F'?xterision) and 8-3300 (Hampstead Bypass) State project No. 140191,12, Corps Action 11) 2007 1386 PURPIDSE: AND NEEo OF THE PpopasEo Ac*riON." The purpose of the US 17 Corridor Study is to improve the traffic carrying capacity and safety of the I-IS 17 and Market Street corridor in the project area. LEAST ENVIRONMENTALt-Y DAMA13ING PRACTICABL-E ALTERNATIVE (LEDPA): 1. AlternativeMl+fl-t-1 -yes No 4, Alternative M14-U E] Yes Z No 2. Alternative M2-1 0 Yes 3. Alternative Nil I 1� No 5. Alternative M2+I-J' Yes X No Yes No The project team has coxicutred on the 1,EDPik for die proposed project as listed above. N(.,D(;M �e NCSI1PO NC'DMF V2-