20140266 Ver 1_More Info Received_20140507

Burdette, Jennifer a
From: Coburn, Chad
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2014 2:10 PM
To: Burdette, Jennifer a
Subject: FW: FW: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: Abbington Oaks SAW- 2007 -03711 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Chad Coburn
Senior Environmental Specialist
NC Division of Water Resources
Water Quality Regional Operations
Phone: 910 - 796 -7379
email: chad.coburn(@ncdenr.gov
Section Wilmington Regional Office
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public
Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Hughes, Emily B SAW [ mailto: Emily.B.Hughes(@usace.army.mil]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:15 AM
To: David Brandes
Cc: Trey Coogle; Robert Needham; Tom Gulley; Coburn, Chad
Subject: FW: FW: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: Abbington Oaks SAW- 2007 -03711 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
David,
Below is the USFWS's response to your report. Fortunately, Gary was aware of the presence of
the RCW in the direct vicinity of the project area, and luckily, it is 0.1 mile beyond the
0.5 mile foraging limit. For future ESA surveys, it is critical to note what is beyond the
project area, not just what is on the property.
Thank you,
Emily
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: 7ordan, Gary [mailto:gary jordan(@fws.gov]
Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Hughes, Emily B SAW
Cc: Ellis, john; Shaver, Brad E SAW
Subject: Re: FW: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: Abbington Oaks SAW- 2007 -03711 (UNCLASSIFIED)
Emily,
Brad is correct in that RCW surveys and foraging habitat analysis for the NC 133 Connector
overlap your 5.7 acre project area. The most recent survey work from August 2012 shows an
active RCW cluster (BRU 71) approximately 0.6 miles to the northeast. As of August 2012,
1

your project site is not within the 0.5 mile foraging habitat partition of any known active
RCW cluster. Therefore, unless something has changed since then, I don't have any concerns
about this particular 5.7 acres. If it were 0.1 mile closer to BRU 71, then further analysis
might have been required, but that's a moot point here.
lust for future reference if you deal with this particular consultant again, he did not
follow proper procedures in his survey work. What he should have done is to look for cavity
trees within 0.5 mile of the edges of the proposed project area, not just on the property
itself. If there are no cavity trees within 0.5 mile of the project, then a "no effect"
biological conclusion is appropriate. If cavity trees are located within 0.5 mile, and pines
are being removed, then a foraging habitat analysis may be required. By limiting his survey
work to the 5.7 acres, he left himself vulnerable to allowing foraging habitat being removed
for a RCW cluster located off of the property.
Gary 7ordan
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
US Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636 -3726
Phone: 919 - 856 -4520 x.32
Email: gary jordan(@fws.gov
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Hughes, Emily B SAW <Emily.B.Hughes (@usace.army.mil> wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
john /Gary,
I am forwarding you the attached site survey conducted by Swift Creek Environmental for
a —5 acre tract off of Hwy 211 near Southport, Brunswick County. The report specifically
looks into the presence of Picoides borealis on the property, which they state, is not
present. I am aware of the 1992 historical presence located just east of the project site,
but Brad Shaver had informed me that this was over -ruled with the bio survey that was done
for the Dosher Cutoff DOT project. That is why I've also addressed Gary on this email so he
can confirm.
Could you look over the survey and provide comments at your earliest convenience?
Much appreciated,
Emily Hughes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
Office: (910) 251 -4635
Fax: [phone]
2

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the
public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction
Survey located at http : / /regulatory.usacesurvey.com /.
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: David Brandes [mailto:dkb2006gen(@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 3:10 PM
To: Hughes, Emily B SAW; treycoogle (@tozeroenergy.com
Subject: Fwd: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: Abbington Oaks SAW- 2007 -03711 (UNCLASSIFIED)
I am forwarding from another emai
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - --
From: "David Brandes" <DBrandes (@genesis - consulting- group.com>
Date: Apr 30, 2014 3:07 PM
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] RE: Abbington Oaks SAW- 2007 -03711 (UNCLASSIFIED)
To: <dkb2006gen(@gmail.com>
From: Trey Coogle [ mailto :treycoogle (@tozeroenergy.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 2:30 PM
To: David Brandes
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Abbington Oaks SAW- 2007 -03711 (UNCLASSIFIED)
yes and there was an email from Emily that she had spoken with Tom, that did the
survey, will forward that to you.
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
3