20150525 Ver 1_More Info Received_20081007

For Official Use Only: DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL
FINAL
This document was originated by and is a record of the United States Department of the Navy,
and is thus subject to the Freedom of Information Act as a record of the Department of the Navy.
Any request for a copy of this document should be referred to the appropriate Department of the
Navy office, in this instance the Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic, for a release
determination and direct response to the requestor. 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (6) (B) (iii); 32 C.F.R. 701.9.
OLF Meeting Minutes (Interagency Meeting)
7 October 2008
1030-1330
Location: Fort Lee, Virginia
Commander Matthew Baker, Dana Bradshaw (Fort Lee)
Patsy Kerr, & Rich Catoire
U.S. Fleet Forces
Chris Petersen, Thad John Ellis (USFWS, Raleigh)
McDonald. Meghan Byrne, &
Paul Block NAVFAC Atlantic
Greg Netti, Jone Guerin, & Tylan Dean (USFWS, Gloucester)
Steve Cza ka E & E
Brent Manning & Rob Moul Scott Jones (USACE, Wilmington
LMG District
Chris Ludwig (VADCR) John Evans (USACE, Norfolk
District
Linda Pearsall (NCDENR, Sergio Harding (VDGIF)
Division of Natural Heritage)
Maria Dunn NCWRC Am Ewing VDGIF
Cindy Karoly* (NCDENR, Ben West* (USEPA, Region 4)
Division of Water Quality)
* Attended via conference call for portion of meeting
1. Meeting started at 1030.
OLD BUSINESS
2. The Navy presented a meeting agenda and participant introductions were made around
the table.
27 June Meeting Minutes and Survey Memos
3. The 27 June Interagency Meeting Minutes were distributed for review on 01 August. The
minutes were reviewed, comments incorporated, and accepted as final.
4. Draft Avian Survey and T & E assessment memos were distributed for review on 01
August.
a. The Navy explained the rational behind the methodology to use avian survey
points separated by 1.0.miles vice 0.5 mile. The approximate 1-mile spacing
Do Not Forward to Persons without a Demonstrated Official Need for the Information Contained j
Herein
For Official Use Only: DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL
avoids double counting of species, covers all habitat types, and adequately
covers the entire project area during the protocol restricted survey period. Due to
the extent of the area being survey sample points located at 0.5-mile intervals
would not allow for the completion of survey during this protocol restricted survey
period. To compensate for this the survey period at each point was extended to 5
minutes.
b. The group discussed the purpose and utilization of the avian survey data in the
EIS analysis. As discussed, the avian surveys are not intended to be robust
biological surveys, but instead designed to supplement existing data sets
provided by the agencies. It was understood that this level of analysis is
considered appropriate to characterize the affected environment for NEPA
analysis. The Avian Survey Memo will be revised based on interagency
comments and resubmitted for agency concurrence with a more detailed
discussion of the goals and objectives of the planned surveys. This memo will be
reviewed and concurred with prior to the start of the overwintering study.
c. A review of the 2007 NEXRAD study (Mabey et al 2007) conducted in the region
that extensive bottomland hardwood tracts within the sites, such as the
Assamoosick Swamp, appear to be "magnets" for migratory bird stopovers. E&E
will ensure that this area is specifically included in the surveys.
d. The Center for Conservation Biology completed a study, partially funded by
VDGIF, evaluating bird migration movements in southeastern Virginia and
northeastern North Carolina using NEXRAD data. These data show from a
regional perspective the migratory "hot spots." VDGIF will provide a copy of the
report to E & E. The study may be useful for assessing regional bird migration
activity, but may have limitations for site-specific analysis.
e. It was suggested that the avian impact analysis should consider the proximity of
each site to other types of habitats. Addition of large open area habitat (meadow,
grassland, agricultural field etc) into a generally forested habitat for the proposed
airfield may have the effect of attracting open habitat bird species, resulting in a
positive impact on species diversity.
f. VDGIF stated that the T & E list for the Dory Site should be revised to include the
loggerhead shrike (state threatened) and blackbanded sunfish (state
endangered). These species will be added to the T & E memo and the memo
will be considered final.
g. VDGIF stated that the Navy should consider conducting site walk-overs to
supplement point count data. In addition, walk-throughs in open field/grassland
situations will cause birds to flush and therefore increase the detectability of
certain species, especially in the winter, to supplement point count data. During
the winter, birds are more social, and several species would congregate together
into communal flocks.
NEW BUSINESS
Right-of-entry (ROE) Request Process and Status
The Navy presented the area within each site covered by voluntary ROE agreements
with private landowners for site access and survey. Best available data will be used to
characterize site conditions on properties where ROE is not granted. Condemnation will
only be pursued to obtain specific property access for survey purposes if further data
analysis requirements warrant or if the interagency group provides guidance to access
these particular properties. Updated easement maps will be made available for agency
concurrence on current status.
Do Not Forward to Persons without a Demonstrated Official Need for the Information Contained 2
Herein
For Official Use Only: DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL
Bald Eagle and Colonial Waterbird Surveys
6. E&E summarized the results of the draft Bald Eagle and Colonial Waterbird Aerial Survey
Report submitted by the Center for Conservation Biology in September 2008. A final
report will be released upon completion of the Hale's Lake survey.
a. Other than the survey for Hale's Lake (to be completed spring 2009), the Navy
does not plan to conduct additional aerial surveys for bald eagles and colonial
water birds.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) Habitat Assessment and Planned Survey
7. The Navy presented the results of the RCW habitat assessment and described the
planned field surveys.
a. Potential RCW habitat areas were identified on aerial images, and mapped into
polygons. These polygons were then prioritized for field surveys as "low",
"medium" and "high" and confirmed by recognized RCW experts with both NC
and VA.
b. The Navy will coordinate with NCWRC to confirm the high priority ranking of the
polygon in the northern end of the Sandbanks site.
c. The Navy stated that representative trees will be aged within each polygon using
an increment borer at the onset of the field survey; if no appropriately aged trees
are identified, the area will be considered non-suitable nesting habitat and no
further survey will be conducted. Proper bore etiquette be used to protect the tree
from insect attack and disease intrusion (e.g., replace bores).
d. VDCR stated that lack of survey access to some of the survey polygons should
not be considered a limiting factor in the overall RCW assessment because all of
the surrey polygons are small, fragmented areas and are considered very
suboptimal habitat.
e. The agencies recommended that field surveys be led by an individual with
experience conducting RCW surveys in southeastern Virginia and northeastern
North Carolina. The state of Virginia has developed a list of approved RCW
contractors that should be reviewed for individuals for the survey team. The
Navy will establish a qualified survey team and notify the agencies in advance of
the field surveys to ensure the team is acceptable.
f. It was discussed that the potentially suitable RCW habitat (e.g., Dory, Mason,
and Sandbanks) will require approximately 2-week to survey with most of the
time spent in transit between the number of fragmented areas to be surveyed
g. It was discussed that any feature of interest identified during the field surveys
(e.g. nest cavities or evidence of cavity starts) should be photographed and GPS
points collected. Any questionable features observed in the field should be
photographed and located using GPS and presented for peer review. Proper
documentation of field conditions will be a critical component of the field surrey
and subsequent agency review.
Fall Migratory Bird Surveys
8. E&E presented the methodology for the fall migratory bird survey and results of survey
#1.
a. The group discussed the pre-planned timing of the fall surveys and the
probability that they will limit the ability to identify large movements of migratory
birds (fall outs), which are driven by the movement of weather fronts. Revisions
to current survey methodology are outlined in the Avian Survey Memo.
Do Not Forward to Persons without a Demonstrated Official Need for the Information Contained 3
Herein
For Official Use Only: DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL
Overwintering Bird Surveys
9. E&E presented the sources of waterfowl data collected for the EIS analysis and planned
overwintering survey methodology. After discussions with the Interagency group, the
Navy agreed to supplement the proposed overwintering survey efforts. The
supplemented survey efforts are outlined in the Avian Survey Memo.
Wetlands
10. LMG presented the results of the initial wetlands mapping (desktop analysis) which was
completed using soils data, aerial photography, topographic maps, and hydrography
data. Potential wetland areas were estimated using this method; wetland acreage
estimates are conservative. Field surveys to refine the initial wetlands mapping are
scheduled for late October and November. The Navy presented the results of the
preliminary wetland impact assessment, which was developed using the initial wetland
mapping and footprint for new construction. Potential wetland impacts will be refined
following the field surveys.
a. Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed into drainage systems as part of
the on-site evaluation for the Sandbanks and Hale's Lake sites due to the
presence of artificial drainage systems at these sites. Wells are not expected to
be necessary to evaluate wetlands at the Virginia sites. Data from the wells will
be collected over an approximately 3-month period and analyzed using the
analytical model: DRAINMOD. USACE pointed out that the use of groundwater
monitoring wells must follow the Technical Standard for Water-Table Monitoring
of Potential Wetland Sites published by the USACE (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-02,
June 2005). This technical note describes national standards for the collection,
analysis, interpretation, and reporting of hydrologic data, which may be used to
help determine whether wetlands are present on disturbed or problematic sites
that may be subject to Clean Water Act regulatory jurisdiction. LMG
acknowledged that the 3-month monitoring period proposed does not meet a
standard monitoring protocol in that data is not collected over the entire growing
season and the potential to not meet normal precipitation is greater. However,
LMG noted that per the technical note, short-term studies, like the one proposed,
may provide useful information if the normality of the precipitation during the
monitoring period is considered. USACE advised that such consideration would
need to be noted in their results as well as the DRAINMOD analysis. LMG
indicated that the well data and DRAINMOD analyses were simply additional
tools being utilized to evaluate the zone of influence for man-made ditches and
drainage canals, but not to assess wetland/upland boundaries in natural
landscapes.
b. NCDENR inquired if wetlands will be evaluated using the North Carolina Wetland
Assessment Methodology. The Navy has coordinated with John Dorney with
NCDNER, who indicated that training for the use of this methodology was
currently limited to USACE, NCDOT, and NCDENR personnel.
c. The USACE noted that the Regional Supplement to the 1987 USACE Wetland
Delineation Manual should be available in early 2009 for utilization with this
project.
d. LMG will search for photographs showing flooding at the Hale's Lake site during
Hurricane Floyd.
e. USFWS stated that the Navy should consider on a site-by-site basis whether
wetlands within airfield clear zones would need to be filled to deter bird activity.
Do Not Forward to Persons without a Demonstrated Official Need for the Information Contained 4
Herein
For Official Use Only: DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL
The Navy asked USACE if there was an impact threshold to aquatic resources
that would preclude Department of the Army (DA) authorization. USACE
responded that the use of the preliminary wetland / stream mapping results to
discuss CWA permitting issues is inappropriate. USACE will not set a threshold
on the amount of wetland impact that would be considered permittable. In
general, a DA authorization is granted once a project meets the criteria
established in the CWA Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines (avoidance, minimization,
and mitigation) and the project is determined to be in the public interest.
In a follow-up question, Commander Catoire asked for further clarification of the
404 (b) (1) guidelines and the public interest review. The USACE evaluation of a
Section 404 permit application involves multiple analyses, including (1)
evaluating the proposal's impacts in accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) (33 CFR § 325), (2) determining whether the proposal is
contrary to the public interest (33 CFR § 320.4), and (3) in the case of a Section
404 permit, determining whether the proposal complies with the Section 404 (b)
(1) Guidelines (40 CFR § 230).
The 404 (b) (1) Guidelines specifically require that "no discharge of dredged or fill
material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed
discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so
long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental
consequences" (40 CFR § 230.10(a)). In addition, no discharge can be permitted
under the Guidelines if it would, individually or cumulatively, cause or contribute
to significant degradation of waters of the United States, or violate other
applicable laws, such as State water quality standards, toxic effluent standards,
or the Endangered Species Act. The 404 (b) (1) Guidelines also state that no
discharge in wetlands shall be permitted unless appropriate and practicable
steps have been taken which will minimize potential adverse impacts of the
discharge on the aquatic ecosystem.
Ultimately, The decision whether to issue a Department of the Army permit will
be based on an evaluation of the probable impacts, including cumulative, of the
proposed activity and its intended use on the public interest. Evaluation of the
probable impact that the proposed activity may have on the public interest
requires a careful weighing of all those factors that become relevant in each
particular case. The benefits that reasonably may be expected to accrue from the
proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. The
decision whether to authorize a proposal, the conditions under which it will be
allowed to occur, are determined by the outcome of this general balancing
process.
The public interest factors include such considerations as conservation,
economics, aesthetics, navigation, fish and wildlife values, water supply, water
quality, energy needs, and flood damage prevention. The USACE also considers
all comments received in the permit process, whether in response to a public
notice or a public hearing. The USACE must determine that a proposal is not
contrary to the public interest in order to issue a permit. Any investment made for
the proposal outside of the Section 404 process cannot be factored into our
alternatives analysis under the 404 (b) (1) guidelines.
Next Meeting
11. The Navy presented target dates for future interagency meetings.
a. The group tentatively agreed to meet next on January 13, 2009 meeting location
to be determined.
Do Not Forward to Persons without a Demonstrated Official Need for the Information Contained 5
Herein
For Official Use Only: DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL
Action Items
12. The meeting closed with a review of the following action items:
a. The avian survey methodology will be revised based on comments received and
redistributed for concurrence.
b. VDGIF will provide a copy of the bird migration radar study to E & E.
c. Navy will provide copies of the Bald Eagle and Colonial Waterbird Aerial Survey
Report to the agencies once this report is finalized.
d. A copy of the PowerPoint presentation will be provided to the agencies along
with the meeting minutes for agency review and approval.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 1330.
Do Not Forward to Persons without a Demonstrated Official Need for the Information Contained 6
Herein