20150525 Ver 1_Emails_20081223

OLF Interagency Meeting
Subject: OLF Interagency Meeting
From: "McDonald, Thaddeus B CIV NAVFAC Atlantic" <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:44:21 -0500
To: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, "Bradshaw, Dana S Mr CIV USA
IMCOM" <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
CC: <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, "Block, Paul A CIV NAVFAC Lant" <[e-mail]>, "Kerr,
Patricia k CIV USFF N453" <[e-mail]>, "Byrne, Meghan E CIV NAVFAC Lant"
<[e-mail]>, "Baker, Matthew E CDR USFF, N442A" <[e-mail]>,
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, "ffc.record FLTFORCOM ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
REPOSITORY" <[e-mail]>
Seasons Greetings:
I would like to extend our appreciation for your continued efforts to provide
valuable input on the environmental analysis of the project. I have attached
for your files a copy of the Draft October 7, 2008 meeting minutes which
incorporate agency comments received during the review period. These minutes
will be finalized at the next interagency meeting.
Also, available for your review are exhibits depicting the properties that the
Navy has secured rights of entry agreements. These exhibits include those
parcels outside of the core surveyed as part of the RCW effort. Exhibits can
be downloaded from the following ftp site:
Internet Explorer:
ftp://[e-mail]/OLFAgencyData
ftp://extranet%5COLFAgency:[e-mail]/OLFAgencyData
Other FTP Programs:
Host: bufisl.ene.com
Folder: OLFAgencyData
Username: extranet\OLFAgency
Password: EFAircraft
Note: If connecting via Internet Explorer and a username/password prompt does
not appear simply click FILE then click LOGIN AS
And finally, at our last interagency meeting the Navy proposed holding the
next meeting on January 13, 2009; based on a review of the project schedule we
have determined that the draft reports for the RCW and T&E surveys will not be
available until January 12, 2009. As this is data that we would like to be
able to present and have meaningful discussions with the group, we propose
pushing the meeting out to February 12, 2009 to allow the time to review the
report findings. In the meantime, for those of you that are interested, the
Navy can be available for a conference call the morning of January 12, 2009 to
provide a project update. Please let me know if you would be available to
attend an interagency meeting on February 12, 2009 and if you would be
interested in participating in a conference call on the morning of January 13,
2009.
Hope everyone has a safe and fun filled holiday.
Best Regards,
Thad McDonald
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Atlantic
Attn: Code EV21 TBM
6506 Hampton Boulevard, LRA Building A
Norfolk, Virginia 23508-1278
PH: [phone], FAX [phone]
[e-mail]
OLF2 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
##CODE.OLF2.AR##
7 Oct Interagency Meeting_Draft Minutes 23 Dec with agency comments.doc
Content-Type: application/msword
Content-Encoding: base64
I of 1 12/29/2008 9:48 AM
For Official Use Only: DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL
DRAFT 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
- Deleted & Amy Ewing
Deleted: VADCR
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 ]
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. V? DGIF stated that the T & E list for the Dory Site should be revised to include the j Deleted: vDCR
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 winteii to supplement point count data.- During __ . (Deleted:, and flushing birds
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
5. 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 survey 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 survey
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
landscapes.
b. ,NCDENR-inquired_ if wetlands- s 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.
Deleted: <#>It was discussed that
DRAINMOD would only be used to
determine the drainage effects of
man-made ditches, to evaluate the
zone of influence for the drainage
canals, but not to assess
wetland/upland boundaries in natural
landscapes.¶
Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Do Not Forward to Persons without a Demonstrated Official Need for the Information Contained 4
Herein
For Official Use Only: DELIBERATIVE PROCESS PRIVILEDGED MATERIAL
process.
crest factors include such
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
Deleted: The USACE stated that it is
too preliminary at this time to discuss
Section 404 permitting issues using
the initial wetland mapping. USACE
will not set a threshold on the amount
of wetland impact that would be
considered permittable. In general,
the project would be approved if
suitable mitigation is available to
offset wetland impacts and the project
is determined to be in the public
interest. The USACE will consider the
project impacts as a whole, including
impacts to threatened and
endangered species, cultural
resources, etc. $
discharge on the aquatic ecosystem.
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 b
Herein
Dory 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
Potential RCW
Habitat
FINAL

L?
- I -I
, M7
q ? M }
F vi;
1W b.

t
i???$yyy

5, ?rt F. t

4
^v i
'}? .fi4 i' f r f t,

k
I/
f
;y
t ;wvyi ? }

l>
Legend
High
Medium
Low
u Mason ROE
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5
Mason 2
Miles
o: entrap CW
t ; zr
Kabi
kJ ?' l rY ? f?5 y," ,?,?" 'y?Y ? ? \',rb'?'J i"
L5 5: ;
{ ,Y
• ?4
i. rS'., err, ,
,Jf
?e
i..
N 1
r7 rbr Z~?? ?`
t° l
r S \\
r ' •t
Legend
4f`"8 ?'y k RCW_Sandbanks
High
Medium
q? ? r
Jr
Low
';x fr Sandbanks ROE
Sandbanks o 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
w
JTy
p ? +?J
6?
E
?, 1 G
I I -
..air- h'???"-?....? ? .._ •. ;%
? ., ?I M may] ry??t
?„b K
F Legend
RCW Survey Sites
r
?.. r ® High
Medium
Low
Dory ROE
Dory 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Miles
Potential RCW
Habitat
FINAL
a4
2?? tr
Y
Mw '1
T?? hF
yrA f ?
? y.
a
41? M t
4 F,
t , rysti '?

d
4n
r, .. I
Legend
High
Medium
Low
Mason ROE
0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mason Miles
..?? :.
Hab:?
",.,f ?.?` _' ? y 1 pfd, ??? . I,??"+9>r
.?V
k ? t
JI.
Xy ?t
t . c p
?°?1 ;coq •?,-,
err ,
r ,
-_ Y ?e
-_- 511•
/
/ l
Legend
RCW Sandbanks
Ul- High
Medium Viti
r k r ,'lh ? <
Low
44W
aWVf t>r.<`
Sandbanks ROE
Sandbanks o 0.25 o.s 1 1.5 2
Miles