20141132 All Versions_Other Agency Comments_20090922

Merger 01 Process
Issue Briefing Format (Felix Davila - 9/22/09)
1. Proiect name and brief description: US -1 from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to
North of Fox Road (SR 1606), Richmond County, Federal -Aid Project No. NHF-
1(1), TIP No. R -2501, State Project No. 8T580501.
2. Last Concurrence Point Achieved: CP 3 (LEDPA)
• 2/15/01 — Reached CP 3 Concurrence
Concurrence Point Meetings Dates: CP 2A/ 4A
• 09/18/08 — Team met and agree that they needed a field visit
• 11/12108 — Team Field Meeting agreed on structure type and length at
seven (7) of the nine (9) sites. Additional information and /or discussion
were requested for Structure 7(South Prong Falling Creek)(W -26) &
Structure 8 ( Falling Creek)(W37).
• 08/20/09 — Concurrence Point 2A/4A Meeting attended by Ron Lucas in
place of Felix Davila Concurrence on Structure 7 was agreed.
Concurrence not reached in Structure 8. It was agreed to elevate issue.
3. Proposal and Position:
• Structure 8 crosses the EEP's Mc Donald's Pond Restoration Site (W37).
During the November 2008 field meeting, resource agency
representatives preferred bridges that would span the braided stream
system, sewer easement, and allow wildlife passage. At the 11/12/08 field
meeting resource agencies suggested to NCDOT to investigate moving
the alignment to the north.
• NCDOT investigated shifting the alignment to the north and presented the
information on the 08/20/09 meeting. NCDOT found that there is not an
advantage to the wetland system in shifting the alignment north since it
would impact other wetland systems outside the EEP area. NCDOT
proposes a 120 foot bridge length with 36 inch equilibrium pipes on each
side of the stream crossing for wetland connectivity. A 60 inch pipe is also
proposed for upland wildlife passage at this site.
• Because of the high quality of this wetland system, the agency
representatives do not support a 120 foot bridge across the system.
Several expressed concerns that a shorter bridge would change the
braiding of the stream system and have indirect and cumulative impacts
upstream and downstream.
• The Merger team did not concur with the proposed bridge length of 120
foot at this site. NCDOT and FHWA(represented by Ron Lucas at the
meeting) do not agree with spending the additional money to span the
system.
4. Reasons for non - Concurrence:

NCDOT and FHWA(represented by Ron Lucas at the meeting) do not
agree with spending the additional money to span the system. Particularly
Ron Lucas (personal communication) commented, he did not hear any
compelling reason at the 8/20/09 meeting to justify, that it was a
reasonable public expenditure to increase the bridge length to either 450
or 560 foot bridge
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated
or jeopardized if the proposed action were implemented and explain the
basis for violation.
• FHWA (as the sole federal funding Agency) and NCDOT have authority
under 23 CFR 775(a) & (b) to make determinations of what represents a
reasonable public expenditure when weighed against other social,
economic, and environmental values, and the benefit realized is
commensurate with the proposed expenditure. Copy of the relevant
portion of the law or regulation is attached.
6. What alternative course of action do you recommend?
FHWA supports the selection of the proposed bridge length of 120 foot at this
site and have determined it is a reasonable expenditure of public funds. We
believe, FHWA (as the sole federal funding Agency) and NCDOT (as the sole
state funding agency) have sole authority of determining what is a reasonable
expenditure of public funds, to minimize environmental impacts. So after
considering any new and compelling argument to be presented at the elevation
meeting FHWA and NCDOT will make a determination of what is a reasonable
expenditure of public funds to minimize environmental impacts at the ESP's Mc
Donald's Pond Restoration Site (W37).
7. Attachment: 23 CFR 775(a) &Lbj
§ 777.5 Federal participation.
(a) Those measures which the FHWA and a State DOT find appropriate and necessary
to mitigate adverse environmental impacts to wetlands and natural habitats are eligible
for Federal participation where the impacts are the result of projects funded pursuant to
title 23, U.S. Code. The justification for the cost of proposed mitigation measures should
be considered in the same context as any other public expenditure; that is, the proposed
mitigation represents a reasonable public expenditure when weighed against other
social, economic, and environmental values, and the benefit realized is commensurate
with the proposed expenditure. Mitigation measures shall give like consideration to traffic
needs, safety, durability, and economy of maintenance of the highway.
(b) It is FHWA policy to permit, consistent with the limits set forth in this part, the
expenditure of title 23, U.S. Code, funds for activities required for the planning, design,
construction, monitoring, and establishment of wetlands and natural habitat mitigation
projects, and acquisition of land or interests therein.