20161083 Ver 1_17BP 7 R 87 T&E statuses_20161103

Carpenter,Kristi
From:Sutton, Laura E
Sent:Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:56 PM
To:Tracy Parrott ([e-mail]); Parker, Jerry A; Thomson, Nicole J
Cc:Brandon Johnson ([e-mail])
Subject:17BP.7.R.87 T&E statuses
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Please see attached from NES concerning the additional surveys for T&E species on the project and let me know if
anything additional is required from NCDOT.

Thank you,

Laura E. Sutton, PE, CPM

Project Executive
Priority Projects Unit

NCDOT Technical Services

919 707 6607 office
[e-mail]

1020 Birch Ridge Drive

Raleigh, NC 27610

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the

North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Mason, James S
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:35 PM
To: Sutton, Laura E
Subject: RE: bridge T&E statuses

Laura-

I went ahead and surveyed all three bridges for T&E. Myself and Bill Barrett performed the surveys/assessments on
10/11/16. The results are as follows:

Br 61, Orange Co: Assessed for smooth coneflower and Michaux’s sumac. Minimal habitat present, no individuals of
either species observed (this is within the optimal survey window). No Natural Heritage Program (NHP) occurrences
within 1.0 mile, Biological Conclusion of No Effect.

Br 254, Guilford Co: Assessed for small whorled pogonia. Minimal habitat present at the top of the roadside
embankment in southwest quadrant. Most of the area to be impacted in that quadrant that is inside the woodline on
1

the plans is actually the mowed roadside embankment and is not habitat. If the easement does extend to the top of the
embankment, then a small sliver of potential, although sub-optimal, habitat is present. No individuals were observed,
but this is outside of the optimal survey window. No NHP occurrences within 1.0 mile.

Br. 207, Guilford Co: Assessed for small whorled pogonia. No habitat is present, no individuals observed (although
outside of optimal survey window). This bridge had already been assessed by myself and Jeff Hemphill on May 17, 2016
and information was sent to Jamie Lancaster on May 18, 2016 (that assessment was within the optimal survey window).
No NHP within 1.0 mile. No Effect for Biological Conclusion due to no habitat and May survey.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Thanks,

Jim

From: Sutton, Laura E
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:13 AM
To: Mason, James S <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: bridge T&E statuses

FYI

L

From: Tracy Parrott \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 8:53 AM
To: Sutton, Laura E
Cc: 'Brandon Johnson'
Subject: RE: bridge T&E statuses

L,

Thanks for the message yesterday and phone conversation this morning regarding the follow up NES assessments.

Per our discussion, there is not an issue with the Cape Fear Shiner in Guilford County. Therefore, looks like NCDOT NES
only needs to assess for smooth cone flower (BR 61) and small whorled pogonia (BR 254 and BR 207).

We had not anticipated the need for the follow up assessments, but want to do anything we can to avoid additional
delays in getting the permits to the agencies and securing their approvals as expeditiously as possible. We (NCDOT and
our Team) have struggled a bit with the agencies on the first couple of permits for the YR 4 project and our schedule has
suffered, but the issues have been related to PDEA type matters which are beyond our team’s control. As such, it would
be helpful if NES can visit these three projects as soon as they can and document their findings.

We are prepping RFC plans for BR 61 and BR 254,and have started ROW acquisition. These are the next two projects for
construction. We need to avoid any further delays on this package and want to submit the BR 61 and BR 254 permit
packages as soon as possible.

Thanks again for your follow up on this. Please keep me posted. TNP

From: Tracy Parrott \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Friday, September 16, 2016 11:17 AM
2

To: 'Sutton, Laura E' <[e-mail]>
Cc: 'Nancy Scott' <[e-mail]>; 'Michael Wood'
<[e-mail]>; 'Brandon Johnson' <[e-mail]>
Subject: FW: bridge T&E statuses

L,

Given the back & forth on the environmental permits for BR 221 and BR 132, our team has been reviewing the process
the avoid similar delays on the other projects. Our subconsultant has reviewed the status of the T&E surveys for the
remaining projects and has noted that some of the surveys (smooth cone flower, small whorl pogonia) have exceeded
the 2-year survey life. Can you check with PDEA NEU to see if they can address these potential issues.

If needed, our sub Three Oaks can perform the surveys. They have spoken with USFWS and have confirmed that, even
though we are outside the recognized survey window for these species, survey updates would be allowed now in order
to not delay the projects.

Please let me know what is determined and if our Team needs to assist with these issues. Thanks, TNP

From: Nancy Scott \[mailto:[e-mail]\]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2016 8:42 AM
To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]>
Cc: Michael Wood <[e-mail]>; 'Brandon Johnson' <[e-mail]>
Subject: bridge T&E statuses

Hey Tracy,
For the remaining bridges, here are the T&E statuses:
61 – aquatics species are covered, a smooth coneflower survey is needed
207 – we should be covered on aquatics, though they may question the cape fear shiner. Small whorled pogonia survey
is needed
254 – aquatics are covered, small whorled pogonia survey may be needed if there is habitat
379 – all species are covered
431 - we should be covered on aquatics, though they may question the cape fear shiner. Plant species are covered.

For 207 and 431, CFS is not listed in Guildford County, but we had a hiccup with this species in this county before. Gary
Jordan has stated they are not concerned with this species in Guilford (see email attached from March). The other two
bridges in Guildford 254 and 351 have letters stating this explicitly.
I’m in the field today, but you can reach me on my cell if you have questions.
Thanks,
Nancy

Nancy Scott
Three Oaks Engineering l The Catena Group
1000 Corporate Drive, Suite 101
Hillsborough, NC 27278
919 732 1300 office
919 448 1632 mobile

[e-mail]
Please note new email address effective later this year:

3

Spam
Phish/Fraud
Not spam
Forget previous vote

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
4