20170239 Ver 1_Re U-3109 A&B LEDPA confirmation USFWS_20170214

Wanucha, Dave
From:Jordan, Gary <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 9:29 AM
To:Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc:[e-mail]; Wanucha, Dave; Davila, Felix; Wilson, Travis W.; Gledhill-earley, Renee;
Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Dagnino, Carla S; Mason, James S; Mellor, Colin
Subject:Re: U-3109 A&B LEDPA confirmation; SAW-2002-20667
David,

The USFWS does not have any objections to the USACE's findings and decision in this matter. Thanks.

Gary Jordan

Fish and Wildlife Biologist,
Liaison to NCDOT

US Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726

Raleigh, NC 27636-3726

Phone: [phone] x.32
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

NOTE: This email correspondence and any attachments to and from this sender are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and may
be disclosed to third parties.

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:43 AM, Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
<[e-mail]> wrote:
Merger Team members,

Please see the attached memo prepared by NCDOT regarding the Mebane Bypass project (U-3109 A&B) in Alamance
County, NC. In January 2017 NCDOT identified that the final design stream impacts for the A Section were
significantly (~2x) higher than what was proposed in the 2007 Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). As a
result, and given current proposed project scheduling, the NCDOT met with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and N.C. Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) to discuss how to proceed with the permitting process. At
the 1/17/2017 meeting, the USACE and NCDWR suggested that NCDOT provide additional information regarding
the increase in impacts, as well as a re-assessment of the alternatives that were discussed in the FEIS/CP 3. The
purpose of the additional information was to determine if the LEDPA decision (Alternative 9) agreed to in the CP 3
meeting is still justifiable, or whether a CP 3 re-visit is necessary.

The attached information, provided to the USACE on 2/9/2017, details the site-by-site proposed stream and wetland
impacts for both the A and B project Sections, particularly those reported in the FEIS vs. the Final Design impacts
following the CP 4C meeting on 5/14/2015. NCDOT has also included itemized explanations for impact discrepancies
between the FEIS and Final Design, including changes in the Jurisdictional Determination following the 2012
reverification, estimating impacts using slope stakes only vs. slope stakes + 25', and including channel re-alignment
and bank stabilization impacts in Final Design only. In summary, NCDOT found that NCDOT's preferred alternative
(Alternative 9) still has the lowest amount of stream impacts (562 l.f. and 365 l.f. less than Alt. 8 and 10, respectively)
and wetland impacts (0.07 ac. less than Alt. 8, same as Alt. 10) as compared to the other FEIS/CP 3 alternatives.

After review of the attached memo and review of the CP 3, 4A, 4B, and 4C decisions, the USACE agrees with
NCDOT that Alternative 9 is still the LEDPA, that a CP 3 revisit meeting is unnecessary, and that the project can go
forward with permit evaluation through the Individual Permit process. Note that the Merger Team's choice of
1

Alternative 9 was based in large part to reductions in impacts to the Graham-Mebane Reservoir water supply
watershed critical area and Cates Farm (Section 4(f) resource and on National Register of Historic Places), compared
to Alternatives 8 or 10; these constraints have not changed. Also, project commitments made during the FEIS process
and the CP 4A meeting remain in-tact as discussed in the attachment.

In lieu of a meeting, I request that the Merger Team members review the attached memo and respond with any
comments regarding the USACE's findings within 2 weeks of this email. If you have any questions or concerns please
let me know.

Sincerely,

Dave Bailey

---
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: [phone], Ext. 30.
Fax: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

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://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.

2