20150053 Ver 1_Email_20061018

Re R-2409C
Subject: Re R-2409C
From: Joel Setzer <jsetzer@dot state nc us>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12 05 34 -0400
To: John Hennessy <john hennessy@ncmail net>
CC: Greg Thorpe <gthorpe@dot state nc us>, Brian Wrenn <Brian Wrenn@ncmail net>
Thank you for this perspective I have heard these types of reports (the benefits of Merger) from
NCDOT top officials I also understand that their have been new efforts to help the process become
more successful As someone that supports the concepts of the Merger Process, I am glad and
relieved that it is working from a statewide perspective It gives me hope for Division 14 projects that
have at times looked hopeless
I have to do all I can to keep this project from slipping in schedule, except comprimise the natural
environment or meeting the project objectives At the last DOT Board Meeting, there was discussion
regarding our commitment to stay with Merger 01 instead of the process outlined in the new Federal
Transportation Act It was reported to get through Merger, it takes eight years I need to get through
it in one year to meet the current schedule
Division 14 projects in the Merger Process are
Needmore Road in Macon and Swain Counties, R-4440
Chambers Farm Bridge in Haywood County, -3189
NC 215 in Transylvania County, R-2594
US 19/23 in Haywood and Buncombe Counties, R-4406
Siler Road in Macon County, R-4748
My observations concerning Merger are based on these projects and are not a statewide perspective
I appreciate your comments and welcome any other information you may have that will assist in this
matter Also, I do not mind the sharing of our comments with others
Thanks
John Hennessy wrote
Joel, I usually try to stay of these discussions and let the DWQ project managers work through the
issues themselves However, with this project I do feel the need to make one point With all due
respect, I do not agree with your assessment of Merger I have probably been involved in more
Merger projects than anyone in the state, and I have seen the process work effectively for many
projects In addition, I have statistical data to show how permit processing times have dropped
precipitously since Merger was started (an IP for DOT in 1998 took an AVERAGE of 256 days to
get issued by DWQ Last year it was 30 days) Federal Highway, also, has some data on the
effectiveness of Merger that you might find interesting
My guess is that if projects in your area are held up in Merger, it is because of project specific
issues that would have to dealt with regardless of the process used The only difference is that we
1 of 3 10/23/2006 12 12 PM
Re R-2409C
are dealing with the issues early in Merger instead of working through the issues during the
permitting process all the while missing repeated let dates (like we used to do) Nobody wins in
that scenario
I don't know the specifics on this project, and will leave the discussion on whether to do Merger
or not, for Brian to deal with (he will let me know if needs my help), but I felt the need to defend
what I believe to be a good process that I have seen work effectively
I hope this email is not taken harshly It is not meant to be You will note I only included Brian
and Greg on the email So you know, my philosophy with the review and permitting of DOT
projects is that we are to approach projects from a problem-solving perspective We have a
responsibility to protect water quality, and we will do that But, I have directed our folks to find a
way to protect water quality while at the same time managing the planning process, and not let the
process manage us I know that may sound trite, but I tell you this because I want you to know
that DWQ is focused on helping DOT accomplish their goals in addition to accomplishing ours I
don't know if you have had a chance to work with Brian, but I think you will find him to be fair,
reasonable, and very dedicated If you have any questions, concerns, or complaints (for that
matter) about any projects in your area, please let me know I will do whatever l canto help
Thanks
Joel Setzer wrote
Thank you for this thought I do not mind having a meeting to discuss the matter The
meeting could be a conference call or occur in Sylva
This is the information I will be presenting at the meeting to express why the project should
not go through the Merger Process Division 14 has a handful of projects in the Merger
Process These projects are terribly behind schedule Each meeting appears to become a
posturing for agencies to achieve the outcome they want It has taken up to three years to
achieve concurrence point number one The average time on a statewide basis to complete
the Merger Process is eight years
This project is an old commitment by NCDOT to Transylvania County It has been delayed
numerous times It is now designated as a high priority in the Federal Transportation Act and
is funded with High Priority Funds I do not believe this project can stay on schedule
(construction in FY 2009) and go through Merger I support the concepts of Merger, it just
has never delivered a project for this Division on schedule I fact, Division 14 has never
gotten a project through Merger
Although I cannot recommend the project for Merger, I fully intend and expect we will work
with all agencies to avoid and minimize After your meeting, we have determined
Alternative 2 (the one that went through the Small Whorled Pogoma) is not worth further
consideration We have asked the consultant to look at two new alternatives that are
variations of Alternative 3 We also noted that Alternative 1 as shown at the meeting does
not account for extra widening in the curves It will have greater impacts and these need to be
considered
I believe we can accomplish a high quality project for all and not go through the cumbersome
2 of 3 10/23/2006 12 12 PM
Re R-2409C
process Merger has shown to be in Division 14
If after considering this information you would like to have the meeting to discuss Merger for
this project, please contact me and let me know if we need to have a meeting or if a
conference call will work
Brian Wrenn wrote
Joel,
Based on a field meeting last week for the R-2409C project, I think this project should go
through the Merger Process This is a federally funded project involving threatened and
endangered species, State Park lands, and proposed alternatives with a wide range of
impacts I think a scopmg meeting should be arranged to make a determination on
whether the Merger process is appropriate for this project If you would like to discuss
this further, please contact me at 919-733-5715 Thanks
Brian
Brian L Wrenn
Environmental Specialist III
Transportation Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd, Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-5715 - phone
919-733-5893 - fax
3 of 3 10/23/2006 12 12 PM
Re R-2409C
Subject: Re R-2409C
From: Joel Setzer <?setzer@dot state nc us>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09 12 23 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <bnan wrenn@ncmail net>
CC: david k baker@usace army mil, markdavis@dot state nc us, Michael Turchy
<maturchy@dot state nc us>, John Hennessy <John Hennessy@ncmail net>, "Jamie
Wilson, PE" <jwilson@dot state nc us>, Greg Thorpe <gthorpe@dot state nc us>,
Denise Moldenhauer <Demse_Moldenhauer@fws gov>, marshall elks@ncmail net
Regardless of Merger, we will have coordination. I am confident we can have
coordination without going through Merger
The new possible alternatives are only concepts at this time I can get them to you
and all agencies, but what you will be getting is a sketch of a possible center line
that does not show the footprint If the conference call materializes, we will do this
We will wait to see how others weigh in to see if they want to get these sketches and
have the conference call Another approach would be to let us explore these new
concepts deeper to see what the impacts might be and then have a meeting to discuss
Merger and alternatives that are feasible
Brian Wrenn wrote
I understand your concerns with the Merger Process However, this project will
require coordination with various agencies I have only presented DWQ's
perspective and I am unsure of the other agencies' feeling on this project If
DWQ is the lone voice calling for the project to be placed in Merger, then I see
little benefit in pursuing a meeting of any kind If other agencies have concerns
that they would like to express then I think a conference call would suffice You
mentioned revised plans with a hybrid of Alts 1 and 3 Would it be possible to
see these prior to a conference call discussing eligibility for the merger process?
Thanks
Joel Setzer wrote
Thank you for this thought I do not mind having a meeting to discuss the
matter The meeting could be a conference call or occur in Sylva
This is the information I will be presenting at the meeting to express why the
project should not go through the Merger Process Division 14 has a handful
of projects in the Merger Process These projects are terribly behind schedule
1 of 3 10/19/2006 2 58 PM
Re R-2409C
Each meeting appears to become a posturing for agencies to achieve the
outcome they want It has taken up to three years to achieve concurrence point
number one The average time on a statewide basis to complete the Merger
Process is eight years
This project is an old commitment by NCDOT to Transylvania County It has
been delayed numerous times It is now designated as a high priority in the
Federal Transportation Act and is funded with High Priority Funds I do not
believe this project can stay on schedule (construction in FY 2009) and go
through Merger I support the concepts of Merger, it dust has never delivered a
project for this Division on schedule I fact, Division 14 has never gotten a
project through Merger
Although I cannot recommend the project for Merger, I fully intend and expect
we will work with all agencies to avoid and minimize. After your meeting, we
have determined Alternative 2 (the one that went through the Small Whorled
Pogoma) is not worth further consideration We have asked the consultant to
look at two new alternatives that are variations of Alternative 3 We also noted
that Alternative 1 as shown at the meeting does not account for extra widening
in the curves It will have greater impacts and these need to be considered
I believe we can accomplish a high quality project for all and not go through
the cumbersome process Merger has shown to be in Division 14
If after considering this information you would like to have the meeting to
discuss Merger for this project, please contact me and let me know if we need
to have a meeting or if a conference call will work
Brun Wrenn wrote
Joel,
Based on a field meeting last week for the R-2409C project, I think this
project should go through the Merger Process This is a federally funded
project involving threatened and endangered species, State Park lands, and
proposed alternatives with a wide range of impacts I think a scopmg
meeting should be arranged to make a determination on whether the Merger
process is appropriate for this project If you would like to discuss this
further, please contact me at 919-733-5715 Thanks
Brian
2 of 3 10/19/2006 2 58 PM
Re R-2409C
Brian L Wrenn
Environmental Specialist III
Transportation Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd, Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-5715 -phone
919-733-5893 - fax
Brian L Wrenn
Environmental Specialist III
Transportation Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd , Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-5715 - phone
919-733-5893 - fax
3 of 3 10/19/2006 2 58 PM
Re R-2409C
Subject: Re- R-2409C
From: John Hennessy <john hennessy@ncmail net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10 06 38 -0400
To: Joel Setzer <jsetzer@dot state nc us>
CC: Greg Thorpe <gthorpe@dot state nc us>, Brian Wrenn
<Brian Wrenn@ncmail net>
Joel, I usually try to stay of these discussions and let the DWQ project managers
work through the issues themselves However, with this project I do feel the need to
make one point With all due respect, I do not agree with your assessment of
Merger I have probably been involved in more Merger projects than anyone in the
state, and I have seen the process work effectively for many projects In addition, I
have statistical data to show how permit processing times have dropped
precipitously since Merger was started (an IP for DOT in 1998 took an AVERAGE
of 256 days to get issued by DWQ Last year it was 30 days) Federal Highway,
also, has some data on the effectiveness of Merger that you might find interesting
My guess is that if projects in your area are held up in Merger, it is because of
project specific issues that would have to dealt with regardless of the process used
The only difference is that we are dealing with the issues early in Merger instead of
working through the issues during the permitting process all the while missing
repeated let dates (like we used to do). Nobody wins in that scenario
I don't know the specifics on this project, and will leave the discussion on whether
to do Merger or not, for Brian to deal with (he will let me know if needs my help),
but I felt the need to defend what I believe to be a good process that I have seen
work effectively
I hope this email is not taken harshly It is not meant to be You will note I only
included Brian and Greg on the email So you know, my philosophy with the
review and permitting of DOT projects is that we are to approach projects from a
problem-solving perspective We have a responsibility to protect water quality, and
we will do that But, I have directed our folks to find a way to protect water quality
while at the same time managing the planning process, and not let the process
manage us I know that may sound trite, but I tell you this because I want you to
know that DWQ is focused on helping DOT accomplish their goals in addition to
accomplishing ours I don't know if you have had a chance to work with Brian, but
I think you will find him to be fair, reasonable, and very dedicated If you have any
1 of 3 10/19/2006 2 59 PM
Re R-2409C
questions, concerns, or complaints (for that matter) about any projects in your area,
please let me know I will do whatever I can to help Thanks
Joel Setzer wrote
Thank you for this thought I do not mind having a meeting to discuss the
matter The meeting could be a conference call or occur in Sylva
This is the information I will be presenting at the meeting to express why the
project should not go through the Merger Process Division 14 has a handful of
projects in the Merger Process These projects are terribly behind schedule Each
meeting appears to become a posturing for agencies to achieve the outcome they
want It has taken up to three years to achieve concurrence point number one
The average time on a statewide basis to complete the Merger Process is eight
years
This project is an old commitment by NCDOT to Transylvania County It has
been delayed numerous times it is now designated as a high priority in the
Federal Transportation Act and is funded with High Priority Funds I do not
believe this project can stay on schedule (construction in FY 2009) and go
through Merger I support the concepts of Merger, it dust has never delivered a
project for this Division on schedule I fact, Division 14 has never gotten a
project through Merger
Although I cannot recommend the project for Merger, I fully intend and expect
we will work with all agencies to avoid and minimize After your meeting, we
have determined Alternative 2 (the one that went through the Small Whorled
Pogoma) is not worth further consideration We have asked the consultant to
look at two new alternatives that are variations of Alternative 3 We also noted
that Alternative 1 as shown at the meeting does not account for extra widening in
the curves It will have greater impacts and these need to be considered
I believe we can accomplish a high quality project for all and not go through the
cumbersome process Merger has shown to be in Division 14
If after considering this information you would like to have the meeting to discuss
Merger for this project, please contact me and let me know if we need to have a
meeting or if a conference call will work
Brian Wrenn wrote
2 of 3 10/19/2006 2 59 PM
Re R-2409C
Joel,
Based on a field meeting last week for the R-2409C project, I think this project
should go through the Merger Process This is a federally funded project
involving threatened and endangered species, State Park lands, and proposed
alternatives with a wide range of impacts I think a scopmg meeting should be
arranged to make a determination on whether the Merger process is appropriate
for this project If you would like to discuss this further, please contact me at
919-733-5715 Thanks
Brian
Brian L Wrenn
Environmental Specialist III
Transportation Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd , Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-5715 - phone
919-733-5893 - fax
3 of 3 10/19/2006 2 59 PM
US 64
Subject: US 64
From: Marshall Ellis <marshall ellis@ncmail net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10 24 15 -0400
To: Brian Wrenn <bnan wrenn@ncmail net>
Hi Brian -
Thanks very much for your comments on the US 64 project up in
Transylvania County I agree with your observations and share your
concerns over the review process, especially given the issues
involving state park property, rare species, multiple agencies,
etc I'm not familiar with DOT's Merger Process, and while I
appreciate the frustration over timing, this one has arrived
burdened by some touchy stuff that might not be easily or quickly
resolved. Does anyone know what level of environmental review and
compliance will be required for this - Environmental Assessment vs
Enviornmental Impact Statement> Seems to me that with the issues
and impacts that are involed, an EIS will not be a surprise. On
balance, given the project's complexity and the concerns already
expressed, I would vote for more, not less, review.
Thanks - I will look forward to further discussions on this.
Marshall Ellis
Marshall Ellis
Mountain Region Biologist
NC Division of Parks and Recreation
159 Inland Sea Lane
Troutman, NC 28166
704-528-6514
Marshall Ellis <marshal] ellis(a,ncmail net>
Mountain Region Biologist
1 NC Division of Parks and Recreation
1 of 1 10/19/2006 2 59 PM
Re R-2409C
Subject: Re R-2409C
From: Joel Setzer <Jsetzer@dot state nc us>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12 05 34 -0400
To: John Hennessy <john hennessy@ncmail net>
CC: Greg Thorpe <gthorpe@dot state nc us>, Brian Wrenn
<Brian Wrenn@ncmail net>
Thank you for this perspective I have heard these types of reports (the benefits of
Merger) from NCDOT top officials I also understand that their have been new
efforts to help the process become more successful As someone that supports the
concepts of the Merger Process, I am glad and relieved that it is working from a
statewide perspective It gives me hope for Division 14 projects that have at times
looked hopeless
I have to do all I can to keep this project from slipping in schedule, except
comprimise the natural environment or meeting the project objectives At the last
DOT Board Meeting, there was discussion regarding our commitment to stay with
Merger 01 instead of the process outlined in the new Federal Transportation Act It
was reported to get through Merger, it takes eight years I need to get through it in
one year to meet the current schedule
Division 14 projects in the Merger Process are
Needmore Road in Macon and Swain Counties, R-4440
Chambers Farm Bridge in Haywood County, -3189
NC 215 in Transylvania County, R-2594
US 19/23 in Haywood and Buncombe Counties, R-4406
Siler Road in Macon County, R-4748
My observations concerning Merger are based on these projects and are not a
statewide perspective
I appreciate your comments and welcome any other information you may have that
will assist in this matter Also, I do not mind the sharing of our comments with
others
Thanks
John Hennessy wrote-
1 of 4 10/19/2006 2 59 PM
Re R-2409C
Joel, I usually try to stay of these discussions and let the DWQ project managers
work through the issues themselves However, with this project I do feel the need
to make one point With all due respect, I do not agree with your assessment of
Merger I have probably been involved in more Merger projects than anyone in
the state, and I have seen the process work effectively for many projects In
addition, I have statistical data to show how permit processing times have
dropped precipitously since Merger was started (an IP for DOT in 1998 took an
AVERAGE of 256 days to get issued by DWQ Last year it was 30 days)
Federal Highway, also, has some data on the effectiveness of Merger that you
might find interesting
My guess is that if projects in your area are held up in Merger, it is because of
project specific issues that would have to dealt with regardless of the process
used The only difference is that we are dealing with the issues early in Merger
instead of working through the issues during the permitting process all the while
missing repeated let dates (like we used to do) Nobody wins in that scenario
I don't know the specifics on this project, and will leave the discussion on
whether to do Merger or not, for Brian to deal with (he will let me know if needs
my help), but I felt the need to defend what I believe to be a good process that I
have seen work effectively
I hope this email is not taken harshly It is not meant to be You will note I only
included Brian and Greg on the email So you know, my philosophy with the
review and permitting of DOT projects is that we are to approach projects from a
problem-solving perspective We have a responsibility to protect water quality,
and we will do that But, I have directed our folks to find a way to protect water
quality while at the same time managing the planning process, and not let the
process manage us I know that may sound trite, but I tell you this because I want
you to know that DWQ is focused on helping DOT accomplish their goals in
addition to accomplishing ours I don't know if you have had a chance to work
with Brian, but I think you will find him to be fair, reasonable, and very
dedicated If you have any questions, concerns, or complaints (for that matter)
about any projects in your area, please let me know I will do whatever I can to
help Thanks
Joel Setzer wrote
Thank you for this thought I do not mind having a meeting to discuss the
matter The meeting could be a conference call or occur in Sylva
2 of 4 10/19/2006 2 59 PM
Re R-2409C
This is the information I will be presenting at the meeting to express why the
project should not go through the Merger Process Division 14 has a handful
of projects in the Merger Process These projects are terribly behind schedule
Each meeting appears to become a posturing for agencies to achieve the
outcome they want It has taken up to three years to achieve concurrence point
number one The average time on a statewide basis to complete the Merger
Process is eight years
This project is an old commitment by NCDOT to Transylvania County It has
been delayed numerous times It is now designated as a high priority in the
Federal Transportation Act and is funded with High Priority Funds I do not
believe this project can stay on schedule (construction in FY 2009) and go
through Merger I support the concepts of Merger, it dust has never delivered a
project for this Division on schedule. I fact, Division 14 has never gotten a
project through Merger
Although I cannot recommend the project for Merger, I fully intend and expect
we will work with all agencies to avoid and minimize After your meeting, we
have determined Alternative 2 (the one that went through the Small Whorled
Pogoma) is not worth further consideration. We have asked the consultant to
look at two new alternatives that are variations of Alternative 3 We also noted
that Alternative 1 as shown at the meeting does not account for extra widening
in the curves It will have greater impacts and these need to be considered
I believe we can accomplish a high quality project for all and not go through
the cumbersome process Merger has shown to be in Division 14
If after considering this information you would like to have the meeting to
discuss Merger for this project, please contact me and let me know if we need
to have a meeting or if a conference call will work
, Brian Wrenn wrote
Joel,
Based on a field meeting last week for the R-2409C project, I think this
project should go through the Merger Process This is a federally funded
project involving threatened and endangered species, State Park lands, and
proposed alternatives with a wide range of impacts I think a scoping
meeting should be arranged to make a determination on whether the Merger
process is appropriate for this project If you would like to discuss this
further, please contact me at 919-733-5715 Thanks
3 of 4 10/19/2006 2 59 PM
Re R-2409C
Brian
Brian L Wrenn
Environmental Specialist III
Transportation Permitting Unit
Division of Water Quality
2321 Crabtree Blvd, Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
919-733-5715 - phone
919-733-5893 - fax
4 of 4 10/19/2006 2 59 PM