20130743_Email_20090105

R-2519B -.US 19E - Merger Team Update - Elevation
Subject: R-2519B - US 19E - Merger Team Update - Elevation
From: "Brown, Steven L" <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:34:50 -0400
To: "Baker, David" <[e-mail]>, "Buncick, Marella"
<marella [e-mail]>, "Militscher, Chris" <[e-mail]>, "Nicholson, Charles P."
<[e-mail]>, "Wrenn, Brian" <Brian.Wrenn@ncmai 1. net>, Marla Chambers
<mar][e-mail]>, Renee Gledhill-Earley <[e-mail]>, "Hughes,
Craig" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Stone, Dwight L" <[e-mail]>, "Hart, Teresa A" <[e-mail]>, "Thorpe, Gregory J"
<[e-mail]>, "Dagnino, Carla S" <[e-mail]>, "Hemphill, Jeffrey L"
<[e-mail]>, "Williams, Logan" <[e-mail]>, "Renninger, Heather L"
<[e-mail]>, "Moore, Brenda L" <[e-mail]>, "Nottingham, Andrew T"
<anottingham@ncdot. gov>
Merger Team:
The following is to provide an update for the team on the status of the merger process on this project:
As you may remember, our last Merger Team meeting on this project was a Concurrence Point 4A meeting
in April 2007. Concurrence was not reached, largely due to disagreement among the team regarding the
crossing of Big Crabtree Creek. Following this meeting, dissenting agencies submitted issue briefs on the
matter and the Merger Elevation process was begun.
Concurrently (and somewhat uniquely to this project), the Biological Assessment (BA), which included
R-2519B and the preceding three projects in the corridor (R-2518A, R-25188, and R-2519A) was being
finalized for submission to USFWS. Also, the 404/401 Permitting and Certification for the corridor projects
was split to include R-2518A, R-2518B and R-2519A under one permit, and R-2519B under a separate
permit/certification at a later date.
Completion of the BA, issuance of the Biological Opinion (BO), and finalization of the 404/401 permit and
certification for R-2518A, R-2518B, and R-2519A was an urgent priority for NCDOT, as the first two
projects in the corridor (R-2518A and R-2518B) were due to Let in late 2007/early 2008.
The BA, BA Addendums and additional information for the Corridor was submitted to USFWS between
August 2007 and February 2008. The USFWS issued a BO on the Corridor in March 2008. The BO
contains a condition (Item #9, Terms and Conditions) that requires that the existing culvert at the Big
Crabtree Creek crossing be removed and that the culvert is replaced with a bridge. An Individual 404
Permit for projects R-2518A, R-25186, and R-2519A was issued in April 2008. The IP states that "If and
until the BO is revised or supplemented", NCDOT will be required to install a bridge on Big Crabtree Creek.
Projects R-2518A and R-2518B were Let on 7/15/08. Project R-2519A is scheduled to Let in February
2010. Project R-2519B is currently scheduled for Right-of-Way in 2009, and Let is scheduled for 2012.
Meanwhile, during discussions on the BA/BO and 404 permits with the Corps of Engineers (USACOE),
USACOE recommended that, in light of the fact that there was a signed BO containing a condition that
stipulates a resolution to the disagreement that prompted elevation of the Merger Process, NCDOT pursue
any elevation of the issue through the Section 7 Consultation Process instead of through the Merger
Process.
Therefore, NCDOT will pursue elevation of the issue through the Section 7 Consultation Process.
Currently, NCDOT is supplementing and refining design, hydraulic, and environmental comparative
information on the Big Crabtree Creek crossing for submittal to USFWS. The target date for submittal of
this additional information is November 2008.
I of 2 1/5/2009 3:22 PM
R-2519B - US 19E - Merger Team Update - Elevation
K
16"
I appreciate your patience on this project as we navigate through a number of inter-related project/corridor
issues. If there any questions or concerns, please write or call me at your convenience.
thanks,
Steve
Steve L. Brown, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC. 27699-1548
Phone. [phone] est. 235
Far: [phone]
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/l)rcconstruct/pe/
2 of 2 1/5/2009 3:22 PM I
RE: R-2519B - US 19E - Merger Team Update - Elevation - CLARI...
Subject: RE: R-2519B - US 19E - Merger Team Update - Elevation - CLARIFICATION
From: "Brown, Steven L" <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:20:33 -0400
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
CC: "Baker, David" <[e-mail]>, "Buncick, Marella"
<[e-mail]>, "Nicholson, Charles P." <[e-mail]>, "Wrenn, Brian"
<[e-mail]>, Marla Chambers <[e-mail]>, Renee Gledhill-Earley
<[e-mail]>, "Hughes, Craig" <[e-mail]>, "Stone, Dwight L"
<[e-mail]>, "Hart, Teresa A" <[e-mail]>, "Thorpe, Gregory J" <[e-mail]>,
"Dagnino, Carla S" <[e-mail]>, "Hemphill, Jeffrey L" <[e-mail]>, "Williams,
Logan" <[e-mail]>, "Renninger, Heather L" <[e-mail]>, "Moore,
Brenda L" <[e-mail]>, "Nottingham, Andrew T" <[e-mail]>
Chris:
Thanks for the response -
Let me clarify one thing: My understanding of the recommendation by USACOE is that the condition
USFW S put forward in the signed BO needs to be addressed/elevated first - not in lieu of - the merger
process. In other words, NCDOT is to deal with any issue we have with that BO condition, then readdress
elevation of the CP4A. The logic seems to be that until any issue NCDOT has with the BO condition
is resolved, elevation through the merger process cannot continue.
In reviewing my phrasing below in the original e-mail, I shouldn't have used "Section 7 instead of the
Merger Process" - sorry about that...
The way I see this going is that: 1) NCDOT addresses it's concerns with the BO condition through the
Section 7 process-then
2) We (Merger Team) revisit CP 4A/continue with the elevation process...
I hope that is more clear - I am also cc'ing everyone on the original list - including all Merger Team
members with this clarification.
thanks,
Steve
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:59 AM
To: Brown, Steven L
Subject: RE: R-2519B - US 19E - Merger Team Update - Elevation
Importance: High
Steve: The original e-mail must have truncated addresses somehow. I printed out a copy of
your entire and message and the address list stops at TVA's CP Nicholson. Are you planning
to provide other team members (particularly the resource agencies that prepared elevation
briefs) with the information that you are providing FWS? Do you have a CID 4A form signed
by the USACE or other agencies? Has NCDWQ concurred on avoidance and minimization?
Furthermore, I do not agree with the statement: "USACOE recommended that, in ligh of the
fact that there was a signed BO containing a condition that stipulates a resolution to the
1 of 2 1/5/2009 3:22 PM
RE: R-2519B - US. 19E - Merger'ream Update - Elevation - CLARI...

disagreement that prompted elevation of the Merger Process, NCDOT pursue any elevation of
the issue through the Section 7 Consultation Process instead of through the Merger Process".
Section 7 of the ESA had nothing to do with EPA's elevating the culvert vs. bridge. EPA has
no direct authority to elevate anything under ESA. EPA elevated the issue due to water
quality concerns and avoidance and minimization requirements under the Clean Water Act.
I plan to discuss this matter further with EPA Atlanta to determine our next steps. Thank
you.
Christopher A. Militscher, REM, CHMM
USEPA Raleigh Office
919-856-4206
2 of 2 1/5/2009 3:22 PM