The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20171597 Ver 2_Bridge 19 Chatham Replacement Mitigation_20190326Carpenter,Kristi From: King, Art C Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:18 PM To: Norton, Apri) R Cr. Carpenter,Kristi Subject: Bridge 19 Chatham Replacement Mitigation Attachments: 1700_001.pdf; Chatham-Lee 19 over Deep River.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged April, Below is the correspondence between James Hauser (NCDOT) and, the Corp of Engineers to determine what was required for mitigation at Bridge 19 in Chatham County. While the original calculation (388.5 ft.) was based on the various components within the right of way extension, and calculated at a 3:1 ratio, Andy Williams had determined that mitigation was only necessary for the length of the permanent right of way that overlapped the conservation easement under the bridge. The calculated amount of mitigation is based on the center line of the river to right of way boundaries at a 2:1 ratio. The right of way on this roads measures 60ft out from the center line of the road in both directions (or 120 ft.). Accounting for the skew of the river, the actual measurement at mid channel was 129.5 ft @ 2:1 ratio = 259 ft. There is no revised plan. The attached plan sheet is the same as was submitted with the original PCN. The only revision was in the Biological Opinion which sought to extend the length of time the center causeway would remain in the water during construction. The Corp of Engineers had agreed to delay the mitigation issue in order to allow DOT to get the permit and start construction. They had always intended to require the mitigation once the issue with the conservation easement was settled. Please see the attachments; the scale on the plan sheet is correct. The other attachment is the original deed of the Conservation Easement which had mistakenly included the bridge and the roadway as part of the Conservation Easement, that is part of the reason the mitigation requirement was delayed. It was later determined that only the stream channel itself need to be mitigated for. The issue of the mitigation within the Conservation Easement had mostly been handled in Raleigh. However; if you still have questions please let me know and I will try to get you more information. Thanks, Art C. King Division Environmental Supervisor NCDOT Highway Division 8 910 773 8015 office ��k.i.u�.c�u��dr�t.� 1 121 Dot Drive Carthage, NC 28327 : � �.� ... � �tx� ��: � �.� � � � � �;� � z �� .�;� � I see that the IRT has resolved the final mitigation credit replacement required for the NC 42 bridge replacement at the Carbonton Dam site. Fortunately, the final compensation request of 259 feet is significantly below their original request. They had originally asked for compensation for the 60 feet of existing NCDOT Right-of Way under the old bridge, and had applied a ratio of 3:1 to all other impacts. This 259 feet of mitigation can be addressed with a standard DMS Mitigation Request, along with appropriate notes to clarify the atypical situation. I have done one of these credit replacement requests before and can help if you need. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Andrew.�.V\lilliarn�s2C�_usa�e_:arrn�y.:rn�.%I> ................................................................................................_. _ ...._.... Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 1:27 PM To: King, Art C <ac_ki_n�(�_n�d_crt:.�crv> Cc: Matthews, Monte K CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <If�Ilcante.IK.IMIatthewsC�_u_sa_ce.:a_rm��.._m�i_I>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) .............................................................................................. ............ <Tcrdd.J.Tu�wel_I_..C,�_u_sa_ce.._a_rrn�.y.:_rn�i.l>; Hauser, James W <jhauser(�ncdcrt.�crv>; Paugh, ............................................ . ...._.... Leilani Y <I..pa_u.�h_(e�_n�d_crt:.�crv>; Baumgartner, Tim <ti_rn�_,_�aurn�.�a_rtner(e�_n�d_e_n_r:.�crv>; Jordan, Gary <�ar.y.... �crrda_n_��ws.:.�crv>; Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Andrew.�.V�lilliam�s2C�_usa�e_:arm��.:m�.%I> ................................................................................................_. _ ...._.... Subject: [External] SAW-2018-00212 NC Bridge 19 Chatham/Lee county mitigation CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an attachment to re.perrt :s.pa_rn�_..C`_"�.._nc.:.�ca.vcrn�a_i.ltcr.:_re..p.ca_rt.:s.pa_��_..,C`„�,.._�_�:.�.crv> A rt, Please see below. Based on this email, and all the pertinent facts involving this project, we have determined that compensatory mitigation associated with the pending revised permit application for NC Bridge 19 on NC 42 over the Deep River in Chatham/Lee County (SAW-2018-00212) should be: 259 credits (62+30+37.5) x 2 Please make sure that you provide the appropriate documentation/request when you resubmit the permit application for your revisions. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Andrew Williams Regulatory Project Manager US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 919-554-4884 ext. 26 -----Original Message----- From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) Sent: Tuesday, March 5, 2019 11:05 AM To: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Andrew.�.V\lilliarn�s2C�_usa�e_:arrn�y.:rn�.%I> ................................................................................................_. _ ...._.... Subject: FW: Carbonton Dam Mitigation Site Encroachment -----Original Message----- From: Hauser, James W [rn�a_i.ltcr.:.�h_a_use_r..C,�_n_cdca.t.:.�crv] Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:42 PM To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <Tca_d_d_:J.:Tu�wel.l_(�_usa�e.._a_rm�.y.:_m�_i.l>; Hughes, Andrea W CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <An_d_rea.._V\l..II_�_u�h_es(�_usa�e_:arm�.�.:m�.%I> Cc: Paugh, Leilani Y<Ipa_u.�h_(c�_n�d_crt:.�crv>; Welch, Tim <twelc_h_(c�_n�dca.t...�ca.v> Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Carbonton Dam Mitigation Site Encroachment In response to the IRT correspondence dated March 28, 2018, NCDOT has reviewed the Carbonton Dam conservation easement which was put in place by Restoration Systems, LLC. From this review, we have concluded that the original easement survey was recorded in error. I have attached the recorded conservation easement, which includes the recorded plat on page 9. Note that the survey shows the conservation easement boundary crossing the NC 42 ROW on both the east and west sides, such that the entire road and ROW are included within the conservation easement. This would imply that the conditions of the conservation easement apply to the ROW, and indeed to the road surface itself. NCDOT has no record of agreeing to such a conservation easement across the highway ROW. If the IRT contends that the conservation easement includes the NC 42 ROW, then documentation will need to be produced which indicates that NCDOT agreed to this easement being placed. Clearly, it is not possible for third parties to place conservation easements (or any easements) across state ROW without consent. The survey appears to have been recorded in error, and as a result, the conditions of the conservation easement do not apply to the existing NC 42 ROW. Because of this, NCDOT does not agree that it is appropriate to require compensation for the portion of the bridge replacement work within this existing ROW. If no legitimate conservation easement was in place, then no easement value has been lost or diminished by the current bridge replacement project. Likewise, if the IRT concluded that it was possible to extend stream mitigation credits under the old bridge, then it is logical that credits could similarly be extended under the new one as well, under the same criteria. The pre- and post-construction conditions within the existing NC 42 ROW will be identical. For these reasons, we call into question the stream mitigation compensation requirement for the 60 feet which occurs within the existing ROW. NCDOT is prepared to compensate for all lost stream mitigation credits associated with the ROW extension (62 feet), the utility easement relocation (30 feet), and the temporary construction easement (37.5 feet) as shown on the design plan provided to the IRT. The IRT has required a compensation ratio of 3:1 for these impacts, resulting in a total credit purchase of 388.5 feet from NCDMS in Hydrologic Unit 03030003. NCDOT is prepared to make this purchase. However, NCDOT asserts that the conservation easement survey for the Carbonton Dam mitigation site was recorded in error, and so compensation is notjustified for the stream length within the existing ROW. The current bridge replacement project does not affect the ownership, management, or stream conditions within the existing NC 42 ROW, and so compensation is not warranted. James Hauser Environmental Supervisor II North Carolina Department of Transportation 919 707 6125 office ihauser(e�ncdcrt.�cry 1020 Birch Ridge Drive 1598 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1598 Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties. Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.