20050785_Other Agency Comments_20090227

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
February 27, 2009
Mr. William Wescott
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
P.O Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
Mr. Steve Sollod
Division of Coastal Management, NCDENR
1638 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638
Mr. Garcy Ward
Division of Water Quality, NCDENR
943 Washington Square Mall
Washington, NC 27889
SUBJECT: US 17 Washington Bypass in-water work moratorium variance request, response
to Dr. Arthur N. Popper study proposal, Beaufort County TIP number R-2510
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided by the N. C. Department of Transportation, Flatiron/United, and Dr.
Popper for assessing the effects of pile driving in the Tar River.
Throughout the coordination process for the moratorium variance we have consistently affirmed
our concerns regarding the behavioral responses of migrating anadromous fish to pile driving
activities in the Tar River. In our February 10, 2009 letter we requested four bulleted conditions
to be included in any permit modification. We specifically requested that a fish behavior
monitoring plan be developed in collaboration with appropriate state and federal resource
agencies that included "monitoring of fish behavior resulting from pile driving activity...." and
'`...identify a method of evaluating fish passage or avoidance at the project site," as an integral
part of any permit modification. While we recognize Dr. Popper's expertise on this subject and
appreciate the effort he and his staff have invested in the development of the monitoring plan, the
limited scope of the monitoring plan as proposed does not meet the expectations of NC W RC.
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
Washington Bypass Page 2 February 27, 2009
The proposed monitoring plan only assesses physical impacts to fish species by conducting
visual downstream surveys for dead and stressed individuals and does not address the critical
issues of fish behavior and avoidance from the pile driving activity. As identified in Dr. Poppers
proposal under number 2. Monitoring Fish Behavior there are methods to assess behavior
response and migration interruption. Of the three methods identified the utilization of sonar to
evaluate fish passage through the project site would be the most informative assessment method.
Although high resolution sonar alone will not produce the ability to identify species, it can be
used in conjunction with sampling by electrofishing or other means at the sonar and pile driving
site to identify species that are passing through the zone of impact.
The proposed monitoring plan does not adequately address our concerns. We stand ready to
reevaluate any fish monitoring plan revision that includes techniques to monitor fish passage at
the project site. Please don't hesitate to contact me at [phone] if you have any questions
regarding these comments.
Sincerely, k'
Mallory G. Martin
Chief Deputy Director
cc: Robert L. Curry, Chief, Division of Inland Fisheries
Shannon Deaton, Program Manager, Habitat Conservation
Louis B. Daniel 111, NCDMF
Ron Sechler, NMFS
Pete Benjamin, USFWS