HomeMy WebLinkAbout20130773 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20131004REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
Regulatory Division
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801 -5006
October 4, 2013
Action ID: SAW- 2004 -30631 (TIP No. R- 251913)
Mr. Richard W. Hancock, P.E.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1598
Dear Mr. Hancock:
/ --3 -o-1 v- f
I refer to your application for Department of the Army authorization to impact waters of the
U.S. in order to widen approximately 7.5 miles of US Highway 19 E form SR 1186, west of
Micaville in Yancey County, to the existing multilane section west of Spruce Pine in Mitchell
County, North Carolina (TIP No. R- 2519B). Implementation of this project would result in
permanent impacts to approximately 7,256 linear feet (If) of 'stream and 0.15 acre of wetland,'and
temporary impacts to 1,3601f of stream and <0.01 acre of surface waters. I also refer to the
public notice, dated August 14, 2013, in which we advertised the proposed project.
In response to our public notice, we received written comments from the National Marine
Fisheries Services and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). All written
comments are attached to this letter.
In accordance with 33 CFR Part 332, Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic
Resources, a final mitigation plan must be approved by the district engineer prior to issuing an
individual permit and this mitigation plan must include the items described in 33 CFR 332.4
(c)(2) through (c)(14). In order for us to determine if the proposed mitigation would adequately
compensate for project related impacts to waters of the U.S., please revise the mitigation plan as
follows:
1. While the plan details some specific benefits from the proposed on -site mitigation, such
as at Sites 5A and 30, the plan does not detail why the proposed on -site mitigation, in its
entirety, is environmentally preferable to securing mitigation through the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) for this project. Please provide details
concerning how the proposed compensatory mitigation will address the needs of the
watershed and ecoregion for Objectives (4.0) and Site Selection (2.0).' ' -
2. Please clarify if NCDOT intends to use the Stream Quality Assessment Worksheets from
the original jurisdictional determination or will instead default to a rating of good quality
(2:1) for all impacted streams.
-2-
3. All good quality streams with permanent fill impacts (other than stabilization and the
concrete ditch to rip rap), to include stream relocation, associated with this project will
require mitigation at a 2:1 ratio. The relocated streams will count as '' /z* of this
requirement, as long as no length is lost, the new channels and buffers are similar (or
higher quality) than the old, and utilities do not impact the relocated streams and/or
buffers. NCDOT will then need to provide the other 1/2 by obtaining credits from the
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( NCEEP) or conducting other
mitigation work to offset the remainder. Once you have recalculated the compensatory
mitigation requirement, based on all comments in this letter, please provide a revised
acceptance letter from NCEEP or a revised on -site mitigation/relocation plan.
* The- stream relocation at site 30 will generate more credit than the other sites will.
4. Monitoring requirements (7.0) — please revise the plan to note that each site will be
monitored year for five (5) years with no less than two bankfull flow events, which must
be documented. If less than two bankfull events occur during the first five years,
monitoring will continue until the second bankfull event is documented; the bankf ill
events must occur during separate monitoring years.
5. For all proposed mitigation sites in which a utility line is, or will be, located, please
provide a utility overlay on the mitigation plans and quantify the amount of buffer that
would be impacted by the utility lines and any related easements or right -of -ways. Utility
impacts can reduce, and in some cases eliminate, a site from being appropriate for
mitigation.
6. Please submit a copy of your response to the DWR letter of August 27, 2013.
We are forwarding copies of all written comments for your review, consideration, and
response. We request that you respond to this office within 30 days of receipt of this letter. If you
fail to respond within 30 days, in accordance with 33 CFR 325.2, we may elect to
administratively withdraw-your application. We-will reopen your application and continue to
process it once you have submitted all of the information we have requested in this letter.
If you would like to discuss any of these issues and/or specific sites prior to submitting your
response, please contact me at (828) 271 -7980, ext. 223.
Sincerely,
�i /G i L
i Beckwith
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Y"
Enclosures
cc (w /o encls):
Ms. Marella Buncick
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Chris Militscher
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4 Office
61 Forsyth Street, SW
AFC -13th floor; NPO
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 -8960
/Ms. Amy Euliss
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources
Transportation and Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Ms. Marla Chambers
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
12275 Swift Road
Oakboro, North Carolina 28129
-3-