20141132 All Versions_Other Agency Comments_20090903 (2)

CESAW -RG 3 September 2009
MEMORANDUM FOR: North Carolina Department of Transportation, Mr. Steve
Brown, Project Planning Engineer, PDEA Branch
SUBJECT: Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 Elevation Issue Brief
1. Project Name and Brief Description: Action ID SAW -1995- 00459, TIP- R -2501, US
I from Sandhill Road (SR 1971) to Marston Road (SR 1001), Richmond County, NC.
2. Last Concurrence Point: CP 3, LEDPA; Date of Concurrence: 2001
3. Proposal and Position: At Structure 8, NCDOT proposes to build a 120 foot (ft)
bridge and a 220 foot by 60 foot concrete pipe (wildlife crossing). DWQ, FWS, EPA and
WRC (resource agencies) preferred a 480 foot bridge. I would have signed concurrence
for the 480 ft bridge.
4. Reasons for Non - concurrence: Of the nine major stream crossings for this phase of
US 1, the Merger Team agreed to culverts at seven and the FEMA minimum size bridge
at another. In reference to the issues raised by the resource agencies in the attached
Briefing Papers, I agree that the issues raised are valid and need to be considered in our
decision. On November 2, 2005, a NWP 27 was issued by Mickey Sugg to impact 0.2
acres of wetlands for the purposes of restoring the 127.86 acre NC EEP mitigation site
known as McDonald's Pond (SAW- 2005- 00233). The Conservation Easement was filed
July 14, 2005 in Richmond County. The site has been partially debited but has 2,710
linear feet (If) of Stream Restoration, 770 if of Stream Enhancement, 5,8001f of Stream
Preservation, 15.96 acres (ac) of Riparian Restoration, 4.20 ac of Riparian Enhancement
and 4.50 ac of Riparian Preservation still available. In March 2009, Ecoscience on behalf
of NC EEP published the 2008 Monitoring Report (Year 3). Based on the information in
the report, the site is meeting established success criteria. The McDonald's Pond site was
reviewed by the Corps through the permit process and for compliance with the
MOA/MOU as a whole without the encumbrance of a new road. Given the type and
quality of the existing site, if a 120 ft bridge were to be approved, the validity and
efficacy of the entire mitigation site would have to be evaluated by the Corps. The
resource agencies indicate that based on the quality of the habitat, the limited
development in the area and the existing Conservation Easement, they cannot support the
120 ft bridge proposed by NC DOT. I failed to concur based on the high quality of the
site, the lack of effective comparative information between the two alternatives and that
the site is currently under a Conservation Easement and actively being debited.
Furthermore, the proposed crossing bisects the site near the mid portion and will alter the
hydrologic pathways that have been established. Placing compacted roadfill in a restored
braided scrub /shrub wetland with potential compressible muck/soil could have significant
effects upon the mitigation site as a whole. Failure to require NC DOT to bridge the
entire crossing will not only cause channelization of the restoration area and downstream
waters, damage wildlife corridors, but may undermine the NC EEP program and its
usefulness to applicants as an in- lieu -fee program.

Notwithstanding the impacts to the compensatory mitigation site and the issues that have
been raised above, we also believe that NCDOT has failed to demonstrate that impacts to
the high quality waters and wetlands that presently exist on the site have been avoided
and minimized to the maximum extent practicable and this the project may not be in
compliance with the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
Information requested:
♦ Comparative cost for the two bridges.
• The cost information provided by NC DOT did not include cost for
relocation of the existing utility line that would be required for the 120
ft bridge. The cost analysis should include the cost of protective
measure that would be needed to assure that the utility line would not
act as a sump that would artificially drain the mitigation site.
Furthermore, the cost analysis should also include measure to prevent
the utility line from "floating" out of the ground due to saturated
conditions.
• Neither cost included compensatory mitigation costs. The 120 ft
bridge would require compensatory mitigation for direct, indirect,
secondary and cumulative effects to WOUS, both for the project and
the EEP site. In addition, higher ratios would be requested for the
temporal loss, as the site is already in the ground and meeting success
criteria.
♦ Qualitative and quantitative habitat data from the impact area and McDonald's
Pond site. .
5. Potentially Violated Laws /Regulations: Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act.
6. Alternative Course of Action: NCDOT should agree to build a bridge that spans the
entire crossing.
Kimberly Garvey
Regulatory Project Manager