The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130773 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-