The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20001195 Ver 15_Corps of Engineer Correspondence_20150202DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 151 PATTON AVENUE ROOM 208 ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA 28801 -5006 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF: January 27, 2015 Action ID: SAW- 2014 -00838 Ms. Courtney Nolan Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal Engineering Center 1.500 Centre Parkway East Point, Georgia 30344 Dear Ms. Nolan: k ¢y y Reference your September 2, 2014, application for Department of the Army (DA) authorization to discharge fill material into 709 linear foot of intermittent stream channel and 0.007 acres of wetlands for the Charlotte Douglas International Airport (CLT), Airport Traffic Control Tower project (ATCT). The project proposes to replace an existing Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) with a new ATCT to support plans for further airport expansion and is located on the southern portion of the CLT site, northwest of the intersection of West Boulevard with Billy Graham Parkway, in Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (N 35.204046, W - 80.946237). The purpose of this letter is to provide comments from resource agencies and the general public for rebuttal purposes as a part of the individual permit review. After review of your proposal, we have received comments from the National Marine Fisheries Service (dated December 8, 2014), the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, State flistoric Preservation Office (dated December 9, 2014), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (dated December 18, 2014) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (dated December 22, 2014). Copies of all correspondences are enclosed. Our administrative process provides you the opportunity to propose a resolution and/or rebut any and all objections before a final decision is made. In this regard, please review the enclosed letters, address as appropriate and copy this office on all of your comments /responses for our review. Additionally, on February 6, 1990, the DA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) establishing procedures to determine the type and level of mitigation necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. This MOA provides for first, avoiding impacts to waters and wetlands through the selection of the least damaging, practical alternative; second, taking appropriate and practical steps to minimize impacts on waters and wetlands; and finally, compensating for any remaining unavoidable impacts to the extent appropriate and practical. To enable us to process your application in full compliance with this MOA, we request that you provide the following additional information: - 2 - u- Permits for work within wetlands or other special aquatic sites are available only if the proposed. work ia the least environmentally damaging, ' practicable alterna1ive. Please furnish additional infori.nation regarding your alternatives analysis as follows l. The documentation you provided with the permit application includes the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant dated. 2012, the Environmental Due Diligence ' /\odit, dated April 2Ul2 and the Siting Report dated May 20l3. Although these documents provide detailed information on the alternative analysis, some additional information is required. Specifically, in order to be able to make ameaniogful comparison between alternatives we need Lo understand what the criteria is that you used todo1orninoifeach alternative meets the pro eotpuzpoac and need (for rzuzuplu rnooicunoz height levels, the ability to roec1 certain view reqoiccoouo1m and what those ceguiroouco1s ozo, cost, environmental impacts, etc.). The documentation provided indicates that Alternative Sites 3, 4, 5 and 6 were rejected for a variety o[ reasons to include excessive height and the inability to provide u satisfactory view of certain tza{fic issues. Without knowing the apcoifiu zegnizonnco1s that the project needo 10 cnoeL, we cannot use this information to determine ifoo alternative meets the purpose and need orwhich alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (]~E[>PA). Please provide the specific criteria you used (preferably in table format) 1odetermine ifu project zoctthop 'uotpurponeuodoccdaavvul]aa how each alternative Sites I-6 did or did not met that criteria. You should additionally Include uoextirunio of impacts to vvu1oro o[ the TJS for each of the u}1ocou±iveo, /\liecontivc Sites I and 2/213 that were chosen for detailed study. And lastly, please provide oznup of where sites 3, 4, 5, and 6 were proposed 10 be loca1ed. 2. Please provide information oowhy uplands located within the Airport cannot be used to meet the project pnrpnyo and need and avoid to waters of the United States. Specifically several other areas on site have been ideo6ficdthat, based oo review of the Jurisdictional Do1000iou1ion,[7S6S maps and previously permitted project p]mnoƒbr1ho/L' ori,appeartobuupluodo that could potentially bo used 10 construct the project nithlii1]e 10 no impacts to modcra of the United 81u1ea. Boo}oond is ucnop that outlines some of these areas to include undisturbed areas with potential uplands (outlined in blue), and areas where permitted impacts to waters of the [JS have previously occurred due to grading for runway construction, but are otherwise undeveloped with structures oc ' airport facilities (outlined ioorooge) ' Please address if these potential upland areas were considered by the FAA as alternatives and if so, why these areas did not meet the purpose and need. If these areas were not previously considered under the alternatives analysis they need to be considered at this time to determine i[ construction nf the /\T[Tin any o{these locations would meet the project purpose and need. -- 3 -- b. It is necessary for you to have taken all appropriate and practical steps to minimize wetland losses. Please indicate all that you have done, especially regarding development and modification of plans and proposed construction techniques, to minimize adverse impacts, to include why the proposed layout cannot be relocated north or south of the tributaries on site. 33 CFR 332 and the MCA discussed above require that appropriate and practical mitigation will be required for all unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after all appropriate and practical minimization has been employed.. The documentation you provided with the application addresses your request that compensatory mitigation be waived for the project. The information you provided to justify your request include the following: • the proposed impacts occur on an intermittent stream, • the stream originates from stromwater runoff, • the stream drains a small watershed area (approximately 14 acres) • the stream has low stream habitat. • the groundwater connection to the streambed is primarily a result of bank erosion and channel incision • the stream substrate contains mostly an aggregation. of silt and sand. We do not believe this information provides adequate justification that impacts to the onsite stream should not be off-set with appropriate mitigation. The facts that a stream. is intermittent, has a relatively small watershed size, and is incised to a point that is has a groundwater - connection do not negate the requirement to off-set impacts and lost functions that occur when the stream is filled. Rather, these characteristics define the type of stream more than the quality of stream. Further, we disagree that, despite some incision in the channel and bank erosion and substrate containing sand and silt, that the stream is in fact perfon-ning low quality function. We believe that a mitigation ratio at a minimum of 1:1, (based on mitigation being paid through Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)) should be employed to off-set permanent impacts to 709 linear feet of stream channel. This determination is based on the type and quality of the stream and in consideration of previously authorized impacts associated with the airport. Should you still believe that a minimum 1: 1 ratio is not appropriate, then you should provide documentation., such as a North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) analysis of the reach in question, to support your conclusion. These results should be provided for our review and consideration when determining appropriate mitigating ratios. You should be aware that NCSAM analyses submitted to the Corps for evaluation must be conducted by someone that has completed the NC SAM methodology training. This information is essential to our expeditious processing of your application and it should be forwarded to us by February 26, 2015. Also, a copy of this information must be sent to the North Carolina Division of Water Resources to enable them to adequately evaluate your - 4 - application for a Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (828)-271-7950 ext 231. Sincerely, Crystal Anischler Project Manager Asheville Regulatory Field Office Enclosures cc: Mr. Chris Petterson URS Corporation 6000 Fairview Road, Suite 200 Charlotte, North Carolina 28210 Is. Karen Higgins North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Resources 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617 Mr. Todd Bowers Permit Review Specialist Wetlands Regulatory Section USEPA — Region 4 Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 Ms. Shari Bryant North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Post Office Box 129 Sedalia, North Carolina 27342-0129 - Ms. Janet Mizzi US Fish and Wildlife Service Asheville Ecological Services Field Office 160 Zillicoa Street Asheville, North Carolina 28801-1082