The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNorth Shore Road��- w�s� �.�� - C��C Z�.�� C�o ~S � �� °�1"14 —� � � ��<< �- ��s �: �a� �-�- �.� ��w�. c��/�� {�aZz� o� --� �,,,� 6'� '—� ��_�-- cdm-C�- 5� � � �w�wS o� �Y� G`r� � � • � �( � �i�n �w� �1�� \b�c- ..�Q�� 9 � —� U'"{°�' �"�'"e�� °°� C`Sl`" �- �-�ti. C-�� s��a,,,�-b� �—� �� ,1�"��S �p/G � p.-�e..- (�[n� - —� I�.e� cu�� ra�C.cCti �..�� , N� S�c�vu� ��a�,�-�¢1 ' e.., v � � P�`�ScM-- pa1i�-i�s ��i`��—��.t: �c�� i��nUV�� N�S G��y {��e�ee�� In� �` I � ��1�.'�n.�_� �oar1 � ,D�tJ �v�S� �w �t� �O � '� v�d ��(��c.c.� t�.wtc�r,,.�, u.�i �� .e.ei abr� L N� -� �� . ��a - � �� -�p ,�l�,s 5�b ��-� o�.�, �,r�� n� � ��ti c�� -�G�.b��- -- �� s ��c.,� c�.�.. � � (,�5 '�,�..`' �-�. ��5 Kr��s In9� �a d��, i� ae,'� i� R��-- � eeo - ,,.u� � � ��o �,� --�. �sc�.�scva�lw�.- aF �ne..F, r�. ��L �' ecr�h _ ► S ta�.s.ee� .-{�w.�-�,,, --7 � °'` n�..�- t'es. ��on� o� Iv�1.RS� a�< u.a�� 6F S%`�- ,�'�'� C�I,J--7 �(vcc..,6:� sccM- ,�.. �. 5'��- -_ �� c��, �C�. -- t�.s FW5 � '; ��F . � r�L ti� w� > ► n� b,�� co,rn.vv.. , `��e �.�,,- G�o� �� Q 5� .�n: �''"`�.�, b�1e� o�,�ri`ay�', �Al°�, ._ :��L'�-'(�YV3� (it1Q � ��'re`�`" �7j'.tx-(-�►�- °�-' �'�eN�. -ro.- ecov�. � THE LF.ADERSHIP GROUP FOR THE CARO�,INAS, LLC P.O. Box 20792 • Raleigh, NC 27619 http://www leadership-carolinas.com Email: leadership-carolinasC�nc. rr.com ' 1:J�0� d�C" Cr� d�D�-��' Vt�r � � �� "Se�ving Leade�ship Needs in the Cdrolin�zs" . J��EO sr,�T�s "� Z� yV � �+ W p � � O Q 0 ��yTq< PROj�G� 2 _ D� . ' �� UNITED STATES ENVIRONIIAENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY '9F'� O(% REGION 4 ��.�'�,`; oF,N�. �� . � ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER '' ,.ti �qT ��O � ATLANTA, GEORG AT 0303-8960 �Sr�R'�Yq�jFAy 6 R� March 27, 2006 � B�cy Mr. Dale A. Ditmanson, Superiritendent National Park Service, Great Smoky Mountains National Park 107 Park Headquarters Road Gatlinburg, TN 37738 RE: EPA Review Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) � North Shore Road, Great Smoky Mountains National Park CEQ No. 20050548 Dear Mr. Ditmanson: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Region 4 reviewed the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and Section 102 (2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The purpose of this letter is to provide you with EPA's comments. The DEIS identifies the singular purpose for this transportation project as providing improved access to cemeteries. The cemeteries are related to communities that existed prior to the creation of Fontana Lake. The future traffic, estimates do not justify the roadway for connectivity or mobility purposes. The DEIS assesses the potentia] environmental impacts of the no-build alternative, monetary settlement, Laurel Branch Picnic Area, partial-h!�il�l and full-build alternatives for the North Shore Road. The projc::� �tud�� area ;nc:?�!des a�iinear :�4-i��;ic ��ortion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and a portion of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT), which are both individual units of the national park system. The entire northern shore area is within the existing wilderness designation or the potential additional wilderness area that extends southward to the north shore of Fontana Lake. A roadway throu�h the area would not allow the wilderness designation to remain when the criteria set by the NPS are applied. � The DEIS identifies the Monetary Settlement Alternative as the environmentally preferred alternative as well as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) in accordance with Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. EPA concurs that the Monetary Settlement Alternative is the least environmentally damagin�, and we strongly support this alternative. Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable • Printed wilh Vegetable 01 Based Inks on RecyGed Paper (Minimum 30 % Posiconsumer) The Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternative would result in impacts varying from minor to severe, and therefore we have some environmental concerns. However, if this alternative can be sited in a way to avoid and minimize stream impacts, this alternative could be made acceptable. Further information should be provided about measures to avoid and rriitigate environmental impacts if this alternative is pursued. Based on the data in the DEIS, EPA has serious concerns. regarding water quality impacts of the full-build and partial-build alternatives. The most pronounced adverse impacts would be to water quality resulting�from construction, given the probability of encountering acidic rock with high metals. The document states that major impacts would occur, along with possible violations of state water quality standards. In addition, impacts resulting from construction would include waste generation from acid rock, as well as impacts to floodplains, jurisdictional wetlands, cultural resources, special aquatic habitats, streams and lakes, water quality, vegetation communities, terrestrial wildlife, migratory birds, invasive exofics, federal species of concern and visual resources. We note that although air quality monitors in the Park indicate that regulated air pollutants are declinin.g, the area is located in a non-attainment area for ozone and PM2.5. The build alternatives would result in air quality impacts from construction and impacts from vehicular traffic during the operation phase. The full-build alternative would result in more impacts compared to the partial-build alternatives, and would require a lengthy construction period, which would result in air quality impacts over an extended period of years. Due to the potentially severe impacts to the environment, we agree with the NPS that selection of either the North Shore Road�or the partial-build road to Bushnell would require supplemental site specific NEPA analysis to determine whether any of these alternatives would be environmentally acceptable. The current DEIS does not address these alternatives in sufficient detail to support their selection. EPA defers the decision regarding which of the alternatives is most consistent with t�e function aY�c; mission c►f the Paric and tne �i�,�,diachian Trail to the National Park Service. We concur that this decision must protect the integrity of the Park and the Appalachian Trail and their functions. Based on the stated concerns regarding the build alternatives, the project received an overall "EC-1" rating, meaning that EPA's review identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment. . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. We look forward to reviewing the FEIS. If EPA may be of further assistance, please contact me or Ramona McConney of my � staff at (404) 562-9615. Sincerely, �!\ ( �,j(� /� i ri�� ," , � � J'�{►\ ��' l � �, `/ Heinz J. Mueller, Chief NEPA Program Office cc: Greg Thorpe, NCDOT Raleigh Ken Jolly, USACOE Wilmington Pete Benjamin, USFWS Raleigh John Sullivan, FI3WA Raleigh John Hennessy, NCDWQ EPA Review Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) North Shore Road, Great Smoky Mountains National Park CEQ No. 20050548 General Comments We appreciate the inclusion of a diverse array of alternatives in this DEIS. We note that due to the magnitude of the Northern Shore Corridor (baseline, full-build alternative), the DEIS acknowledges that it is likely that additional NEPA documentation would be required to address site specific impacts if that alternative is selected. . The entire northern shore area is within the existing wilderness designation or the potential addit:�7a1 wi;�erness area tha± e;.±ends southward to the north shore of the lul:e. A r��::dway through the area would not allow the wilderness designation to remain when the criteria set by the NPS are applied. The Northern Shore Corridor Alternative would increase the annual visitors to an estimated 463,600 (Table 4-8) which appears to be in conflict with maintaining wilderness status. This should be an important factor in decisions regarding the proposed action. Purnose and Need The document notes that public lands without vehicular access total 3 percent of the lands in the southern Appalachian region (page 4-8). The inference is that there is not much area without access to a road. The document states that "...to discl2arge a�id satisfy any obligations o�z the part of the United States... " relative to the 1943 MOU thaf the U.S. government entered into to replace SR 288, flooded when Fontana Lake was created. The MOU specifically called for a new road through the GSMNP nortfi of the lake. As time passed and environmental awareness increased, the need f:�r �{�;; project came to be questioned. Not only did it conf;:Lt �rirh rer�ai� v��nivr goais arid objectives, but also the difficulty of the project and the discovery of acid-bearing rock caused construction of the project to be halted. The DEIS does not remark on transportation deficiencies, except for stating a need to improve access to old cemeteries. State and federal roadways within the area operate at low daily traffic levels even during the summer season. There is no documentation of how many trips would be taken specifically for visiting the cemeteries, but rather the estimated Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT, 64-475) for the various alternatives considered in detail are mostly generated b'y recreational travelers. None of these traffic estimates comes anywhere close to justifying the project for general mobility. The DEIS states that regardless of the alternative selected, annual ferry service would be provided for transportation to each cemetery if direct road access is not in the selected alternative. Alternatives The document covers a full range of build alternatives. The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would be located at the immediate vicinity of the tunnel, and would involve 0.8 mile of pavement and be located near the end of the present pavement. The roadway options would cover the complete 30- 34 mile northern shore, witli partial build options of accessing the former Bushnell community area in between. � The NPS explored a full range of alternatives in the DEIS. The extremely low AADT's (144 to 475) do not justify either the `partial' or `full' build alternative selection. The costs for the � Northern Shore Corridor alternatives (Primitive Park Road & Principal Park Road) are between 6 and 10 times more expensive than the monetary settlement with potentially unacceptable long- term environmental impacts (15 years of construction impacts alone). For the Partial build alternatives �o Bushnell (Primitive Park Road & Principa: Park i:oad j, i�e eu�� are approximately 1.8 to 3 times more expensive than the monetary settlement, with comparative adverse environmental impacts. - The Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternative for several reasons does not hinder the pursuit of formal wilderness designation, a resource increasingly in short supply and in demand along the Appalachians. Also, it addresses a need for a visitor use and trailhead to wilderness. Having this recreational use (and overnight backpack parking) facility just east of the tunnel augments the tunnel as a"gateway" to the wilderness area. It would give Bryson City an additional boost economically because of another visitation point to the GSMNP in addition to the Deep Creek Campground which is located north of town. � Aesthetic Impacts The impacts assessment heavily'emphasizes the potential impacts to the traditional purposes specified in the GSMNP management plan. The Appalachian Development Highway System, involving improvements to the US 74 cor_�idor, :� :ensidered in the cumuiati��e impacts , assessment. This project is designed to promote economic development, and the document mentions relocation of park headquarters and casino operations by the Cherokees as other � economic stimuli. Actually, the GSMNP is itself a huge economic stimulus. GSMNP is the most visited national park in the U.S. . Another concern in the DEIS is the impact on the existing trails, including the Appalachian Trail (AT). Adverse aesthetic effects to the AT would occur because the roadway could be in view of hikers and the western end of the Northern Shore Corridor, requiring relocation of some of the AT. Regarding wilderness usage, the DEIS states that "The baseline Northern Shore Corridor would have major, adverse, and long-term impacts to backcountry camping for active visitors," (page 4-59). A similarly severe summary statement appears on page 4-67 regarding impacts to the AT: "Tl2is alteniative would eltminate seven campsites. " - Table 4-1.1 (page 4-61) summarizes the losses of GSMNP trails resulting from the alternatives. The Laurel Branch Picnic Area would result in no losses and the other build alternatives would result in 9- 32.4 miles of trail losses, mostly because the roadway would occupy much of the Lakeshore Trail. The projected 15-year construction period for the Northern Shore Corridor presents a substantial adverse noise and visual impact to any recreational pursuit within the GSMNP. This should be considered a chronic impact because of the duration._The 5-year construction period for the Partial-Build Alternative would have similar impacts but for a lesser period. � The Bryson City side of the park would be enhanced by the proposed addition of cultural and educational information about the history of the settlements lost due to Fontana Lake's creation. Finally, the NPS has $16 million already allocated for addressing this 1943 commitment. The Laurel Branch Picnic Area alternative would cost $13 million to build. This alternative minimally addresses the concerns of the descendenfs of North Shore area inhabitants, but it appears that much of what the NPS wishes to address has more to do with the protection of traditional park uses and visitor rec;eation Fu�:li�::,� �i�:,i�:;. • Air Quality The DEIS states that air quality monitors in the Park indicate that regulated air pollutants are declining, but that the area is located in a non-attainment area for ozone. The build alternatives. would result in air quality impacts from construction and impacts due to vehicular traffic during the operation phase. However, the DEIS also notes that even relatively small increases in emissions and changes in air quality could be important influences in meeting CAA requirements. If one of the build alternatives is selected, the Final EIS should include further . information regarding the monitoring of impacts and result on air quality compliance status associated with that alternative. The FEIS should include mobile input and output files and a summary of the assumptions and methodology used. Also, please provide a summary of the transportation conformity requirements for this area and how they apply. Transportation conformity requirements can be found in 40 CFR �: d; �°3. Interagency Consultation is a part of transportation conformity. A statement is needed in the FEIS that discusses that a conformity determination will be made with the selected alternative included and will be achieved through the Interagency Consultation process. It is only after the selected alternative is included in the conformity determination that the Record of Decision (ROD) can be signed. The FEIS should include a statement that the Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Federal, State, and local partners will be convening to discuss and review the regional conformity determination prior to signature of the ROD. , Wetlands The build alternatives would impact between 0.13 - 2.18 acres of jurisdictional wetlands (Table 4-17a). This may also result in hydrologic impacts to streams and aquatic habitats. The DEIS discusses mitigation techniques for wetland compensation, but does not outline a plan for mitigation for the build alternatives. If one of the build alternatives is selected, the Final EIS �. should include information regarding the compensatory mitigati.on plan. Water Quality Water quality (stream) impacts are presented in Table 4-18. Please clarify whether the linear feet of impacts are within the right of way rather than the habitat lost within culverts. Habitat losses could potentially be less, given the statements regarding bridging expected to be part of the build alternatives. Nevertheless, these are sizable impacts (up to 25,374 ft.) unless the Laurel Branch Picnic Area or no-build alternative is selected. The most pronounced adverse impacts would be to water quality resulting from construction, given the probability of encountering acidic rock with high metals. The document states that major impacts would occur, along with violations of state water quality standards. The DEIS states that mitigation and/or avoidance of acid runoff from rock formations will be necessary to avoid goss;ble wate�� yUa;ity vi�iations (page 4-:72). If either the partial build or full Northern Shore Road alternative is selected, the Final EIS should�inclucle further information regarding the impacts and mitigation associated with that alternative. Habitat Loss The partial and full-build alternatives would result in the direct loss of habitat acreage. The DEIS mentions potential mitigation, but does not go into detail or commit to mitigation. If one of the build alternatives is selected, the Final EIS should give further information re�arding mitigation and/or avoidance of terrestrial habitat loss. , Threatened and Endan�ered Species EPA defers to FWS regarding threatened and endangered species issues. However, we note on page 4-233 that `informal' consultation is in process, but it is unclear how the `effects determinations' were determined for the Bald Eagle arid Indiana Bat. Because of the large extent oi dist�trt�ance to inabitat, the Nonnern Shore Corridor could represent a May Affect — Likely �� Adversely Affect determination which would require formal consultation for either species. The EIS should include additional survey information that leads into a discussion of the effects determinations. ' Cultural Resources .Some of the build alternatives would have impacts on archeological sites andlor historic. structures. The monetary settlement and Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternatives would have the 7east impacts in this category. EPA recommends that the NPS coordinate with the State Historic Preservation Office regarding cultural resources and historic preservation if one of the build alternatives is selected. Impacts and Summary Conclusions From Table 2-6: Impacts to Land Use, Visitor Use, Cultural Resources, Waste Generation (Acid Rock), Floodplains, Jurisdictional Wetlands, Special Aquatic Habitats, Streams and Lakes, Water Quality, Vegetation Communities, Terrestrial Wildlife, Migratory Birds, Invasive Exotics, Federal Species of Concern and Visual Resources are characterized as being major, adverse and long-term for the Northern Shore Corridor. Impacts to Land Use, Visitor Use, Cultural Resources, Waste Generation (Acid Rock), Floodplains, Jurisdictional Wetlands, Special Aquatic Habitats, Streams and Lakes, Water Quality, Vegetation Communities, Terrestrial Wildlife, Migratory Birds, Invasive Exotics, Federal Species of Concern and Visual Resources are characterized as being moderate to major, adverse and long-term for the Partial Build to Bushnell Alternatives. C�eraii, there is iittle diiference in the total quantifiable impacts for many resources �e±ween t�:e Primitive Park Road and Principal Park Road Options. The magnitude and severity may be somewhat less for the Primitive versus Principal options for a number of resources; nonetheless they are not `environmentally comparable' to other alternatives (monetary settlement & Laurel Branch). Laurel Branch Picnic Area Alternative impacts are generally negligible to minor, with the exception of the waste generation (acid rock), floodplains, streams and lakes, water quality, and vegetation communities, which could result in moderate to severe impacts. The FEIS needs to clarify the analysis regarding geology-related impacts (waste generation — acid rock) in terms of severity. Northern Shore has betweenl.7 to 2.9 million cubic yards, Partial Build has between 693,900 to 948,100 cubic yards and the Laurel Brach Picnic Area alternative has 24,700 cubic yards. Yet all three are characterized as being major, adverse and long-term.� In terms of scale, they represent a-magnitude of difference. The same issue is true for Stream and Lake impacts between the Northern Shore and Partial Build Alternatives: 131 versus 34 stream crossings. Laurel Branch i AS 7 SLT'��I'11 �.;�os��r.gs out the impacts are characterized as moderate. In terms of magnitude, the Partial Build alternative is closer to the impact severity of I:aurel Branch than it is to the Northern Shore. There are similar `discrepancies' in characterization of other impacts. Regarding the these impacts to the Laurel Branch Picnic Area, it appears that the road is very close to the creek and the one-way loop portion crosses the creek more than once. If this location was shifted slightly away from the creek, potential direct impacts to surface waters would be minimized. ' Page 4-255 states that "a partial-build or build alten2ative would reyuire exte�zsive coiistruction; the effects (impacts?J of which would be lofzg-term a�id pennane�it. Tlie alternatives would require ......that would be irretrievable if inapacted by the alternatives ...... " These statements are in direct confiict with the conclusion statements on Pages 259 and 260 regarding the Partial- build and North Shore Corridor alternatives. , After all of the described "major" effects in the discussions about the conflicts of the build alternatives (other than the Laurel Branch Picnic Area) the conclusion statemerit on page 4-259 states that "...rione of the alternatives would harm the integrity or values of�GSMNP orAT resources.... " This statement conflicts with information given elsewhere in the document. , The ma�nitude and duration of GSMNP impacts from the Northern Shore Corridor alternative are extensive. While the Partial-Build impacts are generally characterized as being the same as the Northern Shore, there is a quantifiable drop in both the magnitude and severity. The Laurel Branch alternative appears to provide negligible adverse impact to visitor use and experience .. (Page 2-27) for $13,700,000 in construction costs, $454,000 in construction O&M and $313,000 in annual O&M, and represents a park modification consistent with project and GSMNP goals � and objectives. - , Mi�ratory Birds and Invasive Species The DEIS had well-written discussions on Migratory Birds and Invasive Species. Both Sections were very comprehensive and provided a full examination of the issues. SUMMARY OF RATING DEFINITIONS AND FOLLOW UP ACTION* � Environmental Impact of the Action LO-Lack of Obiections The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes ro the proposal. � EC-Environmental Concerns The EPA review has identified environmenta] impacts that should be avoided in order to fully.protect the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of mitiaation measures that can reduce the environmental impacts. EPA would like to work with the lead a�ency to reduce these impacts. EO-Environmental Objections ' The EPA review has identified si�nificant environmental impacts that m!�st be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment: Correctiye_measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. , EU-Environmentally�Unsatisfactorv , The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are �, unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS sate, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ. � Adequacy of the Impact Statement Category 1-Adequate The EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred alterative and those of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or data collecting is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition.of clarifying language or information. Category 2-Insufficient Information The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for the EPA to f'uily assess the environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully p:otect th�e :,nvir��iment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. Category 3-Inadequate EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the , action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information, data analyses, or di'scussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. �From EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for Ihe Review of the Federal Actions lmpactin� the Environment O�O� AT�QG (� �� ,m —I o -,�,.-�- � �u �� r ��'M �iEP%� � .a„ ... MAR � p ;l�� . WETL4�YDS AND STORM�f�q7�R p�qNCH Mr. Michael T. Tomkosky Landscape Architect Great Smoky Mountains National Park 107 Park Headquarters Road Gatlinburg, Tennessee 37738. Dear Mr. Tomoksky: � t Michael F. Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Alan W. Klimck, P.E. Director Division of Water Qualiry March 16, 2006 Subject: Potential Acid Producing Rock Materials-Treatment Procedure As per our telephone conversation on March 16, 2006, concerning acid producing rock materials, I am attaching a copy of a procedure the NC Department of Transportation is using to handle rock and soil materials that may contain acid producing.minerals. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me at 828-296-4500. Sincerely, ��!G��c��` Michael. R. Parker Environmental Specialist cc: Steve Lund, USACE Asheville Field Office , Transportation Permitting Unit , Asheville Regional Office s Onc No hCarolina �atura!!� North Carolina Division of Water Quality 2090 U.S. Highway 70 Swannanoa, NC 28778 Phone (828) 296-4500 Customer Service Internet: www.ncwaterquality.org FAX (828) 299-7043 1-877-623-6748 An Equal Opportunity/A�rmative Action Employer .�, .' e t -O�OF wqTF9QG � � > � � � IVlichael F. Easley, Govemor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources , .. _... .. Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director . Division of Water Quality � March 1, 2006 � MEMORANDiTM , ___. _._ . , . . . _ , �.,: - - To: Melba 1VIcGee, Environmental Coordinator, Ofiice�of Legislative and Intergovernmental , . . Affairs � From: Brian L. Wrenn, Transportation Pernutting Unit, NC DWQ �' . f Through: John Hennessy, Supervisor, Transportation Pernutting Unit, NC,DWQ ��- Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for North Shore Road in Swain County, State Clearinghouse No. 06-0214. � This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the Sectiori 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the U.S., including.wetlands. The Division of Water Quality offers the following comments: Document Specific Comments: �� 1. In general, the Draft Environrriental Impact Statement (DEIS) reports that the proposed Partial Build and Northerri Shore Corridor alternatives'would have major adverse impacts to wetlands, ' streams, lakes, water quality, aquatic ecology and vegetation communities.' These altematives would not meet the stated goals of the proposed, project. 'At this time,.DWQ does not feel that the potential benefits of the Purpose and Need justify the level of adverse�impacts to these resources. 2. The document states that the Partial Build and Northern Shore Corridor alternatives would � provide access for some cemeteries and remove access for others. ,Based ori removal of access of � � some cemeteries, it is unclear how the Partial Build and North Sl�ore Road alternatives would meet the goal of protecting the tangible aspects of cultural resources. Please provide additional •- .��. . information to clarify this issue. , � . � �� _.. 3. In section 4.2.8, ,the document states,.that adverse impacts to cemeteries would occur as a result of_. - the Partial Build and North Shore Alternatives due to "cutting current NPS-provided vehicular access." It is unclear what the NPS-provided vehicular access consists of. Please describe the NPS-provided vehicular access. . ' 4. DWQ is extremely concerned abouf the long-term impacts �to water quality resulting from the exposure of acid-producing (AP) rock formations during road construction. Construction of previous projects 'in areas with AP rock has resulted in degradation of water quality with no practical solutions available to reverse the impairment. The DEIS indicates similar rock formations are present throughout the study area, and the Northern Shore Corridor would involve construction in the area with the highest potential for acid production. Please provide a discussion of the strategies that would be implemented to prevent water quality impairment due to runoff from AP rock. N.o,�.�e Carolina Transportation Permitting Unit , �/Vl7tllCQ��✓ 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699•1650 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone: 919-733-17861 FAX 919-733-68931 Internet: h�tt ://h2o.enr.state.nc:us/ncwetlands r An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10%,Post Consumer Paper _ t. t �; .. . . ., , , :� G l„ , � March 1, 2006 Page 2 of 5 5. In section 4.3.1.2, the DEIS states that up to 2.9 million cubic yards of excavated material would be produced by the Northern Shore Corridor alternative. This is a signiiicant amount of excavated material. Due to the geological setting, there is the potential for much of this material to be unsuitable for fill material in the construction of embankments associated with the road. This is especially true for areas of AP rock. The DEIS does not discuss a disposal plan for tliis material. Please describe how and where this material will be disposed of and what the costS . estimates of the disposal would be: This description should include best management practices for treatment and their associated costs. Please be aware that the DWQ will not allow disposal of -J excavated material in streams or wetlands. In addition, any storm water drainage that contacts excavated material identified to contain AP rock will not be allowed to discharge untreated to surface waters. � 6. The DEIS states that up to half a million tons of limestone would be needed for encapsulation of AP rock to be used in embankments, and that the nearest quarry is 85 miles away. Do the construction costs for the proposed alternatives include the limestone hauling costs? If not, these costs should be included in the cost analysis. In addition, the cost analysis in Appendix E, only discusses the treatment. of embankment material for AP rock. All excavated and exposed AP rock would require tre,atment not just material used for embankment. The cost analysis should reflect additional costs of treating runoff from this material. 7. In section 4.4.1.1,.the methodology for assessing impacts to wetlands describes the impact thresholds for negligible, minor, moderate, and major impacts. DWQ feels that the impact thresholds should be adjusted to reflect the rarity and the relative significance of wetlands in this area. DWQ feels that any impact to wetlands less than 0.1 acres is at least a moderate impact, -�� especially considering the rare plant and animal communities that occur in these'wetlands. In Appendix M the DEIS presents the individual stream imgacts for each alternative. It is unclear whether these impacts are direct, indirect, or the combined direct and indirect impacts for each stream. Please provide the impacts associated with each stream for each alternative broken down into direct and indirect impacts. In addition, please provide conesponding iigures and maps that show the location of each impact. � In section 4.4.3.2, the document states that for the build alternatives, Water Quality Standard violations may occur or are likely to occur. A North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification can only be issued for a project that provides adequate assurances that Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines will not be violated. Based on the information provided in the DEIS, DWQ may not be able to issue a 401 Water Quality Certification for the build alternatives associated with this project. 10. Section 4.4.3.4, provides a discussion of the Impaument Evaluation. "Impaired waters" is a term related to surface waters that do not meet associated water quality standards. These waters are listed on the 303(d) list of Impaired Waters in accordance with the Clean Water Act. It is unclear whether use of the words "impairment" or "impaired waters" in the document corresponds with the meaning of the words in the Clean Water Act. Please provide a definitiori and a more in- depth discussion of "impaumenY' in the DEIS. 11. DWQ disagrees with the conclusion that Impairment of water quality is unlikely based on current , information. At several points in section 4.4.3, the Draft EIS states the water quality standards � March 1, 2006 Page 3 of 5 violations are likely to occur if any build scenario is selected. If these violations occur as expected, water quality impairment is a likely outcome. ' 12. It is worth noting that the Northern Shore Corridor alternative could potentially impact over 4 miles of streams in the project area.much of which includes the Great Smokey Mounfain National Park and a nominated Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) watershed. It is our understanding that impacts of this magnitude would not be in accordance with the National Park Service Organic Act as stated in section 3.2.5.1. 13. In August 2005, DWQ biologists completed a benthic macroinvertebrate survey of several representative tributaries along the north shore of Fontana I,ake to determine if the streams qualified for Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) designation. All benthic macroinvertebrate collections evaluated scored an excellent bioclassification and indicates the tributaries to the north shore of Fontana Lake qualify for ORW designation. In addition, the biologists noted that every sample collected from this study included at least one rare mayfly or caddisfly. An extremely rare caddisfly, Mayatrichia ayama, was collected at the Eagle Creek site. This particular taxon appears just eight times in over 5,800 of DWQ's benthological_collections throughout the State. The presence of such rare and diverse benthic communities demonstrates the pristine habitat and water quality provided by streams along the north shore of Fonatana Lake. DWQ is particularly concerried about the potential loss of these unique communities if any of the Northern Shore Corridor build alternatives are pursued. ' ' 14. The streams along the northern shore of Fontana Lake have been nominated for ORW designation. The NC Environmental Management Commission — Water Quality Committee has approyed staff to distribute draft rules for public comment. These rules include special restrictions on construction activity within the affected area. These restrictions may add additional cost to construction projects. It is unclear whether these additional costs have been included in the cost analysis for the proposed project. Please include the estimated costs of " meeting these additional restrictions in the cost analysis for.the build alternatives. 15. In the event that a construction alternatiye is selected, substantial mitigation will likely be required. It is unclear whether sufficient mitigation sites are available within the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) andlor eco-region. Little or no mitigation is available on-site, as the project lies within a Biosphere Preserve, and most similar watersheds outside the park boundary fall within National Forests. .Please provide a discussion of potential mitigation strategies for this project. . . General Comments: 1. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the Applicant is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and streams to the maximum extent practical. Should the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands exceed 1'acre and/or to ju'risdictional streams exceed 1501inear feet, mitigation will be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2)}. � March 1, 2006 Page 4 of 5 2. As part of the 401 Water Quality-Certification Application process, the Applicant is respectfully reminded to include specifics for both onsite and offsite mitigation plans. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. While NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjuriction with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. We'understand that NC DOT will request compensatory mitigation through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program for offsite mitigation. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certiiication Application, should continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping. 4. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required. The type and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of secoridary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004. 5. The Applicant is,�,espectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, fill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian,buffers need to be -included in the final impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certifcation , Application. 6. Where streams must be crossed; the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover; in areas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge may prove preferable. When applicable, bridge bents should not be installed in the creek, to the maJCimum extent practicable. , 7. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands. 8. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in bonow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation. 9. The 401 Water Quality Certification• application will need to specificarHy address the proposed methods for storm water management. More specifically, storm water should not be pemutted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters. 10. Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and streams may require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and conesponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality Certification requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require the submittal of a formal application by the Applicant and written concurrence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and minimization of wetland and stream impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of � � . March 1, 2006 � Page 5 of 5 ` an acceptable storm water management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate. • DWQ appreciates the opporturiity to provide comments ori your project. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-733-5715. � cc: Steve Lund, US ACE Asheville Regulatory Field Ofiice Marla Chambers, NC WRC Marella Buncick, USFWS _ � . � - Chris Militscher, USEPA Mike Parker, Asheville Regional Ofiice, NC DWQ Alex Marks, NC DWQ, Planning Branch File Copy •O 0 � 4. .> • •A \ � � � � �» «�r<� �r�,�"�..r;�� . -�� i.c�� ;,,- ��, MEMORANDUM . Michael F: Easley, Governor William G. Ross Jr., Secretary North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources � . March l, 2006 Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director Division of Water Quality To: Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator, Office,of Legislative and Intergovernmental � Affairs From: Brian L. Wrenn, Transportation Pernutting Unit, NC DWQ �� Through: John Hennessy, Supervisor, Transportation Permitting.Unit, NC DW �� Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement for North Shore Road in Swain County, �State Clearinghouse No. 06-0214. This office has reviewed the referenced document. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is responsible for the issuance of the �Section 401 Water Quality Certification for activities that impact Waters of the , U.S., including wetlands. ,The Division of Water Quality offers the following comments: , • � �� - � Document Specific Comments: l. In general, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) reports that the proposed Partial Build and Northern Shore Corridor alternatives would have major adverse impacts to wetlands, streams, lakes, water quality, aquatic ecology and vegetation communities. These alternatives would not meet the stated goals of the proposed project. At this time, DWQ does not feel that the potential benefits of the Purpose and Need justify the level of adverse impacts to these resources. 2. The document states that the Partial Build and Norfhern Shore Corridor alternatives would provide access for some cemeteries and remove access for others. Based on removal of access of some cemeteries, it is unclear how the Partial Build and North Shore Road alternatives would meet the goal of protecting the tangible aspects of cultural resources. Please provide additional information to clarify this issue. 3. In section 4.2.8, the document states that adverse impacts to cemeteries would occur as a result of the Partial Build and North Shore Alternatives due to "cutting current NPS-provided vehicular access." It is unclear what the NPS-provided vehicular access' consists of. Please describe the NPS-provided vehicular access. � 4. DWQ is extremely concerned about the long-term impacts to water quality resulting from the exposure of acid-producing (AP).rock formations during road construction. Construction of previous projects in areas with AP rock has resulted in degradation of water quality with no practical solutions available to reverse the impairment. The DEIS indicates similar rock formations are present throughout the study area, and.the Northern Shore Corridar would involve construction in the area with the highest potential for acid production. Please provide a discussion of the strategies that would be implemented to prevent water quality impairment due to runoff from AP rock. � . � Transportation Permitting Unit 1650 Maii Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650 2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Soite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Phone: 919-733-17861 FAX 919-733-6893 / Internet: httq://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action.Empioyer — 50% Recycledll0% Post Consumer Paper March 1, 2006 Page 2 of 5 5. In section 4.3.1.2, the DEIS states that up to 2.9 million cubic yards of excavated material would be produced by the Northern Shore Corridor alternative. This is a significant amount of excavated material. Due to the geological setting, there is the potential for much of this material to be unsuitable for iill material in the construction of embankments associated with the road. This is especially true for areas of AP rock. The DEIS does not discuss a disposal plan for this material. Please describe how and where this material will be disposed of and what the costs estimates of the disposal would be. This description should include best management practices for treatment and their associated costs. Please be aware that the DWQ will not allow disposal of excavated material in streams or wetlands. In addition, any storm water drainage that contacts excavated material identified to contain AP rock will not be allowed to discharge untreated to surface waters. 6. The DEIS states that up to half a million tons of limestone would be needed for encapsulation of AP rock to be used in embankments, and that the nearest quarry is 85 miles away. Do the construction costs for the proposed alternatives include the limestone hauling costs? If not, these costs should be included in the cost analysis. In addition, the cost analysis in Appendix E, only discusses the treatment of embankment material for AP rock. A1T excavated and exposed AP rock would require tre.atment not just material used for embankment. The cost analysis should reflect additional costs of treating runoff from this material. � 7. In section 4.4.1.1, the methodology for assessing impacts to wetlands describes the impact . thresholds for negligible, minor, moderate, and major impacts. DWQ feels that the impact thresholds should be adjusted to reflect the rarity and the relative significance of wetlands in this area. DWQ feels that any impact to wetlands less than 0.1 acres is at least a moderate impact, especially considering the rare plant and animal communities that occur in these wetlands. 8. The DEIS presents only the total direct and indirect impacts to streams and lakes associated with each alternative. Please provide the impacts associated with each stream for each alternative broken down into direct and indirect impacts. The best use classiiication should be included with each stream or unnamed tributary that would be impacted. In addition, please provide corresponding iigures and maps that show the location of each impact. In section 4.4.32, the document states that for the build alternatives, Water Quality Standard violations may occur or are likely to' occur. A North Carolina 401 Water Quality Certification can only be issued for a project that provides adequate assurances that Water Quality Standards and discharge guidelines will not be violated. Based on the information provided in the DEIS, DWQ may not be able to issue a 401 Water Quality Certiiication for the build alternatives associated with this project. � 10.. Section 4.4.3.4, provides a discussion of the Impairment Evaluation.. "Impaired waters" is a term related to surface waters that do not meet associated water quality standards. These waters are - listed on the 303(d) list of Impaired Waters in accordance witli the Clean Water Act. It is unclear whether use of the words "impairment" or "impaired waters" in the document corresponds with the meaning of the words in the Clean Water Act. Please provide a definition and a more in- depth discussion of "impairment" in the DEIS. 1 l. DWQ disagrees with the conclusion that Impairment of water quality is unlikely based on current information. At several points in section 4.4.3, the Draft EIS states the water quality standards 17 March l, 2006 '`' Page 3 of 5 � violations are likely to occur if any build scenario is selected. If these violations occur as expected, water quality impairment is a likely outcome. , - 12. It is worth noting that the Northern Shore Corridor alternative could potentially impact over 4 miles of streams in the project area inuch of which includes the Great Smokey IVlountain National Park and a nominated Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) watershed. It is our understanding that impacts of this magnitude would not be in accordance with the National Park Service Organic Act as stated in section' 3.2.5:1. 13. In August 2005, DWQ biologists completed a benthic macroinvertebrate survey of several representative tributarie's along the north shore of Fontana Lake to deternune if the'streams qualified for Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) designation. All benthic macroinvertebrate collections evaluated scored an excellent bioclassification and indicates the tributaries to the north shore of Fontana Lake qualify for ORW designation. In addition, the biologists noted that every sample collected from this study included at least one rare mayfly or caddisfly. An extremely rare caddisfly; Mayatrichia ayama,' was collected at the Eagle Creek site. This particular taxon appears just eight times in over 5,800 of DWQ's benthological collections throughout the State. The presence o�uch rare and divezse benthic communities demonstrates the pristine habitat- and water quality provided by streams along the north shore of Fonatana Lake. DWQ is particularly concerned about the potential loss of these unique communities if any of the�Northern Shore Corridor build alternatives are pursued. � � 14. The streams along the northern shore of Fontana Lake have been �nominated for ORW , designation. The NC Environmental Management Corrunission — Water Quality Committee has approved staff to distribute draft rules for public comment. These rules include special restrictions on construction activity within the affected area.. These restrictions may add ' additional cost to construction projects. IE is unclear whether these additional costs have been included in the cost analysis for the proposed project. Please include the estimated'costs of meeting these additional'restrictions in the cost analysis forthe build alternatives. 15. In the event that a construction alternative is selected, substantial mitigation will likely be required. It is unclear whether sufiicient mitigation sites are available within the 8-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) and/or eco-region. Little or no mitigation is available on-site, as the project lies within a Biosphere Preserve, and most similar watersheds outside the park boundary fall within National Forests. Please provide a discussion of potential mitigation strategies for this project. � General Comments: After the selection of the preferred alternative arid prioi to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the Applicant,:is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and streams to the maximum extent practical. Should the impacts to jurisdictional�wetlands exceed 1 acre and/or to jurisdictional streams exceed 1501inear feet, mitigation will be required in accordance with NCDWQ Wetland Rules { 15A �NCAC 2H.0506(h)(2) } . March 1, 2006 Page 4 of 5 2. As part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application process, the Applicant is respectfully reminded to include speciiics for both onsite and offsite mitigation plans. If mitigation is required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environinental documentation. While NCDWQ realizes that this may nof always be .practical, it should be.noted that for projects requiring mitigation; appropriate mitigation plans will be required in conjunction with the issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification. We understand that NC DOT will request compensatory mitigation through the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program for offsite mitigation. 3. Future documentation, including the 401 Water Quality Certification Application, should continue to include an itemized listing of the proposed wetland and stream impacts with corresponding mapping. . 4. An analysis of cumulative and secondary impacts anticipated as a result of this project is required. The ty.pe and detail of analysis should conform to the NC Division of Water Quality Policy on the assessment of secondary and cumulative impacts dated April 10, 2004. 5. The Applicant is,�espectfully reminded that all impacts, including but not limited to, bridging, iill, excavation and clearing, to jurisdictional wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers need to be included in the iinal impact calculations. These impacts, in addition to any construction impacts, temporary or otherwise, also need to be included as part of the 401 Water Quality Certification Application. 6. Where streams must be crossed, the DWQ prefers bridges be used in lieu of culverts. However, we realize that economic considerations often require the use of culverts. Please be advised that culverts should be countersunk to allow unimpeded passage by fish and other aquatic organisms. Moreover, in azeas where high quality wetlands or streams are impacted, a bridge. may prove preferable. When applicable, bridge bents should not be installed in the creek, to the maximum extent practicable. 7. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands. 8. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Impacts to wetlands in bonow/waste areas will need to be presented in the 401 Water Quality Certification and could precipitate compensatory mitigation. 9. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will rieed to specifically address the proposed methods for storm water management. More speciiically, storm water should not be pernutted to discharge directly into streams or surface waters. I �i' I I I 10. ,Based on the information presented in the document, the magnitude of impacts to wetlands and � streams may require an Individual Permit application to the Corps of Engineers and � conesponding 401 Water Quality Certification. Please be advised that a 401 Water Quality i Certiiication requires satisfactory protection of water quality to ensure that water quality standards are met and no wetland,or stream uses are lost. Final permit authorization will require , i the submittal of a formal application by the Applicant and written concunence from the NCDWQ. Please be aware that any approval will be contingent on appropriate avoidance and i minimization of wetland and stream- impacts to the maximum extent practical, the development of , March 1, 2006 -�� Page 5 of 5 an acceptable storm water management plan, and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation plans where appropriate. DWQ appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on your project.. Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please contact Brian Wrenn at 919-733-5715. cc: Steve Lund, US ACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office Marla Chambers, NC WRC Marella Buncick, USFWS Chris Militscher, USEPA Mike Parker, Asheville Regional Office, NC DWQ Alex Marks, NC DWQ, Planning Branch File Copy , r Aepartment of Environment and I�iatural Resources Off'ice of Legislative and Intergovernmental Afiairs Project Review Form Projoct Numbcr. �nry' �� lQ -� t�a. ►�k S�s..�..ti n.,� R�:ved: Ih:e }tapecsc D�� f� dv.�linc): � �.7 D �� AN r � �oo� �VEiLA�YDS� � ��.rE�` t;�'t' �' � ANp STORMW This project is tieing reviewed as indicated below: � AiE�C 6RptuC7i Rc ional O[Ticc Arca L�-Housc Rcvicw RcgionslOiGcc S • ', Asheville �{ A;,. � o Soil & Water ❑ iviarine Fisheries , , �r. r. ❑ Faycttevillc �WIIter o Coastal Managemcnt Crroundwatcr Wildlife o WatcrR.esourc,cs ❑ Mooresville - � � �" L�nd Quality Enginecr �Environmcntal Healti� ❑ R.aleigh � � � � ❑ Solid W�ste M�nt o Washington • � Recreational Consultant orest Resoufces ❑ Land Resources o Radiation Prot:ction ❑ Wilniin�ton � ' O tiVins[on-Salem �par};s 8c, Recreation o Otoer »�. VJater Qualit}� �t`.-� �S�\'``�'z'�� _ Sl�a�.w `P�"Q'�(�,`^'cSss� o Ground�ti�atcr . �u Quality . Datc: L: !'ous: Rc�ic.�r,lAgrn�' hfuiagcr Sibm-0fLRcgion: . Rcsponsc (cticck nll npplicnblc) � o No objection to project as proposed, ❑ No Comment � o- p Insufficient information to eomplete review ❑ Othcr ispe�ifY or attach couimcnts) �— RET U R1r TO: Itielba Mc� Environmental Coordinator � Off'ice of T.�g�stative & Intergovernmenta►1 Affairs , ..;, I . . . . ;,; �X'�