20141169 All Versions_General Correspondence_20080701 (2)

WAIF Michael F. Easley, Governor
9 William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
`O~ QG North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
co r Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
] Division of Water Quality
O
July 1, 2008

MEMORANDUM

To: Mark Pierce, PE, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Section, NCDOT

Through: Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality

From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality/~Ijj

Subject: MERGER 01 PROCESS ISSUE BRIEF; TIP R-251413; improvements to US 17 in
Onslow and Jones Counties, from Belgrade to Chadwick.

1. Project Name and Brief Description: TIP R-251413; improvements to US 17 in Onslow and
Jones Counties, from Belgrade to Chadwick.

2. Last Concurrence Point (signed): CP 3 for sections C and D
Date of Concurrence: June 19, 2008
3. Explain what is being proposed and your position, including what you object to: There are
two alternatives remaining for the project in the area of concern; Alterative 2A and Alternative
2C. All other alternatives have been eliminated from further study. The NCDOT prefers
Alternative 2A while the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) prefers Alternative 2C.

4. Explain the reasons for your potential non-concurrence. Please include any data or
information that would substantiate and support your position: The DWQ prefers Alternative
2C primarily because it has significantly lower impacts to natural resources than Alternative 2A.

• According to the "Reverification of Jurisdictional Areas (Wetlands) Comparison Table"
in the revised (June 19, 2008) meeting packet, wetland impacts for Alternative 2C are
anticipated to be 14.95 acres. The anticipated impacts to wetlands for Alternative 2A are
39.80 acres (more than 2.5 times that of Alternative 2C).
• According to the "Results of Reverification of Jurisdictional Areas (Streams) Comparison
Table" in aforementioned document, Alternative 2C will have anticipated impacts to
2,007.7 feet of stream; Alternative 2A will potentially impact 3,117.0 feet (more than 50
percent greater than Alternative 2C).

• Thus far, modifications and re-evaluations made have affected impacts to streams and
wetlands for both alternatives. However, additional impacts associated with Alternative
2A have been much greater than those for Alternative 2C. For example, based on the
previously mentioned tables, the wetland re-evaluation added an additional 11.32 acres of
impact to Alternative 2A's already 28.48 acres, for a total of 39.80. This amounts to a 40
percent increase. When bridge lengths were modified, stream impacts increased 1,252.4
feet, from 1,864.6 feet to 3,117.0 feet, or 67 percent. Impacts to wetlands from
Alternative 2C increased 0.53 acres, while stream impacts decreased 308.58 feet.
No,~thCarolina
Transportation Permitting Unit Naturally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper

The NCDOT is stating that impacting the community of Belgrade would constitute an
environmental justice issue if Alternative eera2C is l s Admhn LEDPA. This
(FHWA)~s Hots
not federally funded. Therefore, the Highway Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is
represented in this project and the United States Army the lead federal agency for this project.
issues exist within a project It appears that ino
determine if any environmental justice
FHWA's absence, the NCDOT determined that impacting Belgrade would constitute an
environmental justice issue. As the lead
not the NCDOT yWhen this s sue was dis used which
ultimately makes this determination, here we
e several during the June 19, 2008 meeting, the satementeThe DWQ believestthat thisrissue should
unanswered questions regarding th
LEDPAronmental justice issue would exist
be further investigated to determine if a real
should Alternative 2C be selected or jeopardized if the
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you
the basis fore iolation dPlease attach a copy
proposed action were implemented and explain
of the relevant portion of the law or regulation or provide a web address where the
document(s) may be located: The most relevant law is 1 C 02H.0
to Os relevance.
(htt://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/rules/2H 0500.pdD. The following attests 15A NCAC 02H.0500 states that "In evaluating requests for certification... the Director
shall determine if the proposed activity has the potential to remove or degrade those
significant uses which are present in the wetland or surface water." It goes on to state
that "The Director shall issue a certification upon determining that existing uses are not
removed or degraded by a discharge to classified surface waters for anoaftiv Rwhichd )
i
has no practical alternative under the criteria outlined in Paragraph
will minimize adverse impacts to the surface waters based on consideration of existing
` topography, vegetation, fish and wildlife resources, and hydrological conditions under the
criteria outlined in Paragraph (g) of this Rule and 3) does not result in the degradation of
groundwater or surface waters." A lack of
Section (f) of 15A NCAC 02H.0500 (mentioned previously) state that the potential for a
practical alternatives may be shown by demonstrating that, considering reduction is size, configuration, or density, of the pro osed activity a manner alternative
would
designs the basic purpose cannot be practically accomplished
avoid or result in a less adverse impact to surface waters or wetlands."
When reviewing applications for 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC), the DWQ is
that if a peach al wetlands have
required per 15 NCAC 02H.0500 to see that impacts tstates o surface
been minimized to best extent practical. Sects (fl et still meets the
exists that would minimize impacts to wetlands and surface waters, y
basic project purpose (as defined by NCDOT's Purpose Need atemen )ithsn it
should be selected. Since Alternatives 2A and 2C have been
assumed by the DWQ that both are practical and meet the purpose and need of the
project.
6. What alternative course(s) of action do you recommend: The impacts co ulternative 2A
are significantly higher than for Alternative 2C. The DWQ does not feel it a pp
DWQ reduce impacts pacts de Alternative
Alternative 2A due to the difference in impacts. If the NCDOT can
2A such that they are similar to those of Alternative 2C, the recons
supporting Alternative 2A. Also, the DWQ would like to encourage the NCDOT and the USACE
to further investigate the potential environmental justice issue in Belgrade, as agreed during the
June 19, 2008 concurrence meeting.