20080691 Ver 1_Public Notice Comments_20080825

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOr??;??T?
"elaf} ?LR/ .
MICHAEL F EASLEY LYNDO
GOVERNOR SECRETARY 1t'OH
FQ
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
August 18, 2008
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attention Andy Williams
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 7
Subject NCDOT responses to comments received during the public notice period for
the Section 404 Individual Permit for the Improvement of SR 1306 (South
Mebane St) from SR 1158 (Huffinan Mill Road) to NC 54 (Chapel Hill Road),
Alamance County, Federal Aid No STP-1306(8), State Project No 8 2473101,
Division 7, TIP U-3303A and U-3303B
Reference Section 404 Individual Permit Application dated April 16, 2008 (Action ID
200801454
USACE letter and enclosures dated July 24, 2008
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) submitted the permit application
for the proposed improvements of SR 1306 (South Mebane St ) on April 16, 2008 The
application was submitted for public notice on June 24, 2008 Comments were provided to
NCDOT by USACE in a letter dated July 24, 2008 After reviewing the comments, NCDOT has
the following responses
Comments from US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
The USFWS did not state any concerns regarding the proposed project or oppose issuance of a
permit No response from NCDOT is required
Comments from Linda Cykert
In a communication to USACE dated July 11, 2008, Linda Cykert recommended that USACE
deny the permit for the proposed project based on the following comments (NCDOT responses
are indicated in italics) I
• An apparent lack of a thorough surface water hydrological study involving rainfall
during a 100-year storm event and it consequent effect on downstream creeks and
streams draming toward federally regulated rivers
MAILING ADDRESS LOCATION
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE [phone] or 2728 CAPITAL BLVD SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER FAX [phone]
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
WEBSITE WWW NCDOT ORG
N .
NCDOT has performed Hydrological studies and Hydraulic designs for the project in
accordance with NCDOT Guidelines South Mebane Street is classified as a mayor
thoroughfare route and the following design standards were used
Storm drainage systems have been designed based on the 10 year storm event Storm
drain pipes or culverts were designed for the 50- year storm event at stream crossings
and in sag locations along Mebane Street and for the 25 year storm event along manor
secondary streets adjacent to the project The 100 year storm event was also evaluated
in the sag locations and stream crossings
Drainage outfalls along the U-3303B project have been evaluated for adequacy in
accordance with the design standards noted above and adjustments have been made
where deemed necessary
NCDOT's design guidelines including "Guidelines for Drainage Studies and Hydraulic
Designs " and "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters " have
been used in the design of the project
• Consequent increased silt runoff into creeks and streams
The Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plans will be designed and implemented during
construction to utilize Best Management Practices, and to comply with the
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act Areas disturbed during construction will be
revegetated and/or stabilized prior to the removal of all of the sediment and erosion
control devices
• Loss of trees and protective barriers because of unnecessary road widening, which will
primarily serve certain businesses and special interests
The proposed widening of SR 13061SR 1363 (South Mebane Street) is needed to meet the
growing transportation demands of the area while improving safety Currently, traffic
volumes for South Mebane Street are estimated between 12, 000 and 17, 000 vehicles per
day The design year (2025) estimates are expected to increase to as much as 33,100
vehicles per day Every effort was made during the design of this project to minimize
impacts to the trees and vegetation adjacent to the roadway One of the project
commitments is to provide landscaping along South Mebane Street to certain areas
• Increased dust, air, and noise pollution in our residential neighborhood, both during and
after construction
An air quality analysis was prepared during planning for the proposed project that
fulls the assessment requirements for the NEPA process As part of this overall
analysis, a microscale analysis was performed to predict the future carbon monoxide
(CO) concentrations near sensitive receptors resulting from the proposed highway
project for the years 2005, 2010 and 2025 No predicted CO concentrations exceed the
US EPA's published National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) Alamance
County has been determined by the USEPA to comply with all NAAQS except ozone, for
which the USEPA designated Alamance County as a marginal nonattainment area under
the eight-hour ozone standard on November 22, 2004 Alamance County is under an
Early Action Compact and the effective date of the nonattainment redesignation is April
15, 2008 Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable until
April 15, 2009 (one year after the nonattainment designation becomes effective) This
2of5
?i
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this
attainment area
During project construction, all materials resulting from clearing and grubbing,
demolition or other operations will be removed from the project, burned or otherwise
disposed of by the contractor Any burning will be done in accordance with applicable
local laws and ordinances and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation
Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D 0520 Care will be taken to
ensure burning will be done at the greatest distance practical from dwellings and not
when atmospheric conditions are such as to create a hazard to the public Burning will
be performed under constant surveillance Also during construction, measures will be
taken to reduce the dust generated by construction when the control of dust is necessary
for the protection and comfort of motorists or area residents
A traffic noise analysis was performed during project planning to predict noise impacts
in the design year 2025 caused by the proposed project Ten residences along the
project alignment are predicted to experience traffic noise levels that approach or
exceed the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)
found in Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations Part 772 If project construction does not
occur, three residences are predicted to experience traffic noise levels in excess of the
FHWA NAC All impacted receptors were considered for noise abatement, however, no
abatement measures were found to meet the reasonable and feasible criteria found in the
NCDOT Traffic Noise Abatement Policy Based on these findings, traffic noise
abatement is not recommended for this project and no noise abatement measures are
proposed
• While Mebane Street has state road status, its observed usage consists predommately of
local traffic
Although Mebane Street serves the local traffic area, it also serves as a connector
between NC 54 and NC 62 and it is parallel to Church Street (US 70) Therefore,
Mebane Street serves the regional traffic as well
Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Jurisdictional resources were reviewed in the field by USACE representatives John Thomas on
March 30, 2006 (Section B) and Andy Williams on June 12, 2007 (Section A) Mitigation
requirements were determined during these field reviews
Within Section A of the project area, one wetland, one intermittent and two perennial unnamed
tributaries (UT) to Gum Creek were identified Based on the poor stream quality and lack of
aquatic habitat, no mitigation was required for the intermittent streams In addition, based on the
poor stream quality, 1 1 mitigation was required for the perennial streams
Within Section B of the project area two intermittent UT's to Little Alamance Creek were
identified No mitigation was required for these streams based on the poor stream quality and
lack of aquatic habitat
Ina letter dated July 17, 2008, EPA commented on the proposed project In this letter, the EPA
recommended that "NCDOT be required to mitigate for the stream and wetland impacts at a 2 1
ratio" based on the following considerations (NCDOT responses are in italics)
3 of 5
One of the receiving waters, Little Alamance Creek, is listed as unpaired on the North
Carolina 2006 and Draft 2008 Clean Water Act 303(d) list Specifically there are
exceedances of the biological criteria for the benthic communities in Little Alamance
Creek In addition, Little Alamance Creek is classified as a Nutrient Sensitive Water
Guidance from EPA places each waterbody assessment unit, or se into one unique
assessment category The 2006303(d) last placed Little Alamanc segment,
under Category
6, indicating that "no identified cause(s) of impairment although aquatic life impacts
have been documented " The Draft 2008 last placed Little Alamance Creek under
Category 5, indicating that whale the water body is impaired "there were no other
Aquatic Life standards violations " Additionally, the October 2005 Basinwide Water
Quality Plan indicated that in addition to urban runoff, many storm sewers d-ischar e
residential -into the stream and m developments the waslower watershed, land clearing associated w-ith many g
noted
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Plans will be designed and Implemented during
construction to utilize Best Management Practices, and to comply with the g
Sedimentation Pollution Control Act Areas disturbed during construction will be
revegetated and/or stabilized prior to the removal of all of the sediment and erosion
control devices NCDOT's BMP's minimize Impacts on streams during construction,
therefore long term impacts resulting from the construction of the proposed project
should be minimal
Furthermore, mitigation was only required by USACE for the 3171inear feet of impacts
to the two perennial UT's of Gum Creek, which do not drain into Little Alamance Creek
1 1 mitigation is required for impacts to the UT's o
required for the intermittent UT's to Little Alamance Creek due to the poor st eam of
quality Little Alamance
protect area and will not Creek is located approximately 0 9 mile downstream of the
be impacted by construction of the proposed project
EPA understands that EEP is conducting a watershed planning Alamance Creek, Travis Creek, and Tickle Creek wat a sheds in Burlington on Little
collaborative effort with other state and local This a
preservation activities governments to prioritize estora oniand
in these watersheds All entities involved recognize the value of
the wetland and stream resources for water quality improvement, water
storage/hydrology, and habitat functions
Federal, state, and local government agencies were given the opportunity to revie r
comment on the Environmental Assessment (EA), including the US
x' and
Protection Agency, the North Carolina Department
Environmental
Resources of Environment and Natural
(NCDENR) (Division of Water
Winston-Salem Regional Office), the City of Bur ngton Planning Department Commisio, and
the
Burlington City Council Comments and NCDOT responses were included in the
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) At that time no comments regarding stream
and wetland impacts in regard to the watershed planning effort in the Little Alamance
Creek, Travis Creek, and Tickle Creek watersheds in Burlington, and the intended
restoration and preservation activities in these watersheds, nor were potential mitigation
preferences indicated
USA CE representatives reviewed jurisdictional resources in the project area and
mitigation requirements were based on existing stream quality
project area are ofpoor quality and the proposed impacts will not The result in sign significant the
4 of 5
degradation of downstream water quality The wetland impacts associated with this
project are minimal (less than 0 03 acre), which typically does not require mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is required for all wetland losses that exceed 1/10 acre
NCDOT's proposal to not mitigate for these minimal wetland impacts is consistent with
the standards applied to a private contractor within the project area During the site
visit by USACE representative on March 30, 2006, it was noted that a previously
delineated wetland within the project area had been filled during the construction of a
private project and was therefore no longerjurisdictional In a letter dated May 9, 200
(attached), John Thomas addressed his review of this impact and stated that there was
no record of authorization of the impact but "due to the size (approximately 010 acres)
it is an impact that could have been done by the landowner without notification to the
Corps " and that there would be no action taken with regard to this impact
If you have any questions or need any additional information about this project, please contact
Enca McLamb at [phone]
Sincere ,
Gre rori horpe, Ph D , Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc w/o attachments
Mr Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ
Mr Ma'ad Hassan, PDEA
Mr Jay Bennett, P E, Roadway Design
Mr Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr Andrew Nottingham, Hydraulics
Mr Greg Smith, HEU
5 of 5