SOUTH VALLEY PARKWAY PROJECT S.R. 3046, SECTION 301 CITY OF NANTICOKE, HANOVER AND NEWPORT TOWNSHIPS LUZERNE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS REPORT AND ENGINEERING DISTRICT 4-0 MAY 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED .................................................................................1 II. AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ....................7 A. FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ......................................7 B. STATE AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES .........................................25 III. SUMMARY OF WETLAND IMPACTS (REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TABLE 3-C-2.1) ..................................29 - i - I. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED I. PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED The Environmental Assessment (EA) report was distributed and made available to the public and agencies for review from February 8 to March 10, 2013. The advertisement announcing the availability of the EA also announced the opportunity to request a public hearing ended on February 23, 2013. The City of Nanticoke requested a public hearing (letter to Pennsylvania Department of Transportation [PennDOT], dated February 8, 2013). Following a meeting with the PennDOT project team, the City Manager, members of the City Council, and representatives of the South Valley Chamber of Commerce on March 6, 2013, the City rescinded the request (e-mail to PennDOT dated April 10, 2013). No comments from the general public were received for the EA document throughout the duration of the public comment period, and no members of the general public requested a public hearing. - 1 - - 2 - - 3 - - 4 - - 5 - From: Pam Heard <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:32 PM To: Tomaszewski, Christopher M Subject: South Valley Pwky Chris, The City withdraws our request for a public hearing on the South Valley Parkway. The meeting we had with City officials and PA Dot was very helpful in explaining the particulars of the new highway. Thank you. Pamela Heard, City Manager City of Nanticoke 15 East Ridge Street Nanticoke, PA 18634 570-735-2800 ext 107 This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for your cooperation. - 6 1 II. AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS II. AGENCY COMMENTS RECEIVED AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS A. FEDERAL AGENCY COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The following federal agencies provided comments on the EA report: • U.S. Department of Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Michael Dombroskie, Biologist, Pennsylvania Section (March 22, 2013) • U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service – Sarah Gannon- Nagle, Acting Field Office Supervisor, Pennsylvania Field College Office (March 11, 2013) • U.S. Environment Protection Agency, Region III – Barbara Rudnick, NEPA Team Leader, Office of Environmental Programs (March 11. 2013) The letters and responses to the comments are provided on the following pages. - 7 - Responses to Michael Dombroskie, Biologist, Pennsylvania Section U.S. Department of the Army, Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1. PennDOT is committed to continue coordination with the permitting and resource agencies during final design and the permit application process to develop the most cost- effective structure design for the proposed crossing over Warrior Creek. All reasonable efforts will be taken to minimize impacts to the stream and the aquatic community while accommodating high flow/velocity storm events. During final design, PennDOT will also coordinate with the agencies related to the proposed Warrior Creek channel modifications. The proposed impacts for Warrior Creek total approximately 2,399 linear feet. The Preferred Alternative’s crossing over Warrior Creek includes 178 linear feet of stream enclosure associated with the proposed box culvert, 282 linear feet of rip-rap channel lining, and 235 linear feet of reduced stream length. The remaining 1,704 linear feet of proposed impacts to Warrior Creek include 570 linear feet along the main stem of Warrior Creek and 1,134 linear feet along a small tributary channel to Warrior Creek that supports ephemeral/intermittent flow. Efforts will be made during final design to avoid and minimize impacts to these areas. Realignment may be needed to maintain hydrologic conveyances through the South Valley Parkway (SVP) project. A Stream Mitigation Plan that will identify the extent and type of restoration and compensatory stream mitigation will be developed for the project. It is anticipated that the stream mitigation options to be considered could include, but not be limited to, in lieu fee stream mitigation by funding a Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) Bureau of Abandoned Mine Reclamation (BAMR) stream project in a SVP project area watershed (Nanticoke Creek or Warrior Creek) and the use of a Natural Stream Channel approach for stream modifications/relocations (including consideration of rock weir and revetments to maintain channel slope and stability). PennDOT initiated coordination with - 8 PA DEP concerning potential stream mitigation projects and in lieu fee mitigation in 2006 when the PA DEP BAMR program took over projects in the Nanticoke Creek watershed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Aquatic Restoration Program (206B Program). Coordination continued in 2008 with PA DEP and the USACE. 2. Table 3-C-2.1 (Summary of Wetland Impacts) has been revised and is included in 1 Section III of this document. The EA table inconsistencies were related to the reported size of the wetlands and not the impacts (the impacts are unchanged). The individual wetland total acreages came from the SVP “Wetland Delineation Report” (January 2010) and did not reflect changes to wetland boundaries that occurred after the June 2010 Jurisdictional Determination field view. In addition, some inconsistencies were a result of rounding the total wetland acreages. The “size” of the wetlands listed in this table represent the entire wetland (note, during the delineations, some large wetland boundaries were identified as open-ended; however, none of these wetlands would be impacted and were therefore not listed in the table). Wetland Nos. 65, 67, 68, 71, and others, where the impact size equals the total size, are considered a “total take.” 3. The Wetland Mitigation Strategy (EA Attachment F1) for restoration of wetland areas temporarily impacted will include replanting areas with native wetland and riparian 2 vegetation. The types of plantings to be used will be based on the affected wetlands’ vegetative composition. 3 3 - 9 - - 10 - Responses to Sarah Gannon-Nagel, Acting Field Office Supervisor U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Field Office 1. The project has undergone “right-sizing” efforts (VE/ACTT meeting, May 2007 – see EA page II-21) that minimized land and vegetation disturbances. PennDOT will work during final design to identify and locate temporary construction areas (access areas, staging areas, etc.) within previously disturbed areas and areas to be disturbed permanently, to the extent possible. If, during construction, the contractor identifies other temporary construction areas outside the approved final design limits of disturbance, the contractor is required to obtain environmental clearance/permits as needed for these areas. PennDOT has committed to developing the project’s construction schedule in compliance with time of year timbering restrictions (November 15 to March 31) to avoid temporary impacts to the Indiana bat and the small-footed myotis. A Special Provision for the timbering time restrictions will be included in the Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) package. (See EA Step 4, Section B [Summary of Mitigation for Preferred Alternative], page II-4.) This time restriction is more restrictive and falls within the September 1 to March 31 timeframe being requested for migratory birds. It is PennDOT’s policy that an assessment of a project’s impact to migratory birds will only be included in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document if the project is 1 located within an important bird area (IBA) or significant or unique ecosystems. There is no identified IBA in the vicinity of the project area. The closest IBA is the Susquehanna Riverlands Environmental Preserve that straddles both the east and west banks of the Susquehanna River (jointly owned by PPL Corporation and Allegheny Electric Cooperative, Inc.) just north of Berwick and over 14 miles downriver from Nanticoke City. In addition, no significant or unique ecosystem has been identified in the SVP - 11 - - 11 project area. 2. Table 3-C-2.1 (Summary of Wetland Impacts) has been revised and included in Section III of this document. The EA table inconsistencies were related to the reported size of the wetlands and not the impacts (the impacts are unchanged). The individual wetland total acreages came from the SVP “Wetland Delineation Report” (January 2010) and did not reflect changes to wetland boundaries that occurred after the June 2010 Jurisdictional Determination field view. In addition some inconsistencies were a result of rounding the total wetland acreages. Wetland Nos. 65, 67, 68, 71,