HomeMy WebLinkAbout20090372 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20081016US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4 RALEIGH OFFICE
TERRY SANFROD FEDERAL COURTHOUSE
310 NEW BERN AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601
Date October 16, 2008
Dr Gregory J Thorpe, PhD
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJECT EPA Review Comments of the Federal Environmental Assessment for
U-4444 , NC 210 (Murchinson Road) from the proposed Fayetteville Outer
Loop to NC-24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard), Cumberland County
Dear Dr Thorpe
The U S Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 (EPA) has reviewed the
subject document and is commenting in accordance with Section 309 of the Clean Air
Act and Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) The
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) are proposing to close
Bragg Boulevard (NC 24-87) for security reasons, widen existing NC 210 to six lanes,
and construct two new interchanges and an extension of Randolph Street
The proposed project was requested to be placed in the Section 404/NEPA
Merger 01 process by resource agencies EPA notes the following concurrence point
(CP) milestones CP 1 Purpose and Need signed 4/22/2008 and CP 2 Alternatives to be
Carried Forward for Detailed Study also signed 4/22/08 A CP 2A Bridging and
Alignment Review field meeting was scheduled and completed on October 14, 2008
EPA notes that the Environmental Assessment (EA) was not co-signed by the
DOD Fort Bragg representative Furthermore, EPA and other Merger team agencies
understood from the CP 1 Merger meeting that DOD was also providing funding for this
roadway project DOD is not indicated as a Cooperating Agency in the EA The primary
`need' for this proposed project was concurred upon by Merger team agencies based
upon DOD security issues at Fort Bragg and the closure of through traffic on Bragg
Boulevard The EA did not fully address the security issues associated with the closure
of Bragg Boulevard The traffic carrying capacity issue along NC 210 (Murchinson
Road) was predicated on the DOD's road closure decision
EPA also notes that the proposed project is only partially funded The U-4444A
portion is funded and the U-4444B section is unfunded per the discussion in the EA
There are two build alternatives currently under consideration NCDOT
considered other preliminary study alternatives and designs to meet the purpose and need
and to avoid and other minimize impacts to the human and natural environment EPA, as
well as other Merger team agencies, requested that these preliminary study alternatives be
shown and documented in the EA Many of these preliminary study alternatives had
been eliminated by NCDOT prior to the CP 1 meeting These alternatives are detailed in
Section 3 of the EA with a general description of why they were eliminated from further
study However, during the October 14, 2008, field meeting several agencies asked if
NCDOT has considered different design changes between Alternatives 1 and 2 (e g, A
hybrid design) This idea might be considered and explored by NCDOT prior to the CP 3
LEDPA meeting
Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Impacts
Alternative 1 has approximately 6 85 acres of impact to wetlands and Alternative
2 has approximately 9 22 acres of impacts to wetlands At the October 14, 2008, field
meeting, NCDOT explored moving a ramp closer in at the Randolph Street interchange
location and it is estimated that approximately an acre of wetland impacts can be reduced
for Alternative 2 (NCDOT's preferred alternative) EPA has continued environmental
concerns for the potential impacts to Wetland `EER', a high quality, palustrine forested,
riverme system Even with a revised ramp design for Alternative 2, approximately 6
acres of this high quality system would be filled According to the EA, this system
scored a NCDWQ score of 82
Alternative 1 has an estimated 1,107 linear feet of stream impacts and Alternative
2 has an estimated 1,181 linear feet of stream impacts Jurisdictional streams include
Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek and their tributaries Both Cross Creek and Little
Cross Creek are designated as biologically impaired water bodies under Section 303(d) of
the Clean Water Act Urban runoff is cited in the EA (Page 52) as the potential cause for
its impaired status EPA has environmental concerns that other resource constraints (i e ,
RCW habitat) will allow for full stormwater control measures within the project study
area to prevent the further degradation of these impacted jurisdictional streams
EPA plans to work with NCDOT and other Merger team agencies on these
important jurisdictional issues As discussed during the October 14th field meeting,
additional comprehensive planning and coordination with Fort Bragg may be needed to
address these environmental issues The EA references that there are potential on-site
stream and wetland mitigation sites available in the project study area NCDOT referred
to the Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR) However, during the field review
meeting observations it does not appear likely that there are any viable on-site mitigation
opportunities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project
Other Environmental Impacts and General EA Comments
EPA notes that the summary table of impacts on Page 9, Table 1, only includes
wetland, stream, and relocation impacts and costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 From Chapter
5 of the EA, there are also potential impacts to noise receptors, terrestrial forests and
endangered species EPA recommends that all environmental impacts from the proposed
project be included in a summary table for the future CP 3 meeting and in the Finding of
No Significant Impact (FONSI) document
EPA acknowledges that there are potentially 277 8 acres of terrestrial forests in
the project study area However, this estimated impact is not specific to either
Alternatives 1 or 2 and should be detailed in future documents EPA notes Table 13
regarding the Federal Species of Concern (FSC) in the project study area The footnotes
below the table do not appear to correspond with the information in the actual table
Furthermore, two of the FSC include migratory birds (i e , Bachman's Sparrow and
Black-throated Green Warbler) that are potentially protected under the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA) As with the unresolved issues involving the Red-cockaded
Woodpecker (RCW), NCDOT should consult with the U S Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) concerning potential MBTA issues and include relevant information in the
FONSI
In summary, EPA has not identified an environmentally-preferred alternative
("LEDPA") at this time There are still potentially unresolved issues involving potential
impacts to RCW foraging habitat and active clusters that could alter the current design
and alignment of both Alternatives land 2 EPA defers to FWS and the N C Wildlife
Resources Commission on these issues One the realignment considerations could
potentially increase jurisdictional impacts to streams and wetlands EPA also requests
that NCDOT consider further planning with Fort Bragg regarding comprehensive
stormwater management controls to prevent further degradation to Section 303(d) listed
Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek EPA will continue to stay active in the Merger 01
process for this proposed project Thank you for the opportunity to comment
Sincerely,
Christopher A Militscher, REM, CHMM
Merger Team Representative
NEPA Program Office
For Heinz J Mueller, Chief
EPA Region 4 NEPA Program Office
cc Rob Ridings, NCDWQ
Richard Spencer, USACE
Gary Jordan, USFWS
Travis Wilson, NCWRC