Elizabeth Brady Rd Extension (11)

Cm y0
- ? w
O O
z v
o
r
December 2, 2009
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
61 FORSYTH STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Di. Gregory .1. Thorpe, Ph.D., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina DepartInent of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJECT: Federal Draft Environmental Impact Statemcn
Extension, Hillsborough, Orange County, North Carolina;
E40829-NC; CEQ No.: 20090352
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
.v/
t for the Elizabeth Brady Road .
TIP Project No.:U-3808; FHW-'
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
I'ransportalion (NCDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are proposing to
construct an approximate 3. mile, multi-lane, median divided facility from south of US'70
Business to north of US 70 Bypass at SR 1002 (Saint Mary's Road) with a possible new crossing
o f the Eno Ri vcr
The proposed project has been in the NEPAJSection 404 Merger 01 process beginning in
June of200.1, EPA initially concurred on ourposc'and need on June 141 2001. Concurrence
Point 2, Detailed Study Alternatives to be Carried. Forward was signed on April 15, 2004.
Concurrence Point 2A, Bridging and Alignment Rcvicw was signed on November 15, 2005. As
noted in the forms in Appendix A to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Purpose
and Need was refined and modified on February 21, 2008, and April 21, 2009. EPA concurred
on these proposed modifications to the purpose and need for the project. EPA's detailed review
comments on the DETS are provided in Attachment A.
EPA has rated the three (3) build alternatives `EC-2', Environmental Concerns with
additional infotTnation being requested for the final document. EPA's environmental concerns
are primarily related to project study area jurisdictional stream impacts, riparian buffer impacts, a
historic property, and prime farmlands. EPA requests that further information be provided at the
Merger Concunence Point 3 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)
meeting.
Based upon life our evaluation of the overall impacts to the natural and human .
environment, the project purpose and need, and potential new crossings of the Eno River From
Al ternatives 3 and 4. EPA prefers Alternative 6. However, EPA wishcs.lo obtain input from
other Merger "fcam agencies on potential unresolved issues such as endangered and threatened

Internet Address (URL) • http./Jw .epa.gov
RecycledlRecyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based inks or Recycled Paper (Minimum 3D% Postcensumep
species and the opportunities for avoidance, minimization and mitigation to certain impacted
resources Stich as streams.
Mr. Christopher Militscher will work with you, FHWA and the other merger team . .
agencies on the continued environmental coordination activities for this project. Please feel free
to contact Mr. N, ilitscher of my staff at [phone] should you have specific questions
concerning EPA's comments.
Sinc ely,
7 Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
NEPA Program Office
Cc.: J. Sullivan., FHWA
K. Jolly. USACE
B. Wrenn, NCDENR
Attachment: A -Detailed Comments
impacted receptors as 8 (not 7). This information should be clarified in the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS).
Air Quality and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
The project is located in Orange County which is within the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
non-attainment area for ozone (03). It is not anticipated that this project will result in non-
conlormity to the approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) and complies with transportation
conformity and with local plans and determinations (Pages 4-21 and 4-22 of the DEIS).
EPA notes the FHWA 2006 interim guidance for b4S.ATs on Pages 4-22 to 4-28. As
previously stated by EPA from other NEPA document reviews and in comment letters, this
general qualitative analysis is not project specific and potential near roadway sensitive receptors
for the three build alternatives have not been identified.
Prime Farmlands
Farmland impacts are described in Section 4.2.3 of the DEIS, Table 4-6 presents the
acres of potential impact (i.e., Com,ersion) to prime or-unique farmland soils. Appendix D
includes the MRCS Farmland Conversion Impact Rating forms for the 3 build alternatives.
Alternative 3 scored 91 out 260 total points, Alternative 4 scored 82 out of 260 total points, and
Alternative 6 scored 90 out of 260 total points. Table 4-6 scoring information does not match up
exactly as the information on the NRCS AD-1006 Form provided in Appendix D. Table 4-6
indicates that Alternatives 3, 4 and 6 will convert 52.2 acres, 48.4 acres and 29.7 acres,
espectively. The acres in the table do not add up correctly for Alternative 6 (i.e., 24.6 acres of
State and Local Important soils + 8.0 acres ofPrime and Unique Farmland soils: 29.7 total
acres). If the soil acreage is correct, the total for Alternative 6 should be 32.6 acres. Alternative
6 has the least amOnn[ of acreage that will be converted to other non-agricultural uses.