19990223 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20080501

l) L00) Or" n UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
s ?? U REGION 4
y a ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER
02 61 FORSYTH STREET
qt PRATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
May 1, 2008
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Subject: US 74 Shelby Bypass, Cleveland County
Final EIS; TIP R-2707
CEQ No.: 20080099; FHW-E40778-NC
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 has reviewed the subject
document and is commenting in accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) are proposing to construct a new location 4-lane freeway around the Town of Shelby in
Cleveland County. The 18.2-mile new bypass freeway is proposed to address traffic capacity on
US 74, mobility in the region, potential for future traffic congestion, improving safety and
strengthening the economy of the area. This `pipeline' project was placed in the NEPA/Section
404 Merger process in May of 1999 and included the selection of the Least Environmentally
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA). On January 17, 2001, a meeting was held regarding
avoidance and minimization (Concurrence point #4). The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) was issued in October of 1998.
EPA provided DEIS review comments on the proposed project on January 22, 1999.
NCDOT and FHWA have addressed EPA's comments in Chapter 6 of the FEIS, pages 6-9 to 6-
18. EPA acknowledges NCDOT and FHWA's responses to EPA's comments concerning
economic development, mass transit, HOV lanes, inclusion of a southern bypass alternative, and
the need for a northern arterial facility, air quality issues, noise receptor impacts, relocation
impacts, and water resource impacts.
In EPA's comments on the 1998 DEIS, Alternative 21 (Preferred alternative and eventual
LEDPA) was given a rating of "EC-2", Environmental Concerns, more information required.
While some of EPA's concerns have been addressed since that time, there are several
outstanding environmental concerns that EPA's continues to have regarding the proposed
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)

project. These environmental concerns are detailed in the attachment to this letter (See
Attachment "A")
One of the difficulties in reviewing the FEIS included the presentation of the information.
EPA understands that NCDOT and FHWA wanted to `re-fresh' the public record because of the
time period since the 1998 issuance of the DEIS. However, the information presented
concerning impacts and the Tier 1 Alternatives, Tier 2 Detailed Study Alternatives, and the
Preferred Alternative made certain issues more confusing. Tables S-1 (Alternative #21 -
Preferred) and S-2 should have been compared to one another to see the changes that have
occurred since additional design work has been completed and additional avoidance and
minimization measures implemented. For the text of the impacts in Section S.8, the ranges of
the impacts between the earlier "Tier 2" alternatives does not provide any helpful information
that could not be accomplished through a table such as Table S-1. Furthermore, Table S-2
provides impacts to certain resources such as streams and wetlands in a new form: right-of-way
limits versus construction limits. Most permitting and resource agencies are only concerned with
what aquatic resources are actually impacted (i.e., Filled, drained, piped, ditched, etc.). Aquatic
resources that are un-impacted but are included within the right-of-way required for the project
are not typically included in impact calculations. Similarly, impacts to other resources were
prorated using the original 1000-foot corridor widths and not based upon currently proposed
right-of-way widths required for the project (e.g., Agricultural lands and terrestrial forests).
EPA also notes that a substantial portion of the data in the FEIS, including wetland and
stream information, was based upon 2001 data and not more current guidance and requirements.
EPA's records also indicate that CP 4B and 4C meetings were held on portions of the project on
March 17, 2004 and May 19, 2004. All data and information for this project should be updated to
current requirements and accepted methodologies in the Record of Decision (ROD). Because of
the length of time from pre-Merger 01 NEPA/Section 404 guidance (i.e., CP #4 in 2001) and that
several sections of the project are not funded or proposed for funding until after Fiscal Year (FY)
2013, EPA requests that NCDOT and FHWA put those portions of the project in the Merger 0l
process at Concurrence Point 4A, Avoidance and minimization, to insure that the most current
guidelines and requirements are being addressed and documented.
In summary, EPA continues to have substantial environmental concerns with stream
impacts, water quality impacts, air quality impacts (including Mobile Source Air Toxics -
MSATs), prime farmland impacts and indirect and cumulative impacts. NCDOT and FHWA
should consider the issuance of a FEIS re-evaluation considering that some of the information
and requirements that have not been updated in the current FEIS.
EPA recommends that (unfunded) portions of this project be included in the Merger 01
process at Concurrence Point 4A, avoidance and minimization. Please continue to include EPA
through the hydraulic and permit review stages as well, including the detailed avoidance and
minimization efforts for stormwater management and the use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs). Please include Ms. Kathy Matthews of EPA's Wetlands Section on any Concurrence
Point 413 and 4C meetings in addition to any activities in developing a mitigation plan. Should
you have any questions about EPA's comments, please contact Mr. Christopher Militscher on
my staff at [phone] or by e-mail at: [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Heinz J. Mueller
Chief, NEPA Program Office
Office of Policy and Management
cc: K. Jolly, USACE Wilmington District
J. Sullivan, FHWA-NC
P. Benjamin, USFWS-Raleigh
B. Wrenn, NCDENR-DWQ
ATTACHMENT A
US 74, Shelby Bypass, Cleveland Counties
TIP# R-2707
Specific Comments on FEIS
Project Description and Purpose and Need
The document is unclear about the exact length of the proposed freeway. On Page 2-48,
Table 2-10, the total length of the project based upon the project phasing for the 5 phases of R-
2707 (A thru E) is estimated by EPA at 18.2 miles. Phases D and E are unfunded (i.e., Post year,
after FY 2013). Phase C is only funded in the TIP for right-of-way acquisition in FY 2012. The
Record of Decision (ROD) should clearly state the length of the new freeway.
The land required for the proposed project would be approximately 1,000 acres, which is
0.33% of the total land area of Cleveland County. It is also important to note that there are two
existing US 74 routes through Shelby, the US 74 Bypass and US 74 Business. The proposed
full-control of access, multi-lane freeway is a longer, northern US 74 bypass.
Exhibit 2-16 provides Year 2025 AADT volumes for the Preferred Alternative (i.e.,
Alternative #21). On page 2-46 of the FEIS there is also a discussion concerning the updated
traffic estimates from the DEIS which used 2020 traffic numbers. Projected traffic numbers
increased based upon the 2020 to 2025 update, except for the bypass segment from NC 150 to
the eastern bypass terminus (i.e., 33,300 AADT to 30,900 AADT). However, EPA recommends
that all projected traffic volume estimates should be updated to Year 2030 or 2035. Accident
data and analysis is also from the period of 2000 to 2002 and needs to be updated.
EPA believes that there is adequate traffic justification (i.e., Future traffic congestion,
improving safety, regional improvements to a Strategic Highway Corridor, etc.) for the proposed
controlled access freeway without the secondary purpose of economic development (Pages 1-6 to
1-10, 1-25, et al.). While regionally there may be some tangible benefits in terms of reduced
costs for travel time, etc., locally there may be adverse economic effects to local downtown
businesses in Shelby and the loss of a portion of the tax base from the relocation of 165
residences and 25 businesses. This freeway is proposed as a fully controlled access facility and
may not enhance re-development except potentially at interchange locations. Without conducting
an in-depth economic development and land use study, many of the `benefit issues' identified in
the FEIS do not appear to be supported by currently available studies or reports.
Project Alternatives and the Least Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA) or
Preferred Alternative
EPA does not have any major environmental concerns regarding the alternatives carried
forward for detail study (Tier 2) in the DEIS/FEIS or the corridor selection of the LEDPA
(Alternative #21). However, much of the data and assumptions made for avoidance and
minimization to wetlands and streams, other natural resources and human resources were made
in 2001. The FEIS does not address these assumptions or address the potential need to re-visit
issues based upon new information or requirements, including the 2005 Merger 01
NEPA/Section 404 guidance.
There are eight (8) interchanges proposed for the project including SR 1162, US 74
Western Bypass terminus, SR 1313, NC 226, NC 18, NC 150, US 74 Eastern Bypass terminus
and SR 2245. From Exhibit 2-16, the proposed interchanges at SR 1162 and the Western Bypass
Terminus appear to be very close (Approximate scale 1" = 5,000 feet and measured distance is
approximately a quarter of an inch or approximately 1,250 feet).
Eight (8) interchanges, including 6 local access interchanges for the preferred alternative
(Alternative #21) is more than a number of the other alternatives considered, including
Alternatives 1, 3, 7, 9, 13, 16, and 19. EPA reviewed Table 4-26, page 4-124 of the FEIS, where
the types of each interchange are presented for all of the alternatives. EPA is primarily
concerned with the impacts to the human and natural environment at the diamond interchange at
SR 2245 (Rural residential/some agricultural uses), and the partial cloverleaf at SR 1162 (Rural
agricultural/scattered residences). Interchanges at these rural locations can also cause potentially
indirect and cumulative impacts to resources around these interchanges. EPA requests that
NCDOT and FHWA provide detailed updated traffic justification for both of these interchanges.
Both of these interchanges extend beyond the two new interchanges proposed along the existing
US 74 corridor at the western and eastern termini.
Stream and Wetland Impacts
EPA provided a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) dated May 10, 1999, on the
public notice on the DEIS. None of the comments specifically identified in this letter are
included in the FEIS.
Wetlands impacts from the preferred alternative are relatively low at 2.37 acres (based
upon construction limits). EPA is uncertain as to the difference between this estimated
construction impact and the projected 3.07 acres of right-of-way impacts. For consistency
purposes, NCDOT and FHWA typically report the estimated impact based upon the construction
limits (cuts and fills) plus 25 feet beyond slope stakes lines. Wetlands that are near the
construction limits and may be drained from cut sections are also calculated in the impact total.
Not all of the proposed 320-foot right-of-way is expected to be cleared. EPA is unsure what this
new category of right-of-impact means in relation to the construction impact or what will be
included in the as the final impact numbers for the 404 or 401 permits.
Similarly, stream impacts were reported with right-of-way limits and construction limits.
For right-of-way impacts the total is 24,054 linear feet with 21,940 linear feet being "mitigable".
The construction limit impact total is 18,389 linear feet with 16,786 "mitigable". EPA reviewed
the FEIS text, Tables D-1 and D-2, including the notes on S-5 in Table D-2, and can not find the
specific `design' definition for either. This was apparently an early `Merger CP #4' effort to
specify the typical difference between impacts based upon proposed right-of-way limits and
anticipated construction limits using preliminary and/or functional designs. However, at this
point in the NEPA process, NCDOT and FHWA should have more final design plans and should
be able to provide the actual estimated impacts based upon the construction limit slope stakes
plus 25 feet.
Based upon a general comparison to other projects in the Piedmont on new location, the
proposed Shelby Bypass has high impacts to streams in the project area (i.e., Greater than 1,000
linear feet per mile of roadway improvement). EPA would request that additional avoidance and
minimization to streams be considered by the agencies.
The FEIS lists four streams that are on the Section 303(d) list for impaired streams,
including Brushy Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Buffalo Creek and Lick Creek. There is no
discussion concerning the implications of potential impacts to these already impaired waters of
the U.S. Based upon more recent DWQ data (2008) on 303(d) listed waters in North Carolina,
Buffalo Creek and First Broad River is listed and not Brushy Creek, Beaverdam Creek and Lick
Creek. NCDOT and FHWA need to correct and/or clarify this information and develop a
detailed stormwater management plan that eliminates further degradation to any 303(d) listed
streams. EPA also notes that hazardous spill catch basins may be required by DWQ at the First
Broad River crossing. Combined stormwater retention and hazardous spill catch basins should
also be considered in the final designs. The administrative record and potentially the ROD
should include appropriate environmental commitments to protect downstream water quality for
`confirmed' 303(d) listed streams.
EPA also notes that NCDOT used the DWQ Wetland Rating system and another
consultant developed wetland assessment method from the 1990's. Due to the relative small
impact to wetlands for the proposed project, EPA is not requesting a quality re-assessment based
upon more current methodologies. However, this `pre-Merger 01' assessment illustrates EPA's
concern that the project's avoidance and minimization efforts have not been brought up to more
current guidance and requirements.
It is also important for EPA to emphasis the new guidelines concerning jurisdictional
determinations to waters of the U.S. and that NCDOT and FHWA should confirm the
jurisdictional determinations that were made for the impacted streams and wetlands. Ms. Kathy
Matthews of EPA has previously forwarded the new jurisdictional form and instruction manual
to NCDOT. Depending upon the time of permitting, NCDOT may be required to adhere to the
new guidance and requirements by the ACE.
Additional Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Streams and Wetlands
EPA requests that NCDOT and FHWA specifically identify what additional avoidance
and minimization opportunities there maybe to reduce impacts to streams in the project study
area and that these measures should be included in the final designs. It is important to note that
stream impacts associated with the two SR route interchanges could be reduced and/or
eliminated depending upon the current traffic need for these proposed facilities. Retention basins
and other strict adherence to Best Management Practices (BMPs) will also be needed to protect
critical water supply waters and 303(d) listed streams.
EPA acknowledges the environmental commitment to provide 2:1 side slopes in wetland
areas, the use of native vegetation to stabilize banks, and stream relocation efforts (Tributary to
Buffalo Creek and a tributary to the First Broad River). NCDOT and FHWA should also
consider median reductions at bridge crossings to minimize the construction footprint of the
proposed project. The NCDOT is using a 320-foot right-of-way width as the `minimum'
roadway design criteria for a new location freeway. Most new location, multi-lane facilities
planned and implemented in the last 5-7 years have a right-of-way width of 300 feet or less.
Stream and Wetland Mitigation
In the Environmental Commitments ("Green sheets"), pages 1 and 2 of 5, NCDOT and
FHWA exclude EPA concerning discussions about wetland and stream relocations and
mitigation and the development of mitigation plans. EPA has been involved in this project since
the issuance of the DEIS. NCDOT has acknowledged EPA's DEIS comments and responded to
comments in the FEIS. EPA has attended the CP 4B and 4C meetings for the "A" section of the
proposed project. EPA requests that it be included with other resource and permitting agencies
on all issues pertaining to either on-site mitigation and/or the development of all compensatory
mitigation plans for jurisdictional impacts to wetlands and streams under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Specifically, Ms. Kathy Matthews of EPA's Wetland Sections should be contacted regarding
these matters and the Environmental Commitments revised to include EPA.
Due to the significant amount of stream impacts from the proposed project, EPA requests
that detailed coordination on compensatory mitigation plan efforts be commenced as soon as
possible. The FEIS lacks a detailed discussion concerning compensatory mitigation. On pages
4-109 and 4-112 of the FEIS, there are misleading statements concerning compensatory
mitigation. In Section 4.13.2, Stream Impacts, the first sentence states: "Impacts to streams are a
jurisdictional issue for NCDENR". The language in this section of mitigation in the FEIS makes
it appear that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and EPA have no jurisdictional role in
compensatory mitigation for stream impacts. In the mitigation section of the FEIS there is a
repeated discussion concerning avoidance and minimization, which is in the section before the
mitigation discussion. This is confusing and has not been updated. Page 4-107 cites the 1997
Interagency Agreement Integrating Section 404/NEPA. This is an outdated agreement
superseded by the 2005 Merger 01 NEPA/Section 404 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
This section also references a copy of the merger agreement in Appendix A.2. Appendix A.2
contains agency coordination correspondence and some early CP #4 signed concurrence forms
on avoidance and minimization. The signed forms reference avoidance and minimization
measures are described in `attached handouts'. These handouts are not included specifically in
the FEIS.
EPA notes that NCDOT appears to have purchased the "International Paper" site (now
called the Broad River site). This 1,079-acre site was investigated in the late 1990's for wetland
and stream mitigation for the proposed project. However, at this time it appears to be proposed
only for mitigation for the Dwarf-Flowered Heartleaf and is not included in the discussions for
compensatory mitigation for streams and wetlands. Details of any future mitigation plans for
this site in relation to stream and wetland impacts associate with the Shelby Bypass are not
provided in the FEIS. There were potential opportunities for on-site or other wetland and stream
restoration projects (in addition to preservation), but these issues are not discussed in the FEIS.
EPA refers specifically to the Item 32, page 18, of the 2005 NEPA/Section 404 Merger 01 MOU
and Guidance Manual.
Noise Receptor Impacts and Noise Abatement
Based on the DEIS analysis the Preferred alternative would impact 147 noise receptors,
of which 84 would approach or exceed FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC). Seven
locations for noise abatement walls were evaluated and two of the barriers appear to be feasible
(i.e., Barrier locations D and F). There would be 28 benefited receptors based upon the FEIS
noise abatement analysis. Noise impacts in detail are discussed on pages 4-51 to 4-67 of the
FEIS. The total impacted number of receptors exceeding NAC is now 68, with 40 total impacted
receptors after abatement noise barriers (Table S-2).
Environmental Justice
EPA acknowledges the Executive Order 12898 Environmental Justice analysis that is
provided in the FEIS at pages 4-31 to 4-32.
Air Quality and Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs)
In section 3.6.3, page 3-51, the FEIS includes the statement that the average route speed
for the proposed project was assumed to be 55 miles per hour based upon the freeway nature of
its design and was used in calculating future Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. Considering
other multi-lane, divided freeways in the North Carolina and Strategic Highways, this
assumption does not appear to be supported by actually studies or available data for other
expanded segments of the US 74 corridor. The design speed for this facility is 70 miles per hour
(minimum: Table 2-2). The statement, "CO emissions also decrease at higher speeds because of
more efficient engine operation", is also misleading to the public. Based upon USDOT and
FHWA studies and reports, there is an optimum range concerning speed with engine efficiency
and performance and CO and other pollutant emission rates. This discussion should be updated
to include current information and requirements.
Table 4-9 of the FEIS includes future year CO concentrations in parts per million (one-
hour) for 2 receptors using generic year 2020 traffic and year 2025 preferred alternative
estimates. Future CO concentrations need to be updated to more current traffic forecasts for
2030 or even 2035. There are sections of the proposed project that are unfunded and post-year
let beyond 2013. EPA requests that these analyses and comparisons to current NAAQS
standards be updated to future traffic projections. Furthermore, EPA is uncertain as to the
specific meaning of the environmental commitment on page 2 of 5 regarding future air quality
("Any future air quality analysis of this project will include a review of vehicle-mix percentages,
given the industrial nature of portions of the project area"). This is a FEIS and there is typically
no additional air quality studies conducted for projects after this stage in the NEPA process.
This vehicle-mix percentages analysis should be conducted and provided to EPA prior to the
issuance of a ROD.
The FEIS does not address any of the Clean Air Act requirements for evaluating MSATs.
EPA also regulates air toxics from mobile sources (EPA issued a Final Rule on Controlling
Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, 66 FR 17229, March 29, 2001).
The FEIS does not include FHWA's generic qualitative guidance on MSATs. Before the
issuance of a ROD, EPA requests that NCDOT and FHWA address MSATs for the proposed
project. This would include the description of the affected environment, an analysis of existing
and future MSATs conditions, identification of any potential sensitive receptors, potential
adverse impacts, and any proposed avoidance, minimization or mitigation for these adverse
effects to sensitive receptors.
Prime Farmlands
The FEIS states that there are an estimated 258 acres of agricultural/cleared land impacts
based upon prorated corridor data (Page vii, et al). On page xi, the FEIS includes the category of
prime, important and unique farmland impacts for the preferred alternative to be an estimated
298 acres of prime farmland and 268 acres of important farmland, also based on prorated
corridor data. EPA notes the environmental commitment regarding `farmlands' on page 4 of 5.
This commitment is potentially required for impacts to farmlands that are regulated under the
Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. This includes prime farmlands, unique farmlands and
farmlands of State-wide or local importance as per the regulations contained at Title 7, U.S.C.
658.
EPA is very concerned that the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) did not
conduct an analysis of prime farmland soils in the project study area. Referring to the letter from
August 23, 1996, in Appendix A.2, it is stated that due to a lack of soil information we cannot
complete the AD-1006 form for the project. More than decade has transpired since this
communication with NCDOT's consultant and there is no documentation that a re-analysis was
requested by NCDOT and FHWA (excluding the NRCS's "no comment letter of November 30,
1998, on the DEIS). Soils information is provided in Sections 3.10 and 4.10, including Table 4-
16, Estimated Special Status Farmland Impacts. EPA does not understand how this assessment
was completed when NRCS did not apply the Land Evaluation Site Assessment criteria (LESA)
and complete AD-1006 forms. There are no evaluation forms contained in the FEIS. There is no
other information in the FEIS that indicates that a `conforming' prime farmland assessment was
performed by a competent agency or person. Specific impacts shown are approximated right-of-
way impacts based upon prorated corridor values. These impacts estimates to `potentially'
protected farmlands are very significant (i.e., More than 560 acres or more than half of the total
right-of-way acreage needed for the project). The local and regional economic effects due to
direct losses to prime farmlands could be drastic and far-reaching. EPA requests that these
issues be addressed and coordinated with NRCS and/or the NC State Department of Agriculture
before a ROD is signed. EPA also anticipates that the impact to actual prime farmlands meeting
NRCS criteria is potentially less than is being reported in the FEIS.
Critical Water Supply Watersheds
Exhibit 3-14 includes water quality features for the project study area (undated map).
There are two distinct water supply watershed areas (WS-III CA; and protected areas) and two

critical areas shown in the Exhibit. It appears from the map that the Preferred Alternative
corridor is within the critical water supply area known as NCS Kings Mountain Reservoir or
Moss Lake. It is unclear from the review of the FEIS, pages 3-78 to 3-80 and pages 4-91 to 4-93
if the proposed freeway will have an impact on protected areas within the protected areas of the
watersheds (quantified in acres). According to the FEIS, WS-III rules state that `construction of
new roads and bridges should minimize built upon area, etc'. EPA cannot specifically find what
measures were developed or designed by NCDOT to minimize built upon areas within the WS-
III protected areas. EPA acknowledges the general environmental commitment to sensitive
waters, Item 93 on page 2 of 5. However, this general commitment does not specifically address
how the proposed project minimizes `built upon areas' within protected watersheds (e.g.,
Narrower right-of-way widths).
Other Potential Impacts
The FEIS provides a substantial amount of information and commitments regarding the
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf plants. NCDOT and FHWA appeared to have coordinated extensively
with U.S. Fish and Wildlife (FWS) and other agencies regarding this threatened and endangered
plant species.
EPA notes that the terrestrial forest impacts are estimated at 277 acres for the preferred
alternative. The FEIS also includes an environmental commitment regarding wildlife passage at
Brushy Creek (Item #6, Page 3 of 5). The design for the wildlife passage should also be
coordinated with NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) in addition to FWS.
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (ICI)
The FEIS addresses ICI in Section 4.16. On page 4-138 on induced development
potential, the FEIS states that the potential conflicts of interchanges with notable features can be
ameliorated somewhat through use of minimization strategies. Some of these strategies are
identified on page 4-139 and include: Set an acceptable threshold for wetland and floodplain loss
or degradation (?); and require the implementation of least-invasive practices for sand and gravel
mining. This entire ICI section needs to be revised to reflect more current conditions and
understanding of natural and human resource impacts associated with new location bypass
facilities. Table 4-29 of project-specific notable features is important information and should be
retained for further ICI studies. Due to potential direct and indirect and cumulative impacts to
303(d) listed streams in the project area, EPA requests that a more quantitative ICI analysis be
provided. EPA's requests that the quantitative ICI identify how these population trends might
change with and without the bypass. The ICI should include an analysis of the potential long-
term impact on Shelby's population, economic sustainability, water quality and water supply
resources, changes in land use patterns, etc. Copies of the quantitative ICI information should be
provided to Ms. Kathy Matthews and Mr. Militscher for review. On page 4-143, it indicates that
direct impacts have been established by the design, but does not identify what level of design
(preliminary or final) has been completed to this point in the NEPA process.