HomeMy WebLinkAbout20170239 Ver 1_Re U-3109 A&B LEDPA confirmation USEPA_20170214
Wanucha, Dave
From:Van Der Wiele, Cynthia <VanDerWiele.Cynthia@epa.gov>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 2:49 PM
To:Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Cc:Wanucha, Dave; Davila, Felix; Wilson, Travis W.; Jordan, Gary; Gledhill-earley, Renee; Matthews, Monte K CIV
USARMY CESAW (US); Dagnino, Carla S; Mason, James S; Mellor, Colin
Subject:Re: U-3109 A&B LEDPA confirmation; SAW-2002-20667
David,
The US EPA has reviewed the memo and concurs that Alternative 9 remains the LEDPA for the subject project.
Thanks for the updated information.
Cynthia
Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, Ph.D.
USEPA R4 NEPA Program Office
c/o USEPA-RTP
109 T.W. Alexander Drive
Mail Code: E143-08
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Phone: 919.450.6811
On Feb 13, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Bailey, David E CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil>
wrote:
Merger Team members,
Please see the attached memo prepared by NCDOT regarding the Mebane Bypass project (U-3109
A&B) in Alamance County, NC. In January 2017 NCDOT identified that the final design stream
impacts for the A Section were significantly (~2x) higher than what was proposed in the 2007 Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). As a result, and given current proposed project scheduling, the
NCDOT met with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and N.C. Division of Water Resources
(NCDWR) to discuss how to proceed with the permitting process. At the 1/17/2017 meeting, the
USACE and NCDWR suggested that NCDOT provide additional information regarding the increase in
impacts, as well as a re-assessment of the alternatives that were discussed in the FEIS/CP 3. The purpose
of the additional information was to determine if the LEDPA decision (Alternative 9) agreed to in the
CP 3 meeting is still justifiable, or whether a CP 3 re-visit is necessary.
The attached information, provided to the USACE on 2/9/2017, details the site-by-site proposed stream
and wetland impacts for both the A and B project Sections, particularly those reported in the FEIS vs.
the Final Design impacts following the CP 4C meeting on 5/14/2015. NCDOT has also included
itemized explanations for impact discrepancies between the FEIS and Final Design, including changes in
the Jurisdictional Determination following the 2012 reverification, estimating impacts using slope stakes
only vs. slope stakes + 25', and including channel re-alignment and bank stabilization impacts in Final
Design only. In summary, NCDOT found that NCDOT's preferred alternative (Alternative 9) still has
the lowest amount of stream impacts (562 l.f. and 365 l.f. less than Alt. 8 and 10, respectively) and
wetland impacts (0.07 ac. less than Alt. 8, same as Alt. 10) as compared to the other FEIS/CP 3
alternatives.
After review of the attached memo and review of the CP 3, 4A, 4B, and 4C decisions, the USACE
1
agrees with NCDOT that Alternative 9 is still the LEDPA, that a CP 3 revisit meeting is unnecessary,
and that the project can go forward with permit evaluation through the Individual Permit process. Note
that the Merger Team's choice of Alternative 9 was based in large part to reductions in impacts to the
Graham-Mebane Reservoir water supply watershed critical area and Cates Farm (Section 4(f) resource
and on National Register of Historic Places), compared to Alternatives 8 or 10; these constraints have
not changed. Also, project commitments made during the FEIS process and the CP 4A meeting remain
in-tact as discussed in the attachment.
In lieu of a meeting, I request that the Merger Team members review the attached memo and respond
with any comments regarding the USACE's findings within 2 weeks of this email. If you have any
questions or concerns please let me know.
Sincerely,
Dave Bailey
---
David E. Bailey, PWS
Regulatory Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers
CE-SAW-RG-R
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
Phone: (919) 554-4884, Ext. 30.
Fax: (919) 562-0421
Email: David.E.Bailey2@usace.army.mil
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us
ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0.
<U-3109 Memo to USACE .dotx.pdf>
2