20140033 All Versions_EPA Environmental Assessment Comments_20080506

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4 RALEIGH OFFICE
TERRY SANFORD FEDERAL COURTHOUSE
310 NEW BERN AVENUE
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601

Date: May 6, 2008

Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
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 on the Environmental Assessment for R-4047,
NC 209 Improvements, Haywood County, North Carolina

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) and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) propose to provide improvements to NC 209 from west of SR
1801 to north of SR 1523, in Haywood County for an approximate distance of 0.8 miles.

EPA has file correspondence from NCDOT dated April 3, 2000, concerning the
proposed project and it is further described as a `Stage IF of the improvements to
upgrade NC 209. The original project was State-funded under TIP # R-2117 and
involves widening NC 209 to a three or four lane section. Current improvements
proposed by NCDOT include widening NC 209 to a four-lane, divided facility with a
raised median and other improvements on US 23 Business and NC 209 to facilitate the
transition to the two-lane section. NC 209 will also be realigned from SR 1526 to SR
1523 and include replacement of a railroad structure and other minor improvements in
the project study area.

Due to the scope of the proposed project and the anticipated minimal impacts to
streams and wetlands, this project was not placed in the NEPA/Section 404 Merger 01
process. Most of the impacts to the human and natural environment are identified in the
Summary Table on page v and in Section 5 of the Environmental Assessment (EA). This
table was very helpful in identifying important environmental quality indicators.
However, noise receptor impacts were not included. Section 5.D.2. of the EA refers the
reviewer to Appendix C, Table N2 for noise abatement criteria (NAC) . Section 5.D.4
identifies that 12 noise receptors would be impacted (approach or exceed NAC) from the
"Do-Nothing Alternative". However, this specific table in Appendix C does not actually

summarize the number of impacted receptors with the recommended alternative. From
Table N4, EPA estimates that approximately 20 receptors will experience a noise level
increase. Most of the increases are +7 and +8 dBA above existing levels (i.e., 19 out of
the 20 receptors). Also, information on receptor ID #5 is missing and the table skips this
number without an explanation. One (1) impacted receptor (Residence ID #12), is
expected to approach or exceed NAC. For the "No build Alternative", the Table N4
information indicates that 14 receptors will experience noise level increases in the design
year. Moreover, 12 of these increases are +1 dBA, with one at +2 dBA and one at
+3dBA. The N3 summary table should be revised to reflect this difference. This
information may need to be appropriately characterized and provided in the Section D
noise text and in the environment impacts summary table for the Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI).

Other Project Impacts

Relocations: 9 Residences/8 Businesses
Wetlands: 0 acres
Streams: 420 linear feet
Sections 4(f)/106 Properties: 0/0
Archaeological Sites: 0
Churches/Schools: 0/0
EJ Communities: None
Terrestrial Forests: 0 acres
Prime Farmlands: 0 acres
Hazardous Material Sites: 5
Endangered species: 0
Critical Water Supplies: 0 acres
Air Quality: No

EPA also acknowledges that NCDOT and FHWA have included a qualitative
assessment on Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) in the EA. Pages 37 to 45 of the EA
contain similar 2006 FHWA interim guidance information on MSATs as what has been
included in other NEPA documents for other projects. EPA notes that the EA's MSAT
analysis on the identification of any specific near-roadway sensitive receptors (e.g.,
Nursing homes, hospitals, children daycares, schools) is not included. It is important in a
site-specific analysis to identify and describe the affected environment. If NCDOT and
FHWA have determined that there are no near-roadway sensitive receptors, the NEPA
document should state this situation. From EPA's review of features in Figures 2 and 3,
there does not appear to be any near-roadway sensitive receptors. The Tuscola High
School appears to be more than 500 feet from the nearest proposed roadway
improvement.

Richland Creek and its tributaries are Class C, 303(d) listed waters (Impaired
biological integrity). The proposed project will potentially impact 420 linear feet to
unnamed tributaries (UTs) #3 and #5 to Richland Creek. EPA requests that stringent
adherence to Best Management Practices (BMPs) be implemented to minimize any

downstream impacts from soil erosion and additional roadway runoff. Further, EPA is
concerned that the EA states on Page 28: "currently, specific mitigation measures for this
project are not warranted." The guidelines developed pursuant to Clean Water Act
Section 404(b)(1) (Guidelines) require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The Guidelines apply to all impacts
subject to Section 404. EPA recommends that measures to avoid and minimize impacts
to the UTs be proposed and outlined, such as steeper side slopes, narrow medians, and
compensatory mitigation plans.

Summary

EPA does not have any environmental objections to the proposed project. EPA
recommends that the specific avoidance and minimization measures are identified in the
FONSI and discussed and included in the meeting minutes during the future hydraulic
and permit review meetings. Please include Ms. Kathy Matthews of EPA's Wetlands
Section on future meeting notices. EPA also requests a copy of the FONSI when it
becomes available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Militscher, REM, C M
Merger Team Representative
NEPA Program Office

For: Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
EPA Region 4 NEPA Program Office

cc: Steve Lund, USACE
Clarence Coleman, FHWA
Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ