HomeMy WebLinkAbout20091149 Ver 1_EA Comments_20080527
' Ja~~EO srgT~s
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
o REGION 4 RECEIVED
z ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER DlvisiOll, 0f 61 FORSYTH STREET y~
44 PRO, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
Date: May 16, 2008 MAY 2 7 2008
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Manager, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation ~tiq;P9trtt4;%p Rr"lu ti eC^,"t
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
SUBJECT: EPA Review Comments on the Environmental Assessment for R-4900,
Proposed Interchange at US 74 and NC 242, Columbus 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 construct a new interchange at US 74/NC 130
(Andrew Jackson Highway) and NC 242 (Hanes Lennon Highway), in Columbus County
for an approximate distance of 0.8 miles.
EPA received a copy of a Start of Study letter for this proposed project in October
of 2005. This project was not placed in the NEPA/Section 404 Merger 01 process.
EPA has included specific comments on the purpose and need, detailed study
alternatives and project impacts (See Attachment`A). EPA is recommending that
NCDOT and FHWA consider an EA Re-evaluation before a final NEPA decision is
made. In summary, EPA has substantial environmental concerns regarding the
magnitude of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and streams in light of the limited scope
of this proposed project. Avoidance and minimization efforts-under Section 404(b)(1)
Guidelines have not been adequately demonstrated. We recommend that this project be
placed into the NEPA/Section 404 Merger Ol process at Concurrence Point I (Purpose
and Need).
Please include both Mr. Christopher Militscher of my staff and Ms. Kathy
Matthews of EPA's Wetlands Section on any future meeting notices or project studies or
reports. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
s
s A 3"
Heinz J. Mueller, Chief
EPA Region 4 NEPA Program Office
Intemet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
Attachment"A'
Proposed Interchange at US 74/NC 130 and NC 242
Columbus County
TIP# R-4900
Specific EA Comments
Purpose and Need:
Currently, the intersection at US 74/NC 130 and NC 242 is not a fully signalized
(i.e., Flashing yellow lights on US 74/NC 130 and stops signs at NC 242). Page 9 of the
EA states that the current intersection is un-signalized. The purpose and need for this
proposed interchange is to increase safety at this intersection and to allow for future
upgrade of US 74 to interstate standards (Page ii). The EA further describes in Section II
accidents, capacity (Level of Service-LOS) and an interstate initiative as the need for the
proposed project (Page 3).
Based upon a three-year crash and safety analysis performed between 2002 and
2005, this intersection experienced 11 total crashes (no fatalities) with 8 of the 11 being
angle crashes. The EA does not provide a comparison to a Statewide average for a
similar facility.
The EA provides several tables concerning capacity analysis in Section E. Traffic
volumes for US 74/ NC 130 are approximately 11,000 vehicles per day (vpd) in 2005 and
are forecasted to be 19,000 vpd in 2030. The EA also explains that the current
intersection is the main intersection for accessing the Town of Evergreen. Current (2005)
LOS at the intersection is A, A, C and C for the main turning movements between
roadways. However, 2030 projections indicate that the LOS will be B, B, F and F, with
the failing movements for the northbound and southbound turning movements onto US
74. Table 2 also provides a.m. and p.m. conditions and delays in seconds per vehicle.
The EA also provides an interchange analysis using a modified diamond
interchange (Table 3) and a modified diamond interchange ramp junction analysis (Table
4). LOS will be A for 2005 and 2030 under all conditions with a modified diamond
interchange. Unfortunately, the EA does not provide a traffic comparison to other
intersections and interchanges along US 74 (e.g., The intersection of Strawberry
Boulevard and US 74/NC 130 in Columbus County, the intersection of Macedonia
Church Road and US 74/NC 130 in Columbus County or the intersection of US 74 and
NC 130 and NC 72 in Robeson County). Table 4 is not compared to other similar type
facilities and improvements so it is difficult for EPA to understand the significance the
traffic measure in passenger cars/mile/lane between 2005 and 2030 when compared to the
`No-build'or other alternatives. The traffic information concerning the `seconds/vehicle at
the different turning movements between 2005 and 2030 does not provide a substantial
justification for the project. This data is not compared to any other intersection or
interchange along US 74 so its significance can not be measured against other
comparative locations.
Figures 2A and 2B in the EA provide the estimated average annual daily traffic
(AADT) with truck, DHV and directional percentages for 2005 and 2030. From Figure
2A, it appears that there is almost twice the number turning movements at the intersection
of NC 242 and SR 1574 (Strawberry Boulevard) than there is at US 74/NC 130 and NC
242. From a traffic flow standpoint, EPA is unclear as to why the 2005/2030 projections
for NC 242 increase from 1,200 vpd in 2005 to 2,100 vpd in 2030 but the US 74 mainline
(i.e., The Strategic Highway Corridor-SHC) does not increase as much (i.e., 11,000 vpd
to 19,000 vpd). The 100 vpd is a substantial increase in the 2030 design year between a
multi-lane US highway (i.e., A SHC) and a two lane undivided facility (i.e., NC 242).
EPA would expect that the increases along the SHC #24 (US 74) would be much greater
than a rural, two-lane intersecting roadway.
The project study area is extremely rural and the nearest `big town is Chadbourn,
NC. The EA provides population growth in Table 5 for North Carolina, Columbus
County and Whiteville. According to the EA and population characteristics presented,
Columbus County experienced a 0.4% decrease in population between 2000 and 2005.
EPA does not fully understand how traffic along NC 242 is expected to increase from
1,200 vpd to 2,100 vpd when the overall population trend is not increasing in rural areas
of North Carolina and Columbus County. The population of the Town of Evergreen is
estimated to be less than 2,500 persons (www.greatschools.net/city[Everareen/NC).
It is expected that some time in the future that US 74 will be upgraded to
interstate standards. Part of the rationale for this proposed project is to prepare the US
74/NC 130 corridor for future designation as Interstate 74 (Page 19 of the EA). Local
transportation officials note that the US 74/I-74 initiative is not likely to occur during the
current planning horizon, and therefore, this proposed action should be separated from
decision-making on the I-74 corridor. EPA does not concur with this finding and that the
proposed project should be evaluated for independent utility and as part of the entire
SHC. The EA does not provide a specific comparison to other intersections between the
interchange at NC 41 in Robeson County and the US 74/NC 130-US 76 split northeast of
Chadbourn. On NCDOTs SHC website, the 1-74 Feasibility Study for Brunswick and
Columbus Counties does not include this proposed interchange and the Feasibility Study
area is approximately 3-4 miles from NC 242 (i.e., Section 1 of the Feasibility Study
begins near US 701 just west of Whiteville, N.C.).
EPA believes that additional data and information is required to support the
purpose and need for this proposed interchange. NCDOT and FHWA should consider
providing this information to EPA and other agencies before a final NEPA decision is
made for the project.
Detailed Study Alternatives:
The EA indicates that 3 alternatives were considered, including the`No-build'
alternative, a standard diamond configuration interchange and a modified diamond
interchange. The EA states that the modified diamond was developed in response to the
`§ignificant number of wetlands located in the immediate project vicinitf. In EPA's review
of the traffic data, both the current and future conditions, a full diamond interchange was
not justified based on an acceptable LOS for eastbound and westbound turning
movements (2005 LOS A & 2030 LOS B) and potentially increased project costs.
The evaluation of a full range of alternatives was not provided in the EA,
including other traffic system management (TSM) measures (e.g., Full signalization),
increased turning lanes options, and improved line-of-sight options and roadway
improvements for NC 242 and US 74. From the photographs provided in Figure 4A, the
Facing north' photograph, there appears to be a change of elevation at US 74 (crest in the
roadway) that would make crossing traffic movements potentially unsafe. However,
there could be options and alternatives that would reduce concerns for safety (i.e.,
Accidents) at this intersection that were not fully considered. The NCDOT recognizes
this issue on Page 11 of the EA as the proposed design speed for NC 242 will be 50 mph
due to the severity of the horizontal curve radius and the constraints of the vertical
alignment. NCDOT should examine what other improvements could be made to address
these deficiencies without constructing an entire new interchange.
The EA did not provide a 'systemic evaluation of nearby traffic routes and other
intersections along US 74/NC 130 that would represent a comparative analysis for other
potential interchange locations that would have potentially less environmental (i.e.,
Natural resource) impacts. The limitation of the project study area appears to have `pre-
determinecP the range of alternatives studied in detail. EPA does not agree that the
preference for a modified diamond interchange over a standard or full diamond
interchange is substantiated `avoidance and minimizatiod (i.e., 9.4 acres of wetlands and
366 linear feet of stream impact vs. 12.7 acres of wetlands and 119 linear feet of stream
impact, respectively).
EPA requests that NCDOT and FHWA consider and examine a full range of
reasonable alternatives prior to making a NEPA decision.
Project Impacts:
The EA includes summary tables (S-1 and 1) and a description of the project
impacts to human and natural resources. Terrestrial forest impacts are not included in
either Table S-1 or Table 1. Table 8 on Page 26 of the EA includes an estimated area of
terrestrial communities within the project area. The estimates in this table are based on
the length and width of the entire study area. Table 8 also provides the maximum
potential impacts to terrestrial communities by habitat type. EPA notes that Coastal Plain
Bottomland Hardwoods, Cypress-Gum Swamp and Pine Flat are included in the
estimates (i.e., 1.42, 2.15 and 6.74 acres, respectively). EPA cannot ascertain the
difference between the summation of these wetland type forest communities and the
projected jurisdictional wetland impacts of 9.4 acres. EPA notes the comments on Page
25 of the EA regarding the `entire community of Cypress-Gum Swamp within the project
study area is jurisdictional wetlands and `portions of the Pine Flat are within jurisdictional
wetlands .
Table 8 also indicates that there are 2.83 acres of impact to `cropland and 2.73
acres to `maintained-disturbecf areas. Tables S-1 and 1 indicate that there is 0 impact to
prime farmlands. There is no Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) analysis
concerning potential impacts to farmlands that may be prime, unique or of State-wide or
local importance. Page 14 of the EA provides general statistical information on the
importance of agriculture and agribusiness in Columbus County. EPA requests that a
prime farmland analysis per FPPA and Title 7 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part
657 be performed.
EPA notes that there may be an affect (May Affect-Not Likely to Adverse Affect)
on the endangered Wood Stork (Mycteria americana). According to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) representative, NCDOT has not asked for a concurrence on this
determination. This determination and consultation with FWS should be completed
before a final NEPA decision is made for the proposed project.
The EA indicates that there will be 9.4 acres of jurisdictional wetland impacts and
366 linear feet of stream impact. Considering the scope of the proposed project, EPA has
substantial environmental concerns for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S.
Furthermore, EPA disagrees with the statement on Page 30 of the EA that, `avoidance of
the stream and wetlands is not possible due to the presence of these resources in all
quadrants surrounding the US 74/NC 130 and NC 242 intersection'. Please refer to the
aforementioned discussion on detailed study alternatives and the limited project study
area.
Regarding the discussion on minimization on Page 30, EPA does not believe that
NCDOT has demonstrated compliance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines. The EA
discuss not discuss the minimization efforts to bridge wetlands, utilize engineering
controls such as retaining walls or the steepening of side slopes in wetland areas. The
`Green Sheen', project commitments is `blank' and NCDOT states that there are currently
no special commitments for this project. NCDOT includes the change of the `initial
design' of a full diamond interchange into a modified diamond configuration as its only
minimization measure.
The discussion concerning compensatory mitigation is also vague and not
consistent with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Page 31:"-. will be requested [EEP] to
provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act compensatory
mitigation requirements for this project if necessary'). EPA could not ascertain any
reason why compensatory mitigation would not be necessary for 9.4 acres of
jurisdictional wetland impacts. This project as currently planned will require an
Individual Permit (IP) under Section 404 and compensatory mitigation is required unless
avoidance and minimization measures significantly reduce or eliminate the estimated
impacts.
EPA recommends that NCDOT and FHWA consider re-evaluating the
transportation benefits of this project as currently designed verses the significant impacts
to jurisdictional wetlands and streams.
EPA does not concur with the discussion concerning indirect and cumulative
impacts in Section 3.g. of the EA. Construction of a new interchange at this location
could promote localized development in and around the new interchange. With two of
the quadrants relatively un-impacted from the modified diamond configuration there
could be development pressure to site new businesses in these areas and along the main
roadways. Indirect and cumulative impacts to the wetlands and water quality to Cow
Branch could result from increased development. EPA requests that this issue be further
examined by NCDOT before a final NEPA decision is made.