20071470_Meeting Minutes_20071128

DRAFT
November 28, 2007
9 a.m. at the NC Turnpike Authority
Raleigh, NC
Western Wake Freeway
USACE and USEPA Coordination Meeting to Discuss Resolution of Concerns detailed in USEPA's
November 8, 2007 letter.
Attendees:
Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Chris Militscher, US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
Kathy Matthews, USEPA
Rob Ridings, NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources-Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ)
Greg Price, NC Department of Transportation-Natural Environment Unit (NCDOT-NEU)
Elizabeth Lusk, NCDOT- NEU
George Hoops, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Jennifer Harris, NC Turnpike Authority (NCTA)
Tracy Roberts, HNTB NCTA/General Engineering Consultant (NCTA/GEC)
Martha Register, ARCADIS
Kristina Miller, ARCADIS
General Discussion:
Purpose - The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the November 8, 2007 letter from USEPA to NCTA
regarding comments on the Reevaluation Report of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for
the Western Wake Freeway. In addition to meeting discussions, a detailed response to the November 8,
2007 USEPA letter was provided via e-mail and in hard copy to the meeting participants by NCTA in a letter
dated November 27, 2007..
¦ USACE began the meeting with reference to the Section 404 permit application and the need to discuss
the concerns raised by USEPA that may relate to issuance of the Individual Permit for the project.
¦ NCTA and ARCADIS distributed hard copies of the November 8, 2007 letter from USEPA and NCTA's
November 27, 2007 response letter, with attachments. It was suggested that the group use the
response letter as a meeting framework/agenda and to discuss concerns as they arose. (The following
correction to Table 2 of the November 27, 2007 response letter was noted: STIP No. R-2635 should be
replaced' with STIP No. R-2000 at the bottom of the table.)
USEPA questioned the timing of the change in the median width from 46 to 78 feet and the number of
travel lanes from four to six. NCTA explained that the 78-foot median width and six travel lanes were
discussed with the Merger Team in November 2001, agreed to at the Concurrence Point 4A meeting in
February 2002 and disclosed in the FEIS. It was also noted that the typical section on Figure II-1,
following page II-8 of the FEIS illustrated six travel lanes with a 78-foot median. USEPA noted
understanding of the change in the affected environment (regarding jurisdictional waters) but they had
not remembered the timing associated with the change in travel lanes and median width.
¦ USEPA stated that they felt the change in impacts to terrestrial forest systems from the FEIS to the
Reevaluation Report may be considered significant. Through completion of a Reevaluation Report,
FHWA assessed impacts to terrestrial forests based on context and intensity and concluded that the
changes in impacts were not significant. Several meetings were held during development of the
Reevaluation Report to allow agencies to ask questions or express any issues of concern, but no
concerns were raised by the agencies. USEPA explained that the Reevaluation Report provided all the
final information in one location.
ARCADIS continued discussions with review of pages 4 and 5 of the November 27, 2007 response
letter describing the reasons for the change in impacts from the FEIS to the Reevaluation Report (3:1
cut slopes, inclusion of a portion of STIP R-2000, y-line modifications, etc.). USEPA asked about the
use of more retaining walls to minimize the footprint, and noted that the issue regarding the instability of
Triassic soils and resulting need for increased slopes should have been raised at the Concurrence Point
4C meeting. USEPA noted that additional impacts associated with the change in cut slopes should
have resulted in further avoidance and minimization efforts. ARCADIS explained that the change in
slopes did not impact additional wetlands as the 3:1 ratio will occur primarily in cut slopes. USEPA
noted that their primary concern is with the increased terrestrial forest impacts, and that the focus of
USEPA is not only on jurisdictional issues (i.e. wetlands, streams and ponds) but avoidance and
minimization of impacts to other resources.
USEPA asked about public involvement efforts by NCTA. NCTA noted that a public workshop was held
in February 2007. (In addition, the NCTA website hosts project information.)
USACE asked for clarification related to whether or not USEPA was requesting to revisit concurrence
points and what issues they have with the process. USEPA stated concern for the overall footprint of
the project and associated change in impacts since the Record of Decision (ROD) was finalized in April
2004. USACE noted that public notice has been published for the Section 404 Permit and that the
change in impacts did not warrant another notice. NCTA noted that a notice was published in the
Federal Register (September 27, 2007) announcing final agency action on the 2004 FEIS, the 2004
ROD and the 2007 Reevaluation Report. The deadline for requests for judicial review for these three
actions is March 25, 2008.
ARCADIS summarized information provided on pages 5 and 6 of the November 27, 2007 response
letter regarding the difference between jurisdictional water impacts noted in the Section 404 Permit
Application versus that of the Reevaluation Report. It was noted that the Permit Application and the
Reevaluation Report were prepared simultaneously while the design progressed. It was felt that as long
as the impacts in the Reevaluation Report equaled or exceeded the impacts noted in the Permit
Application that FHWA had a reasonable worst-case scenario (in the Revaluation Report) on which to
base their decision.
¦ USEPA noted a concern regarding the vulnerability of the planning process associated with the change
from NCDOT to NCTA as the lead state agency in implementing the project and the lack of review of
the Reevaluation Report by other agencies. FHWA explained that their procedures do not include
review by agencies of the Reevaluation Report. (In accordance with 23 CFR 771.129, a reevaluation
must be conducted to assure that the environmental documentation (FEIS) for the proposed action is
still valid prior to proceeding with major project approvals or authorizations. The reevaluation report is a
decision-making tool developed to assist the FHWA in determining whether or not a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) is necessary.) The impacts for wetlands, streams, and ponds
were presented at several Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAC) meetings. USEPA
noted that the information presented at previous TEAC meetings did not include the terrestrial forest
impacts. NCTA explained that when updating information, jurisdictional issues were a priority but that
any topics were open for discussion. USEPA said that they were fine with the information presented at
prior TEAC meetings and in the USACE public notice regarding wetland, stream and pond impacts, but
that their concern was regarding changes in terrestrial forest systems impacts as documented in the
Reevaluation Report.
¦ USEPA asked why the impacts of the y-lines (i.e. intersecting roadways) were not included in the DEIS
and FEIS. NCTA explained that the design had not progressed to the point of having that level of detail
at that time. NCDOT's current practice of calculating jurisdictional waters impacts helps ensure that
impacts are higher during the DEIS and then progressively get smaller as a project progresses through
NEPA, permitting and design.
¦ FHWA explained that the level of detail used to determine impacts was disclosed along the way as it
was developed. FHWA explained that the best and most accurate information was used at each step.
USACE noted that they want the most accurate information at the time it is provided rather than
receiving a gross estimate of study corridor data.
¦ USEPA noted concern for the 304.4-acre increase in project footprint changes noted on page 5 of the
November 27, 2007 response letter. FHWA noted that the additional acreage would not change the
selection of the Preferred Alternative. FHWA has evaluated the changes in impacts since the ROD and
concluded that the changes were not significant. USEPA questioned whether or not avoidance and
minimization could have been changed if the information was disclosed earlier. NCTA noted that the
focus of avoidance and minimization regarding natural resources has traditionally been related to
jurisdictional wetland, stream and pond issues. This project was one of the first to achieve Concurrence
Point 4A and met the requirements at that time. USEPA explained that they seek to avoid and minimize
non-jurisdictional impacts also.
¦ USACE asked about differentiation of NEPA and the Section 404 process for clarification on direction.
USEPA noted that the increase in impacts to terrestrial forest systems remains a concern.
¦ Section 404Q of the Clean Water Act provides an option for USEPA to request a higher level review
when they disagree with a permit decision that is about to be made. USEPA currently is not
recommending a 404Q referral and is satisfied with the permit. USEPA does not have concerns with the
jurisdictional wetland/stream/pond impacts, but with the changes in the terrestrial forest impacts.
USEPA did not have details regarding terrestrial forest impacts until the final Reevaluation Report was
distributed. USEPA may request additional coordination efforts to explore opportunities to avoid and
minimize impacts to terrestrial forest systems.
¦ USEPA noted that they did not ask for a Supplemental EIS in the November 7, 2007 letter or a reissue
of the ROD. However, avoidance and minimization measures such as tree preservation within
interchanges, narrower medians, or retaining walls may be requested to reduce the impacts to
terrestrial forests (uplands).
¦ Local USEPA representatives plan to consult with USEPA Region 4 (Atlanta) as well as with FHWA this
week and will distribute via e-mail any remaining concerns they may have. USEPA noted that if it is
determined that the ROD should be revised that it would not change or impact the issuance of the
permit.
¦ USEPA would like NCTA to consider a commitment to leave as much of the existing vegetation in the
median and interchanges as possible (i.e., where it would not cause safety or constructability issues).
USEPA requested that the details (defining which areas NCTA may be able to protect) be shown on the
construction plans. It was noted that this may involve a clarification of Project Special Commitment
Number 33 relating to minimization of vegetation loss during construction.
¦ The Design-Build Request for Qualifications will be advertised the week of December 3, 2007.
¦ USEPA noted that they never received a copy of the ROD or the signed Concurrence 4A form. NCTA
provided USEPA with a copy of both documents following the meeting. The Concurrent Point 4A form
was signed by all Merger Team members-including USEPA-on February 20, 2002. NCTA also
provided USEPA a copy of the transmittal letter dated May 13, 2004, indicating that NCDOT provided
USEPA with a copy of the final ROD.
¦ USEPA stated that they are comfortable with the impacts to jurisdictional waters. Additionally, they do
not believe that further discussions about potential minimization of upland forest impacts will delay or
hinder the issuance of the 404 Permit. The USACE stated that they are going forward with issuing the
404 Permit pending resolution of issues related to the Rapanos forms.
Action Items:
¦ Local USEPA representatives plan to consult with USEPA Region 4 as well as with FHWA this week
and will distribute via e-mail an update on any remaining concerns they may have.
USEPA would like NCTA to consider a commitment to leave as much of the existing vegetation within
the median and interchanges as possible (i.e., where it would not cause safety or constructability
issues). USEPA requested that the details (defining which areas NCTA may be able to protect) be
shown on the construction plans.