The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20090372 Ver 1_Other Agency Comments_20081016US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 RALEIGH OFFICE TERRY SANFROD FEDERAL COURTHOUSE 310 NEW BERN AVENUE RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27601 Date October 16, 2008 Dr Gregory J Thorpe, PhD 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 of the Federal Environmental Assessment for U-4444 , NC 210 (Murchinson Road) from the proposed Fayetteville Outer Loop to NC-24-87-210 (Bragg Boulevard), Cumberland County 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), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) are proposing to close Bragg Boulevard (NC 24-87) for security reasons, widen existing NC 210 to six lanes, and construct two new interchanges and an extension of Randolph Street The proposed project was requested to be placed in the Section 404/NEPA Merger 01 process by resource agencies EPA notes the following concurrence point (CP) milestones CP 1 Purpose and Need signed 4/22/2008 and CP 2 Alternatives to be Carried Forward for Detailed Study also signed 4/22/08 A CP 2A Bridging and Alignment Review field meeting was scheduled and completed on October 14, 2008 EPA notes that the Environmental Assessment (EA) was not co-signed by the DOD Fort Bragg representative Furthermore, EPA and other Merger team agencies understood from the CP 1 Merger meeting that DOD was also providing funding for this roadway project DOD is not indicated as a Cooperating Agency in the EA The primary `need' for this proposed project was concurred upon by Merger team agencies based upon DOD security issues at Fort Bragg and the closure of through traffic on Bragg Boulevard The EA did not fully address the security issues associated with the closure of Bragg Boulevard The traffic carrying capacity issue along NC 210 (Murchinson Road) was predicated on the DOD's road closure decision EPA also notes that the proposed project is only partially funded The U-4444A portion is funded and the U-4444B section is unfunded per the discussion in the EA There are two build alternatives currently under consideration NCDOT considered other preliminary study alternatives and designs to meet the purpose and need and to avoid and other minimize impacts to the human and natural environment EPA, as well as other Merger team agencies, requested that these preliminary study alternatives be shown and documented in the EA Many of these preliminary study alternatives had been eliminated by NCDOT prior to the CP 1 meeting These alternatives are detailed in Section 3 of the EA with a general description of why they were eliminated from further study However, during the October 14, 2008, field meeting several agencies asked if NCDOT has considered different design changes between Alternatives 1 and 2 (e g, A hybrid design) This idea might be considered and explored by NCDOT prior to the CP 3 LEDPA meeting Jurisdictional Wetland and Stream Impacts Alternative 1 has approximately 6 85 acres of impact to wetlands and Alternative 2 has approximately 9 22 acres of impacts to wetlands At the October 14, 2008, field meeting, NCDOT explored moving a ramp closer in at the Randolph Street interchange location and it is estimated that approximately an acre of wetland impacts can be reduced for Alternative 2 (NCDOT's preferred alternative) EPA has continued environmental concerns for the potential impacts to Wetland `EER', a high quality, palustrine forested, riverme system Even with a revised ramp design for Alternative 2, approximately 6 acres of this high quality system would be filled According to the EA, this system scored a NCDWQ score of 82 Alternative 1 has an estimated 1,107 linear feet of stream impacts and Alternative 2 has an estimated 1,181 linear feet of stream impacts Jurisdictional streams include Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek and their tributaries Both Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek are designated as biologically impaired water bodies under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act Urban runoff is cited in the EA (Page 52) as the potential cause for its impaired status EPA has environmental concerns that other resource constraints (i e , RCW habitat) will allow for full stormwater control measures within the project study area to prevent the further degradation of these impacted jurisdictional streams EPA plans to work with NCDOT and other Merger team agencies on these important jurisdictional issues As discussed during the October 14th field meeting, additional comprehensive planning and coordination with Fort Bragg may be needed to address these environmental issues The EA references that there are potential on-site stream and wetland mitigation sites available in the project study area NCDOT referred to the Natural Resource Technical Report (NRTR) However, during the field review meeting observations it does not appear likely that there are any viable on-site mitigation opportunities in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project Other Environmental Impacts and General EA Comments EPA notes that the summary table of impacts on Page 9, Table 1, only includes wetland, stream, and relocation impacts and costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 From Chapter 5 of the EA, there are also potential impacts to noise receptors, terrestrial forests and endangered species EPA recommends that all environmental impacts from the proposed project be included in a summary table for the future CP 3 meeting and in the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) document EPA acknowledges that there are potentially 277 8 acres of terrestrial forests in the project study area However, this estimated impact is not specific to either Alternatives 1 or 2 and should be detailed in future documents EPA notes Table 13 regarding the Federal Species of Concern (FSC) in the project study area The footnotes below the table do not appear to correspond with the information in the actual table Furthermore, two of the FSC include migratory birds (i e , Bachman's Sparrow and Black-throated Green Warbler) that are potentially protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) As with the unresolved issues involving the Red-cockaded Woodpecker (RCW), NCDOT should consult with the U S Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concerning potential MBTA issues and include relevant information in the FONSI In summary, EPA has not identified an environmentally-preferred alternative ("LEDPA") at this time There are still potentially unresolved issues involving potential impacts to RCW foraging habitat and active clusters that could alter the current design and alignment of both Alternatives land 2 EPA defers to FWS and the N C Wildlife Resources Commission on these issues One the realignment considerations could potentially increase jurisdictional impacts to streams and wetlands EPA also requests that NCDOT consider further planning with Fort Bragg regarding comprehensive stormwater management controls to prevent further degradation to Section 303(d) listed Cross Creek and Little Cross Creek EPA will continue to stay active in the Merger 01 process for this proposed project Thank you for the opportunity to comment Sincerely, Christopher A Militscher, REM, CHMM Merger Team Representative NEPA Program Office For Heinz J Mueller, Chief EPA Region 4 NEPA Program Office cc Rob Ridings, NCDWQ Richard Spencer, USACE Gary Jordan, USFWS Travis Wilson, NCWRC