Army Corps of Engineers
comments on I-73 DEIS
Jan. 5, 2001 - Army Corps
requests comment extension
Jan. 8, 2001 - VDOT denies
request
Feb. 1, 2001 - Army Corps
of Engineers comments on DEIS
DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY
NORFOLK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FORT NORFOLK, 803 FRONT STREET
NORFOLK, VIRGINIA 23510-1096
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
January 5, 2001
Eastern Virginia Regulatory Section
Mr. Earl T. Robb
Environmental Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Robb:
This is in reference to the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared by the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) and the
Federal Highway Administration for the proposed
I-73 project. The Norfolk District of the Corps
of Engineers is a cooperating agency in the
development of the document for this project. The
transmittal letter attached to the document
indicated that comments should be submitted by
January 12, 2001.
Due to the high volume of VDOT projects under
review in our office at this time (including
several VDOT has indicated are of very high
priority, such as the Rt. 288 projects), the
complexity of the I-73 project and the length of
the document, it will be very difficult for us to
meet that deadline. Therefore, as a cooperating
agency, we are requesting an extension until
January 22, 2001 to submit our comments on the
DEIS.
We appreciate your assistance in this matter, and
we would appreciate a telephone call from your
staff as soon as possible to let us know your
decision. Should you have any questions, you may
call Alice Allen-Grimes at (757) 441-7219.
Sincerely,
Nicholas L. Konchuba
Chief, Eastern Virginia
Regulatory Branch
Copy Furnished:
Federal Highway Administration, Richmond
CF: READING, FILE
COMMONWEALTH
of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATiON
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND. 23219-2OOO
CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM
COMMISSIONER
EARL T. ROBB
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR
January 8, 2001
Mr. Nicholas L. Konchuba
Ch let Eastern Virginia Regulatory Section
U.S. Corps of Engineers
Fort Norfolk, 803 Front Street
Norfolk, VA 23510-1096
Dear Mr. Konchuba:
This letter is in response to your letter of
January 5, 2001, requesting additional time for
providing comments of the Draft EIS for the
Interstate 73 Corridor Location Study. As you
know, the FHWA distributed the Preliminary DEIS
to the cooperating agencies on July 21, 2000.
Given your agency's comments to the Preliminary
DEIS, we have a sense of your concerns and
interests in the project.
Because of the project's high level of public
interest and in order to maintain the project
development schedule, we established a finite
period for public comments. The final date for
submission of comments on the DEIS is January 12,
2001. This date represents a 62-day cumulative
period following the publication of the notice of
the document's availability in the Federal
Register.
The Department, however, remains hopeful that
your agency will provide to us your comments. We
would like to receive them as soon as they can be
completed. I trust you will be able to send them
before we finish the analysis of the public
comments and make our presentation to the
Commonwealth Transportation Board.
Please do not hesitate to contact me at (804)
786-4559, should you have any additional
questions.
Sincerely,
Eart T. Robb
State Enviornmental Administrator
cc: Mr. Roberto Fonseca-Martinez
Mr. Edward Sundra
Mrs. Patsy G. Napier
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY
NORFOLK DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FORT NORFOLK. 803 FRONT STREET
NORFOLK. VIRGINIA 23510-1096
February 1, 2001
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Eastern Virginia Regulatory Section
98-4506-15
Mr. Roberto Fonseca-Martinez
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Dale Building
1504 Santa Rosa Road
Richmond, Virginia 23229
Dear Mr. Fonseca-Martinez:
This letter provides the comments of the Norfolk
District Corps of Engineers on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) prepared
for the proposed Interstate 73 (I-73) in the
vicinity of the City of Roanoke, Virginia and
south to the North Carolina line. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) are preparing
the EIS, and the Corps of Engineers is a
cooperating agency in the preparation of
documents for this project. In that role, we
reviewed the pre-DEIS provided our comments on
that document in a letter dated September 1,
2000. Those comments focused on the content of
the document and the way the information was
presented. Our comments on the DEIS focus on both
the document and the project itself, considering
the relative merits of the various alternatives
presented in the DEIS.
Our primary concern with the pre-DEIS, as stated
in our letter at that time, was the lack of
documentation of the need for an interstate
facility. As we noted, the problems establishing
the need for improvements in the Route 220
corridor are provided and discussed, and
additional information has been added to the DEIS
to clarify the reasons that FHWA has determined
that only an interstate-level facility will
address the Purpose and Need, summarized on page
1-5. The Virginia portion of I-73 is seen as one
segment of an interstate highway to extend from
Michigan to South Carolina. Information is
provided in support of the position that an
interstate-level facility will better facilitate
regional economic growth than another type of
highway facility. The DEIS also identifies the
movement of freight and vehicles and the
enhancement of "general mobility and
transportation linkage" through the Michigan
to South Carolina "target market."
These needs from Michigan to South Carolina are
not supported in the document, but simply stated
as goals of I-73. The information in support of
the need for an interstate-level facility focuses
primarily on what "Congress intended"
in the National Highway Designation Act of 1995,
TEA-21, and ISTEA with reference to I-73.
It is stated on page 2-6 that "FHWA believes
that the designation by Congress of 'I-73'
indicates the Congressional intent that this
route would be an Interstate highway . . ."
Yet, the pre-DEIS indicated that Ohio is not
considering construction of I-73 (due to funding
problems), and West Virginia has completed a
Final EIS to upgrade an existing highway, but not
to interstate standards. We note that this
information was not included in the DEIS.
Apparently the need for an interstate facility
from Michigan to South Carolina is not apparent
in certain other states along the corridor. As we
noted in our comments on the pre-DEIS, if a
segment of an interstate facility is constructed
in Virginia, it appears that it will not be part
of a larger whole. With that framework, the
substantiation of the needs in the Michigan to
South Carolina corridor that can only be
addressed by an interstate appears to be
undermined.
Based on the information in the DEIS, it is not
clear that a non-interstate build alternative
would not address the substantiated problems
identified in the Purpose and Need while at the
same time potentially reducing impacts to waters
of the U.S. A Department of the Army permit will
be required for the construction of a build
alternative or the TSM alternative, since all of
these alternatives involve the placement of fill
in waters of the united States, including
wetlands and navigable waters. As part of our
public interest review and in accordance with the
Clean Water Act Section 404(b) (1) Guidelines,
the Corps must evaluate alternatives that avoid
impacts to waters of the U.S. Because an upgrade
of Route 220 was not included in the DEIS, it
appears that all reasonable and feasible
alternatives to minimize environmental impacts
have not been evaluated. Our dilemma is that we
do not know whether an improvement of Route 220
will minimize impacts. Therefore, the information
would be required for us to evaluate a permit
application for this project.
All of the Build Alternatives will result in
substantial environmental impacts: the
displacement of 340 to 707 homes and 23 to 63
businesses; 2014 to 4391 acres of forests; 12 to
36 acres of wetlands; 76 to 166 stream crossings;
noise increases of 10 dBA or greater to 411 to
3316 homes; etc. The impacts were estimated based
on a 600-foot wide corridor, whereas the typical
section involves a 250-foot right-of-way. The
broad corridor used for estimating impacts
complicates our evaluation of the relative merits
of one alternative versus another, since it is
unknown to what extent shifts within that
corridor will reduce impacts. However, based on
the information as presented, we have some
recommendations.
Alternatives that avoid impacts to waters of the
U. S., including wetlands, are preferred. Based
on the information in the DEIS, Alternatives 3
(3, 32, 3b, and 3c) and 4 involve fewer crossings
of streams. The "3' Alternatives also
involve the least impacts to wetlands. However,
it is unknown whether through bridging and
alignment shifts the impacts of the various
alternatives could be made approximately
equivalent in terms of impacts to waters and
wetlands.
An important consideration in our evaluation of
the alternatives is the potential for secondary
impacts resulting from development stimulated by
the project. The DEIS evaluates potential impacts
from development by determining the amount of
developable land located within a one-mile radius
around each interchange along each Build
Alternative, since interchanges are generally the
most likely location for such development to
occur. Developable land was defined as all
agricultural and forest land not considered prime
agricultural property or designated as wetlands
(Table 4.12-1, page 4.12-2). The document states
that 24-39% of this land is already planned for
conversion to developed land, and suggests that
development is already anticipated in these areas
with or without the introduction of an
interstate.
This information and analysis raises two issues
we consider important: (1) As noted at several
locations in the document, I-73 is included in
most local and regional plans. Therefore, the
planned conversion of lands may very well be an
indication not that the development will occur
regardless of the interstate, but rather that the
interstate is already expected and development
plans have already been spurred by that
expectation. A statement to that effect should be
added to the Final EIS; (2) At interchanges of
the various alternatives, 61-76% of the land
which is developable is not already planned for
development, but will likely become attractive
for development if an interstate is constructed.
This analysis suggests a likelihood of
considerable secondary development resulting from
the roadway. It is noted on page 4.12-3 that less
than one percent of the amount of acreage at the
interchanges represents wetlands under any of the
build options. However, Table 4.12-1 indicates
that all of the "2" and "3"
alternatives include 164-176 acres of wetlands
within the interchange radii. While these areas
would be subject to regulation, we have concerns
that the construction of the interstate will
increase pressure on and impacts to these
wetlands. Avoidance of potential secondary
impacts to wetlands, as well as direct impacts,
should be a factor in your selection of an
alternative.
To summarize, our primary concern with the DEIS
is that it is unknown whether impacts to
communities and natural resources could be
reduced through the construction of a build
alternative of a lesser design than an
interstate. At the same time, the DEIS does not
substantiate that only an interstate-level
facility will address the Purpose and Need, other
than an interpretation of the "intent"
of Congress. We prefer alternatives that avoid
impacts to waters of the U.S., recognizing that
other factors must be considered in determining
whether an alternative is practicable. Both
direct and indirect/secondary impacts to waters
of the U.S., including wetlands, are being
considered in our comparison of the alternatives.
The Final EIS should document how avoidance and
minimization of impacts to waters of the U. S.
was a factor in the selection of an alternative.
Please see the enclosure for additional, specific
comments we have concerning the DEIS. As a
cooperating agency, we appreciated the
opportunity to review and comment on the pre-DEIS
as well as the DEIS. We trust that our comments
and recommendations will be fully addressed, with
a goal of the Corps being able to adopt the EIS
prepared by FHWA as part of our compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act.
Should you have any questions, you may contact
Alice Allen-Grimes at 757-441-7219.
Sincerely,
J. Robert Hume, III
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Page-Specific Comments
of the Corps of Engineers
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, I-73
1. Page 3.7-1. While it is likely that the I-73
project will be coordinated through VDOT's
monthly interagency coordination meeting, permits
will probably not be "issued" at the
meeting, as suggested on this page. For a project
of this size, a public notice would likely be
issued, after which a permit decision (issuance
or denial) would be made, considering public
comments.
2. Page 4.1-2, Table 4.1-1. Is there an error in
the ADT volume for Option 4 for the segment of
Rt. 220 north of Ridgeway? That segment is the
same for Option 2 (2, 2a, 2b, 2c), and yet the
volumes shown for Option 4 are twice the volumes
for Option 2. Options 2 and 4 share the same
location south of Ridgeway too, so it is not
clear why there is a jump in volumes for Option 4
north of Ridgeway.
3. Page 4.1-12, Travel Time Analysis. It is
stated that the travel time analysis under the
Build condition assumes a completed I-73 from
Michigan to Charleston, SC. West Virginia has
completed an EIS to improve an existing highway
to less-than-interstate standards and Ohio is not
pursuing an I-73 project due to funding problems.
Therefore, the Travel Time Analysis seems to be
predicated on a situation that will not occur,
estimating improvements that are unsubstantiated.
4. Page 4.1-13. Table 4.1-10. The travel time
savings within Virginia --five minutes from
Roanoke to Martinsville, 3 minutes from Roanoke
to Rocky Mount, and 6 minutes from Roanoke to
Smith Mountain Lake - seem limited when the
substantial impacts associated with the project
are taken into consideration.
5. Page 4.2-16, Table 4.2-7. It is not clear what
is intended by the column "Tourist
Attractions." The narrative that precedes
and refers to the table discusses only the
"Enterprise Zones and Growth Areas,"
but does not discuss the tourist attractions. Are
the tourist attractions located within a certain
distance from the various options? If so, is the
implication that there is better access to them
or potential negative impacts because
interchanges are not located near these tourist
attractions? The purpose for including the
information should be explained.
6. Page 4.7-3, Section 4.7.1.3. The text on the
previous page acknowledges that a new interstate
will serve as a physical barrier to wildlife
species and that wildlife-vehicle collisions will
increase. However, in the discussion of
mitigation in this section, no mention is made of
providing wildlife crossings. For a project of
this size, with the potential for significant
interruption of wildlife corridors, the
feasibility and potential effectiveness of
providing crossings for wildlife should be
evaluated.
7. 4.7-6. Section 4.7.2.3. The discussion of
mitigation for impacts to aquatic habitat simply
states that "compensation measures for
unavoidable impacts will be developed during the
permit process." It is important in
evaluating the comparative merits of the
alternatives to know the potential opportunities
for compensating for such impacts. While it is
recognized that the type and location of impacts
is different for the alternatives, for a project
of this size with a potential for such
substantial impacts, efforts should be underway
now to develop a conceptual compensation plan.
Such a plan would consider appropriate goals for
compensation, the type of compensation, and
potential sites. For example, it is difficult to
identify suitable sites for stream mitigation,
whether through restoration of riffles/pools,
provision of buffers, limiting access by cattle
(fencing), or whatever. The project proponents
should invest time now to find such
opportunities. To begin the effort, the project
proponents could investigate stream improvement
opportunities on publicly held land in the study
area.
8. Page 4.7-7, Section 4.7.3. With reference to
navigable waters, it is stated for both the TSM
and build options that temporary causeways and
cofferdams will be used for bridge construction.
Such temporary features in the navigable waters
will have to be coordinated and approved with
reference to their potential impacts to
navigation as well as water quality issues.
Causeways should not extend more than 50% across
a waterway at any one time, and signage or other
warnings to boaters may be required. Bridge
heights should be coordinated prior to design.
9. Page 4.7-10, Section 4.7.3.2. The DEIS states
that ponds formed through impoundment of
"ephemeral streams" were determined to
be non-jurisdictional. It is difficult to
distinguish between and intermittent stream and
an ephemeral stream, and ponds formed through the
impoundment of intermittent streams are
jurisdictional. Please have any determination
that a stream is ephemeral confirmed by the Corps
of Engineers.
10. Page 4.7-12, Table 4.7-4. The wetland impact
estimates for several of the build options have
changed substantially since the pre-DEIS. Those
associated with Options 2b, 2c, 3, 3a, 3b, and 3c
have all increased, some by as much as 20 acres.
What led to those changes? We also noted that the
impacts for the TSM alternative have dropped 27
acres from the pre-DEIS. We noted in our comments
on the pre-DEIS that those impacts seemed very
high, but we would like to know the reason for
the change in number
11. Page 4.7-14, section 4.7.3.2.3. This section
discusses mitigation for impacts to wetlands. As
we advised above for other aquatic resources, the
project proponents should at this time be
actively working to identify potential wetland
compensation sites. The opportunity for providing
wetland compensation for the various alternatives
is an important consideration in comparing them.
It is stated that compensation for some of the
impacts to ponds could be provided through the
inclusion of extended wet detention basins as
part of the stormwater management (SWM) system.
The requirement to provide SWM is above and
beyond mitigation for aquatic resources, and SWM
facilities by themselves are generally not
accepted to "double" as mitigation. The
text also includes preservation of existing
wetlands as an option for mitigation. If
preservation were proposed as mitigation, then
the project proponents should identify threats to
any properties proposed for preservation. In
addition, if preservation is included as a
component of any mitigation package, a minimum of
1:1 replacement of wetlands through restoration
or creation is generally required in addition to
any preservation to guarantee no net loss of
wetland functions and values.
12. Page 4.12-3. As we noted in our letter, it
might or might not be true that development that
is already planned in the proposed interchange
locations means that development will occur with
or without the interstate facility. Clearly, the
interstate is anticipated by all of the
localities and has been considered in their
planning. The planned development could very well
be because the interstate is expected and not
regardless of it. A statement to that effect
should be added to the Final EIS.
13. Section 4.13. There is no mention of historic
architectural structures in the 4(f) discussion.
It is our understanding that Section 106
properties are also Section 4(f) properties.
Archaeological properties are discussed, along
with the Blue Ridge Parkway (included as a
parkland) . Section 4.9.1 on page 4.9-1 states
that located within the Area of Potential Effect
of the build options are 14 architectural
resources eligible for the National Register. Are
they not included within the Section 4(f)
analysis because there is no expected
"use" of these properties? This section
should discuss architectural resources, even if
only to state why they are not being included as
potential Section 4(f) properties.
Enclosure
Copies Furnished:
Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond
Environmental Protection Agency, Reston
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Gloucester
National Marine Fisheries Service, Oxford
Virginia Department of Environmental
Quality/Water Division, Richmond
CF: READING, FILE
|
