--------------------~---------UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960
February 1,2012 Reverend J. Thompson Brown Cannon Emeritus Cathedral Church of the Advent 521 North 20th Street Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2611 Dear Reverend Brown: Thank you for your January 10, 2012, letter concerning the Birmingham Northern Beltline and U.S. 280 projects. You requested information about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's involvement in these two highway projects. ' We understand your concerns regarding impacts that these projects may have on streams, forest land, wetlands, animal species and local residents. As you know, the Northern Beltline Project is a proposed 52-mile long, six-lane limited access facility in Jefferson County, Alabama. The EPA provided comments on both the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Final Environmental Impact Statement for the project in 1997. The EPA recently submitted a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Mobile District regarding the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) request for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit for the construction ofa 3.4 mile section of the Northern Beltline. We have enclosed a copy ofthis letter for 'your consideration so that you are aware of our current involvement in the Northern Beltline Project. The U.S. 280 Project is a proposed 16-mile roadway in Jefferson and Shelby County. ALDOT is studying different alternatives to determine their feasibility including express toll lanes using elevated roadways or depressed sections. The segment between the Elton B. Stephens Expressway and 1-459 may include six lanes for free traffic and four inside lanes converted into toll lanes. An elevated toll road with four lanes may start at 1-459 and extend to Eagle Point Parkway. According to the ALDOT, an environmental assessment will be prepared for this project. ALDOT indicates that this document should be available for review within the next 18-24 months. The EPA intends to provide agency comments on the project at that time. We will consider your comments when we are able to review the completed reevaluation of the environmental impact statement for the Northern Beltline Project and the environmental assessment for the U.S. 280 Project. Specific concerns about both projects can be directed to Ms. Alfedo Acoff from ALDOT at (334) 242-6143 and Ms. Lynne Urquhart from the Alabama Division ofFHWA at (334) 274-6371.
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recvcled/Recyclable
• Printed with Vegetable
On Based
Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 30% Poslconsumer)
-
'1
We appreciate your desire to protect and preserve the environment and hope you find this information h~lpful. Ifwe may be of further assistance, pleasecontactNtale Kajumba of the NEPA Program Office ,at (404) 562-9620.
HeinZ J. Mueller, Chief NEP A Program Office Office of PoliCy and Management Enclosure: 12/13/11 EPA letter to Mobile U.S.Army Corps cc: Alfedo Accoff, ALDOT Lynne Urquhart, FHWA
-UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303.6960
December 13,2011 Colonel Steven Roemhildt District Engineer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Birmingham Field Office Attn: Courtney Shea 218 Summit Parkway, Suite 222 Homewood, Alabama 35209 Subject: EPA Comments on the 3.4-mile segment of Birmingham Northern Beltline Public Notice SAM-201l-0l079-CMS; Jefferson County, Alabama Dear Colonel Roemhildt: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 has reviewed Public Notice (PN) number SAM20l1-0l079-CMS, dated October 12, 2011, for construction of a 3.4-mile segment of the Birmingham Northern Beltline (Beltline), a 52-mile 6-lane limited access highway project proposed by the Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The project would be located in Jefferson County, Alabama and is intended to be part of the Appalachian Development Highway System. The application for a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit to proceed with construction of this segment was concurrent with the release of a document summarizing the preliminary analysis associated with the proposed reevaluation ("Summary of Preliminary Analysis ")' of the overall Beltline project. Prior to the submittal of the documents listed above, ALDOT and FHWA completed a final environmental impact study on the Beltline and a record of decision (ROD), which were approved by FHW A on June 12, 1997, and August 24, 1999, respectively. Following the ROD, no activities to advance the action occurred on the project over the next three years. Because of the length of time since the completion of the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as well as changes to the project footprint, an increase from a four-lane to a six-lane facility, with multiple alignment changes, it became the responsibility of FHW A to ensure that the environmental documentation for the proposed action was still valid before proceeding with major project approvals. Consequently, ALDOT and FHW A decided to reevaluate a segment and then more appropriately the entire Beltline to assess "changes to project's concepts or the affected environment, and a determination of what effects these changes might have on the validity of the environmental documentation."z This process has been underway since 2006. During this reevaluation process, ALDOT decided to move forward with a CWA Section 404 permit application for a segment of the BeItline project. However, evaluating individual segments could underestimate the I Alabama Department' of Transportation, September 2011. Summary of Preliminary Analysis Conducted for the Reevaluation o.fProject HPP-1602(530)(529)(502)(531)(532) Birmingham Northern Beltline. 2 Federal Highway Administration, August 21, 1992. NEPA and Transportation Decision-making Project Development and Documentation OvervielV, hltp:/lu1~'\t'.ent';ronmelli. thwa.dor. gl}l:{IJrojdel 'itdmndo.asp
Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gov Recyclod/Recyclable
• Prinled with Vegelable
oR Based
Inks on Recyded Paper (Minimum 30% POs1consumer)
effects of the total project, particularly indirect and cumulative effects. Without comprehensive review of the total Beltline project, it is not possible to know if the overall project will move forward and if so, . whether there will be specifications to address environmental concerns. The proposal could also restrict consideration of other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements (23 CFR 771.1 (f).
n
Following discussions with various agencies, ALDOT decided to withdraw the application until the reevaluation could be completed. This withdrawal comes after the close of the PN period. The EPA understands that the project will be re-noticed for public review after the necessary evaluations are complete. Based on our review of the PN and the Summary of Preliminary Analysis, the EPA agrees that it would be premature to proceed with a permit such as that proposed under PN SAM-2011-01079-CMS and we support the withdrawal of the permit application. To assist in moving an evaluation of this project forward, the EPA would like an opportunity to review the complete reevaluation before decisions are made. Based on communications with ALDOT, we have agreed to await their submittal of the reevaluation before providing more detailed comments on the project. At that time, the EPA may provide recommendations indicating whether additional studies or supplements are warranted. Nevertheless, the EPA offers the following preliminary comments regarding the existing proposed project and reevaluation including project segmentation, completeness of environmental evaluation, water quality, and mitigation so ihat these comments may be taken into consideration as the project evaluation proceeds. At a minimum, reevaluation of the entire Beltline project is needed to satisfy National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) requirements. It is also needed for alternatives analysis and selection of the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) as required by the CWA 404(b)(1) Guidelines implemented through the regulations at 40 CFR Part 230. The EPA notes that the Beltline will intersect many streams in the area including tributary networks of Locust Fork, of the Black Warrior River, as well as the Cahaba River and at least one of its headwater tributaries, which the EPA considers Aquatic Resources of National Importance and priority watersheds. The total direct, indirect and cumulative effects need to be considered in the watershed context, taking into account impacts such as those to floodplains and flow regimes due to channelization and increased impervious surfaces, as well as impacts resulting from follow-on development and associated infrastructure. Beltline Segmentation The segment that would connect State Route 79 and State Route 75 does not appear to connect major population, industry, or business centers with traffic levels necessitating highway connection. Thus, a 3.4-mile, 6-lane segment of interstate highway there may not have independent utility as a single and complete project. Construction that precedes comprehensive evaluation could force the interstate towards a more environmentally damaging alternative, restricting consideration for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements (23 CFR 771.111 (f). The project must be considered in totality to accurately address cumulative and indirect effects as required by 40 CFR Parts 1508.7 and 1508.8; subsections cannot be considered in isolation. Proceeding towards permitting any subsection before such analysis is complete would prejudge the outcome of environmental reviews and could commit resources toward a project that may not proceed or a design that may not be part of the ultimately preferred alternative.
2
-- - --
---------------------------------Water Quality Per the 404(b)(l) Guidelines, no discharge may be authorized ifit causes or contributes to violations of any applicable State water quality standard, violates any applicable toxic effluent standard or would cause or contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United States. The 1997 EIS stated that most of the ~ater pollution would be attributed to temporary erosion and siltation of streams, which • "should return to normal conditions after project construction." A 52-mile highway will directly increase impervious surface area by hundreds of acres and may reduce natural stormwater management functions of impacted wetlands and areas maintained as right-of-way. Runoff directed to streams will have 10ngterm effects on hydrodynamics, erosion and sediment dynamics of affected streams. If the Beltline meets its intended purpose it will facilitate significant long-term development of the area, with indirect and cumulative effects on stream flows, sedimentation and water quality associated with increased runoff -from surface streets, parking facilities and buildings. ALDOT indicated in the Summary of Preliminary Analysis that it is continuing to study the project's potential impacts on water quality resulting from construction and long term highway operations, and that a stormwater management plan will be created before construction begins. However, water quality and flow impacts need to be part of a comprehensive environmental analysis of the total project that informs the alternatives analysis and a LEDPA selection. Mitigation Section 230.1 Oed)of the Guidelines prohibits issuance of a permit to fill aquatic resources "unless appropriate and practicable steps have been taken which will mirumize potentia! adverse impacts of the discharge on the aquatic ecosystem." The EPA does note plans to bridge some resources, and would view maximally bridging wetlands, streams and their floodplains as a positive approach to avoidance of impacts. There may also be many more opportunities to address the required mitigation sequence of avoidance, minimization and compensation to minimize the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to aquatic resources (e.g., alternative designs or alignments). The reevaluation also needs to demonstrate how compensatory mitigation requirements will be addressed. Based on our review of the PN for this segment, the EPA is concerned that the intended approach to compensatory mitigation would not comply with regulations and would not provide compensation in the affected area. The PN states that ALDOT proposes to compensate tbf'wetland impacts by debiting credits from an ALDOT mitigation bank and for stream impacts with credits from an ALDOT or other mitigation bank. However, with the exception of the Cahaba River Mitigation Bank, which serves the easternmost portion of the Beltline project in the Cahaba River watershed, no ALDOT or commercial bank currently exists with service areas for the anticipated impacts. Furthermore, no ALDOT bank currently provides any stream mitigation credits. Although the 1996 ALDOT-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Memorandum of Agreement allows for use of mitigation credits from an out-of-service-area bank if they are replaced with Credits from a bank with an appropriate service area within three years, it is the EPA's view that the 2008 Mitigation Rule ("Rule"), which at 33 CFR 230.9.3(c) requires a watershed approach to compensatory mitigation, now supersedes that 1996 Memorandum of Agreement. As stipulated by the Rule at 40 CFR 230.93(b), "the required compensatory mitigation should be located within the same watershed as the impact site and should be located where it is most likely to successfully replace lost functions and services." If neither mitigation bank credits nor in-lieu fee program credits are available to serve the impacted watershed, then the next option provided for by the 2008 Mitigation Rule is permittee-responsible mitigation through a watershed approach or on-site and in-kind mitigation. A complete and viable mitigation plan that adheres to the 404(b)(l) Guidelines and the 2008 Mitigation Rule such that it provides functiona!lift to compensate for project impacts will be needed for the entire project. 3
.Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. In summary, the EPA's concerns given the current information include project segmentation, comprehensive project evaluation, water quality, and mitigation. We look forward to reviewing the complete reevaluation and continuing to coordinate with you on environmental issues and future PNs, Weare also available to meet with you to discuss how these comments and others can be addressed. Again, the EPA acknowledges and supports ALDOT's decision to withdraw the application for a CW A Section 404 permit until the reevaluation of the Beltline is complete. If you have any questions. regarding these cOIDments, please contact Rosemary Hall (
[email protected] or 404-562-9846) or. Jennifer Derby (
[email protected] or 404-5629401) from the Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section and Ntale Kajumba (
[email protected] or 404 562-9620) or Heinz J. Mueller from the NEPA Program Office (
[email protected] or 404 562-9611).
Sincerely,
. ~NJJ1JL
ennifer Derby Wetlands and Marine Regulatory Section Water Protection Division
Heinz J, Mueller NEP A Program Office Office of Policy and Management
cc:
Ms. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms.
Cindy House Pearson, COE Aaron Peters, ADEM Bruce Porter, USFWS Lynne Urquhart, FHW A Alfedo Acoff, ALDOT
4