The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recommended that a wetlands permit needed for the proposed expansion of Interstate 526 not be granted because the project is still “too conceptual” and an application at this time is premature.
The EPA, which is tasked with implementation of the federal Clean Water Act, on Tuesday sent a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers strongly suggesting that agency deny the proposed permit.
The corps is the body that issues permits under Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of dredged, excavated or fill material in U.S. waters.
Among the EPA’s numerous concerns is that the S.C. Department of Transportation, which is managing the I-526 Mark Clark Expressway project, jumped the gun by applying for the wetlands approval before a final Environmental Impact Study was completed.
“We find the application for a 404 permit and issuance of the public notice for the permit to be premature,” wrote Jennifer Derby, the EPA wetlands and maritime regulatory section chief, “and it requires us to raise issues that could have been better resolved in the remaining NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) review process.”
S.C. DOT officials said they applied for the permit now so as to avoid a lengthy wait later.
In her letter, Derby said the project, the S.C. DOT’s preferred plan, may not meet its stated purpose because it does little to reduce congestion or improve regional mobility compared to other plans that were scrapped during an evaluation process over several years. She added that the S.C. DOT also “does not provide clear safety data” in regard to its alternative.
The almost $500 million plan backed by the state agency would connect West Ashley, Johns Island and James Island via a 7.9-mile parkway. Unlike the Mark Clark Expressway, the new stretch would be a boulevard-like four-lane highway that features low posted speed limits of 35 to 45 mph and pathways for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Other concerns raised by the EPA included management of post-construction storm water, the nebulous way in which the S.C. DOT describes impacts on wetlands, construction strategies and the dismissal of other proposals.
The latter issue was among those touched on in another letter sent Tuesday from the S.C. Department of Natural Resources to the Corps of Engineers.
“DNR is particularly concerned over the early elimination of alternatives that avoid and/or minimize impacts to natural resources by utilizing and improving infrastructure,” wrote Robert Perry, director of the DNR’s Office of Environmental Programs.
Perry also said the DNR did not consider the information in S.C. DOT’s draft environmental study to be adequate in supporting the road agency’s preferred alternative as the most practical and least damaging.
“Construction on new alignment represents the most environmentally damaging alternative in meeting proposed Project objectives and should be considered only after all other options are exhausted,” Perry wrote.
The S.C. DOT plan is the culmination of more than two years of study since Charleston County turned over project management duties to the agency. That information-gathering effort whittled 39 plans down to seven feasible courses of action, including the one now being pushed.
The S.C. DOT has faced strong public resistance since unveiling the plan in July, with the majority of attendees at a series at recent public meetings on the project opposing the expressway’s completion.
The agency will take public comments, which will be made part of the official record, until Sept. 30. Project officials hope to have a record of decision by sometime next spring.
1 comments:
really well written! are you a professional author?
Post a Comment