UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYD
VSB4
  *\ PR0^&<"                      Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029D
o                                REGION HID
*                              1650 Arch Street D
       Mr. James Cheatham D
       Division Administrator D
       Federal Highway Administration D
       5th Floor, Federal Building D
       228 Walnut Street D
       Harnsburg, PA 17101 D

       Re: The Woodhaven Road Project; Philadelphia, Bucks and Montgomery Counties, PA; DraftD
       Environmental Impact Statement/Section 404 Evaluation FHWA-PA-EIS-03-02-D D

       Dear Mr. Cheatham: D

             In accordance  with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on
       Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40CFR 1500-1508), Section 309 of the Clean Air Act
       and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
       reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the above referenced proposal.
       The proposed project would complete the Woodhaven Road/PA 63 Expressway by creating a
       facility that would transition between the six lane limited access expressway and the free-access
       local road network through  a series of strategic improvements. Currently, the Woodhaven
       Expressway ends in northeast Philadelphia in the Somerton section of the City, near the borders
       of Bucks and Montgomery Counties.  The study area includes parts of lower Southampton and
       upper Southampton Townships in Bucks County, the Somerton section of Philadelphia  in
       Philadelphia County, and parts of Lower and Upper Moreland Townships and Bryn Athyn
       Borough in Montgomery County.

             Because the DEIS does not indicate a preferred alternative, EPA has assigned individual
       ratings to the alternatives presented, according to EPA's EIS rating system (copy enclosed).  The
       Byberry Road Upgrade Alternative, the Woodhaven Extension Alternative, the Bustleton
       Avenue Alternative and the Bustleton Avenue Alternative Modified are all assigned a rating of
       "EC" (Environmental Concerns), due to their potential impacts to surface water, forested habitat,
       and environmental justice areas. The No-Build Alternative is assigned a rating of "LO" (Lack of
       Objections) because of the minimization of impacts to environmental resources in the project
       area.  The adequacy of the Impact Statement is assigned a rating of "Category 2" (Insufficient
       Information).  The detailed  basis for these ratings is contained in the following comments.

       General Comments

             The information  and analysis contained within the DEIS should allow the Federal
       Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation
       (PADOT) to identify the alternative that is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable

       £J   Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper with 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free.
                                  Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474

-------
Alternative (LEDPA) for compliance with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines.
We strongly encourage FHWA and PADOT to include sufficient documentation in the FEIS to
allow for the identification of the LEDPA corridor.

       More details should be provided concerning the disposal of any waste material generated
during construction. Fill should not be placed in locations where it will impact natural resources.

       More details should be provided on the storm water controls used during and after
construction. The location, size, and other parameters should be provided for the storm water
control systems.  Moreover, we recommend avoidance of all wetlands or critical habitat in the
placement of stormwater management facilities and staging areas during construction. The
location of these areas should be discussed  prior to the Record  of Decision so that any
unavoidable impacts can be mitigated appropriately

       The adverse impacts resulting from  roadway stormwater runoff should be discussed in
further detail.

       The location and potential impacts of any maintenance or storage facility should be
discussed, if one is needed for this project.

       All vegetation used for mitigation, stormwater facilities and staging areas should be of
native variety.

Surface Waters and Wetlands

       The potential adverse impacts to water resources from this project must be considered in
the context of the historic degradation of water resources in and around the project area,
resulting in the loss of many functions and values.  In addition, the historic channelization of
substantial portions of streams in and around the project area has resulted in loss of natural
stream channel geomorphology, aquatic habitat and riffle-pool  systems.

       All project alternatives are likely to involve intermittent and perennial stream crossings,
stream relocations, culvert extensions and culvert replacements. However, the Woodhaven
Extension Alternative would cause the greatest impact to these resources.  We recommend
taking additional steps to further avoid and minimize impacts.  Only after avoidance and
minimization have been exhausted should compensatory mitigation be explored.

       The Byberry Road Alternative would cause the least impact to streams, wetlands and
other environmental resources.  The relatively low environmental impacts for this alternative
should be considered when selecting a preferred alternative.

       Unavoidable wetland impacts should be mitigated for at a minimum ratio of 1:1 for
emergent wetlands, 2:1 for shrub/scrub wetlands and 2:1 for forested wetlands. These
replacement ratios  should be coordinated with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection and the United States Army Corps of Engineers.

-------
       Culverts should be designed to allow for adequate fish passage where appropriate, and
designed in accordance with Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission standards.

Forested Habitat

       The range of forested habitat lost as a result of this project is projected to be between 19
and 34 acres. With the substantial projected loss of forest  land and forest fragmentation
associated with any of the alternatives, implementation of the project will contribute to
significant loss of wildlife habitat in the project area.

       We recommend that terrestrial mitigation be undertaken for any unavoidable losses. This
might occur by planting replacement trees in areas that are associated with upland buffers for
wetland or stream mitigation.

Environmental Justice

       The discussion of Environmental Justice should include language regarding access to
information  and data for the community. There should also be frequent, meaningful, and
appropriate community involvement.

       The report makes mention that "census tracts 360,361, and 364 in the City of
Philadelphia contain a higher percentage of minority populations than the statewide average".
"The project area in these census tracts is heavily industrial (includes the Bennett Industrial
Park); therefore,  under these alternatives, minority populations would not be impacted, as they
are not present in the industrial area". How close are populated areas to the industrial park and
other facilities? Is  there an implication here that there are no people living in the area?
Historically, we have seen a number of industrial areas that are located in close proximity to
significant population centers.  What is the case here?

       Much of the discussion of this document related to Environmental  Justice seems to be
centered around the comparison of impacts among populations. In part such comparisons are
meaningful and appropriate.  However, it seems that there  is an implication that if the impacts
upon the various segments of the population are the same (not disproportional), then such
impacts are acceptable. Our concern lies in this area of assessment. What if the impacts to
which all of the residents are exposed are at a high level. For example, suppose there are
significantly high levels of particulate matter generated by the construction activities.  Would
such a condition  be acceptable if all residents are equally exposed? Much of the impact
discussion seems to imply that the most important measure of impact is related to
disproportionate  impacts. We see no information related to the nature of the potential impacts or
to whether a risk to human health is posed by such impacts. The discussion seems to be mainly
focused on the demographic portion of the assessment alone. While the demographic
information  is certainly important, it is also important to look at the nature  and extent of impacts
on the populations, and to identify those  portions of the population who are most sensitive and at
risk. The objective of the environmental justice assessment is to assure that we are being
protective of all of the members of the population and to assure that sensitive, susceptible, and
vulnerable populations are fully protected. Environmental Justice came into being because there

-------
were serious issues related to the exclusion of citizens from the decision making process, the
lack of power and resources on the part of some stakeholders, the clustering of impacts and
multiple environmental exposures on some communities, and the fact that some populations are
more sensitive or susceptible to sources of environmental exposure than others.  There are
concrete reasons for the inclusion of specific populations in the environmental justice portion of
the assessment that are based upon observed conditions in the population. For example, it is well
cited in the literature that low-income populations are at greater risk due to their lack of
appropriate health care as a result of their economic condition. Numerous studies have found that
there are differences in the quality and quantity of health care provided to minority and low-
income populations. Just as it is well documented and scientifically proven that the elderly and
the very young are sensitive populations with greater susceptibility than the general population.
These and other factors need to be kept in mind during the assessment.  It is most important that
we examine the sensitive, susceptible, and vulnerable populations most carefully and look at the
potential for adverse impacts that may affect them to a greater degree than the general
population.

       Mention is made of efforts to conduct outreach to the elderly in the project area.  What
about the minority and low-income populations?

Air Quality

       The project is acceptable from an air quality perspective.  The project is already in the
conforming Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) Plan and Transportation
Improvement Plan (TIP), and the maximum ambient 8-hour Carbon Monoxide (CO)
concentration is predicted to be 7.8 ppm, which is below the 9 ppm 8-hour National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for CO. The 1-hour maximum CO concentration is well below the 1-hour
NAAQS.  The appropriate MOBILE5a(h) and CAL3QHC models were used for the air quality
analysis.

       Thank you for the opportunity to offer these comments.  We look forward to reviewing  a
Final EIS which addresses the environmental concerns described in this letter. If you have any
questions regarding these comments, please contact Todd Lutte of my staff at (215) 814-2099.

                                  Sincerely,
                                  William J. Hoffman, Acting Chief
                                  Environmental Programs Branch
Enclosure

-------