Ms. Kristine Hansen
Senior Project Manager, Reno Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
March 28, 2014
SPK-2010-01058
Due to the substantial questions that have not been answered and the concerns not addressed through Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County’s (RTC)July 2013 404 Permit Application and RTC’s follow up February 2014 Response Document, The Upper South East Communities Coalition, on behalf of our substantial membership, request that the Clean Water 404b Permit Application requested by the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, be denied.
The Upper South East Communities Coalition, Inc. (Coalition) has learned that the FEMA maps that RTC is using to provide their data are critically out of date. The FEMA maps for the Steamboat Creek and the area of TruckeeRiver watershed have not been remapped since the early 1980’s. These maps were incorrect due to lack of actual hydrological studies.
The FEMA data that RTC is apparently using are from the last time FEMA mapped here in this watershed which was in the early 1980's.This was before the mini ARkStorm from 1986, and before the 1997 flood. It is the understanding of the Coalition that they, (FEMA) did not do any hydrological modeling at that time, they did some type of "statistical analysis" based on the flood gauge at the Vista Reefs from previous recorded flooding. They are about 2000 cfs (cubic feet per second) off. Which equates to about one foot in the flood zone.Reno is aware of this;Sparks is aware of this;WashoeCounty is aware of this; and RTC is aware of this. It has been common knowledge since at least 2006/2007 when the Corps released some type of Certified Hydrological Study that found the discrepancies.
The Coalition has been told that a Corps hydrologist by the name of John High is familiar with this issue.
One half to two thirds of everything east of I-580/Hwy 395 has been approved since the early 1980's and there has been no re-mapping or Cumulative Impact Studies done to determine what those development impacts are in conjunction withthe massive SEC and the Truckee River Flood Projects.
The Coalition is aware that FEMA is going to base their approval/disapproval of the CLOMR (Conditional Letter of Map Revision) on RTC data, which is critically outdated. The SUP's and Variances which were recently passed by the City of Reno for RTC's project are conditioned on the approval of the CLOMR. If the project gets built, only then would FEMA come back and do their remapping (because it is such a large project), which could significantly affect the cost of flood insurance, and the number of people who must be insured would substantially rise.
Ms. Kristine Hansen
Senior Project Manager, Reno Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
March 28, 2014
SPK-2010-01058
Excerpt from correspondence with Eric Simmons, FEMA Regional Flood Map Modernization Geospatial Lead:
To request a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) for a proposed project, an application with completed MT-2 forms and supporting data is submitted to FEMA. I don’t know how the timing for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit may impact this. The MT-2 process for a CLOMR request ensures regulatory requirements are met and involves a technical review. Please note that a CLOMR is not a ‘permit’ but FEMA’s review of a proposed project, which helps ensure the project is compliant with NFIP regulations. FEMA does not have the authority to make recommendations, seek public comment, nor approve/deny a project. The current Flood Insurance Rate Map panels for WashoeCounty are dated June 18, 2013, and March 16, 2009, and the flood hazard data for Steamboat Creek and the TruckeeRiver is primarily from the 1980s. This information is summarized in FEMA’s Flood Insurance Study report for Washoe County and incorporated areas.
Eric Simmons
FEMA Region IX
The Coalition understands that the City of Reno is not requiring RTC to use the new, updated hydrology that was provided by the Corps in 2006/2007 when modeling hydrology for this Project. It is critical that the FEMA maps for the floodway be updated for this area and RTC be required to re-run all their hydrological models for their design with the newest and most recent hydrological information though an Environmental Impact Statement.
The Coalition believes that the hydrology used by HDR and CH2M Hill is not sufficient for regulatory purposes.
In so far as RTC, in their July 2013 404 permit application, at the very beginning of their document, in Section 1, Project Introduction; Figure 4 Recent Development in Spanish Springs and South Truckee Meadows map shows the Double Diamond/Damonte Ranch area as being in the middle of the UNR Farm, we feel that RTC, at best, is sloppy in their presentation/information and should be required to submit to an EIS to ensure the correct data was used,proper locations are referenced and for the safety of the communities that surround, and others that would feel the effects of this Project, are considered.
------
Ms. Kristine Hansen
Senior Project Manager, Reno Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
March 28, 2014
SPK-2010-01058
The Army Corps of Engineers submitted 16 additional questions to the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (RTC) on January 9, 2014. RTC submitted their responses to those questions, and submitted an updated Alternatives Analysis on February 21, 2014. This document will be addressing the responses to those questions and some points of concern in the Alternatives Analysis.
RTC Technical Memo – Response to Comments of January 2014
Question 1.
The delineation of waters of the U.S. is missing a previously identified wetland within the project corridor on the UNR Farm. The data forms provided in the delineation submitted to the Corps on January 28, 2011, show that vegetation but no soils or hydrology are present within this area. Please explain why this are was previously identified as a wetland?
RTC states in their response that this was a “preliminary” review and the wetland area was marked for further analysis just because it was “green vegetation”. Then upon further investigation the area was excluded because it did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the wetland delineation. They indicate that the “refined understanding” was reflected in the withdrawn May 2011 application.
What they fail to indicate or include is that the May 2011 application was withdrawn sometime in the late fall or early winter of 2011. This was the beginning of a, so far, three year drought. If these are indeed facultative wetlands would they not have been dry due to lack of precipitation?
According to RTC, these wetlands were not included in the Jurisdictional Delineation Maps only because they did not meet some type of subjective criteria. In addition, according to the RTC July 2013 404 Permit Application, current Jurisdictional Delineation Maps were done in 2010 by Gibson and Skordal, who had completed the previous review which found this possible facultative wetlands and were hired by RTC both times. Due to the topography and the importance of these wetland areas, and their federal protections, should this not be investigated and thorough studies done through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) before any permits are approved that could eliminate the disputed area completely?
Question 4.
Ms. Kristine Hansen
Senior Project Manager, Reno Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
March 28, 2014
SPK-2010-01058
Where will the excavated material from the stream bank be disposed of?
RTC states in their February 2014 response that soils are to be reused during the construction process. Either spread out as topsoil or placed within the road bed.
It appears that the extensive soil management plan with the many different types of categories of material; has now been reduced to three categories. This contradicts their 404 permit application Appendix K, Soil Management Plan.
RTC claims that Category 1 material will be placed within the roadway embankment beneath the pavement surface between South Meadows Parkway and Mira Loma Drive. Category 2 materialswill be placed within the roadway embankment beneath the pavement surface between South Meadows Parkway and Mira Loma Drive at elevations above the 117-year flood elevation level, then topped with lime and concrete. Apparently all other material will be spread out and used for other construction purposes, regardless of what other contaminates (including noxious weeds) are present.
There is still no plan in the response document submitted February 21, 2014, to address the reasonable future action of this contaminated material being blown around into homes, business or schools during the construction process. The best management practices (BMP) are still scheduling, straw rolls and a water truck (which according to Washoe County Health Department would not need to be utilized if winds are over 30 mph). Due to the magnitude of the potential hazards, this appears to be negligent at best.
Please see attachment A for an example of RTC’s dust plan for Phase 1, which is obvious there is no plan. Again, “scheduling”, “straw rolls”, and a “water truck” that does not have to be utilized should winds be over 30 mph is the plan for Phase 2. Pictures were taken March 29, 2014, during a normal wind event for the Truckee Meadows area. Residents surrounding this project can anticipate this will be the outcome of wind events, no matter how small, and that heavily contaminated material will be blown into homes, schools, businesses and cars.
As the cross sections provided by RTC in their February 2014 response document shows, RTC is only capping this Category 1 or Category 2 material with pavement, or; lime, concrete and pavement. The embankments will still be dirt throughout the project. Topping lime and concrete (which are both anhydrous materials which mean that they will “absorb” moisture or water) will mean that they will begin to degrade at an accelerated level. Topping is not “encapsulating” or “sequestering” and RTC has still given no examples of this exact thing being done, and working, somewhere else.
Ms. Kristine Hansen
Senior Project Manager, Reno Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
March 28, 2014
SPK-2010-01058
An additional point is that they are still planning and promoting a “floodable”road. During flood events the potential is there that the Project’s dirt embankments will erode and wash away carrying heavily concentrated levels containing massive amounts of methyl mercury and arsenic into homes, businesses and schools and then will continue in these heavy concentrations down stream to the TruckeeRiver.
Again, no Environmental Impact Statement or Cumulative Impact Analysis were done to determine the potential contamination that residents and communities must be made aware of should this project be built and an event that erodes the “floodable” roadway embankments occurs.
This issue alone should be enough to trigger a denial of this Project.
Question 6.
To assist the Corps in assessing the indirect impacts to wetlands associated with the proposed project, please identify the acreage of waters of the U.S. within a 300-foot buffer on both sides of the roadway.
RTC’s response indicates that there is a 17.8 acre difference in affected wetlands depending on whether one is counting from the centerline of the project or if one is counting from the toe of the slope. 17.8 acres more wetlands are affected if you factor from the toe of the slope. Afterreviewing the July 2013 404 permit application, there is not one mention of this discrepancy, so the assumptions can be made that RTC only factored in the wetlands from the center line and this additional impact to WOUS must be evaluated through an EIS.
Question 7.
To assist the Corps in assessing the indirect impacts to the downstream environment associated with the proposed project, please provide a discussion of secondary down river impacts from movement of contaminated sediments from within the project area on fish species and habitat along the TruckeeRiver corridor.
RTC indicates that there should be no secondary down river impacts from the roadway portion of the project area on fish species or habitat along the TruckeeRiver corridor once construction is complete.
Ms. Kristine Hansen
Senior Project Manager, Reno Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
March 28, 2014
SPK-2010-01058
The Coalition, in reviewing the July 2013 404 permit applicationAppendix H, section 5 end of first paragraph states “Therefore, the only potential impacts that the proposed project could have on either fish species is by degrading the water quality and increasing the amount of sediment entering the Truckee River and Pyramid Lake.” There is mention that the SEC would be completed prior to the Truckee River Flood Project (TRFP) however that is irrelevant. Even though it is not anticipated that the SEC and the TRFP would be constructed at the same time, a reasonable assumption can be made that the admitted increase in sedimentation from both projects do not have to happen at the same time, and can occur concurrently, to cause cumulative long term or irreversible damage. A thorough EIS is needed to determine this cumulative impact.
RTC indicates that 100 percent of the roadway run off will be intercepted by bio-swales.
The Coalition, in our public comment from October of 2013, listed a host of potential impacts to the Steamboat Creek (SBC) through road salt, brine, oil, gasoline, exhaust, antifreeze and other public works and vehicle related pollutants that will be added to the already impaired Steamboat Creek (SBC) and its wetlands in addition to the increased temperatures in the surface water run off from a 4.5 mile road along this impaired creek that would be detrimental to Waters of the U.S. (WOUS) to include the Truckee River. There is little, if no, mention of the increased water temperatures due to storm water run off that will impact the SBC and therefore the TruckeeRiver during storm events. It can be anticipated that thousands of gallons of warmer water will run off this road and into the SBC during storm events affecting the water temperatures of both the SBC and the TruckeeRiver. This should be thoroughly studied through and EIS
RTC indicates that due to the use of water from the Yori Drain and design elevation, this will inhibit mercury loading into Steamboat Creek sediments.
The Coalition continues to have grave concerns about the “new” wetlands and believes a reasonable assumption can be made that they will become “new mercury sinks” allowing mercury, methyl mercury and arsenic to collect, through rain events and minor or severe flooding, at these new “sinks” to contaminate new areas. There is not one mention of the “new” wetlands to be built on the North or South Butler Ranch and the potential cumulative impacts through contamination of toxic materials on those “sinks” that will not have available “clean” (no mercury) water like the Yori Drain. In addition, there is no mention in any of RTC’s documentation of the Hidden Meadows Pond and what impacts these new “sinks” will have to this WOUS, as the primary source of water for this pond is seepage from the SBC under the dirt berm, which is literally right next to this new “sink”. An EIS is required to determine the impacts to all of these other areas that
Ms. Kristine Hansen
Senior Project Manager, Reno Field Office
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
March 28, 2014
SPK-2010-01058
have not been addressed in the July 2013 Permit Application or the February 2014 responses.
RTC indicates that they will be removing up to 22,000 pounds of mercury.
The Coalition contends that this statement is false. RTC is not “removing” this material, they are relocating it. Possibly to the detriment of the entire region. An EIS is required to assess the cumulative impacts of this action.
RTC indicates the use of BMP’s and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as protections against contamination of any kind.
The Coalition continues to be extremely concerned that, according to RTC 404 Permit Application from July 2013, their entire BMP and SWPPP plan is not much more than scheduling, straw rolls and a water truck. With the possibility of employees having access to paper suits and dust masks. Again, Washoe County Health District protocols indicate that RTC contractors would not be required to use the water truck if winds were over 30 mph. RTC 404 permit application indicates that there will be “stockpiling” of material and it is anticipated that this contaminated material will be moved around for weeks or months exposed to air and water. Nothing in either their permit or their responses documents factor in the human element of living, working or going to school around these dangerous toxins while construction is in progress. Due to the high risk of contamination of the surrounding residents, schools and businesses, the Coalition requests that the application be denied.