Transcription

1 Page 1 of 7 Comment Report: All Comments Project: 208/408 Reviews Review: IH30-35E Dallas Horseshoe Initial 408 Displaying 20 comments for the criteria specified in this report ms to run this page Id Discipline DocType Spec Sheet Detail Specifications Design Memorandum or Report Coordinating Discipline(s): Specifications No comments Submitted By: James Wright ( ). Submitted On: 22-Jun-12 No comments noted. 1-1 Backcheck Recommendation Close Comment Closed without comment. Current Comment Status: Comment Closed No comment Engineering Plans and Specs Submitted By: ROBERT BOWERSOCK (817/ ). Submitted On: 23-Jun-12 No comments noted. 1-1 Backcheck Recommendation Close Comment Closed without comment. Current Comment Status: Comment Closed Structural Other Coordinating Discipline(s): Structural No comment Submitted By: Nizar Almasri ((817) ). Submitted On: 25-Jun-12 No comments noted. 1-1 Backcheck Recommendation Close Comment Closed without comment.

2 Page 2 of 7 Current Comment Status: Comment Closed (Document Reference: TXDOT/FHWA EA) Page 147, Sentence 6 indicates, "Mitigation banks are used in situations where the construction of a mitigation area is not practical." Compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters of the United States is governed by regulation under 33 CFR 332 Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources. This regulation establishes a preference for the use of mitigation bank credits for mitigation. Based on this regulation the above sentence should be removed and information should be added justifying the use of on-site mitigation instead of mitigation bank credits. This justification should include a statement of the need for the swale and how the mitigation area will be protected. The sentence in question was deleted as requested. The following text was inserted: "Pursuant to the 2008 Final Rule on Compensatory Mitigation, the USACE would consider the type and location options for compensatory mitigation in the following order: mitigation bank credits, in-lieu fee program credits, and then permittee responsible mitigation." This general statement is needed in the Cumulative Impact section to explain how mitigation for Section 404 may occur within the RSA and is not project specific. Justification for the use of on-site mitigation and the need for the swale was not added because is not considered applicable in the cumulative impacts section. (Attachment: EA.pdf) (Document Reference: TXDOT/FHWA EA) Page 93, line 11; Appendix B, page 12, line 1 The EA indicates that no mitigation is proposed for the re-aligned channel. The analysis of the channel realignment is part of the compensatory mitigation process including avoidance and minimization therefore the sentence should be changed to indicated that the modification to the historic river channel at the Able Sump Pond 2 and 3 location would not result in the loss of aquatic function and therefore no additional mitigation would be required for these impacts to waters of the United States. As requested, the EA and Appendix B were revised to explain that the modification to the historic river channel would not result in a loss of aquatic habitat and no additional mitigation is proposed. (Attachment: AppB-EA.pdf) Table 8-16, page 90; Page 93, line 1-12; Appendix B, Table 2-1, page 10, line 11; Appendix B, page

3 Page 3 of 7 11, lines (Document Reference: TXDOT/FHWA EA) [This item is flagged as a critical issue.] The tables indicate that permanent impacts to waters of the United States would include 909 linear feet of stream, however, the text indicates that 283 feet of stream will be permanently impacted. This discrepancy needs to be resolved. Text revised in EA and Appendix B to explain compensatory mitigation is proposed for the 283 linear feet of permanent stream impact. The remaining 626 linear feet is associated with the realignment of the Historic Trinity River Channel for which compensatory mitigation is not proposed. (Attachment: AppB-EA.pdf) Page 17, 1st line of 4th paragraph and 2nd line of last paragraph (Document Reference: Project Summary Report) [This item is flagged as a critical issue.] Paragraph states that Dallas Horseshoe project would require relocation of 15 existing Oncor overhead electric transmission towers, then goes on to say that Oncor would be responsible for obtaining USACE construction approval for the relocations. I agree that Oncor should be responsible for getting construction approval for the relocations once they have completed their 100% design, but since the relocations are being required by the IH-30/IH-35 project, the FHWA EA should include the environmental impacts associated with the relocation of the electric lines. More detail on the relocation of the Oncor tower was included in the documents and environmental impacts were determined. The proposed relocation would impact water Feature 65. Results were included in the EA (including Appendix B/Attachment 1). Attachment 1 was revised to include the existing and proposed location of all Oncor transmission towers. (Attachment: PS-EA.pdf) Appendix 4, page 4, Section 2.0, 2nd paragraph (Document Reference: Project Summary Report) [This item is flagged as a critical issue.] The estimates of potential environmental impacts resulting from the Proposed Action should include the impacts associated with relocation of the Oncor electric transmission line towers based on a preliminary proposed alignment. Revised bullet item b. to read "b. Construction of foundations for the proposed IH 30 and IH 35E

4 Page 4 of 7 new bridge structures and proposed relocation of Oncor transmission towers; and" (Attachment: AppB.pdf) (Document Reference: Project Summary Report) Appendix 4, page 8, line 11 Instead of using "800-year event", please use "SPF", since we do not have concensus agreement at this time, of what the updated SPF equates to. Should do a search on Section 408 reports and FHWA EA to make this correction throughout all the documents. Revised as requested globally. A revised electronic version will be provided for ATR review. Appendix 4 revisions attached for reference. (Attachment: AppB.pdf) (Document Reference: Project Summary Report) Coordinating Discipline(s): Cultural Resources General. Cultural resources team member has no comments Real Estate RE has no comments on the design for IH 30/IH 35E Dallas Horseshore Project.

5 Page 5 of Real Estate Is it correct that the TXDOT IH30/IH 35E bridges and road pavements reconstruction are State highways and roads? 1-0 Evaluation For Information Only Yes Real Estate Does TXDOT IH 30/IH 35E bridges and road pavements have any affiliations with the Federal Highway Administration? 1-0 Evaluation For Information Only Yes Real Estate Project Summary Report, 8. Real Estate, Pg 29, 1st line states, "The proposed project would traverse approximately 48.3 acres of land located within the Dallas Floodway." RE recommends that TXDOT provide the City of Dallas, a real estate map indicating the specific locations of the approx acres of land to be traversed within the Dallas Floodway. The map will be helpful to the City and USACE when the Dallas Floodway project work limits are defined for the particular work to be conducted within the East and West levee alignments that impact the approx acres of land. The State is currently developing ROW maps and exhibits for acquisition of the easements required across the Dallas Floodway. These will be provided to the City of Dallas, and can be provided to USACE if necessary Real Estate Project Summary Report, 8. Real Estate, Pg 29, 5th line states, "TXDOT will acquire a permanent easement from the City of Dallas for the proposed IH 30 and IH 35E bridges across the Dallas Floodway." RE recommends to TXDOT and the City that in the execution of the permanent easement that City incorporate language in the easement to provide right of entry to the United States of America, on behalf of USACE, its representatives, agents, contractors and assigns to the specific locations where the East and West Levees for the reconstructed bridges, road pavements and access roads will traverse at grade the various land sites. USACE will need access to these same permanent easement areas between City and TXDOT for the Dallas Floodway Project, once the feasibility study work is defined.

6 Page 6 of 7 Forwarded to the appropriate State personnel responsible for preparing the easement agreements Real Estate Project Summary Report, 8. Real Estate, Pg 30, 2nd line states, "There is no right-of-way acquisition cost sharing with the USACE associated with this project." RE concurs with this statement. Later, if any unforeseen acquisition is required by TXDOT along the East and West levees for this project, TXDOT will need to inform the City and USACE RE personnel. City of Dallas and USACE will be notified if there is need for additional ROW Civil Design Memorandum or Report (Document Reference: Project Summary Report) In this report in Section 7.5 Construction, the third paragraph states the number of submittals plans that will be required. The ONCOR plans are only calling out for one submittal for USACE approval. Even thought the design criteria to be used is under the guidance of ONCOR, the construction approval still needs to follow the USACE guidance within the Floodway area. The submittals should be similar to that which TXDOT will provide. Submitted By: Efren Martinez ( ). Submitted On: 25-Jun-12 The number of submittals will be similar between TxDOT and Oncor provided the plans submitted for Construction Approval Review are not substantially different from the preliminary plans as determined by the USACE to warrant further analyses. Provided there are not substantial changes, Oncor is expected to make one submittal to the USACE for Construction Approval Review for all 15 transmission tower relocations. Whereas TxDOT will make multiple submittals for Construction Approval Review based on the construction packages developed by the Design-Build Contractor. For example, one submittal might be for IH 30 bridge foundations within the Dallas Floodway. A second submittal might be for IH 35E bridge foundations within the Dallas Floodway Civil Design Memorandum or Report (Document Reference: TXDOT Preliminary Plans)

7 Page 7 of 7 On the plan and profile sheets where future proposed levee modifications by others is shown, the vertical clearance dimension for all areas is less than 15 feet. No reference is shown on the main report stating the approval of this criteria to reduce the vertical clearance. The vertical clearance of 15 feet is for flood fighting measures and access of equipment. Submitted By: Efren Martinez ( ). Submitted On: 25-Jun-12 The report does not specifically state approval of this criteria. However, the minimum vertical clearance has been previously established through coordination with the City of Dallas Flood Control District and the USACE in August of The minimum vertical clearance required is 7 ft. above the crown of a 12-inch thick aggregate maintenance road on top of a future levee height set at SPF plus 2 ft. Please reference discussion at top of Page 27 and Exhibit F of the Project Summary Report. The 7 ft. minimum vertical clearance facilitates surveillance activities during floods. Vehicles and equipment that require more than 7 ft. of vertical clearance can use the landside maintenance roads turnoffs that will allow them to cross under the proposed bridges at the base of the levee with significantly greater than 15 ft. of vertical clearance Operations Plans and Specs No comments from OD at this time. Submitted By: Mark Sissom ((817) ). Submitted On: 26-Jun Geotechnical Plans and Specs Geotech has no comments at this time. Additional comments will be provided at the next review period. Submitted By: Jesse Coleman ( ). Submitted On: 28-Jun-12 There are currently a total of 415 users online as of 04:03 PM 28-Jun-12. Patent 11/892,984. About ProjNet SM About Us Privacy Policy Test Browser Test Connection Call Center FOUO / SBU Only SM property of ERDC since Questions and comments to Call Center staff@rcesupport.com, or HELP (4357) Classified information is NOT permitted on this site. Do NOT share your ProjNet password.