Wal Mart2.Rtf

8/9/2019 Wal Mart2.Rtf

1/42

Page 1 of 42

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.Godfrey, Madison County, Illinois

401 Water Quality Certification Responsiveness Summary

Table of Contents

Agency Decision ........................................................................................ 2

Pre-hearing Public Outreach .....................................................................3

Public Hearing of May 28, 2008 .................................................................3

Background Information ............................................................................4

Responses to Comments, Questions and Concerns401 Water Quality Certification .....................................................5Stormwater/Best Management Practices .................................... 9Antidegradation Statement

Characterization of Affected Water Bodies .............................. 16Protection of Existing Uses ....................................................... 22Purpose, Need and Benefits of Project ..................................... 25Alternatives Analysis.................................................................. 28Mitigation Plan ............................................................................ 31

Public Involvement ...................................................................... 36

Other Issues ............................................................................................ 37

Acronyms and Initials ............................................................................. 41

Distribution of Responsiveness Summary ........................................... 42

Who to Contact for Answers .................................................................. 42

FinalSeptember 10, 2009


2/42

Page 2 of 42

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. )Godfrey, Illinois )401 Water Quality Certification ) DLC File Number: 69-08

IEPA Log No.: C-0150-07 )

AGENCY DECISION

On September 10, 2009, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency issued theSection 401 Water Quality Certification for the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Godfrey Project.

The following modifications have been made to the proposed project.

Mitigation plan For description, see Response 64

Best Management Practices (BMPs) For description, see Response 14

Modification to Stormwater Management Plan For description, see Response14

Modification to building size and parking space reduction For description, seeResponse 14


3/42

Page 3 of 42

PRE-HEARING PUBLIC OUTREACH

The entire public hearing notice was published thrice (April 25, May 2 and 9, 2008) inthe The Telegraph (Alton). Beginning in April, the public hearing notice was mailed topersons on a hearing service list maintained by the Illinois EPA. The notice was mailed

to state legislators, county, township and municipal officials, environmentalorganizations and interested citizens. The public hearing notice was also postedelectronically on the Illinois EPA website, http://www.epa.state.il.us . One or moregroups not associated with the Illinois EPA also publicized the public hearing throughfliers and a website. The Alton newspaper, The Telegraph, announced the hearing inan article on May 26, 2008.

May 28, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING

Illinois EPA Hearing Officer Charles Matoesian opened the hearing at 6 p.m. in theAdvanced Technology Center Room 141 at Lewis & Clark Community College inGodfrey, Illinois.

Illinois EPA Facility Evaluation Unit Manager Dan Heacock and technical reviewer ThadFaught provided an overview of the 401 water quality certification process and thespecifics for this site.

Comments and questions were received from the audience.

Several spokespersons for Wal-Mart provided comments near the close of the hearing.

Hearing Officer Charles Matoesian closed the hearing at 9:45 p.m. on May 28, 2008.

Illinois EPA personnel were available before, during and after the hearing to meet withelected officials, news media and concerned citizens.

Approximately 80 persons representing neighbors, consultants, attorneys, religiousorganizations, environmental groups, Village of Godfrey, Alton Telegraph newspaper,organized labor and Wal-Mart attended the hearing. A court reporter prepared atranscript of the public hearing which was posted on the Illinois EPA website.

The hearing record closed on June 27, 2008.
http://www.epa.state.il.us/http://www.epa.state.il.us/http://www.epa.state.il.us/


4/42

Page 4 of 42

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The IEPA Bureau of Water received an application for a Section 401 water qualitycertification for the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United Statesassociated with a Section 404 permit application received by the United States Army

Corps of Engineers for a proposed commercial development of 36.8 acres located atthe intersection of U. S. Route 67 and Airport Road in Godfrey. Two unnamedtributaries to Rocky Fork Creek are located within the project area. The applicantproposes to construct a commercial development on the 36.8 acres with relatedinfrastructure including utilities, parking lots and stormwater detention. A total of 1,570linear feet of two unnamed tributaries of Rocky Fork Creek will be impacted due to thedevelopment. Flow from the tributaries will be directed through storm sewer pipingalong the eastern portion of the site and will outlet into approximately 660 linear feet ofnew channel prior to entering the remaining portion of the unnamed tributary. BestManagement Practices are proposed to treat the stormwater generated on-site.Mitigation for the impacts will be on-site through 0.79-acre of riparian restoration along

the unnamed tributary and approximately four acres of riparian restoration at an off-sitelocation along Piasa Creek.

The IEPA made a tentative determination to issue the Section 401 water qualitycertification in accordance with 35 Illinois Administrative Code Subtitle C ( Water Pollution) , the Illinois Environmental Protection Act and the federal Clean Water Act.The 401 certification process is governed by the provisions of 35 Illinois AdministrativeCode 395, Procedures and Criteria for Certification of Applications for Federal Permits or Licenses for Discharges into Waters of the State , which can be obtained online at

http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-12063/ .

The public notice/fact sheet which contains the draft antidegradation assessment canbe viewed on the IEPA website:http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2008/sec-401-notices.html#walmart-rocky-fork
http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-12063/http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-12063/http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2008/sec-401-notices.html#walmart-rocky-forkhttp://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2008/sec-401-notices.html#walmart-rocky-forkhttp://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2008/sec-401-notices.html#walmart-rocky-forkhttp://www.ipcb.state.il.us/documents/dsweb/Get/Document-12063/


5/42

Page 5 of 42

Comments, questions and concerns in regular printAgency responses in bold

Responses to Comments, Questions and Concerns

401 Water Quality Certification

1. We are opposed to what we perceive as being the destruction of the twounnamed tributaries that feed into a larger tributary that travels into a Boy Scoutcamp, to other locales, and ultimately into the Mississippi River.

The applicant has applied for a Section 404 permit from the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (USACE) that will allow, if granted, the proposed dredgeand fill activities. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification (401 WQC)including an antidegradation assessment is required from the Agency forthese activities. The 401 WQC insures that the proposed project can beconstructed in a manner that will not violate the states water qualitystandards. The applicant is also required to perform mitigation for theproposed impacts that will assure existing uses are maintained and thewaterbodies are not degraded consistent with the antidegradationregulation (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105). See Responses 43 and 45.

2. We ask that this agency do what it is supposed to do; that is, protect theenvironment and have Wal-Mart design at this site a retail establishment withparking facilities that protect the tributaries rather than placing them into stormsewers, covering them up, and covering the entire area with impervious surfaces.

The Agency has reviewed the Section 404/401 joint application form andsupporting documents and produced an Antidegradation Assessment thatconcludes that the proposed project can be constructed such that allexisting uses of the waterbodies are maintained or mitigated and nodegradation is expected as a result of the construction of the proposedproject. See Responses 14, 43 and 45.

3. One must conclude that from the lack of pertinent enforceable content in thisproposal, that Wal-Mart is interested in cutting corners when it comes toprotecting water quality. And from their perspective, that is a rationale andunderstandable choice. Its not Wal -Marts job to protect water quality, but to build

and operate a store in the most inexpensive manner. Residents and businessesnear this development and throughout the Village of Godfrey are concerned aboutthe future welfare of riparian buffers, streams, aquatic wildlife, and recreationalopportunities that are to be preserved and protected through this permittingprocess.

The applicant has applied for the appropriate permits and will provideappropriate design of the site and any required mitigation for any proposed


6/42

Page 6 of 42

impacts. The applicant has proposed numerous Best ManagementPractices (BMPs) on-site that will aid in protecting and preserving theexisting uses of the waterbodies including aquatic life use and recreationaluse. The proposed mitigation will establish a riparian corridor along theunnamed tributary on-site as well as expand the riparian corridor at the off-

site mitigation area to connect an adjacent 70 acre conservation area toPiasa Creek. The proposed mitigation will enhance wildlife use in thewatershed as well as benefit the adjacent streams and potentially provideadditional recreational opportunities. Also see Response 14.

4. We ask that you consider a report entitled Analysis of Treatment SystemPerformance available on the EPA web site.

The Agency considered the information in this report in its evaluation of theproposed BMPs for the project. This report provides summaries thatanalyze available monitoring data drawn from the International Stormwater

Best Management Practices Database to determine whether any differencesin treatment performance may be determined based on various BMPcategories (detention basins, media filters, wetland basin, etc.). Theapplicant has selected BMPs that will provide treatment for the stormwater.Specific analysis of the selected BMPs indicates a reduction in totalsuspended solids, total phosphorus and nitrogen compounds due to theBMPs to be installed in the development. The Agency has concluded thatthe proposed BMPs are appropriate for the project site.

5. The citizens of Godfrey really do enjoy the nature that they have here. That iswhy they live here instead of the city. Converting them into an urban place thathas pollution from Wal- Marts runoff would be absolutely inappropriate. So Iwould ask you to uphold your mission of the Environmental Protection Agencyand protect this creek.

The Section 401 WQC with all included conditions will assure that existinguses will be maintained and will not allow violations of the states waterquality standards.

6. All of the information that is cited is lacking data really needed for the Agency tomake a fully informed decision for a 401 water-quality certification. None of thisinformation was provided through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request,and they were not listed as privileged in a privileged log. To the extent that suchdocumentation is not referenced anywhere, it would be reasonable to assume thatWal-Mart did not give it to the Illinois EPA. Therefore, until Wal-Mart complieswith the requirements set forth by the Illinois statutes and regulations, the 401certification must be denied.

The applicant has provided all necessary documentation to the Agencyregarding the 401 WQC review and the Agency has reviewed the application


7/42

Page 7 of 42

with respect to appropriate regulations. Information not listed as withheldis available through the FOIA process on this project.

7. Who will control what takes place on this property in terms of construction andwhere the water will be diverted? Who has the ultimate say? Is it the Illinois EPA

or is it local government?The Agency has reviewed the proposed project with respect to theapplicable regulations under the Agencys jurisdiction. This includesassuring construction activities have proper stormwater control measuresin place and any unavoidable impacts are properly mitigated for. Control ofthe quantity or flow of water and where it is diverted is not under thejurisdiction of the Agency. Those issues are more appropriately covered bylocal, county and village ordinances or the Illinois Department of NaturalResources (IDNR) when appropriate.

8. My concern is for all the people that live around Wal-Mart. Will they have to havean attorney present to take care when this construction takes place? Who isgoing to help us when the mud flows onto our property? Without the Illinois EPA,were in trouble.

The applicant has proposed stormwater control measures duringconstruction activities as part of the 401 WQC application which has beenreviewed by the Agency and incorporated into the 401 WQC. The applicanthas also received a construction site activities stormwater permit from theAgency. The applicant must adhere to the conditions of 401 WQC and theconstruction site activities stormwater permit. See also Response 9.

9. Godfrey already has major construction and post-construction storm water runoffissues. Yet Wal-Mart desires to add an extra 38 acres, the impermeable surfacesof their store and the parking lot, to this problem. This might overflow our capacityand cause irreparable harm to our infrastructure, while adding pollutants to alldownstream water bodies. There will not be anyone from the Illinois EPA to goout and inspect unless they have been authorized by the Springfield office. Weare becoming overrun with development and having storm-water issues in thisarea.

The applicant has obtained construction site activities stormwater permitILR10I442 for storm water runoff issues during construction. The applicantis also subject to local stormwater ordinances that require certain releaserates for stormwater leaving the site. Inspections by the Agency are doneon a routine basis and may be conducted based on complaints filed.Complaints may be filed with the Agencys Collinsville Regional Office atphone number 618-346-5120. Also see Response 14.

10. The creek overflows during high-water events. In order to evaluate any shoreline


8/42

Page 8 of 42

erosion issues, we would like to know what village or IEPA studies have beencompleted to prove that there will not be any pollutants flushed downstreamduring high-water stages on the neighboring property during any future high-waterevent once the development occurs. Have there been any studies?

Yes, the applicant completed a stormwater analysis in accordance withMadison County and Village of Godfrey requirements. The applicant hasalso conducted a study, Water Quality Analysis of Pollutant Loading thatshows a reduction in total suspended solids, total phosphorus and nitrogencomponents due to the BMPs to be installed in the development. Theapplicant has also provided analysis of the inlet filtration systems proposedto be used by the project.

11. The discharge to the tributaries may affect the quality of the Mississippi River and,thus, the waters of Missouri. Is the IEPA required to notify the relevant Missouriagency charged with protecting Missouris waters of this permit application?

Can you tell us whether section 401(a) (2) of the Clean Water Act pertains to Wal-Marts application for permit?

The Agency is not required to notify the state of Missouri unless the Agencydetermines that the discharge may affect Missouris waters. In this ca se,the Agency concluded that the discharge would not affect Missouriswaters. The Agency produced a public notice that allows anyone, includingthe state of Missouri, to provide comments. No comments were receivedfrom the state of Missouri.

12. Based upon the information submitted to the IEPA, Wal-Mart has failed todemonstrate that it has complied with the testing procedures, test speciesselection methods, data acquisition methods and other methodologies publishedby the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or nationally recognized standardsorganizations.

The applicant is required to submit information to the Agency under theAntidegradation regulation (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105) that identifies andcharacterizes the affected waterbodies. The applicant has submitted theNatural Systems Assessment-Waters of the U.S. Delineation dated March13, 2007. This assessment was done in accordance with the 1987 USACEWaterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers Wetlands DelineationManual by the Environm ental Laboratory and USACE Regulatory GuidanceLetter RGL 05- 05 Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) Identification tocomply with the legal definitions of Waters of the U.S. (33 CFR Part 328) andnavigable waters (33 CFR Part 329). The applicant also submitted aninformal stream survey report dated May 15, 2008 to the Agency. Theapplicant used USEPAs Biological Indicators of Watershed Health to obtain


9/42

Page 9 of 42

biological indicator status used in the survey. The methods used by theapplicant to characterize the waterbodies are appropriate.

13. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 395.401 lays out the criteria for certification, waiver ofcertification, or denial of certification. There are four primary requirements that

must be met for certification or waiver of certification to be issued by the Agency;(1) violations of water quality standards; (2) violations of other Illinois PollutionControl Board (IPCB or Board) regulations; (3) non -compliance with Sections301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the Clean Water Act; and (4) interference withexisting water uses. If the intended activities cannot be performed withoutviolating any one of the four requirements, then the Agency must denycertification. In this case, Wal-Mart has, at the very least, failed to demonstratethat it will neither violate state water quality standards nor interfere with existingwater used. For all these reasons, the Agency must deny Wal- Marts 401 Water Quality at this time.

The Agency has reviewed the application and supporting documents andhas determined that the proposed project can be constructed withoutcausing a violation of water quality standards and maintaining existing usesof the waterbodies , as well as complying with Illinois Pollution ControlBoard regulations and the Clean Water Act. See Responses 43 and 45.

Stormwater/ Best Management Practices

14. Introducing pollutants and sediment will degrade water quality and causedegradation of aquatic life in the creek, adjacent riparian area and downstream

waters. The applicant does not address first flush concerns, nor does heindicate that pollutants, trash, and sediment will be prevented from discharginginto the open channel. The entire proposal remains inadequate and ineffective indesign, installation, inspection, maintenance and measurable control specifics toreasonably manage construction and post-construction runoff sediment, watertemperature irregularities, and hydrocarbon pollutant loads.

There is concern that the site detention basin with concrete low-flow gutters willdo nothing to capture the sediment, hydrocarbons, and other contaminants duringthe first-flush segment.

Pollutant loads, temperature spikes, stream bank erosion, channel deformationand downcutting and the natural loss of habitat are among the seriousenvironmental impacts of this proposed development.

One of the primary impacts of the Godfrey Wal-Mart proposal is the increasedvolume of surface runoff that is the direct result of the proposed impervioussurfaces in the watershed. Increasing impervious surface changes the naturalrunoff of hydrology and dramatically increases the concentration of pollutants


10/42

Page 10 of 42

transported in the surface storm water flow.

We do not believe that adequate Best Management Practices for storm water arecurrently planned so as to minimize the adverse impacts to the tributary. Thismay affect the reconfigured Boy Scout Lake that was recently fixed with local

dollars. We recommend that these BMPs be integrated into the site design, andthat the EPA actually oversee the Wal-Mart plan because it does deal directly withwater quality.

Some suggestions are to transfer on-site storm water to the detention basins,through bioswales or have depressed-vegetated islands in the parking lot forstorm water collection, infiltration and evaporation. Permeable pavement orparking lot size minimization strategies, including shared parking and smallerparking stalls for compact cars, are also common practices. More ideas includeinstalling rain gardens at all building downspouts, green roofs, a regular schedulefor parking lot sweeping and a snow removal management plan that eliminates

and/or minimizes to use of road salt.The storm water system as it is being proposed will release first flush componentof every storm up to the two-year, 24-hour event without removal of sediments,salts, fertilizers, hydrocarbons, or oils to the relocated creek or to a low flowconcrete swale in the detention basis. From those points in the system, stormwater will be discharged without pollutant reduction, cooling time, or detentiontime immediately into the Rocky Fork Creek.

Modifications have been made to the stormwater collection and treatmentsystems for the proposed site. With the modifications, 100 percent of thestormwater generated on-site will be treated prior to exiting the site. Thestormwater flowing off of the Wal-Mart building, large parking area andsmall shops area will be directed to the detention basin. This will collectapproximately 73 percent of the stormwater. All of the outfalls into thedetention basin will be equipped with trash baskets. The upstream end ofthe detention basin will be designed as an Extended Detention Area (EDA)that will filter and treat the stormwater. The EDA has been designed so thatit will completely contain the 1 year-24 hour storm event without factoringinfiltration. This area will treat the first flush coming off of the majority of the site. First flush is defined as the stormwater that initially runs off anarea and generally contains more pollutants than stormwater that runs offlater.

The EDA will be constructed with four levels of filtration. The first layer willbe native vegetation including shrubs, grasses and forbs. The second layerwill be comprised of an equal mix of organic compost, sand and topsoil.The third layer will be a non-woven geotextile fabric which will help reducesuspended solids from entering the fourth layer of pea gravel andperforated pipes. The network of perforated pipes will collect the filtered


11/42

Page 11 of 42

stormwater and convey the filtered stormwater to the vegetated areas of theremaining portion of the detention basin. The detention basin will alsoreduce the velocities of the stormwater enough to allow for infiltration.

Approximately 17 percent of the sit es stormwater drains from the outlots

and the entrance along Godfrey Road. This drainage area will be treatedthrough inlet filtration systems installed at each inlet, followingdevelopment completion. The inlet filtration systems will provide treatmentfor the stormwater prior to it entering the culvert section of the unnamedtributary. The inlet filtration system has greater than 90 percent removalefficiency for particles with a mean particle size of 20 microns. Thisfiltration system removes sediment, hydrocarbons, nutrients and heavymetals from stormwater. The filtration systems will be installed immediatelyin the entrance areas and as each outlot is developed. Until an outlot issold and developed, it will be permanently seeded, mulched and vegetated.

Approximately 10 percent of the sites stormwater will be treated bybioswales and filter strips. This does not include the filter strips, asdescribed above, that will be installed within the outlot area prior to thedevelopment of the outlots. The northern boundary of the site willpermanently drain to a bioswale along Airport Road. A filter strip greater orequal to 60 feet wide will be permanently placed along the westernboundary. These areas will help remove pollutants and sediment as well asallow for infiltration.

The applicant will also construct a stilling basin at the outlet of the enclosedportion of the unnamed tributary, prior to entering the relocated openchannel. The stilling basin will allow for further settlement of sedimentsand pollutants that may have escaped the inlet filters as well as providingsome settling for the stormwater runoff generated off-site that passesthrough the development.

The applicant has also modified the design of the proposed Wal-Mart storeby selecting a different prototype to be constructed. The new storeprototype will decrease the buildings footprint by 32,991 square feet. Thismodification to the project will also result in the reduction of 194 parkingspaces and an increase of 105,092 square feet of grassed area. Themodification of design will also remove a Tire and Lube Express from thestore design. This modification will reduce the amount of impervioussurfaces within the development and eliminate the need to install a gas andoil separator that is required for the Tire and Lube Express operation.

As an additional BMP, the applicant will use a rubberized roof system forthe development of the Wal-Mart store and the small shops on the southside of the development. This will reduce the amount of hydrocarbonstypically found in asphalt-based roofing systems from the stormwater


12/42

Page 12 of 42

runoff. In addition, the roof runoff from the Wal-Mart store will be conveyeddirectly to the stormwater detention basin or to the swale on the westernboundary without flowing over any of the parking lot. This will reduce thepossibility of this runoff transporting any pollutants from the parking areas.

Analysis of the revised stormwater collection system and BMPs proposedfor this project indicate that the stormwater collection system and BMPs willreduce loading to the receiving waters of total suspended solids, totalphosphorus and nitrates compared to different alternatives for the sameproject without the proposed stormwater collection system and BMPs.

The applicant evaluated the site and conducted hydraulic calculations inaccordance with Madison County requirements, which are alsoincorporated by the Village of Godfrey. The results of hydrauliccalculations compiled by Cochran, a consultant for the applicant, for thepre-developed and post-developed flow rates at the point of discharge for

the project site in the existing channel indicate a reduction in peak flowrates from existing conditions for the 2 year-24 hour storm, 10 year-24 hourstorm and the 100-year-24 hour storm events. The post-developed flowrates are based on all of the above mentioned BMPs for the project site.The point of discharge for the project site is the unnamed tributary at thesouthern property boundary that will receive water from the Wal-Martdevelopment as well as from outlots along Godfrey Road and all pointsupstream of the project site.

Madison County requires evaluating 2-year and 100-year storm events andthe sewer capacities. The detention basin design has been reviewed andapproved by the Village of Godfreys Engineer.

15. The environmental work by the Wal-Mart consultant is totally inadequate anddoes not meet the requirements in the IEPA strategic plan, Priority III, Initiative 9:Protect and maintain high quality waters. Address non-continuous but recurringpollutant discharges related to wet weather conditions. The engineering designfirm (retained by the applicant) failed to utilize modern methods of controllingrunoff from the stores and parking lot.

The revised BMPs are considered acceptable practices. See Response 14for a description of the revised BMPs for the project.

16. The reader of the engineering report could not find if the runoff calculationsincluded the one-half million square feet that is to be occupied by the proposedsmall shops or the five outlots. A clarification should be made to IEPA concerningthese sites.

The applicant clarified this issue in the December 5, 2008 submittal. Thehydraulic calculations are based on the entire project site including the Wal-


13/42

Page 13 of 42

Mart store, small shops and outlots. The upstream watershed of theunnamed tributaries was also used in the hydraulic calculations.

17. This site has been evaluated as a whole and the detention was sized toaccommodate the water being directly discharged from those outlots.

Approximately five percent of this site ends up in a detention basin held andmetered out and filtered appropriately.

According to current design specifications, the proposed project will direct72.8 percent of the stormwater from the project site to the detention basin.The remaining stormwater from the project site will be treated through inletfiltration systems or bioswales and filter strips, resulting in the treatment of100 percent of the stormwater from the project site.

18. There is no reason why the water quality and the aquatic-life community in RockyFork Creek should not be protected from degradation with the most effective and

innovative sediment control and soil water pretreatment BMPs. Hydrodynamicseparator systems should be required as an integral part of the pretreatment planfor this site.

Hydrodynamic separator systems (described as an inlet filtration system forthis project) are included in the current design of development. They areconsidered an effective treatment for stormwater. Also, see Response 14.

19. The bio-retention area identified within the proposed Wal-Mart detention basin isan extremely small surface area that has five storm sewer pipes directing waterinto it. Because this area will receive irrigation system and groundwater runoff

from the parking lot drain system, the area will be too wet for effective cleaningduring most months of the year. A few rainy months will clog the filter layer withsediments, trash, and other pollutants to the point of losing most, if not all,infiltration functionality. The detention basin itself still contains the low-flowconcrete flumes, which ensure that infiltration is impossible within that portion ofthe system.

See Response 14 for a description of the Extended Detention Area (EDA).During normal rain events, the EDA will capture and treat the stormwaterdirected to it. The EDA will then discharge to the remaining vegetatedportion of the detention basin. For large storm events, the EDA will be

equipped with overflow areas that will convey water into the remainingportion of the detention basin and the concrete swales. The concreteswales are required within the detention basins per ordinances of MadisonCounty and the Village of Godfrey. The swales are designed to conveystormwater flow only during high-flow events.

The design plans submitted to the Agency include routine monitoring andinspection of the EDA, detention basin, and associated structures and other


14/42

Page 14 of 42

BMPs to ensure that the system is functioning as designed. Trash will becollected and removed weekly. If the monitoring and inspection reveals anyunsatisfactory filtering capabilities (excessive accumulation of sediment orunacceptable levels of pollutants), remediation will be performed.Remediation activities may include removal and replacement of filter media,

adjustment of filter media components, removal and replacement of thegeotextile fabric and/or pea gravel.

20. Sorbent Best Management Practices can and absolutely should be required to beincorporated and maintained as part of a pretreatment system in all parking lotsand storm water retention basins to catch hydrocarbons and other toxic chemicalsbefore they are carried into the bio-retention area or are relocated into thereceiving stream.

The applicant is proposing other effective BMPs to treat the stormwater.See Response 14 for the other proposed BMPs.

21. Detention ponds do not adequately reduce total suspended solids, phosphorusand nitrogen (Analysis of Treatment System Performance, 2007).

Analysis of the revised stormwater collection system and BMPs proposedfor this project indicate that the stormwater collection system and BMPs willreduce loading to the receiving waters of total suspended solids, totalphosphorus and nitrates compared to different alternatives for the sameproject without the proposed stormwater collection system and BMPs.See Response 14 for the revised BMPs.

22. A large portion of storm water collected from the proposed development of theoutlots is being inappropriately released without pre-treatment, pollutant filtrationor detention of any kind with the exception of a token notation for an undersizedand wholly ineffective stilling basin. The detention basin and the stilling basinare surrounded by steep 3:1 slopes. Steep slopes as part of a riparian corridorare unsuitable and are very difficult to successfully establish vegetation andmaintain streambank stability. Use of 3:1 steep slopes make erosion controlunnecessarily difficult and causes stilling basin maintenance or cleaningoperations to be expensive and awkward to perform.

Three to one slopes are adequate to establish vegetation. Three to oneslopes are commonly used for detention basins and levees. Three to oneslopes can be properly maintained in Illinois.

23. When we suggested that depressed islands be used in the parking lot, the answerwe received was that islands will be vegetative but will not be depressed. Has theAgency had any discussions with the Applicant about these types of BestManagement Practices?


15/42

Page 15 of 42

Yes. The applicant determined that this BMP was not feasible for two mainreasons. First, the parking lot islands are located as requested by theVillage of Godfrey during site plan approval. This request located theislands at the higher elevated areas of the parking lot. A depressed island

design is best situated at lower elevated areas that collect stormwaterrunoff. Secondly, with the location of the parking lot islands, they wouldnot provide significant filtration for the stormwater. Instead, the stormwaterrunoff from the parking areas will be directed to the EDA in the stormwaterdetention basin for infiltration and treatment.

24. Wal-Mart chooses to store fertilizer, pesticides and other lawn and garden itemson their parking lot. Much of this bagged product not only comes in damaged butgets damaged by the handling of the store.

The applicant has indicated that Wal- Marts standard operating procedure

does not allow fertilizers and pesticide to be stored outside unless the areais covered with a permanent canopy. The items that Wal-Mart allows to bestored outside uncovered are landscaping items such as bagged mulch,landscaping blocks and containerized plants. This procedure will befollowed at this project site.

25. What about the water in the stream during construction, and future constructionsto ensure that the creek is not just silted up and polluted with run-off material suchas petroleum products, salt, sand, glass and trash?

The applicant has prepared an erosion and sedimentation control plan aspart of the stormwater pollution prevention plan. The applicant has alsoreceived a construction site activities stormwater permit. The AgencysNPDES stormwater program and associated permits are designed to protectwaters of the state from sediment and other contaminants that result fromconstruction activity.

26. Since the proposed culvert has a tendency to concentrate the water pressure ofthe flow at its output there is concern of both erosion and flooding.

The applicant is proposing a stilling basin at the outlet of the proposedculvert to dissipate energy from stream flows. The 660 linear feet of newchannel will also be planted with native vegetation to reduce the erosionpotential along the banks and may assist in dissipating flow velocity prior toentering the undisturbed portion of the tributary. The results of hydrauliccalculations compiled by Cochran, a consultant for the applicant, for thepre-developed and post-developed flows at the point of discharge for theproject site in the existing channel indicate a reduction in peak flow ratesfrom existing conditions for the 2 year-24 hour storm, 10 year-24 hour storm


16/42

Page 16 of 42

and the 100-year-24 hour storm events. Also see Response 14. Floodingissues are not under the jurisdiction of the Agency.

27. A snow-removal management plan that eliminates the use of road salt needs tobe mandated by the village. Will the IEPA mandate this to assure that the water

quality at issue is maintained?The Illinois EPA does not have the authority to issue a mandate to theVillage of Godfrey under this 401 WQC.

Antidegradation Statement

Characterization of Affected Waterbodies

28. Nothing indicated any study or any assessment of the physical, biological orchemical conditions of this water body once it leaves the site.

The Agency has received and reviewed information on upstream anddownstream conditions of the unnamed tributary.

29. The environmental consultant for Wal-Mart mainly conducted environmental workfor the stated 38-acre site and a portion of the unnamed tributary to Rocky ForkCreek that is on their property. They did sample upstream across Highway 67from the site, where they found grey water and a septic smell near homes.However, they did not conduct any work below the property.

The applicant did not conduct any sampling upstream or downstream of theproject site. All assessments of the unnamed tributary to Rocky Fork Creekprovided by the applicant were conducted within the project site. As part ofthe on-site stream assessment, the applicant provided characterization ofthe portion of the unnamed tributary that is downstream of the proposedimpacts.

The BMPs and stormwater management practices, discussed in Response14, are designed to protect the portion of the unnamed tributary to RockyFork Creek that is within the project boundary and not impacted by theproject as well as the portions of the unnamed tributary downstream fromthe project boundary. The Agency utilized all information provided by theapplicant as well as other available information, including informationcollected upstream and downstream of the site, in making this 401 WQCdetermination.

30. The Illinois EPA should look at the facts involved, as well as the conflictingevidence concerning poor water quality and life present in the creek, and do anindependent investigation.


17/42

Page 17 of 42

The Agency utilizes information available from numerous sources includingwhat is provided by the applicant, other entities, information obtainedduring public notice and comment periods and what is available within theAgency. The Agency has reviewed all information received and collected

for this project and determined that an independent investigation is notnecessary. Based on the information provided, the Agency has concludedthat the culvert at Winter Lane acts as a barrier to aquatic life movementupstream of the culvert. Upstream of the culvert, the unnamed tributaryappears to support some aquatic life use. Downstream of the culvert,aquatic life use is more prevalent. At the project site, the drainage area forthe tributary is 159 acres. With a drainage area of this size, the tributary islikely to be completely dry during late summer/early fall low rainfall periodsand has limited ability to support a balanced aquatic life community.

31. In Geotechnologys July 10, 2007 report, on page 2, it states that whi le assessing

the on-site section of the unnamed tributary, no high-quality macroinvertebrateswere identified within the system. What we are not seeing is where thesesamples were taken, how many samplings were conducted, or during whichseasons they took place. There are no sample logs, no field notes, and nothingto identify anything with respect to field conditions at all. Under Section302.105(f)(1), the permit application must characterize the water body byaddressing its physical, biological, and chemical conditions.

The macroinvertebrate survey conducted by Geotechnology wasperformed on May 14, 2008, to generally assess the existence ofmacroinvertebrates within the project area. Five sampling locations withinthe proposed project boundaries of the unnamed tributary were selectedbased on the presence of potential macroinvertebrate habitat.Macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted by displacing gravel andchunk rock substrate and visually inspecting habitats. Biological indicatorstatus was obtained using USEPAs publication Biological Indicators of Watershed Health, http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/index.html.

As the macroinvertebrate study was a general assessment, the study wasonly performed once on the date given. Additionally, bed materials and itsdepths were observed by use of a 3/4-inch diameter probe. The probe wasinserted into the streambed until it encountered refusal, generally definedas encountering something that causes the inability to continue. For themost part, refusal was not encountered above an 18-inch depth. On twosamples, refusal was encountered at 15 inches and at 16 inches; howeverthe origin of refusal is not known. Bed materials were observed to becomprised of sediment and gravel. Visual observations of the unnamedtributary and surrounding areas were performed by Geotechnology onmultiple occasions in winter 2006/07, summer 2007, fall 2007, winter 2007and spring 2008.
http://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/index.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/index.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/bioiweb1/index.html


18/42

Page 18 of 42

32. In the fact sheet it states that the two unnamed tributaries to Rocky Fork Creekare general-use waters and are not found on the 2006 Illinois 303(d) list, thebiological stream characterization system (BSC), or listed as a biologicallysignificant water body by the Illinois Natural History Survey publication. The fact

that these two tributaries are not identified on such lists does not diminish thesignificance or importance of these water bodies and the need to protect them.Not being on the 303(d) list essentially means that there is no current significantthreat to the waters quality.

In the Antidegradation Assessment, the Agency will note if a stream ortributary is identified in any of these publications. They are used to aid inthe characterization of the waterbody. Unnamed tributaries are generallynot assessed under the BSC methodology.

33. The creek has never been dry in the last 30 years.

Based on information provided by the Illinois State Water Survey, theunnamed tributary to Rocky Fork Creek has a zero 7Q10 flow. The termzero 7Q10 flow means that on average over a period of 10 years, thestream will have no flow for at least one period of seven consecutive days.This does not mean that every 10-year period there will be at least sevendays of no flow in the stream. It also does not mean that the stream will becompletely dry for seven consecutive days in the average 10-year periodbecause the 7Q10 measure indicates flow, not quantity. Because it isestimated to recur on average only once in 10 years it is usually an indicatorof low flow conditions during drought. This flow calculation does notnecessarily mean that there is no water in the stream, but that the watermay not be flowing.

34. In the IEPA fact sheet, when you add up the impacts of 250 feet of one tributaryand then 1300 linear feet of another tributary, that equals 1550 feet of impact.Does that include the meanders in the creek, or is that just a straight line?

The impacts have been calculated with creek meanders and not as astraight line distance.

35. W hen the Illinois EPA met with the developers team at the site and viewed it, didyou see any life in the creek?

A full stream assessment was not conducted by the Agency at that time.However, no aquatic life was noted during this cursory observation.

36. It seems that this particular application has been pushed through rather quickly.Has Wal-Mart complied with Section 302.600, which requires that EPA take intoconsideration that the applicant follow the strict rule and methods established by


19/42

Page 19 of 42

USEPA, and with other standards? Has the applicant submitted information suchas field reports and other quantitative data to the Agency for consideration?

The procedures outlined in Section 302.600 and subsequent sections areused in reference to Section 302.210, Other Toxic Substances. This Water

Quality Standard is used when a parameter that is not covered by otherwater quality standards may occur in an effluent or as a result of adischarge in concentrations toxic or harmful to human health, or to animal,plant, or aquatic life. The applicant is proposing numerous constructionand post-construction BMPs to prevent toxic substances from entering thestormwater and receiving stream. Through the use of these BMPs, theAgency has determined that no toxic concentrations of substances areexpected. As such, no requirements under Section 302.600 and subsequentparts have been triggered. See Response 14 for a list of the BMPs to treatstormwater.

37. How will the animal and plant life be affected by the proposed project? TheEndangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) prohibits actions which harm plant andanimal species that are endangered or threatened and bars federal agencies fromauthorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listedspecies or destroy or modify its critical habitat. United States Fish and WildlifeServices ( USFWS) documents indicate the presence of endangered orthreatened species within Madison County. The possible presence of theendangered Indiana bat, as well as the endangered pallid sturgeon, is sufficient totrigger the requirement of formal consultation with the USFWS to study potentialimpacts of the proposed project on this species. Also, the decurrent false aster isa federally listed Threatened Species which is known to occur in MadisonCounty.

The Agency submitted a consultation request to the IDNR on October 30,2007, using the EcoCAT system. The report generated from this requestindicated that the Illinois Natural Heritage Database contains no record ofState-listed threatened or endangered species, Illinois Natural AreaInventory (INAI) sites, dedicated Illinois Nature Preserves, or registeredLand and Water Reserves in the vicinity of the project location; thereforeIDNR terminated consultation.

In addition, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the IDNR andthe USFWS were both contacted by Geotechnology for informationconcerning threatened or endangered species in the project area.Additionally, these agencies were copied during the public notice period.IDNR responded to Geotechnologys request in a letter dated January 19,2007, that stated no endangered or threatened species, Illinois NaturalAreas Inventory sites, or Illinois Nature Preserves Commission lands existin the project area. IDNRs response encompasses all federal and state


20/42


21/42

Page 21 of 42

Mark (OHWM) Identification to comply with the legal definitions of Watersof the U.S. (33 CFR Part 328) and navigable waters (33 CFR Part 329).

The applicant also submitted an informal stream survey report dated May15, 2008 to the Agency. The applicant used USEPAs Biological Indicators

of Watershed Health to obtain biological indicator status used in thesurvey. Geotechnology conducted work on the project site on multipleoccasions in winter 2006/2007, summer 2007, fall 2007, winter 2007, andspring 2008. See Response 31 with regards to the macroinvertebratesampling conducted by Geotechnology.

Functionally impaired is a term provided by the USACE and included inthe evaluation of a stream in accordance with the State of Missouri StreamMitigation Method (SMSMM). To evaluate the existing conditions of stream,it must be categorized as (1) fully functional, (2) moderately functional, or(3) functionally impaired. According to the SMSMM, a functionally

impaired stream means that there is a very high loss of system stabilityand resilience characterized by loss of one or more integrity functions.Recovery is unlikely to occur naturally, and further damage is likely, unlessrestoration is undertaken The on -site streams have met this functionallyimpaired evaluation by exhibiting the following characteristics:

The stream has extensive human-induced sedimentationThe stream has little or no riparian buffer of deep-rooted vegetation onone or both sides of the stream. The existing riparian corridor (bothwoody and grassed) is dominated by shallow-rooted vegetation.The stream banks are extensively eroded and unstable.

The stream has been impacted by five or more stream impacts within0.5 miles upstream of the proposed area of impact.

Four out of six qualifiers for a stream to be classified as functionallyimpaired, according to the SMSMM, are met in the on-site streams. For astream to be classified as a functionally impaired stream, it must only meetone or more of the six qualifiers. Therefore, this stream at this location isconsidered functionally impaired per the SMSMM.

The applicant has provided information to the Agency for thecharacterization of the unnamed tributaries. The Agency has determined

that long term and/or seasonal surveys are not necessary in this case,because based on the information provided to and collected by the Agencyas well as knowledge of similar stream types, a characterization of theunnamed tributaries can be made without a long term survey.

40. Mr. John K. Greider, Jr. conducted a field observation/study of the existing wildlifein and around the Rocky Fork Creek tributary and submitted this material as anexhibit.


22/42

Page 22 of 42

The Agency acknowledges receipt of this information.

41. While the unnamed tributaries do not appear in the Impaired Waters List, sec.303(d), the endpoint of the adverse effects and run-off pollutants from the

proposed project the Mississippi River does appear in the Impaired WatersList. It is counterintuitive, in the absence of scientific data, to suggest thatdegrading water in these two tributaries will not result in an adverse affect to thetributary downstream, the lakes downstream, and even the Mississippi. Indeed, itis a certainty that using these tributaries, named or not, as dumps for Wal- Martsactivities will adversely affect the streams at issue and the entirety of the UpperRocky Fork Creek, will deprive the residents who live along them or whootherwise enjoy these areas from their safe enjoyment, from wading, fishing, andhiking their lengths, and will, incontrovertibly, increase the quantity of pollutant inthe streams to be carried downstream to lakes used exclusively for recreationalpurposes. The waters of these tributaries ultimately join waters flowing to the

Mississippi a significant public water supply.The applicant is proposing to treat 100 percent of stormwater run-off priorto discharge into the unnamed tributary. This will minimize the pollutantload downstream. Indeed, ultimately all waters within the Mississippi RiverWatershed flow to the Mississippi River which is used for public watersupply purposes.

Please see Response 14 for the proposed BMPs for the project to treat thestormwater. The effects of the project are localized. The water qualitystandards will be met and the existing uses in the receiving stream will bemaintained immediately downstream from the site. Because of thesedeterminations, the Agency has concluded that there should be no impacton water quality standards and existing uses in the Mississippi River.

Protection of Existing Uses

42. Section 302.105 provides that the Illinois EPA is supposed to identify the existingwater bodys uses. Nothing says what this water is used for, besides that it isidentified as a farm stream.

As indicated in the antidegradation assessment, the unnamed tributariesare General Use waters of the State. Aquatic life use is the primary usegiven to these tributaries. Other designated uses in accordance with 35 Ill.Adm. Code 302.202 include wildlife, agricultural use, primary contact use,secondary contact use, most industrial uses, and aesthetic quality.


23/42

Page 23 of 42

43. There is absolutely nothing documenting the finding by the Agency that aquaticlife which the Agency finds will be negatively impacted will recover andsupport the same limited community structure.

Other projects that have required similar stream relocations have been

monitored after the relocations have occurred. Conditions within thosestreams have supported aquatic life habitat similar to the existingconditions. Based on past practices and knowledge of the existingconditions within the unnamed tributaries on-site, the Agency hasconcluded that the proposed relocated channel will support similarcommunity structure to the existing conditions.

44. Section 302.105 requires the Illinois EPA to protect existing uses of all waters inIllinois but the antidegradation statement states that the quality of life will beeliminated in the portion of the tributary that will be placed into piping. If life isgoing to be eliminated, is life not an existing use? Can you approve a plan that

eliminates existing use?We object to loss of riparian functions that will occur with the filling of these creeksas well as the likely long-term deterioration in water quality that will result from theincrease in urban pollutants entering the creek from the Wal-Mart site. Theproposed mitigation does not fully compensate for the functions lost due to thefilling of 1550 feet of creek. Thus this project fails to comply with the IllinoisAntidegradation Rule requirement to maintain and protect existing uses.

The Agency has concluded that the overall aquatic life use in the unnamedtributary is not being eliminated. Aquatic life use will still exist in thetributary. In the portion of the tributary that will be replaced with piping, theaquatic life use will be modified. Because of this impact, the Agencyrequires mitigation. The mitigation will augment the aquatic life use in theremaining portion of the tributary by increasing the riparian corridor alongthe tributary as well as increasing the riparian corridor at the off-sitelocation. The applicant is also providing approximately 660 linear feet ofopen channel on the project site, outside of the mitigation area, to provideaquatic life use on the site.

45. Section 302.105, Subsection A-2, provides that an existing use of all waters in thestate of Illinois, to maintain quality of waters, cannot have an action that will resultin the loss of a resident or indigenous species whose presence is necessary tosustain commercial or recreational activities. There is concern that pollution fromthis site will adversely affect downstream users including residents, anglers,swimmers and the Boy Scout Camp on Warren Levis Lake. In section 302.105 ittalks about aesthetic value, and there is a great aesthetic value for this communityto have this pristine creek protected from the storm water issues.


24/42

Page 24 of 42

Upon review of all the information received and collected for the proposedproject, the Agency has concluded that the unnamed tributary to RockyFork Creek at the project location does support some aquatic life use, andthat the proposed project will not result in the loss of a resident orindigenous species. The Agency evaluated the proposed impacts in

relation to the immediate watershed for the project. It has been determinedthat with the implementation of the proposed BMPs for the project, theimpacts will not violate the water quality standards in the waterbodiesproximate to the project site. There will not be any adverse impacts to thedownstream reaches as the same water quality standards apply to thedownstream reaches of the stream. No aesthetic impacts resulting fromthe project are anticipated outside the visual impact resulting from theconstruction of the proposed project. See Response 14 for the projectBMPs.

46. The files do not contain information on downstream impacts caused by this

development. Section 302.105, Section F, requires all existing uses to be fullyprotected.

The applicant is proposing to treat 100 percent of the stormwater generatedon-site prior to discharge into the unnamed tributary. Due to the treatmentof the stormwater, downstream adverse impacts are not anticipated. SeeResponse 45.

47. Wal-Mart will be wiping out entire communities of organisms, both plant andanimal, and in turn will be replacing about half of it with a buried pipe and theremaining half with a make-shift detention area that is wholly inadequate tosustain any sort of viable riparian ecosystem.

Currently, the two unnamed tributaries to Rocky Fork Creek exist asapproximately 1820 linear feet of open water within the project site. Uponcompletion of construction, the project area will contain 930 linear feet ofopen-water aquatic habitat and 6.85 acres of contiguous terrestrial habitatadjacent to the unnamed tributary. The riparian area along the undisturbedportion of the unnamed tributary will be expanded and will provide anincrease in wildlife habitat value along the tributary. Eighty species ofnative trees, shrubs, grasses and flowers will be introduced, increasingbiodiversity of the monoculture vegetation remnants of previousagricultural practices. Due to the off-site mitigation, the Godfrey region willbe receiving a seven acre mitigation site that will connect an existing 70-acre conservation area to Piasa Creek. This will also increase the wildlifehabitat value in the region from its existing value.

48. There are several neighboring property owners that are concerned with how theportion of the stream that will flow upon their property will be affected.


25/42

Page 25 of 42

Downstream reaches of the unnamed tributary should not be affected by theproposed development. The applicant is providing BMPs to treat thestormwater generated on-site. The Agency has determined that with theimplementation of the proposed BMPs for the project, the impacts will notviolate the water quality standards in the waterbodies proximate to the

project site, and there will not be any adverse impacts to the downstreamreaches as the same water quality standards apply to the downstreamreaches of the stream. Additionally, the post-construction peak flow rateswill be less than existing conditions. See Response 14 for moreinformation.

Purpose, Need and Benefits of Project

49. The technology proposed in Wal- Marts plans is a feasible technology. However,the comments and studies conducted independently by others is something that

should certainly be considered, and the studies that have been conducted byGeotechnology should be scrutinized closely against those other studies incomparison. Development of this area is inevitable and Wal- Marts proposalcould be beneficial to the community and could potentially be beneficial to theenvironment if handled and addressed and scrutinized by the agency as it should.

The Agency has considered all information provided by the applicant andother parties as well as information available to the Agency in reviewing the401 WQC application.

50. The agency is supposed to consider whether the activity that results in theincreased pollutant loading will benefit the community at large. What is meant bythe community at large?

The community at large includes the general population in and near theVillage of Godfrey.

51. The Corps is quoted as stating economic gain in sales revenue to the villagecannot be used in the consideration of proposed aquatic impacts December 26,2007.

The guidelines that the Corps uses in its review of the project are separatefrom what the Agency may consider in making a 401 WQC determination.Under the Antidegradation regulations (35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105), theAgency considers the purpose and anticipated benefits of a project whichmay include economic gain.

52. To the extent that Wal-Mart cannot materialize any purpose or anticipated benefitof the proposed project other than economic gain or self-praise, its 401Certification must be denied at this time.


26/42

Page 26 of 42

The proposed project will provide employment opportunities for thecommunity as well as generate tax revenue for the Village of Godfrey.Based on information provided from Mr. Matthew Asselmeier, M.P.A.,Economic Development Planner for the Village of Godfrey to the applicant,

the projected sales tax income generated by the proposed project would beapproximately $1 million. The Village of Godfreys 2007 sales tax revenueprojection was approximately $1.152 million. The applicant estimates thatthe proposed project may almost double the total sales tax revenue for thevillage; thereby helping fund necessary public services for the communityat large.

The proposed project will also increase the property taxes contributed tothe community. Although the property tax are based on assessments thatwill not be available until after construction of the site buildings, theapplicant estimates that approximately $323,700 will be paid annually to the

Madison County Treasurer. The Village of Godfrey would receiveapproximately $10,690 with the rest going to Madison County, GodfreyTownship and the local fire and school districts, etc.

The proposed project will create jobs through temporary construction jobsand permanent jobs. It is estimated that the Wal-Mart alone will createapproximately 300 permanent jobs. In addition, the development of the fiveproposed outlots and the small shops, will provide additional opportunitiesfor small, local business owners to start or expand other businesses in anew commercial center. This will also increase potential jobs in a regionthat has lost retail, restaurant, and grocery vendors in recent years.

Currently, according to the Mayor of Godfrey, many residents must travelapproximately 10 miles to obtain groceries. The proposed project shouldreduce the travel required for these residents to obtain everyday staples.See also Response 53.

53. The applicant cannot show that the proposed activities are of such a caliber or sonecessary that degradation of the watershed is justified. The activity just does notbenefit the community at large, although it does benefit Wal-Mart and will bringtax revenues, and costs, to the Village of Godfrey. However, the Agency does notweigh these alleged benefits against the environmental loss and costs, the loss tothe adjacent or nearby neighbors in quality of life and property value, the costsassociated with providing services to the store, like highway maintenance, trafficburden, police costs, and/or the loss of other better jobs to residents employed bylocal businesses, and the loss to local businesses.

For information regarding the benefits of the proposed project to thecommunity at large, please see Response 52 above.


27/42

Page 27 of 42

The Village of Godfrey is currently experiencing a period of populationgrowth with more growth anticipated in correlation with the Illinois Route255 extension into the village. According to the Godfrey ComprehensivePlan Update, the population of Godfrey is expected to rise to approximately19,339 residents in 2017, from approximately 16,839 residents estimated in

2006. Godfrey has exhibited a 3.3 percent population growth since the year2000 with the new village administration anticipating a 10 to 15 percentpopulation growth rate in conjunction with the new Illinois Route 255extension. The Godfrey Comprehensive Plan Update has been developedfor the community and outlines future land uses within the community aswell as future roadway development proposed for the community.

Population growth requires improvements and updates to public servicesand infrastructure. The Village of Godfrey has issued the GodfreyComprehensive Plan Update which calls for commercial development in thearea where Wal-Mart plans to build. The infrastructure to support the

commercial development is funded by tax revenue. Local grocery and retailstores are closing; thereby removing their tax revenue from the village. Theproposed project will generate an increase in tax revenue necessary tosupport the growing community. The proposed project will also create jobsthrough temporary construction jobs and permanent jobs for the Wal-Martstore and the proposed outlots and small shops. The new workers as wellas the residential population may increase the use of new and existingbusinesses in Godfrey; thereby benefitting the local business economy aswell.

The proposed project will impact approximately 1550 linear feet of unnamedtributaries to Rocky Fork Creek. The unnamed tributaries on the site havebeen identified as functionally impaired under the State of Missouri StreamMitigation Method. As a result of the mitigation for the proposed projectimpacts and the construction of the 660 linear feet of new channel for thetributary, the project site will contain 930 linear feet of open-water aquatichabitat and 6.85 acres of contiguous terrestrial habitat. Eighty species ofnative trees, shrubs, grasses and flowers will be introduced, increasingbiodiversity on the site over the previous agricultural practices. TheGodfrey region will also benefit from the off-site mitigation site. Theproposed seven acre site will connect an existing 70-acre conservation areato Piasa Creek, thereby enhancing the riparian corridors of Rocky ForkCreek and Piasa Creek. The proposed project will also treat 100 percent ofthe stormwater generated on-site and provide at least 25 percent openspace, which includes the proposed mitigation area, the relocated channel,and the EDA and detention basin. See Responses 14, 52, and 64.

54. Allowing this huge retail store will impact the natural environment of ourcommunity, and permanently alter the quality of our natural waters. This isunacceptable. In your Public Notice/Fact Sheet, you state, The least intrusive


28/42

Page 28 of 42

alternative would be to not impact the tributaries. This is not an acceptablealternative given that this is a useful project and will provide the community withadditional employment and economic opportunities. I find this statement in noway relates to preserving the quality of our natural waters. It is your responsibility,as an agency, to protect the quality of our natural waters and environment. The

creation of jobs in Godfrey does not forward that responsibility, and many studieshave shown that a store like this will likely cause overall job loss, and economichardship overall in Godfrey. Instead, I ask that you focus on the fact that issuingthis permit will forever change the water quality in our community. Dangerousrunoff and pollutants will become part of our daily lives.

See Responses 14, 51, 52, 53, 58, 62 and 64.

Alternatives Analysis

55. Have there been any discussions between the Agency and the Applicant aboutreducing the developed footprint on the site to provide the land that would beneeded to have the creek totally not piped into to not require it to be in adeep-and-wide channel? Have you had discussions about the design of thedevelopment?

The applicant has provided a comprehensive alternative analysis to theAgency. Three alternatives, within the analysis, were considered inregards to the existing creek. The alternatives were (i) total relocation, (ii)total enclosure, and (iii) a combination of enclosure and relocation. Theseare discussed below.

(i) Total Relocation: In order to accommodate the entire reach of thechannel into existing grades, the relocated channel would have to beexcessively deep and wide. The banks of the channel would need tobe at least a 2:1 slope. Banks with this slope can be difficult tostabilize and can increase the erosion potential in the stream.Additionally, existing grades would not accommodate an adequatechannel slope for drainage, thus creating more of a retention basinthan a stream. A large, elongated retention basin could provehazardous and would disrupt downstream flows, adversely affectingdownstream aquatic ecosystems. The relocated channel would alsoneed to be designed with a sharp bend that would be susceptible toerosion that would contribute to downstream sedimentation. Totalrelocation of the stream to adjacent Godfrey Road would also causethe stream to be vulnerable to untreated roadway run-off.

(ii) Total enclosure: This option was initially investigated. However, itwas determined that sufficient acreage remained in the proposeddevelopment plan to incorporate 660-feet of open channel. Wal-Mart


29/42

Page 29 of 42

preferred to include a day-lighted reach of channel rather thanenclose the entire reach, thus allowing for more aquatic habitat.

(iii) Combination of enclosure and relocation: This option proved to bethe best option both for the development and the environment. This

option is represented by the final proposed grading plan.The applicant has modified the design of the proposed Wal-Mart store byselecting a different prototype to be constructed. The new store prototypewill decrease the buildings footprint by 32,991 square feet. Thismodification to the project will also result in the reduction of 194 parkingspaces and an increase of 105,092 square feet of grassed area. Thismodification will reduce the amount of impervious surfaces within thedevelopment, therefore, reducing runoff compared to the previous proposal.However, this modification in the proposed footprint of the development didnot reduce the proposed direct fill impacts to the unnamed tributaries to

Rocky Fork Creek. A reduction in stream impacts is not feasible even withthe reducti on in the layouts design due to the location of the unnamedtributaries and spatial site restraints including easements and set-backrequirements.

56. A viable and not unduly expensive alternative is low impact development.

Low impact development design includes such parameters as minimizingimpervious surfaces, providing stormwater infiltration and disconnectinghydrologic elements (roofs, downspouts, parking areas). The applicant isproviding these features as part of the proposed project. The applicant hasmodified the design of the proposed Wal-Mart store by selecting a differentprototype to be constructed. The new store prototype will decrease thebuildings footprint by 32,991 square feet. This modification to the projectwill also result in the reduction of 194 parking spaces and an increase of105,092 square feet of grassed area. This modification will reduce theamount of impervious surfaces within the development, therefore, reducingrunoff compared to the previous proposal. The applicant is proposingBMPs to treat the stormwater and to provide infiltration. One of the BMPs isto direct the roof runoff from the main store to a grassed swale forinfiltration and, if necessary, conveyance to the EDA rather than directingthe runoff to an impervious surface. See Response 14 for additional BMPsproposed for the project.

57. The Army Corps of Engineers regularly sees applications from Wal-Mart becauseWal-Mart is regularly buying land that has creeks on it. They can buy other land,but somehow they have come up with a system where farmers sell their land forless because they dont really value creeks because they cannot farm them. Wal -Mart seems to be regularly impacting the waters of our region, and I would hopethat the EPA would not allow them to do that.


30/42

Page 30 of 42

Wal-Mart has provided a comprehensive alternatives analysis to the Agencywith regard to the Godfrey site. The Agency considered this alternativesanalysis in reviewing this 401 WQC application.

58. In a document filed by Wal-Mart, Comment 5 states that the site does not containwetlands, nor does it contain navigable waters. They go on to say that the sitedoes contain two degraded channels which are jurisdictional but are notnavigable, and that the sites poor stream conditions do not allo w for thesustainment of quality aquatic habitat. We have heard evidence to the contrary,and what they are saying is not true. I would ask the EPA to go out there andinvestigate it for yourself before you rubber-stamp a permit to the richestcorporation on earth.

The Agency has reviewed all the information provided regarding thecondition of the unnamed tributaries on the project site and visited the

project site. This information supports conditions present during theAgencys site visit.

59. There are two Wal-Marts within a 15 to 20 minute drive from the site, and thereare several others within a 20 to 30 minute drive from the site. It may well be thatWal-Mart intends to close one or more of its existing stores if it is able to build oneat the proposed site. However, we have no information about that possibility.

According to the applicant, Wal-Mart has no intention of closing any of theother local facilities once this store is opened.

60. Wal-Mart is not a water dependent activity. Further, Wal-Mart has not establishedthat there were no practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquaticsites.

The applicant has submitted a revised Comprehensive Alternative Analysisto the Agency. The Agency has determined that the information provided inthis analysis is acceptable. The revised Comprehensive AlternativeAnalysis addresses various factors including environmental impacts usedin the evaluation of site selection alternatives, provides on-site developmentalternatives and evaluates multiple mitigation alternatives.

61. There are several empty big box store sites in the Alton -Godfrey area. Wal-Martcould establish itself in any of these sites.

The Agency requested that the applicant consider this alternative. Theapplicant responded that the existing vacant facilities in the area typicallydo not meet Wal- Marts needs from size of building or access requirement.The redevelopment of an existing site can be more costly than developing anew site. Typically, in order for Wal-Mart to use an existing site, the existing


31/42

Page 31 of 42

building needs to be demolished, the parking lot removed andreconstructed, and the existing utilities must be removed and relocated. Aredevelopment project typically requires a tax based financing plan from thelocal municipality because of the added cost of the project. This project is100 percent financed by Wal-Mart and does not remove any tax income from

the Village of Godfrey, but will provide additional tax income.62. Were there other locations that Wal-Mart considered for this development? Have

they shown you all the other locations that they considered? How hard did theylook for a more suitable location?

Wal- Mart apparently rejected the idea of piping the entire tributary because it wasdetermined to be better for the environment and the community if they couldminimize the amount of tributary enclosed. As noted by the IEPA, the leastintrusive alternative would be one that contemplated no impact to the tributaries atall. With all of the resources that Wal-Mart has at its disposal, was Wal-Mart

unable to find a less sensitive location? Was it unable to develop a moreenvironmentally sound project?

The applicant has considered nine additional sites besides the chosen sitefor the location of the proposed development. The applicant has submitteda comprehensive alternative analysis to the Agency which examines tensites and indicates the reasons the other nine sites were rejected by Wal-Mart. The Agency has determined that the applicant has provided sufficientinformation on the site selection.

Mitigation Plan

63. According to the IEPA Notice of Public Hearing, only 19 percent of the mitigationcredits can be satisfied on-site, with the remaining 81 percent being purchasedfrom the Crooked Creek Mitigation Bank near Marion, Illinois, approximately 90miles to the southeast. The project site is out of the service area for the CrookedCreek Mitigation Bank, and the purchase of credits at that bank provides nobenefits to the local area where the impacts are occurring.

The mitigation plan has been revised and the Crooked Creek MitigationBank is no longer being used. See Response 64 for the revised mitigationplan.

64. The State of Missouri Stream Mitigation Method (SMSMM), currently being usedby the St. Louis District Corps of Engineers when issuing 404 permits, makesprovision for improvement as out-of-kind-replacement. The document states,This is appropriate when it provides more environmental benefit and is morepractical by providing more ecological or watershed benefits than in- kind. Somecombination of in-kind and out-of-kind can surely be found along Rocky Fork


32/42

Page 32 of 42

Creek or in the Piasa Creek watershed to satisfy the mitigation requirements forthis project while benefiting local users.

The applicant has revised the mitigation plan for the project. Under theSMSMM, in-kind replacement is defined as stream losses or buffer losses

which are replaced by a stream/buffer that is established, restored,enhanced, or protected of the same physical and functional type. Out-of-kind replacement is defined as replacing aquatic resources or buffers of adifferent physical and functional type. The revised mitigation plan willutilize in-kind replacement which is proposed to occur on-site and off-site.Using the SMSMM, approximately 1,032 credits will be generated throughthe on-site mitigation. This work includes increasing the riparian corridoralong the 270 linear feet of the unnamed tributary that will not be disturbedby the project. The riparian corridor will be extended approximately 90 feeton the eastern side and 65 feet on the western side of the tributary. Thetotal area for the on-site work will encompass approximately 0.79-acre.

In order to locate the off-site mitigation within the vicinity of the project, theapplicant considered and rejected numerous potential sites including LaVista Park, property adjacent, upstream, and downstream of the project site,Glazebrook Park, West Delmar Ave, Lewis and Clark Community College,the Palisades, Airport Road, Winter Lane, Garrett Property, Hoefert Propertyand four properties identified by the Great Rivers Land Trust. These siteswere rejected for a variety of reasons including unsuitability for streammitigation, limited mitigation potential and potential future impacts in thearea that may compromise the mitigation. For more information on whythese sites were rejected, please review the December 5, 2008 submittalfrom Geotechnology, Inc., received by the Agency on December 8, 2008.

The applicant has selected a site with the aid of the Great Rivers Land Trustwithin the Piasa Creek watershed. The site is approximately seven acres insize and lies near the confluence of Rocky Fork Creek and Piasa Creek. Thesite is adjacent to a 70 acre conservation area already established by theGreat Rivers Land Trust. The proposed mitigation site will connect theexisting conservation area with Piasa Creek. The seven acre mitigation arealies along approximately 1,485 linear feet of Piasa Creek. An establishedriparian buffer approximately 2.83 acres in size exists adjacent to the creek.The mitigation project will establish approximately four acres of native treeand shrub restoration between the existing riparian buffer and adjacentconservation area. This work will result in approximately 5,150.5 mitigationcredits.

The total credits produced by the on-site and off-site mitigation projects willresult in 6,182.5 credits. This exceeded the 5,558 credits required due to theproposed impacts.


33/42

Page 33 of 42

65. The Wal-Mart mitigation plan is not adequate. The response to the publiccomments that the Illinois EPA filed said it was going to be mitigated on site bycreating a riparian corridor on either side of a 270 linear feet reach of the existingtributary. 270 feet for 1,550 feet plus, which the antidegradation assessment itselfstates that aquatic life uses of the portion of the tributary to be piped will be

eliminated. We would like to know if this is a common mitigation pattern for newdevelopments in this area and how the EPA plans to continue protecting thewaters of the United States as more development occurs without proper localizedmitigation.

The applicant is proposing both on-site and off-site mitigation for theimpacts. Utilizing both on-site and off-site mitigation is an approvedmitigation strategy. Please see Response 64 for details of the revisedmitigation plan.

66. The IEPA fact sheet states that the on-site mitigation is going to fulfill 1,032

riparian restoration credits following the Missouri method. From the article andnotice, it says that were going to see the channels are going to have steep three -to-one slopes. Is that factored into the mitigation credits?

The area of the relocated tributary is not included in the mitigation area andno mitigation credit is granted for this work. The on-site mitigation area isadjacent to the section of the unnamed tributary not disturbed by theproposed project. See also Response 67.

67. Do you factor such things as slopes into your decision making? Because whenyou have steep banks, you are not providing the same kind of aquatic habitat ifyou had lower banks.

The Agency considers slopes when it evaluates projects for 401 WQC. Theapplicant is required to construct slopes that reduce erosion potential andminimize water quality impacts.

68. It was stated that there is going to be native vegetation being used in the riparianbuffer. In the proposal, is it designated as to what plant species these are and inwhat stage of maturity? Does the EPA know what they are going to be plantingout there?

The applicant has submitted planting lists for the detention basin, relocatedchannel area, on-site mitigation area and off-site mitigation area. Theplanting lists include native grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees. The forbs andgrasses will be seeded. Root Production Method (RPM) trees and shrubs ofa 1 to 2 inch diameter will be planted. All plant species have been selectedby native-status, habitat enhancement qualities and suitability of plantingareas. All planting areas will be monitored for establishment of thevegetation and survivability.


34/42

Page 34 of 42

69. How was the mitigation bank decided over a different mitigation bank? Was thereany reason to choose the Crooked Creek mitigation bank over a closer mitigationbank, perhaps one in Madison County?

A mitigation bank will no longer be used. The off-site mitigation locationselected lies within Madison County. See Response 64 for the revisedmitigation plan.

70. The mitigation plan is essentially a rather run of the mill culverting of the stream.This buried stream will of course have severe impact on aquatic life forms in thestream.

The mitigation plan does not include the culverting of the stream. Therelocated channel will not be included in mitigation credits. See Response64 for a description of the mitigation plan.

71. Where there is a proposed stream channel restoration action contemplated,specific design criteria should be provided for review and comment.

The applicant has provided information regarding the design of therelocated channel. The Agency has determined that the proposed design ofthe relocated channel includes adequate slopes and native vegetation inorder to reduce erosion potential and minimize water quality impacts.Information regarding the design of the relocated channel is in the projectfile and available through the FOIA process.

72. There is no indication whatsoever that the new channelization will be required toreflect the pattern of the water bodies being altered.

The new channel must be constructed in a manner that will have stabilityand protect aquatic life use. Protection of aquatic life use does not requirethat existing conditions, including the existing channel dimensions orexisting bank slopes, be reflected in the new channel design as long asaquatic life use is established in the new channel. In addition, the Agency isrequiring mitigation for the impacts to the existing channel to offset anyreduction in aquatic life use that is due to the proposed discharge of dredgeor fill material in the stream. The proposed mitigation will augment theaquatic life use both on-site and at the off-site location within the PiasaCreek watershed. See Response 64 for the proposed mitigation plan.

73. Will any mitigation work be protected in perpetuity as required by the USACE,SMSMM, p. 12, updated February 2007?

Yes, both the on-site and off-site mitigation areas will be deed restricted andperpetually preserved as a conservation easement.


35/42

Page 35 of 42

74. According to the Public Notice, the total adverse impacts amount to 5,558 credits,while the on-site mitigation will fulfill only 1,032 riparian restoration credits. Theremainder of necessary credits will be purchased, it is proposed, through amitigation bank many miles from the site. Is only 18 percent of the restoration on-

site?Due to acreage restrictions, all compensatory mitigation cannot be fulfilledwithin the project boundaries. The remaining mitigation will be done at anoff-site location adjacent to Piasa Creek. No mitigation bank will be usedfor the project. See Response 64 for additional information about the off-site mitigation location.

75. The Wal-Mart mitigation plan is not adequate: they are only reconstructing 660feet of 1550 feet of destructed stream. The developer proposes to mitigate theenvironmental loss by replacing and re-routing less than half of what was taken

away. Surely this does not meet any standard of an appropriate ratio formitigation.

The relocated portion of the unnamed tributary is not part of the mitigationfor the proposed project. The SMSMM was used to determine the requiredmitigation for the project. As proposed, the revised mitigation plan willgenerate excess credits from what was determined to be necessary underthis method. Response 64 describes the revised mitigation plan w

Wal Mart2.Rtf

Documents

Transcript of Wal Mart2.Rtf