20150931 Ver 1_USACE Correspondence_20160104

�yT1T Op
w�`�� .;�`�� 2
a �w.i� �i��:�` ,+, In�
:1l'I�r �
,.
P
cf j�o-�
G s�.�rzs oF r'" .
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
December 22, 2015
Regulatory Division/1200A
Action ID: SAW-2012-00156
Mr. Richard W. Hancock, P.E., Manager
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1598
Dear Mr. Hancock:
Q C��Q�C�
�
,! a ��f - � ?_ O 1 b
DENR - UuA3ER RE50URCeS
7RANSPORTATION PERMITTING UNIT
Please reference our November 10, 2015, letter requesting additional information on the I-77
High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes project (TIP #s I5405, I4750AA and I3311C). Our letter
requested additional information on several aspects of the project, but most specifically on the
alternatives analysis and mitigation plan. On November 18, 2015, we received your response and
have conducted several subsequent discussions via email and teleconference regarding our
request for information.
Recently, on December 17, 2015, we received an email from your staff providing additional
information to further document the toll road alternatives and describe the basis for the
preference for Alternative 2. Within this email, justification for a toll facility was cited,
including the determination that this project is consistent with the financial objective identified in
MUMPO's 2035 Long Range Transportation Plan. However, in order for us to determine that all
alternatives to be considered must include the toll road option, additional information related to
the specific planning for this particular project is required. This may include a determination, at
the state or metropolitan level, that a toll road is the only feasible way to iinance this project
because of tight budget constraints and that it is consistent with their vision of the future
transportation system within this area.
The email also discussed the following "operational topics" as reasons for choosing
Alternative 2 over other alternatives:
• Higher demand is projected than what can be accommodated in one lane;
• More than doubled capacity in the south section;
• Heavy weave projected between I-277 and I-85 reduces system productivity;

• Promotes lane continuity in the heaviest volume interchange in the project corridor
(maintain 2lanes);
• Incident management/ emergency response.
As written, this information does not provide a thorough explanation of why the other
alternatives do not meet the project purpose or lack the necessary practicability. Therefore, we
request additional information on these topics for our review of alternatives. Examples of this
information could include:
• What the higher demand would be, how the demand would affect each alternative and
how this would preclude the other alternatives from meeting the project purpose;
o How heavy weave and the subsequent reduction in system productivity would preclude
the other alternatives from meeting project purpose;
• Additional detail on how lane continuity in the heaviest volume interchange in the project
corridor relates to the project purpose and how this relates to each alternative so that it
would preclude them from meeting the project purpose;
• Describe how "incident management/emergency response" fits into the project
purpose and how this would relate to each alternative.
• Clarification of information pertaining to the analysis of the No-Build alternative
relative to the Purpose and Need statement.
In addition to the "operational topics" stated above, the following "financial topics" were
offered to support Alternative 2 as the preferred alternative:
Two lanes provide a higher potential generation of revenue;
Enables the network to process more cars at a lower cost to the user;
Reduces operational risk when incidents occur (lowers toll rate).
Based on our earlier conversations, we were expecting additional financial data to document
the fiscal inability of certain alternatives to successfully meet the practicability test. If you still
believe financial limitations are criteria worth considering, please provide additional information
on this issue such as estimates of potential revenue earned for each alternative and how this
might preclude smaller-sized alternatives.
Our previous letter also requested a complete mitigation plan including the Northern and
Southern Sections of the proposed project. Your November 18, 2015, response provided
additional information on the mitigation proposal for the Central Section, but did not include a
plan for the Southern and Northern Sections. �Please provide a detailed mitigation plan for all
Sections, as well as describe how the mitigation plan would be phased concurrently with the
2

finalization of plans for each respective Section. Additionally, provide any appropriate
documentation to support the proposal including mitigation ratios for the anticipated impacts. It
should be noted, per recent conversation on this matter, that the project is partially located with
the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) 03050103 Catawba 03 Expanded Service Area
and this should be taken into consideration in any mitigation proposal that involves purchasing of
mitigation credit from DMS.
Furthermore, as you are aware, a jurisdictional determination (JD) has not yet been completed
for the Northern Section of this project. The JD would need to be done prior to reaching a
decision on this project and we request you provide all updated and appropriate information, to
include a signed preliminary JD form, updated Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional
Supplement Wetland Data forms, updated delineation maps and other forms as appropriate.
Lastly, per conversations with staff of NCDOT, the proposed project passes through an
established mitigation site, known as "Torrence Creek and Torrence Creek Tributary #2 Stream
Restoration" site, which is part of the City of Charlotte Umbrella Mitigation Bank. Based on
previous conversations, the proposed I-77 HOT lanes project would not affect this bank and
would not impact the buffers or easements in place at the mitigation site. NCDOT indicated that
a map showing the mitigation site easements as well as work associated with the proposed I-77
HOT lanes project would be provided to document that no impacts to the mitigation site would
result from this project. Please provide this information for our review.
The information requested in this letter is essential to our continued processing of your
application and it should be forwarded to us within 30 days of receipt of this letter. If this
information is not received within 30 days, your application will be placed on administrative hold
until which time all requested information is received.
If you have any questions regarding this request please do not hesitate to contact me at
telephone [phone], Ext 231.
Sincerely,
�
V �' `' ��`�-
��
Crystal Amschler
Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
3

Copies Furnished:
Ms. Amy S. Chapman
Transportation Permitting Unit
NC Division of Water Quality
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617