20181192_Information Letter_20110113

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY `1441
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS Ham,, I ' D
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE -
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343 .?S
REPLY TO
ATTENMON OF: January 26, 2011 ?f/..
Regulatory Division/1145b
SUBJECT: Action ID 2009-02240; STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829
Steven D. DeWitt, P.E.
Chief Engineer
North Carolina Turnpike Authority
1578 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1578
Dear Mr. DeWitt:
Reference the proposed North Carolina Turnpike Authority project known as the Triangle
Expressway Southeast Extension toll facility (STIP Nos. R-2721, R-2828, and R-2829), from NC
540 currently under construction at NC 55 in Holly Springs, to existing I-540 north of Poole
Road and Clayton, in southern Wake and northeastern Johnston counties, North Carolina.
Reference also the January 20, 2011 Turnpike Environmental Agency Coordination (TEAL)
meeting for this project, at which Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of our staff informed you that the Corps of
Engineers has identified an Issue of Concern regarding your proposal to eliminate the Red and
Pink corridors as reasonable and feasible alternatives for further study. In accordance with
Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU Issues of Concern are those that "could result in denial of a
permit or substantial delay in issuing a permit"
Our concern is based primarily on the Summary of Potential Impacts in Table 2 of
Handout #8 for the January 20, 2011 TEAC meeting, which shows that the Orange Alternative,
which, if the Red and Pink corridors were eliminated, would be the only remaining alternative
for study in the eastern portion of the project study area, has substantially more wetland impacts
(88.1 acres) than the Red and Pink Alternatives (43.7 acres and 57.4 acres, respectively), and has
substantially more stream impacts (36,120 linear feet) than the Red Alternative (29,770 linear
feet).
As you are aware, our permit program requires that we make a complete, thorough, and
unbiased review of all factors associated with a proposed project within jurisdictional waters of
the United States. A major component of the review is the consideration of reasonable and
practicable alternatives, required by both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Clean
Water Act 404 b (1) Guidelines (33 U.S.C. Section 1344 (b); 40 CFR Part 230). The Clean
Water Act requires that individual permit decisions be made "after notice and opportunity for
public hearings" (33 U.S.C. Section 1344(a)). Based on these requirements and the information
we have available to us at this time, we believe it would be premature for the Wilmington
District to agree to your proposal to eliminate from further consideration the "Red" and "Pink"
-2-
alternatives, as you have requested. It is our understanding that the impacts to both the natural
and human environment that you have provided to us are based on 1,000 foot-wide corridors. It
has been our experience that once a preliminary or functional design has been developed that
these impacts may change substantially. Given the level of potential adverse impacts associated
with all the corridors currently under consideration and our substantial requirements under the
404 (b) 1 Guidelines, we believe that a decision to eliminate one or more.of these corridors
should be based on impacts more closely associated with a typical 4-lane median divided facility
that has been placed within each of the corridors in such a way as to avoid impacts to the
maximum extent practicable.
If you elect to eliminate these alternatives from further consideration at this point, we
may elect to prepare our own supplement to your EIS describing these alternatives, or prepare an
entirely separate NEPA document that thoroughly describes alternatives to the proposed action.
We note that this is specifically contrary to your draft "Section 6002 Coordination Plan for the
Triangle Expressway Southeast Connector Project STIP Projects R-2721, R-2828, & R-2829"
which states, in Section 1.2, Integration of NEPA and Section 404 Requirements, "(t)he process
established in this plan is intended to ensure that ... the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
can issue a Section 404 permit for the project promptly following the end of the NEPA process,
without the need for supplemental NEPA studies...."
Should you have any questions, please call Mr. Alsmeyer at [phone], extension
23.
Sincerely, II ?_
n ",,
l S. Kenneth Jolly
U Chief, Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
Copies Furnished:
Mr. Brian Wrenn
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Mr. Clarence Coleman
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bem Ave., Rm 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
-3-
Mr. Chris Lukasina
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO)
127 West Hargett Street, Ste. 800
Raleigh NC 27601
Mr. Heinz Mueller
Chief, NEPA Program Office
Office of Policy and Management
US Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsythe St., SW
Atlanta, GA 30303
Mr. Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636
Mr. Travis Wilson
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 I-85 Service Road
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Mr. Peter Sandbeck
NC State Historic Preservation Office
4619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4619