20181192_Other Agency Comments_20120301

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON NORTH CAROLINA 28403 1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF February 17 2012
Regulatory Division/1145b
AAIDjQt
n94
SUBJECT Action ID 200002240 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
Dearleference Mr DeWitt
the proposed North Carolina Turnpike Authority (NCTA) project known as the
Triangle Expressway Southeast Extension toll facility (TIP Nos R 2721 R 2828 and R 2829)
from NC 540 currently under construction at NC 55 in Holly Springs to existing 1540 north of
Poole Road and Clayton in southern Wake and northeastern Johnston Counties, North Carolina
Reference also my March 23 2011 letter asking for additional information regarding
alternatives my meeting on December 20 2011 with representatives of the North Carolina
Department of Transportation including the NCTA and its consultants and of the Federal
Highway Administration and NCTA s submittal on January 9 2012, of the revised Draft
Alternatives Development and Analysis Report ( DADAR), for the subject project
We understand that Governor Perdue signed legislation (Senate Bill 165) on March 18
2011, that restricted the study planning, and development of the Triangle Expressway Southeast
Extension from the area north of the protected corridor and west of Interstate 40 (the area of the
Red and Pink Corridors) We believe that state law which restricts the consideration of
reasonable and practicable alternatives does not preclude our requirement under the 404 (b)(1)
Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230) to analyze and objectively compare alternatives for this or any
project that requires a Clean Water Act permit While we are sensitive to the potential impacts to
communities public recreation facilities and an industrial park in the Town of Garner
associated with the Red Corridor we believe that its elimination from further consideration
compromises our ability to satisfy our statutory requirements under the Guidelines
The DADAR recommends that the Orange to Red to Green Corridor not be included as a
reasonable and practicable alternative for detailed study in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) because it has significant and disproportionate impacts on the human
environment, has limited ability to meet traffic needs, and is not a feasible and prudent
Alternative under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966
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

2
A mayor component of the review is the consideration of reasonable and practicable alternatives,
required by both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Water Act 404
(b)(1) Guidelines (40 CFR Part 230) The 404 (b )(1) Guidelines require that the Corps can
permit a project only if the applicant demonstrates that other alternatives are not practicable
available or less environmentally damaging Practicable relates to cost logistics or technology
As is FHWA we are required to satisfy the provisions of NEPA which include the requirement
to develop an EIS to examine all reasonable alternatives to the proposal, with reasonable
alternatives including those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic
standpoint rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant Table 5 2 in the
DADAR, Preliminary Alternatives — Summary of Potential Impacts, describes impacts to 43 7
acres of wetlands, and 29 770 linear feet of stream, for a 300 foot right of -way for the end to-
end Orange to Red to Green Alternative that includes the Red Corridor, based on map data
including the National Wetlands Inventory This compares to impacts to 88 1 acre of wetlands
and 36 110 linear feet of stream for the end to end Orange to Green Alternative Furthermore
the US Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that construction within the Orange Corridor
would result in an adverse impact to the federally endangered dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) and that formal consultation will be required Based on this information the Orange
to Red to Green Alternative appears to be a less environmentally damaging alternative and
should be included as an alternative to be studied the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) Nothing in our administrative record for this project indicates that the Orange to Red to
Green Alternative is not practicable under the 404 (b) (1) Guidelines
We are being asked to eliminate every alternative segment for a mayor portion of the
corridor, with the exception of one including the elimination of the least environmentally
damaging alternative, prior to the release of a DEIS and before we the agencies and the public
have had an opportunity to conduct a side by side comparison of the one remaining segment
alternative with the Red Corridor with the usual level of data that is available after the DEIS
including detailed wetland delineation information functional design, an analysis of the indirect
and cumulative impacts and additional data related to our twenty one public interest review
factors Where we have previously elected to eliminate alternatives from further consideration
prior to release of a DEIS 1) the eliminated alternative clearly had unacceptable impacts to
either the natural or human environment as compared to other alternatives under consideration,
and 2) there was a sufficient number of remaining alternatives that encompassed a range of
impacts to both the natural and human environment that the alternatives could be reasonably
compared Therefore we believe it is premature to eliminate what we believe to be the
environmentally preferable alternative from further consideration
We understand that FHWA has determined that several 4(f) properties may be impacted
by the Red Corridor Furthermore we are also aware of the restriction that Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966 places upon FHWA including a stipulation that
FHWA cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks recreational areas, wildlife
and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historical sites unless there is no feasible and
prudent alternative to the use of land or the action includes all possible planning to minimize
harm to the property resulting from use While this may be a consideration utilized by FHWA in
determining a preferred alternative, we do not concur that the Department of Transportation Act
should be used to define a reasonable range of alternatives under NEPA and believe that it

-3-
cannot be used to eliminate alternatives that should otherwise be considered under the Clean
Water Act 404(b)(1) Guidelines We continue to believe that in order for the EIS to satisfy our
respective agencies responsibilities, it should rigorously explore and objectively evaluate the
Red corridor For the reasons discussed above if the NCTA elects to complete its NEPA
analysis and release a DEIS without including the Orange to Red to Green Alternative as an
alternative for detailed study and the NCTA intends to pursue Department of the Army
authorization for this project, we may find it necessary to terminate our cooperating agency
status with the FHWA and supplement the FHWA EIS with our own document
Should you have any questions, please call Mr Alsmeyer at (919) 554 -4884, extension
23
Sincerely
S Kenneth Jolly
Chief Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
Copies Furnished
Mr Mitch Vakerics
Office of Congresswoman Renee Ellmers
1533 Longworth HOB
Washington DC 20515
Mr Clarence Coleman
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Room 410
Raleigh North Carolina 27601 -1442
Mr Brian Wrenn
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699 1650
Mr Chris Lukasma
Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO)
127 West Hargett Street Ste 800
Raleigh NC 27601

-4
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