Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
168 <br /> preserve, and enhance historic, cultural, and natural resources."52 The NEPA Preferred <br /> Alternative represents the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative ("LEDPA"), <br /> as determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency("EPA").53 The United States <br /> Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE") likewise supports the NEPA Preferred Alternative.54 <br /> In completing its thorough review of alternatives, GoTriangle carefully considered <br /> whether certain sections of the proposed D-OLRT route could be aligned differently. These <br /> Project Element Alternatives constitute different possible routes in the New Hope Creek and <br /> Little Creek areas of the project's route. As determined by the DEIS after careful evaluation, the <br /> other Project Element Alternatives have greater environmental impacts,particularly to <br /> undisturbed natural habitats, than the NEPA Preferred Alternative. <br /> For example, the C2 Alternative impacts 23 more acres of biotic resources than the <br /> NEPA Preferred Alternative.55 The Cl and CIA Alternatives would impact undisturbed natural <br /> areas, such as the Little Creek Bottomlands and Slopes Significant Natural Heritage Area.56 <br /> Importantly, the USACE informed GoTriangle that given the existence of a less-environmentally <br /> damaging alternative, the USACE would not authorize the Cl alternative with its corresponding <br /> significant adverse impacts to natural resources and public use of the Jordan Lake Game <br /> Lands.57 Although the DEIS nonetheless carefully studied this alternative, the USACE's <br /> unwillingness to grant GoTriangle use of the Jordan Lake Game Lands for the Cl Alternative <br /> effectively eliminates it as an option.58 <br /> The NEPA Preferred Alternative also outperforms the New Hope Creek Alternatives in <br /> terms of impacts to the natural environment. The New Hope Creek LPA ("NHC LPA") <br /> Alternative would result in fragmentation of undisturbed forested areas and wetlands, and would <br /> create a new transportation corridor in the New Hope Creek Bottomlands. 59 The New Hope <br /> Creek 1 ("NHC 1") Alternative fares slightly better than the NHC LPA Alternative, but would <br /> impact 7 more acres of hardwood forests than the NEPA Preferred Alternative. We are pleased <br /> that the selected NEPA Preferred Alternative impacts the fewest acres of biotic resources as <br /> compared to the other element alternatives, and we support GoTriangle in advancing this route <br /> for further evaluation and implementation.6° <br /> 52 Id. at 8-26. <br /> 53 See id. at 8-14. <br /> 54 See id. at 8-14. <br /> 55Id. at 8-18. <br /> 56Id. at 8-17. <br /> 57Id. at 8-17,G-99. <br /> 58 See 16 U.S.C. §460d(authorizing USACE to"grant leases of lands . . .at water resource development <br /> projects . . . for such purposes as [the Secretary]may deem reasonable in the public interest"). <br /> 59Id. at 8-18-8-19. <br /> 6o See DEIS at Table 8.2-1:D-O LRT Alternatives Benefits and Consequences Matrix. <br /> 10 <br />