Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
170 <br /> while also noting areas in which the Final Environmental Impact Statement("FEIS") should be <br /> improved. <br /> A. Natural Resources <br /> Overall, we are content with how the DEIS addresses potential impacts to natural <br /> resources, including wildlife and broader ecosystem impacts. The DEIS recognizes that the <br /> indirect impacts—largely compact development in the affected area—"would be more beneficial <br /> to natural resources than the type of dispersed growth that typically occurs with auto-oriented <br /> development."65 We believe such acknowledgments and comparisons are important when <br /> considering a project such as this, where some minimal environmental harm may result in the <br /> construction and implementation phases, but where the long-term environmental effects are <br /> substantial. Even then, the natural resource impacts will largely be limited to already disturbed <br /> habitats.66 <br /> However, the DEIS provides an incomplete picture regarding endangered and threatened <br /> species. We are pleased that GoTriangle carefully analyzed the occurrence of federally listed <br /> species in the project area, and that the DEIS includes preliminary measures to be taken in the <br /> event the species are observed in the area. Nonetheless, the DEIS lists many North Carolina <br /> state-listed endangered and threatened species, but does not include any information about their <br /> abundance in the project area or how to mitigate possible harm to the species. We understand <br /> that studies and coordination with North Carolina agencies are ongoing, and we encourage <br /> careful evaluation of possible harm to these species and implementation of necessary mitigation <br /> measures. The FEIS should include a more thorough discussion regarding these state-listed <br /> species. <br /> B. Water Resources <br /> While the NEPA Preferred route will have impacts to water resources in the project <br /> area—particularly wetlands, streams, and floodplains—the impacts are relatively minor when <br /> considered in comparison with the sprawling, car-oriented development that would occur under a <br /> No Build scenario.67 Nonetheless, we note that the NEPA Preferred Alternative will impact <br /> approximately .558 acres of wetlands,68 and that the Little Creek project elements alternatives <br /> would actually impact .05 acres fewer than the NEPA Preferred Little Creek route (C2A).69 We <br /> have limited concerns about this as the acreage impact is so slight. Moreover, we understand <br /> that while the Little Creek alternatives may impact a smaller acreage of wetlands, these <br /> alternatives "would impact one or two more [discrete] wetlands."70 Nonetheless, GoTriangle <br /> 65 Id. at 4-92. <br /> 66 Id. at 4-138,4-142. <br /> 67 E.g. id. at 4-290,4-292. <br /> 68Id. at 4-156. <br /> 69Id. at 4-159. <br /> 70Id. at 4-159. <br /> 12 <br />