Corridor Graham Co K DSEIS Comment

Druley

Informations

• Publié par: Phawyug
• Nombre de lectures: 27
• Langue: English

Extrait

October 14, 2008

Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph. D.
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-3141

Re: Draft Supplemental EIS, US 74 Relocation, Graham County
TIP Project A-9 B& C

Dear Mr. Thorpe,

These comments are submitted on behalf of Ways South, the Western North
Carolina Alliance, The Wilderness Society, the Southern Appalachian Forest Coalition
(SAFC), WildSouth, and the Southern Environmental Law Center. SAFC also is
submitting independent comments.

The stated “needs” for this project (inhibited economic development of Graham
County, geographic isolation , and safety) and the project’s purposes (improve system
linkage, improve economic and social development, improve highway capacity and
development) do not support the single-minded focus of the DOT and this Draft
Supplemental EIS on building a four-lane highway in Graham County, especially when
the DOT’s own data show that there is no genuine transportation need for such a massive
highway and when that highway will cost approximately $400 million (roughly $47,000
for each of Graham County’s approximately 8500 current residents) and fragment and
otherwise impact one of North Carolina’s most pristine regions, including cutting a swath
through a large area of the Nantahala National Forest. To the contrary, it is apparent that
these needs and purposes could be equally well-served, at far less monetary and
environmental cost, by a package of well-designed upgrades and improvements to the
existing primary roads in Graham County ( US 129 and NC 143), combined with other
steps truly targeted to promoting economic and social development in that County.
Graham County and western North Carolina deserve a thoughtful, multifaceted approach
to improving transportation and promoting economic growth that reflects the best
thinking of today rather than the blunt instrument of a unnecessary and wasteful four-lane
highway conceived fifty years ago.
This Draft Supplemental EIS failed to take a “hard look” at this project as
required by the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). National Audubon
Society v. Dep’t of the Navy, 422 F.3d 174, 184 (4th Cir. 2005); Hughes River
Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 443 (4th Cir. 1996). The Draft
Supplemental EIS violated the requirement to consider all reasonable alternatives, 40
C.F.R. § 1500.2, because it did not give thorough consideration to the reasonable
alternative of improvements to the existing roads in Graham County combined with other
economic development measures. The Draft Supplemental EIS also violated NEPA by
illegally and arbitrarily segmenting the analysis of segments B and C of this project from
segment A. Further, the Draft Supplemental EIS provided inadequate analyses of
multiple environmental impacts, including geology and acidic rock, streams and water
quality, fragmentation effects, effects on roadless areas, induced growth and
development, and cumulative impacts.

I. THE DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL EIS FAILED TO CONSIDER ALL
REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES AS REQUIRED BY NEPA.

NEPA requires federal agencies to "study, develop, and describe appropriate
alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved
conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources." 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(E).
Consistent with this statutory directive, the NEPA regulations require that

Federal agencies shall, to the fullest extent possible: [u]se the NEPA process to
identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid
or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human
environment.

40 C.F.R. § 1500.2(e) (emphasis added).

Thus, a primary goal of NEPA is to ensure that

federal agencies infuse in project planning a thorough consideration of
environmental values. The consideration of alternatives requirement furthers that
goal by guaranteeing that agency decisionmakers have before them and take into
proper account all possible approaches to a particular project (including total
abandonment of the project) which would alter the environmental impact and the
cost-benefit balance.

Alaska Wilderness Recreation Tourism Association v. Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 729 (9th
Cir. 1995). Accordingly, adequate consideration of alternatives is the "heart" of the
NEPA process because it defines the issues and provides a clear basis for choices among
options by the decisionmaker and the public. 40 C.F.R. § 1502.14.

Applying these principles requires that "[a]n agency must look at every
reasonable alternative, with the range dictated by the nature and scope of the proposed
action, and sufficient to permit a reasoned choice." Idaho Conservation League v.
2Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1520 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Methow Valley Citizens Council
v. Regional Forester, 833 F.2d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 490 U.S.
332 (1989) (reasonable range of alternatives framed by purposes of the project). "The
existence of a viable but unexamined alternative renders an environmental impact
statement inadequate." Resources Ltd. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, 1307 (9th Cir. 1994).

Contrary to the statute, the regulations, and the case law outlined above, this Draft
Supplemental EIS failed to consider the reasonable alternative of upgrades and
improvements to the existing US 129 and NC 143, especially if these highway
improvements were combined with other measures directly targeted to economic
development in Graham County, such as improvements in communications and
education. Such an alternative would meet all of the project’s purposes and needs
(economic development, reduce county isolation, improve transportation network and
safety) at far less monetary and environmental cost and, potentially, at far greater efficacy
in improving the lives of Graham County residents.

The data presented in the Draft Supplemental EIS show that there is no real
transportation need to this massive proposed four-lane divided highway. Table 2.8.1 on
page 2-40 shows that, even if no improvements are made to the existing roads, in 2030
these roads still will provide Levels of Service (LOS) of C, D, and A respectively. These
Levels of Service are well within the acceptable range and do not come close to justifying
the proposed expenditure of at least $400 million on a four-lane highway that would far
exceed any reasonable foreseeable transportation needs. Moreover, the DOT’s analysis
understated the actual Level of Service these existing roads will provide by unjustifiably
applying high traffic numbers from one section and by other questionable analyses.
Comments of Walter Kulash, P.E., attached. However, to the extent improvement is
desired, particularly in safety and in the NC 143 segment, better safety and better LOS
easily could be achieved through targeted upgrades to the existing highways, such as
passing lanes where warranted, additional lanes and other measures at intersections,
better engineering of curves, and better shoulders. Id. We do not know what these
improvements might cost, because the DOT has not considered them, but we can be sure
that they would cost far less than the minimum $400 million price tag of the preferred
alternative. Id. We can be equally sure that they would require far less excavation and
carry much reduced impacts to water quality, habitat fragmentation, and other
environmental resources, and would be far more compatible with the County’s stated
desire to promote ecotourism for economic development. DSEIS at 3-18.

In light of the singular emphasis on economic development in the stated purpose
and need for this project, these improvements to the existing road network could be
combined with a package of economic development measures developed by experts in
that field rather than by road engineers. The DOT has no expertise in economic and
social development, yet the agency has committed itself to those goals by hinging its
“need” for this project on the inhibited economic development of Graham County and by
making economic and social development a primary purpose of this project. DSEIS at 1-
9, 1-10. Accordingly, it is incumbent on the DOT to consult with true experts in
development and to consider alternative approaches to fostering improved economic and
3social conditions in Graham County along with targeted upgrades to the existing
highways that would resolve any concerns about safety and Level of Service at far less
cost and environmental damage.

The reasonableness of an alternative based on improving the existing highways is
further illustrated by the fact that the 1984 EIS that this Draft is intended to supplement
considered such an alternative and eventually rejected it for reasons that no longer hold
true. For example, the 1984 EIS asserted that a four-lane highway was needed to provide
adequate capacity and level of service. 1984 EIS