Kinston Bypass (9)

September 21, 2010
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mark Pierce, P.E., Project Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis, NCDOT
FROM: Thomas Steffens, Project Manager
Regulatory Division, United States Army Corps of Engineers
SUBJECT: Merger 01 Process Issue Brief: TIP R-2553; Kinston Bypass - US Highway 70
1.. Project Name and BriefiDescription: TIP R-2553; Kinston Bypass - US Highway?70;
between LaGrange and Dover in Lenoir, Craven and Jones Counties;-:
2. Last Concurrence Point: Concurrence Point I.(CP1) meeting held June 22, 2010 >:n1 i
resulted in non-concurrence on Purpose and Need language. Referred to staff level for-
further revisions and,review atthe CPI meeting held September 14;.2010. i
Date of Concurrence:,, N/A
3. Explain what is being proposed and your position, including what you object to: . ` .
NCDOT proposed a Purpose and Need (P&N) Statement that. included the Strategic , '.,,. •':
Highways Corridor Plan (SHOP) in the Need section of the Statement presented at the
June 22, 2010 CPI meeting. USACE did not concur with that Statement and requested a . .
revision that removes the SHCP as a primary need or purpose in the P&N Statement.
4. Explain the reasons for your potential non-concurrence. Please include any data or
information that would substantiate and support your position:
- FHWA guidance indicates that the Need section of a P&N Statement should clearly
establish measurable evidence of a transportation problem or deficiency. The SHCP
refers to "goals", "concepts", and "visions" for various travel corridors and facilities
throughout the State. The goals and visions do not represent a metric, documentable
transportation problem or need that requires repair. The USACE does not concur that
the SHCP establishes a documentable transportation problem.
i I. I
- FHWA guidance indicates that the Purpose section of a P&N Statement should
clearly state and individually present objectives to address the transportation problem
or deficiencies identified in the Need section. The SHCP does not address the core
purpose of repairing the identified transportation problems. While the single facility
type that the SHCP suggests for the US 70 corridor around Kinston may ultimately
address the overall identified needs; using the goals of the SHCP as the primary
purpose for building a bypass around Kinston unduly restricts other potential
alternatives that may also address the need.
The USACE has an independent responsibility to comply with NEPA, and Section
404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. The USACE will not concur with a P&N
Statement that narrowly limits the range of reasonable alternatives that could be
reviewed. Based on the desired facilities envisioned in the SHCP, a single option is
presented for this corridor. Using a single facility option would restrict the review of
other reasonable alternatives required by NEPA and Section 404(b)(1) that would
possibly satisfy the P&N.
5. List any relevant laws or regulations that you believe would be violated or
jeopardized if the proposed action were implemented and explain the basis for
violation: National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 404(b)(1) of the' z
Clean Water Act. USACE believes that referencing the SHCP as a need or primary
purpose for building a bypass around Kinston would define the P&N so narrowly as to
circumvent the NEPA requirement for alternatives analysis. Further, a P&N statements : + .
that is too narrow to allow for alternative analysis for finding a Least Environmentally.: ,-
Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) as required by Section 404 (b)(1), would not,.,;,,,,.,
be possible.
6. What alternative course of action do you recommend: The USACE believes that ; ....
referencing the SHCP asa secondary purpose in the P&N, statement allows review of a
range of other alternatives that may meet NCDOT's transportation needs. USACE
encourages NCDOT to reconsider its position on the June 22, 2010 P&N Statement and
subsequent drafts, and concur with the draft P&N statement presented on September 14,.
2010. USACE, USEPA, NCDWQ, NCWRC, and other agencies have indicated that '
referencing the SHCP as a secondary purpose for this project would be acceptable.
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
i Division of Water Quality
Bevierly Eaves Perdue Ccleen H. Sullins
Governor
September lb, 2010
MEMORANDUM
Dee Freeman
Secretary
To: Mark Pierce, PE, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Section, NCDOT
Through: Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality L11I
From: David Wainwright, Division of Water Quality
Subject: MERGER 01 PROCESS ISSUE BRIEF; TIP R-2553; Kinston Bypass -- US 70 between
LaGrange and Dover in Lenoir, Craven, and Jones Counties.
1. Project Name and Brief Description: TIP R-2553; Kinston Bypass -US 70 between LaGrange
and Dover in Lenoir, Craven, and Jones Counties.
2. Last Concurrence Point (signed): NIA -This is the first concurrence point in the Merger 01
process.
Date of Concurrence: NIA
3. Explain what is being proposed and your position, including what you object to: The
NCDOT is proposing a Purpose and Need for this project which includes a reference to the
Strategic Highways Corridor (SHC) in the primary Purpose and Need Statement. The DWQ
objects to the inclusion of a SHC reference as a primary purpose or need in Purpose and Need
Statement (Statement).
4. Explain the reasons for your potential non-concurrence. Please include any data or
information that would substantiate and support your position:
• The SHC is a plan for certain transportation corridors within the state. As such, a "plan"
is not an identifiable problem related to traffic issues, but is rather a goal and should not
be included in the primary purpose and/or needs of the Statement. FHWA guidance states
that the Statement should clearly "identify a problem."
FHWA guidance for North Carolina states that "the primary purpose is a `driver' of the
project (i.e. it is a goal that reflects the fundamental reason why the project is being
proposed)." The DWQ does not agree that the SHC is the fundamental reason for
proposing the project. If considered by itself, it would not stand as a reason to construct
the road as other proposed reasons would, such as addressing traffic congestion, capacity
deficiencies, or regional mobility. In contrast, a desirable outcome is "an additional goal
that is desirable, but is not the core purpose of the project." This definition better defines
the inclusion of the SHC into the Statement, as it should not be considered a core
purpose. Should reference be made to the SHC in the Statement, it should be at a
secondary level as a desirable outcome.
• While guidance states that the SHC as well as goals and objectives from the
transportation planning process should be considered in the Statement, it does not,
however, state that they need be included as a primary goal(s) of the statement. The
DWQ feels that by including these goals and objectives as a secondary or desirable
purpose and need, the goals and objectives are still being addressed and considered in the