A-9 (3)

FW: Corridor K, A-9 Collaboration Assessment Report Page 1 of 2
FW:. Corridor K, A-9 Collaboration Assessment Report
Wrenn, Brian
Sent: Monday, April 18, 20118:53 AM
To: Carrillo, Sonia
Attachments: NC Corridor K Summary Asse-l.pdf (207 KS)
Please scan and add to file. Thanks.
Brian
Brian Wrenn
Transportation Permitting Unit, Supervisor
NC Division of Water Quality
[e-mail]
585 Waughtown Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27107-2241
336-771-4952 (Winston-Salem no.)
336-771-4631(Fax)
or
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
919-807-6432
919-807-6494(Fax)
From: Joan Calcagno [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 15, 20114:12 PM
To: Joan Calcagno
Cc: Suzanne Orenstein
Subject: Corridor K, A-9 Collaboration Assessment Report
Dear Corridor K, A-9 Collaboration Assessment Interviewees,
Attached you will find the assessment report regarding the potential for successful collaboration on the Corridor K, A-9 project.
We appreciate the time you took to speak with us about the project.
The Udall Foundation and its major program, the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, is a federal agency
which focuses on neutral conflict resolution and collaboration in many kinds of public controversies. We have experience with
other similar transportation conflicts which we have combined with what we learned from you in the interview process to
develop some recommended next steps on the Corridor K situation. We hope you will find the information in the report useful.
Thank you again for your contribution to our assessment.
Regards, Suzanne Orenstein and Joan Calcagno
SUZANNE ORENSTEIN
Director. DC Office
UDALL FOUNDATION/US INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION
1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Suite 930
Washington, DC 20006
telephone [phone] (ext. 202): mobile [phone]
https:Hmail.nc. gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADMSzLcd9 W2TJHI4°/u2bm... 6/6/2011
FW: Corridor K, A-9 Collaboration Assessment Report
orenstein(a)ecr.gov
JOAN CALCAGNO
Senior Program Manager/Mediator
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
130 South Scott Avenue, Tucson, Arizona 85701
Telephone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Email: calcagno(cDecr.gov
Website: www.ecr.gov
Page 2 of 2
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email may contain dispute resolution information protected as
confidential by the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act, 5 U.S.C. § 571 et seq. and which should only
be shared with appropriate participants in the dispute resolution proceeding. If you received the message
in error, please notify the sender immediately.
https://mail.nc.gov/owa/?ae=Item&t=IPM.Note&id=RgAAAADMSzLcd9 W 2TJH14°/u2bm... 6/6/2011
North Carolina Transportation Corridor K, A-9 Project
Assessment of the Potential for Interagency Collaboration
April 15, 2011
Prepared at the Request of:
The Federal Highway Administration, North Carolina Division
and North Carolina Department of Transportation
Conducted By:
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
Assessment Team:
Suzanne Orenstein, Director, DC Office
Joan Calcagno, Senior Program Manager/Mediator
US. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
Wait Foundation
Assessment of the Potential for Interagency Collaboration
on North Carolina Transportation Project Corridor K
Executive Summary
Introduction
The North Carolina Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requested an assessment of
the potential for successful interagency collaboration to resolve an expected interagency impasse on
proposed portions of the Corridor K, N.C. Route 74 relocation project in western North Carolina. The
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (the Institute), a federal agency with a mission of
neutrally assisting other federal agencies to use collaborative strategies to address environmental
controversies, was asked to conduct this assessment.
In preparation for the assessment, the Institute worked with the FHWA and North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) to develop a list of interviewees composed of federal, state and local officials
involved in the project, as well as tribal leaders, legislators, and regional planning body staff. During
February and March 2011, Institute staff, with assistance from a North Carolina mediator, interviewed
58 individuals in 33 separate calls and meetings. The list of interviewees and the interview questions are
included as Attachments 1 and 2.
This report summarizes the findings of these interviews and outlines some proposed next steps that will
increase the likelihood of a successful collaborative process.
Project Background and Current Situation
Corridor K is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) proposed in the 1960s to
support economic development in a thirteen-state portion of the eastern United States. History and
status reports about the Corridor K project can be viewed at
http://www.ncdot.gov/proFects/US74Relocation/.
The development of Corridor K was broken into four parts: Sections A, B, C, and D. Section D was
designed and built in the last decade. The environmental impact analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Sections B and C (the section from Stecoah to Robbinsville) has
been ongoing for some time. A decision was made in the 1990s to analyze Sections B and C separately
from Section A. Section A constitutes the final piece of the project, and completion of all four sections
would result in the relocation of NC Route 74. The current Route 74 is a two-lane road along a river that
is heavily used for access by rafting and kayaking groups, and it is also the major north-south route for
local traffic.
Progress on the evaluation of the environmental impacts, and the resulting interagency concurrence on
a preferred alternative, has been stalled by controversy over the design, location, benefits and
environmental impacts of the proposed road. Several alternatives have been evaluated, including
multiple designs for a four-lane highway and a design evaluation for improvement to existing roads. A
four-lane road with a tunnel under the Appalachian Trail is currently the alternative preferred by
NCDOT. Other federal and state agencies have not signed on to the proposed alternative for reasons
outlined below.
Summary of Assessment Findings
After extensive study of multiple alternatives, the agencies responsible for implementing the Corridor K,
A-9 project are not in agreement about next steps for the project. There are significant questions from
some agencies about the real extent of the cumulative environmental effects, what economic benefits
from the project are realistic, and whether the project could withstand a lawsuit by opposition groups,
should that occur. Some agency interviewees expressed the view that just doing more studies may not
resolve this impasse, and so they suggest taking stock of the situation in open and frank discussions
among the agencies involved and others interested in and affected by the project.
The assessment identified the following areas of agreement, which are summarized as follows:
• There is a desire by all governmental entities to see the current impasse resolved and an
interagency collaborative process to address the barriers.
• This is a good point to take a read on the feasibility of the current plans for the project.
• The project will seriously impact very valuable natural areas which are important to the
economy and ecology of the local area.
• NC Route 74 through Nantahala Gorge is a bottleneck with safety and traffic congestion issues,
especially during tourist season from March to October.
• Graham and Cherokee counties need economic development. Local officials are mostly
supportive of the road, with a few exceptions which are based in differing assumptions about
the expectations of economic benefits.
The primary areas of disagreement identified in the assessment include the following points:
There are different perspectives on whether the recognized environmental impacts are
acceptable, particularly given the fact that there are many questions about whether the
expectations of economic benefits from the road are realistic and whether other, non-
transportation-related, economic benefits are available.
There are disagreements among the agencies about whether the project is really needed or is
driven by the availability of Appalachian Development Highway System funding, whether the
stated Purpose and Need is still applicable, and whether the current preferred alternative will
meet the requirements of the Purpose and Need of the Draft Supplemental Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
• There is disagreement about the feasibility of and plans for mitigating the environmental
impacts, especially related to the disposal of acidic rock and acidic rock impacts on streams.
• The feasibility, cost and desirability of the tunnel is a concern.
• There are several disagreements about separating Segment B-C from A, rather than looking at A
and B-C together. The disagreements involve the following questions and concerns:
o Whether Section A will be built at all and if B-C are built, whether there is a forgone
conclusion that A will be built;
o Whether A should be built;
o The availability of an accurate estimation of the real cumulative effects for all three sections;
o Whether building Section B-C without Section A will fulfill the Purpose and Need for a
connected highway system.
• Some local officials accept the environmental impacts that will occur as section B-C is
constructed. Others feel those impacts will damage what they see as their fastest growing
business: eco-tourism.
Willingness of the Key Parties to Participate in a Collaborative Interagency Process to Address the
Status of the Project
All interviewees are supportive of a collaborative approach to address the questions about the project
and increase understanding of the interagency perspectives. Many agency interviewees expressed the
desire to have forthright conversations about the Section A issues, the recent reports about incidental
and cumulative effects of the proposed actions, the evaluation of the option of improving existing roads,
and the implications of the original Purpose and Need statement. Several agency interviewees are not
interested in a collaborative process if it will only "rehash" previous conversations and alternatives, and
if will not consider options beyond a four-lane road.
Factors for a Successful Collaborative Process to Address Impasse on the Project
The Institute uses several factors to evaluate the potential for successful collaboration:
• There is support from key decision-makers for good-faith collaboration and for using the results
of the collaborative effort.
• Information is available to adequately inform discussions.
• All affected parties are willing to participate.
• Important aspects of the project are negotiable.
• Incentives exist for all participants to agree.
• Adequate time is available for a collaborative effort.
The Corridor K situation meets several but not all of these factors. Specifically, additional information is
needed about cumulative environmental effects and about the realities of economic development in
Graham and Cherokee Counties-. Also, the degree of negotiability and flexibility with regards to the
important aspects of the project is not clear to everyone. This needs to be evaluated by the leadership
of transportation and natural resource agencies as well as by the merger team members.
Recommendations
Taking the findings regarding agreement, disagreements, willingness of the parties and factors outlined
above into consideration, the Institute suggests the following next steps:
First, the leadership and staff of each of the transportation agency should meet internally, and then
the transportation agencies should meet together, to ensure continuity of perspectives regarding
the degree of flexibility they want to bring to the broader discussions and their willingness to re-
examine earlier decisions.
2. If the transportation agencies are willing to re-examine earlier decisions and other topics identified
in this report, FHWA and NCDOT should convene a series of meeting of the agency leaders and
merger team members to address agency concerns about the proposed preferred alternatives, have
forthright discussions of the reasons behind current agency positions, and explore other topics. For
at least one of these meetings there should be an educational component that includes
presentations and discussions with the Appalachian Regional Commission and those working on the
similar project in Tennesee. These discussions should reexamine the goals and needs of the project,
the drivers for it, the future of Section A, potential options for addressing concerns about
environmental impacts, possibilities for integrating transportation, environmental and economic
planning in western North Carolina, and whether proceeding with the project is feasible at this time.
The interagency meetings would benefit from clear agendas, background information shared in
advance, and facilitation. Congressman Schuler's office has asked to participate at this and other
points in the process.
The lead agencies should convene a meeting of local and regional officials with state and federal
officials to discuss the outcome of the federal-state agency discussions about flexibility and to share
ideas about the next steps on the project. Possible goal of this effort: explore how to integrate
economic development and environmental protection goals on a regional basis and address how the
transportation options can support those goals. These meetings should be facilitated and they
should occur in western North Carolina.
4. Dialogue with opposition groups and local business leaders should take place after the federal, state
and local agencies have clarified for themselves and each other what options for moving forward are
viable and are ready for discussion with non-governmental groups. These meetings should be
designed to be openly constructive and trustworthy. The meetings could be structured in a
roundtable format with all groups attending or they could be a series of individual meetings with
various stakeholder groups. They should be designed to be collaborative in nature, with facilitation
assistance in the planning and moderating of the meetings.
Assessment of the Potential for Interagency Collaboration
on North Carolina Transportation Project Corridor K
Overview of Assessment
Introduction
The North Carolina Division of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requested an assessment of
the potential for successful interagency collaboration to resolve an expected interagency impasse on
proposed portions of the Corridor K, N.C. Route 74 relocation project in western North Carolina. The
U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (the Institute), a federal agency with a mission of
neutrally assisting other federal agencies to use collaborative strategies to address environmental
controversies, was asked to conduct this assessment. Information about the Institute can be found at
www.ecr.gov.
In preparation for the assessment, the Institute worked with FHWA and N.C. Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to develop a list of interviewees composed of federal, state and local officials
involved in the project, as well as tribal leaders, legislators, and regional planning body staff. During
February and March 2011, Institute staff, with assistance from a North Carolina mediator, interviewed
58 individuals in 33 separate calls and meetings. Interviewees were asked about their views of the
major agreements and disagreements regarding the project and what they think might be accomplished
by a collaborative effort among governmental officials to address the disagreements. The list of
interviewees and the questions posed in the interviews are attached to this reports as Attachments 1
and 2.
This report summarizes the findings of these interviews and outlines some proposed next steps that will
increase the likelihood of a successful collaborative process.
Project Background and Current Situation
Corridor K is part of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) proposed in the 1960s to
support economic development in a thirteen-state portion of the eastern United States. Funding for the
ADHS is appropriated by Congress through the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), a national
entity that focuses on implementing the ADHS plan for improving the economic health of the
Appalachian Region. History, status reports, and other details about the Corridor K project can be
viewed at http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/US74Relocation/.
The development of Corridor K was separated into four parts, Sections A, B, C, and D. Section D was
designed and built in the last decade. The environmental impact analysis under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for Sections B and C (the section from Stecoah to Robbinsville) has
been ongoing for some time. A decision was made in the 1990s to analyze Sections B and C separately
from Section A. Section A constitutes the final piece of the project, and completion of all four sections
would result in the relocation of N.C. Route 74. The current Route 74 is a two-lane road along a river
that is heavily used for access by rafting and kayaking groups, and it is also the major north-south route
for local traffic.
Progress on the evaluation of the environmental impacts, and the resulting interagency concurrence on
a preferred alternative, has been stalled by controversy over the design, location, benefits, and
environmental impacts of the proposed road. Several alternatives have been evaluated, including
multiple designs for a four-lane highway and a design evaluation for improvement to existing roads. A
four-lane road with a tunnel under the Appalachian Trail is currently the alternative preferred by
NCDOT. Recently, a study of the possible widening of N.C. 28 and N.C. 143 was performed based on a
request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the N.C. Department of Environment &
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (NCDENR). In addition, in November 2010 a report with
additional information about the incidental and cumulative effects of the project was completed.
In accordance with North Carolina's transportation project development process (the "merger process")
for development of transportation projects, including analysis of the environmental impacts, ACOE's and
NCDENR's concurrence is particularly important. Without concurrence from both these agencies, the
permits necessary to implementing the project will not be forthcoming. In addition, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which has reviewing authority under the National Environmental
Policy Act, has provided extensive comments in letters reflecting environmental concerns and data gaps.
Other federal and state agencies have not signed on to the proposed alternative for reasons outlined
below.
The assessment identified many reasons for the current impasse, some of which are listed here
• Several merger team agencies have indicated a number of concerns that prevent them from
agreeing to the current preferred alternative identified by NCDOT. The wetland permits for the
Corridor K project as proposed may not be granted at this time because the permitting agencies
have indicated that the environmental impacts for Section A are critical to the evaluation of the
cumulative impacts of the project and have not yet been studied.
• Several agencies have also indicated that without Section A, the Purpose and Need for the
project will not be met because the relocation of N.C. Route 74 out of the Nantahala Gorge will
not be accomplished by constructing Sections B and C only.
• Several agencies expressed the view that the environmental impacts that will result from
building a four-lane highway with a half-mile tunnel through the mountains are severe and that
the expectations of economic benefits that would result from the new road are not sufficiently
supported by specific analysis or projections to justify the environmental impacts.
• A number of interviewees indicated there is a possibility of further delay of the project from
opposition of environmental and community interest groups if the current alternative four-lane
highway is formally proposed in a Record of Decision. If a lawsuit was initiated, it would result
in significant additional delays for the project.
II. Areas of Agreement Identified in Interviews
The interviews identified several areas of agreement with regards to the collaborative process. There is
general agreement that the current impasse needs to be resolved, that this is a good point to "take a
read on where we are," and that it is a good idea to seek a collaborative process to address the barriers
to moving forward. There are some agreements on the project itself, including that the project will
seriously impact very valuable natural areas and, if it proceeds, the project needs to be built in an
environmentally sensitive way. There is also agreement that the Appalachian Trail needs to be
protected, and that the natural environment creates economic benefits that need to be preserved and
enhanced where possible. Most seem to agree that the Nantahala Gorge is a bottleneck with safety and
traffic congestion concerns, especially from March to October. Finally, all agree that Graham and
Cherokee counties are at economic risk and are in need of economic development, including
employment opportunities. Graham County in particular needs improved access to jobs and medical
facilities.
III. Disagreements Identified in Interviews
The interviews identified many areas of disagreement about the proposed project.
• There are different perspectives among the agencies as to whether the recognized
environmental impacts are worth the environmental costs, especially given uncertainty about
the expectations of economic benefit from the road. Several merger team agencies do not
agree that the current preferred alternative for Section B-C is the Least Environmental Damaging
Practicable Alternative (as required by the ACOE) and the current preferred alternative for
Section B-C is not acceptable to many merger team agencies.
• There are disagreements among the agencies about whether the project is really needed. "The
availability of ADHS funding creates a want without a substantiated need"; "The project is driven
by a 'Build it and they will come' approach."
• The fact that the Purpose and Need was developed in the 1980s raises questions for some about
whether it is still applicable and relevant. The Purpose and Need is not well understood by
many. Further, there are disagreements and questions about whether the current preferred
alternative will meet the Purpose and Need, given the fact that the preferred alternative does
not complete the project.
• While several agencies want to reexamine the alternatives, and look for new ones, to address
concerns about a four-lane roadway, others want to keep moving forward with the current
alternative.
• There is disagreement about the extent of indirect and cumulative effects of the preferred
alternative and the feasibility of, and plans for, mitigating environmental impacts, especially
those related to the disposal of acidic rock and acidic rock impacts on streams.
0 The feasibility, cost, and desirability of the tunnel are a concern.
• Some local officials accept the environmental impacts that will occur as Sections B-C are
constructed. Others feel those impacts will damage what they see as their fastest growing
business: eco-tourism.
• There are several areas of disagreement regarding local economic development. Local and
regional economic development approaches are in varied states of development. The interviews
uncovered many local and regional efforts to address economic needs in Graham and Cherokee
Counties which are outlined in Attachment 2.
• Some local officials expressed the view that attracting manufacturing is possible and others do
not agree that is probable.
• Some local officials expressed the view that eco-tourism is the most realistic and sustainable
industry, and others do not agree.
• There are different assumptions about how these industries will benefit from the road and by
how much.
• Many agencies see the data on economic development as not definitive, specific, and/or
persuasive.
The Incidental and Cumulative Effects report is not optimistic about local economic
development; there is a request for a full discussion about the report from some members of
the merger team.
There are many uncertainties regarding local economic development, including the following:
• Whether there will be actual economic benefit from the current preferred alternative;
• What economic benefit could be realized from other alternatives;
• Whether and what other, non-transportation-related, measures there are to assist with
economic development and how to bring them in to a complete economic development picture.
Finally, there are several disagreements about separating Segment B-C from A, rather than looking at A
and B-C together. These disagreements create uncertainty about the following:
o Whether Section A will be built at all, and if B-C are built, whether there is a forgone
conclusion that A will be built;
o Whether A should be built;
o The availability of an accurate estimation of the real cumulative effects for all three sections;
o Whether building Section B-C without Section A will fulfill the Purpose and Need for a
connected highway system.
IV. Factors Affecting Disagreements and Resolution
• Initial decisions were made in the past, before the merger process, when the cost/benefit
analysis was calculated differently. The decisions were made without all agencies involved or
by staff no longer involved. "A lot of history is getting in the way."
10
• The merger process has not provided enough opportunities for honest, open, and respectful
dialogue and mutual decision-making.
There are varying degrees of knowledge about the details of the environmental impacts. Some
parties have focused on them and have reviewed them in detail. Others have not.
There is a general lack of understanding of:
o The role of the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), as well as the ARC's
requirements for the design of the road, the resources it has to offer, and its
perspective on the current. alternative. For example, the ARC official interviewed noted
that the ARC code requires continuity throughout the system and an average speed of
50 mph between termini (end points), not necessarily a four-lane highway. These
guidelines need to be discussed in some detail if the current preferred alternative is re-
examined and/or additional alternatives will be developed.
o The conclusions of the NCDOT about alternatives with fewer environmental impacts and
NCDOT conclusions about what design features are do-able. Many are not clear about
why the option of improving existing routes is not a viable alternative.
Many interviewees stated the belief that the Southern Environmental Law Center will likely file
suit to block implementation if current preferred alternative YX or X is included in the Record of
Decision.
V. Willingness of the Key Parties to Participate in a Collaborative Process to Address
Current Impasse
All interviewees think the collaborative approach is needed and desirable to address questions and
increase understanding of interagency perspectives. Many agency interviewees expressed the desire to
have forthright conversations about the Section A issues, the recent reports about incidental and
cumulative effects, the evaluation of the option of improving existing roads, and the implications for the
project of the original Purpose and Need statement. The local officials interviewed understand that
federal and state agencies may need to have preparatory meetings before a full discussion with them.
Congressman Schuler's office and local representatives want to be included in the collaborative
approach. Several interviewees suggested facilitation and careful scoping and agenda planning for
meetings.
However, some individual agency interviewees noted specific caveats to their willingness to participate,
stating that the process will only be successful if:
• Everyone will really listen with an open mind to get the complete picture;
• Everyone will be open and honest about what is driving their interests and perspectives;
• The discussion includes the full range of options for addressing local economic problems, not
just the road;
• The options go beyond building a four-lane road;
11
• The discussion includes key decision-makers and staff with working knowledge of the project;
• If Congressman Schuler's office and some representatives of local interests are included;
• Any comprehensive economic plan that leads to cumulative effects analysis clearly defines the
area of study, what the study will be used for, methodology, and data, so the study will be
meaningful and agencies will be committed to using it for decision-making;
• Some believe collaboration would be more fruitful with full stakeholder involvement in a
broader collaborative process (e.g. with environmental non-governmental organizations and
business groups).
VI. Topics Suggested for Discussion and Clarification
• What does a "success" look like for the corridor K project?
• How to integrate environmental, economic, and transportation planning and problem-solving.
• History of the project and why concurrence is problematic at this time.
• Extent of need for connection between Asheville and Chattanooga and implications of the
Tennessee project redesign on the North Carolina project.
• The role of and requirements of the Appalachian Regional Commission regarding highway
specifications and economic development assistance.
• Revisit the Purpose and Need for the project, at least at a conceptual level.
• Further discussion of the study of improvements to existing roads.
• Further discussion of the Incidental and Cumulative Effects (ICE )report in detail
• Historic preservation issues.
• Expectations for the local economic development plans that are underway and the impacts of
Corridor K on the implementation of those plans.
• Balancing eco-tourism with other economic development options.
• Likelihood of the Corridor K, A-9 project producing economic development in Graham County
and Cherokee County.
o Realistic potential for eco-tourism;
o Positive and negative impacts of Corridor K on eco-tourism.
• Additional alternatives and openness of agencies to creating them.
• Additional alternatives, including:
o Options for improving Robbinsville's access to medical and employment resources if the
proposed road is not built;
o Combining new road construction and improvements to existing roads, including for Section
A;
o Other alternatives that may be proposed by local, county, regional and state interest groups.
12
VII. Options Suggested by Interviewees for Moving beyond the Current Impasse
Interviewees made several suggestions for how the agencies can move beyond the current impasse.
Included in those suggestions were the following ideas:
• Revisit, clarify, reconfirm, or revise the-Purpose and Need to arrive at a Purpose and Need that
all agencies support.
• Review the November 2010 Indirect and Cumulative Effects document as a group.
• Look to what Tennessee has done to deal with similar issues.
• Move other ready projects into the ADHS so ARC funding could be spent there or allow money
to be spent on other ready projects.
• Build remaining sections in a way that is environmentally sustainable and allows the road to
enhance the environment, including excellent construction management, links to trails and
additional access points for eco-tourists at turn-offs, and environmental enhancement to
wetlands and other natural areas.
• Invest the ARC funding in routes that provide low-impact public access to natural areas instead
of building a four-lane road.
Interviewees suggested several options regarding Section A:
• Reconsider the decision to separate Section A from B-C for analysis.
• Reveal/confirm commitment to build Section A or not.
• Create a financial plan/assurance that would show how A can be completed.
• Analyze Sections A, B-C together, or if A will not be built, analyze B-C based on that assumption.
Interviewees suggested several options regarding economic benefits:
• Quantify the economic benefits more specifically and connect them more clearly to the project.
• Understand ARC's ability to provide for other (non-transportation) economic benefits. Work
with ARC to meet economic goals with less impactful road.
• Explore all opportunities for economic development. Understand if and how a road fits into a
broader economic development plan and create a plan to tie all aspects together so can do a
comprehensive cumulative effects analysis.
Interviewees suggested several options regarding Alternatives:
• Look for new alternatives, including combination of pieces of existing plans.
• Revisit the relocation segment that was eliminated due to impacts to the Appalachian Trail, and
consider using a unique landscaped pedestrian crossing.
13
• Create a new alternative with some new road and some upgraded road, e.g. Sections B-C and
improved Route 129 to replace Section A.
VIII. The Likelihood of Success of a Collaborative Process
The U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution uses several criteria to evaluate whether a
collaborative process is likely to be successful or not. Collaborative forums require time and effort that
should only be expended if there is a good likelihood of a successful outcome. Analysis of these factors
in the Corridor K situation shows some promise for successful collaboration, as outlined below.
1) There is support from key decision makers for good faith collaboration and for using the results
of the collaborative effort.
Leadership at both the Federal Highway Administration and the North Carolina Department of
Transportation have expressed support for taking stock through a collaborative interagency process and
are open to consultation about options with local officials. Other key agencies, including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, who reviews all NEPA documents, and Army Corps of Engineers and
the North Carolina Department of Energy and Natural Resources, who issue permits, have also
expressed willingness to work with others to identify an outcome that is mutually acceptable.
2) Information is available to adequately inform discussions.
The Environmental Impact Statement process has provided extensive analysis of various options and
alternatives, so there is a substantial information base. On the other hand, several questions have been
raised for which there is not yet information persuasive to everyone, especially specific data/studies
concerning the project's economic benefits for Graham and Cherokee Counties. Other informational
needs include: the fate of Section A, clarifying the cumulative environmental effects from the project,
details of the mitigation for construction impacts, and the flexibility of the resources available from ARC
for economic development and transportation projects.
3) All affected parties are willing to participate.
All interviewees are willing to participate in a collaborative process, but several expressed concerns
about not rehashing old arguments and debates. The most common caveats about participating
mentioned by interviewees were the need to discuss the Purpose and Need to determine exactly what it
might require and the need to truly take a fresh look at the alternatives.
4) Important aspects of the project are negotiable.
Agency leads have expressed openness to looking for outcomes that work for all, as have local officials,
the ARC, and other federal and state agencies. However, the degree of negotiability and flexibility about
the important aspects of the project is not clear to everyone, and needs to be evaluated by the
leadership of transportation agencies and through discussions with natural resource agency managers
as well as with the merger team members.
14
5) Incentives exist for all participants to agree.
One important barrier that arises in conflicts like the one involving Corridor K is the situation in which
someone is better off if the project does not go forward. A group who is better off with no agreement
or no progress would not have an incentive to participate in a collaborative effort focused on finding
mutually-acceptable solutions or to be flexible. In the Corridor K situation, the public entities all desire
to get past the stalemate that exists now. While this assessment did not encompass research on the
views of the environmental groups concerned about the project, past experience leads to the conclusion
that if a collaborative process involving outside groups goes forward, further assessment of the
incentives and views of those groups should be undertaken.
6) Adequate time is available for a collaborative effort.
The interviews did not identify any pending deadlines or other urgencies that would prohibit taking the
time to work together collaboratively to get past the current impasse.
IX. Recommendations for Next Steps
Taking the findings regarding agreement, disagreements, willingness of the parties and factors outlined
above into consideration, the Institute suggests the following next steps:
1. First, the leadership and staff of each of the transportation agency should meet internally, and then
the transportation agencies should meet together, to ensure continuity of perspectives regarding
the degree of flexibility they want to bring to the broader discussions and their willingness to re-
examine earlier decisions.
If the transportation agencies are willing to re-examine earlier decisions and other topics identified
in this report, FHWA and NCDOT should convene a series of meeting of the agency leaders and
merger team members to address agency concerns about the proposed preferred alternatives, have
forthright discussions of the reasons behind current agency positions, and explore other topics. For
at least one of these meetings there should be an educational component that includes
presentations and discussions with the Appalachian Regional Commission and those working on the
similar project in Tennessee. These discussions should reexamine the goals and needs of the
project, the drivers for it, the future of Section A, potential options for addressing concerns about
environmental impacts, possibilities for integrating transportation, environmental and economic
planning in western North Carolina, and whether proceeding with the project is feasible at this time.
The interagency meetings would benefit from clear agendas, background information shared in
advance, and facilitation. Congressman Schuler's office has asked to participate at this and other
points in the process.
3. The lead agencies should convene a meeting of local and regional officials with state and federal
officials to discuss the outcome of the federal-state agency discussions about flexibility and to share
ideas about the next steps on the project. Possible goal of this effort: explore how to integrate
economic development and environmental protection goals on a regional basis and address how the
15
transportation options can support those goals. These meetings should be facilitated and they
should occur in western North Carolina.
4. Dialogue with opposition groups and local business leaders should take place after the federal, state
and local agencies have clarified for themselves and each other what options for moving forward are
viable and are ready for discussion with non-governmental groups. These meetings should be
designed to be openly constructive and trustworthy. The meetings could be structured in a
roundtable format with all groups attending or they could be a series of individual meetings with
various stakeholder groups. They should be designed to be collaborative in nature, with facilitation
assistance in the planning and moderating of the meetings.
X. Recommendations for the Design of a Collaborative Process
In order to initiate and lead a collaborative process, the FHWA and NCDOT will need to address several
factors in a constructive way:
• There is a need to rebuild the cooperative approach that the interagency merger team requires.
Facilitation and cooperative planning of the process will be important for a successful outcome.
• Leadership and agency staff within some agencies are not on the same page. Agency leaders
and team members need to prepare together for the discussions that will be held. However,
leadership and staff roles will need to be determined to address the fact that lengthy
collaborative process meetings are often not practical for agency leaders.
• Much information needs to be developed and shared among agencies, including the reasons
behind their current perspectives. A list of information needs should be developed
collaboratively among all agencies, and there should be a discussion of how the information will
be developed and disseminated prior to the meeting.
• An atmosphere of exploration will need to be created in the interagency meetings so that
preliminary ideas can be expressed freely without fear of publication or dissemination of those
ideas. Ground rules for these discussions should be developed collaboratively and agreed upon.
• Specific options will be needed for local discussions so that local officials can react to proposals
and help shape any new ideas.
• Local government leaders have asked for careful scoping, planning, and facilitation of
collaboration meetings with them.
• When there is something of significance to report regarding next steps, meetings with local
officials should be convened. These meetings should take place in western North Carolina and
multiple officials from specific towns and counties will need to be involved. County
Commissioners, mayors, and town managers should be involved in the discussions, along with
regional planning commission representatives.
• Federal outreach to the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation should be undertaken on a
Federal to Tribal level. Principal Chief Michel Hicks should be contacted by the FHWA for a true
government-to-government consultation to occur.
16
Attachment 1: List of Interviewees
FEDERAL AGENCIES/ENTITIES
Federal Highway Administration
John Sullivan, Division Administrator
Donnie Brew, Preconstruction and Environmental Engineer
Clarence Coleman, Director of Preconstruction and Environment
US Army Corps of Engineers
Ken Jolly, Chief, Regulatory Division
Scott Jones, Chief, Asheville, Field Office
Scott McLendon, Assistant Chief, Regulatory Division and DOT Team Leader
Lori Beckwith, Project Manager, Asheville Field Office
US Environmental Protection Agency - Region 4
Heinz Mueller, Chief, NEPA Office
Christopher Militscher, NEPA Program, Raleigh Office
US Fish & Wildlife Service
Brian Cole, Field Supervisor
Marella Buncick, Staff Biologist and Project Lead
Jason Mays, Staff Biologist
US Forest Service
Marisue Hilliard, Forest Supervisor, National Forest in NC
Karen Compton, Biological Scientist/DOT Coordinator
Steve Lohr, Ranger for the Tusquitee
Lauren Stull, Deputy District Ranger for Cheoah Ranger District
17
r
National Park Service and Appalachian Trail Conservancy
Pamela Underhill, Park Manager, Appalachian National Scenic Trail
Morgan Sommerville, Regional Director for GA, NC, and TN Appalachian Trail Conservancy
US Congress, 11th District
Ryan Fitzpatrick, Legislative Assistant to Congressman Heath Shuler, Transportation
Appalachian Regional Commission
Kenneth Wester, ADHS Program Manager
Olivia Collier, Program Manager
TRIBE
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Diamond Brown, Tribal Council Member, Robbinsville
STATE AGENCIES
NC Department of Transportation
Terry Gibson, State Highway Administrator
Debbie Barbour, PE, Director of Preconstruction
Joel Setzer, Division 14 Engineer
Susan Howard, Federal Programs Coordinator in NC Governor's Office, Washington, DC
NC Department of Transportation, A-9 Project Team
Stacy Oberhausen, A-9 Project Manager
Greg Thorpe, Manager, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Teresa Hart, Unit Head
Marshall Edwards, Project Planning Engineer
James Speer, PE, Roadway Design/Project Engineering
Paul Koch, Engineering Consultant, Stantec Consulting
Keith Lewis, Engineering Consultant, Martin/Alexiou/Bryson, P.C.
18
NC Department of Cultural Resources
Dr. Jeff Crow, Deputy Secretary, Archives and History
Steve Clang
Renee Gledhill-Earley
NC Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Manly Wilder, Chief Deputy Secretary
Amy Simes, Transportation Coordinator
Brian Wrenn, Division of Water Quality
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Bob Curry, Division Chief
Mallory Martin, Chief Deputy Director
David Cox, Technical Guidance Supervisor
Shannon Deaton, Habitat Conservation Program Manager
TN Department of Transportation
David Griffin, Project Manager, Tennessee Corridor K EIS (Contractor to TN DOT)
JonnaLeigh Stack, TN DOT NEPA Project Manager
LOCAL OFFICIALS
Mayors
Bill Hughes, Mayor, Murphy
Brad Walker, Mayor, Bryson City
County Commissioners
Ronnie Beale, Macon County Commissioner, Chair SW Commission Transportation Advisory Bd
Phil Carson, Chairman of Swain County Commissioners, Bryson City
Micky Duvall, County Manager, Graham County
David Wood, Commission Chair, Cherokee County Commission, Murphy, NC
19
State Legislators
Ray Rapp, Representative for District 118, Haywood, Madison, Yancey
Philip Haire, Representative District 119, Haywood, Jackson, Macon, Swain
John Snow, delegated for Representative Roger West, District 120, and Senator Jim Davis,
District 50
Town of Robbinsville, NC
Jackie Ayers, Alderman, Robbinsville
SW Commission
Vicki Greene, Assistant Director of Planning
Ryan Sherby, Transportation Planner
Town of Andrews, NC
Bill Green, Town Manager
Bryson City
Lawrence Callicut, Town Manager
20
Attachment 2: Assessment Interview Questions
1. What is your involvement in the project A-9 situation? What role has your organization played
to date?
2. What is your understanding of the current status of the project?
3. What would your organization like to see happen with the project from this point on?
4. What challenges do you see facing your organization in this project as it goes forward?
5. What do you see as: areas of agreement and disagreement; possible options for resolution of
issues?
6. Our interviews are focusing on what might be accomplished if all the governmental entities
involved in the project participated in discussions about the next steps for the project. Do you
think these discussions would be useful? Why or why not? Would you participate?
7. If inter-governmental discussions are convened, what topics do you suggest for the most
productive discussion? Are there issues that haven't come up before that could benefit from
discussion?
8. Who needs to participate to have effective discussions?
9. What else do we need to know about this situation in order to inform ourselves about the
potential for fruitful intergovernmental dialogue?
10. Who else should we talk to about this?
21
Attachment 3
Supplemental Information Regarding Status of Local Economic.Development Efforts
(Summary from Interviews)
Key economic development components in western N.C. are:
• Asheville-Chattanooga transportation link
• The Harrah's Casino in Cherokee, and a proposed second casino in Cherokee County
• Eco-tourism, including fishing, rafting, kayaking, hiking, camping, bicycling, ATV trails
• Motorcycle tourism for winding roads, including the Tail of the Dragon in Graham County
• Scenic railroad route
Resources for local and county regional development in western NO
• Southwest Commission (regional planning body) has developed
o An award-winning Mountain Initiative tool kit, with suggestions for land use and infrastructure
development. Also provided some funds for implementation of the tool kit at the county level
o A regional transportation management committee involving representatives from all western
NC counties
o Golden Leaf Foundation grant program that provided Graham County with a $1 million loan for
economic development
• Graham County has hired a country manager with experience in economic development and has
developed or is developing
o An Economic Development Commission
o Proposals for ATV trails and a possible ski area
o A process for mapping current and future land uses
o A travel and tourism board, with tribal representation
o Funding from Southwest Commission to provide a loan to its major employer, Stanley Industries,
which employs 30% of the employable persons in Graham County
o Funding for a new waste-water treatment plant and sewer lines
• Cherokee County and the towns of Andrews and Murphy has developed
o Priorities for road improvements to routes used by hikers and motorcyclists
o And Economic Development Commission to deal with water and sewer issues and court
manufacturing industries
o A tourism promotion group
o Some initial plans for alternative energy development, including wind and solar
• Tribes have developed:
o Harrah's Casino in Cherokee county. The casino employs 2000 individuals
o A golf course
o Initial plans for a second casino near Murphy and Andrews.
• The second home market is not currently growing, but potential exists for it to grow in the future.
• High-speed internet is available region wide through the recently developed "Balsam Loop."
22