20020672 Ver 3_10-09-14 Letter Requesting Public Hearing_20141010

SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone 919 - 967 -1450 601 WEST ROSEMARY STREET, SUITE 220 Facsimile 919 - 929 -9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516 -2356
Via E -mail and U.S. Mail
Tom Reeder
Director, Division of Water Resources
NCDENR
1601 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1601
[e-mail]
October 9, 2014
Colonel Kevin P. Landers, Sr.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
[e-mail]
RE: Request for Public Hearin1l ReLmrdin;; the Monroe Bypass
Dear Mr. Reeder and Col. Landers:
On behalf of our clients, Clean Air Carolina, the Yadkin Riverkeeper, and North Carolina
Wildlife Federation, the Southern Environmental Law Center requests that a public hearing be
held to consider the North Carolina Department of Transportation's ( "NCDOT ") recent
applications for 401 Water Quality Certification and a 404 Permit for the Monroe Bypass.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act anticipates the need for such a hearing, see, e.g.,
33 U.S.C. § 1344, and North Carolina's administrative code provides that the Director of the
Division of Water Resources may call for a public hearing on any application for a 401 Water
Quality Certification if the Director determines that such a hearing is "in the public interest."
15A N.C.A.C. 02H.0504.
As you may know, the Monroe Bypass is an extremely controversial proposed new -
location toll- highway that would run over twenty miles through rural Union County. The project
has provoked significant public debate over the past several years, most recently demonstrated
by the substantial public comment NCDOT received during its environmental review of the
project under the National Environmental Policy Act ( "NEPA "). For example, NCDOT reports
it received 124 comments on the latest draft of the Environmental Impact Statement alone. See
Record of Decision for the Monroe Bypass ( "ROD ") at 13 (May, 2014). Even more, NCDOT
documented that over 500 people attended a series of three public hearings regarding the Bypass
in December, 2013. ROD at 13.
Public meetings have also been crucial for public engagement outside of the NEPA
process. Throughout the last several years, Union County residents have continued to rely on a
variety of public forums — such as town council meetings, MPO meetings, and large public
information sessions focused specifically on the Monroe Bypass — to discuss and debate the
Bypass. Many of these public meetings have demonstrated strong public opposition to the
project.
Charlottesville • Chapel Hill • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charleston • Nashville • Richmond • Washington, DC
100% recycled paper

This opposition is most clearly crystallized by the resolutions passed by five Union
County municipalities opposing the Bypass and calling for renewed study of alternatives.' These
towns have questioned NCDOT's pursuit of the Bypass in light of information showing the
project will not improve current congestion on existing roadways. They have called for NCDOT
to instead evaluate construction of a suite of improvements to the U.S. 74 Corridor which would
actually address congestion and traffic flow concerns currently experienced in Union County.
Additionally, the large scale of the Monroe Bypass necessitates that it will have
significant impacts to water resources. NCDOT has estimated that the project's impacts will
include direct impacts to 12,729 linear feet of intermittent streams, 10,353 linear feet of
perennial streams, 3.1 acres of ponds, and 8.1 acres of wetlands in a total of 46 wetlands. The
road will require 107 stream crossings, including crossings over three 303(d)- listed streams. See
ROD at 12. And many questions remain regarding the project's true impacts, as NCDOT's
Indirect and Cumulative Effects analysis significantly understates impacts that will result from
growth induced by the project.2 The controversy regarding these substantial impacts necessitates
the agencies take care to provide adequate opportunity for public comment.
In light of the strong community interest and opposition, as well as the project's
considerable impacts to water and wetland resources, the public interest demands your agencies
hold a public hearing on NCDOT's permit applications. Such a hearing would be consistent with
your past practices. Just two years ago your agencies determined such a hearing was necessary
regarding NCDOT's permit applications for the Garden Parkway, a similar proposed Charlotte -
area new - location toll highway project with near - identical impacts and local opposition.
Moreover, a hearing would not cause undue delay. NCDOT's attorneys have stated that even if
permits are granted, they do not anticipate construction to begin before May, leaving ample time
for your agencies to hold such a hearing.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss this request further at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Kym nter
Staff Attorney
f
Kate Asquith
Associate Attorney
cc (via e -mail and U.S. Mail):
Carl Pruitt, U.S. ACE
Alan Johnson, NCDWR
' These municipalities are Stallings, Marvin, Weddington, Mineral Springs, and Hemby Bridge.
'See, e.g., letter from Kym Hunter and Kate Asquith, SELC, to Jennifer Harris, NCDOT, Monroe
Connector /Bypass: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Jan. 6, 2014).
2