20181598_Att. 02 - Letter from David Farren, SELC_20160222

Attachment 2
SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER
Telephone [phone] WESi ROSEMARY STREET. SUITE 220 Facsimile 919-929-9421
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27516-2356
November 21, 2011
Mark Pierce
Project Planning Engineer
NCDOT - Eastern Project Development Unit
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
[e-mail]
Re: Comment� on Draft Environmental Impact Sta#ement for Havelock Bypass
Dear Mr. Pierce:
On behalf af the North Carolina Wildlife Federation, the Cypress Group of the North
Cazolina Chapter pf the Sierra Club, and North Carolina Caastal Federation, the Southern
Environmental Law Center submits the attached comrnents on the above-referenced Draft
Environmental Izr�pact Statenrzent ("DEIS"), prepared by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation ("NCDOT"}, an.d the Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") (collectively
the "Transporta�ion Agencies"). The DEIS analyzes the impacts af the proposed alternatives for
the Havelock Bypass ("Bypass" or "highway").
In our comments, we identify a number of issues xelated to the praposed Bypass that we
believe require significantiy greater disclosure and analysis to comply with the National
Enviranmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and other federal azid state laws prior to the issuance of the
Record of Decision and potential permitting of this project. The key shortcomings of the DEIS
include the folIawing:
• The DEIS fails to adeyuately consider the impact af the project on the management of
the Croatan National Farest. One of the key environmental impacts of the proposed
highway is the effect on the U,S. Forest Service's ability to carry out prescribed buxning in
proxiznity of the proposed highway. The DEIS's evaluation of the Forest Service's abilzty ta
use this essential management technique is cursory, vague, and �'aiIs to fully evaluate the
various poteniial impacts of the projeet, including the effect oirestricted management on
habitat for the endangered red-cockaaed woodpec�er and rare plant communities.
• The DEIS omits a 4(f� analysis. Section 4{�} of the Department of Transportation Act is
intended to ensure that valuable public land functions — specifically, recreation and wiIdlife
habitat — are not unnecessarily impaired by highway projects. Here, the proposed bypass
threatens a portion of the Croatan National Forest that is used for recreation and designated
as wildlife habitat, ye# the DEIS does not include a 4(f} analysis.
• The DEIS excludes analysis regarding wetland and stream impacts that is necessary to
evaluating the project under the Clean Water Act. The DEIS must, but faiIs to, provide
an analysis of the value of streams and wetlands that would be affected, the potential impacts
of degradation af those streams and wetlands, and the efforts that have been made to avoid
Chariottesville • Chapel Hilf • Atlanta • Asheville • Birmingham • Charlestan • Ricl�mond • Washington, DC
100Y recycled paper

and minimize those adverse impacts. That information is required before the Least
Environrnentally Damaging Practicable Alternative can be selected. Based an the scaz�t
evidencE in the DEIS, Alternative 3 cannot be selected as the LEDPA.
• The DEIS fails to substantiate the economic ar transportation justification for travel
unimpeded by sfoplights between Raleigh and the port at Morehead City. Rather than
pzoviding an economic or transportation justification to support the expense and
environmenfiaI disruptian af the preferred new location bypass, the DEIS generally states that
US 74 needs to be upgraded to "impra�e traffic operations for regional and statewide traffic
along 70" and "[t]o enharzce the ability of US 70 to sezve the regianal transpartation function
in accordance with the Strategic Highway Corridars Plan". The bypass may z�nove the
congestion that is cuixently along the existing route to the termini and interchange of the
bypass, frustrating the project goal of improved traffic operations. The bypass may also
leave 1oca1 communities stuck with congestion along the existing route. Quantifiable data on
harm to local economies from loss of through traffic, or unrelieved congestion and
quantifiable data on local and through trip times with and without the bypass are necessary to
evaluate whether the project will meei ihe project's stated purpose.
• The DEIS fails to adequately consider a reasonable, curaulative upgrade alternative.
NEPA requires, but the DEIS does not provide, detailed analysis of a reasonable arange of
alternatives. Rather than conducting detailed study on only new iocatian bypass alternatives,
the Agencies should have given greater consideration to upgrading the existing corridar,
including i�ut not limited to a combination of NCDOT's awn US 74 Access Management
Study and a superstreet alternative.
+ The DEIS fails to consider the cumutative impacts of foreseeable transportation
projects clasely linked to the Havelock Bypass. NEPA requires that the DEIS evaluate the
impact of reasonably foreseeable projects in its cutnulative impacts analysis for the prnposed
bypass. This bypass is one of several interrelated projects along Highway 70 in Eastern
North Carolina. In particular, the cumulative impacts analysis ofthe Havelock Bypass
should have also considered the impacts of two expensive and environmentally destructive
projects, the Northern Carteret B}rpass and the Gallants Channel Bridge. These two projects
are close in proximity to tl�e Havelock Bypass, and directly relate to access to Morehead
City.
In addition to the myriad substantive flaws in the analysis of impacts and alternatives, the
DEIS iails to provide updated analysis, relying instead on outdated prior study. As described in
this summary and the detailed comments attached, the Transportation Agencies must revise their
analysis of altematives and irnpacts according to the recommendatians set forth herein and issue
a supplemental DEIS for public review and comment.
Sincerely,
��
J. David Farren, Senior Attorney
Geaff Gisler, Staff Attarney
Chandra T. Taylor, Senior Attorney
2