20181598_Att. 53 - Memo from R. Lucas, FHWA (July_20160222

Attachment 5 3
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT REVIEW
X OPERS ENGR. BRIDGE P.D.ENGR
PP&D ENGR. X ROW A.D.A.
ENV. ENGR. TOS X AREA ENG.
COPY TO STATE:
PROJECT N0. WBS N0. TIP NO. COUNTY
NHF-70(49) 34360 R-1015 Craven
TYPE REVIEW:
Telephone Conversation Meeting Participant
X Office Review of Documents Site Visit
Public Workshop Participant P.H. Attendance
Re-evaluation Consultation [Per 23 CFR 771.129 (c)]
Environmental Commitments in PS&E
DATE OF REVIEW: July 13, 2010 REVIEW MADE BY: Ron Lucas, P.E.
TITLE: Area Engineer
The FHWA North Carolina Division Office has reviewed the draft Environmental Assessment for
the project and have the following comments:
1. Table of contents should be placed before the summary section.
2. In the Summary section discussing alternatives, please briefly discuss why other bypass
alts were eliminated and only alts 1-3 were chosen to be studied (as explained later in the
document). Also, please discuss logical termini.
3. Summary section: There may be a need to state there is no sect. 106 issue with alt #3
There is a 106 issue with the improve existing US 70 freeway alt. Also, more data is
needed to support potentially contaminated properties discussion (ie., what kind of
potential contamination is there?).
4. Further explanation need to be provided why the proposed project has independent utility
and logical termini ie, (traffic diversion point/major intersection/traffic numbers change,
etc.l
5. Alternatives section: discussion seems to focus on 4f but not 106, 106 also needs to be
addressed.

6. Chapter 4 comments: There seem to be 4f issues associated with this project. Given that
the proposed bypass will destroy portions of USFS lands designated for recovery of the
federally endangered RCW, how would this not be a 4f issue? Mark, we will provide
information to be included in this section.
7. Chapter 4: Relocation discussion on 4-3 does not match table 4.1. 4.1.1.4 does not jive
with 4.1.1.3.2 discussion. 4-23 discussion says noise barriers are not feasible along US
70 corridor but it's not stated why they can't be used for alt 3. 4-31 discusses 2
contamination sites whereas previously there had only been discussion of 1 such potential
site. 4-34 discussion of historic architecture resources, clarification is needed that the
Needham B. White House will only affect the improve existing US 70 freeway alt. 4-97
and 4-98: Can we provide more information on indirect and cumulative effects on
wildlife and development.