From: Myers, Kenneth [Kenneth.Myers@fhwa.dot.gov]
To: Peter T. Kleeman [techniquest@netscape.net]
Cc: Fonseca, Roberto [Roberto.Fonseca@fhwa.dot.gov]
Sent: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 13:10:19 -0400
Subject: RE: Designating Localities as Lead Agency for NEPA documentation

Mr. Kleeman:

Your inquiry of April 4 has been forwarded to me for response. We have reviewed the project status and coordinated with VDOT in preparing the attached response to address your two concerns.

Sincerely,

Kenneth R. Myers
Planning & Environmental Program Manager
FHWA, Virginia Division
(804) 775-3353 Kenneth.Myers@fhwa.dot.gov

Response to Kleeman Inquiry

One of the concerns was that the project agreement between VDOT and the City of Charlottesville would have the City acting as lead agency under NEPA. This is a misunderstanding of the contract language. We have reviewed the language in the proposed, yet unexecuted, agreement and it in no way suggests that Charlottesville would act as lead agency. FHWA will act a lead agency for NEPA, and VDOT will retain appropriate NEPA oversight of the project as a responsible statewide agency. The agreement would allow the City to administer the project, a common arrangement that is utilized in many States.

In response to the second part of the inquiry, VDOT and FHWA have reviewed the status of the Meadowcreek Parkway and the U.S. 250 interchange at McIntire Road in Charlottesville. The purpose of this review was to determine if the new federally funded U.S. 250 interchange study would federalize the Meadowcreek Parkway. Our conclusion is that it would not, based on the following:

1) Proposed projects with location approvals and funding commitments may serve as logical termini for other projects that are being considered in the planning, feasibility or early preliminary engineering phases.

2) The Meadowcreek Parkway is a state funded project that has a location approval and is fully funded in the Working Draft FY06-11 SYIP. Right of Way is scheduled to begin in December this year, and construction is scheduled to begin in FY08.

3) The funded Meadowcreek Parkway project includes an at-grade intersection at the 250 Bypass.

4) Based on above items 1-3, it is appropriate to consider the Meadowcreek Parkway as an approved element of the transportation system in the evaluation of future improvements.

5) The Department is pursuing a separate project that will evaluate the construction of an interchange at the 250 Bypass, the existing at-grade intersection with McIntire Road and the terminus of the approved location Meadowcreek Parkway. This project was a new project in the current (FY05-10) program. The project was funded for PE only ($1.25M). There are no additional funds allocated to this project in the Working Draft FY06-11 SYIP (over the next 6 years).

6) When determining if the 250 Interchange has independent utility, we must determine if it is a useable and reasonable expenditure if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made. Since the Meadowcreek Parkway will be constructed regardless of whether the interchange moves forward, the interchange is an independent project.

7) Therefore, the federal action is limited to the federal-aid interchange and federal involvement with the interchange does not federalize the Meadowcreek Parkway.

---original message---

From: Peter T. Kleeman [techniquest@netscape.net]
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 10:37 AM
To: Fonseca, Roberto; philip.shucet@vdot.virginia.gov
Subject: Designating Localities as Lead Agency for NEPA documentation

Dear Sirs:

I have reviewed the "Agreement for Project Development and Administration by the City of Charlottesville Route 250 Bypass Interchange Project" and am concerned that the City of Charlottesville will apparently be acting as the lead agency in development of the NEPA document necessary for this project. I reviewed what appear to be the relevant sections of NEPA (Section 102) and 23 CFR 771 and believe that it is not legitimate for the City to be the lead agency for NEPA development. I am also concerned that the City of Charlottesville does not have the expertise in NEPA document development and related requirements including Section 4(f) analysis essential for this Federal-aid Highway project.

I also am concerned about treating the interchange and the portion of the Meadow Creek Parkway project through the McIntire Park (a section 4(f) protected property) as separate project with the NEPA document only considering the interchange. It is my understanding that Federal Court rulings have maintained that projects of this type cannot be segmented, but rather considered in one environmental document so that the full environmental impacts of the project are provided to the public for consideration.

I would very much like to receive from you justification for allowing the City of Charlottesville to be the lead agency for development of a NEPA document on any Federal-aid Highway project, and secondly, how the segmentation of this project is not in violation of Federal Court rulings against segmentation.

Sincerely,