Topic: Public Involvement
Here is an inquiry sent to the Route 250 Bypass / McIntire Road Steering Committee chair concerning the lack of opportunity for the public to participate in the development of project Purpose and Need or selection of alternatives for consideration as required.
From: Peter T. Kleeman
To: Angela Tucker; Owen Peery
Cc: Ivan Rucker (FHWA)
Sent: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:39:42
Subject: Route 250 Interchange Project: Public Participation; Purpose and Need; Alternative Selection
Angela Tucker, City of Charlottesville project manager
Owen Peery, RK&K Engineers project manager
The Route 250 Interchange Steering Committee does not include any opportunity for input from the public, which appears to be not in compliance with Federal Highway Statues. I am bringing this concern to you and to our local FHWA Community Planner, Ivan Rucker, for your consideration along with another request that the Steering Committee agendas be revised to include opportunities to participate particularly when discussion on purpose and need, and study alternatives are being addressed. I am providing you material I believe is particularly appropriate for your consideration now as these items have already been addressed at committee meetings without Federally required public participation opportunities. The material provided below is from the Highway section of the United States Code (23USC139) that was just enacted into law in the SAFETEA-LU legislation in section 6002 of that act.
The specific section of the US Code of interest here is entitled: Sec. 139: Efficient environmental reviews for project decisionmaking. In this code section the requirement that the public be invited to participate in development of the purpose and need statement, and determination of the range of alternatives to be considered in the environmental review. By not allowing public participation in these discussions I believe you are not in compliance with this section of the US Code.
I have included below the text of 23USC139 Subsection (f) that directly addresses the need for public involvement in the currently ongoing activities of the steering committee that are - in spite of my several requests - being denied.
I have copied this email to Ivan Rucker so that he too will be aware of my concern that current activities being carried out by the City of Charlottesville in its role as a lead agency in this Federal-aid Highway project appear not to not be in compliance with current Federal law.
I look forward to discussing this matter with you further and request that a partial solution to this apparent non-compliance would be to include opportunities for matters from the public on all upcoming committee agendas. In addition, I recommend that interested members of the public be provided opportunities to participate in purpose and need discussions and discussions on selection of project alternatives when those items are the order of business of the committee or any subcommittees that may be formed for these purposes in the future.
Sincerely, Peter Kleeman
23USC139
...
(f) Purpose and Need.--
(1) Participation.--As early as practicable during the environmental review process, the lead agency shall provide an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and the public in defining the purpose and need for a project.
(2) Definition.--Following participation under paragraph (1), the lead agency shall define the project's purpose and need for purposes of any document which the lead agency is responsible for preparing for the project.
(3) Objectives.--The statement of purpose and need shall include a clear statement of the objectives that the proposed action is intended to achieve, which may include--
(A) achieving a transportation objective identified in an applicable statewide or metropolitan transportation plan;
(B) supporting land use, economic development, or growth objectives established in applicable Federal, State, local, or tribal plans; and
(C) serving national defense, national security, or other national objectives, as established in Federal laws, plans, or policies.
(4) Alternatives analysis.--
(A) Participation.--As early as practicable during the environmental review process, the lead agency shall provide an opportunity for involvement by participating agencies and the public in determining the range of alternatives to be considered for a project.
(B) Range of alternatives.--Following participation under paragraph
(1), the lead agency shall determine the range of alternatives for consideration in any document which the lead agency is responsible for preparing for the project.
(C) Methodologies.--The lead agency also shall determine, in collaboration with participating agencies at appropriate times during the study process, the methodologies to be used and the level of detail required in the analysis of each alternative for a project.
(D) Preferred alternative.--At the discretion of the lead agency, the preferred alternative for a project, after being identified, may be developed to a higher level of detail than other alternatives in order to facilitate the development of mitigation measures or concurrent compliance with other applicable laws if the lead agency determines that the development of such higher level of detail will not prevent the lead agency from making an impartial decision as to whether to accept another alternative which is being considered in the environmental review process.
posted by Peter T. Kleeman - techniquest@netscape.net