PELLISSIPPI PARKWAY EXTENSION BLOUNT COUNTY TN TDOT ... · PDF file pellissippi parkway...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    06-May-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    0
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of PELLISSIPPI PARKWAY EXTENSION BLOUNT COUNTY TN TDOT ... · PDF file pellissippi parkway...

  • PELLISSIPPI PARKWAY EXTENSION

    BLOUNT COUNTY, TN

    TDOT PROJECT NO. # 05097- 1226-04

    PIN 101423.00

    SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS

    FOR PERIOD APRIL 25 THROUGH JULY 5, 2006

    AND

    COMMENTS RECEIVED BETWEEN JULY 6 AND DECEMBER 31, 2006

    DECEMBER 31, 2006

    PREPARED FOR:

    FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, TENNESSEE DIVISION

    AND

    TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    PREPARED BY:

    PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF QUADE & DOUGLAS, INC.

    NASHVILLE, TN

  • Summary of Scoping Comments

    Table of Contents

    1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1-1

    2.0 NOTICE OF INTENT .................................................................................... 2-1

    3.0 INITIAL COORDINATION PACKAGES ....................................................... 3-1

    4.0 PUBLIC SCOPING WORKSHOPS ............................................................. 4-1

    4.1 NOTIFICATION .......................................................................................... 4-1

    4.2 WORKSHOPS ........................................................................................... 4-1

    4.2.1 June 13, 2006 12:00-2:00 pm ......................................................... 4-1

    4.2.2 June 13, 2006 6:00-8:00 pm ........................................................... 4-2

    4.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS ....................................................... 4-2

    4.3.1 Official Comments to Court Reporter .............................................. 4-2

    4.3.2 Official Comments in Writing .......................................................... 4-3

    4.3.2.1 Comment Forms ........................................................... 4-3 4.3.2.2 Letters and E-mails ....................................................... 4-5

    4.3.3 Informal Comments Provided at Workshops .................................. 4-6

    4.4 COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER JULY 5, 2006 ........................................ 4-7

    4.4.1 Official Comments in Writing .......................................................... 4-8

    4.4.1.1 Comment Forms ........................................................... 4-8 4.4.1.2 Letters and E-mails ....................................................... 4-9

    5.0 AGENCY COMMENTS ................................................................................ 5-1 5.1.1 Cooperating Agencies .................................................................... 5-1

    5.1.2 Participating Agencies .................................................................... 5-1

    5.1.3 Other Agencies or Organizations .................................................... 5-1

    5.1.4 Section 106 Consultation ................................................................ 5-2

    List of Tables

    Table 4.1 Summary of Comments .................................................................................... 4-2 Table 4.2 Transportation Needs ........................................................................................ 4-4 Table 4.3 Issues and Concerns ......................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4.4 Alternatives to Consider ................................................................................... 4-4 Table 4.5 Summary of Comments Received after July 5, 2006 ........................................ 4-7 Table 4.6 Transportation Needs ....................................................................................... 4-8 Table 4.7 Issues and Concerns ........................................................................................ 4-8 Table 4.8 Alternatives to Consider ................................................................................... 4-9

  • Summary of Scoping Comments

    Pellissippi Parkway Extension July 14, 2006 Page iii

    List of Figures

    Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map ......................................................................................... 1-1

  • Summary of Scoping Comments

    Pellissippi Parkway Extension Page 1-1

    1.0 INTRODUCTION

    The Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to identify and evaluate the environmental effects of alternatives for the proposed Pellissippi Parkway Extension (SR 162 from SR 33 to SR 73 /US 321 or Lamar Alexander Highway) in Blount County. The project vicinity is illustrated in Figure 1 below.

    This Scoping Summary Report describes the public and agency coordination conducted as part of the Scoping process in 2006 for the initiation of an EIS for the proposed improvements to Pellissippi Parkway Extension. Written comments received during the Scoping Period, including those received during the two Public Scoping Workshops held on June 13, 2006, are presented in this report. Copies of actual comments received and official comments provided to the court reporter at the workshops are included in appendices to this report. This report also includes correspondence by agencies in response to the Initial Coordination Package.

    Figure 1-1 Project Vicinity Map

  • Summary of Scoping Comments

    Pellissippi Parkway Extension Page 2-1

    2.0 NOTICE OF INTENT

    The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and TDOT prepared a Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an EIS that was published in the Federal Register on April 25, 2006. As required under NEPA, the publication of the NOI initiates the EIS process.

  • Summary of Scoping Comments

    Pellissippi Parkway Extension Page 3-1

    3.0 INITIAL COORDINATION PACKAGES

    Initial Coordination Packages were sent to affected and interested parties on May 10, 2006. The packages included a transmittal letter, a project summary and a project vicinity map. The project summary identifies preliminary purposes for the project, alternatives to be considered, current traffic counts on specified roadways and example of environmental concerns that will be considered over the course of the EIS.

    Six groups of agencies and organizations received initial coordination packages:

    1). Lead Federal Agency; 2). Cooperating Agencies; 3). Participating Agencies; 4). Non-Participating Agencies and Organizations; 5). Local Agencies and Organizations 6). Section 106 Consultation Parties

    As the lead federal agency for the EIS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) received the Complete Initial Coordination Package.

    Cooperating agencies are those governmental agencies specifically requested by the lead agency to participate during the environmental evaluation process. FHWA’s NEPA regulations (23 CFR 771.111(d)) require that those federal agencies with jurisdiction by law be invited to be cooperating agencies for an EIS. For this project, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) were requested through the initial coordination package to be cooperating and participating agencies.

    The 2005 federal transportation legislation, SAFETEA-LU (Section 6002) created a new category of agencies to participate in the environmental review process for EISs. These are federal and non-federal agencies that may have an interest in the project because of their jurisdictional authority, special expertise and/or statewide interest. These participating agencies are formally invited to participate in the environmental review of the project. In addition to TVA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, eight additional agencies/divisions received Initial Coordination Packages:

     U.S. Department of the Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;

     U.S. Department of the Interior – Great Smoky Mountains National Park;

     Environmental Protection Agency;

     Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation – Commissioner;

     Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation – Division of Water Pollution Control;

     Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency;

     Tennessee Historical Commission; and

     Natural Resources Conservation Service.

  • Summary of Scoping Comments

    Page 3-2 Pellissippi Parkway Extension

    Initial Coordination Packages were also sent to 42 Non-Participating and10 local agencies or organizations.

    The National Historic Preservation Act requires the federal agency or its designee (in this case TDOT) to identify the appropriate parties that need to be involved in the process of identifying effects of a proposed project to historic resources and working through the process with such parties. This “involvement” is referred to as “consultation.” As a part of the consultation requirements for Section 106, a separate initial coordination package was sent to six parties with interests in historical and archaeological issues. The following groups were invited to request status as Section 106 consulting parties:

     Cherokee Nation;

     Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians;

     Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma;

     Shawnee Tribe;

     United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians; and

     Blount County Mayor.

  • Summary of Scoping Comments

    Pellissippi Parkway Extension Page 4-1

    4.0 PUBLIC SCOPING