SAFETEA-LU SECTION 6002 COORDINATION PLAN

1

SAFETEA-LU SECTION 6002 2

COORDINATION PLAN 3

4

for 5

6

7

United States Highway (US) 181 at 8

Harbor Bridge 9

From Beach Avenue to Morgan Avenue 10

Nueces County, Texas 11

CSJ: 0101-06-095 12

13

Prepared by 14

Texas Department of Transportation 15

Corpus Christi District 16

17

and 18

19

U.S. Department of Transportation 20

Federal Highway Administration 21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

October 2014 30

31

SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan i US 181 Harbor Bridge, Nueces County

CSJ: 0101-06-095 October 2014

Table of Contents 1

2

1.0 Purpose of the Coordination Plan ............................................................................................. 1 3

2.0 Early Project History................................................................................................................. 2 4

3.0 Project Description and Scope .................................................................................................. 3 5

3.1 Alternatives ................................................................................................................................3 6

3.2 Methodology for Analyzing Alternatives ..................................................................................5 7

4.0 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 6 8

4.1 Need for the Proposed Project ...................................................................................................7 9

4.2 Purpose of the Project ................................................................................................................9 10

4.3 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................10 11

5.0 Agency Roles and Responsibilities ......................................................................................... 11 12

6.0 Project Coordination Points .................................................................................................... 19 13

7.0 Proposed Public Involvement Plan ......................................................................................... 19 14

8.0 Detailed Project History and Future Actions .......................................................................... 22 15

16

Tables 17

18

Table 1.0-1: Draft Coordination Plan Revision History ................................................................. ii 19

Table 5-1. Scoping Agencies List ............................................................................................. 13 20

Table 5-2. Agency and Public Review Cycles for the Draft and Final EIS .............................. 18 21

22

Appendix 23

24

EIS and Public Involvement Schedule 25

US 181 at Harbor Bridge Feasibility Study Corridors – Location Map 26

US 181 Harbor Bridge Location Map – Current Build Alternatives Under Consideration 27

Proposed Corpus Christi Ship Channel Improvements 28

29

SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan ii US 181 Harbor Bridge, Nueces County

CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

Table 1.0-1: Draft Coordination Plan Revision History

Version Date Description of Action

Draft Coordination Plan, Dec.

2010

January 5, 2011 Reviewed by TxDOT ENV Technical Experts

Draft Coordination Plan, March

2011

March 7, 2011 Revised and resubmitted

Draft Coordination Plan

April 2011

April 22, 2011 Revised and resubmitted


June 2011

June 22, 2011 1. Sections 8.0 and 9.0 were revised to be consistent with the revised project schedule that was

submitted to FHWA with the Letter of Initiation.

2. Table 5.0-1 Scoping Agencies list was updated.


October 2011

October 27 ,

2011

Revisions:

1. Section 4.0 Purpose & Need

2. Schedules in Sections 8.0 and 9.0


November 2011

November 24,

2011

Revisions:

1. Section 3.0 Project Description and Scope

2. Section 4.0 Purpose & Need 3. Schedules in Sections 8.0 and 9.0


December 2011

December 15,

2011

Revisions:

1. Section 3.2 – Methodology for Analyzing Alternatives


August 2012

August 13,

2012

Revisions:

1. General – Need and Purpose changed to Purpose and Need.

2. Purpose and Need has been revised to reflect that there are now two needs and two objectives

instead of five needs.


May 2013

May 6, 2013 Revisions:

1. HUD added as cooperating and participating agency


June 2013

June 21, 2013 Revisions:

1. Section 5 – Additional information on agency coordination.

2. Section 5 – New table of public and agency review times.

3. Section 8 – Revised and additional schedule information starting with item #47

4. Section 8 – Added Project Milestone Chart

SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan iii US 181 Harbor Bridge, Nueces County

CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

Final Coordination Plan

October 2014

October 20,

2014

Revisions:

1. Section 8 – Revised description of scheduled activities to match final project schedule

2. Appendix – Updated project schedule and removed reference to letters sent to and received

from Cooperating and Participating Agencies since this material is located in Appendix B of

the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 1 US 181 Harbor Bridge, Nueces County

CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

1.0 Purpose of the Coordination Plan 1

2

To provide for more efficient environmental reviews for project decision making, Section 6002 3

of Public Law 109-59, “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 4

Legacy for Users,” (SAFETEA-LU), enacted on August 10, 2005, implemented the development 5

of a Coordination Plan for all projects for which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is 6

prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. The Federal Highway 7

Administration (FHWA), as lead Federal agency, and the Texas Department of Transportation 8

(TxDOT), as joint lead agency, have prepared this Coordination Plan to accompany the EIS that 9

has been developed for the proposed improvements to United States Highway (US) 181 at the 10

Harbor Bridge over the Corpus Christi Ship Channel from Beach Avenue to Morgan Avenue on 11

State Highway (SH) 286 in the City of Corpus Christi, Nueces County (referred to in this 12

document as the Harbor Bridge Project). 13

14

The purpose of the SAFETEA-LU 6002 Coordination Plan is to facilitate and document the lead 15

agencies’ structured interaction with the public and agencies, and to inform the public and 16

agencies of how the Coordination Plan will be coordinated and revised. The Coordination Plan 17

is meant to promote an efficient and streamlined process, and good project management through 18

coordination, scheduling, and early resolution of issues as well as to encourage public and 19

agency participation in and comment on the environmental review process for the Harbor Bridge 20

Project. This Coordination Plan was updated following each step of the NEPA process to 21

describe the development of the EIS and public involvement processes. The key steps are the 22

following: 23

24

Scoping meetings; 25

Public meetings; 26

Approval of the draft EIS; 27

Public hearing; 28

Approval of the final EIS; and 29

Record of Decision (ROD). 30 31 With this Coordination Plan, FHWA and TxDOT will: 32

33

Identify planned early coordination efforts; 34

Identify cooperating and participating agencies to be involved in agency coordination; 35

Establish the timing and approach for agency involvement in defining the project’s 36

purpose and need, study area, the range of proposed alternatives to be investigated, and 37

methodologies, as well as in reviewing the EIS drafts, and the selection of the preferred 38

alternative and mitigation strategies; 39

Describe the communication methods that will be implemented to inform the community 40

about the project; and 41

Solicit comments from the public and from participating or cooperating agencies 42

regarding the purpose and need for the proposed project, project alternatives, methods to 43

be used in evaluating the alternatives, and the level of detail required in the analysis of 44

each alternative. 45


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

2.0 Early Project History 1

2

The following is a brief chronology of events in the life of the Harbor Bridge Project. 3

4

2001: The Harbor Bridge Project started when TxDOT developed a Feasibility Study to look at 5

ways to improve US 181 at the existing Bridge. The study was conducted in accordance with the 6

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). TEA21 specifically designated funds 7

for the study. A more detailed discussion of the project history is provided in Section 8.0 – 8

Detailed Project History and Future Actions. 9

10

2003: The TxDOT Corpus Christi District Office completed the Feasibility Study for this 11

project, in which it analyzed four corridors (i.e., the Red, Orange, Green, and Blue Corridor 12

alternatives). A map showing the four corridors analyzed during the Feasibility Study is in the 13

Appendix to this plan. 14

15

2004: TxDOT initiated an engineering and environmental study that would result in the 16

completion of an EIS and public involvement process. 17

18

2005: The first Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register in May 2005, for 19

the proposed improvements to US 181 at Harbor Bridge. In that NOI, the Harbor Bridge Project 20

was described as involving the replacement of the existing Harbor Bridge and approaches where 21

US 181 crosses the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. 22

23

2006: TxDOT District determined that managed lanes should be considered as part of the 24

Harbor Bridge Project as a funding option. This decision was based on directions from the 25

Texas Transportation Commission and Administration that directed districts to include a toll 26

component on "new location" projects as a form of financing the construction and operation of 27

the facility. In this case, managed lanes were envisioned as one tolled lane in each direction 28

where access would be controlled by tolls established based on traffic volumes. As part of this 29

change, FHWA determined that the project and study limits should be extended to accommodate 30

the additional capacity required if the project were to include managed lanes or various tolling 31

strategies. 32

33

2007: A second NOI was published in the Federal Register in March 2007. That NOI showed 34

the project and study limits as follows: 35

36

“The new project limits are as follows: the northern limit is the US 181 and Beach 37

Avenue interchange located north of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel but south of the 38

Nueces Bay Causeway; the southern limit is the SH 286 and SH 358 (South Padre Island 39

Drive) interchange; the eastern limit is the Interstate Highway (I) 37/US 181 intersection 40

with Shoreline Boulevard; and the western limit is the I-37 and Nueces Bay Boulevard 41

interchange…The new study limits are as follows: the northern limit is the US 181 and 42

SH 35 interchange just south of Gregory; the southern limit is the SH 286 and SH 358 43

(South Padre Island Drive) interchange; the eastern limit is Shoreline Boulevard; and the 44

western limit is the I-37 and SH 358 (North Padre Island Drive) interchange.” 45

46


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

According to the 2007 NOI, the project limits are defined as the limits of the schematic design 1

effort, and the study limits are defined as the limits of potential impacts from the proposed 2

project alternatives. 3

4

Work continued on the US 181 Harbor Bridge Project through 2007, but was temporarily put on 5

hold until September of 2009 due to funding constraints at TxDOT. 6

7

2009: TxDOT Administration determined that the improvements discussed in the 2007 NOI 8

would no longer include the added capacity or managed lanes on US 181 and SH 286 as part of 9

the proposed action. The revised project and study limits were therefore reduced to closely 10

correspond to the original project limits as described in the NOI published in 2005: 11

12

Northern limit – US 181 and Beach Avenue, north of the Corpus Christi Ship Channel 13

but south of the Nueces Bay Causeway 14

Southern limit – SH 286 between Morgan Avenue and Baldwin Boulevard 15

Eastern limit – I-37 and Shoreline Boulevard in the Corpus Christi central business 16

district (CBD) 17

Western limit – I-37 and Nueces Bay Boulevard. 18

19

This Coordination Plan addresses agency coordination required during preparation of the EIS 20

that will be developed for proposed improvements to US 181 at Harbor Bridge and the roadway 21

approaches to the bridge from Beach Avenue north of the ship channel to SH 286 at Morgan 22

Avenue. 23

3.0 Project Description and Scope 24

25

FHWA and TxDOT propose to improve US 181 at the existing Harbor Bridge in the City of 26

Corpus Christi, Nueces County. The current six-lane bridge structure without shoulders would be 27

replaced with a divided six-lane structure (three lanes in each direction) with inside and outside 28

shoulders that provide improved safety features and efficiency. In addition, there will be a 29

pedestrian shared use path separated from the travel lanes on the east side of the bridge. As this 30

project proposes the replacement of the existing Harbor Bridge, the project logical termini and 31

limits of independent utility are from US 181 at Beach Avenue to SH 286 at Morgan Avenue. 32

The proposed project length is approximately 3.0 to 4.8 miles depending on the proposed 33

alternative. To meet the draft purpose and need for the project, as discussed below in Section 34

4.0 – Draft Purpose and Need, the current build alternatives for the project include replacing 35

the existing Harbor Bridge. In 2011, the Texas Transportation Commission passed a Minute 36

Order that authorized the preparation of the EIS and schematic development for the project. 37

3.1 Alternatives 38

The EIS prepared for this project by considering several build alternatives, described below, 39

intended to satisfy the identified purpose and need. The alternatives include the No-build 40

alternative, Transportation System Management/Transportation Demand Management, mass 41

transit, and roadway build alternatives. The build alternatives include a divided arterial that 42

would replace the existing Harbor Bridge with a new non-steel structure. This structure would 43

have a vertical clearance over the Corpus Christi Ship Channel that is substantially higher than 44


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

the existing structure, which is 138 feet above the ship channel. The current build alternatives to 1

be considered between approximately Beach Avenue north of the ship channel and Morgan 2

Avenue on SH 286 are shown on the Location Map in the Appendix. Four build alternatives 3

were presented to the public as well as the cooperating and participating agencies during the 4

formal scoping process. 5

6

The following descriptions of the original build alternatives were developed during the previous 7

work as explained above in Section 2.0 – Project History. 8

9

1) The Red alignment begins at the interchange between US 181 and Beach Avenue 10

north of the ship channel, then veers west of US 181 just north of Burleson Street and 11

crosses the ship channel about 1500 feet west of existing US 181, then extends through 12

TC Ayers Park, where it crosses I-37, and follows SH 286 to Morgan Avenue. 13

14

2) The Orange alignment begins at the interchange between US 181 and Beach Avenue 15

north of the ship channel, then veers west of US 181 at Burleson Street and crosses the 16

ship channel immediately west of existing US 181, veers west, and then extends through 17

TC Ayers Park where it crosses I-37 and follows SH 286 to Morgan Avenue. 18

19

3) The Green alignment generally begins at Beach Avenue on US 181 and follows the 20

existing alignment of US 181 south to Burleson Street, then veers immediately to the 21

west of the existing Harbor Bridge, and then crosses the ship channel, continuing on the 22

west side of existing US 181 to I-37 and following the existing alignment of I-37 to North 23

Staples Street. 24

25

4) The Blue alignment begins at Beach Avenue on the north and generally follows the 26

existing alignment of US 181 to Burleson Street and veers east to Corpus Christi Bay just 27

north of the USS Lexington and continues across the bay and the ship channel, turning 28

west and crossing Shoreline Drive at Spur 544, and then following the existing alignment 29

to I-37 at US 181 and following I-37 west to approximately North Staples Street. 30

31 The Red and Orange alternatives would include improvements to I-37 between Shoreline Drive 32

and Nueces Bay Boulevard as well as a new interchange with US 181 at the existing interchange 33

of I-37 and SH 286. The Green and Blue alignments would include improvements to Spur 544 34

and I-37 between Shoreline Drive and North Staples Street. 35

36

Additional Alternatives Identified During Scoping 37 38

As discussed in Section 7.0, Public Involvement, a scoping meeting was held for the project on 39

August 9, 2011 and a second scoping meeting was held on October 27, 2011. Comments 40

received at and following the first scoping meeting from agencies and the public identified two 41

additional build alternatives that are now being considered as project alternatives. The two 42

additional alternatives are shown on the location map in the Appendix and, as described below, 43

are named the West Alternative and the Tunnel Alternative. 44

45


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

•

The West Alternative was suggested by a member of the public at the Scoping Meeting held on 1

August 9, 2011. The alternative would begin on US 181 at Beach Avenue, near Sunset Lake, 2

and veer west of the existing US 181 across Nueces Bay, continuing south across the Port of 3

Corpus Christi dredge spoil storage area. The alternative would then continue south across the 4

Corpus Christi Ship Channel and then generally follow Nueces Bay Boulevard south to I-37. 5

6

The Tunnel Alternative was suggested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and two 7

citizens following the Public Scoping Meeting on August 9, 2011. The tunnel generally follows 8

the existing alignment of US 181 with a slight offset to the west. 9

3.2 Methodology for Analyzing Alternatives 10

Agency Analysis 11

12 Section 5.0 - Agency Roles and Responsibilities of this document lists the Federal and State 13

agencies that were asked to be cooperating or participating agencies in the project and that 14

agreed to do so unless they requested in writing that they did not want to participate because 15

their agency: 16

17

Has no jurisdiction or authority over the project; 18

Has no information or expertise relevant to the project; and 19

Does not intend to submit comments on the project. 20

21

During the environmental process, under NEPA, it is assumed that each agency will analyze the 22

project alternatives’ potential impacts under the regulatory requirements and guidelines 23

established by the laws, rules, or regulations shown in Section 5.0 – Agency Roles and 24

Responsibilities for each respective agency unless they request otherwise during the scoping 25

process. TxDOT will also follow these laws, rules, and regulations for each participating agency 26

so that coordination or consultation occurs at the appropriate time to allow for consideration of 27

each agency’s concerns before a final decision has been made on an alternative. 28

29

NEPA Analysis 30

31 TxDOT proposed a methodology involving two screening criteria to establish the range of 32

proposed alternatives. An alternative would be carried forward as a reasonable alternative for 33

detailed evaluation in the Draft EIS if: 1) the alternative meets the purpose and need for the 34

project; and 2) the alternative is to be used to perform the Section 4(f) analyses using the feasible 35

and prudent standards for avoidance alternatives established under 23 CFR 774. 36

37

To determine whether an alternative meets the purpose and need of the project, TxDOT applied 38

the (FHWA-approved) Measures of Effectiveness (See Section 4.3 Measures of Effectiveness), 39

established through collaboration with participating agencies and the public, and documented in 40

this Coordination Plan. 41

42

The analysis of alternatives included in the Section 4(f) evaluation was thorough, reflects 43

consideration of proposed alternatives, and includes all possible planning to minimize harm to 44

Section 4(f) properties. In the Section 4(f) evaluation, TxDOT analyzes whether there exists a 45


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

feasible and prudent total avoidance alternative that includes reasonable mitigation measures. To 1

be feasible and prudent, an avoidance alternative would need to meet the project purpose and 2

need. Other factors in defining "feasible and prudent" will be used as stated in 23 CFR 774.17. 3 4

Alternatives that are found to not meet project purpose and need, or that would not meet other 5

factors in the feasible and prudent standard, were eliminated from further consideration in the 6

Draft EIS and Section 4(f) evaluation. The rationale for elimination of an alternative was 7

documented. TxDOT conducted an environmental constraints analysis and preliminary review of 8

the environmental effects with an emphasis on avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of 9

potential adverse effects. After FHWA agreed with TxDOT's recommendation of alternatives to 10

be dismissed from further consideration and approved the environmental constraints analysis and 11

preliminary review of environmental effects, a brief explanation for the elimination of 12

alternatives from further consideration (including a reference to the stand-alone constraints 13

analysis and preliminary review of environmental effects) was presented in the Draft EIS. 14

15

When no feasible and prudent avoidance alternative exists, FHWA may only select the 16

alternative that results in the least harm to Section 4(f) properties, balancing the factors identified 17

in 23 CPR 774.3(c) (l) and including all possible planning to minimize harm to Section 4(f) 18

properties. Under this scenario, the alternatives analyses in the Draft EIS and Section 4(f) 19

evaluation would focus on the least harm posed by various alternatives that meet purpose and 20

need, and are feasible and prudent, but would affect the Section 4(f) property(ies) to one extent 21

or another. 22

23

Results of the Alternative Screening 24

25 TxDOT completed an alternative screening process where each of the six build alternatives was 26

screened against the purpose and need for the project (see Section 4.0 below). The results of the 27

screening process were documented in a Technical Memorandum that was revised by FHWA, 28

who concurred with the findings. The Technical Memorandum is available for review at the 29

TxDOT District Office in Corpus Christi. 30

31

The alternative screening process resulted in the Red, Orange, Green, and West Alternatives 32

being selected for further analysis in the Draft EIS. The Blue and Tunnel Alternatives were 33

eliminated from further consideration because they did not meet the Purpose and Need for the 34

project. 35

4.0 Purpose and Need 36

37

The Harbor Bridge is located on US 181 approximately one-half mile north of the US 181 and I-38

37 interchange in Corpus Christi, Texas. US 181, a six-lane divided highway, is the only 39

continuous state/federal highway facility that provides a direct connection between the Corpus 40

Christi Central Business District (CBD) and the communities of Portland, Gregory, Ingleside, 41

and Aransas Pass to the north. The facility is designated as part of the National Highway System 42

(NHS) by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Harbor Bridge was designed and 43

built in the 1950s, and opened for operation in 1959. It opened as a six-lane facility with no or 44

minimal shoulders and the current bridge carries three lanes of traffic in each direction without 45


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

shoulders. The Harbor Bridge has 138 feet of vertical clearance over the Corpus Christi Ship 1

Channel and is 5,819 feet long. 2

3

I-37, US 181, and SH 286 (Crosstown Expressway) are the major highways that serve the project 4

area. The proposed project limits extend both north-south along US 181 and SH 286, and east-5

west along I-37 and include: US 181 at Beach Avenue on the north; SH 286 at Morgan Avenue 6

on the south; I-37 and Buddy Lawrence Drive on the west; and I-37 and Shoreline Boulevard on 7

the east. 8

9

The US 181 Harbor Bridge project is listed in the Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning 10

Organization’s (MPO’s) Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) 2010-2035 (the long-range 11

transportation plan) as construction of a new bridge over the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. The 12

proposed project is expected to be completed within the planning timeframe of the MTP but is 13

beyond the 2011-2014 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program – Transportation 14

Improvement Program (STIP-TIP) planning period, and is not in the fiscally-constrained portion 15

of the MTP. The proposed project is included in Appendix D to the 2011-2014 STIP-TIP which 16

identifies projects undergoing preliminary engineering and environmental analysis. The 2013-17

2016 STIP has been approved, but does not include the Harbor Bridge project. However, the 18

project is listed in the 2013 Unified Transportation Program under Category 6: On-System 19

Structures Replacement and Rehabilitation; $291 million has been authorized for this project. 20

The estimated construction cost for the proposed project ranges from $600 to $800 million. An 21

estimated date of completion is 2020. 22

23

4.1 Need for the Proposed Project 24

The following underlying problems have been identified with the Harbor Bridge and US 181 in 25

the project area: 1) maintaining the long-term operation of a US 181 crossing of the Corpus 26

Christi Ship Channel; and 2) safety risks caused by design deficiencies. 27

28

Maintaining the Long-Term Operation of a US 181 crossing of the Corpus Christi Ship 29

Channel 30 The Harbor Bridge is a fracture-critical structure, meaning the key structural elements supporting 31

the bridge are not themselves supported by additional and redundant elements. This means that 32

if a key support fails, the bridge would be in danger of collapse. This does not mean the bridge is 33

inherently unsafe, only that there is not a second line of protection designed into the bridge. 34

35

Today the structure carries higher dead loads (the weight of the bridge itself) and live loads (the 36

weight of vehicular traffic, wind, water, and other factors) than the loads for which it was 37

originally designed in 1959. Over the life of a bridge structure, these excess loadings fatigue the 38

bridge members and, in turn, shorten the life span of the structure. The joints and connection 39

members will continue to deteriorate beyond repair and will ultimately have to be replaced, even 40

if continued maintenance efforts are performed (TxDOT 2012). 41

42

In addition, corrosion is a major factor to overcome in maintaining the structural integrity of the 43

Harbor Bridge. The steel bridge resides in a saltwater environment, requiring routine cleaning 44

and painting to minimize corrosion. The combination of salt-laden air, year-round windy 45


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

conditions, and warm air temperatures increases the potential for steel corrosion to occur 1

(TxDOT 2012). 2

3

The bridge has had four structural assessments within the last five years: Fracture-critical 4

Inspection (September 2007) and Bridge Condition Survey (December 2008). The fracture-5

critical inspection and condition survey did not include the pre-stressed girder or plate-girder 6

approach spans. During the 2007 fracture-critical inspection, widespread locations of rust were 7

noted between adjacent steel plates and material loss due to steel corrosion was noted in 8

members. The rust concealed and masked some areas from visual inspection. Notable findings 9

from these assessments include: broken or missing anchor bolts; gusset plates (metal plates used 10

to connect multiple structural members of a truss) in poor condition; and severe cracking of pre-11

stressed concrete beam ends (TxDOT 2012). Another fracture-critical inspection and a bridge 12

condition survey were both completed in September 2012. 13

14

The structural rehabilitation necessary to extend the service life of the existing Harbor Bridge 15

another 15 to 20 years began in 2010 and was completed in 2012. Over the past 30 years, 16

maintenance costs have exceeded $70 million, and an estimated $47 million (inflation-adjusted 17

dollars) of additional structural repairs are required if the Harbor Bridge is to remain in 18

continued vehicular service until 2050 (TxDOT 2012). Even with repairs of this magnitude, the 19

bridge will remain a fracture-critical structure over water. 20 21

Safety Risks Caused by Design Deficiencies 22

23 The current US 181 facility, including the Harbor Bridge, does not meet current FHWA and 24

TxDOT roadway and bridge design standards. FHWA’s Design Standards for Highways (23 25

CFR 625) and TxDOT’s Roadway Design Manual and Bridge Design Manual provide guidelines 26

for various elements of roadway and bridge design, including traffic characteristics; shoulder 27

widths; horizontal and vertical alignment; and on- and off-ramp access. Several elements of the 28

current US 181 facility do not meet these standards, as detailed below. 29

30

1) The existing Harbor Bridge and US 181 approaches do not have shoulders, contributing to 31

increased levels of congestion when even minor traffic accidents and breakdowns occur. The 32

lack of shoulders also means that the clearance between the travel lanes and the railing on the 33

existing bridge does not meet current standards (TxDOT Roadway Design Manual Figure 3-15). 34

35

2) The existing US 181 approaches to the Harbor Bridge are on a 5% vertical grade that, when 36

combined with the horizontal curvature on both the north and south ends of the existing bridge, 37

creates a situation where vehicles can be travelling at downhill speeds entering into sharp “S” 38

curves at speeds faster than posted speeds. The design standard for the US 181 facility within the 39

project limits is a maximum 4% grade (TxDOT Roadway Design Manual Table 3-15). 40

41

3) Certain ramp lengths within the project limits do not provide sufficient acceleration or 42

deceleration distances to meet current design standards for freeway ramps (TxDOT Roadway 43

Design Manual Figure 3-36). The US 181 northbound entrance ramp from Spur 544/Mesquite 44

Street in Downtown Corpus Christi does not provide the acceleration distance prescribed under 45

current design standards for traffic to merge as desired with traffic from the adjacent Antelope 46


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

Street entrance ramp and the US 181 northbound main lanes. This ramp provides vehicles with 1

an acceleration distance of 400 feet, whereas the design standard for acceleration distance for 2

this type of ramp is 550 feet. The US 181 southbound exit ramp to the Port Area (Power Street) 3

has a deceleration distance of 350 feet, which, when combined with this ramp’s horizontal 4

curvature and the steep vertical grade coming down off of the Harbor Bridge, makes it difficult 5

for vehicles, particularly large trucks, to decelerate as desired under current standards before 6

merging with local traffic on the service road. The standard deceleration distance for this type of 7

ramp is 455 feet. The US 181 southbound exit ramp to downtown Corpus Christi does not 8

provide sufficient distance for motorists to decelerate as desired under current standards before 9

reaching the traffic-lighted intersection at Spur 544. This ramp provides vehicles with a 10

deceleration distance of 500 feet, whereas the design standard for deceleration distance for this 11

type of ramp is 800 feet. 12

13

4) The current configuration of US 181 southbound just south of the Harbor Bridge does not 14

meet current design standards for exit ramp spacing (TxDOT Roadway Design Manual Figure 3-15

37). Approaching downtown Corpus Christi from the north, motorists are presented with a 16

choice of three separate destinations via US 181 (downtown Corpus Christi, I-37/SH 286, and 17

Staples Street) from the same point on the highway. The spacing between these three exit ramps 18

does not comply with current design criteria, which call for a minimum of 1,000 feet between 19

successive exit ramps. In addition the ramp to downtown Corpus Christi is an undesirable left-20

hand exit, which the TxDOT Roadway Design Manual describes as a “[violation] of driver 21

expectancy” that “may adversely affect operation and safety characteristics.” 22

23

Both US 181, including the Harbor Bridge, and I-37 within the project area are designated major 24

hurricane evacuation routes (TxDOT 2011). US 181 is the primary evacuation route for San 25

Patricio County and an alternate route to I-37 for the city of Corpus Christi. During a storm 26

event, I-37 is used for evacuation until the traffic volumes reach the maximum highway capacity, 27

which includes the use of the shoulder evacuation lane and contraflow lanes (reversing the south 28

bound lanes). Once the traffic volume on I-37 reaches capacity, traffic is directed to US 181. 29

Therefore, a major evacuation would use both the Harbor Bridge and the Joe Fulton Trade 30

Corridor (Navigation Boulevard, Market Street, and Causeway Boulevard) running from US 181 31

along the north side of the inner harbor to Carbon Plant Road, which connects to I-37. Given 32

the design deficiencies outlined above, US 181 carries with it the increased risk of becoming 33

unnecessarily congested during an emergency hurricane evacuation. 34

4.2 Purpose of the Project 35

The purpose of the proposed project is to: 36 37

1) Maximize the long-term highway operability of the US 181 crossing of the Corpus 38

Christi Ship Channel; and 39

2) Correct design deficiencies, bringing US 181, including the Harbor Bridge, into 40

compliance with current design standards to improve safety for the travelling public, 41

including during hurricane evacuations. 42


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

4.3 Project Objectives 1

In addition to the primary purpose outlined above, TxDOT and FHWA seek to achieve the 2

following objectives, to some degree, in implementing the proposed action: 3

4

1) Provide the transportation infrastructure to expand the economic opportunities in the area; and 5

6

2) Consider the connectivity of US 181 to the local roadway system and its effect on adjacent 7

neighborhoods. 8

9

These objectives are important in the overall context of the proposed project in that they address 10

additional underlying problems, described below, associated with the Harbor Bridge and US 181 11

in the project area. 12

13

Provide the transportation infrastructure to expand economic opportunities in the area 14 15

The Corpus Christi MPO identifies the replacement of deficient bridges as a type of project 16

intended to achieve the goals of its long-range Metropolitan Transportation Plan. Specifically, 17

the MPO lists the following goals of the streets and highways plan (Corpus Christi MPO 2011): 18 19

1. Reduce congestion by maximizing the capacity and efficiency of the existing major 20

highways and streets. 21

2. Improve the safety of our transportation network through improved efficiency and 22

effectiveness of major street and highway facilities. 23

3. Provide new facilities, improved facilities, and transportation services that expand the 24

economic opportunities in the area. 25

4. Provide new facilities, improved facilities, and transportation services that will support 26

the maintenance of our attainment status and improve air quality. 27

5. Provide new facilities, improved facilities and transportation services that will increase 28

the value of transportation assets. 29 30

The MTP lists the replacement of the Harbor Bridge—prioritized partly on the basis of its use as 31

a hurricane evacuation route—as one of the projects whose implementation would be expected to 32

achieve the above goals. In addition, the MTP describes US 181 as a critical connection for the 33

region’s efficient movement of freight and emergency evacuation. 34

35

With respect to regional connectivity, the MPO considers US 181 a priority corridor in the future 36

expansion of I-69 to connect directly to the Port of Corpus Christi. The Port of Corpus Christi is 37

the fifth largest port in the United States in total tonnage and the primary economic engine for 38

the Coastal Bend. The Port’s mission is “to serve as a regional economic development catalyst 39

while enhancing and protecting its existing industrial base and simultaneously working to 40

diversify its international maritime cargo business.” In a 2003 Economic Impact Study 41

conducted on the Port’s behalf, data were presented showing that Port activities that year were 42

responsible for 39,905 jobs in Texas and about $2.2 billion of personal income (Martin 43

Associates 2004). 44 45


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

Consider the connectivity of US 181 to the local roadway system and its effect on adjacent 1

neighborhoods. 2 3

The combination of US 181 and I-37, constructed in the late 1950s to early 1960s, modified the 4

local roadway network such that access to uptown and downtown Corpus Christi, particularly 5

from the residential areas north of I-37, was made more lengthy and less direct. Locally this has 6

had the effect of creating a barrier between those neighborhoods and the Corpus Christi CBD. In 7

addition, access to the City’s museum district (including Bayfront Science Park) on the east side 8

of US 181 as well as major traffic generators on the west side (Whataburger Field professional 9

baseball stadium, the Concrete Street Amphitheater, and the Congressman Solomon P. Ortiz 10

International Center) is not direct and results in congestion on US 181 and local downtown 11

roadways during major events. 12 13

5.0 Agency Roles and Responsibilities 14

15

SAFETEA-LU requires identification of lead, cooperating, and participating agencies in the 16

development of an EIS. The lead Federal agency (FHWA) and the joint lead agency (TxDOT) 17

must identify and involve participating agencies; develop the Coordination Plan; provide 18

opportunities for public and participating agency involvement in defining the purpose and need 19

and determining the range of alternatives; and collaborate with participating agencies in 20

determining methodologies and the level of detail for the analysis of alternatives. In addition, 21

lead agencies must provide oversight in managing the environmental documentation process and 22

resolving issues. 23

24

Federal Lead Agency: FHWA is the U.S. Department of Transportation agency responsible for 25

NEPA analysis, management of the SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 process, and independent 26

review of the EIS. FHWA will ensure that the project sponsor (TxDOT) complies with all 27

design and mitigation commitments in the ROD and that the EIS is appropriately supplemented 28

if changes in the project become necessary. 29

30

Joint Lead Agency: TxDOT, as project sponsor and direct recipient of SAFETEA-LU funds, is 31

the joint lead agency. The “project sponsor” is defined as the agency or other entity, including 32

any private or public-private entity, that seeks approval of the U.S. Department of Transportation 33

for a highway project. The responsibilities of the joint lead agency mirror those of the Federal 34

lead agency. 35

36

Cooperating Agencies: Certain Federal agencies having jurisdiction by law or special expertise 37

with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposed project or project alternative 38

are designated as cooperating agencies. Cooperating agencies are also “participating agencies” 39

(agencies with an interest in the project), but have a higher degree of authority, responsibility, 40

and involvement in the environmental review process than do participating agencies that are not 41

also cooperating agencies. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, for example, is specifically 42

responsible for the issuance of permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 43

44


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

Participating Agencies: All Federal, state, tribal, regional, or local governmental agencies that 1

may have an interest in the project were invited to serve as participating agencies. The roles and 2

responsibilities of these agencies include, but are not limited to: 3

4

Participating in the NEPA process starting at the earliest possible time, especially with 5

regard to the development of the Purpose and Need statement, range of alternatives, 6

methodologies, and the level of detail for the analysis of alternatives. 7

Identifying, as early as practicable, any issues of concern regarding the project’s potential 8

environmental or socioeconomic impacts. Participating Agencies also may participate in 9

the issue resolution process. 10

Providing meaningful and timely input on unresolved issues. 11

Participating in the scoping process. The scoping process should be designed so that 12

agencies whose interest in the project comes to light as a result of initial scoping 13

activities are invited to participate and still have an opportunity for involvement. 14

Reviewing the individual chapters of the Draft EIS. Cooperating Agencies will be 15

provided an advance courtesy copy of Chapters 1-3 as they are available. 16

Reviewing the Draft EIS. Cooperating Agencies will be asked to review the Draft EIS for 17

30 days in the Fall of 2013 during the same time period that the document is being 18

reviewed by TxDOT and FHWA (including the legal review). Additional 45-day public 19

and agency review will take place after the Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS 20

is published at the beginning of 2014 and extending through the Public Hearing in 21

February 2014. 22

Reviewing the Draft and Final EIS. Participating Agencies will review the Draft and 23

Final EIS during the public and agency comment periods. 24

Meeting with TxDOT. The Cooperating and Participating Agencies will meet on an as-25

needed basis with TxDOT throughout the EIS development process. 26

27

The list of cooperating and participating agencies is provided in Table 5-1. A summary of 28

agency and public review times is listed in Table 5-2. 29


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

Table 5-1. Scoping Agencies List 1

Agency Name Contact Person/

Title Address Role Document Review Periods Responsibilities

Federal Agencies

U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE)

Col. Christopher W.

Sallese, District

Engineer and

Commanding Officer

Attention: Dwayne

Johnson

Galveston District,

P.O. Box 1229

Galveston, TX

77553-1229

Participating Agency

Agreed to provide comments

within the requested times

set by SAFETEA-LU. Stated

that their permit process has

its own time periods.

Section 404 Clean Water Act

permit jurisdiction

Section 10 of the Rivers and

Harbors Act – Bridge permit

jurisdiction

U.S. Coast Guard

(USCG)

David Frank,

Commander DPB,

Eighth CG District

Bridge Section,

500 Poydras Street

New Orleans, LA

70130-3310

Cooperating Agency;


Agreed to provide comments

within 30 days when possible

but both District and HQ

must review permits.

General Bridge Act of 1946

U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Natural

Resources

Conservation

Service

(NRCS)

Salvador Salinas,

State Conservationist

101 South Main

Temple, TX 76501 Participating Agency

NRCS will not require

permits, easements, or

approvals for this project

according to their letter dated

August 2, 2011.

Analysis of project effects on

prime farmland, under

Farmland Protection Policy

Act

U.S. Department of

Housing and Urban

Development (HUD)

Barbara Britton

Regional

Environmental

Officer

Fort Worth Regional

Office

801 Cherry Street,

Unit 45

Fort Worth, TX

76102

Cooperating Agency;


Agreed to be a

cooperating/participating

agency by letter dated

October 12, 2012; did not

comment on review periods.

Review and comment on

possible impacts on HUD-

assisted public housing and

HUD-insured multifamily

housing facilities located in

the project area.

U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency

(EPA)

Dr. Alfredo

Armendariz, Regional

Administrator, Region

6

Attention: John

MacFarlane

1445 Ross Avenue

Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-

2733

Cooperating Agency;


Agreed to be a cooperating

agency by letter dated Aug.9,

2011 but did not comment on

review periods.


possible effects to air quality,

under Section 309 of Clean

Air Act; water quality, under

Section 404 of the Clean

Water Act; wetlands; and

environmental justice


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

Table 5-1. Scoping Agencies List (Continued)



U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service

(USFWS)

Allan Strand,

Supervisor, Corpus

Christi Ecological

Services Office

Attention: Pat

Clements

C/O TAMU-Corpus

Christi

6300 Ocean Drive, #

5837

Corpus Christi, TX

78412-5837


Agreed to 30 day and 60 day

review periods but may

request and extension of 30-

day review period.

Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act permit

jurisdiction for land-based

species

National Marine

Fisheries Service

(NMFS)

Russell Swafford,

NMFS, Southeast

Regional Office

Attention: Heather

Young

Habitat Conservation

4700 Avenue U

Galveston, TX

77551


Agreed to participate in the

project and to 30-day and 60-

day review periods.


possible effect to marine

fisheries in compliance with

the Magnuson-Stevens

Fishery Conservation and

Management

Reauthorization Act of 2006

National Marine

Fisheries Service

(NMFS)

David Bernhart -

Assistant Regional

Administrator,

Protected Resources

Division

263 13th Avenue

South

St. Petersburg, FL

33701

Participating Agency No response received

Section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act permit

jurisdiction for marine-based

species

US Department of

the Interior, National

Parks Service (NPS)

Roger Knowlton,

Outdoor Recreation

Planner

Midwest Region

Partnerships/Grants

601 Riverfront Drive

Omaha, NE 68102

Participating Agency Agreed to be a Participating

Agency

Review and comment on the

effects to parks protected

under Section 1010 of the

Urban Parks and Recreation

Recovery Act of 1978

State Agencies

State Historic

Preservation Officer

(SHPO)

Mark Wolfe,

Executive Director,

Texas Historical

Commission

Attention: Linda

Henderson

P.O. Box 12276

Austin, TX 78711-

2276


Agency.

Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act;

Section 4(f) of the

Department of

Transportation Act of 1966

(49 USC 303)


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013




Texas Coastal

Advisory Committee

Ms. Helen Young,

Deputy

Commissioner,

Coastal Resources

Attention: Amy

Nunez

Texas General Land

Office

P.O. Box 12873

Austin, TX 78711-

2873

Participating Agency Agreed to participate in

project reviews.

Review and comment related

to coastal resource impacts

related to the proposed

project and compliance with

the Coastal Management

Plan.

Texas General Land

Office

Hal Croft,

Asset Management

Deputy

Commissioner

Attention: Amy

Nunez

P.O. Box 12873

Austin, TX 78711-

2873

Participating Agency Agreed to participate in

project reviews.

Review project effects under

Memorandum of

Understanding and

Memorandum of Agreement

between TxDOT and GLO

Texas Commission

on Environmental

Quality (TCEQ)

Zak Covar,

Executive Director

P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-

3087


TCEQ stated that they will

be a Participating Agency

and provide timely review

comments.

Review project impacts to

hazardous material sites, and

compliance with the Texas

Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System

(TPDES). Designated state

representative for EPA.

Texas Parks and

Wildlife Department

(TPWD)

Carter Smith,

Executive Director

4200 Smith School

Road

Austin, TX 78744


Reviews would follow the

TxDOT-TPWD

Memorandum of

Understanding.

Review project effects under

Memorandum of

Understanding and

Memorandum of Agreement

between TxDOT and TPWD

Local Agencies

City of Corpus

Christi

Ron Olsen, City

Manager

1201 Leopard Street

Corpus Christi, TX

78401


Agreed to be a Participating

Agency and to 30-day and

60-day review periods.

Identification and resolution

of project effects to areas

within the city limits and

area of extraterritorial

jurisdiction


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013




Nueces County Samuel L. Neal, Jr,

County Judge

901 Leopard Street,

Rm. 303

Corpus Christi, TX

78401


Attended August 9, 2011

scoping meeting but did not

address review periods.


of any issues of concern

regarding the project’s

potential environmental

effects within the county’s

jurisdiction

City of Portland Mike Tanner, City

Manager

1900 Billy G. Webb

Dr.

Portland, TX 78374



Agency and attend scoping

meetings but did not address

the review periods.




potential environment effects

within the city’s jurisdiction.

San Patricio County Terry A. Simpson,

County Judge

400 West Sinton

Street #109

Sinton, TX 78387



Agency and attend scoping

meetings but did not address

the review periods.




potential environmental

effects within the county’s

jurisdiction

Corpus Christi

Metropolitan

Planning

Organization

Tom Niskala,

Transportation

Planning Director

5151 Flynn Parkway

Corpus Christi, TX

78411



Agency and attend the

scoping meetings but did not

comment on review periods.

Identification of issues

relating to safety and

mobility, system

interconnectivity, and project

effects to minority and low

income populations

Port of Corpus

Christi

Frank C. Brogan PE,

Managing Director

Engineering, Finance

and Administration

222 Power Street

Corpus Christi, TX

78401



Agency and to 30-day and

60-day review periods.

Identification of issues

related to the Corpus Christi

Ship Channel and Port

properties including

shipping, safety and

commerce.

Coastal Bend

Council of

Governments

John P. Buckner

Executive Director

P.O. Box 9909

Corpus Christi, TX

78469-9909


Agreed to participate in the

project but did not address

the review period in their

letter dated Aug. 1, 2011.

Identifies planning and

coordinates issues relative to

the local governments.


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013




Corpus Christi

Regional

Transportation

Authority

Scott Neeley

Chief Executive

Officer

5658 Bear Lane,

Corpus Christi, TX

78405


Agency

Identifies issues related to

public transportation relative

to the cities and counties in

the RTA.

Corpus Christi

Regional Economic

Development

Corporation

Roland Mower

President, CEO

One Shoreline Plaza

800 N. Shoreline

Blvd.

Ste. 1300 South

Corpus Christi, TX

78401

Participating Agency No response received.

Involved with programs and

activities that promote,

assist, and enhance economic

development within the city

of Corpus Christi.

Native American Tribes – Nueces County, Texas

Apache Tribe of

Oklahoma

Louis Mynahonah,

Chairman

P.O. Box 1220

Anadarko, OK

73005


Identification of potential

impacts to environmental

justice populations

Comanche Nation of

Oklahoma

Jimmy Arterberry,

THPO

Comanche Nation

Office of Historic

Preservation

P.O. Box 908

Lawton, OK 73502




justice populations

Kiowa Indian Tribe

of Oklahoma

James Eskew

c/o Kiowa Culture

Preservation

Authority

PO Box 369

Carnegie, OK 73015




justice populations

Mescalero Apache

Tribe

Carleton Naiche-

Palmer, President

c/o Holly Houghten,

THPO

P.O. Box 227

Mescalero, NM

88340




justice populations

Tonkawa Tribe of

Indians of Oklahoma

Don Patterson,

President

1 Rush Buffalo Rd

Tonkawa, OK 74653 Participating Agency No response received.



justice populations

Other Interested Parties

Historic Bridge

Foundation

Kitty Henderson,

Executive Director

P.O. Box 66245

Austin, TX 78766 Interested Party

Expressed interest in

participating in the project

Comment on impacts to

historic bridges


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013




Citizens for

Environmental

Justice

Suzie Canales

5757 S. Staples #

1901

Corpus Christi, TX

78413

Interested Party Expressed interest in

participating in the project

Comment on environmental

justice issues

1 2 3

Table 5-2. Agency and Public Review Cycles for the Draft and Final EIS 4

Who Document to be Reviewed Length of Review Review Dates

Cooperating Agencies: HUD, EPA,

U.S. Coast Guard Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Advance courtesy review June – July 2013

HUD Chapter 2 – Alternatives Analysis Advance courtesy review July – Aug 2013

Cooperating Agencies Chapter 3 – Affected Environment Advance courtesy review July – Aug 2013

Cooperating Agencies Draft EIS – Administrative Review 30 days Sept – Oct 2013

Agencies and Public Draft EIS 45 days following publication of

Notice of Availability January – March 2014

Agencies and Public Final EIS 30 days following publication of

Notice of Availability December 2014

5 6 7

SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 Coordination Plan 19 US 181 at Harbor Bridge, Nueces County

CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

6.0 Project Coordination Points 1

2

SAFETEA-LU incorporates changes aimed at improving and streamlining the environmental 3

process for transportation projects. Lead and participating agencies have legal and general 4

governmental obligations to work cooperatively to improve the environmental review process. 5

The roles and responsibilities specified in Section 6002 for lead and participating agencies form 6

a part of those obligations. 7

8

The intent of coordination points is to set a deadline for agency input in order to move the project 9

forward. These coordination points do not require concurrence or total agreement among 10

agencies. If there is not concurrence, the lead agencies will take this information into account 11

when project decisions are being made. 12

13

The agencies listed in Table 3 above will at a minimum be participating at the following three 14

coordination points in the environmental review process for the Harbor Bridge Project: 15

16

Purpose and Need; 17

Proposed Alternatives to be Evaluated in the Draft EIS; and 18

Methodologies for Alternatives Analysis. 19

20

Based upon comments received during the new scoping process from agencies and the public, 21

the draft Purpose and Need, project alternatives, methods to be used in evaluating the 22

alternatives, and the level of detail required in the analysis of each alternative for the project will 23

be revised and submitted by TxDOT to FHWA for internal review. Upon incorporation of 24

comments from FHWA, TxDOT will prepare and forward to the participating agencies the 25

revised Coordination Plan showing the changes to the three parts listed above. 26

7.0 Proposed Public Involvement Plan 27

28

Public involvement is an important part of the Harbor Bridge Project because it provides an 29

opportunity for various stakeholders (including the public) to participate in the EIS process. The 30

objectives of the public involvement program for the project are as follows: 31

32

To engage all stakeholders including those of limited English proficiency and 33

Environmental Justice (EJ) populations to ensure that all are given an opportunity to 34

provide input regarding possible alternatives for Harbor Bridge; 35

To provide stakeholders with clear, concise information about the progress of the 36

environmental documentation/schematic development process; 37

To enable TxDOT to be responsive to comments and concerns raised by stakeholders; 38

and 39

To document all communications between stakeholders and TxDOT for inclusion in the 40

project’s Administrative Record. 41

42

To meet these public involvement objectives, TxDOT (District) is planning the following 43

activities: 44


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

1

A project mailing list will be created/maintained that includes all local stakeholders and 2

residents who wish to receive project mailings. 3 4

A project website allowed the agency to both disseminate and gather public input. The 5

website included project status updates, project newsletters, information on the EIS 6

process, public meeting/hearing announcements, public meeting/hearing information 7

(meeting summary, meeting presentation and handouts, meeting exhibits), project 8

schedule, engineering schematics, project photos, etc. Individuals who visit the website 9

will have an opportunity to provide comments or request that they be added to the project 10

mailing list. 11

12

Two public scoping meetings were part of the early project development. The first 13

scoping meeting was held at the TxDOT District Office on August 9, 2011. This scoping 14

meeting provided resource agencies, stakeholders, and members of the public an 15

opportunity to review and provide comments on the draft Coordination Plan that includes 16

the Purpose and Need, and an explanation of the methodology of analysis and level of 17

detail for the alternative analysis. The second scoping meeting was held October 27, 18

2011, and covered the revised draft Coordination Plan, including the revised Purpose and 19

Need statement, the range of alternatives including new alternatives suggested by the 20

agencies and the public, and the methods and level of detail. Again the meeting 21

participants had an opportunity to review the information presented and provide 22

comments. 23

24

A public meeting was held to provide additional information to the stakeholders and the 25

public and to gather additional public input. This meeting was held on December 4, 2012 26

during preparation of the draft EIS and allowed the meeting participants to review and 27

comment on the proposed alternatives. 28 29

A Citizens Advisory Committee and a Technical Advisory Committee were created to 30

provide community/stakeholder input throughout the project. The Citizens Advisory 31

Committee was comprised of local residents, property owners, non-profit agencies 32

working in the project area, and representatives of neighborhood associations, 33

educational and religious organizations. The Technical Advisory Committee consisted of 34

elected officials, civic organizations, and representatives of the MPO and other local 35

agencies. These committees each met two - three times a year (depending on project 36

milestones) and meetings were open to the public. Meeting membership was determined 37

through a nomination process to ensure representative committee compositions. A final 38

CAC meeting was held in the summer of 2014 specifically to discuss proposed EJ 39

mitigation measures. Participants were polled on their opinions of the various measures. 40 41

In order to ensure that the concerns of the identified EJ populations in Harbor Bridge 42

Project area are identified, an EJ methodology and work plan was developed. The work 43

plan was developed in consultation with key agencies to ensure that the public 44

involvement process was robust enough to engage these EJ populations in accordance 45


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

with the 1994 Executive Order 12898. The EJ methodology was implemented consistent 1

with: 2

o Executive Order 12898, DOT Order 5610.2, 3

o FHWA Order 6640.23, current CEQ, FHWA, 4

o TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division guidance, case studies and other sources, 5

including the 2011 EJ Strategies of DOT and EPA. 6

7

One-on-one or small group stakeholder meetings were held throughout the EIS process to 8

ensure that all community concerns/inputs were considered during evaluation of 9

alternatives. Special efforts were made to reach out to EJ populations and to those who 10

reside in the project area. These included attending and participating in existing 11

community meetings as well as setting up meetings with individuals or groups of 12

individuals representing neighborhood and local business interests. Meetings were held 13

at times and locations of most convenience for these individuals. TxDOT publicized its 14

desire to conduct these meetings during public scoping meetings, public meetings, and on 15

the website. In addition, the Citizens Advisory Committee was asked to identify 16

community individuals/organizations for TxDOT to contact. Individual stakeholders were 17

interviewed in the spring of 2014 to obtain their input on proposed EJ mitigation 18

measures. 19

20

Neighborhood open houses were held in 2012 to gather input for the community impact 21

analysis. These meetings were held throughout the project area (including North Beach, 22

Northside, Westside, South Central, Crosstown West, Refinery Row, and Portland). 23

Meetings were held at times/locations most convenient to neighborhood residents. A 24

survey was used to gather input at meetings and online. Exhibits showing project 25

alternatives were presented and explained to those in attendance. 26 27

In September 2013, two neighborhood open houses were held in conjunction with the 28

City of Corpus Christi to gather input on proposed 4(f) mitigation measures 29

(enhancement of local parks). A survey was administered during those open houses to 30

gauge support for proposed park enhancements. 31 32

A series of neighborhood open houses was held in early 2014 to gather input on the Draft 33

Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS). These meetings were held throughout the 34

project area at or near the locations of the 2012 neighborhood meetings. Meeting 35

participants also had an opportunity to learn more and provide input on the proposed EJ 36

mitigation. 37

38

A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published on January 3, 2014, announcing 39

the start of the public comment period and the location/date of the public hearing. The 40

public hearing was held on February 18, 2014 and provided the public with an 41

opportunity to make verbal comments on the Draft EIS and/or submit written comments. 42

During the entire public comment period (January 3 – March 18, 2014), TxDOT held 43

storefront meetings twice a week at the Oveal Williams Senior Center and La Retama 44

Public Library to answer questions and gather public comment on the Draft EIS. 45


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

8.0 Detailed Project History and Future Actions 1

2

History of Harbor Bridge Project 3

4 1. 2001. TxDOT initiated the Feasibility Study to analyze the possibility of replacing 5

the existing Harbor Bridge 6

2. 2003. The Feasibility Study was completed with a recommendation to move forward 7

with an EIS. 8

3. November 2004. TxDOT initiated an engineering and environmental study that 9

would result in the completion of an EIS and public involvement process. 10

4. Winter 2004-2005. TxDOT initiated the scoping and coordination process with 11

stakeholders to explain the project and obtain their comments. 12

5. May 2005. FHWA and TxDOT published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS 13

in the Federal Register, Texas Register, and Corpus Christi Caller-Times. The NOI, 14

which included a draft Purpose and Need statement, formally announced the project. 15

6. June 2005. TxDOT held scoping meetings with resource agencies and the public to 16

present the alternatives for the project and obtain input before proceeding with the 17

project. 18

7. Summer 2005. TxDOT developed the initial Purpose and Need for the project for 19

project limits described as involving the replacement of the existing Harbor Bridge 20

and approaches where US 181 crosses the Corpus Christi Ship Channel. 21

8. September 2005. Initial Citizens’ Advisory Committee (CAC) meetings were held 22

in Corpus Christi and Portland to introduce the project to the CAC and obtain their 23

comments. 24

9. August 2005 – April 2006. TxDOT initiated the analysis of build and no-build 25

alternatives and evaluated the affected environment. 26

10. February 2006. TxDOT prepared a draft Purpose and Need and submitted it to 27

FHWA. 28

11. March 2006. The second set of CAC meetings was held. 29

12. June 2006. FHWA and TxDOT approved the Purpose and Need for the project. 30

13. Fall 2006. FHWA and TxDOT determined that managed lanes should be considered 31

as part of the Harbor Bridge project as a funding option. As part of this change, 32

FHWA determined that the project and study limits should be extended south along 33

SH 286 to the interchange with SH 358 to accommodate the additional capacity 34

required if the project were to include managed lanes or various tolling strategies. 35

14. February 2007. FHWA and TxDOT republished the NOI to prepare an EIS for the 36

extended project limits in the Federal Register, Texas Register, and Corpus Christi 37

Caller-Times. The revised NOI addressed the change in Purpose and Need for the 38

project. 39

15. April 2007. Additional neighborhood meetings were held at locations along SH 286 40

between Morgan Avenue and SH 358 to inform the public that the project could 41

potentially impact their neighborhoods. 42

16. May 2007. TxDOT held new agency and public scoping meetings to explain that 43

tolling had been added as a funding option and that the project had new longer limits 44

extending along SH 286 south to SH 358. 45


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

17. Summer and Fall 2007. TxDOT developed a new Purpose and Need for the project 1

that addressed the design changes and the changes to the project limits. 2

18. October 2007. A third set of CAC meetings was held to present the schematics for 3

the two build alternatives and discuss the next steps in the process. 4

19. December 2007. Project was placed on hold. 5

20. September 2009. Project was reinitiated with new project limits from Beach Avenue 6

to Morgan Avenue, in Nueces County. 7

21. November 2010. TxDOT and FHWA published the rescission of the 2007 NOI in 8

the Texas Register and the Federal Register. 9

22. December 2010 to May 2011. FHWA directed TxDOT to develop a pre-scoping 10

process prior to the publication of a new Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS. 11

23. February 2011. Pre-scoping letters were sent to potential cooperating and 12

participating agencies. 13

24. March 2011. Pre-scoping conference calls were held with cooperating and 14

participating agencies. 15

25. March to April 2011. Responses were received from potential 16

cooperating/participating agencies. 17

26. June 2011. TxDOT submitted the Letter of Intent to prepare a Draft EIS to FHWA 18

advising that the pre-scoping process was complete. 19

27. June 2011. FHWA approved the Letter of Intent in order to allow for the Notice of 20

Intent to be prepared and published in the Federal Register. 21

28. June 2011. Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register 22

on June 22, 2011 and in the Texas Register and the Corpus Christi Caller Times on 23

July 8, 2011. 24

29. July 2011. Letters were sent to cooperating and participating agencies announcing 25

the new scoping process and requesting agency input on the Purpose and Need and 26

the Draft Coordination Plan. 27

30. July 2011. TxDOT publicized Agency and Public Scoping Meetings (Scoping 28

Meeting #1) in Corpus Christi to explain to the public, and cooperating and 29

participating agencies that the project was being reinitiated and the limits were 30

revised to extend from Beach Avenue to Morgan Avenue, in Nueces County. 31

31. August 9, 2011. TxDOT held Scoping Meeting #1 to present the draft Coordination 32

Plan including the Purpose and Need, and an explanation of the methodology of 33

analysis and level of detail being used for the alternatives analysis. Comments from 34

the public and cooperating and participating agencies were due 30 days after the 35

meeting. 36

32. August - September 2011. FHWA and TxDOT evaluated input received at Scoping 37

Meeting #1 and revised the Purpose and Need, the range of alternatives, and the Draft 38

Coordination Plan. 39

33. October 2011. TxDOT publicized Agency and Public Scoping Meeting #2 in Corpus 40

Christi. 41

34. October 27, 2011. TxDOT held Agency and Public Scoping Meeting #2 in Corpus 42

Christi. Presentation covered the draft Coordination Plan, including the revised 43

Purpose and Need statement, the range of alternatives, and the methods and level of 44

detail being used to analyze the alternatives. Comments from the public and 45

cooperating and participating agencies were due 30 days after the meeting. 46


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

35. November 2011. A 30-day review and comment period following the second 1

Agency and Public Scoping Meeting. 2

36. November 2011. FHWA and TxDOT evaluated input received at Scoping Meeting 3

#2. 4

37. December 2011 to February 2012. TxDOT began the preliminary alternatives 5

analysis with approval from FHWA. The first step was determining which build 6

alternatives meet the Purpose and Need of the project. 7

39. March 2012 – May 2012. The consultant team developed the level of service for 8

evaluation of alternatives. A Draft Alternative Screening Technical Memorandum 9

was submitted to TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division and FHWA for their 10

review. 11

40. July 2012. The FHWA concurred with the Purpose and Need and Alternatives 12

Screening Technical Memo 13

41. December 2012/January 2013. The revised Coordination Plan was submitted to the 14

Cooperating and Participating Agencies reflecting the final selection of the four build 15

alternatives that meet the revised Purpose and Need. 16

42. Fall 2012. The consultant team continued developing and revising the preliminary 17

schematics for the alternatives that will be analyzed for the Draft EIS. 18

43. Fall 2012. Consultant team began preparing Draft EIS chapters for review by TxDOT 19

and FHWA. 20

44. Fall 2012. TxDOT advertised a Public Meeting. 21

45. Fall 2012. TxDOT held eight neighborhood meetings to gather feedback on the 22

project as well as input for the community impact analysis. Neighborhood meetings 23

were held at eight locations in the project area: North Beach, Northside (two 24

meetings), Refinery Row, Crosstown West, South Central, Portland, and Westside. 25

46. December 2012. TxDOT conducted a Public Meeting. Exhibits for the proposed 26

alternatives were presented. Comments from the public and Cooperating and 27

Participating Agencies were due 10 days after the meeting. 28

47. Fall 2012 to Summer 2013. Consultant continued developing and revising Draft EIS 29

chapters. Cooperating agencies were given advance courtesy review of Chapters 1-3. 30

48. Fall 2013. Draft EIS/ 4(f) Evaluation was submitted to TxDOT, TxDOT ENV, 31

FHWA, and Cooperating Agencies for concurrent 30-day administrative review. 32

Included legal review 33

49. Early Winter 2014. FHWA and TxDOT published the Notice of Availability of the 34

Draft EIS in the Federal Register, the Texas Register, the Corpus Christi Caller 35

Times, and a Spanish-language newspaper of local distribution. The 60-day public 36

and agency review period began. 37

50. Winter 2014. TxDOT/FHWA conducted the Public Hearing. Hearing followed by 38

an additional 30-day public comment period. 39

51. Anticipated Fall 2014. TxDOT and FHWA to perform technical and legal review of 40

Final EIS and 4(f) Evaluation. 41

52. Anticipated Fall 2014. TxDOT/FHWA to publish Notice of Availability of Final EIS, 42

Sec 4(f) Evaluation, Comment Response and Coordination in the 43

Federal Register, the Texas Register, the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, and a Spanish-44

language newspaper of local distribution Final EIS to be distributed to agencies. This 45

NOA begins the 30-day public comment period on the Final EIS. 46


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

53. Fall 2014. TxDOT and FHWA to prepare, review, and revise the Record of Decision 1

(ROD). 2

54. Anticipated Early 2015. FHWA and TxDOT to publish the ROD in the Federal 3

Register and the Texas Register. 4

55. Anticipated Spring – Summer 2015. FHWA to approve Project Management Plan. 5

6

Project milestones are shown in more detail in the Project Milestones chart at the end of this 7

document. 8

9


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

REFERENCES 1 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2011. A 2

Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets 3

4

Corpus Christi Metropolitan Planning Organization, 2009. Metropolitan Transportation Plan 5

2010-2035. Approved December 3, 2009/Amended March 3, 2011. 6

7

Martin Associates, 2004. The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of the Port of Corpus 8

Christi. Prepared for the Port of Corpus Christi. 9

10

Texas Department of Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management, 2010. State of Texas 11

Hurricane Response Plan. April 30, 2010. 12

13

Texas Department of Transportation, 2013. Roadway Design Manual. TxDOT Design Division, 14

Roadway Design Section. Revised May 2013. 15

16

Texas Department of Transportation 2011. Hurricane Evacuation Routes. 17

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/evacuation_corpus.pdf. 18

19

Texas Department of Transportation, 2012. Historic Bridge Team Report, Nueces County, US 20

181 @ Corpus Christi Ship Channel, CSJ 0101-06-095. March 8, 2012. 21

22

Transportation Research Board, 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. 23

URS Corporation, 2003. U.S. 181 (Harbor Bridge) Feasibility Study. June 2003. 24

25

URS Corporation, 2011. Project Memorandum: Harbor Bridge Traffic Analysis—No Build 26

Scenario. March 4, 2011. 27

28

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1995. Technical Guidelines for Hurricane Evacuation Studies. 29

Hurricane Evacuation Studies Technical Guidelines Working Group, Wilmington District Flood 30

Plain Management Services Branch in support of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on 31

Hurricanes and the National Hurricane Program Task Force.32

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/evacuation_corpus.pdf


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

Appendix 1

2

3

4


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

EIS and Public Involvement Schedule 1


CSJ: 0101-06-095 May 2013

Insert Schedule here. 1

2

3

4

5

US 181 at Harbor Bridge Feasibility Study Corridors – Location Map 1

2

1

US 181 Harbor Bridge Location Map – Current Build Alternatives Under Consideration 1

2

1

Proposed Corpus Christi Ship Channel Improvements 1

2

Corpus Christi Ship Proposed Channel Improvements 1

2

3

SAFETEA-LU SECTION 6002 COORDINATION PLAN

Documents