January, 5, 2006

Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Region I

18500 East Colfax

Aurora, Colorado  80011

Re:       Response to I-70 Draft PEIS

Dear CDOT:

This letter is our initial response to the I-70 Draft PEIS document released 10 December 2004 for comment.  We find that the document is not adequate for the decision-making process that is required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  Proceeding with the decision-making process without analysis of the 15-year construction period impacts (2010-2025) may provide a single preferred alternative that will likely have profound adverse consequences on health, safety and welfare of people, communities and businesses dependent on and accustomed to Rocky Mountain spring water from Clear Creek.

Our agency is charged under law to protect and defend water quality through a management review process.  When we subject the I-70 Draft PEIS to the same scrutiny as other actions in the Clear Creek Watershed, we find that you have not done an adequate job.  We base our analyses considering the following factors:

1. Highway Reconstruction.  Every “preferred” alternative requires an increased footprint of additional lanes and relaxed curve geometry for safety and design speed alterations.  Much of the area (a minimum of 37 miles) will require a rebuild of the existing roadbed.  Challenges to construction include narrow canyons, huge active rock walls containing metals, intrusion into streams and wetlands, and disturbance of mill tailings and heavy mineral concentrations.

2. Cross-country Mobility.  It is an enormous challenge to maintain some level of operation on the current I-70 highway during reconstruction and expansion.  A much longer construction period than normal is needed.  This is exacerbated by the fact that service roads do not exist along significant segments of I-70.

3. Travel Demand During Construction.  We can expect increasing populations to place more demand for travel through the corridor beyond that experienced now or in the past.  The highest water quality impacts are expected during construction from year 2010 through 2025. The overriding purpose and need of the PEIS should be mobility in the mountain corridor during the next 20 years in addition to mobility beyond out to the limit of the design-life of the highway structures; as opposed to just mobility in the year 2025 as with the current baseline standard analyzed in the Draft PEIS.

The PEIS document we require at Tier I would show impacts and mitigation for the 23 mill sites existing in the I-70 right-of-way that would be disturbed to one degree or another by the various alternatives under consideration.

·         Dixie                                                                      Hidden Valley

·         Silver Spruce                                                           Exit 241

·         Sampler, Clear Creek, Gem, Waltham,                      Exit 240

      Big Five, Jackson, Mixell, Ruth     

·         Whale                                                                     Exit 238

·         Hoosac, Dover                                                        Exit 237

·         Clear Creek-Gilpin                                                   Dumont

·         Red Elephant                                                          Lawson

·         Swansea                                                                 Empire Junction

·         Commonwealth                                                       Georgetown Lake

·         Centennial                                                               Georgetown

·         Payrock, Mendota, Smuggler, Silver Leaf,                 Silver Plume

      Baltimore

These historical sites used mercury and/or cyanide as amalgams.  Evidence shows that quantities of these materials were imported to each site and all evidence would indicate that these materials remain.  Should these materials be released, it may constitute a “taking” for the water right users dependent on clean water.  The public needs to know about such places just as they are informed about Shattuck and other industrial sites in Denver.  This is information known to you and should be revealed to the public.

We are aware that several alternatives not involving highway widening are “clean” with regard to water quality impacts—most notably Advanced Guideway System (AGS).  We suggest that AGS was prematurely removed from the preferred category.  Recent Federal Transit Authority analyses show that this system is feasible in the corridor and immediately deployable.  This would solve the mobility issue and minimize the significant water quality risk.

Given that there are “clean” alternatives, we do not find that waiting for a Tier II analysis is legally sufficient for NEPA standards to be met.  Therefore, we require a level of analysis that would allow an informed citizen to understand the water quality issues and the impacts prior to a Record of Decision being issued.  Such is not the case in the current Draft I-70 PEIS.    

Yours truly,

Anne Beierle

2005 UCCWA Chair

cc:        Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment/WQCD

            Congressman Mark Udall

            Federal Highway Administration, attention: Jean Wallace

            US Environmental Protection Agency Region 8