May 24, 2005
Cecilia Joy, Project Manager
Colorado Department of Transportation
Region 1
18500 East Colfax Avenue
Aurora, Colorado 80011
Jean Wallace, P.E.
Senior Operations Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
12300 West Dakota Avenue
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, Clear Creek County and the Clear Creek I-70 Task Force offer the attached comments to be included in the administrative record.
Clear Creek County has serious concerns regarding how the proposed project will impact county resources and how those impacts will be mitigated. We are also concerned with the balance between need and project purposes (Environmental Sensitivity, Respect for Community Values, Safety, and Ability to Implement) and how the purposes will factor into the selection of the preferred alternative. It appears that cost alone is the only deciding factor and all other analyses that could either result in adverse or beneficial impacts are relegated to background material through which CDOT is able to claim they have undertaken a “hard look” in meeting the mandate of the NEPA.
All alternatives will impact the county and for a period of fifteen years, Clear Creek County will bear the brunt of construction impacts with apparent effects on our quality of life, economy, and mobility. The lack of a detailed analysis of these impacts, especially considering the fifteen year duration, is disturbing, and leaves our citizens with very little information as to how their lives and the lives of their families will be affected.
As far as our level of expertise will allow, we are offering comments on the following areas on the affected environment:
- Air Quality and the lack of analysis of Mobile Source Air Toxics
- Noise Impacts that we believe will have and overall detrimental effect on our communities
- Environmental Justice issues that do exist in Silver Plume and quite possibly other local communities
- Impacts to our water resources and the insufficient analysis of the impacts
- Historic Mining in which significant potential contamination is a real possibility
- Lack of analysis regarding land use and future desired growth of the county
Mitigation is a key deficiency. Specificity of mitigation measures relating to each alternative is clearly lacking. Alternative mitigation measures cannot be used to compare and contrast alternatives or delineate impacts between alternatives. Deferring mitigation details to Tier 2 ignores the potential cost of mitigation and the possible affects on any one alternative’s cost. The mitigation offered in the DPEIS could apply to any highway project resulting in mitigation policies that are generalized and lack commitment as to how they will be defined during Tier 2 studies.
The Clear Creek County Commissioners have participated in the I-70 Central Mountain Coalition process and fully endorse the Regionally Preferred Alternative developed by consensus of the 31 member jurisdictions. The comments we are submitting below in no way negate our support for the Regionally Preferred Alternative.
Clear Creek County requests the Federal Highway Administration and the Colorado Department of Transportation correct key deficiencies in the DPEIS and incorporate the Coalition’s Regionally Preferred Alternative within the I-70 Mountain Corridor Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement.
Approved Comments to the I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement & Section 4(f) Evaluation this 24th Day of May, 2005, by the Clear Creek Board of County Commissioners.
________________________________________
Harry Dale, Chairman
________________________________________
Joan Drury, Commissioner
________________________________________
Kevin O’Malley, Commissioner
Comments of Clear Creek County and the Clear Creek I-70 Task Force
I. TIERING
A. The DPEIS violates the mandate of 23 U.S.C. §109(h):
“Not later than July 1, 1972, the Secretary, after consultation with appropriate Federal and State officials, shall submit to Congress, and not later than 90 days after such submission, promulgate guidelines designed to assure that possible adverse economic, social, and environmental effects relating to any proposed project on any Federal-aid system have been fully considered in developing such project, and that the final decisions on the project are made in the best overall
public interest, taking into consideration the need for fast, safe and efficient transportation, public services, and the costs of eliminating or minimizing such adverse effects and the following:
(1) air, noise, and water pollution;
(2) destruction or disruption of man-made
and natural resources, aesthetic values,
community cohesion and the availability
of public facilities and services;
(3) adverse employment effects, and tax
and property value losses;
(4) injurious displacement of people,
businesses and farms; and
(5) disruption of desirable community and
regional growth.
Such guidelines shall apply to all proposed projects with respect to which plans, specifications, and estimates are approved by the Secretary after the issuance of such guidelines”.
B. We strongly suggest, that this Tier I document is the “final decision”, as stated in 109(h) and proposed Tier 2 studies are merely the implementation of the final decision. Per the CEQ, “Tiering is a procedure which allows an agency to avoid duplication of paperwork through the incorporation by reference of the general discussions and relevant specific discussions from and environmental impact statement of broader scope to one of lesser scope or vice versa” (Question 24c., Forty Most Asked Question Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981). CDOT has, on occasion, described the DPEIS as a Tier 1.5 document. We are somehow in the middle of an action of broader scope with an action of lesser scope. This results in confusion for the reader as to the level of detail, in regards to the impacts and potential mitigation of the impacts, required to make an informed decision at this Tier I level and the appropriate review of the document in regards to commenting on its adequacy.
Per FHWA regulation 23 C.F.R. §771.111(g): “the first tier EIS would focus on the broad issues such as general location, mode choice, and area wide air quality and land use implications of the major alternatives. The second Tier would address site specific details on project impacts, costs, and mitigation measures.” The I-70 Mountain Corridor Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement incorporates elements of both a first and second tier EIS as stated in the regulation. As a result, we have found it difficult to review and develop appropriate comments, relevant to the decision to be made in regards to a Tier 1 document and the discussion contained in this Tier 1.5 DPEIS. Our conclusion is that at the level of detail discussed, the DPEIS fails to take a hard look at comparing and contrasting the alternatives, specifically in regards to construction impacts and their mitigation, and mitigation of the resource impacts necessary to delineate between the alternatives, as required by NEPA, in making a reasoned choice as to the preferred alternative.
C. FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A Guidance For Preparing And Processing Environmental And Section 4(F) Documents (October 30, 1987) V.G.25 states “the EIS should discuss in general terms the proposed actions irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.” Included in V.G.25 is a general statement that some level of commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources would be required. Such a statement is relevant at the Tier I level and needs to be included in the DPEIS as required by CEQ Regulation 40 CFR 1502.16. Our concerns include, but are not limited to, the need for policy-level discussion of the depletion of fossil fuels, both as a source of energy and as a source of construction material (asphalt), the commitment of non-metallic minerals, the decision to support the further urbanization of the mountains and the creation of additional pressure on our critical wildlife habitat, and the additional impacts to water quality for the residents of the Front Range of Colorado who rely on the quality and supply of Clear Creek water. Fens, have been identified by the USFWS as irreplaceable with no possibility of acceptable mitigation (page 3.6-7). Further, “a definitive analysis of impacts on fens will be conducted at the Tier 2 level….” (page 3.6-1). With this one exception, no other analysis of irreplaceable and irretrievable resources is evident.
II. BALANCING PURPOSE AND NEED WITH IMPACTS
A. As a corridor county, Clear Creek County is separate and unique from the other corridor counties in its relationship to the I-70 corridor. Extended length of narrow valleys, number of 4(f)/106 properties, and all alternatives impacting a majority of county residents during construction (commuting, quality of life, property values tied to Denver markets) are factors of significant difference from our West Slope counterparts. Lump sum analysis of the corridor resource impacts is not in the spirit of NEPA in which the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, states: “---- that the Nation may -- achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities;” (42 USC §4331(b)(5)).
B. This document is unclear as to the weighting given to resource impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) in regards to Environmental Sensitivity, Respect For Community Values, Safety, and Ability to Implement in the selection of the preferred alternatives other than that the preferred grouping is based solely on cost and ability to accommodate baseline travel demand. Page ES-50 “Next Steps for Tier 1 PEIS….3. Review and Comment of the Final PEIS” lists nine criteria bullets in selecting the FPEIS preferred alternative. Yet, it is unclear as to how the environmentally preferred alternative (see Question 6a. of the CEQ’s 40 Questions and Answers - Forty Most Asked Question Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981), or the agency-identified preferred alternative, (if not the same as the environmentally preferred alternative), will be selected in the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (see Record of Decision-Format and Content, Paragraph B, FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A Guidance For Preparing And Processing Environmental And Section 4(F) Documents -October 30, 1987). Stated in an FHWA Memorandum (“Tiering of the I-70 Project, Kansas City, Missouri to St. Louis,” June 18, 2001), “Because you have so much flexibility in customizing the tiering approach to your specific situation, it is critical that you carefully communicate your decision-making process to affected parties.” A decision matrix should be included, in the Draft PEIS describing the methodology and relative weighting given to all impacts in the evaluation leading to preferred alternative selection in the Final PEIS.
C. Reasonable cost is set at a maximum of $4 billion in implementing a chosen mode of transportation (Section 2.4.4.1). Stated in Section 5.3 “An alternative that is not financially viable is not reasonable as defined by the CEQ and does not meet the intent of NEPA.” Various references in the DPEIS (e.g. page ES-2: $1.6 billion may be available over the next 20 years, Chart 5-1 Potential I-70 Allocation Charts) state that only $1.6 billion is potentially available, while recognizing that additional funding sources may be available over the period of project implementation. An explanation of the derivation of the cost threshold is not evident. Without explanation in the DPEIS, the defined reasonable cost, or financially viable cost, threshold of $4 billion is arbitrary, given only $1.6 billion is “potentially available”.
D. Section 2.4.1.1 lists the criteria for grouping alternatives. Based on a reasonableness cost threshold of $4 billion and need to meet 2025 travel demand, Build Diesel Bus in Guideway and Preserve for Highway (Alternative 12a, Table 2-28) should be included in the Preferred Group of Alternatives. The rationale for excluding alternative 12a is not evident, given the defined thresholds of 2.4.1.1.
E. Safety analysis includes discussion of fatality accidents, injury accidents and total accidents, yet only fatality rates are used to rank the alternatives and the preferred alternatives have the highest fatality rates. Additionally, bus accident and injury data is excluded from the DPEIS (vol. 1), but “for full disclosure included in Table B-11 (DPEIS Vol. II). We have attached the comments of the Clear Creek County Emergency Medical Services Director in order to provide a detailed comment in regards to this issue.
i. “I-70 is a designated placarded hazardous route” (Section 3.8.2.5) requiring various chemical and controlled substances be diverted via Loveland Pass (U.S. Highway 6). Over the years Loveland Pass has been the scene of transportation spills, and other transportation related accidents, resulting in direct and indirect impacts. Other members of the transportation public choose to take Loveland Pass for such purposes as recreation, pleasant diversion from the corridor, or rare forced diversion in the advent EJMT is closed. Yet, Loveland Pass, U.S. Highway 6, is not included for analysis of the impacts and potential mitigation of those impacts (e.g. impacts to emergency services, streams and wetlands, and subalpine and alpine ecologies). Given the direct relationship of Loveland Pass to the corridor, being a significant part of corridor transportation network, we can only surmise it should be analyzed for impacts and mitigation, for all resources in addition to safety, in the DPEIS as an integral component of I-70.
ii. CDOT identified the Georgetown Incline as being the most active rockfall area in the corridor (page 3.7-10 “ROCKFALL”). Documented numerous rockfall events, resulting in accidents and fatalities have occurred. Per the DPEIS, fencing, currently being deployed, is the preferred mitigation strategy (page 3.7-12), yet in the Spring of 2004, a section of fencing, near the scenic overlook, was obliterated with numerous large rocks covering all four lanes of the highway. In that the Georgetown incline is acknowledged as severe rockfall hazard, as is the Silver Plume to Dumont portion of the corridor (Table 3.7-1), and is known at this Tier I level, CDOT is obligated to a more detailed examination of the potential mitigation strategies that would protect the traveling public.
iii. Section 1.7.2 discusses that a weighted hazard index (WHI) greater than 0 indicates a potentially problematic area, in terms of safety. Floyd Hill is of concern for safety (Table 1-32, milepost 246.7-247.6, steep grades, WHI=0.16) for which no mitigation measures are identified addressing the steep grade of the highway.
F. In public statements made at the January 12, 2005 Mountain Area Corridor Advisory Committee meeting, Mr. Tom Norton, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Transportation, and Mr. David Nicol, FHWA Division Administrator, indicated there would be process of balancing the purposes and need as a transportation solution is selected. We request that this not be a discussion that takes place behind closed doors, but rather the discussion be public and visible during this Tier 1 process.
III. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
A. AIR QUALITY ISSUES
i. In Section 3.1.3.1 MOBILE SOURCE AIR TOXICS, FHWA and CDOT claim analysis and impacts of Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs) cannot be quantified. We disagree. Currently¸ MOBILE6 will model MSATs (See Committee on Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. EPA Highway Vehicle Emissions Models and Data for Estimating Air Toxics at http://www.trbairquality.com/airtoxicsworkshop.htm). Explicitly MOBILE6 will model Benzene, 1,3–butadiene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and MTBE. With the available HAP command added to MOBILE6, other hazardous air pollutants can be modeled. Additionally, MOBILE6 will estimate diesel particulate matter. With this model, at least some of the MSATs can be quantified and projected into the future to either validate or refute the three assertions that:
Local concentrations will be similar
Only a minimal amount of additional MSATs
will be associated with other roadways, and
MSATs will decline due to EPA regulatory actions
(as stated in 3.1.3.1, page 3.1-7).
ii. We are greatly concerned about health impacts as a result of MSATs and have attached a comment letter titled Health Effects of Motor Vehicle Pollutants, detailing our concerns of the lack of any analysis of the impacts of MSATs on human health. We believe the tools are available to quantify measurable impacts, at acceptable costs, within acceptable levels of uncertainty . We have also attached maps depicting a potential 250 yard impact zone for Idaho Springs, Downnieville-Dumont-Lawson, Georgetown, and Silver Plume . As you will note, this area includes most of Idaho Springs, Downieville-Dumont-Lawson, Georgetown, and Silver Plume. Most of the trailer parks in Clear Creek County, the areas one would reasonably expect many residents with below median income to live, would be heavily impacted.
B. NOISE IMPACTS
i. The USEPA has identified a range of yearly Day-Night Sound Levels sufficient to protect public health and welfare from the effects of environmental noise. Below these levels there is no reason to suspect that the general population will be at risk from any of the identified effects of noise. Although not required by standards or regulations, maintaining 55 Ldn outdoors should ensure adequate protection for indoor living. To protect against hearing damage, one's 24-hour noise exposure at the ear should not exceed 70 dB (Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004, March, 1974). In Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation, Updated Second Edition, the USEPA noted: “According to one estimate, 37.0% of the U.S. population was exposed to noise levels from road transport great enough to cause annoyance—defined as Leq greater than 55dB(A)—in 1980” (USEPA (EPA230-R-99-001), October 1999, p. 65). Studies by Miedema and others developed noise response curves on which to base conclusion regarding the level at which various percentages of the population would experience some level of annoyance from highway noise -- little annoyed to highly annoyed -- (see Miedema HME, Vos H. Exposure-response relationships for transportation noise. J Acoust Soc Am 104(6):3432-3445 1998 and Environmental Health Issues, Henk M.E. Miedema and Catharina G. M. Oudshoorn,TNO-PG, Leiden, The Netherlands accessed at http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/109p409-416miedema/miedema-full.html). Over 90% of Idaho Springs residents will experience noise above 55dB(A). Using Miedema annoyance levels 20-45% of those adjacent to the highway will be annoyed to highly annoyed and for those further removed from the highway 12-25% will be annoyed to highly annoyed . We believe noise gradients, shown on Figures 3.12-7 through 3.12-12 should be plotted with decreasing lines of contours (e.g. 2dB(A) increments from 66dB(A) contour line to a final contour line of 54dB(A)) in order to give the reader a meaningful analysis of noise levels and spatial decreases in noise as discussed in the section. We would urge CDOT to set a standard of Leq 55 dB(A) for which mitigation must be considered in comparison to CDOT NAC Standards as shown in Table 3.12-2.
ii. In addition, the cost of noise mitigation is not adequately addressed. Multiple approaches to this issue must be identified and then selected not only based on cost, but also on acceptability in the communities. In addition, the issue of noise mitigation to be implemented in a new senior citizen residence planned for Idaho Springs. The structure will require added amenities in order to meet federal noise guidelines within the building. These hidden impacts are not identified nor accounted for in the DPEIS.
iii. Based on CDOT’s Environmental Stewardship Guide and the Message from the Executive Director contained therein, we believe that these requests (as well as all of the requests made in this letter) fall within CDOT’s goal of enhancing environmental decision-making.
C. WATER IMPACTS
i. Particularly troubling are analyses regarding water resources, wetlands, other waters of the US, and riparian areas. Water issues are inter-related, (see preface summary “Water Resource Issues and Coverage” to Section 3.4) resulting in a number of resource impacts. We find the analysis of these impacts, and possible mitigation, to be deficient in a number of areas. These deficiencies result in an inadequate characterization of the impacts, discrimination of the impacts, and mitigation of the impacts, for each of the alternatives.
ii. Clarification of the widely different conditions by watershed is needed. Clear Creek bears the brunt of transportation related impacts and a greater level of analyses, beyond the PLOAD analysis, should focus on these conditions affecting this part of the I-70 corridor.
iii. Future highway-maintenance aspects of increased use of sand/chemical deicers has been estimated (Table 3.4-18); however, eventual fate and transport of contaminants to streams along the corridor have not been evaluated, which may be important in the comparison of alternatives and selection of the preferred alternative (see comment on weighting given to resource impacts). Estimated use of de-icers/sand is shown in Appendix A (Winter Maintenance) for corridor segments by watershed however, additional analysis of de-icers/sand should also be undertaken for life zones (Figure 3.2-1) for which impacts can be substantially different with increases or decreases in elevation.
iv. Analysis of channel stability due to past highway construction (let alone any future modifications) needs to be addressed. Sections of Clear Creek, previously straightened (clearly shown on Figures 4-16 through 4-31) are actively eroding. These previous impacts, as well as mitigation of any future impacts as a result of additional channel alignment, need to be addressed with dedicated mitigation.
v. Water related construction impacts (short term over a fifteen year period) should be separated from the O&M impacts (long term over the lifetime of the transportation facility). The impacts of the alternatives, by their nature, are quantitatively and qualitatively different, during the construction phase and over the facility’s lifetime, to which variable mitigation strategies would apply.
D. HISTORIC MINING IMPACTS
i. “If known or potential waste sites are identified, the locations should be marked on a map showing their relationship to the alternatives under consideration. If a known or potential hazardous waste site is affected by an alternative, information about the site, the potential involvement, impacts and public health concerns of the affected alternative(s), and the proposed mitigation measures to eliminate of minimize impacts on public health concerns should be discussed in the draft EIS” (FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A Guidance For Preparing And Processing Environmental And Section 4(F) Documents (October 30, 1987) V.G.20). Clear Creek County has identified 23 millsites in which past activities would indicate potential hazardous materials (e.g. mercury, cyanide, heavy metals concentrations) which warrant analysis as to each alternative’s impacts. These millsites are: Dixie, Silver Spruce, Sampler, Clear Creek, Gem, Waltham, Big Five, Jackson, Mixell, Ruth, Whale, Hoosac, Dover, Clear Creek Gilpin, Red Elephant, Swansea, Commonwealth, Centennial, Payrock, Mendota, Smuggler, Silver Leaf, and Baltimore Mills.
ii. Insufficient detail of information and analysis was made regarding alternative impacts on widening in mineralized areas and disturbance of old mill sites and currently undisturbed or covered tailings. Section 3.4.3.2 “Direct Impacts by Alternative” specifically does not include a discussion of the relative impacts of potential disturbance of mine/mill sites. Those impacts that are qualified in Table 3.8-7 (Historic Mine Waste Materials, and Acid Rock/Acid Mine Drainage), and ranked by incorporation of all impacts under discussion in Section 3.8, in Table 3.8-8, generalize the impacts between the alternatives. The proffered mitigation measures, section 3.8.5, are vague, failing to distinguish between the alternatives, and of unknown benefit.
iii. A plan is critically needed to manage and control anticipated impacts of mine-related wastes (tailings/mill sites), during the construction period. We would request local involvement in developing this plan as much of the historical mining data and knowledge remains in Clear Creek County and our jurisdictions. The Memorandum of Agreement between CDOT, FHWA, CDPHE, and USEPA (pages I-6 through I-7) is, as yet, not public and cannot be commented on for its adequacy, in terms of characterizing and mitigating mine/mill related impacts.
E. The USACE and USEPA have an advanced process to identify suitable discharge sites and areas that should remain free of dredge and fill material. Per the Redbook, “The process may be particularly useful when highway projects are initially analyzed on a broad scale, corridor basis. Advanced identification may aid corridor selection or choices among the alternatives within the corridor.” (Applying the Section 404 Permit Process to Federal-Aid Highway Projects, page 11-5, September 1988). Information of this nature should have been sought out and incorporated into the discussion in Section 3.6 and depicted as suitable areas, for dredge and fill materials, or avoidance areas on Maps 3.6-1 through 3.6-22. This information would further enhance the discussion of alternative implementation in Section 3.6.4.2. Additionally, this information can be carried over into Tier 2 analysis and applications for appropriate 404 permits.
IV. SOCIAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENT
A. CEQ regulation 40 C.F.R. §1502.16(c) requires conflicts with land use plans, policies, and controls be analyzed. (Also see Section V.G.2. Land Use Impacts of the Guidance For Preparing And Processing Environmental And Section 4(F) Documents (FHWA Technical Advisory, T 6640.8A, October 30, 1987). “The land use discussion should assess the consistency of the alternatives with the comprehensive development plans adopted for the area.”) We find the DPEIS to be inadequate in the following regards:
i. The DPEIS does not contain any reference to the Clear Creek County Intercounty Non-motorized Routes Master Plan. A primary goal of this plan is that separate, non-motorized alignments be created throughout the I-70 corridor. We are unable to ascertain what the conflicts would be, if any, and how the alternatives would be differentiated between the conflicts in regards to this plan.
ii. Goal 2-3 of the county master plan is intended to “provide regional and connected open space, parks, trails, and a recreational facilities systems. Part of this goal is the county’s active involvement in developing the Clear Creek County Greenway to complete Clear Creek County’s Intercounty Nonmotorized Master Plan. Development of the greenway is a significant piece of the county’s desire to improve our quality of life by providing recreational, economic, and alternative transportation opportunities. CDOT was provided adequate notice of this plan through prior discussions and analysis of the impacts affecting the greenway, and mitigation, should be incorporated at the Tier I level.
iii. Conflicts would exist with the goals 2-1, 2-2, and 2-5 of the Clear Creek County Master Plan (referred to in Section 3.10.2.5 of the DPEIS). These goals address: (Goal 2-2) directing development to municipalities and designated mixed use areas, and to establish a hierarchy of mixed-use, pedestrian and transit urban centers, (Goal 2-5) to prepare for a balanced inter-modal and multi-modal transportation system , and (Goal 2-1) to encourage development proposals that will benefit the County’s economic diversification effort. With the exception of a statement in Section 3.10.3.3 acknowledging that project alternatives “may cause conflicts with planning goals” the DPEIS fails to adequately assess, at a Tier I level, the impacts of each alternative in regards to these three goals and fails to, in general, “evaluate the seriousness of the impact of the proposal on the land use plans and policies, and whether, or how much, the proposal will impair the effectiveness of land use control mechanisms for the area” ( Question 23a, of the CEQ’s, Forty Most Asked Question Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, March 23, 1981).
iv. Lacking analysis of land use conflicts, as discussed above, the statement in Section 3.9.4, Mitigation Measures, regarding construction of the preferred alternative, that “Corridor-wide coordination, state involvement and support, and land use planning…would improve the ability of Corridor communities to maintain and protect social and economic values in the light of I-70 actions” is meaningless. Land use planning is not corridor wide but is relegated to local governing bodies as per state statutes. Without knowing the possible conflicts of each alternative with land use plans, we are unable to discriminate between the alternatives and their potential for conformance or conflict with the Master Plan.
B. Clear Creek County owns numerous lands that were conveyed by an Act of Congress (Clear Creek County, Colorado, Public Lands Transfer Act of 1993 (HR 1134, Public Law 103-253)), from the Bureau of Land Management within selected areas of the county.
i. These properties, including tracts within the I-70 right of way, have been excluded from discussion of public lands (page ES-36 2nd column “Affected Environment”), inaccurately described (page 3.10-7 “Land use ownership/jurisdiction:”), and omitted from depiction (Map 3.10-1). We request that this inaccurate and incomplete information contained in the DPEIS be corrected.
ii In regards to county property within right of way, in a letter from the Bureau of Land Management to CDOT, dated April 20, 1995, CDOT was informed that Clear Creek County is the surface management agency of those lands within highway right of way. To clear up the misstatement on land use, of those lands conveyed by the Act, 3,200 acres are managed by the Historic District Public Lands Commission under the terms of the Federal Recreation and Public Purpose Act, and 7, 400 acres were conveyed to Clear Creek County for multiple purpose, of which very little is available for development, as determined by the county under the conditions of the Act. We would refer you to the detailed comments presented at public hearing on February 9, 2005 by the Clear Creek County Lands Director whose statement is attached.
C. Highway construction is an issue discussed throughout the DPEIS. We find that the discussion of construction impacts and the mitigation of the impacts to be so generic as to be applicable to any highway project in the state. Other than to rate the potential construction duration and traffic disruption (Table ES-4) and provide for generalized mitigation (Table 3.9-1), construction impacts and mitigation are largely deferred to a Tier II analysis. We find this to be unacceptable and would argue that at the Tier I level of analysis, construction impacts can be quantified to a greater level of detail for each of the alternatives--given the alternative working alignments used for the analysis of resource impacts--specifically in regards to, mobility, impacts to local economies, and mitigation of impacts during the construction phase.
i. Mobility, during construction, is of grave concern as it will affect provision of emergency services, delivery of goods and services, commuting needs of residents, localized economic vitality, and the quality of life along the corridor for a vast number of our county residents, for up to fifteen years. Three areas of the county are without any means of alternate transportation routes: Bakerville to the Loveland Pass interchange, Georgetown to Silver Plume, and Kermits to Hidden Valley. Other areas (such as Colorado Boulevard, County Road 314, Stanley Road, and Alvarado Road) do not have the capacity for large diversions of traffic. Possible mitigation measures, concerning traffic disruptions, are deferred to Tier II, but these are currently known conditions for which, at least, an examination could and should be conducted. Much as the corridor travel demand studies were segmented (Section 1.7.4), we would think that travel characteristics during the construction phase, (at the very least the amount of construction time required within the segments) can be generated and compared for each alternative, given the currently known construction requirements, (as alluded to in Table 2-6 and working and conceptual engineering alignments developed for Level 3 screening).
ii. Deferring mitigation to Tier II analysis understates the potentially severe impacts of construction on the natural environment and the built and social environment within Clear Creek County. This would underestimate the costs of mitigation and, in turn, the cost effectiveness index (Section 2.3.7.7) We would argue that the nature of the impacts are substantially different between the alternatives, given the currently known design characteristics and working alignments of each alternative, and may in fact be significantly different. Mitigation of the impacts, as summarized in Section 3.19, is generic to the impacts and does not compare potential mitigation strategies between the alternatives. The statutory language in 23 U.S.C. §109(h) states “…and that the final decisions on the project are made in the best overall public interest, taking into consideration the need for fast, safe and efficient transportation, public services, and the costs of eliminating or minimizing such adverse effects and the following:…”. We would think that the costs of mitigation would vary by alternative, to a significant degree, that cannot be accounted for as a portion of “contingencies” applied equally to all alternatives in the Tier 1 PEIS Cost Estimates Spreadsheets.
iii. Clear Creek County is singled out for construction impacts to its economy (3.9.9.3) in which conclusions are based on perceptions and data, (we assume some kind of trend analysis from 1985 through 2001, pgs. 3.9-17 through 3.9-19). We fail to see how recreational visitation and second homes are expected to bridge a possible period of decreased visitation/travel, during an extended period of construction. We object to the conclusion that an absolute downturn in travel and visitor spending from existing levels is not indicated (p 3.9-17 2nd paragraph 1st column) because this statement is a corridor wide generalization and not specific to Clear Creek County. We believe that Clear Creek County will see an absolute downturn in travel and visitor spending during an extended construction period and believe that this statement is misleading.
iv. Instead of conjecture, REMI should model, and it is our understanding that it can, the economic impacts to Clear Creek County
