"The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision - makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of TTC-69."
Comments regarding the I-69/ Trans-Texas Corridor (I-69/TTC) Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).
March 17, 2008
Houston Regional Group and Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club
Copyright 2008
Dear Ms. Brown and Mr. Pensock,
Enclosed are the comments of the Houston Regional Group and Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club (Sierra Club) regarding the I-69/Trans-Texas Corridor (I-69/TTC) Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as proposed by the Federal Highway Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation (the proposers).
The Sierra Club requests:
1) That it be placed on the distribution list for a copy of the final EIS (FEIS) when it is available.
2) That it be notified of any other public meetings, hearings, or similar events regarding the Tier I EIS in the future.
3) That it be placed on the distribution list for any scoping notices for any DEIS that is prepared via Tier II for the I-69/TTC proposal.
4) That it be placed on the distribution list for a copy of any DEIS or FEIS that is prepared via Tier II for the I-69/TTC proposal.
5) That this I-69/TTC DEIS be withdrawn and revised so that quantification of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are analyzed, assessed, and evaluated in the DEIS according to law and a new public comment period be scheduled with either a free CD or hard copy available for any member of the public who requests it.
The Sierra Club makes the following information request to the proposers:
1) A copy of the minutes in Volume I, DEIS, for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)/Steering Committee (SC) Meetings as listed on Table 9.1; I-69/TTC Resources Agency Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.4; I-69/TTC and TTC-35 Joint Agency Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.5; MPO Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.6; and I-69/TTC and TTC-35 Joint MPO Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.7.
2) A copy of “Texas Environmental Resource Stewards Texas Ecological Assessment Protocol Results”, Pilot Project Report, Osowski, et. al., Report Number EPA-906-C-05-001, U.S. EPA, Region 6, 2005.
3) A copy of “US EPA Region 6 GIS Screening Tool User’s Manual, Version 1.1”, Osowski, et. al., US EPA, Region 6, 2005.
Volume I, I-69/TTC Study, Tier I DEIS
1) Page ES-1, Executive Summary, Introduction, the DEIS states a “collaborative effort involving members of the I-69/TTC TAC and SC”. These two committees are biased since they are dominated by the proposers who have a conflict of interest since they want to construct the project and form a voting majority to move the proposal forward.
2) Page ES-1, Executive Summary, Introduction, the DEIS states ”evaluate corridor level alternatives and the No Action Alternative in reaching a Tier One Decision”. The No Action Alternative was not evaluated because the environmental impacts were ignored and the public was told that the impacts of the No Action Alternative would be assessed individually when the projects in No Action are moved forward. So there is no environmental impact analysis, evaluation, and assessment in the DEIS for the No Action Alternative which is illegal under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations.
3) Page ES-1, Executive Summary, Introduction, the Sierra Club does not agree that “Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative” should be pushed back to Tier II. By doing this the momentum for the “New Location Corridor Alternative” is pushed forward by the proposers, which they call their Preferred Alternative, and the No Action Alternative is not given the environmental analysis required by NEPA. The Tier I development and evaluation process has not been “rigorous” and there has not been a “proactive agency and public involvement program” because the public has spoken overwhelmingly that it does not want the proposal but the proposers still push the proposal. There is no “balance” in meeting the purpose and need and minimizing the potential for environmental effects” because there is a conflict of interest in pushing the proposal forward.
This leads the Sierra Club to the believe that instead of preparing a factual and unbiased DEIS the proposers are attempting to mislead and mold the opinions of the public and decision-makers by misinterpretation via language of what really is at stake and exists in the I-69/TTC project area. This is the very antithesis of what an EIS is supposed to be and do. Such actions call for a withdrawal of the DEIS and a total reanalysis that is based on factual evidence and narrative and not manipulative and self-serving language that predetermines the outcome of this proposal.
Under CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, Section 1502.2(g), states “EISs shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made” and Section 1502.5, states “The statement shall be prepared early enough so that it can serve practically as an important contribution to the decision-making process and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made.”
It appears that the proposers have already made a decision to construct I-69/TTC and are using the DEIS as a way to justify this decision. We object!
It is illegal to segment a project under the CEQ regulations so that it is piecemealed as stated in Section 1502.4(a), “Agencies shall make sure the proposal which is the subject of an EIS is properly defined Agencies shall use the criteria for scope to determine which proposals shall be the subject of a particular statement. Proposals or parts of proposals which are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in a single impact statement.”.
The effects of current actions are not considered in the analysis of whether I-69/TTC should be constructed. For instance, global warming and the effects it is having and the generation of greenhouse gases that roads cause; the increased cost of oil, up to about $100/barrel; the increased cost of gasoline which is $3/gallon now and if expected to go to $4/gallon this summer; the collapse of the housing market; the recession that is evident in the United States economy; the reduction in funds for roads due to funding two wars, etc. All of these and more current actions affect and should play a role in determining whether I-69/TTC should be built. But there is no discussion about how these actions affect the decision of whether to build I-69/TTC.
The DEIS does not cover all viable alternatives and therefore does not meet the “all reasonable alternatives” rule that the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) requires in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 1502.14(a). Alternatives that deal strictly with freight rail or other modes, should also be considered “reasonable alternatives” since multi-modal facilities may not be feasible or affordable and their environmental impacts may be too high. In addition the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative are not analyzed for their environmental impacts in the DEIS even though they are reasonable alternatives. There is no “no toll” alternative provided as a reasonable alternative.
Therefore this DEIS does not contain all reasonable alternatives. CEQ says in 1502.14 “Alternatives including the proposed action – This section is the heart of the EIS … it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public … Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives … Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency”.
The proposers eliminate all alternatives arbitrarily by making them not meet the “purpose and need” for the project. In essence the proposers are violating 1502.2(f) of CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations which states “EISs shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made.”
4) Pages ES-2 and ES-3, Executive Summary, What is the Purpose and Need for the Project, the purpose and need statement states that the purpose of I-69/TTC is:
1. Improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people
2. Address anticipated south and east Texas transportation needs for the next 20 to 50 years
3. Sustain and enhance the economic vitality of Texas
The problem with this stated purpose is:
1. What international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people are we talking about?
2. What are the anticipated south and east Texas Transportation needs for the next 20-50 years?
3. What does the “anticipated” consist of?
4. How accurate are projections of what south and east Texas Transportation needs are for the next 20-50 years?
5. How would the economic vitality of Texas, as a whole, be sustained?
6. How would the economic vitality of Texas, as a whole, be enhanced?
7. What is “economic vitality”? How is it defined?
8. What assumptions were made?
9. Was peak oil analyzed?
10. Was $100/barrel oil analyzed?
11. Was $4/gallon gasoline analyzed?
12. Was terrorism and interruption of our fuel supplies analyzed?
13. What analysis was done about possible spread of human and animal disease throughout the United States due to I-69/TTC?
14. What analysis was done about possible spread of exotic species throughout the United States?
Without such information there is no way the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand the purpose and need for the proposal. The public does not know what was taken for granted so that the purpose listed above was agreed upon. The public must know this information and has a right to know this information since its money and its federal and state agencies are making such decisions.
The purpose and need statement goes on to say that several trends and issues strongly indicate the need for transportation planning of the scale and magnitude proposed for the I-69/TTC:
1. Large projected increases in corridor and statewide population, which will result in substantially increased demand for additional transportation infrastructure
2. Large expected increases in freight movement, resulting in the need for additional multi-modal capacity and inter-modal linkages
3. Planning for an uncertain future by preserving a corridor that can accommodate multiple, evolving transportation forms and modes over the next 50 years
4. Economic vitality in areas underserved by existing transportation infrastructure
5. Accomplishing the goals set forth by state and federal legislation
Notice the statement above does not say that the trends and issues support the construction of I-69/TTC, merely that transportation planning of the scale and magnitude of I-69/TTC is necessary. We all know that population is likely to increase greatly. Yes, that does mean we need better transportation planning. This does not justify I-69/TTC.
1. What does “substantially increased demand for additional transportation infrastructure” mean?
2. What kind of transportation infrastructure?
3. How do we know what kind of transportation infrastructure will be needed or technologies exist 50 years from now?
4. Where are the “large expected increases in freight movement” coming from?
5. What additional multi-modal capacity and inter-modal linkages are referred to?
6. How can buying land 50 years in advance of potential need provide certainty since we do not know accurately what our transportation needs and technologies will be?
7. How do you define “economic vitality?
8. What underserved areas are referred to?
9. What existing transportation infrastructure is referred to?
10. Do we need to service these so-called underserved areas the way the purpose indicates?
11. What goals in federal and state legislation does the purpose support?
The proposers do not acknowledge and analyze that NEPA talks about economics in relation to environmental impacts:
1) Section 101(a) of the NEPA states, “The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances … to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.”
2) Section 101(b)(5) of the NEPA states, “achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities”.
3) Section 102(1)(B) of the NEPA states, “… which will insure that presently un-quantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations”.
4) Section 102(1)(C) of the NEPA states, “… major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”. (what is economics but a part of the human environment)
4) Section 201(2) of the NEPA states, “current and foreseeable trends in the quality, management and utilization of such environments and the effects of those trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the Nation”.
5) Section 201(3) of the NEPA states, “the adequacy of available natural resources for fulfilling human and economic requirements of the National in the light of expected population pressures”.
6) Section 202 of the NEPA states, “to be conscious of and responsive to the scientific, economic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs and interests of the Nation”.
7) Section 204(4) of the NEPA states, “to develop and recommend to the president national policies to foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality to meet the conservation, social, economic, health, and other requirements and goals of the Nation”.
8) Section 1501.2(b) of CEQ NEPA regulations states, “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses.”
9) Section 1508.8(b) of CEQ NEPA regulations states, “… Effects includes ecological … aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative”.
10) Section 1508.14 of CEQ NEPA regulations states, “… This means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement. When an environmental impact statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the human environment”.
Without a full accounting the proposers are not integrating all the costs of I-69/TTC (in fact the cost of the proposal is not even given in the DEIS) and providing that information to the public for its review and comment about all costs/benefits.
5) Page ES-6, Executive Summary, What does tiered mean regarding this project, the Sierra Club believes that TxDOT’s proposal to be “allowed to purchase options on land upon completion of the Tier I environmental process” is prejudging the proposal which is illegal under NEPA and CEQ regulations. Section 1502.2(f) states “Agencies shall not commit resources prejudicing selection of alternatives before making a final decision” and Section 1502.2(e) states “EISs shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made”.
How can TxDOT use public tax dollars to preserve a corridor before Tier II is done which will provide most of the environmental analysis and will have most of the environmental alternatives comparative assessment and evaluation?
Neither the No Action or the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative have been environmentally analyzed and yet TxDOT has chosen the New Location Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Alternative and now wants to buy options to hold land for this alternative.
By not including important information in the DEIS (like the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative) the proposers hide from the public and the decision-makers the magnitude and significance of the I-69/TTC. This action violates the following:
1. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.1(b), “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.”
2. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.1(c), “The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences.”
3. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.2(b), “Implement procedures to make the NEPA process more useful to decision-makers and the public.”
4. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.2(d), “Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment.”
5. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.4(b), “Preparing analytic rather than encyclopedic environmental impact statements.”
6. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.4(f), “Emphasizing the portions of the EIS that are useful to decision-makers and the public.”
7. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses.”
8. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.2, “EISs shall be analytic rather than encyclopedic.”
9. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.4(a), “Agencies shall make sure the proposal which is the subject of an EIS is properly defined.”
10. CEQ NEPA Regulation 1502.16, “This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons … environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources.”
11. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.21, “No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for comment.”
12. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.24, “Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in EISs. They shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.”
13. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1506.6(a), “Agencies shall make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.”
14. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.3, “Affecting means will or may have an effect on.”
15. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.14, ”Human Environment shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment … When an EIS is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated then the EIS will discuss all of these effects on the human environment.”
16. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.18, “Major Federal action includes actions with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility. Major reinforces but does not have a meaning independent of significantly … Actions include new and continuing activities, including projects … approval of specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a defined geographic area.”
17. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.27, “Significantly as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity … Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts … For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as whole … Intensity refers to the severity of impact … impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believe that on balance the effect will be beneficial … Unique characteristics of the geographic area … The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial … The degree to which the possible effects … are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks … Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts … Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.”
6) Pages ES-6, ES-7, and ES-10, Executive Summary, What is the project study area, the Sierra Club believes that the Modal Transition Zones (MTZ) are being used to hide the connections that will be made from I-69/TTC to, for example, the Grand Parkway and or State Highway 122. The possible connections to the MTZs should be revealed now and the potential environmental impacts should be analyzed since I-69/TTC is worthless without connections to ports and other facilities in the MTZs.
7) Page ES-7, Executive Summary, What is the project study area, the Sierra Club is concerned that Tier I is the only opportunity for the public to look at the environmental impacts of the entire 650 mile long project at one time. Otherwise the proposers plan to chop up the proposal into “segments of independent utility” which will hide the total impacts of the proposal from the public and decision-makers.
8) Page ES-9, Executive Summary, What Alternatives are being considered in Tier One, the Sierra Club certainly does not consider the I-69/TTC a “visionary concept”. It certainly is not the vision of the public who have overwhelmingly rejected the proposal.
9) Pages ES-9 and ES-18, Executive Summary, No Action Alternative, the proposers have illegally avoided analyzing and stating what the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative are. The DEIS admits that no environmental analysis has been performed on the “No Action Alternative” when it says “Any direct effects of these projects would be evaluated under their own NEPA environmental studies”. So there are no environmental impacts revealed for the “No Action Alternative”, whether direct, indirect, cumulative, or connected. This is illegal under the NEPA and CEQ regulations:
1. 1500.1(b), “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken”
2. 1500.2(e), “Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment”
3. 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses”
4. 1502.1, “It shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment … Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses”
5. 1502.14, ”it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public”
6. 1502.14(a), “Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives”
7. 1502.14(b), “Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits”
8. 1502.14(d), “Include the alternative of no action”
9. 1502.16, Environmental consequences, “It shall include discussions of:
(a) Direct effects and their significance
(b) Indirect effects and their significance
(d) The environmental effects of alternatives including the proposed action. The comparisons under 1502.14 will be based on this discussion.
By not revealing the environmental impacts of the “No Action Alternative” the proposers violate all of the above sections of CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and be revised to legally be in compliance with NEPA and CEQ regulations.
10) Page ES-9, Executive Summary, Use of Existing/Planned transportation Facilities Alternative, the DEIS states “Reconstructing existing transportation facilities”. Which facilities are these? The public and decision-makers have a right now to review, comment on, and understand these so they understand the proposal
11) Page ES-9, Executive Summary, New Location Corridor Alternative, the DEIS talks about Quantm. However, the Quantum assumptions are not explained. The public and decision-makers need detailed information about Quantm to review, comment on, and understand the proposal.
12) Page ES-10, Executive Summary, New Location Corridor Alternative, since linkage to the Rio Grande Valley makes or breaks this proposal the alternatives for this linkage should be revealed now and not in Tier II.
13) Pages ES-17 and ES-18, Executive Summary, How did agencies and the public participate in the project development and decision-making process, the public has been ignored even though most comments have been opposed to this proposal. The TAC and ST are dominated by the proposers and thus create a conflict of interest because they approve the forward motion of the proposal. The public has no input into “Concurrence Points” which the proposers control because they make up the majority of the TAC and SC.
14) Page ES-18, Executive Summary, How were the Reasonable Corridors and Reasonable Connector Corridors evaluated, and what were the results, the proposers never discuss how the environmental evaluation (DEIS Chapter Three) and the transportation planning evaluation (DEIS Chapter Four) are linked together. The transportation planning process should use environmental factors in deciding which corridors should go forward. Unfortunately the proposers use the transportation planning process, with no environmental factors, to choose the corridors when environmental factors should have been used to choose the corridor first and not as an after thought.
15) Pages ES-18 through ES-24, Executive Summary, Environmental Evaluation, the environmental evaluation is flawed because it is too broad and not specific enough to determine what the environmental impacts are and provide a thorough analysis, assessment, and evaluation. Environmental factors should have been used in the Transportation Planning Evaluation (User Benefit Analysis and Supplemental Performance Index Analysis).
Percent coverage is so broad that the quality of habitat is not known; distribution (blockage) does not take into account ephemeral streams; overlap does not look at quality of habitat; and proximity is inaccurate because the assurance of presence cannot be made based on the data provided. There is no “balance” in meeting the purpose and need and environmental impacts because the proposers have already made up their minds that they are going to construction this proposal no matter how much opposition they get from the public. If there is a so-called balance then tell the public and decision-makers what that is so they can review, comment on, and understand the proposal. Suppose the public doesn’t want a balance. Suppose don’t want the project? What right have the proposers to overrule the public’s will?
16) Pages ES-29 and ES-30, Executive Summary, What are the indirect and cumulative effects of an I-69/TTC corridor, the proposers ignore the requirements in NEPA and CEQ regulations that quantification of environmental effects must be provided.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposers have not provided the “hard look” at environmental impacts that is required under NEPA. Words are used which are conclusory in nature and which do not clearly define the environmental impacts of I-69/TTC. In a recent court ruling a judge ruled in favor of the Sierra Club and against the National Park Service about assessment of impacts and the methodology used which was deemed inadequate, arbitrary, and capricious. United States District Judge John D. Bates stated, in part, in Sierra Club v. Mainella the following:
“Because NPS’s impairment analysis served as its NEPA analysis, the flaws in the impairment analysis also apply to the environmental assessment. Those shortcomings are, first, NPS’s lack of explanation as to how it reached its conclusions, typically simply describing the impacts followed by a conclusion that the impact was not an impairment or, in the case of NEPA, that it was not “significant”; and second, the use of the descriptors “negligible”, “minor”, “moderate”, and “major” that are largely undefined or are defined in a manner that includes few objective bounds … nowhere explained the basis for its conclusion that potentially “moderate” impacts could not be significant under NEPA … There is no basis in the administrative record for accepting NPS’s conclusion that even a “minor” impact is not significant under NEPA, because there are no determinate criteria offered for distinguishing a “minor” impact from a “moderate” or “major” impact other than NPS’s conclusory say-so … the scoping regulations still require the agency to explain why they {dismissed issues} will not have a significant effect on the human environment … Thus, the EA must provide a realistic evaluation of the total impacts and cannot isolate a proposed project, viewing it in a vacuum … In short, NPS’s three findings of no significant impact are, the court concludes, arbitrary and capricious for many of the same reasons as are the impairment determinations. In each decision, NPS has failed to take a “hard look” at impacts on the Preserve from adjacent surface activities, as evidenced by the lack of explanations supporting its conclusions and, in particular, its methodology of describing impacts using conclusory labels and then setting forth a bare conclusion without explanation as to the significance of an impact. NPS also failed to provide an adequate cumulative impacts analysis that included the other oil and gas operations in the Gore Baygall Unit … However, NPS’s ultimate conclusions that the drilling activities would not result in impairment of park resources and values under the Organic Act, or a significant impact on the human environment under NEPA, are not supported by reasoned explanations, and hence are arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.”
The proposers are repeating the inadequate NEPA analyses in I-69/TTC DEIS that was the basis for the successful Sierra Club v. Mainella decision. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the proposers conduct analyses for I-69/TTC DEIS that does not use conclusory statements.
For the DEIS, dictionary usage of words or phrases will not suffice to provide the public and decision-makers with a clear picture of what the intensity, significance, and context of environmental impacts are. In other words, an all qualitative assessment, analysis, and evaluation of environmental impacts is not sufficient to deal with the clearly articulated CEQ requirements in Section 1502.14, that the EIS “should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public”.
1. Quantitative assessment, analysis, and evaluation are necessary to ensure that alternatives and environmental impacts are clearly defined and shown in the EIS. As stated in the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, Section 1500.1(b), Purpose, “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens … The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis … are essential to implementing NEPA”.
2. As stated in Section 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses.”
3. As stated in Section 1502.8, “which will be based upon the analysis and supporting data from the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts.”
4. As stated in Section 1502.18(b), about the Appendix, “Normally consist of material which substantiates any analysis fundamental to the impact statement”.
5. As stated in Section 1502.24, “Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, of the discussions and analyses … They shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.”
The analysis that the proposers must conduct for the DEIS is much more than “best professional judgment”. “Best professional judgment” is where a group of people, using their experience, decide what is important. This level of assessment, analysis, and evaluation for environmental impacts and alternatives is an insufficient foundation upon which to base a DEIS. The proposers must define what phrases and words mean so that the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand what the proposers refer to regarding this proposal.
The qualitative description of phrases used to describe environmental impacts or the protectiveness of an alternative does not provide the public with the degree of comparison required by the CEQ’s mandatory NEPA implementing regulations. These regulations state, in Section 1502.14, Alternatives including the proposed action, that, “This section is the heart of the EIS … it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public … Devote substantial treatment to each alternative in detail … so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.”
The CEQ also states, in Section 1502.16 and (d), Environmental consequences, that, “This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons … The environmental effects of alternatives including the proposed action the comparisons under Section 1502.14 will be based on this discussion.”
It is key that the proposers clearly compare and make apparent the distinctiveness of each alternative (both the No Action Alternative and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative environmental impacts are ignored in the DEIS) and its impacts or protectiveness. This is not accomplished when phrases are used qualitatively (substantial) instead of quantitatively with more detailed and clear descriptions of qualitative information. The Sierra Club requests that the proposers clarify and detail clearly the comparative differences between each alternative and define clearly what the words or phrases used mean.
In addition, the DEIS cumulative impacts analysis is incomplete and does not cover all cumulative impacts and projects that cause cumulative impacts. Particularly of concern is how the DEIS fails to quantify secondary impacts caused by development induced or encouraged by the I-69/TTC and other roads that will be expanded in the project area.
The actual quantified cumulative impacts due to these developments are not presented in the DEIS. Some of the questions that should be answered via analysis of cumulative impacts for I-69/TTC in the project area about secondary development include:
1. How many additional roads will be built?
2. How much additional fragmentation will occur?
3. What amount of storm water run-off will be created?
4. What levels of water pollutants will be generated in the storm water run-off?
5. What impacts will this additional storm water run-off have on aquatic life?
6. How much additional stream bank and bed scouring will occur?
7. What amount of what types of air pollutants will be generated?
8. What health, welfare, and environment effects will this air pollution have?
9. What are the environmental impacts of light pollution?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many cumulative impact questions that must be asked and answered. There are many cumulative impacts that must be quantified and cause/effect analysis provided. The DEIS is silent on these site-specific environmental questions.
The Sierra Club requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and a supplementary DEIS be prepared with a public scoping period and public review and comment period for the issue of cumulative impacts and actions that cause cumulative impacts. We recommend that the basis of the cumulative impacts analysis, assessment, and evaluation be the CEQ’s document on cumulative impacts. This document is entitled, “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act” and was published in January 1997.
Some of the especially important quotes from this document include:
a. On page v, “Only by reevaluating and modifying alternatives in light of the projected cumulative effects can adverse consequences be effectively avoided or minimized. Considering cumulative effects in also essential to developing appropriate mitigation and monitoring its effectiveness.”
b. On page v, “By evaluating resource impact zones and the life cycle of effects rather than projects, the analyst can properly bound the cumulative effects analysis. Scoping can also facilitate the interagency cooperation needed to identify agency plans and other actions whose effects might overlap those of the proposed action.”
c. On page vi, “When the analyst describes the affected environment, he or she is setting the environmental baseline and thresholds of environmental change that are important for analyzing cumulative effects. Recently developed indicators of ecological integrity (e.g., index of biotic integrity for fish) and landscape conditions (e.g., fragmentation of habitat patches) can be used as benchmarks of accumulated change over time … GIS technologies provide improved means to analyze historical change in indicators of the condition of resources, ecosystems, and human communities, as well as the relevant stress factors.” The DEIS uses a GIS but not to analyze historical change in indicators of the conditions, resources, ecosystems, human communities, and relevant stress factors.
d. On page vi, “Most often, the historical context surrounding the resource is critical to developing these baselines and thresholds and to supporting both imminent and future decision-making.”
e. On page … the consequences of human activities will vary from those that were predicted and mitigated … therefore, monitoring the accuracy of predictions and the success of mitigation measures is critical.” The DEIS does not set up a process and procedures to monitor the accuracy of predictions and the success of mitigation measures.
f. On page vi, “Special methods are also available to address the unique aspects of cumulative effects, including carrying capacity analysis, ecosystem analysis, economic impacts analysis, and social impact analysis.” The DEIS does not or does little to address carrying capacity, ecosystem, economic impacts, and social impacts analyses.
g. On page vii, Table E-1, “CEA Principles … Cumulative effects analysis …Address additive, countervailing, and synergistic effects … Look beyond the life of the action.” The DEIS does not list and discuss additive, countervailing, and synergistic effects or look beyond the life of the GP.
h. On page 1, “The range of actions that must be considered includes not only the projects proposal but all connected and similar actions that could contribute to cumulative effects.” The DEIS does not look the cumulative impacts of all connected and similar actions, like other road projects.
i. On page 2, Table 1-1, “Federal Agency, … Federal Highway Administration … Cumulative Effects Situations … cumulative commercial and residential development and highway construction associated with suburban sprawl.”
j. On page 3, “The purpose of cumulative effects analysis, therefore is to ensure that federal decisions consider the full range of consequences of actions … If cumulative effects become apparent as agency programs are being planned or as larger strategies and policies are developed then potential cumulative effects should be analyzed at that times.” In the DEIS all road widening actions and their cumulative impacts in the area of interest have not be presented and quantified.
k. On page 3, Cumulative effects analysis necessarily involves assumptions and uncertainties, but useful information can be put on the decision-making table now … Important research and monitoring programs can be identified that will improve analyses in the future, but their absence should not be used as a reason for not analyzing cumulative effects to the extent possible now … adaptive management provisions for flexible project implementation can be incorporated into the selected alternative.”
l. On page 4, “The Federal Highway Administration and state transportation agencies frequently make decisions on highway projects that may not have significant direct environmental effects, but that may induce indirect and cumulative effects by permitting other development activities that have significant effects on air and water resources at a regional or national scale, The highway and other development activities can reasonably be foreseen as “connected actions.” The GP, Segment E, has significant direct environmental impacts as well as significant cumulative impacts.
m. On page 7, “Increasingly, decision makers are recognizing the importance of looking at their projects in the context of other development in the community or region (i.e., of analyzing the cumulative effects) … Without a definitive threshold, the NEPA practitioner should compare the cumulative effects of multiple actions with appropriate national, regional, state, or community goals to determine whether the total effect is significant … Cumulative effects results from spatial (geographic) and temporal (time) crowding of environmental perturbations. The effects of human activities will accumulate when a second perturbation occurs at a site before the ecosystem can fully rebound from the effect of the first perturbation.”
n. On page 8, Table 1-2, lists 8 principles of cumulative effects analysis (copy enclosed). The DEIS does not use or uses poorly these principles in analyzing cumulative effects.
o. On page 19, “The first step in identifying future actions is to investigate the plans of the proponent agency and other agencies in the area. Commonly, analysts only include those plans for actions which are funded or for which other NEPA analysis is being prepared. This approach does not meet the letter or intent of CEQ’s regulations … The analyst should develop guidelines as to what constitutes “reasonably foreseeable future actions” based on planning process within each agency … In many cases, local government planning agencies can provide useful information on the likely future development of the region, such as master plans. Local zoning requirements, water supply plans, economic development plans, and various permitting records will help in identifying reasonably foreseeable private actions … These plans can be considered in the analysis, but it is important to indicate in the NEPA analysis whether these plans were presented by the private party responsible for originating the action. Whenever speculative projections of future development are used, the analyst should provide an explicit description of the assumptions involved … NEPA litigation … has made it clear that “reasonable forecasting” is implicit in NEPA and that it is the responsibility of federal agencies to predict the environmental effects of proposed actions before they are fully known.” The DEIS does not provide the explicit description of the assumptions involved for the development contemplated.
p. On page 23, “Characterizing the affected environment in a NEPA analysis that addresses cumulative effects requires special attention to defining baseline conditions. These baseline conditions provide the context for evaluating environmental consequences and should include historical cumulative effects to the extent feasible.” Historical cumulative effects, in most cases, are missing from the DEIS.
q. On page 29, “Lastly, trends analysis of change in the extent and magnitude of stresses in critical for projecting the future cumulative effects.” Trends analysis of all cumulative impacts are not included in the DEIS.
r. On page 29, “Government regulations and administrative standards … often influence developmental activity and the resultant cumulative stress on resources, ecosystems, and human communities.” The DEIS does not address these governmental actions, like the creation of MUD and similar utility districts and how this affects development and cumulative impacts.
s. On page 31, “Cumulative effects occur through the accumulation of effects over varying periods of time. For this reason, an understanding of the historical context of effects is critical to assessing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed actions. Trends data can be used … to establish the baseline for the affected environment more accurately (i.e., by incorporating variation over time) … to evaluate the significance of effects relative to historical degradation (i.e., by helping to estimate how close the resource is to a threshold of degradation) … to predict the effects of the actions (i.e., by using the model of cause and effects established by past actions).”
t. On pages 38-40, “Using information gathered to describe the affected environment, the factors that affect resources (i.e., the causes in the cause-and-effect relationships) can be identified and a conceptual model of cause and effect developed … The cause-and-effect model can aid in the identification of past, present, and future actions that should be considered in the analysis … The cause-and effect relationships for each resource are used to determine the magnitude of the cumulative effect resulting from all actions included in the analysis … one of the most useful approaches for determining the likely response of the resource … to environmental change is to evaluate the historical effects of activities similar to those under consideration.” The DEIS does not provide historical data about past cumulative effects that other freeways and roads have encouraged or induced.
u. On page 41, “The analyst’s primary goal is to determine the magnitude and significance of the environmental consequences of the proposed action in the context of the cumulative effects of other past, present, and future actions … The critical element in this conceptual model is defining an appropriate baseline or threshold condition of the resource.” The DEIS does not provide the magnitude for most cumulative impacts that are caused by the GP or other actions.
v. On page 43, “Situations can arise where an incremental effect that exceeds the threshold of concern for cumulative effects results, not from the proposed action, but the reasonably foreseeable but still uncertain future actions.” The GP by itself will have significant impacts but these will be dwarfed by the cumulative impacts of secondary development encouraged or induced by the GP. These secondary cumulative impacts are not fully explained or quantified in the DEIS.
w. On page 45, “The significance of effects should be determined based on context and intensity … Intensity refers to the severity of effect … As discussed above, the magnitude of an effect reflects relative size or amount of an effect. Geographic extent considers how widespread the effect might be. Duration and frequency refers to whether the effect is a one-time event, intermittent, or chronic.” The DEIS is weak in defining the significance of effects using intensity, magnitude, geographic extent, and duration and frequency and quantifying these factors of effects.
x. On page 45, “Determinations of significance … are the focus of analysis because they lead to additional (more costly) analysis or to inclusion of additional mitigation (or a detailed justification for not implementing mitigation) … the project proponent should avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects by modifying alternatives … in most cases, however, avoidance or minimization are more effective than remediating unwanted effects.”
y. On page 51, “different resource effects that cumulatively affect interconnected systems must be addressed in combination.”
17) Pages ES-30 through ES-33, Executive Summary, What is the Recommended Preferred Alternative, the DEIS chooses a Preferred Alternative before all alternatives (the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative) have been analyzed for environmental impacts and other factors. This is not legal especially since the comparative analysis that Section 1502.14 requires has not been done.
18) Page ES-34, Executive Summary, Mexican and other connections to I-69/TTC have not been discussed and the environmental impacts they will have. This is required by NEPA and CEQ regulations. What are substantive comments? How will these be determined? The Sierra Club sees no way that the proposers can state that any part of I-69/TTC is benign enough environmentally to be called a categorical exclusion.
19) Page 1-1, 1.0 Purpose and Need, the DEIS states “Tier One will not authorize the construction of any portion of an I-69/TTC facility.” However, TxDOT will pay money if Tier I is approved to hold right-of-way which prejudges whether the proposal will be built. The Sierra Club objects to paying any money to hold any land for a potential corridor for this proposed project.
20) Page 1-1, 1.1 I-69/TTC Description, the DEIS fails to tell the public, the taxpayers, how much this proposal may cost. A range of costs should be provided. The public has a right to this information. Why would anyone support a proposal when the agency cannot or will not even provide an estimate of the cost?
21) Page 1-3, 1.2 Purpose and Need, see comment 4) above, about the purpose and need statement. That same comment applies here.
22) Pages 1-4 and 1-5, 1.4 Tier One EIS Scope, the DEIS fails to assess the environmental impacts of connected, indirect, and cumulative actions in Mexico, Louisiana, and other places which will be linked to this proposal. This is required by NEPA and CEQ regulations. Since this proposal may last 50 years an analysis of this timeframe of implementation should be in the DEIS. It is obvious that the entire I-69/TTC consists of “independent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification” (Section 1508.25).
The No Action Alternative has not actually been environmentally analyzed in the DEIS because the proposers have put off the analysis, evaluation, and assessment of environmental impacts to some time in the future when federal and other monies are available for their approval and implementation. This is illegal under NEPA and CEQ regulations.
It is amazing that this proposal is so poorly developed that where utilities will be and the width of the corridor are not known. It is not appropriate that Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative is not analyzed now and is automatically advanced to Tier II. This cannot be done legally under NEPA and CEQ regulations which require comparative analysis of all reasonable environmental alternatives. The proposers evade this by advancing the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative and not doing any environmental analysis on the No Action Alternative.
23) Pages 1-5 through 1-7, 1.5 Tier One EIS Decision, the DEIS in this part fails to state what are “substantive comments” (this definition is given on page ES-35,“comments that would provide new information relative to the Tier I decision”) and show which comments have indeed been considered “substantive” and why. CEQ regulations only say, Section 1503.4(b), “All substantive comments received on the Draft Statement (or summaries thereof where the response has been exceptionally voluminous), should be attached to the final statement”. The definition for “substantive comments” is an artificial construct of the proposers.
There has been no collaborative effort with the public. The TAC and SC are dominated by a majority of the proposers employees so there is not way for the proposal not to advance. This is a conflict of interest. Costs should be addressed now before deciding to spend more public money on this proposal. It is the public’s money and the public deserves to know what the cost is now. Millions of dollars of the public’s money have already been spent on this proposal. By hiding the costs now the proposers attempt to generate momentum for the proposal to force it past public opposition which is overwhelming. Public involvement has been after-the-fact, in the sense that the TAC and SC and has been ignored.
24) Page 1-8, 1.6 Study Area, the MTZs should be presented now with connections to I-69/TTC so that the true environmental impacts and economic costs can be analyzed and not delayed in an attempt to create momentum for the proposal.
25) Pages 2-1 and 2-2, 2.1 Tier One Alternatives, the proposers illegally ignore the environmental costs of the No Action Alternative and advance the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative without any environmental analysis. The Sierra Club objects to this illegal hiding of alternative comparison of environmental impacts.
26) Pages 2-2 through 2-7, New Location Corridor Alternative, it is amazing that air pollution is not one of the seven avoidance criteria. Air pollution should be analyzed, assessed, and evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively in this DEIS.
For instance, mobile source air toxics (MSAT) must be analyzed. But MSAT must be analyzed correctly. This includes recognizing that the MSAT analysis uses, MOBILE 6.2, which underestimates air pollution from vehicles. Therefore reductions in MSAT can be overestimated if this is not taken into account. Further, an important point is that it is the total air pollution plume from roads that causes human health effects and not just a few air toxics. The DEIS should not focus on these few air toxics but analyze the effects that the total air pollution plume has on people who live close to roads (about 1,000 feet).
The MSAT analysis must also acknowledge the large diesel truck impacts that I-69/TTC will have. In addition it is not likely that “traffic flow improvements” will occur, if you base your analysis on what has happened in the past 30 years as new or expanded roads fill to capacity and create more congestion and air pollution and while still below capacity create more air pollution due to vehicles traveling at high speeds (higher nitrogen oxides which help cause ozone). The public and decision-makers have a right to know all the information about air pollution now so they can review, comment on, and understand all the environmental impacts of I-69/TTC.
The DEIS is deficient regarding adequate quantitative and qualitative air quality assessment, evaluation, and analysis. Some questions that need to be answered include:
What amount of what types of air pollutants will be generated by I-69/TTC (emissions inventory)?
What health, welfare, and environment effects will this air pollution have?
The public needs to know the tons/year of different air pollutants like particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx), diesel exhaust, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and certain air toxic compounds, including carcinogens that are generated by I-69/TTC and associated development. The public and the decision-makers must know the additional air pollution burden generated before I-69/TTC is built, when it initially opens, and when it reaches capacity.
Modeling CO must not be what the air pollution analysis of I-69/TTC should solely consist of. The pollutant of most immediate concern is ozone because of the several non-attainment areas for ozone that I-69/TTC goes by. That means that hydrocarbons (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide inventories should be estimated before the proposal, when it first is opened, and when it reaches capacity. This includes secondary development impacts and the emissions that are generated by residential and commercial development, both construction and operation.
Instead of taking the health effects of air pollution seriously the DEIS does no analysis on air pollution. The need for MSAT and other air analyses is obvious. This includes determining how long it takes for a vehicle year car/light truck fleet to turnover (about 10 years) for a heavy truck fleet (about 20-20 years). There must be discussion of how MOBILE 6.2 continually underestimated emissions and that we know that VOC and NOx are emitted at much greater amounts than models and emission inventories have shown.
For instance, in the August 31, 2007 “Final Rapid Science Synthesis Report: Findings from the Second Texas Air Quality Study (TexAQS II)”, A Report to the TCEQ by the TexAQS II Rapid Science Synthesis Team prepared by the Southern Oxidants Study Office of the Director at North Carolina State University, states on page 59 “On-road mobile emission inventories developed from MOBILE 6 have significant shortcomings. MOBILE 6 consistently overestimates CO emissions by about a factor of 2. It accurately estimated NOx emission in the years near 2000, but it indicates decrease in NOx emissions since then, while ambient data suggest NOx emissions have actually increased. Consequently in 2006, NOx to VOC emission ratios in urban areas are likely underestimated by current inventories … The HGB (Houston-Galveston-Brazoria) inventory overestimates the CO to NOx emission ratio, and that overestimate becomes worse with time as the inventory does not show a significant temporal decrease … Parish (2006) showed that the rapid decrease (6.6%/yr) in the ratio is partially due to a slower decrease in CO emissions (4.6%/yr), which implies a significant increase in NOx emissions (approximately 2%/yr). The large inventory overestimates in the CO to NOx ratio at the present time are attributed to a factor of 2 overestimate in CO emissions, and an underestimate in present NOx emissions.”
The air pollution analysis for the DEIS should look at all health effects studies and adequately analyze the threat of air pollution (not just air toxics) on people living close to roads (about 1,000 feet). In addition, since air does not stay in one place, and since there are industrial sources, many area sources, and a large number of off-road sources of air pollution that emit air toxics the entire parcel of air that people breathe should be considered and not just MSAT.
As the Health Effects Institute’s November 2007 Special Report 16, “Mobile-Source Air Toxics: A Critical Review of the Literature on Exposure and Health Effects” says, “However, the introduction of reformulated or alternative fuels might pose its own risks, and the removal of individual fuel components does not automatically ensure safe fuels.” It is a red herring to focus only on MSAT, which is a “subset of all air toxics”, when the focus should be total air pollution that people are exposed to. Certainly, the DEIS analysis should be preventive of public health and demonstrate the use of the “precautionary principle”.
There is no assessment of what the health effects are due to total air pollution (the entire plume emitted by vehicles as they drive by on a road) exposure on people living close to roads (about 1,000 feet). This is what many recent studies on air pollution health effects do. It is an abdication of authority to ignore this problem. There is no analysis that looks at the impacts that driving large diesel trucks from I-69/TTC will have on air pollution and people’s health.
The Sierra Club submits with these comments the following documents that deal with air pollution from vehicles and its possible effect on human health:
1) Particulate Matter and Air Toxic Pollutant Exposures Near Heavily Traveled Roadways in the U.S., by Patricia Rowley and Richard Cook, U.S. EPA.
2) Bibliography of Near Roadway Health Effects (I) and Exposure Studies (II), U.S. EPA, March 2007.
3) Highway Health Hazards, Sierra Club 2004.
4) Freeways & Health: Recent Studies, Dr. Winifred J. Hamilton, June 4, 2002.
5) Diesel and Health in America: The Lingering Threat, Clean Air Task Force, February 2005.
6) Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, U.S. EPA, May 2002.
7) Health Effects of Air Pollution: Beyond the Criteria Pollutants, Dr. Philip Bromberg, et. al., Air Toxics Workshop II, Section 1, Mickey Leland Center, June 12, 2007.
8) Near-Roadway Exposure and Health, Chad Bailey, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Air Toxics Workshop II, Mickey Leland Center, June 12, 2007. Attachment 1
The DEIS does not provide information about the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that will be generated due to the construction and operation of I-69/TTC. The DEIS must provide information about the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that all of the cumulative actions and impacts (including, direct, indirect, secondary, and connected impacts) generate, encourage, or accelerate due to the construction and operation of I-69/TTC. The impacts of these greenhouse gas emissions must be assessed, analyzed, and evaluation and this information must be discussed in the DEIS so that the public and decision-makers can review and comment and understand this issue. This includes analyzing the impact of vehicle miles traveled increases or decreases in the study area due to the construction and operation of I-69/TTC, connections to the MTZs, and associated development.
The DEIS must but does not talk about mitigation measures and a dust control plan that will be prepared before construction. NEPA and CEQ regulations require that the public and decision-makers be fully informed. A dust control plan must be in the DEIS so the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand the full impacts of the I-69/TTC. Section 1502.14(f) of CEQ regulations requires that “Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives”; Section 1502.16(e), which requires “Energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures; Section 1502.16(h), which requires “Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (if not fully covered under 1502.14(f); and Section 1505.2(c) requires that “A monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized where applicable for any mitigation.”
This must be done with this DEIS. For instance, one source of dust that the Sierra Club often sees on road projects is the use of a rotary cleaner which buffs and cleans recently poured concrete. Oftentimes this equipment generates huge amounts of dust that can obscure traffic and create dangerous safety situations. A dust collector, like a bag-house, or a series of sprinkler heads could be mounted on this piece of equipment to collect or reduce dust as it is generated. Another way to reduce air emissions from this equipment is to wet the concrete. This type of detail is needed in the dust control plan so the public can see what will be done and what is committed to by the proposers.
27) Page 2-3, New Location Corridor Alternative, the proposers have failed to describe Quantum adequately and the assumptions and limitations that it possesses including accuracy of predictions and data used, deficiencies, and any percent error for outputs that it provides.
28) Page 2-3, New Location Corridor Alternative, the proposers need to state what they mean when they say “Minimize the potential to affect existing infrastructure, “as practical”. How will the proposers “Allow a buffer from development around protected sources”? How do the proposers feel that “Consider local and regional planning objectives” will reduce environmental impacts for this proposal? What are the impacts of the MTZs?
29) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what is a “transportation planning perspective”?
30) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what are the “Level 1a Preliminary Corridor Transportation Planning Review findings and recommendations”?
31) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what are “Purpose and Need planning performance measures”?
32) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what “deletion, addition, and consolidation of some corridors” will occur?
33) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what are the “Level 1b Preliminary Corridor Transportation Planning Review findings and recommendations”?
34) Page 2-5, New Location Corridor Alternative, the use of GISST and TEAP criteria is inadequate as stated in these comments below.
35) Page 2-5, New Location Corridor Alternative, it is disingenuous to say “Actual construction costs are currently unknown” since the proposers have the experience to estimate costs and the public has a right to know these costs since it is their money that will be used and is being used to prepare this proposal.
36) Page 2-5, New Location Corridor Alternative, the DEIS should state what the deficiencies, percent error, accuracy of data, and assumptions used for the Statewide Analysis Model (SAM) are.
37) Page 2-6, New Location Corridor Alternative, the DEIS states “The non-numeric values were often similar for corridors within an evaluation sections, and therefore were not considered distinguishing for making corridor recommendations”. What are these “non-numeric values”? What does “similar” mean?
38) Page 2-6, New Location Corridor Alternative, the TAC and SC certainly were not open to public participation by non-governmental organizations and the public and the additional resource and planning agency meetings were not open to public participation by non-governmental organizations and the public.
39) Page 2-7, New Location Corridor Alternative, what is “an environmental and or planning perspective”?
40) Page 2-7, Reasonable Corridors and Reasonable Connectors Corridors, a “Relative Construction Cost Factor” is not enough. The public deserves an estimated cost since tax dollars have been used to prepare this DEIS and will be used for proposal if it is approved. It is a cop-out to state that “Costs of right-of-way, culverts, and other necessary facilities components were not included because they are based on alignment levels studies, thus they could not be quantified at the corridor level of analysis during Tier One.” If the proposers cannot estimate its costs then this means that the proposers are not qualified to construct this proposal if it is approved. Certainly the public and decision-makers deserve an estimate of cost and certainly the proposers have the experience the make an estimate of costs. If the proposers cannot do this then they should not be allowed to push this proposal forward. That is what the public pays the proposers to do.
41) Pages 2-8 through 2-23, how accurate is the “Relative Construction Cost Factor”? What is the estimated construction cost for this proposal? The public deserves to know this since its tax dollars are being used now and will be used in the future if the proposal is approved.
42) Page 2-22, Evaluation Section N, the Big Thicket National Preserve and the Alabama-Coushatta Indian Reservation are also near the proposed project area and this should be recognized in the DEIS.
43) Pages 2-22 and 2-23, RCC-N1 and 2.3 Recommended Preferred Alternative Identification, it is important that the DEIS talk about the proposed connection of Segments H and I-1 of the Grand Parkway to I-69/TTC and what this will cost environmentally and economically.
44) Page 3-1, 3.2 Affected Environment, Natural Environment Setting, the DEIS states “Using ecoregions to define the study area environment strengthens an ecosystem approach in transportation planning, development, and implementation.” What is an “ecosystem approach”? There is no definition or statement of goals for an “ecosystem approach”. What development is contemplated?
45) Page 3-14, Land Use, why does the DEIS use data based on a study that is 18 years old? What updates have been done to make sure the data is accurate and reflects what happens today? Certainly it appears that residential land uses account for more than 3% of study area particularly in the Houston area. What comprehensive plans for the Houston-Galveston Area were reviewed? The City of Houston does not have a comprehensive plan. How has the real estate downturn been taken into account in the DEIS?
46) Page 3-17, Air Quality Environment, the DEIS fails to consider that MOBILE 6 underestimates emissions from vehicles. Please see our comments above in this letter that state what the air quality analysis should consist of. There are no one hour ozone non-attainment areas anymore because that standard no longer exists. So stating that there are no “areas in non-attainment for one hour ozone” means nothing.
47) Page 3-18, 3.3 Potential Consequences, the proposers have not revealed the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative by illegally avoiding this analysis by saying that “Any direct effects of these projects would be evaluated under their own environmental studies”.
CEQ regulations, Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c), require full revelation and comparison of all reasonable alternatives regarding the environmental impacts that they have. By not revealing the environmental impacts of the “No Action Alternative” the proposers violate all of the above sections of CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and be revised to legally comply with NEPA and CEQ regulations.
48) Page 3-19, GISST Ozone Non-Attainment, the one hour ozone standard should not be used. The ozone standard that exists today is the eight hour standard. The eight hour ozone standard changed on March 12, 2008 and is now 0.075 ppm. The DEIS air quality analysis should be changed to reflect the changed ozone standard. The most recent information should be used and not information that is 8-10 years old (1998 and 2002).
49) Page 3-19, GISST Managed Lands, the Sierra Club is very concerned that Texas state forest land, national wilderness areas, national or state designated wild and scenic river segments, national trials, national preserves, or Louisiana publicly owned lands are not part of the GISST analysis. We are also concerned that all private conservation lands are not included in this analysis.
50) Page 3-21, GISST Wildlife Habitat, the Sierra Club is very concerned that eight year old data was used with no specific habitat types included. Only the very broad and general land cover types of forests, shrub-lands, grasslands, wetlands, and open water were used. No habitat quality, vulnerability, uniqueness, connectivity, rare species, and land cover types are represented in the GISST coverage and are not specifically identified and were not used. This means the analysis is less than complete and is arbitrary and capricious.
51) Page 3-21, GISST Federal Threatened and Endangered Species and GISST State Threatened and Endangered Species, the Sierra Club is very concerned that state and federal candidate species are not included in this analysis and that federally listed species in Louisiana are not part of the GISST.
52) Page 3-21, GISST Stream Density, the Sierra Club is concerned that the GISST Stream Density data does not include ephemeral streams. This failure to include ephemeral streams underestimates the amount of stream miles that are impacted by all proposed corridors. Thus the environmental impacts are underestimated. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
53) Page 3-21, GISST TMDL/CWA 303(d), not all streams have been assessed for impairment in the project area. Therefore the possible environmental impacts are underestimated.
54) Page 3-21, GISST Floodplain, the Sierra Club is concerned that 16 Texas counties and two Louisiana parishes are not represented by the same floodplain data as 27 other Texas counties. The same level of environmental analysis was not conducted for all parts of the proposed project area.
55) Page 3-22, GISST Ecologically Significant Stream Segment, this is a poor criteria to use because the Texas Legislature has approved no more than a few streams (about 16) and most of the Regional Water Planning Groups have not designated ecologically significant stream segments. Also Louisiana streams were not considered which means the same level of environmental analysis was not conducted for all parts of the proposed project area. This analysis underestimates the impacts to ecologically significant stream segments.
56) Page 3-22, GISST Wetlands, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information about wetland quality, significance, size, site specific type, or connectivity to other water resources and uses data that is eight years old. What are the limitations of the 2000 USGS NLCD data? The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
57) Page 3-22, GIST Agricultural Lands, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide specific agricultural land use, type of production, and prime or unique farmlands. All this analysis does is identify the presence of broad categories of farmland (orchards/vineyards/other, pasture/hay, row crop, small gains, and fallow) which is not specific enough to determine what the actual environmental impacts will be. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
58) Page 3-22, GISST Hazardous Waste, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information about the size of the facility, extent of potential contamination, or environmental sensitivity. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
59) Page 3-22, TEAP Rarity, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information specific about threatened and endangered species, wildlife habitats, and plant communities. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
60) Page 3-22, TEAP Diversity, this analysis is deficient because it relies on the incomplete ecologically significant streams segment data. Most of the project area has not had complete species inventories and monitoring of species. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
61) Page 3-23, TEAP Sustainability, this analysis is deficient because it assumes that we have information that can determine an area’s ecological resistance to disturbance and resiliency to recover after human disturbance. Much of the information used is biased against urbanized areas and industrialized areas and does not take into account adequately the ecological changes that loss of fire, logging, grazing, and agriculture have on the environmental. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
62) Page 3-23, TEAP Composite, this analysis is deficient because it is based on three other deficient criteria. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
63) Pages 3-23 and 3-24, GISST and TEAP Scoring, this analysis is deficient because the actual location or percent coverage of the resource within the gird cell is not known; the quality, quantity, and specific location of a particular resource is not given; no field surveys were conducted; and a resource represented by the GISST or TEAP may not occupy or be found within the entire grid cell, even in the highest scoring cells. Presence/absence scoring is not sufficient to allow real data analysis. How can there be any scoring when you do not know what is in the grid cells? The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
64) Pages 3-24 and 3-25, Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects, this analysis is deficient because GISST and TEAP data is so poor that you cannot even tell if a resource is found in the grid cell. In addition, the failure to conduct any indirect and cumulative effects analysis and no quantitative direct effects analysis is illegal under NEPA and CEQ regulations (Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c)). The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
65) Pages 3-25 through 3-29, Method for Evaluating the New Location Corridor Alternative, this method is deficient. The percent coverage of resource data is too broad and general and does not tell what type of specific habitat type will be impacted; the distribution is incomplete because it does not include ephemeral streams; the overlap of resource data is deficient because you do not know if species are even in grid cells; and the proximity of resource data is inadequate because absence or presence is not really known, the data used is old, and “may indicate” answers are provided instead of any assurance that real resource problems exist. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
66) Page 3-30, GISST Wildlife Habitat, this method is deficient because habitat quality, vulnerability, uniqueness connectivity, rare species, and land cover types within the coverage are not specifically identified or are not included. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
67) Pages 3-30, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39, 3-42, 3-46, 3-49, 3-53, 3-57, 3-61, 3-64, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-75, 3-78, 3-81, 3-82, 3-84, 3-88, 3-89, 3-93, 3-96, 3-97, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, and 3-105, No Action Alternative, the proposers have not revealed the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative. This has been done illegally by saying that “Any direct effects of these projects would be evaluated under their own environmental studies”.
CEQ regulations, Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c), require full revelation and or comparison of all reasonable alternatives with regard to the environmental impacts that they have. By not revealing the environmental impacts of the “No Action Alternative” the proposers violate all of the above sections of CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and be revised to legally fit NEPA and CEQ regulations.
68) Page 3-30, GISST Wildlife Habitat Findings, this method is deficient because habitat quality, vulnerability, uniqueness connectivity, rare species, and land cover types within the coverage are not specifically identified or are not included. This means that this analysis is dangerous and less than useless because it gives the air of authority, professionalism, and scientific accuracy and acceptability when it has none of these things. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
69) Pages 3-33 and 3-34, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, this analysis is deficient because what is slated for Tier II should be done for Tier I. The promises made are not useful because they are discretionary. For instance, the DEIS states “If effects could not be avoided, efforts to analyze effects and identify potential mitigation would be conducted”. There is no commitment here to actually mitigate or avoid any damage to the environment. Another example is “Existing vegetation … would be avoided and preserved where practicable”. There is no commitment to preserve any wildlife and habitat values, water quality protection, and soil conservation.
In addition, the Pineywoods Mitigation and Conservation Area is not appropriate for mitigation of impacts in other watersheds like those of the Trinity River and San Jacinto River. Mitigation needs to be done in the watershed where the destruction and damage occus. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
70) Page 3-34, GISST Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species, this analysis is deficient because it “does not identify what specific species may be located within the grid cell”. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
71) Page 3-35, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, what is important is not that the Section 7 consultation process occurs at some time in the future. What is important is that the DEIS fails to tell the public and decision-makers now so they can review, comment on, and understand what impacts on state and endangered species will occur.
72) Page 3-35, Important Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats, what is important is not whether corridors are differentiating but what the impacts are on important terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Of course the corridors are not differentiating when the method of analysis is so crude and broad that it cannot provide important information about habitats.
73) Pages 3-35 and 3-36, TEAP Rarity, Diversity, Sustainability, and Composite, it is of great concern that an equivalent analysis was not done for Louisiana because the TEAP criteria do not exist for Louisiana.
A “may provide” answer for avoiding or minimizing potential impacts, which is provided throughout Chapter 3, is not good enough for the DEIS because it does not give a firm basis for choosing one corridor over another.
74) Page 3-52, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how can Tier I result in a Selected Alternative, called Preferred Alternative in Chapter 6, when all reasonable alternatives have not been compared (No Action Alternative and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative) regarding their environmental impacts? This is not legal under NEPA and CEQ regulations (Section 1502.14).
75) Page 3-53, Water Resources, GISST Stream, Density and Stream Crossing, this analysis is deficient because ephemeral streams are not included in the analysis. Ephemeral streams have an important impact on water quality and must be used in any stream analysis.
76) Page 3-54, Surface Water Findings Stream and River Crossing, groundwater and recharge area impacts are ignored even though groundwater is connected to surface water.
77) Pages 3-54 and 3-61, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, what does “where feasible and appropriate” mean regarding mitigation measures and best management practices for Section 401 and 404 permits?
78) Page 3-57, GISST TMDL/CWA 303(d), this is a deficient analysis because the five mile proximity analysis is not used in Louisiana. There must be an equivalent analysis used for all parts of the proposed project.
79) Page 3-61, GISST Floodplain, this analysis is deficient because 16 Texas counties and two Louisiana parishes are not given equivalent analysis. In addition, Executive Order 11988 on floodplains is not mentioned with regard to how I-69/TTC will comply.
80) Page 3-63, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how is “substantial damage” defined?
81) Pages 3-67 and 3-68, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how are “appropriate and practicable measures; “appropriate and practicable steps”; “greatest extent possible”; “appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation”; and “appropriate and practicable minimization” defined?
82) Pages 3-69 and 3-70, Groundwater, “how is “ecological functions of aquifers” defined? What amount of the recharge area will be crossed by the proposal in each segment and what is the environmental impact on the recharge area?
83) Page 3-70, GISST Managed Lands, the Sierra Club is concerned because all private lands that are protected for conservation purposes are not included in this analysis.
84) Page 3-71, Table 3.22, the name of the park in Section N is Lake Houston Park and not Lake Houston State Park. The Texas Parks and Wildlife department has allowed the City of Houston to take over management of what used to be Lake Houston State Park.
85) Page 3-72, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how is “feasible or prudent” defined?
86) Page 3-75, GISST Agricultural Lands, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information about agricultural soils, land quality, production, and does not identify prime or unique farmland soils.
87) Page 3-78, GISST Ozone Non-attainment, this analysis is deficient because it does not include an emissions inventory for air pollutants that will be generated by this proposal, including those emitted due to secondary development. The new EPA ozone eight hour standard must be used (0.075 ppm).
88) Page 3-80, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, this analysis is deficient because it waits until Tier II before considering the “potential effects of an I-69/TTC facility on air quality”. This information must be provided now as required by CEQ regulations, Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c).
89) Page 3-83, GISST Percent Minority, this analysis is deficient because it is so broad it cannot analyzed minority areas like Kendleton which is majority African-American and Hispanic and could be heavily impacted by the proposal.
90) Page 3-88, Economy, this analysis is deficient because it does not include an estimated cost of the proposal.
91) Page 3-96, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, this noise analysis is deficient because it does not estimate what the noise increase in decibels will be. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
92) Page 3-102, Energy, this analysis is deficient because it does not discuss the changed energy situation including peak oil, $100/barrel oil, $4/gallon gasoline, and our increased dependence on foreign oil via using more cars and trucks. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
93) Page 3-103, Construction, what is the definition for “feasible and reasonable”?
94) Pages 3-103 and 3-104, Relationship of Local Short Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity, this section is incorrectly titled. It should be “The relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” as stated in NEPA.
The DEIS fails to discuss the increased use of oil and gasoline and the vulnerability of Texas using this proposal road versus other alternatives and gives no analysis for the No Action Alternative or the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative.
95) Page 3-105, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, the DEIS gives no analysis for the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative. In addition, there will be the permanent loss of wildlife habitat and all natural processes and ecological functions (natural capital). The Sierra Club is opposed to using purchase options because they illegally subvert the alternative comparison and selection process. See Sections 1502(f) and (g) of CEQ regulations.
97) Page 4-1, Planned Roadway Projects, the list provided fails to show the connection to road projects like the proposed Grand Parkway and U.S. 290 which may be used by I-69/TTC to enter the Houston MTZ. All potential environmental impacts must be analyzed now.
98) Page 4-2, Hurricane Evacuation Routes, the DEIS refers to “developed a statewide evacuation plan” regarding emergency management. However, there appears to be no official state “hurricane evacuation plan” for Texas or for a specific area, like Houston. Hurricane evacuation is much more than providing additional capacity. It also entails good coordination, communications, adequate personnel, appropriate training, and acquisition and maintenance of equipment. A real hurricane evacuation study would include all of these elements and more with public participation and input to ensure that people can be moved safely and property protected in as expeditious and economical a fashion as possible. And the results of that study would be provided to the public to review, comment on, and understand. This has not happened for I-69/TTC.
99) Page 4-4, 4.2 Transportation Planning Evaluation Method, the Sierra Club is concerned that environmental factors were not considered in the transportation planning evaluation process even though they should be because they affect the economic and engineering features the proposed project.
100) Page 4-6, User Benefit Analysis and Supplemental Performance Index Analysis, the Sierra Club is concerned that environmental factors were not considered in the transportation planning evaluation process (user benefit analysis and supplemental performance index analysis) even though they should be because they affect the economic and engineering features the proposed project.
101) Page 4-14, System Connectivity Analysis, the Sierra Club is very concerned that no estimated cost of the proposal is given. It is not clear who the system users are when a benefit has been calculated. The Sierra Club does not understand how a system user benefit can be calculated when the actual cost of the proposal is not estimated. Total cost and maintenance costs have a lot to do with whether there will be system user benefits and how much they are.
102) Page 4-16, 4.6 Supplemental Rail Review, the analysis for rail is non-existent. It makes no sense to talk about high-speed rail or commuter rail when the proposal does not go to cities.
103) Pages 5-1 through 5-21, 5.0 Indirect and Cumulative Effects, the proposers ignore the requirements in NEPA and CEQ regulations that quantification of effects must be provided.
NEPA and CEQ regulations do not state that if alternatives have indirect or cumulative effects that are, as the proposers state, “no differentiation … no distinguishing factors” then the environmental impacts do not have to be revealed and assessed, evaluated, and analyzed comparatively. But that is exactly what the proposers do in an illegal end-run around NEPA and CEQ regulations. This is arbitrary and capricious and against the law. As the proposers well know they have not revealed or analyzed the environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) for the No Action Alternative and for the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative.
105) Page 5-2, Step 1 – Define Study Area, the proposers have not revealed or analyzed the environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) for the No Action Alternative and for the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative. The public and decision-makers must have this information now about the entire proposed project so they can review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of this proposal.
106) Page 5-3, Step 2 – Identify Effects of Selecting a New Location Corridor Alternative, the proposers state “it is recognized that if the New Location Corridor Alternative is selected there may be effects to land use, land use planning, and land values associated with the local and regional economy.” So the Sierra Club asks, “Why is this information, the environmental impacts that could occur, not in the DEIS?”
107) Page 5-3, Step 3 – Identify Indirect Effects of Construction and Operation of an I-69/TTC Facility, the proposers state “the selection of a New Location Corridor Alternative does not predict where the I-69/TTC facility alignments may ultimately occur within the corridor.” This is a cop-out, inaccurate, statement. In fact estimates can be made to determine what the approximate environmental impacts would be, in other words quantification.
However, the proposers have so distorted the analysis process that they claim this cannot be done. Certainly, this has been done with the Grand Parkway EISs that have come out even when the exact corridor location was not known. Certainly, it is possible to estimate how much water will run-off a certain volume of pavement; it is possible to estimate the water pollutants that will run-off with that water volume; it is possible to estimate air emissions from a road; it is possible to estimate specific habitat types that will be damaged or destroyed. It is possible to estimate many environmental impacts now. The proposers just don’t want to do so because environmental analysis now would reveal massive environmental impacts. Under NEPA and CEQ regulations it is not legal to avoid analyzing and quantifying environmental impacts. The public and decision-makers need this information to review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of this proposal.
There is a body of scientific research that demonstrates the approximate environmental destruction that induced travel from transportation causes. The proposers ignore this. The public and decision-makers need this information to review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of this proposal. Attachment 2
108) Pages 5-3 and 5-4, Step 4 – Identify Strategies for Evaluating Tier Two Indirect Effects, the proposers state “TxDOT is in the process of developing specific guidance on the assessment of indirect effects.” The CEQ regulations have been in existence since 1978 (30 years) and all this time TxDOT has had a legal obligation to follow those regulations which require analysis of indirect environmental impacts. It is not an excuse now or at any time in the past 30 years for TxDOT to state it is “in the process of developing specific guidance on assessment of indirect effects”. Why was this guidance not put together 30 years ago? The proposers are negligent.
109) Pages 5-4 through 5-13, 5.3 Findings, the proposers fail to quantify the environmental impacts of Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources Including: Vegetation and Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Important Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats; Water Resources Including: Surface Water, Water Quality, Floodplains, Wetlands, and Groundwater; Public Land; Agricultural Land; air Quality, Hazardous Waste, Social Characteristics Including; Population, Community Facility and Neighborhood/Community Cohesion, Environmental Justice; Economic Resources and Characteristics; Land Use; Cultural Resources; Noise; Utilities; Mineral Resources; and Visual Resources for the alternatives provided: No Action Alternative, New Location Corridor Alternative, and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative.
On page 5-5, Public Land, how is “feasible and prudent” defined?
On page 5-6, Agricultural Land, why should this proposal “accommodate induced development?
On Pages 5-6 and 5-7, Air Quality, what are the air pollution impacts of regional haze, air toxics, and ozone due to this proposal?
On pages 5-7 and 5-8, Social Characteristics Including: Population, Community Facility and Neighborhood/Community Cohesion, Environmental Justice, what are the quantified environmental impacts on the community of Kendleton?
On pages 5-8 and 5-9, Economic Resources and Characteristics, what is the estimated cost of this proposal? What are the induced land use effects?
Submitted to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).
March 17, 2008
Houston Regional Group and Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club
Copyright 2008
Dear Ms. Brown and Mr. Pensock,
Enclosed are the comments of the Houston Regional Group and Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club (Sierra Club) regarding the I-69/Trans-Texas Corridor (I-69/TTC) Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as proposed by the Federal Highway Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation (the proposers).
The Sierra Club requests:
1) That it be placed on the distribution list for a copy of the final EIS (FEIS) when it is available.
2) That it be notified of any other public meetings, hearings, or similar events regarding the Tier I EIS in the future.
3) That it be placed on the distribution list for any scoping notices for any DEIS that is prepared via Tier II for the I-69/TTC proposal.
4) That it be placed on the distribution list for a copy of any DEIS or FEIS that is prepared via Tier II for the I-69/TTC proposal.
5) That this I-69/TTC DEIS be withdrawn and revised so that quantification of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are analyzed, assessed, and evaluated in the DEIS according to law and a new public comment period be scheduled with either a free CD or hard copy available for any member of the public who requests it.
The Sierra Club makes the following information request to the proposers:
1) A copy of the minutes in Volume I, DEIS, for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)/Steering Committee (SC) Meetings as listed on Table 9.1; I-69/TTC Resources Agency Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.4; I-69/TTC and TTC-35 Joint Agency Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.5; MPO Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.6; and I-69/TTC and TTC-35 Joint MPO Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.7.
2) A copy of “Texas Environmental Resource Stewards Texas Ecological Assessment Protocol Results”, Pilot Project Report, Osowski, et. al., Report Number EPA-906-C-05-001, U.S. EPA, Region 6, 2005.
3) A copy of “US EPA Region 6 GIS Screening Tool User’s Manual, Version 1.1”, Osowski, et. al., US EPA, Region 6, 2005.
Volume I, I-69/TTC Study, Tier I DEIS
1) Page ES-1, Executive Summary, Introduction, the DEIS states a “collaborative effort involving members of the I-69/TTC TAC and SC”. These two committees are biased since they are dominated by the proposers who have a conflict of interest since they want to construct the project and form a voting majority to move the proposal forward.
2) Page ES-1, Executive Summary, Introduction, the DEIS states ”evaluate corridor level alternatives and the No Action Alternative in reaching a Tier One Decision”. The No Action Alternative was not evaluated because the environmental impacts were ignored and the public was told that the impacts of the No Action Alternative would be assessed individually when the projects in No Action are moved forward. So there is no environmental impact analysis, evaluation, and assessment in the DEIS for the No Action Alternative which is illegal under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations.
3) Page ES-1, Executive Summary, Introduction, the Sierra Club does not agree that “Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative” should be pushed back to Tier II. By doing this the momentum for the “New Location Corridor Alternative” is pushed forward by the proposers, which they call their Preferred Alternative, and the No Action Alternative is not given the environmental analysis required by NEPA. The Tier I development and evaluation process has not been “rigorous” and there has not been a “proactive agency and public involvement program” because the public has spoken overwhelmingly that it does not want the proposal but the proposers still push the proposal. There is no “balance” in meeting the purpose and need and minimizing the potential for environmental effects” because there is a conflict of interest in pushing the proposal forward.
This leads the Sierra Club to the believe that instead of preparing a factual and unbiased DEIS the proposers are attempting to mislead and mold the opinions of the public and decision-makers by misinterpretation via language of what really is at stake and exists in the I-69/TTC project area. This is the very antithesis of what an EIS is supposed to be and do. Such actions call for a withdrawal of the DEIS and a total reanalysis that is based on factual evidence and narrative and not manipulative and self-serving language that predetermines the outcome of this proposal.
Under CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, Section 1502.2(g), states “EISs shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made” and Section 1502.5, states “The statement shall be prepared early enough so that it can serve practically as an important contribution to the decision-making process and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made.”
It appears that the proposers have already made a decision to construct I-69/TTC and are using the DEIS as a way to justify this decision. We object!
It is illegal to segment a project under the CEQ regulations so that it is piecemealed as stated in Section 1502.4(a), “Agencies shall make sure the proposal which is the subject of an EIS is properly defined Agencies shall use the criteria for scope to determine which proposals shall be the subject of a particular statement. Proposals or parts of proposals which are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in a single impact statement.”.
The effects of current actions are not considered in the analysis of whether I-69/TTC should be constructed. For instance, global warming and the effects it is having and the generation of greenhouse gases that roads cause; the increased cost of oil, up to about $100/barrel; the increased cost of gasoline which is $3/gallon now and if expected to go to $4/gallon this summer; the collapse of the housing market; the recession that is evident in the United States economy; the reduction in funds for roads due to funding two wars, etc. All of these and more current actions affect and should play a role in determining whether I-69/TTC should be built. But there is no discussion about how these actions affect the decision of whether to build I-69/TTC.
The DEIS does not cover all viable alternatives and therefore does not meet the “all reasonable alternatives” rule that the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) requires in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 1502.14(a). Alternatives that deal strictly with freight rail or other modes, should also be considered “reasonable alternatives” since multi-modal facilities may not be feasible or affordable and their environmental impacts may be too high. In addition the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative are not analyzed for their environmental impacts in the DEIS even though they are reasonable alternatives. There is no “no toll” alternative provided as a reasonable alternative.
Therefore this DEIS does not contain all reasonable alternatives. CEQ says in 1502.14 “Alternatives including the proposed action – This section is the heart of the EIS … it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public … Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives … Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency”.
The proposers eliminate all alternatives arbitrarily by making them not meet the “purpose and need” for the project. In essence the proposers are violating 1502.2(f) of CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations which states “EISs shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made.”
4) Pages ES-2 and ES-3, Executive Summary, What is the Purpose and Need for the Project, the purpose and need statement states that the purpose of I-69/TTC is:
1. Improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people
2. Address anticipated south and east Texas transportation needs for the next 20 to 50 years
3. Sustain and enhance the economic vitality of Texas
The problem with this stated purpose is:
1. What international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people are we talking about?
2. What are the anticipated south and east Texas Transportation needs for the next 20-50 years?
3. What does the “anticipated” consist of?
4. How accurate are projections of what south and east Texas Transportation needs are for the next 20-50 years?
5. How would the economic vitality of Texas, as a whole, be sustained?
6. How would the economic vitality of Texas, as a whole, be enhanced?
7. What is “economic vitality”? How is it defined?
8. What assumptions were made?
9. Was peak oil analyzed?
10. Was $100/barrel oil analyzed?
11. Was $4/gallon gasoline analyzed?
12. Was terrorism and interruption of our fuel supplies analyzed?
13. What analysis was done about possible spread of human and animal disease throughout the United States due to I-69/TTC?
14. What analysis was done about possible spread of exotic species throughout the United States?
Without such information there is no way the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand the purpose and need for the proposal. The public does not know what was taken for granted so that the purpose listed above was agreed upon. The public must know this information and has a right to know this information since its money and its federal and state agencies are making such decisions.
The purpose and need statement goes on to say that several trends and issues strongly indicate the need for transportation planning of the scale and magnitude proposed for the I-69/TTC:
1. Large projected increases in corridor and statewide population, which will result in substantially increased demand for additional transportation infrastructure
2. Large expected increases in freight movement, resulting in the need for additional multi-modal capacity and inter-modal linkages
3. Planning for an uncertain future by preserving a corridor that can accommodate multiple, evolving transportation forms and modes over the next 50 years
4. Economic vitality in areas underserved by existing transportation infrastructure
5. Accomplishing the goals set forth by state and federal legislation
Notice the statement above does not say that the trends and issues support the construction of I-69/TTC, merely that transportation planning of the scale and magnitude of I-69/TTC is necessary. We all know that population is likely to increase greatly. Yes, that does mean we need better transportation planning. This does not justify I-69/TTC.
1. What does “substantially increased demand for additional transportation infrastructure” mean?
2. What kind of transportation infrastructure?
3. How do we know what kind of transportation infrastructure will be needed or technologies exist 50 years from now?
4. Where are the “large expected increases in freight movement” coming from?
5. What additional multi-modal capacity and inter-modal linkages are referred to?
6. How can buying land 50 years in advance of potential need provide certainty since we do not know accurately what our transportation needs and technologies will be?
7. How do you define “economic vitality?
8. What underserved areas are referred to?
9. What existing transportation infrastructure is referred to?
10. Do we need to service these so-called underserved areas the way the purpose indicates?
11. What goals in federal and state legislation does the purpose support?
The proposers do not acknowledge and analyze that NEPA talks about economics in relation to environmental impacts:
1) Section 101(a) of the NEPA states, “The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances … to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.”
2) Section 101(b)(5) of the NEPA states, “achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities”.
3) Section 102(1)(B) of the NEPA states, “… which will insure that presently un-quantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations”.
4) Section 102(1)(C) of the NEPA states, “… major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”. (what is economics but a part of the human environment)
4) Section 201(2) of the NEPA states, “current and foreseeable trends in the quality, management and utilization of such environments and the effects of those trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the Nation”.
5) Section 201(3) of the NEPA states, “the adequacy of available natural resources for fulfilling human and economic requirements of the National in the light of expected population pressures”.
6) Section 202 of the NEPA states, “to be conscious of and responsive to the scientific, economic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs and interests of the Nation”.
7) Section 204(4) of the NEPA states, “to develop and recommend to the president national policies to foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality to meet the conservation, social, economic, health, and other requirements and goals of the Nation”.
8) Section 1501.2(b) of CEQ NEPA regulations states, “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses.”
9) Section 1508.8(b) of CEQ NEPA regulations states, “… Effects includes ecological … aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative”.
10) Section 1508.14 of CEQ NEPA regulations states, “… This means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement. When an environmental impact statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the human environment”.
Without a full accounting the proposers are not integrating all the costs of I-69/TTC (in fact the cost of the proposal is not even given in the DEIS) and providing that information to the public for its review and comment about all costs/benefits.
5) Page ES-6, Executive Summary, What does tiered mean regarding this project, the Sierra Club believes that TxDOT’s proposal to be “allowed to purchase options on land upon completion of the Tier I environmental process” is prejudging the proposal which is illegal under NEPA and CEQ regulations. Section 1502.2(f) states “Agencies shall not commit resources prejudicing selection of alternatives before making a final decision” and Section 1502.2(e) states “EISs shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made”.
How can TxDOT use public tax dollars to preserve a corridor before Tier II is done which will provide most of the environmental analysis and will have most of the environmental alternatives comparative assessment and evaluation?
Neither the No Action or the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative have been environmentally analyzed and yet TxDOT has chosen the New Location Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Alternative and now wants to buy options to hold land for this alternative.
By not including important information in the DEIS (like the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative) the proposers hide from the public and the decision-makers the magnitude and significance of the I-69/TTC. This action violates the following:
1. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.1(b), “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.”
2. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.1(c), “The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences.”
3. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.2(b), “Implement procedures to make the NEPA process more useful to decision-makers and the public.”
4. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.2(d), “Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment.”
5. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.4(b), “Preparing analytic rather than encyclopedic environmental impact statements.”
6. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.4(f), “Emphasizing the portions of the EIS that are useful to decision-makers and the public.”
7. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses.”
8. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.2, “EISs shall be analytic rather than encyclopedic.”
9. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.4(a), “Agencies shall make sure the proposal which is the subject of an EIS is properly defined.”
10. CEQ NEPA Regulation 1502.16, “This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons … environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources.”
11. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.21, “No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for comment.”
12. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.24, “Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in EISs. They shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.”
13. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1506.6(a), “Agencies shall make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.”
14. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.3, “Affecting means will or may have an effect on.”
15. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.14, ”Human Environment shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment … When an EIS is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated then the EIS will discuss all of these effects on the human environment.”
16. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.18, “Major Federal action includes actions with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility. Major reinforces but does not have a meaning independent of significantly … Actions include new and continuing activities, including projects … approval of specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a defined geographic area.”
17. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.27, “Significantly as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity … Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts … For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as whole … Intensity refers to the severity of impact … impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believe that on balance the effect will be beneficial … Unique characteristics of the geographic area … The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial … The degree to which the possible effects … are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks … Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts … Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.”
6) Pages ES-6, ES-7, and ES-10, Executive Summary, What is the project study area, the Sierra Club believes that the Modal Transition Zones (MTZ) are being used to hide the connections that will be made from I-69/TTC to, for example, the Grand Parkway and or State Highway 122. The possible connections to the MTZs should be revealed now and the potential environmental impacts should be analyzed since I-69/TTC is worthless without connections to ports and other facilities in the MTZs.
7) Page ES-7, Executive Summary, What is the project study area, the Sierra Club is concerned that Tier I is the only opportunity for the public to look at the environmental impacts of the entire 650 mile long project at one time. Otherwise the proposers plan to chop up the proposal into “segments of independent utility” which will hide the total impacts of the proposal from the public and decision-makers.
8) Page ES-9, Executive Summary, What Alternatives are being considered in Tier One, the Sierra Club certainly does not consider the I-69/TTC a “visionary concept”. It certainly is not the vision of the public who have overwhelmingly rejected the proposal.
9) Pages ES-9 and ES-18, Executive Summary, No Action Alternative, the proposers have illegally avoided analyzing and stating what the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative are. The DEIS admits that no environmental analysis has been performed on the “No Action Alternative” when it says “Any direct effects of these projects would be evaluated under their own NEPA environmental studies”. So there are no environmental impacts revealed for the “No Action Alternative”, whether direct, indirect, cumulative, or connected. This is illegal under the NEPA and CEQ regulations:
1. 1500.1(b), “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken”
2. 1500.2(e), “Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment”
3. 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses”
4. 1502.1, “It shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment … Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses”
5. 1502.14, ”it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public”
6. 1502.14(a), “Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives”
7. 1502.14(b), “Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits”
8. 1502.14(d), “Include the alternative of no action”
9. 1502.16, Environmental consequences, “It shall include discussions of:
(a) Direct effects and their significance
(b) Indirect effects and their significance
(d) The environmental effects of alternatives including the proposed action. The comparisons under 1502.14 will be based on this discussion.
By not revealing the environmental impacts of the “No Action Alternative” the proposers violate all of the above sections of CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and be revised to legally be in compliance with NEPA and CEQ regulations.
10) Page ES-9, Executive Summary, Use of Existing/Planned transportation Facilities Alternative, the DEIS states “Reconstructing existing transportation facilities”. Which facilities are these? The public and decision-makers have a right now to review, comment on, and understand these so they understand the proposal
11) Page ES-9, Executive Summary, New Location Corridor Alternative, the DEIS talks about Quantm. However, the Quantum assumptions are not explained. The public and decision-makers need detailed information about Quantm to review, comment on, and understand the proposal.
12) Page ES-10, Executive Summary, New Location Corridor Alternative, since linkage to the Rio Grande Valley makes or breaks this proposal the alternatives for this linkage should be revealed now and not in Tier II.
13) Pages ES-17 and ES-18, Executive Summary, How did agencies and the public participate in the project development and decision-making process, the public has been ignored even though most comments have been opposed to this proposal. The TAC and ST are dominated by the proposers and thus create a conflict of interest because they approve the forward motion of the proposal. The public has no input into “Concurrence Points” which the proposers control because they make up the majority of the TAC and SC.
14) Page ES-18, Executive Summary, How were the Reasonable Corridors and Reasonable Connector Corridors evaluated, and what were the results, the proposers never discuss how the environmental evaluation (DEIS Chapter Three) and the transportation planning evaluation (DEIS Chapter Four) are linked together. The transportation planning process should use environmental factors in deciding which corridors should go forward. Unfortunately the proposers use the transportation planning process, with no environmental factors, to choose the corridors when environmental factors should have been used to choose the corridor first and not as an after thought.
15) Pages ES-18 through ES-24, Executive Summary, Environmental Evaluation, the environmental evaluation is flawed because it is too broad and not specific enough to determine what the environmental impacts are and provide a thorough analysis, assessment, and evaluation. Environmental factors should have been used in the Transportation Planning Evaluation (User Benefit Analysis and Supplemental Performance Index Analysis).
Percent coverage is so broad that the quality of habitat is not known; distribution (blockage) does not take into account ephemeral streams; overlap does not look at quality of habitat; and proximity is inaccurate because the assurance of presence cannot be made based on the data provided. There is no “balance” in meeting the purpose and need and environmental impacts because the proposers have already made up their minds that they are going to construction this proposal no matter how much opposition they get from the public. If there is a so-called balance then tell the public and decision-makers what that is so they can review, comment on, and understand the proposal. Suppose the public doesn’t want a balance. Suppose don’t want the project? What right have the proposers to overrule the public’s will?
16) Pages ES-29 and ES-30, Executive Summary, What are the indirect and cumulative effects of an I-69/TTC corridor, the proposers ignore the requirements in NEPA and CEQ regulations that quantification of environmental effects must be provided.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposers have not provided the “hard look” at environmental impacts that is required under NEPA. Words are used which are conclusory in nature and which do not clearly define the environmental impacts of I-69/TTC. In a recent court ruling a judge ruled in favor of the Sierra Club and against the National Park Service about assessment of impacts and the methodology used which was deemed inadequate, arbitrary, and capricious. United States District Judge John D. Bates stated, in part, in Sierra Club v. Mainella the following:
“Because NPS’s impairment analysis served as its NEPA analysis, the flaws in the impairment analysis also apply to the environmental assessment. Those shortcomings are, first, NPS’s lack of explanation as to how it reached its conclusions, typically simply describing the impacts followed by a conclusion that the impact was not an impairment or, in the case of NEPA, that it was not “significant”; and second, the use of the descriptors “negligible”, “minor”, “moderate”, and “major” that are largely undefined or are defined in a manner that includes few objective bounds … nowhere explained the basis for its conclusion that potentially “moderate” impacts could not be significant under NEPA … There is no basis in the administrative record for accepting NPS’s conclusion that even a “minor” impact is not significant under NEPA, because there are no determinate criteria offered for distinguishing a “minor” impact from a “moderate” or “major” impact other than NPS’s conclusory say-so … the scoping regulations still require the agency to explain why they {dismissed issues} will not have a significant effect on the human environment … Thus, the EA must provide a realistic evaluation of the total impacts and cannot isolate a proposed project, viewing it in a vacuum … In short, NPS’s three findings of no significant impact are, the court concludes, arbitrary and capricious for many of the same reasons as are the impairment determinations. In each decision, NPS has failed to take a “hard look” at impacts on the Preserve from adjacent surface activities, as evidenced by the lack of explanations supporting its conclusions and, in particular, its methodology of describing impacts using conclusory labels and then setting forth a bare conclusion without explanation as to the significance of an impact. NPS also failed to provide an adequate cumulative impacts analysis that included the other oil and gas operations in the Gore Baygall Unit … However, NPS’s ultimate conclusions that the drilling activities would not result in impairment of park resources and values under the Organic Act, or a significant impact on the human environment under NEPA, are not supported by reasoned explanations, and hence are arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.”
The proposers are repeating the inadequate NEPA analyses in I-69/TTC DEIS that was the basis for the successful Sierra Club v. Mainella decision. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the proposers conduct analyses for I-69/TTC DEIS that does not use conclusory statements.
For the DEIS, dictionary usage of words or phrases will not suffice to provide the public and decision-makers with a clear picture of what the intensity, significance, and context of environmental impacts are. In other words, an all qualitative assessment, analysis, and evaluation of environmental impacts is not sufficient to deal with the clearly articulated CEQ requirements in Section 1502.14, that the EIS “should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public”.
1. Quantitative assessment, analysis, and evaluation are necessary to ensure that alternatives and environmental impacts are clearly defined and shown in the EIS. As stated in the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, Section 1500.1(b), Purpose, “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens … The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis … are essential to implementing NEPA”.
2. As stated in Section 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses.”
3. As stated in Section 1502.8, “which will be based upon the analysis and supporting data from the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts.”
4. As stated in Section 1502.18(b), about the Appendix, “Normally consist of material which substantiates any analysis fundamental to the impact statement”.
5. As stated in Section 1502.24, “Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, of the discussions and analyses … They shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.”
The analysis that the proposers must conduct for the DEIS is much more than “best professional judgment”. “Best professional judgment” is where a group of people, using their experience, decide what is important. This level of assessment, analysis, and evaluation for environmental impacts and alternatives is an insufficient foundation upon which to base a DEIS. The proposers must define what phrases and words mean so that the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand what the proposers refer to regarding this proposal.
The qualitative description of phrases used to describe environmental impacts or the protectiveness of an alternative does not provide the public with the degree of comparison required by the CEQ’s mandatory NEPA implementing regulations. These regulations state, in Section 1502.14, Alternatives including the proposed action, that, “This section is the heart of the EIS … it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public … Devote substantial treatment to each alternative in detail … so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.”
The CEQ also states, in Section 1502.16 and (d), Environmental consequences, that, “This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons … The environmental effects of alternatives including the proposed action the comparisons under Section 1502.14 will be based on this discussion.”
It is key that the proposers clearly compare and make apparent the distinctiveness of each alternative (both the No Action Alternative and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative environmental impacts are ignored in the DEIS) and its impacts or protectiveness. This is not accomplished when phrases are used qualitatively (substantial) instead of quantitatively with more detailed and clear descriptions of qualitative information. The Sierra Club requests that the proposers clarify and detail clearly the comparative differences between each alternative and define clearly what the words or phrases used mean.
In addition, the DEIS cumulative impacts analysis is incomplete and does not cover all cumulative impacts and projects that cause cumulative impacts. Particularly of concern is how the DEIS fails to quantify secondary impacts caused by development induced or encouraged by the I-69/TTC and other roads that will be expanded in the project area.
The actual quantified cumulative impacts due to these developments are not presented in the DEIS. Some of the questions that should be answered via analysis of cumulative impacts for I-69/TTC in the project area about secondary development include:
1. How many additional roads will be built?
2. How much additional fragmentation will occur?
3. What amount of storm water run-off will be created?
4. What levels of water pollutants will be generated in the storm water run-off?
5. What impacts will this additional storm water run-off have on aquatic life?
6. How much additional stream bank and bed scouring will occur?
7. What amount of what types of air pollutants will be generated?
8. What health, welfare, and environment effects will this air pollution have?
9. What are the environmental impacts of light pollution?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many cumulative impact questions that must be asked and answered. There are many cumulative impacts that must be quantified and cause/effect analysis provided. The DEIS is silent on these site-specific environmental questions.
The Sierra Club requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and a supplementary DEIS be prepared with a public scoping period and public review and comment period for the issue of cumulative impacts and actions that cause cumulative impacts. We recommend that the basis of the cumulative impacts analysis, assessment, and evaluation be the CEQ’s document on cumulative impacts. This document is entitled, “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act” and was published in January 1997.
Some of the especially important quotes from this document include:
a. On page v, “Only by reevaluating and modifying alternatives in light of the projected cumulative effects can adverse consequences be effectively avoided or minimized. Considering cumulative effects in also essential to developing appropriate mitigation and monitoring its effectiveness.”
b. On page v, “By evaluating resource impact zones and the life cycle of effects rather than projects, the analyst can properly bound the cumulative effects analysis. Scoping can also facilitate the interagency cooperation needed to identify agency plans and other actions whose effects might overlap those of the proposed action.”
c. On page vi, “When the analyst describes the affected environment, he or she is setting the environmental baseline and thresholds of environmental change that are important for analyzing cumulative effects. Recently developed indicators of ecological integrity (e.g., index of biotic integrity for fish) and landscape conditions (e.g., fragmentation of habitat patches) can be used as benchmarks of accumulated change over time … GIS technologies provide improved means to analyze historical change in indicators of the condition of resources, ecosystems, and human communities, as well as the relevant stress factors.” The DEIS uses a GIS but not to analyze historical change in indicators of the conditions, resources, ecosystems, human communities, and relevant stress factors.
d. On page vi, “Most often, the historical context surrounding the resource is critical to developing these baselines and thresholds and to supporting both imminent and future decision-making.”
e. On page … the consequences of human activities will vary from those that were predicted and mitigated … therefore, monitoring the accuracy of predictions and the success of mitigation measures is critical.” The DEIS does not set up a process and procedures to monitor the accuracy of predictions and the success of mitigation measures.
f. On page vi, “Special methods are also available to address the unique aspects of cumulative effects, including carrying capacity analysis, ecosystem analysis, economic impacts analysis, and social impact analysis.” The DEIS does not or does little to address carrying capacity, ecosystem, economic impacts, and social impacts analyses.
g. On page vii, Table E-1, “CEA Principles … Cumulative effects analysis …Address additive, countervailing, and synergistic effects … Look beyond the life of the action.” The DEIS does not list and discuss additive, countervailing, and synergistic effects or look beyond the life of the GP.
h. On page 1, “The range of actions that must be considered includes not only the projects proposal but all connected and similar actions that could contribute to cumulative effects.” The DEIS does not look the cumulative impacts of all connected and similar actions, like other road projects.
i. On page 2, Table 1-1, “Federal Agency, … Federal Highway Administration … Cumulative Effects Situations … cumulative commercial and residential development and highway construction associated with suburban sprawl.”
j. On page 3, “The purpose of cumulative effects analysis, therefore is to ensure that federal decisions consider the full range of consequences of actions … If cumulative effects become apparent as agency programs are being planned or as larger strategies and policies are developed then potential cumulative effects should be analyzed at that times.” In the DEIS all road widening actions and their cumulative impacts in the area of interest have not be presented and quantified.
k. On page 3, Cumulative effects analysis necessarily involves assumptions and uncertainties, but useful information can be put on the decision-making table now … Important research and monitoring programs can be identified that will improve analyses in the future, but their absence should not be used as a reason for not analyzing cumulative effects to the extent possible now … adaptive management provisions for flexible project implementation can be incorporated into the selected alternative.”
l. On page 4, “The Federal Highway Administration and state transportation agencies frequently make decisions on highway projects that may not have significant direct environmental effects, but that may induce indirect and cumulative effects by permitting other development activities that have significant effects on air and water resources at a regional or national scale, The highway and other development activities can reasonably be foreseen as “connected actions.” The GP, Segment E, has significant direct environmental impacts as well as significant cumulative impacts.
m. On page 7, “Increasingly, decision makers are recognizing the importance of looking at their projects in the context of other development in the community or region (i.e., of analyzing the cumulative effects) … Without a definitive threshold, the NEPA practitioner should compare the cumulative effects of multiple actions with appropriate national, regional, state, or community goals to determine whether the total effect is significant … Cumulative effects results from spatial (geographic) and temporal (time) crowding of environmental perturbations. The effects of human activities will accumulate when a second perturbation occurs at a site before the ecosystem can fully rebound from the effect of the first perturbation.”
n. On page 8, Table 1-2, lists 8 principles of cumulative effects analysis (copy enclosed). The DEIS does not use or uses poorly these principles in analyzing cumulative effects.
o. On page 19, “The first step in identifying future actions is to investigate the plans of the proponent agency and other agencies in the area. Commonly, analysts only include those plans for actions which are funded or for which other NEPA analysis is being prepared. This approach does not meet the letter or intent of CEQ’s regulations … The analyst should develop guidelines as to what constitutes “reasonably foreseeable future actions” based on planning process within each agency … In many cases, local government planning agencies can provide useful information on the likely future development of the region, such as master plans. Local zoning requirements, water supply plans, economic development plans, and various permitting records will help in identifying reasonably foreseeable private actions … These plans can be considered in the analysis, but it is important to indicate in the NEPA analysis whether these plans were presented by the private party responsible for originating the action. Whenever speculative projections of future development are used, the analyst should provide an explicit description of the assumptions involved … NEPA litigation … has made it clear that “reasonable forecasting” is implicit in NEPA and that it is the responsibility of federal agencies to predict the environmental effects of proposed actions before they are fully known.” The DEIS does not provide the explicit description of the assumptions involved for the development contemplated.
p. On page 23, “Characterizing the affected environment in a NEPA analysis that addresses cumulative effects requires special attention to defining baseline conditions. These baseline conditions provide the context for evaluating environmental consequences and should include historical cumulative effects to the extent feasible.” Historical cumulative effects, in most cases, are missing from the DEIS.
q. On page 29, “Lastly, trends analysis of change in the extent and magnitude of stresses in critical for projecting the future cumulative effects.” Trends analysis of all cumulative impacts are not included in the DEIS.
r. On page 29, “Government regulations and administrative standards … often influence developmental activity and the resultant cumulative stress on resources, ecosystems, and human communities.” The DEIS does not address these governmental actions, like the creation of MUD and similar utility districts and how this affects development and cumulative impacts.
s. On page 31, “Cumulative effects occur through the accumulation of effects over varying periods of time. For this reason, an understanding of the historical context of effects is critical to assessing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed actions. Trends data can be used … to establish the baseline for the affected environment more accurately (i.e., by incorporating variation over time) … to evaluate the significance of effects relative to historical degradation (i.e., by helping to estimate how close the resource is to a threshold of degradation) … to predict the effects of the actions (i.e., by using the model of cause and effects established by past actions).”
t. On pages 38-40, “Using information gathered to describe the affected environment, the factors that affect resources (i.e., the causes in the cause-and-effect relationships) can be identified and a conceptual model of cause and effect developed … The cause-and-effect model can aid in the identification of past, present, and future actions that should be considered in the analysis … The cause-and effect relationships for each resource are used to determine the magnitude of the cumulative effect resulting from all actions included in the analysis … one of the most useful approaches for determining the likely response of the resource … to environmental change is to evaluate the historical effects of activities similar to those under consideration.” The DEIS does not provide historical data about past cumulative effects that other freeways and roads have encouraged or induced.
u. On page 41, “The analyst’s primary goal is to determine the magnitude and significance of the environmental consequences of the proposed action in the context of the cumulative effects of other past, present, and future actions … The critical element in this conceptual model is defining an appropriate baseline or threshold condition of the resource.” The DEIS does not provide the magnitude for most cumulative impacts that are caused by the GP or other actions.
v. On page 43, “Situations can arise where an incremental effect that exceeds the threshold of concern for cumulative effects results, not from the proposed action, but the reasonably foreseeable but still uncertain future actions.” The GP by itself will have significant impacts but these will be dwarfed by the cumulative impacts of secondary development encouraged or induced by the GP. These secondary cumulative impacts are not fully explained or quantified in the DEIS.
w. On page 45, “The significance of effects should be determined based on context and intensity … Intensity refers to the severity of effect … As discussed above, the magnitude of an effect reflects relative size or amount of an effect. Geographic extent considers how widespread the effect might be. Duration and frequency refers to whether the effect is a one-time event, intermittent, or chronic.” The DEIS is weak in defining the significance of effects using intensity, magnitude, geographic extent, and duration and frequency and quantifying these factors of effects.
x. On page 45, “Determinations of significance … are the focus of analysis because they lead to additional (more costly) analysis or to inclusion of additional mitigation (or a detailed justification for not implementing mitigation) … the project proponent should avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects by modifying alternatives … in most cases, however, avoidance or minimization are more effective than remediating unwanted effects.”
y. On page 51, “different resource effects that cumulatively affect interconnected systems must be addressed in combination.”
17) Pages ES-30 through ES-33, Executive Summary, What is the Recommended Preferred Alternative, the DEIS chooses a Preferred Alternative before all alternatives (the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative) have been analyzed for environmental impacts and other factors. This is not legal especially since the comparative analysis that Section 1502.14 requires has not been done.
18) Page ES-34, Executive Summary, Mexican and other connections to I-69/TTC have not been discussed and the environmental impacts they will have. This is required by NEPA and CEQ regulations. What are substantive comments? How will these be determined? The Sierra Club sees no way that the proposers can state that any part of I-69/TTC is benign enough environmentally to be called a categorical exclusion.
19) Page 1-1, 1.0 Purpose and Need, the DEIS states “Tier One will not authorize the construction of any portion of an I-69/TTC facility.” However, TxDOT will pay money if Tier I is approved to hold right-of-way which prejudges whether the proposal will be built. The Sierra Club objects to paying any money to hold any land for a potential corridor for this proposed project.
20) Page 1-1, 1.1 I-69/TTC Description, the DEIS fails to tell the public, the taxpayers, how much this proposal may cost. A range of costs should be provided. The public has a right to this information. Why would anyone support a proposal when the agency cannot or will not even provide an estimate of the cost?
21) Page 1-3, 1.2 Purpose and Need, see comment 4) above, about the purpose and need statement. That same comment applies here.
22) Pages 1-4 and 1-5, 1.4 Tier One EIS Scope, the DEIS fails to assess the environmental impacts of connected, indirect, and cumulative actions in Mexico, Louisiana, and other places which will be linked to this proposal. This is required by NEPA and CEQ regulations. Since this proposal may last 50 years an analysis of this timeframe of implementation should be in the DEIS. It is obvious that the entire I-69/TTC consists of “independent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification” (Section 1508.25).
The No Action Alternative has not actually been environmentally analyzed in the DEIS because the proposers have put off the analysis, evaluation, and assessment of environmental impacts to some time in the future when federal and other monies are available for their approval and implementation. This is illegal under NEPA and CEQ regulations.
It is amazing that this proposal is so poorly developed that where utilities will be and the width of the corridor are not known. It is not appropriate that Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative is not analyzed now and is automatically advanced to Tier II. This cannot be done legally under NEPA and CEQ regulations which require comparative analysis of all reasonable environmental alternatives. The proposers evade this by advancing the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative and not doing any environmental analysis on the No Action Alternative.
23) Pages 1-5 through 1-7, 1.5 Tier One EIS Decision, the DEIS in this part fails to state what are “substantive comments” (this definition is given on page ES-35,“comments that would provide new information relative to the Tier I decision”) and show which comments have indeed been considered “substantive” and why. CEQ regulations only say, Section 1503.4(b), “All substantive comments received on the Draft Statement (or summaries thereof where the response has been exceptionally voluminous), should be attached to the final statement”. The definition for “substantive comments” is an artificial construct of the proposers.
There has been no collaborative effort with the public. The TAC and SC are dominated by a majority of the proposers employees so there is not way for the proposal not to advance. This is a conflict of interest. Costs should be addressed now before deciding to spend more public money on this proposal. It is the public’s money and the public deserves to know what the cost is now. Millions of dollars of the public’s money have already been spent on this proposal. By hiding the costs now the proposers attempt to generate momentum for the proposal to force it past public opposition which is overwhelming. Public involvement has been after-the-fact, in the sense that the TAC and SC and has been ignored.
24) Page 1-8, 1.6 Study Area, the MTZs should be presented now with connections to I-69/TTC so that the true environmental impacts and economic costs can be analyzed and not delayed in an attempt to create momentum for the proposal.
25) Pages 2-1 and 2-2, 2.1 Tier One Alternatives, the proposers illegally ignore the environmental costs of the No Action Alternative and advance the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative without any environmental analysis. The Sierra Club objects to this illegal hiding of alternative comparison of environmental impacts.
26) Pages 2-2 through 2-7, New Location Corridor Alternative, it is amazing that air pollution is not one of the seven avoidance criteria. Air pollution should be analyzed, assessed, and evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively in this DEIS.
For instance, mobile source air toxics (MSAT) must be analyzed. But MSAT must be analyzed correctly. This includes recognizing that the MSAT analysis uses, MOBILE 6.2, which underestimates air pollution from vehicles. Therefore reductions in MSAT can be overestimated if this is not taken into account. Further, an important point is that it is the total air pollution plume from roads that causes human health effects and not just a few air toxics. The DEIS should not focus on these few air toxics but analyze the effects that the total air pollution plume has on people who live close to roads (about 1,000 feet).
The MSAT analysis must also acknowledge the large diesel truck impacts that I-69/TTC will have. In addition it is not likely that “traffic flow improvements” will occur, if you base your analysis on what has happened in the past 30 years as new or expanded roads fill to capacity and create more congestion and air pollution and while still below capacity create more air pollution due to vehicles traveling at high speeds (higher nitrogen oxides which help cause ozone). The public and decision-makers have a right to know all the information about air pollution now so they can review, comment on, and understand all the environmental impacts of I-69/TTC.
The DEIS is deficient regarding adequate quantitative and qualitative air quality assessment, evaluation, and analysis. Some questions that need to be answered include:
What amount of what types of air pollutants will be generated by I-69/TTC (emissions inventory)?
What health, welfare, and environment effects will this air pollution have?
The public needs to know the tons/year of different air pollutants like particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx), diesel exhaust, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and certain air toxic compounds, including carcinogens that are generated by I-69/TTC and associated development. The public and the decision-makers must know the additional air pollution burden generated before I-69/TTC is built, when it initially opens, and when it reaches capacity.
Modeling CO must not be what the air pollution analysis of I-69/TTC should solely consist of. The pollutant of most immediate concern is ozone because of the several non-attainment areas for ozone that I-69/TTC goes by. That means that hydrocarbons (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide inventories should be estimated before the proposal, when it first is opened, and when it reaches capacity. This includes secondary development impacts and the emissions that are generated by residential and commercial development, both construction and operation.
Instead of taking the health effects of air pollution seriously the DEIS does no analysis on air pollution. The need for MSAT and other air analyses is obvious. This includes determining how long it takes for a vehicle year car/light truck fleet to turnover (about 10 years) for a heavy truck fleet (about 20-20 years). There must be discussion of how MOBILE 6.2 continually underestimated emissions and that we know that VOC and NOx are emitted at much greater amounts than models and emission inventories have shown.
For instance, in the August 31, 2007 “Final Rapid Science Synthesis Report: Findings from the Second Texas Air Quality Study (TexAQS II)”, A Report to the TCEQ by the TexAQS II Rapid Science Synthesis Team prepared by the Southern Oxidants Study Office of the Director at North Carolina State University, states on page 59 “On-road mobile emission inventories developed from MOBILE 6 have significant shortcomings. MOBILE 6 consistently overestimates CO emissions by about a factor of 2. It accurately estimated NOx emission in the years near 2000, but it indicates decrease in NOx emissions since then, while ambient data suggest NOx emissions have actually increased. Consequently in 2006, NOx to VOC emission ratios in urban areas are likely underestimated by current inventories … The HGB (Houston-Galveston-Brazoria) inventory overestimates the CO to NOx emission ratio, and that overestimate becomes worse with time as the inventory does not show a significant temporal decrease … Parish (2006) showed that the rapid decrease (6.6%/yr) in the ratio is partially due to a slower decrease in CO emissions (4.6%/yr), which implies a significant increase in NOx emissions (approximately 2%/yr). The large inventory overestimates in the CO to NOx ratio at the present time are attributed to a factor of 2 overestimate in CO emissions, and an underestimate in present NOx emissions.”
The air pollution analysis for the DEIS should look at all health effects studies and adequately analyze the threat of air pollution (not just air toxics) on people living close to roads (about 1,000 feet). In addition, since air does not stay in one place, and since there are industrial sources, many area sources, and a large number of off-road sources of air pollution that emit air toxics the entire parcel of air that people breathe should be considered and not just MSAT.
As the Health Effects Institute’s November 2007 Special Report 16, “Mobile-Source Air Toxics: A Critical Review of the Literature on Exposure and Health Effects” says, “However, the introduction of reformulated or alternative fuels might pose its own risks, and the removal of individual fuel components does not automatically ensure safe fuels.” It is a red herring to focus only on MSAT, which is a “subset of all air toxics”, when the focus should be total air pollution that people are exposed to. Certainly, the DEIS analysis should be preventive of public health and demonstrate the use of the “precautionary principle”.
There is no assessment of what the health effects are due to total air pollution (the entire plume emitted by vehicles as they drive by on a road) exposure on people living close to roads (about 1,000 feet). This is what many recent studies on air pollution health effects do. It is an abdication of authority to ignore this problem. There is no analysis that looks at the impacts that driving large diesel trucks from I-69/TTC will have on air pollution and people’s health.
The Sierra Club submits with these comments the following documents that deal with air pollution from vehicles and its possible effect on human health:
1) Particulate Matter and Air Toxic Pollutant Exposures Near Heavily Traveled Roadways in the U.S., by Patricia Rowley and Richard Cook, U.S. EPA.
2) Bibliography of Near Roadway Health Effects (I) and Exposure Studies (II), U.S. EPA, March 2007.
3) Highway Health Hazards, Sierra Club 2004.
4) Freeways & Health: Recent Studies, Dr. Winifred J. Hamilton, June 4, 2002.
5) Diesel and Health in America: The Lingering Threat, Clean Air Task Force, February 2005.
6) Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, U.S. EPA, May 2002.
7) Health Effects of Air Pollution: Beyond the Criteria Pollutants, Dr. Philip Bromberg, et. al., Air Toxics Workshop II, Section 1, Mickey Leland Center, June 12, 2007.
8) Near-Roadway Exposure and Health, Chad Bailey, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Air Toxics Workshop II, Mickey Leland Center, June 12, 2007. Attachment 1
The DEIS does not provide information about the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that will be generated due to the construction and operation of I-69/TTC. The DEIS must provide information about the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that all of the cumulative actions and impacts (including, direct, indirect, secondary, and connected impacts) generate, encourage, or accelerate due to the construction and operation of I-69/TTC. The impacts of these greenhouse gas emissions must be assessed, analyzed, and evaluation and this information must be discussed in the DEIS so that the public and decision-makers can review and comment and understand this issue. This includes analyzing the impact of vehicle miles traveled increases or decreases in the study area due to the construction and operation of I-69/TTC, connections to the MTZs, and associated development.
The DEIS must but does not talk about mitigation measures and a dust control plan that will be prepared before construction. NEPA and CEQ regulations require that the public and decision-makers be fully informed. A dust control plan must be in the DEIS so the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand the full impacts of the I-69/TTC. Section 1502.14(f) of CEQ regulations requires that “Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives”; Section 1502.16(e), which requires “Energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures; Section 1502.16(h), which requires “Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (if not fully covered under 1502.14(f); and Section 1505.2(c) requires that “A monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized where applicable for any mitigation.”
This must be done with this DEIS. For instance, one source of dust that the Sierra Club often sees on road projects is the use of a rotary cleaner which buffs and cleans recently poured concrete. Oftentimes this equipment generates huge amounts of dust that can obscure traffic and create dangerous safety situations. A dust collector, like a bag-house, or a series of sprinkler heads could be mounted on this piece of equipment to collect or reduce dust as it is generated. Another way to reduce air emissions from this equipment is to wet the concrete. This type of detail is needed in the dust control plan so the public can see what will be done and what is committed to by the proposers.
27) Page 2-3, New Location Corridor Alternative, the proposers have failed to describe Quantum adequately and the assumptions and limitations that it possesses including accuracy of predictions and data used, deficiencies, and any percent error for outputs that it provides.
28) Page 2-3, New Location Corridor Alternative, the proposers need to state what they mean when they say “Minimize the potential to affect existing infrastructure, “as practical”. How will the proposers “Allow a buffer from development around protected sources”? How do the proposers feel that “Consider local and regional planning objectives” will reduce environmental impacts for this proposal? What are the impacts of the MTZs?
29) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what is a “transportation planning perspective”?
30) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what are the “Level 1a Preliminary Corridor Transportation Planning Review findings and recommendations”?
31) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what are “Purpose and Need planning performance measures”?
32) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what “deletion, addition, and consolidation of some corridors” will occur?
33) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what are the “Level 1b Preliminary Corridor Transportation Planning Review findings and recommendations”?
34) Page 2-5, New Location Corridor Alternative, the use of GISST and TEAP criteria is inadequate as stated in these comments below.
35) Page 2-5, New Location Corridor Alternative, it is disingenuous to say “Actual construction costs are currently unknown” since the proposers have the experience to estimate costs and the public has a right to know these costs since it is their money that will be used and is being used to prepare this proposal.
36) Page 2-5, New Location Corridor Alternative, the DEIS should state what the deficiencies, percent error, accuracy of data, and assumptions used for the Statewide Analysis Model (SAM) are.
37) Page 2-6, New Location Corridor Alternative, the DEIS states “The non-numeric values were often similar for corridors within an evaluation sections, and therefore were not considered distinguishing for making corridor recommendations”. What are these “non-numeric values”? What does “similar” mean?
38) Page 2-6, New Location Corridor Alternative, the TAC and SC certainly were not open to public participation by non-governmental organizations and the public and the additional resource and planning agency meetings were not open to public participation by non-governmental organizations and the public.
39) Page 2-7, New Location Corridor Alternative, what is “an environmental and or planning perspective”?
40) Page 2-7, Reasonable Corridors and Reasonable Connectors Corridors, a “Relative Construction Cost Factor” is not enough. The public deserves an estimated cost since tax dollars have been used to prepare this DEIS and will be used for proposal if it is approved. It is a cop-out to state that “Costs of right-of-way, culverts, and other necessary facilities components were not included because they are based on alignment levels studies, thus they could not be quantified at the corridor level of analysis during Tier One.” If the proposers cannot estimate its costs then this means that the proposers are not qualified to construct this proposal if it is approved. Certainly the public and decision-makers deserve an estimate of cost and certainly the proposers have the experience the make an estimate of costs. If the proposers cannot do this then they should not be allowed to push this proposal forward. That is what the public pays the proposers to do.
41) Pages 2-8 through 2-23, how accurate is the “Relative Construction Cost Factor”? What is the estimated construction cost for this proposal? The public deserves to know this since its tax dollars are being used now and will be used in the future if the proposal is approved.
42) Page 2-22, Evaluation Section N, the Big Thicket National Preserve and the Alabama-Coushatta Indian Reservation are also near the proposed project area and this should be recognized in the DEIS.
43) Pages 2-22 and 2-23, RCC-N1 and 2.3 Recommended Preferred Alternative Identification, it is important that the DEIS talk about the proposed connection of Segments H and I-1 of the Grand Parkway to I-69/TTC and what this will cost environmentally and economically.
44) Page 3-1, 3.2 Affected Environment, Natural Environment Setting, the DEIS states “Using ecoregions to define the study area environment strengthens an ecosystem approach in transportation planning, development, and implementation.” What is an “ecosystem approach”? There is no definition or statement of goals for an “ecosystem approach”. What development is contemplated?
45) Page 3-14, Land Use, why does the DEIS use data based on a study that is 18 years old? What updates have been done to make sure the data is accurate and reflects what happens today? Certainly it appears that residential land uses account for more than 3% of study area particularly in the Houston area. What comprehensive plans for the Houston-Galveston Area were reviewed? The City of Houston does not have a comprehensive plan. How has the real estate downturn been taken into account in the DEIS?
46) Page 3-17, Air Quality Environment, the DEIS fails to consider that MOBILE 6 underestimates emissions from vehicles. Please see our comments above in this letter that state what the air quality analysis should consist of. There are no one hour ozone non-attainment areas anymore because that standard no longer exists. So stating that there are no “areas in non-attainment for one hour ozone” means nothing.
47) Page 3-18, 3.3 Potential Consequences, the proposers have not revealed the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative by illegally avoiding this analysis by saying that “Any direct effects of these projects would be evaluated under their own environmental studies”.
CEQ regulations, Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c), require full revelation and comparison of all reasonable alternatives regarding the environmental impacts that they have. By not revealing the environmental impacts of the “No Action Alternative” the proposers violate all of the above sections of CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and be revised to legally comply with NEPA and CEQ regulations.
48) Page 3-19, GISST Ozone Non-Attainment, the one hour ozone standard should not be used. The ozone standard that exists today is the eight hour standard. The eight hour ozone standard changed on March 12, 2008 and is now 0.075 ppm. The DEIS air quality analysis should be changed to reflect the changed ozone standard. The most recent information should be used and not information that is 8-10 years old (1998 and 2002).
49) Page 3-19, GISST Managed Lands, the Sierra Club is very concerned that Texas state forest land, national wilderness areas, national or state designated wild and scenic river segments, national trials, national preserves, or Louisiana publicly owned lands are not part of the GISST analysis. We are also concerned that all private conservation lands are not included in this analysis.
50) Page 3-21, GISST Wildlife Habitat, the Sierra Club is very concerned that eight year old data was used with no specific habitat types included. Only the very broad and general land cover types of forests, shrub-lands, grasslands, wetlands, and open water were used. No habitat quality, vulnerability, uniqueness, connectivity, rare species, and land cover types are represented in the GISST coverage and are not specifically identified and were not used. This means the analysis is less than complete and is arbitrary and capricious.
51) Page 3-21, GISST Federal Threatened and Endangered Species and GISST State Threatened and Endangered Species, the Sierra Club is very concerned that state and federal candidate species are not included in this analysis and that federally listed species in Louisiana are not part of the GISST.
52) Page 3-21, GISST Stream Density, the Sierra Club is concerned that the GISST Stream Density data does not include ephemeral streams. This failure to include ephemeral streams underestimates the amount of stream miles that are impacted by all proposed corridors. Thus the environmental impacts are underestimated. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
53) Page 3-21, GISST TMDL/CWA 303(d), not all streams have been assessed for impairment in the project area. Therefore the possible environmental impacts are underestimated.
54) Page 3-21, GISST Floodplain, the Sierra Club is concerned that 16 Texas counties and two Louisiana parishes are not represented by the same floodplain data as 27 other Texas counties. The same level of environmental analysis was not conducted for all parts of the proposed project area.
55) Page 3-22, GISST Ecologically Significant Stream Segment, this is a poor criteria to use because the Texas Legislature has approved no more than a few streams (about 16) and most of the Regional Water Planning Groups have not designated ecologically significant stream segments. Also Louisiana streams were not considered which means the same level of environmental analysis was not conducted for all parts of the proposed project area. This analysis underestimates the impacts to ecologically significant stream segments.
56) Page 3-22, GISST Wetlands, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information about wetland quality, significance, size, site specific type, or connectivity to other water resources and uses data that is eight years old. What are the limitations of the 2000 USGS NLCD data? The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
57) Page 3-22, GIST Agricultural Lands, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide specific agricultural land use, type of production, and prime or unique farmlands. All this analysis does is identify the presence of broad categories of farmland (orchards/vineyards/other, pasture/hay, row crop, small gains, and fallow) which is not specific enough to determine what the actual environmental impacts will be. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
58) Page 3-22, GISST Hazardous Waste, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information about the size of the facility, extent of potential contamination, or environmental sensitivity. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
59) Page 3-22, TEAP Rarity, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information specific about threatened and endangered species, wildlife habitats, and plant communities. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
60) Page 3-22, TEAP Diversity, this analysis is deficient because it relies on the incomplete ecologically significant streams segment data. Most of the project area has not had complete species inventories and monitoring of species. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
61) Page 3-23, TEAP Sustainability, this analysis is deficient because it assumes that we have information that can determine an area’s ecological resistance to disturbance and resiliency to recover after human disturbance. Much of the information used is biased against urbanized areas and industrialized areas and does not take into account adequately the ecological changes that loss of fire, logging, grazing, and agriculture have on the environmental. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
62) Page 3-23, TEAP Composite, this analysis is deficient because it is based on three other deficient criteria. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
63) Pages 3-23 and 3-24, GISST and TEAP Scoring, this analysis is deficient because the actual location or percent coverage of the resource within the gird cell is not known; the quality, quantity, and specific location of a particular resource is not given; no field surveys were conducted; and a resource represented by the GISST or TEAP may not occupy or be found within the entire grid cell, even in the highest scoring cells. Presence/absence scoring is not sufficient to allow real data analysis. How can there be any scoring when you do not know what is in the grid cells? The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
64) Pages 3-24 and 3-25, Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects, this analysis is deficient because GISST and TEAP data is so poor that you cannot even tell if a resource is found in the grid cell. In addition, the failure to conduct any indirect and cumulative effects analysis and no quantitative direct effects analysis is illegal under NEPA and CEQ regulations (Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c)). The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
65) Pages 3-25 through 3-29, Method for Evaluating the New Location Corridor Alternative, this method is deficient. The percent coverage of resource data is too broad and general and does not tell what type of specific habitat type will be impacted; the distribution is incomplete because it does not include ephemeral streams; the overlap of resource data is deficient because you do not know if species are even in grid cells; and the proximity of resource data is inadequate because absence or presence is not really known, the data used is old, and “may indicate” answers are provided instead of any assurance that real resource problems exist. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
66) Page 3-30, GISST Wildlife Habitat, this method is deficient because habitat quality, vulnerability, uniqueness connectivity, rare species, and land cover types within the coverage are not specifically identified or are not included. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
67) Pages 3-30, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39, 3-42, 3-46, 3-49, 3-53, 3-57, 3-61, 3-64, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-75, 3-78, 3-81, 3-82, 3-84, 3-88, 3-89, 3-93, 3-96, 3-97, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, and 3-105, No Action Alternative, the proposers have not revealed the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative. This has been done illegally by saying that “Any direct effects of these projects would be evaluated under their own environmental studies”.
CEQ regulations, Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c), require full revelation and or comparison of all reasonable alternatives with regard to the environmental impacts that they have. By not revealing the environmental impacts of the “No Action Alternative” the proposers violate all of the above sections of CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and be revised to legally fit NEPA and CEQ regulations.
68) Page 3-30, GISST Wildlife Habitat Findings, this method is deficient because habitat quality, vulnerability, uniqueness connectivity, rare species, and land cover types within the coverage are not specifically identified or are not included. This means that this analysis is dangerous and less than useless because it gives the air of authority, professionalism, and scientific accuracy and acceptability when it has none of these things. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
69) Pages 3-33 and 3-34, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, this analysis is deficient because what is slated for Tier II should be done for Tier I. The promises made are not useful because they are discretionary. For instance, the DEIS states “If effects could not be avoided, efforts to analyze effects and identify potential mitigation would be conducted”. There is no commitment here to actually mitigate or avoid any damage to the environment. Another example is “Existing vegetation … would be avoided and preserved where practicable”. There is no commitment to preserve any wildlife and habitat values, water quality protection, and soil conservation.
In addition, the Pineywoods Mitigation and Conservation Area is not appropriate for mitigation of impacts in other watersheds like those of the Trinity River and San Jacinto River. Mitigation needs to be done in the watershed where the destruction and damage occus. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
70) Page 3-34, GISST Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species, this analysis is deficient because it “does not identify what specific species may be located within the grid cell”. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
71) Page 3-35, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, what is important is not that the Section 7 consultation process occurs at some time in the future. What is important is that the DEIS fails to tell the public and decision-makers now so they can review, comment on, and understand what impacts on state and endangered species will occur.
72) Page 3-35, Important Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats, what is important is not whether corridors are differentiating but what the impacts are on important terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Of course the corridors are not differentiating when the method of analysis is so crude and broad that it cannot provide important information about habitats.
73) Pages 3-35 and 3-36, TEAP Rarity, Diversity, Sustainability, and Composite, it is of great concern that an equivalent analysis was not done for Louisiana because the TEAP criteria do not exist for Louisiana.
A “may provide” answer for avoiding or minimizing potential impacts, which is provided throughout Chapter 3, is not good enough for the DEIS because it does not give a firm basis for choosing one corridor over another.
74) Page 3-52, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how can Tier I result in a Selected Alternative, called Preferred Alternative in Chapter 6, when all reasonable alternatives have not been compared (No Action Alternative and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative) regarding their environmental impacts? This is not legal under NEPA and CEQ regulations (Section 1502.14).
75) Page 3-53, Water Resources, GISST Stream, Density and Stream Crossing, this analysis is deficient because ephemeral streams are not included in the analysis. Ephemeral streams have an important impact on water quality and must be used in any stream analysis.
76) Page 3-54, Surface Water Findings Stream and River Crossing, groundwater and recharge area impacts are ignored even though groundwater is connected to surface water.
77) Pages 3-54 and 3-61, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, what does “where feasible and appropriate” mean regarding mitigation measures and best management practices for Section 401 and 404 permits?
78) Page 3-57, GISST TMDL/CWA 303(d), this is a deficient analysis because the five mile proximity analysis is not used in Louisiana. There must be an equivalent analysis used for all parts of the proposed project.
79) Page 3-61, GISST Floodplain, this analysis is deficient because 16 Texas counties and two Louisiana parishes are not given equivalent analysis. In addition, Executive Order 11988 on floodplains is not mentioned with regard to how I-69/TTC will comply.
80) Page 3-63, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how is “substantial damage” defined?
81) Pages 3-67 and 3-68, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how are “appropriate and practicable measures; “appropriate and practicable steps”; “greatest extent possible”; “appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation”; and “appropriate and practicable minimization” defined?
82) Pages 3-69 and 3-70, Groundwater, “how is “ecological functions of aquifers” defined? What amount of the recharge area will be crossed by the proposal in each segment and what is the environmental impact on the recharge area?
83) Page 3-70, GISST Managed Lands, the Sierra Club is concerned because all private lands that are protected for conservation purposes are not included in this analysis.
84) Page 3-71, Table 3.22, the name of the park in Section N is Lake Houston Park and not Lake Houston State Park. The Texas Parks and Wildlife department has allowed the City of Houston to take over management of what used to be Lake Houston State Park.
85) Page 3-72, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how is “feasible or prudent” defined?
86) Page 3-75, GISST Agricultural Lands, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information about agricultural soils, land quality, production, and does not identify prime or unique farmland soils.
87) Page 3-78, GISST Ozone Non-attainment, this analysis is deficient because it does not include an emissions inventory for air pollutants that will be generated by this proposal, including those emitted due to secondary development. The new EPA ozone eight hour standard must be used (0.075 ppm).
88) Page 3-80, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, this analysis is deficient because it waits until Tier II before considering the “potential effects of an I-69/TTC facility on air quality”. This information must be provided now as required by CEQ regulations, Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c).
89) Page 3-83, GISST Percent Minority, this analysis is deficient because it is so broad it cannot analyzed minority areas like Kendleton which is majority African-American and Hispanic and could be heavily impacted by the proposal.
90) Page 3-88, Economy, this analysis is deficient because it does not include an estimated cost of the proposal.
91) Page 3-96, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, this noise analysis is deficient because it does not estimate what the noise increase in decibels will be. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
92) Page 3-102, Energy, this analysis is deficient because it does not discuss the changed energy situation including peak oil, $100/barrel oil, $4/gallon gasoline, and our increased dependence on foreign oil via using more cars and trucks. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.
93) Page 3-103, Construction, what is the definition for “feasible and reasonable”?
94) Pages 3-103 and 3-104, Relationship of Local Short Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity, this section is incorrectly titled. It should be “The relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” as stated in NEPA.
The DEIS fails to discuss the increased use of oil and gasoline and the vulnerability of Texas using this proposal road versus other alternatives and gives no analysis for the No Action Alternative or the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative.
95) Page 3-105, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, the DEIS gives no analysis for the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative. In addition, there will be the permanent loss of wildlife habitat and all natural processes and ecological functions (natural capital). The Sierra Club is opposed to using purchase options because they illegally subvert the alternative comparison and selection process. See Sections 1502(f) and (g) of CEQ regulations.
97) Page 4-1, Planned Roadway Projects, the list provided fails to show the connection to road projects like the proposed Grand Parkway and U.S. 290 which may be used by I-69/TTC to enter the Houston MTZ. All potential environmental impacts must be analyzed now.
98) Page 4-2, Hurricane Evacuation Routes, the DEIS refers to “developed a statewide evacuation plan” regarding emergency management. However, there appears to be no official state “hurricane evacuation plan” for Texas or for a specific area, like Houston. Hurricane evacuation is much more than providing additional capacity. It also entails good coordination, communications, adequate personnel, appropriate training, and acquisition and maintenance of equipment. A real hurricane evacuation study would include all of these elements and more with public participation and input to ensure that people can be moved safely and property protected in as expeditious and economical a fashion as possible. And the results of that study would be provided to the public to review, comment on, and understand. This has not happened for I-69/TTC.
99) Page 4-4, 4.2 Transportation Planning Evaluation Method, the Sierra Club is concerned that environmental factors were not considered in the transportation planning evaluation process even though they should be because they affect the economic and engineering features the proposed project.
100) Page 4-6, User Benefit Analysis and Supplemental Performance Index Analysis, the Sierra Club is concerned that environmental factors were not considered in the transportation planning evaluation process (user benefit analysis and supplemental performance index analysis) even though they should be because they affect the economic and engineering features the proposed project.
101) Page 4-14, System Connectivity Analysis, the Sierra Club is very concerned that no estimated cost of the proposal is given. It is not clear who the system users are when a benefit has been calculated. The Sierra Club does not understand how a system user benefit can be calculated when the actual cost of the proposal is not estimated. Total cost and maintenance costs have a lot to do with whether there will be system user benefits and how much they are.
102) Page 4-16, 4.6 Supplemental Rail Review, the analysis for rail is non-existent. It makes no sense to talk about high-speed rail or commuter rail when the proposal does not go to cities.
103) Pages 5-1 through 5-21, 5.0 Indirect and Cumulative Effects, the proposers ignore the requirements in NEPA and CEQ regulations that quantification of effects must be provided.
NEPA and CEQ regulations do not state that if alternatives have indirect or cumulative effects that are, as the proposers state, “no differentiation … no distinguishing factors” then the environmental impacts do not have to be revealed and assessed, evaluated, and analyzed comparatively. But that is exactly what the proposers do in an illegal end-run around NEPA and CEQ regulations. This is arbitrary and capricious and against the law. As the proposers well know they have not revealed or analyzed the environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) for the No Action Alternative and for the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative.
105) Page 5-2, Step 1 – Define Study Area, the proposers have not revealed or analyzed the environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) for the No Action Alternative and for the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative. The public and decision-makers must have this information now about the entire proposed project so they can review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of this proposal.
106) Page 5-3, Step 2 – Identify Effects of Selecting a New Location Corridor Alternative, the proposers state “it is recognized that if the New Location Corridor Alternative is selected there may be effects to land use, land use planning, and land values associated with the local and regional economy.” So the Sierra Club asks, “Why is this information, the environmental impacts that could occur, not in the DEIS?”
107) Page 5-3, Step 3 – Identify Indirect Effects of Construction and Operation of an I-69/TTC Facility, the proposers state “the selection of a New Location Corridor Alternative does not predict where the I-69/TTC facility alignments may ultimately occur within the corridor.” This is a cop-out, inaccurate, statement. In fact estimates can be made to determine what the approximate environmental impacts would be, in other words quantification.
However, the proposers have so distorted the analysis process that they claim this cannot be done. Certainly, this has been done with the Grand Parkway EISs that have come out even when the exact corridor location was not known. Certainly, it is possible to estimate how much water will run-off a certain volume of pavement; it is possible to estimate the water pollutants that will run-off with that water volume; it is possible to estimate air emissions from a road; it is possible to estimate specific habitat types that will be damaged or destroyed. It is possible to estimate many environmental impacts now. The proposers just don’t want to do so because environmental analysis now would reveal massive environmental impacts. Under NEPA and CEQ regulations it is not legal to avoid analyzing and quantifying environmental impacts. The public and decision-makers need this information to review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of this proposal.
There is a body of scientific research that demonstrates the approximate environmental destruction that induced travel from transportation causes. The proposers ignore this. The public and decision-makers need this information to review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of this proposal. Attachment 2
108) Pages 5-3 and 5-4, Step 4 – Identify Strategies for Evaluating Tier Two Indirect Effects, the proposers state “TxDOT is in the process of developing specific guidance on the assessment of indirect effects.” The CEQ regulations have been in existence since 1978 (30 years) and all this time TxDOT has had a legal obligation to follow those regulations which require analysis of indirect environmental impacts. It is not an excuse now or at any time in the past 30 years for TxDOT to state it is “in the process of developing specific guidance on assessment of indirect effects”. Why was this guidance not put together 30 years ago? The proposers are negligent.
109) Pages 5-4 through 5-13, 5.3 Findings, the proposers fail to quantify the environmental impacts of Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources Including: Vegetation and Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Important Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats; Water Resources Including: Surface Water, Water Quality, Floodplains, Wetlands, and Groundwater; Public Land; Agricultural Land; air Quality, Hazardous Waste, Social Characteristics Including; Population, Community Facility and Neighborhood/Community Cohesion, Environmental Justice; Economic Resources and Characteristics; Land Use; Cultural Resources; Noise; Utilities; Mineral Resources; and Visual Resources for the alternatives provided: No Action Alternative, New Location Corridor Alternative, and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative.
On page 5-5, Public Land, how is “feasible and prudent” defined?
On page 5-6, Agricultural Land, why should this proposal “accommodate induced development?
On Pages 5-6 and 5-7, Air Quality, what are the air pollution impacts of regional haze, air toxics, and ozone due to this proposal?
On pages 5-7 and 5-8, Social Characteristics Including: Population, Community Facility and Neighborhood/Community Cohesion, Environmental Justice, what are the quantified environmental impacts on the community of Kendleton?
On pages 5-8 and 5-9, Economic Resources and Characteristics, what is the estimated cost of this proposal? What are the induced land use effects?