February 23, 2005

Comments of Jim Fary, Conservation Chair, Montgomery Group of the Sierra Club, for the Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club on the Proposed ICC Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): Environmental Impacts Comments Only

IMPORTANT NOTE to Comment Reviewers – comments below are NOT the complete comments of the Sierra Club of Maryland, but only address environmental impacts, 4(f) impacts, and general comments and process issues. Comments on transportation, traffic, congestion, and related issues will be provided to you under separate cover from Steve Caflisch, Transportation Chair, Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club.

General Comments:

1. Chapters I and II – Purpose and Need - The intent and spirit of NEPA require the consideration of all reasonable and feasible alternatives in order to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the environmental impacts of a project. Simply stating that a new road is needed as the Purpose and Need, and tying it in to homeland security without serious consideration of other viable alternatives that would have less environmental and economic impacts, is a disingenuous attempt that violates the spirit and intent of NEPA. Federal Agencies and others have suggested other feasible, less environmentally damaging, and less expensive alternatives. Attachment #1 is a letter from US Department of the Interior discussing other alternatives. Attachment #2 is a letter from attorney Diane Curran explaining why your Purpose and Need Statement is deficient. Why was the Purpose and Need Statement limited to two build and a no build alternative?

2. Global climate change – The phenomenon of climate change caused by human activity has been almost universally accepted by scientists. Why does the DEIS not discuss the contribution to climate change that the Nation’s third largest (and Maryland’s largest – source Sec. Flanagan) proposed construction project would have? Why does the DEIS not discuss and analyze the regional and global impact of replacing carbon “sinks” with acres of new impervious area in the Study Area? This is a serious oversight.

3. Insufficient review time – Hard copies of the DEIS were only made available on December 8, 2004 at the beginning of the most important holiday season in America. The DEIS itself is nearly 1,500 pages, including Technical Appendices, it is over 10,000 pages. The release of the DEIS during the holiday season and holding the public hearings in early January caused a public outcry on “fairness.” Even with the scheduling an additional hearing on January 22 and extension of the comment period by two weeks still the public was still denied its right to meaningful and substantive participation. Public review of such massive and complex data under these conditions simply does not work. Why did you schedule public review and comment under such difficult conditions?

4. Insufficient hard copies available for public review – Putting hard copies in only a few libraries (thereby limiting public review to library open hours) and not distributing copies to interested groups (as was done during the last DEIS for this project) forced people to review hard copies only during the opening hours of libraries. Many people could not take the time to review a document of nearly 6,000 pages under these conditions. Availability on a website or compact disc is not the same as hard copy. Many people do not have computers with enough capacity to process a document of this size. Moreover, it takes outstanding skill and eyesight to process such a massive document on a computer. By failing to make hard copy widely available, you have denied the public’s right to meaningful and substantive participation. Why did you make it so difficult for the public to review the DEIS?

5. The Technical Appendices were only available at five locations during working hours only. This denies the public its right to meaningful and substantive participation.

6. Independent Verification and Validation of Models Used – There do not appear to be any independent validation for the models that were used to predict impacts. The models supporting the argument for the ICC are specious. As the old saying goes – “garbage in, garbage out.” Was there any independent validation of the models? If there was, by who?

7. You are underestimating the environmental impacts of stormwater. By using traditional ponds and not infiltrating stormwater of more than 1.5 inches (except in the Paint Branch SPA), you will be causing stream erosion since all stormwater events of more than 1.5 inches will be sent from new massive imperviousness areas into the stream and cause significant stream erosion. The “Maryland Stormwater Design Manual, Volume One, 1997” sets forth a number of essential standards for stormwater management that apply to all new developments in Maryland. However, the proposed build options violate the Maryland stormwater rules in the following ways:

· Standard No. 6 (page 1.14) states: "To protect stream channels from degradation, channel protection volume (CPv) shall be provided by means of 12 to 24 hours of extended detention storage for the one year [24-four hour] storm event (except on the Eastern Shore).

· In Section 1.4, titled, "What's New?" highlighting new principles and policies embodied in the design manual, there is the following item: "Provide storage for extended detention of the one-year, 24 hour storm event to protect downstream channels from erosion. (CPv-ED).”

· In this same section (page 1.19), there is the following related item: "Extended detention for water quality (WQv-ED) may be provided in ponds and wetlands and is a separate volume and calculation apart from the channel protection volume." This BMP design requirement is more fully explained in section 2.3, Stream Channel Protection Volume Requirements (CPv). The following are direct quotes from this section:

· "A detention pond or underground vault is normally needed to meet the CPv requirement (and subsequent Qp10 and Qf criteria). Schematics of the typical designs are shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6." (page 2.8).

· Page 2.12 of the State manual lists Montgomery County's rainfall depth, for the one-year, 24-hour storm event as being 2.6 inches. This is more than an inch than the 1.5 inches the State proposes to retain in massive stormwater ponds on parkland. Why is the stormwater management facility undersized? In the past ten years there have been 40 storm events that were over 1.5 inches according to data provided by the National Climate Data Center. Since you are only detaining 1.5 inch, you will clearly cause stream bank erosion. What is the environmental impact from increased stream bank erosion caused by the proposed ICC in the Study Area, and on the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers , and the Chesapeake Bay?

8. Habitat of migratory neo-tropical song birds - The State is underestimating the impact of the proposed ICC on the habitat of migratory neo-tropical song birds. These birds can only successfully nest in mature forest in areas of approximately 300 feet from the forest edge. As the State discusses in the DEIS, mature forest is essential for neo-tropical song birds to prevent parasitism from cow birds. However, the State does not tell us how many acres of mature forest are taken by the proposed ICC. So, how many acres of neo-tropical song bird nesting habitat is taken by building the proposed ICC in both Corridors 1 and 2? How much high quality interior forest habitat is fragmented? How can the State mitigate such an impact in the watersheds in which the proposed ICC is to be built? How can reforestation provide mitigation for the loss of mature forest canopy and cavities needed for migratory neo-tropical song bird successful nesting?

9. Proposed "S" curve alignment of Corridor 1 through the Northwest Branch – This alignment is potentially more environmentally harmful that the original master plan route. If the State is going to use bridges over wetlands, then a bridge would have less impact on high quality forests than the proposed "S" curve. Why is the State sacrificing high quality mature forest for an unspecified amount of avoidance to aquatic resources? What are the real environmental trade-offs? How did you arrive at the decision to substitute the “S” curve for the original alignment? We could find no discussion of it in the DEIS.

10. Environmental impacts of the proposed ICC on the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers and the Chesapeake Bay - What are the environmental impacts of the proposed ICC on the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers and the Chesapeake Bay? Attachment #3 is the signed Anacostia River Restoration Agreement. Please note that Goal #1 is to "dramatically reduce pollutant loads, such as Sediment…". Note that Goal #5 is to "Protect and expand forest overage…create a continuous riparian forest buffer…." How will the proposed ICC that adds new pollutants loads and destroys riparian forest buffer advance the Goals of restoring the Anacostia River? What is the impact of the proposed ICC on the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Agreement?

11. Damage to Parks - There is unacceptable damage to our parks. Proposed Corridor 1 would damage eight County parks – Mill Creek Stream Valley Park, Rock Creek Regional Park, North Branch Stream Valley Park, Layhill Local Park, Northwest Branch Recreational Park, Northwest Branch Stream Valley Park, Unit 5, Upper Paint Branch Stream Valley Park, and Little Paint Branch Stream Valley Park. Proposed Corridor 2 would damage – first three are the same as Corridor 1, Red Door Historical/Cultural Park, Northwest Branch Recreational Park, and Patuxent Conservation Park. As the stewards of these parks, you must protect them. The loss of mature forest cannot be replaced in the same watershed. Additionally, the noise impacts to our parks has been greatly underestimated by faulty assumptions and measurements taken during the 17‑year cicada mating.

12. Urban Sprawl - The "Build" options will only induce more sprawl growth. This was not discussed in the DEIS.

13. Master Plan – It has been argued that the ICC has been on the Master Plan for 50 years. But this was done long before the passage of modern environmental laws that protect air, water, rare, threatened, and endangered species. It is a 50-year idea whose time has passed as it has been eclipsed by modern scientific understanding of the value of clean air and water, and unfragmented forests.

14. Since public Agencies are reserving the right to supplement their comments after the close of the comment period in order to evaluate the comments of other Agencies, and possibly amend their comments based on the comments of other Agencies, the Sierra Club also claims a right to further supplement its comments after close of the comment period based upon its review of the comments of public Agencies which it can only access after the close of the comment period. We believe new substantive comment from the Sierra Club may be made after our review of commenting public Agencies. For example, we recently testified before the Montgomery County Planning Board that the original alignment of the proposed ICC through the Northwest Branch was less environmentally harmful than the new “S” curve alignment recently proposed by the US Army COE. The DEIS did not inform us that the original alignment would have required the destruction of high value forest habitat to put the Northwest Branch into a channel that would destroy more wetlands. Because the DEIS was not sufficiently descriptive of the “S” curve alternative, we innocently took the DEIS description and logically (but wrongly) concluded that the “S” curve alternative was more environmentally harmful. This illustrates that the public needs full disclosure of all data in order to give meaningful and substantive comment. The Sierra Club, therefore, reserves our right to file additional comments after close of the comment period based upon review of the comments of our public Agencies. The public has the right to review the complete record and we cannot do so if the record is held open for supplemental comments from public Agencies. We, therefore, request an additional period of 60 days in which to modify and/or supplement the comments of the Sierra Club in response to the comments of public Agencies.

15. Indirect and secondary impacts – why does the DEIS not discuss the approximately 5,000 acres of unexpected development, the 3,400 acres of forest land lost, the more than 200 acres of wetlands lost, and the many miles of stream bank erosion as indirect and secondary impacts of a proposed ICC?

Specific Comments:

1. P. - II – 13 – Why is the Strathmore Bel Pre community left out of the description on Aspen Hill?

2. P. - II – 13 – Can you provide the source for the opinion that: “Members of the Aspen Hill community are concerned about the loss of infrastructure, especially with the closing of the only high school, Peary High, which could lead Aspen Hill residents to move out of the area”? We believe that John F. Kennedy High School is in Aspen Hill. Aspen Hill is booming and housing prices are soaring. What or who is the source of the opinion that residents want to leave Aspen Hill? Moreover, please explain why such unattributed opinion is put into a DEIS?

3. P. – II - 49 – “Several of the Montgomery County streams are also within FEMA floodways, for which no increase in 100-year flood elevation would be permitted.” Why do you not specifically identify these “several streams”? Can you identify them? Use of “several” in a DEIS is inappropriate, can you be more specific? Specific data is needed in order to analyze the impact of the proposed ICC on the 100-year floodplain. This is particularly important since global climate change makes FEMA data questionable.

In addition, the DEIS does not examine the impact of global climate change on floodways. What are the cumulative impacts of the proposed ICC on FEMA’s 100-year floodways in light of nearly universal scientific consensus that global climate change is happening?

4. P. – II – 64 – Northwest Branch is described as “a degraded stream condition.” What is the source of this opinion? My experience, as a frequent hiker of the Northwest Branch, indicates that one cannot generalize about stream conditions in the Northwest Branch. While some stream areas are degraded, other areas are in surprisingly good shape and some areas nearly pristine. You prove this point by later saying “the Northwest Branch has been and is currently managed as a successful recreational trout fishing stream.” A DEIS that proposes crossing the Northwest Branch three times should seek the answer to this question: “What is the impact to the class III waters of the Northwest Branch from the proposed ICC?” We need serious analysis of environmental impacts to valuable natural resources in a serious DEIS and not unsubstantiated opinions as to the current condition of a major tributary of the Anacostia River. What are the environmental impacts of the proposed ICC on the Northwest Branch?

5. P. – II – 114 – Table II – 25 – the Northwest Branch is identified as having the greatest deer density in the study area. How will construction of the proposed ICC through the Northwest Branch impact deer density? Why does the DEIS not examine such impacts?

6. P. –II – 127 – We are informed in the DEIS that the Bonifant Floodplain ES Area contains State rare/watchlist species. How will the crossing of this floodplain impact these species? A serious DEIS would seek to answer this question.

7. PP. – IV – 3-4 – Stormwater – why control for only 1.5 inch storm events? Why use stormwater ponds instead of infiltration Best Available Technology(BAT)? Why not infiltrate stormwater into trenches on medium? As stormwater ponds are no longer allowed in Montgomery County, how can you plan to use such ponds? Infiltration is preferred BAT. What is the increase in thermal pollution from use of ponds instead of infiltration? What is the impact of the massive imperviousness of the proposed ICC on water quality? We researched NOAA’s National Climate Data Center for the Rockville, MD station and validated records indicate that there have been 40 storm events in the past 10 years where over 1.5 inches fell during a 24-hour period. What are the impacts of such frequent flooding on the streams of the Anacostia and Potomac Watersheds? Why are you only retaining the first 1.5 inches of rain when you now know the frequency at which 1.5 inch events will be exceeded in Study area? How can you avoid stream bank erosion by only retaining the first 1.5 inches? Moreover, what happens if the retained stormwater in your ponds has not had enough time to release before a second storm event hits?

8. P. – IV – 4 – What is meant by the phrase “will ultimately be employed”? Specifically, when will they be employed? Stormwater BATs should be employed continuously and not “ultimately.”

9. P. – IV – 5 – Claim to “protect all infiltration during construction.” How will this be done? We have reported State contractors several times for sediment violations. Attachment #5 contains photos of recent sediment violations by the State contractor making improvements on Muncaster Mill Rd. How many inspectors will you have to oversee the work of your contractors? How frequently will the construction site be inspected for sediment control? Will you use super silt fence? What impact will fine particle pollution that passes through silt fence have on aquatic resources? What is the compliance rate of state contractors with county and state requirements for sediment control in Maryland on highway projects? If you do not know, how can you assume that sediment will be managed properly? What is the impact on water quality of less than 100 percent compliance with state and county laws?

10. P. – IV - 5 – “Control and treat both road and bridge deck runoff in SPAs.” Why only in SPAs? Why not use BAT at every stage of the proposed project?

11. P. –IV – 5 – What are the “state of the art sediment and erosion control procedures to control both coarse and fine sediment” that you will use? How will you prevent fine particle pollution from the heavy clay soils of the Study Area?

12. P. – IV – 5-6 – Why are redundancy controls only used in the SPAs and Rocky Gorge? Why not use them throughout the proposed project given the massive amount of earth that would have to be moved to build a proposed ICC?

13. P. – IV – 6 – Why are you only studying wildlife passages? How much habitat fragmentation will the proposed ICC create? What is the impact of this fragmentation? Why not use wildlife passages for all animals, including reptiles and amphibians? What is the impact of not using wildlife passages along the entire route of the proposed ICC?

14. P. – IV – 6 – What does the phrase “efforts are ongoing to avoid or minimize impacts to ecologically sensitive areas” mean? Why not to all areas? Is it not the purpose and spirit of NEPA that a DEIS should show how impacts will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated? We do not understand and cannot evaluate the phrase “efforts are ongoing.” Please explain specifically what this means.

15. P. – IV – 81 – Please add the following to your list of decreases in quality of life:

- loss of wildlife and habitat

- increased air pollution

- increased respiratory and other diseases

- increased water pollution

- increased cost of water treatment

- increased use of fossil fuels

- increased sprawl development through induced growth

- increased traffic (from new development and induced traffic)

- loss of psychological value of nature

- loss of the use of 20 percent of federal highway funds for 15 years because of GARVEE bonds

- degraded natural views

- contribution to global climate change

16. P. – IV – 81 – What is the meaning of the sentence: “All of the alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative would cause changes in the quality of community life in the study area”? The sentence has little meaning unless you explain the varying levels of impact. Can you list and quantify these “changes” for each alternative? Why does the DEIS leave out impacts to individuals?

17. P. – IV – 81 – What is the source of the opinion that “the majority of the residents in Montgomery County and western Prince George’s County who would not be directly affected/impacted by the build alternatives stated that the construction of a new east-west connection would improve their quality of life”? How would it improve their quality of life? When did they state this? What is the exact question that these residents answered? What information about the ICC did they have when they made this “statement?”

18. P. – IV – 81-82 – This is a weak discussion of quality of life impacts. What are the quality of life impacts to communities and individuals near Corridors 1 and 2? Can you quantify these impacts? Why are you ignoring the many people along Corridor 1 who told you about the impact that the proposed ICC would have on their quality and life and health?

19. P. – IV – 84 – “No park and recreational facilities would be impaired to the extent that a substantial diminishment of its function , features, or attributes would occur from noise, visual intrusion, or restriction of access or vibration. What is the source of this opinion? How is it supported? “What is substantial diminishment? How did you measure it? Is this opinion based on the fact that noise measurements were made during the mating season of the 17 year cicada? How can one rely on such data? New noise is dramatically heard in areas that were once tranquil. The proposed ICC crosses eight parks in the Corridor 1 alignment and six parks in the Corridor 2 alignment. An MNCPPC survey done by the University of Maryland several years ago indicated that the great majority of park users are “passive “ users who just want to take a walk, picnic, or simply “get away from it all” for a couple of hours. P. – IV – 88 – Only describes “visual impact” in very general terms. What is the actual visual impact along various parts of the proposed ICC? For example, what is the visual impact in park lands?

20. P. – IV - 91- How can a six-lane divided highway be “safe and attractive”? This is a subjective statement. The ICC, like any other highway, would be a construction zone for years and then a permanent source of more automobile traffic, environmental degradation and public health toxins. The DEIS should describe how this highway would be different from others.

21. P. – IV – 91 – “ICC Aesthetic Guidelines” – where are these located for public review?

22. P. - IV – 91 – What is “visual unity”? Has SHA considered sustainable green design for the proposed ICC?

23. PP. – IV – 92-95 – “Economic Effects” – Has the SHA considered using the program by American Forests to calculate the lost dollar amount of the lost green space and forest in terms of the loss of air filtering, stormwater management and carbon sequestration? The American Forest program gives the true lost economic value of the natural ecosystems that the ICC would displace. How did you calculate the cost of the green space benefits that will be lost from building the ICC?

24. P. – IV – 129 – “A blasting plan would be designed….” When? The DEIS should detail the plan now so that its impacts could be assessed.

25. P. – IV – 129 – “Mechanical excavation of bedrock has little effect on the environment.” – According to whom? What is the source of this information? Mechanical excavation of bedrock is an industrial process that disrupts and destroys the immediate environment and habitat. Excavators pollute with exhaust and oil leaks. In addition, this statement ignores mechanical excavation’s dangers to surface and ground water hydrology, as well as the impacts of transporting and disposing of excavated bedrock. Will you reassess the effect of “mechanical excavation of bedrock” to include these impacts? If you do not plan to, why not?

26. P. – IV – 129 – “…blasting bedrock has few long-term effects….” What is the source of this information? [See comments above.]

27. P. – IV – 158 – What mitigation is being considered and where will it be? To merely state that mitigation is being “evaluated” and sites are being “reviewed” does not provide the environmental impact data required by a DEIS. Can you list the specific sites that are under review?

28. P. – IV – 159 – “SHA is committed to protecting water resources from ICC related impacts with a variety of innovative SWM techniques….” What are these techniques? Stormwater ponds are not innovative. Your engineers told me at the Spring public meeting that the 100-year storm event would be processed. On pages IV – 3-4, the DEIS says that only 1.5 inches of stormwater will be processed. The DEIS needs to define the stormwater management techniques that will be used so that their impacts can be evaluated. What is the historical frequency of storms that will have over 1.5 inches of stormwater and will therefore overwhelm the proposed stormwater management techniques?

29. P. – IV – 163 – “additional potential inputs (of heavy metals) from highway operations could bring levels closer to mandated thresholds and increase potential for adverse impacts to the aquatic system.” This is speculation and not an analysis of impacts for a DEIS. Can you quantify the “additional potential inputs” of heavy metals and how they could violate “mandated thresholds and lead to adverse impacts?

30. P. – IV – 163 – How is the SHA going to manage de-icing and not cause “acute toxicity” to aquatic life? Again, the DEIS neglects to discuss the problems of the impacts of the proposed ICC. What is the impact of SHA’s de-icing strategy?

31. P. – IV – 163-164 – How is SHA going to mitigate for PCBs? Again, there is no discussion of the relation of the increased impact to the proposed ICC.

32. P. – IV – 164 – How is SHA going to identify and mitigate for increased nutrients “found in highway runoff”? Why are you only identifying an impact without indicating how the proposed ICC will increase the impact and how it will be avoided, minimized, and mitigated?

33. P. – IV – 172 – How has SHA avoided and minimized “direct impacts to tributaries…of the Potomac, Anacostia, and Patuxent Rivers”? The SHA has “avoided and minimized wherever possible….” Where was it not possible to avoid and minimize? How were impacts avoided, minimized, and mitigated? What is the impact of unavoidable impacts to these tributaries?

34. P. – IV – 173 – “channel disturbance is relatively small.” This is a subjective statement. How small is “relatively small”? What is the size of the impact? This information is needed to evaluate the credibility of the DEIS.

35. P. – IV – 174 – “increased imperviousness…has the potential to have a wide range of impacts on study area streams and their inhabitants.” How can the imperviousness of a six-lane highway only have “potential” impacts to streams and their inhabitants? All current science agrees that there is a direct negative relationship between level of imperviousness, and stream health and biodiversity. See Center for Watershed Protection for examples of this last point. You have failed to describe and analyze the impervious impacts of a proposed six-lane highway. You need to quantify and not generalize the impacts. How does your failure to quantify impacts meet the requirements of the NEPA?

36. P. – IV – 183 – “Unavoidable direct impacts to stream channels will be mitigated in accordance with State and Federal regulations….” What are these direct impacts and, specifically, how will they be mitigated? Again, this DEIS fails to identify and analyze impacts of the proposed ICC.

37. P. – IV – 185 – Another example of failure to identify and quantify direct impacts is the following excerpt “…directly impact Waters of the US including wetlands due to filling for roadway embankments and bridge abutments. Other project-related facilities such as stormwater management could directly impact wetlands and waterways.” It is necessary to describe the extent of these direct impacts so that their significance can be assessed as part of a DEIS. Can you identify and quantify these direct impacts? How does this proposed DEIS differ from an Environmental Assessment?

38. P. – IV – 186 - “must await more detailed design information.” Why must it “await” and how long a wait is anticipated? This statement suggests that this DEIS was published prematurely. These are words typically used in an environmental assessment, not at the EIS stage. Given the consistent failure in this DEIS to identify the significance of direct and indirect impacts so that they can be objectively assessed as part of the DEIS process, was this DEIS published before it was complete?

39. P. – IV – 187-191 – Table of Wetland and Waterways Impacts by Corridor and Watershed – note on p. IV – 191 says “total impacts for each corridor cannot be calculated.” The reason given makes no sense to me. Why can’t total impacts be assessed? How can the environmental significance of the proposed ICC be assessed without numbers and kinds of direct and indirect impacts?

40. P. – IV – 195 – The phrase “…considerable effort to avoid and minimize potential direct impacts has taken place.” Where has this effort taken place? If the DEIS does not specify these efforts, then it is an opinion without any verification.

41. P. –IV – 195 – the following statements are subjective and help illustrate that this DEIS is premature and lacks sufficient information to assess the impacts of a six-lane road:

· “analysis of direct and indirect impact “must await future study.”

· “Must make “considerable effort to avoid and minimize”

· “investigating the feasibility…to further minimize impacts”

· “efforts to minimize are underway”

42. P. – IV – 203 – Further evidence that this DEIS is premature: “…working with resource agencies to refine avoidance and mitigation measures and develop conceptual mitigation strategies, in addition to environmental stewardship opportunities.” Why was this not done prior to publishing the DEIS? Why is there no opportunity for meaningful and substantive public participation in this on-going effort?

43. P. – IV – 204 – Missing decimal point in PEM for Corridor 1.

44. P. – IV – 205 – Detailed reviews are promised – how and when?

45. P. – IV – 230 – Edge effect – What will be the edge effect of the stresses on trees that “…may not be immediately noticeable but can instead occur over several years”? Can this be quantified?

46. P. – IV – 231 – What is the impact on neotropical migratory forest birds after fragmenting large forests to build the proposed ICC? There is a failure to explain known and proposed impacts of forest fragmentation.

47. P. – IV – 231 – How will compliance with the MD Reforestation Law mitigate the mature forest habitat needed by neotropical song birds? Planting deer food in reforested areas does not replace lost mature forest habitat. How can reforestation replace the mature forest canopy and cavity needed for successful nesting for migratory neo-tropical song birds?

48. P. – IV – 233 – Where are the proposed mitigation sites?

49. PP. – IV – 238-239 – What is proposed to mitigate the loss of neo-tropical migratory song bird habitat?

50. P. – IV – 241 – What will be the mitigation for the county Champion trees if the proposed ICC is built? I know the Champion tree in Upper Rock Creek. I have taken my family and grandsons to visit it. Why can’t you avoid it?

51. P. – IV – 242 – How many specimen trees would be taken? Where are they located?

52. P. – IV – 242 – Will SHA develop, manage and fund a program for the removal of invasive species that would result from a proposed ICC?

53. P. – IV – 243 – How will the SHA mitigate the direct impacts to wildlife? Please also provide data and analysis on the barrier that a proposed ICC would have for native plants that are in the path of either alignment. How would SHA mitigate this impact?

54. P. – IV –244 – How would the SHA avoid, minimize and/or mitigate indirect impacts to wildlife and native plants if the proposed ICC was built?

55. P. – IV – How will the SHA control dust from construction of the proposed ICC?

56. P. – IV – 248 – How will beavers impact stormwater manage facilities? Do beavers have less impact on BATs that infiltrate stormwater than on the traditional ponds that SHA is considering?

57. P. – IV – 250 – What is the source of the statement that: “SHA has found that high volume roadways…can form a fluid barrier to deer movement”? Will the proposed ICC be a high volume barrier 24 hours a day, 7 days a week?

58. P. – IV – 255 – How and where will SHA avoid, minimize and/or mitigate for loss of vernal pools from the proposed ICC?

59. PP. – IV – 259 –265 – Specifically, how and where would SHA mitigate for the loss of mature forest songbird habitat?

60. PP. – IV – 264- 276 – How and where will SHA mitigate for the loss of so many RTE/Watchlist species? Where and how can the SHA find habitat of equal or greater value?

61. PP. – IV –275-282 – Noise is the number-one most complained-about environmental issue in Montgomery County. How will you mitigate for traffic noise if the proposed ICC is built? Does SHA have a policy on where to install noise barriers? What about noise during construction? What about noise impacts to park users? How will the SHA mitigate for increased noise in adjacent parks?

62. PP. – IV – 281-293 – Air Quality – By inducing more sprawl development and increasing vehicle traffic and vehicle miles traveled, how will the SHA avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate the health impacts from increased air pollution? What is the risk to children from increased air pollution, especially where the ICC route goes near schools?

63. P. –IV –293 – 53 “sites were deemed to have potential hazardous materials impacts… - best professional judgment and prior experience” was used to evaluate these sites. Whose best professional judgment and experience? Please identify and state the credentials of the “best professional judgment and experience” that did the evaluation.

64. P. – IV – 373 – The DEIS does not explain how SHA calculated secondary impacts (Table IV-108). The DEIS should clarify this in lay terms. Can you explain it in lay terms? “ Can you explain, “estimations based upon the occurrence of the potential secondary development in the same locations as the select natural resources.” What does that mean?

65. P. – IV – 374 – Please note the quote: “In addition, secondary impacts are considered a component of cumulative effects.” This is important for next comment.

66. P. – IV – 375-376 – Konterra is a “secondary development as a direct result of the ICC.” Since secondary impacts are “considered a component of cumulative impacts” (comment #65), Konterra must be included as a part of the cumulative impact. Also, what about the cumulative impacts on the environment of other proposed developments, such as the Fairland Golf Community and other proposed developments listed. What is the cumulative impact from development induced by the proposed ICC in Prince George County?

67. P. – IV – 377 – “47 percent of the County is in parkland or agricultural reserve.” This is not correct. The 47 percent figure includes green space in homeowners associations and along roads and streets. What is the quality of the 47 percent ? How much of it is biodiverse habitat? The M-NCPPC “Forever Green” Report is misleading. How can you compare the loss of high quality forest to street trees?

68. P.- IV – 382 – Cumulative effects statement: How will SHA avoid, minimize and/or mitigate the impacts from such massive cumulative effects? Why does this DEIS not analyze the cumulative impacts that it identifies?

69. P. – IV – 382-385 – “Cumulative effects fall disproportionately on low-income and minority communities.” How will the SHA avoid, minimize and/or mitigate these environmental justice impacts?

70. P. – IV – 394 – “Potential Secondary and Cumulative Impacts….” Table IV - 116– How will SHA avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate such massive impacts?

71. P. – IV – 410 – Please provide a source or authority for the opinion that the energy expended under No action alternative “is likely to exceed” the “initial energy expenditure for construction of one of the Build Alternatives.” Why is this statement relevant? What about energy expenditure after construction between the No Build and Build Alternatives?

72. P. – IV – 410 – Please explain the source and authority for the opinion on how short-term effects of “this project are considered to be consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for the local area.”

Section 4(f) Evaluation

1. P. – V – 1-4 – Why the Purpose and Need discussion again? It is in Section I.

2. P. – V – 2 – “advance homeland security by providing much needed capacity for military access.” This statement is flawed. Why do we need “capacity for military access” in the Study Area? Have there been any terrorist threats to the Study Area? The Frederick Fair grounds are designated as a shelter in case of biological, chemical, or radioactive attack. If SHA wants to improve homeland security in the Study Area, north access to Frederick Fairgrounds should be improved. Does the proposed ICC, by giving greater access to the Study Area, actually provide less homeland security?

3. P. – V – 4 – “US DOT Act policy appears to provide that land initially acquired for park purposes be evaluated for Section 4(f) use.” What is “US DOT Act policy”? Does it mean the regulations implementing the Act? Or, does it mean the non-binding policy that administers the implementing regulations? Why does US DOT Act policy only “appears to provide”? Do the FHA and SHA have access to Counsel that can render an opinion on whether such “US DOT Act policy” is applicable?

4. P. – V – 5 – “Therefore, this document seeks to layout the dates of the various acquisitions by M-NCPPC.” What is the relevancy of acquisition dates of parkland?

5. P. - V – 5 – “Where applicable, the ICC Master Plan Corridor and the Designated Transportation Area are defined on figures presented in this evaluation.” What does this sentence mean?

6. P. – V – 5-6 – “The Designated Transportation Areas are not, and have never been, part of the adjacent parks. Therefore, Section 4(f) does not apply to the use of this land for their designated purpose.” This is not logical. How can one reach this conclusion under the premise that “US DOT Act policy appears” to include parkland in a 4(f) evaluation? The statement is unsubstantiated opinion. “Are not, and have never been” flies from reality. Designated Transportation Areas are not identified on parkland maps. They are not field staked or otherwise bounded. In some cases, they have been used for parkland for more than 40 years. How many acres of parkland is SHA trying to exclude using this reasoning? Was this acreage included in estimates of the impact of the ICC on parkland? If not, why not? And how does including it change the impact?

7.P. – V-6 – Northwest Branch Stream Valley Park – Unit 5 – “was designated with a straight highway corridor bisecting the park. This corridor is clearly not a Section 4(f) resource because it is not parkland. The purpose of the park is to protect the stream and associated aquatic resources. The US Army Corps of Engineers has advised that harm to the aquatic resources would be greatly minimized by shifting the corridor so that it curves rather than follow the designated straight line. FHWA is considering whether the curved corridor is properly considered a use of Section 4(f) resources, since it causes less harm to the protected resources.” Does causing less harm change the nature of the land?

When is a park not a parkland? How can the DEIS call the NW Branch a park, identify it as a park, but then exclude it from 4(f) evaluation because it is not parkland? There is an obvious problem here – it appears that the Study Team is attempting to exclude significant parkland containing extensive wetlands from any 4(f) evaluation by interpretation of “DOT Act policy” that “appears” to give some wiggle room by some how allowing for the exclusion of Designated Transportation Areas from 4(f) evaluation. Is this true? If it is not true, how do you explain the effort to designate land that appears to be parkland as non-parkland? Is there a precedent for this designation change?

The Army Corps knows the value of the extensive wetlands of the NW Branch and the SHA knows that there will be substantial impact to a very significant resource. The issue on whether or not 4(f) applies to parkland that has Designated Transportation Areas needs to be answered now. A supplement to the DEIS needs to be made available for public review and comment before issuing the Final EIS on the issue of the applicability of 4(f) to such parkland. Otherwise, you violate the public right to meaningful and substantive participation. When will this issue be resolved and when will a supplement to the DEIS be made available?

8.P. – V – 12-14 – Why is there no discussion of the Special Protection Area of Upper Rock Creek?

9. P. – V – 15 – “traditional onsite SWM ponds” are no longer used in Montgomery County because of liability, maintenance costs and thermal pollution. Why is SHA using them? Why do you want to bear the costs of using traditional ponds and not BAT? What is the impact of use of ponds on West Nile Virus in the county?