Pollution UpDate
"Pollution UpDate" is a publication dedicated
to the reporting of timely environmental news.
Joe Turner, Editor
Environmental activists with story ideas or comments
can e-mail gateway@rayproffitt.org . I'd like
to thank the readers of Pollution UpDate for their comments and suggestions, and DEP for
giving us plenty to write about.
It is not too late to send letters to the Army Corps of Engineers opposing the ridge-top alignment for Interstate 99 (US Route 220), also known as the "Bud Shuster Rollercoaster." The COE is mandated by law to choose the "least damaging, practicable alternative."
The Raymond Proffitt Foundation has been very interested in this destructive highway proposal for some time (see PU's of 2/28/97, 3/7/97, and 12/12/97). For example, here is a letter that the RPF sent to the COE last August. We hope that the reason why the COE has not yet issued its decision is because they are giving careful consideration to our comments and their regulatory responsibilities, despite the political pressure that traditionally accompanies a project in U.S. Representative Elmer G. "Bud" Shuster's 5th Congressional District.
Let the COE and the Department of Interior know how you think. Write to:
Lt. Gen. Arthur E. Williams
Chief of Engineers
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW...........................................................................................
Washington, D.C. 20314-1000
&
U.S. Department of Interior
Bruce Babbitt, Secretary
1849 C Street, NW............................................................................................................
Washington, D.C. 20240
******************
JOHN WILMER
ATTORNEY AT LAW
21 Paxon Hollow Road
Media, Pa 19063
(610) 565-2736
fax (610) 565-4825
August 12, 1997
Colonel Bruce A. Berwick
District Engineer, Baltimore District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Box 1715
Baltimore, Md 21203
Re: Opposition to Route 220 Project
Dear Col. Berwick:
I am writing to you on behalf of the Raymond Proffitt Foundation. The Foundation has evaluated the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation's (PennDOT) plan to replace Route 220 between the town of Bald Eagle and Port Matilda with a four lane highway on the north facing slope of Bald Eagle Mountain. We have reviewed correspondence related to this project and discussed the proposal with local citizens and agency representatives, and have concluded that the issuance of a Section 404 permit for the RT-G alternative (Penn DOT's preferred alternative) would violate the Environmental Protection Agency's 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
AREAS OF CONCERN
There are three main areas of concern with this project:
1) Practicable, less damaging alternatives to PennDOT's selected alternative have not been chosen;
2) Adverse impacts to terrestrial and aquatic resources from the RT-G alignment cannot be mitigated by creating similar habitats; and,
3) The proposed alignment will cause or contribute to significant degradation to waters of the United States.
FAILURE TO SELECT BEST ALTERNATIVE
According to the Guidelines: "...no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences." Section 230.10(a). Based on reports from the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the RT-G alternative will have demonstrably greater adverse affects on aquatic and terrestrial resources than the G1-1b alternative. Attachment A to this letter illustrates the point. When comparing the environmental impacts of the two alignments, the RT-G alternative will have substantially greater adverse impacts on high quality wetlands, spring seeps, migratory birds, State Game Lands, forest land, streams, amphibians, woodcock habitat, and terrestrial wildlife.
When looking at this project from a broad perspective, the G1-1b alignment in Section 1 primarily traverses low quality farm land and residential yards, and skirts the edge of forests along the south facing slope of the Allegheny Plateau that has been fragmented by roads, residential development and farming. On the other hand, the RT-G alignment is located in the midst of a large, undeveloped forested tract. Based on the location of the two alignments, it is clear that Penn DOT has not selected the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative. Penn DOT's representative, Bert Kisner admitted as much in a February 7, 1997 article in the local newspaper (attached) when he stated that from a natural resource standpoint, the RT-G alternative was the worst alternative.
FAILURE TO MITIGATE
In addition to PennDOT's failure to select the least damaging, practicable alternative, we have not seen a mitigation plan that can compensate for resource losses associated with the RT-G alignment. For example, both the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Pennsylvania Game Commission (Pa.GC) have stated that the hillside seeps, springs and wetlands, and 3000 acres of migratory bird habitat that will be directly and indirectly impacted by the RT-G alignment cannot be replaced. In contrast, a mitigation plan to compensate for adverse impacts to wetlands and terrestrial resources impacted by the G1-1b alignment can be developed. In a February 7, 1997 letter to George Khoury, Penn DOT Engineering District 2, the Pennsylvania Game Commission categorized the seep zones within the forested area along the RT-G alignment as irreplaceable." The FWS concurred with their analysis in their February 10, 1997 letter to you, stating that some of the resources along the RT-G alignment are irreplaceable and the loss cannot be mitigated. The FWS also pointed out that the G1-1b alternative is the least damaging, practicable alternative and that the RT-G alignment would cause significant degradation to waters of the United States.
In an October 16, 1995 letter to Manuel Marks of the Federal Highway Administration, you state that either the G1-1b or RT-G alternative can be permitted "...if appropriate and sufficient mitigation measures were implemented." By your statement, it does not seem to matter if one alternative has significantly greater impacts; if mitigation can be developed to compensate for resource losses, any alternative can be permitted. With this philosophy, there is no need to select the least damaging alternative for any project - simply propose an alternative, develop sufficient mitigation, and we can permit it. This position is contrary to the Guidelines' requirement that the least damaging, practicable alternative be selected. In addition, there has not been a mitigation plan developed to compensate for the loss of, and indirect impacts to, over 70 seeps and wetlands along the north facing slope of Bald Eagle Mountain and adverse impacts to 3000 acres of forest land.
DEGRADATION TO WATERS OF UNITED STATES
Finally, it is clear this project will cause or contribute to significant degradation to waters of the United States. Section 230.10(c) of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines states that "...no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted which will cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the United States." Among the effects contributing to significant degradation are: 1) significant adverse impacts on wildlife and special aquatic sites; 2) significant adverse impacts on the life stages of aquatic life and other wildlife dependent on aquatic ecosystems; 3) significant adverse effects on ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability; and, 4) significant averse effect of the discharge of pollutants on recreational values.
PennDOT's selected alignment will cause or contribute to significant degradation because:
1) It will have the most impacts on migratory birds and terrestrial wildlife. In addition, it will have the most impact on waters of the U.S. that cannot be replaced. In contrast, terrestrial losses from the G1-1b alternative can be replaced; 11 of 12 streams will be bridged; and, wetlands eliminated in the valley bottom can be replaced by the mitigation plan that has been developed.
2) It will have the most impacts on waters of the U.S. and a mitigation plan to replace those habitats cannot be developed. The proposed mitigation plan will develop wetlands in the valley bottom. This plan is sufficient for the wetlands eliminated by the G1-1b alignment since they are located in the valley bottom. However, this will not replace habitat wildlife and aquatic species dependent on the 70+ hillside seeps and wetlands, and 3000 acres of forest land the RT-G alignment will adversely impact.
3) It will have the most significant adverse impact on "...ecosystem diversity, productivity and stability." The RT-G alignment will traverse a large, intact forested ecosystem, in contrast to the G1-1b alignment which traverses low quality farmland, a few residential areas and the edge of the forested flank of the Allegheny Plateau.
4) It will have the most impact on recreational values. The RT-G alignment will destroy 66 acres and indirectly affect over 700 acres of State Game Lands. In addition, hunting, bird watching, hiking, and cross country skiing that regularly take place on this north facing slope of Bald Eagle Mountain will be eliminated or severely curtailed. The G1-1b alignment would not have this same adverse impact. In fact, there would be almost no impact on these recreational pursuits from the G1-1b alignment.
When driving along Route 220 from the town of Port Matilda to Bald Eagle, it is difficult to believe that PennDOT engineers decided that the RT-G alignment would be the least environmentally damaging alternative and would be the best solution to moving traffic from Altoona to State College. I do not think that the local conservation group's label of this being the "Bud Shuster roller coaster" misses the mark by far in describing the highways path. Frankly, there are few highway projects where the choices, both from a environmental and transportation perspective, have been so clear. It is obvious that PennDOT has made a mistake in judgement. I hope that you do not compound the problem by issuing a permit to construct this ill conceived and extremely damaging alternative.
Very truly yours,
JOHN WILMER
Attorney for the Raymond Proffitt Foundation
enc.
cc:
Michael McCabe, Regional Administrator EPA
David Densmore, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Federal Highways Administration
John Arway, Pa. Fish & Boat Commission
Gregory Grabowicz, Pa. Game Commission
<<<<END>>>>