DEP on I-99:  Our Minds Are Made Up!  
Don’t Cloud The Issue With Facts!

 For the past 6 years, a host of conservation groups have been trying to persuade the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to locate the proposed new section of Interstate 99, between the towns of Bald Eagle and Port Matilda in Blair and Centre County, in the valley bottom, parallel to existing Route 220.  Instead, Penn DOT decided to locate this section of the highway high up on Bald Eagle Ridge, cutting a huge swath through an essentially undeveloped forest, designated by Pennsylvania Audubon as an Important Bird Area.  This alignment would irreparably damage a largely intact ecosystem that is habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife that need large blocks of habitat to survive. 

For many years, everyone involved in this project wondered why Penn DOT decided to construct an interstate for nine miles along the top of the ridge, when an obvious, less environmentally damaging alternative was clearly available.  To many, it seemed a particularly blatant example of Penn DOT’s disregard of environmental values when building highways. 

But while conducting a search of old files on this project, we came upon the proverbial “smoking gun.”  In a January 22, 1993, letter from Mr. William Parsons, Assistant Regional Director of the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Northcentral Regional Office to Mr. David Zazworsky, then Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Mr. Parsons addresses Penn DOT’s apparent preoccupation with constructing the new highway in the valley bottom, an alignment that all natural resource agencies and the conservation community supported. First, why did Penn DOT want the highway in the valley bottom in 1993?  Mr. Parsons of DEP states: 

I understand this corridor was selected for analysis due to the ease of connection with improved Rte. 322 west of Port Matilda and “foundation/stability” difficulties with an alignment on the western edge of Bald Eagle Mountain. 

That makes sense.  Apparently, Penn DOT was aware that constructing a highway near the ridge top would pose slope stability problems and preferred to construct it in the valley bottom.  As it turns out, Penn DOT knew something here!  Just this past year, they have had major slope stability problems constructing another section of I-99 over Bald Eagle Ridge (near Sky Top Mountain) on the way to State College, and had to cut the slope back, and excavate another 1,000,000 cubic yards of earth (according to the Centre Daily Times), which increases the width of the alignment and its environmental impact.  The section of highway that slumped is less than one-mile long, but will cost taxpayers an additional $10 million to fix.  Fortunately, Penn DOT was able to come up the money.  Unfortunately, the money came from proposed highway improvements to Interstate 80!   

The letter goes on to say that: 

It was our agency’s position when this project was proposed many years ago that a preferred alignment (provided the existing right-of-way was ruled out) involved the continuation of U.S. 220 from Bald Eagle in a similar alignment as much of U. S. 220 from the Pennsylvania Turnpike to Bald Eagle: namely, along the western side of Bald Eagle Mountain.  On the surface, this alignment with a U.S. 322 connector to the improved roadway west of Port Matilda seems to have significantly less environmental impacts than the corridor being “emphasized”. 

Have we missed something here?  Does this sound like Mr. Parsons had already made up his mind?   

Apparently, DEP had been supporting a ridge alignment for many years, which the conservation community and natural resource agencies were not aware of.  Further on, Mr. Parsons essentially threatens to deny Section 401 Water Quality Certification for a valley bottom alignment by stating: 

Without detailed analysis of environmental impacts of such a corridor, we will have a great deal of difficulty providing a favorable response to the EIS, Water Quality Certification Request, and 105 and 102 permits.  

This certainly sounds like a harmless request for more information.  But since DEP had evidently been supporting a ridge top alignment for many years, and Mr. Parsons was vocal in supporting a ridge route early in the process, it is clear that Mr. Parsons is not an unbiased regulator.   

In the January 22, 1993, letter, Mr. Parsons states that an alignment on Bald Eagle Ridge “seems to have significantly less environmental impacts” than a valley bottom alignment.  This statement was made before any environmental studies had been conducted, before hydrogeological studies had been conducted, before any wetlands had been delineated or their value considered, and before the environmental impact statement had been drafted.  In fact, the record shows that Penn DOT’s engineers told Mr. Parsons at an April 15, 1993, transportation meeting that “an alternative located at an elevation of 1,300 feet on the mountain side…. would present environmental and engineering problems, and would not meet the project need” (statement of Mel Bittenbender; Page 4, minutes of April 15, 1993, Agency Coordination Meeting; emphasis added).  Penn DOT’s engineers also pointed out that “groundwater impacts would be significant” and that “A ten mile cut on the mountain side would greatly reduce the groundwater supply in the Bald Eagle Valley.”  Mr. Bob McClure (Vice President, Skelly and Loy, Inc.) pointed out “habitat areas such as woodcock would be adversely affected by the dewatering of the wetlands from construction of a mountain side alternative.”   Sounds like when all things are considered, the valley bottom is the best place for this road! 

Mr. Parsons’ responded to this information about the adverse environmental and hydrogeological impacts of a ridge top alignment in a May 21, 1993, letter to Mr. Robert McClure, Vice President of Skelly and Loy.  DEP’s letter attempts to refute Penn DOT’s concerns about potential adverse impacts on Port Matilda's well fields, on down slope wetlands, on the impacts of groundwater on slope stability, and just about every other concern Penn DOT expressed at the April 13 ACM meeting.  Mr. Parsons also disputed Penn DOT’s assertion that the ridge top alignment would not meet the project need.  Finally, Mr. Parsons disregarded Penn DOT’s concern with slope stability by informing them that based on the slope stability problems they had when constructing I-99 in Blair County, Penn DOT should be able to handle that problem since they now had “experience.”   

Now what in the world does Mr. Parsons or DEP know about building four-lane highways?  In any event, DEP was as wrong about this as it was wrong about the ridge top alignment’s environmental impacts.  As we pointed out, Penn DOT recently had to excavate an additional 1,000,000 cubic yards of earth when constructing the one section of I-99 over Sky Top due to groundwater and slope instability problems.  It is likely more problems will be encountered (as Penn DOT predicted) when they construct the new highway along Bald Eagle Ridge, and that section is nearly 9 miles long.  It cost them $10 million to fix one mile of the new highway on Sky Top Mountain.  Do the math for this potential problem. 

From our reading of files that document the early history of this project, it is clear that Mr. Parsons was not acting as an unbiased regulator seeking facts.  He was an early advocate of the ridge top alignment (also called the RT-G alignment), and could not be swayed by the very information on the environmental impacts that he had asked for.  On June 5, 1997, Mr. Parson issued Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the ridge top alignment – even before all of the hydrogeological studies had been completed!  Mr. Parsons is now deliberating whether to issue a Chapter 105 permit for the ridge top alignment.  Is there any real question that a Chapter 105 permit will not be issued?  Can you say “arbitrary and capricious?”   

We will not present you with all that data that has been collected on the environmental impacts of a valley bottom alignment versus a ridge top alignment.  However, the following is a summary of information the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently provided in their June 17, 2002, letter to DEP commenting on the Chapter 105 permit application.  The Service states that the ridge top alignment would: 

·            Affect more acres of high quality, undisturbed wetlands (17.44 versus 3.75).

·            Eliminate more linear feet of stream (2.6 miles versus 0.6 miles).

·            Impact more acres of interior forest habitat for wildlife 
             (3,000 acres versus 209 acres).

·            Impact more acres of irreplaceable aquatic and terrestrial resources.

·            Affect more acres of valuable public State Game Lands (Game Lands 
             are not affected by a valley bottom alignment).

·            Have the most significant indirect impact on spring seeps and 
              streams by diversion of groundwater resources.

·            Have the most significant impact on migratory bird habitat.   

From every environmental standpoint, the ridge top alignment is clearly the most environmentally damaging alternative.  Moreover, unlike the valley bottom alignment that is supported by the conservation community, the impacts to streams, wetlands and forest cannot be mitigated.  Adding insult to injury, Penn DOT has now condemned a portion of the State Game Lands for the new highway. 

It is not as if a valley bottom alignment cannot be constructed.  Penn DOT has stated that a valley bottom alignment is feasible.  The natural resource agencies, and the conservation community strongly support a valley bottom alignment.  Even the regulatory agencies, including DEP, have stated they could issue a permit for a valley bottom alignment.  When DEP issued Section 401 water quality certification for the RT-G (ridge top route), their March 10, 1997 letter stated, “The DEP has determined that either alternatives are permissible with special conditions.” 

At present, DEP is ostensibly deliberating whether to issue the Chapter 105 permit to allow construction of the ridge top alignment.  However, based on the written record, and Mr. Parson’s early, vocal support for a ridge top route, it is clear DEP had decided to issue a permit for the ridge top alignment many years ago.  The conservation community, including Penn Future and their legal counsel, awaits DEP’s formal decision. 

It appears that the resolution to this project will either be determined by a court, or action by the incoming Governor.  We suggest contacting Governor-elect Rendell and ask him to intervene in this project.  Tell him that this new highway is needed, but not at the expense of irreplaceable natural resources and State Game Lands, and that you support a valley bottom alignment.  Tell him that Penn DOT did too, until DEP got into the highway-engineering business, while ignoring the environmental-impact business. 

Governor-elect Edward Rendell
225 Main Capitol
Harrisburg PA  17120

<<<<END>>>>

return