Having reviewed the UDOT Heber Valley Bypass Draft EIS, a very simple picture begins to emerge. Of course, comments will revolve around such subjects as wetlands (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act), historic structures (Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act), agricultural a nd farmland protection, traffic patterns, Heber Main Street, noise, air quality, water quality, impacts to the Provo River, growth inducing impacts, among many others. Most of these are considered to some extent in the Draft EIS. For many of these considerations, public support for a particular alternative might be strong, while for others it might be considered biased, weak, conflicting and debatable. The point of this letter is not to debate any of these points or to use such points to support a desired outcome either way.  It is to show how the DEIS fails to adequately analyze and address fundamental impacts and corresponding alternatives in a manner that sufficiently informs decisionmakers and stakeholders of the choices and challenges before us.  After detailed consideration of the most pertinent summary sections (particularly appendix Chapter 4), below I summarize some of the key weaknesses of the DEIS analysis.  This selection of the preferred alternative was purportedly rendered based on the requirements of Section 404 pertaining to wetlands and Transportation Act Section 4(f) including historical preservation requirements. But the DEIS fails to adequately to consider cumulative effects and apply the mandatory LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative) standard under Clean Water Act 404(b)(1).  The draft wetlands study (that was performed “out of season”) determined that 24 acres of Alternative A and 54 acres of Alternative B are jurisdictional wetlands. The Clean Water Act mandates that under LEDPA, the least environmentally damaging alternative concerning water resources must be chosen (in this case, Alternative A, the US 40 alignment), unless the U.S. 40 alternative has even greater “environmental damage.” Enter Section 4(f). Under that section, it was found that there are three structures (mid-20th century residences on U.S. 40) that qualify as “at risk,” though the State Historic Preservation Office has indicated that they are not of historical significance.  Notably, there are no other 4(f) resources (parks, wildlife, historical, archeological, etc.) at issue. The driveways of these three houses extend into the Alternative A planned frontage road, thus defining them as “at risk” under Section 4(f). In order to preserve these driveways, the frontage road would need to be curved in and out to the point that it would no longer meet highway standards. Thus in each case, the DEIS concludes that each is “not considered feasible and prudent,” thus concluding that Alternative A is impracticable.  In essence, the DEIS concludes that Transportation Act 4(f) requires protecting three driveways, which takes priority over CWA 404 that otherwise would be considered more environmentally damaging to at least 54 acres of wetland (plus seasonal). For the remainder of the review, the DEIS concludes that “both alternatives meet the purpose and need of the project,” while “Alternative A is substantially better in terms of effects on aquatic resources, and slightly better in terms of farmland and noise impacts.”  Concerning the final parameter, cost, Alternative A was the most advantageous to the taxpayer being $49 M less. Yet the DEIS concludes: “Based on an assessment of all seven of the least overall harm factors, Alternative B is the least overall harm alternative.”  So it seems that UDOT is more concerned about preserving three driveways than they are the wetlands of the North Fields.  Now the final consideration is cumulative effects, particularly the induced growth. The DEIS states that it is anticipated that Heber City will annex to Alternative B. Once such a road is built, the city and county governments will possess neither the political will nor economic resources to preserve. The area will soon rezone to highest and best use in terms tax base and growth. The conclusion of the above observations should be both intuitively and explicitly obvious to the reader. I strongly recommend that UDOT prepare a supplemental draft EIS that fully addresses the above shortcomings and applies Transportation 4(f) and CWA 404 in an evenhanded and accurate manner, as the law requires.  George Hansen Midway The post Wetlands or driveways? appeared first on Park Record. ...read more read less