THE APPARENT FAILURE OF THE
U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN DIRECTIVES IS SHOWN IN THE
FOLLOWING LETTER.
NO RESPONSE HAS YET BEEN
RECEIVED.
August
29, 2000
Honorable Joseph W. Westphal
Assistant Secretary of the Army
Civil Works
108 Army Pentagon
Washington DC 20310-0108
Ref: Springfield/Harrison
Avenue extension, Winnebago county,
Illinois*
Dear Secretary Westphal:
Thank
you for your letter dated July 24, 2000.
In your letter, you state that no new information or significant issues
have been brought to the attention of the District Engineer that would warrant
a consideration of suspending or revocation the permit for this project.
The
following significant issues in the public interest are related to the project
known as Springfield/Harrison Avenue Extension, Winnebago County, Illinois.
We request that the 404 permit for this project be suspended pending
resolution of the following significant issues.
PURPOSE OF ROAD HAS CHANGED
·
Alteration and destruction of valuable wetlands
should be discouraged as contrary to the public interest, 33 C.F.R Part 320.
·
Wetlands which serve as valuable storage areas for
storm and flood waters are considered to perform functions important to the
public interest, 33 C.F.R. Part 320.
·
The determination of whether the alteration and
destruction of valuable wetlands is necessary, as weighed against the proven
need for the project.
·
The stated purpose for this project, as part of
that analysis, has changed; a reevaluation of the need to alter and destroy
wetlands should be undertaken.
Supporting
Evidence
·
Traffic Congestion
US
Army Corps of Engineers Rock Island District Public Notice, June 15, 2000.
3.
Project
Description. “The applicant’s
stated purpose of the project is to ease traffic congestion through a portion
of Rockford.”
Significant Issues Related To Traffic:
·
There are no written reports documenting ‘traffic
congestion’.
·
Average Daily Trip estimates in the Environmental
Assessment Report, 1996 are inaccurate. (See A. below.) The Environmental
Assessment report does not include the method and empirical data for which the
estimates were based.
A.
Comparing
traffic counts in the RATS Study 1994 (Rockford Area Transportation Study)
with the Environmental Assessment Report estimates indicates a 58.2%
over-estimation error.
Pierpont
Road Average Daily Traffic
10,056 (Environmental Assessment Report, 1996)
- 4,200
(RATS Study, 1994)
5,850
over estimation (58% error)*
*It is stated in the Environmental Assessment
Report (p.1) that the average daily traffic on the proposed facility is
expected to be about 10,000. Based on the error percentage, the actual average
daily trips would be closer to 4,000.
B. The
Environmental Assessment includes the following statement (p.1):
“Large
volumes of traffic currently use many existing major travel routes in the
vicinity of the project (Figures 5A and 5B).”
The figures included in Figures 5A and 5B are not
supported by empirical data and conflict with traffic counts in the RATS
report.
Significant
Issues Related to Need for Industrial Development and Growth:
The
stated purpose for the road according to a letter from the City of Rockford
May 26, 1993 was to “complete the southwest beltline road system and open up
prime industrial land for development”.
Environmental
Assessment Report, 1996 (p.1) “provide a catalyst needed for growth and
development on the City of Rockford’s southwest side.”
·
Replacement of existing housing structures with new
housing structures is now being proposed for the buildable area surrounding
the proposed extension.
·
“Post construction development of the contiguous
flood plain is unlikely due to constraints of topography, flood plain
easements, and access restrictions created by the roadway features of
guardrails and raised medians.” (Environmental Assessment Report, 1996)
SCOPE OF WORK HAS
CHANGED
Significant
Issues Related to Wetlands and Floodplains:
According to the 404
permit, a 180-meter segment of Kent Creek will be realigned through two 10.7
by
7.4 elliptical metal
culverts with stone riprap at each end to direct flow and prevent erosion.
A.
As
this method was not addressed in the Environmental Assessment, there is no
finding that the metal culverts will not exacerbate flooding and cause damage
upstream and downstream to the floodplain and wetlands.
-
In the Environmental Assessment, in evaluating the
project pursuant of Executive Order 11990, the mitigation required for the
Kent Creek streambed is to create an ox-bow from channel realignment
equivalent in size and slope to original channel (pp.20, 21) The ox-bow will
increase flood storage and create a palustrine emergent wetland.
A.
This
ox-bow was not included in the mitigation for the 404 permit.
-
The finding of no practicable alternatives to the
proposed new construction in wetlands and all practicable measures to minimize
harm to wetlands was based upon, among others, the creation of a replacement
ox-bow and wetland replacement at the corner of Pierpont and Montague (EA,
p.21)
A.
The
replacement wetland at the corner of Pierpont and Montague Roads was not
included in the mitigation for the 404 permit.
B.
The
proposed mitigation site near the Pecatonica River does not protect Levings
Lake. The sediment in Levings Lake will increase from the run-off (See Chicago
Tribune Article, 8-26-00, Creek goes back to past, with a twist)
C.
By
relocating the wetland mitigation, the public and the relevant agencies have
not had a meaningful opportunity to comment because there is no documentation
of the environmental effects on Kent Creek and the surrounding floodplain of
the cumulative effects of the culvert design, mitigation alternative and lack
of replacement ox-bow.
D.
As
all reasonable mitigation efforts are necessary for the award of a 404 permit,
40 C.F.R. 230, it is necessary to study whether the changes in the project
satisfy this requirement.
REQUIRED
REPORTS AND FINDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE
Significant Issues related to
Required Environmental Reports and Findings
According
to 40 C.F.R Part 6; Appendix A
Section
6 Requirements
a.
Floodplain/Wetlands
review of proposed Agency actions.
(6)
Agency Decision – After consideration of alternative actions, as they have
been modified in the preceding analysis, the Agency shall select the desired
alternative. For all agency actions proposed to be in or affecting a
floodplain/wetlands, the Agency shall provide further public notice announcing
this decision. This decision shall be accompanied by a Statement of Findings,
not to exceed three pages. This
Statement shall include: (i) The reasons why the proposed action must be
located in or affect the floodplain or wetlands; (ii) a description of
significant facts considered in making the decision to locate in or affect the
floodplain or wetlands including alternative sites and actions; (iii) a
statement indicating whether the proposed action conforms to applicable State
or local floodplain protection standards; (iv) a description of the steps
taken to design or modify the proposed action to minimize potential harm to or
within the floodplain or wetlands; and (v) a statement indicating how the
proposed action affects the natural or beneficial values of the floodplain or
wetlands.
A.
A
statement of Findings has not been made available for public review.
A.
A
Resources Review of the project, as it is now proposed, has not been made
available to the public for review.
·
According to the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991, a Major Investment Study is required when using
Federal Funds.
B.
No cost benefit analysis was conducted.
ALTERNATIVE ROUTES
·
In accordance with the requirements of Executive
Order 11988, district engineers, as part of their public interest review,
should avoid to the extent practicable, long and short-term significant
adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains,
as well as the direct and indirect support of floodplain development whenever
there is a practicable alternative.
A.
An
alternative, Pierpont Road, does exist which according to the Environmental
Assessment (p. 20) would be “the only alternative that would avoid wetland
impacts.”
B. If
using this alignment (Pierpont Road) provides the final link of the ‘interior
beltline system’, in what way does this route not meet the purpose of this
project?
C. According
to the Environmental Assessment Report (p.7), “Alignment A4 (Pierpont) was eliminated from further
consideration due to environmental considerations.”
1)
This
directly contradicts the reported finding in the Environmental Assessment
report
(p.20), “the only alternative that would avoid wetland impact.”
·
Rockford Park District, which manages Levings Lake
Park located adjacent to Pierpont Road, address the issue of Using Pierpont
Road in a letter dated March 26, 1993 (Included in Environmental Assessment
Report).
1)
In
this Park District letter, under the heading Corrective Action – the
park district could “make the remaining Pierpont Road a part of interior
road system, upgrading part of the interior loop road system.”
2)
Under the heading Advantages – “Visible access of Levings
(about 2,000 travelers on a daily basis).”
3)
Environmental Assessment Report (p.22) includes the conclusion that
Alternative A4 (Pierpont)
‘does not cause the conversion of any cover types.”
Sincerely,
Eugene
A. Brown
President
RM
Encl.
1
Cc:Secretary
of the Army Louis Caldera
Governor George Ryan
United States Senator, Peter Fitzgerald
United States Senator, Richard J. Durban
Congressman Donald Manzullo
State Representative Dave Winters
State Senator Brad Burzynski
Mayor Charles Box, Rockford
Kristine Cohn, Winnebago County Board Chairman
Webbs Norman, Executive Director, Rockford Park District
*The proposed project consist of construction 3,444
meters of a four lane concrete facility between West State Street and Montague
Road with a structure crossing the South Branch of the Kent Creek…
Copyright
© 2000 Illinois Conservation Voters. All rights reserved.
Revised: May 30, 2000.