Denver Direct: VERY IMPORTANT PUBLIC COMMENT JULY 29 DEADLINE

From CINQ via email:
Greetings,

There was an important U.S. Fish & Wildlife (USFW) meeting last week regarding the sale of Rocky Flats land for the transportation corridor. Below is a good letter from Margot Zallen from Plan Jeffco that gives more detail.

We have learned some important information.
USFW is NOT looking at potential impacts OUTSIDE the refuge border.
USFW is NOT planning to study possible Plutonium contamination caused by road construction at Rocky Flats. Apparently, USFW is satisfied with the EIS that was done in 2004 that said the refuge is “clean.”

HOWEVER, according to NEPA , federal agencies are required to include the direct and indirect impacts of its actions in its NEPA documents. By looking at only refuge impacts, USFW is ignoring this important NEPA requirement, and denying environmental justice to our community.

Indirect impacts by a toll road may include:
increased traffic on Hwy 93
loss of natural grass lands and habitat
non-compete agreement on Indiana/McIntyre and SH93 causing more traffic congestion, noise and air pollution
potential plutonium contamination to downwind communities caused by road construction at Rocky Flats. These are just a few of the indirect impacts.

Also, the impacts of a toll road versus a bike path are very different in intensity. Non-refuge impacts must be compared for a toll road versus a bike path.

USFW should reconsider the scope of the environmental assessment according to NEPA, and include the impacts on the lands, plant and wildlife habitat, people and roads in areas outside of the refuge system that will be impacted by the disposal of a transportation corridor.

Please enlarge the scope of your NEPA analysis.

Rob Medina, CINQ, Citizens Involved in the Northwest Quadrant, info@gothebetterway.org, www.GoTheBetterWay.org

PLEASE SEND YOUR COMMENT NOW! FEEL FREE TO UTILIZE MY LETTER, OR MARGOT ZALLEN’S LETTER BELOW, OR WRITE IN YOUR OWN WORDS. SEND EMAILS TO: rockyflatsea@fws.gov

EMAIL From: margotzallen@comcast.net [margotzallen@comcast.net]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011
Subject: PLAN JEFFCO ROCKY FLATS ALERT!! ACTION NEEDED BY 7/29--PLEASE READ/ACT/SEND TO FRIENDS

Please send the following to those on your personal email lists and to members of your organizations ASAP-time is of the essence.

As you may know, the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority, JPPHA, is moving forward with plans to construct a privately operated toll way, crossing land which is currently part of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. This 300 foot wide strip of land, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering selling, is along the eastern edge of the Refuge and parallels Indiana Street. (A provision in the statute that created the refuge provided for disposal of this land for use as a transportation corridor.) The toll way would link State Highway 128 in Broomfield, northeast of the Refuge, and extend in a south westerly arc, funneling traffic onto Hwy 93, just north of Golden.

You may also have heard that the City of Golden has offered an alternative proposal to the Service, to acquire the land for using this transportation corridor differently, for the creation of a bike way.

BUT WHAT YOU MAY NOT KNOW IS that the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, (the Service), in evaluating the environmental impacts of the disposal of the transportation corridor, does NOT plan on looking at the impacts to lands outside the boundaries of the Refuge, which will occur as a consequence of selling the land. For instance, they do not plan to consider the varying impacts of a toll road versus a bike path. In other words, it would ignore the impacts of the increased traffic on Hwy 93, of toll way induced development, of loss of natural grass lands, of the potential impacts from agreements not to improve or maintain local roads such as Indiana and McIntyre nor to widen Hwy 93 so that we are forced to use the toll way, of potential plutonium contamination etc, etc, etc, etc.

THE SERVICE NEEDS TO HEAR FROM US AND FROM MANY OF US. WE NEED TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. The National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, requires federal agencies to analyze and evaluate the direct and INDIRECT impacts of their actions. Do you think that ignoring non-refuge impacts when developing its environmental assessment fulfills that obligation? We hope the Service will seriously reconsider this issue. BUT IT NEEDS TO HEAR FROM US BY JULY 29, 2011.

Golden proposes to buy this corridor for alternative transportation — bikes, pedestrians and equestrians. It would have a much smaller footprint than the proposed toll road. The bike path would impact only 1 acre of Prebles jumping mouse critical habitat compared to the toll way impact of 8 acres, and would link to regional trails and paths, both existing and planned. The Golden proposal also leaves land available for widening Indiana Street.

Enlarging the Refuge System

Both the JPPHA and the Golden proposals include purchasing all or most of Section 16, a 640 acre parcel with important plant and wildlife habitat (north of Hwy 72 and east of Hwy 93) and incorporating it into the Rocky Flats Refuge. The JPPHA plan envisions using $5.1 million of Jeffco Open Space funds and additional funds from Boulder City and County and others to acquire the entire parcel. In contrast, Golden envisions the Service using the funds from the transfer of the transportation corridor to buy part of Section 16 and assumes that the Boulder funds would be available to buy more but not all of Section 16. Whereas the JPPHA plan envisions using such funds to acquire an in holding at another refuge in Colorado. Thus, the JPPHA plan would result in more land being added to the National Wildlife Refuge System than the Golden plan because it is to result in all of Section 16 being added to the Rocky Flats Refuge plus land being added to another refuge somewhere else in Colorado.

It is the beneficial impacts of these additions to the Refuge System that the Service is currently focusing on. However, the negative impacts of the toll road on the lands, wildlife, plant and wildlife habitat, roads and people outside of the Refuge are NOT being considered, nor are the relative impacts of the toll way and bike way proposals being compared.

Your Chance to Comment

Do you think the Service should enlarge the scope of its analysis to cover the impacted people, roads and physical environment that are not part of the refuge system?

Perhaps you are of the opinion that the current plans for a privately operated toll road are a bad idea. Maybe you find the idea that the toll way may be operated by a foreign entity to be questionable and maybe you are concerned that the taxpayers may end up paying for the road. Perhaps you are concerned about the increased risk of plutonium contamination and off the refuge from construction of a toll way. Perhaps you are concerned about the additional acreage of Prebles jumping mouse habitat that would be destroyed by the road as compared to the bike way. Or the impact of toll road noise and air pollution on the birds and other wildlife not within the boundaries of the Refuge? Maybe you do not want the natural prairie land and scenic vistas near the toll way developed as is planned if the Service transfers the land to the JPPHA. Or maybe you are concerned about the impact to the already congested State Highway 93. Your priority might be the enlargement of Refuge lands and are willing to accept the toll way if the JPPHA plan turns out to be the only way to preserve Section 16. Perhaps you favor the creation of transportation corridors that include alternatives to automobile transportation and want to encourage commuting to work by bike, or you look forward to the use of the corridor as a connection from the Refuge to Jeffco Open Space lands or to areas like Rocky Mt. National Park. Perhaps you are concerned about the toll way's impact on wildlife corridors.

Do you think that a full analysis in an EIS should be done and not push thru an EA to meet toll way investors need for a decision by the end of the year? Maybe you hold none of these opinions. But whatever your opinion is, one thing is certain: YOUR CHANCE TO OFFER COMMENTS ENDS SOON!
Deadline for comments: Friday July 29, 2011.

MAIL LETTERS TO EITHER:

Mike Dixon
Division of Refuge Planning
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486, DFC
Denver, CO 80225

Bruce Hastings, Deputy Refuge Manager
Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge
6550 Gateway Road, Bldg 129
Commerce City, CO 80022

SEND EMAILS TO: rockyflatsea@fws.gov

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND MAPS GO TO:
WWW.PLANJEFFCO.ORG

A TEMPLATE IS BELOW FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE-PLEASE PERSONALIZE YOUR COMMENT-INDIVIDUALIZE LETTERS WORK BEST.

Mr. Mike Dixon
Division of Refuge Planning
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 25486, DFC
Denver, Co. 80225

Mr. Bruce Hastings, Deputy Refuge Manager
Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge
6550 Gateway Road, Bldg 129
Commerce City, Co. 80022

Dear Mr. Dixon and Hastings:

This is in response to your agency’s request for public comments as part of the scoping process for the environmental analysis of the proposed disposal of the 300 ft. transportation corridor on the east side of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.

I understand that the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Service, is not going to include impacts on non refuge lands in the environmental assessment you are preparing pursuant to the NEPA. As you know federal agencies are required to include the direct and indirect impacts of its actions in its NEPA documents. By looking at only refuge impacts, the Service is ignoring this requirement.

I request that you reconsider the scope of your analysis to include the impacts on the lands, plant and wildlife habitat, people and roads in areas outside of the refuge system that will be impacted by the disposal of a transportation corridor to the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority or to the City of Golden. The impacts of a toll way, as proposed by the Authority or of a bike way, as proposed by Golden are very different in type and in intensity and therefore the non refuge impacts from proposed uses of the transportation corridor by the Authority or by Golden must be evaluated, assessed and compared.

The non refuge impacts I am concerned about are.............................

I appreciate the opportunity to comment and sincerely request that the scope of your NEPA analysis be enlarged as discussed above.

Sincerely,