TXDOT's newest Commission Chair Deirdre Delisi issued a big piece of publicity fluff

TXDOT's newest Commission Chair Deirdre Delisi issued a big piece of publicity fluff to the Manor Messenger to counteract the recent Sunset Commission Report calling for an overhaul of TXDOT and its policies, including the Trans-Texas Corridor and tolling.

The report says, "until trust in TXDOT is restored, the state cannot move forward to effectively meet its growing transportation needs." But as TXDOT's press release in last week's paper shows, Rick Perry and his toll-roading minions won't give up on their schemes until they absolutely have to.

Delisi says, "as we work to develop important projects like a parallel corridor to I-35 and the long-awaited I-69, we will work toward meeting our goals . . ."

Long-awaited? By whom? Not the people of Texas, who have turned out in overwhelming numbers to oppose these projects.

Nor by an increasing number of legislators who are learning and saying what boondoggles these projects are.

I believe TXDOT's plans are only "long-awaited" by a pack of powerful, greedy contractors and deal-makers chomping at the bit to make sure their projects go through before TXDOT is reorganized.

We can defeat "The Crossroads of the Americas" plan. It's a great TXDOT name for a project that doesn't need to be built, will waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and decimate Texas with a gash of concrete, asphalt, and steel.

The Sunset Commission's report makes clear that we need to rethink our transportation issues, not continue on the same willful and short-sighted course.

Rather than decimate farms and ranchlands and use big oil-gobbling trucks to bring in produce and goods from other countries, we need to protect and nurture our farms and our jobs.

The public movement to defeat the Trans-Texas Corridor(s) has gained momentum as the public and its leaders become aware. The need for gargantuan road projects becomes even more ludicrous as prices of fuel continue to rise.

Don't let TXDOT lull you into complacency. Continue to put pressure on legislators and other leaders to fully accept and implement the Sunset Commission's report.

You may contact the Sunset Commission at www.sunset.state.tx.us for a copy of their report. They will take comments about it until June 24. A public hearing will be held July 15, 2008 to take public testimony (time and place to be posted on Sunset Commission's website).

Sincerely,
Fancy Fairchild

See more HERE on my daily blog.

Worst. Political. Direct Mailer. Ever.

I'm a creative director. I've won national awards for campaigns, I've had my own business for 15 years. I just got a piece of negative direct mail from Cid Galindo (City of Austin council member candidate) yesterday. AND, it's the worst political direct mail I've ever seen! It's pathetic actually.

This one has an image of an anorexic burglar on both sides (it's supposed to scare us) trying to get our personal information via a keyboard.

I supported the online Open Govt when it was on the ballot a couple years ago. The only reason it failed was because special interests dumped a ton of money into the campaign to kill it.

Even if I didn't support Open Govt, sending out this joke (in every way) of a direct mailer illustrates a lack of judgement for Galindo. See my daily blog HERE.

Sierra Club weighs in on TTC69

March 17, 2008

Ms. Janice W. Brown

Division Administrator

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Building

Room 826, 300 8^th Street

Austin, Texas 78701-2483

Mr. Ed Pensock

Texas Department of Transportation

P.O. Box 14428

Austin, Texas 78761

Dear Ms. Brown and Mr. Pensock,

Enclosed are the comments of the Houston Regional Group and Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club (Sierra Club) regarding the I-69/Trans-Texas Corridor (I-69/TTC) Tier I Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) as proposed by the Federal Highway Administration and the Texas Department of Transportation (the proposers).

The Sierra Club requests:

1) That it be placed on the distribution list for a copy of the final EIS (FEIS) when it is available.

2) That it be notified of any other public meetings, hearings, or similar events regarding the Tier I EIS in the future.

3) That it be placed on the distribution list for any scoping notices for any DEIS that is prepared via Tier II for the I-69/TTC proposal.

4) That it be placed on the distribution list for a copy of any DEIS or FEIS that is prepared via Tier II for the I-69/TTC proposal.

5) That this I-69/TTC DEIS be withdrawn and revised so that quantification of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are analyzed, assessed, and evaluated in the DEIS according to law and a new public comment period be scheduled with either a free CD or hard copy available for any member of the public who requests it.

The Sierra Club makes the following information request to the proposers:

1) A copy of the minutes in Volume I, DEIS, for the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)/Steering Committee (SC) Meetings as listed on Table 9.1; I-69/TTC Resources Agency Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.4; I-69/TTC and TTC-35 Joint Agency Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.5; MPO Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.6; and I-69/TTC and TTC-35 Joint MPO Coordination Meetings as listed on Table 9.7.

2) A copy of “Texas Environmental Resource Stewards Texas Ecological Assessment Protocol Results”, Pilot Project Report, Osowski, et. al., Report Number EPA-906-C-05-001, U.S. EPA, Region 6, 2005.

3) A copy of “US EPA Region 6 GIS Screening Tool User’s Manual, Version 1.1”, Osowski, et. al., US EPA, Region 6, 2005.

Volume I, I-69/TTC Study, Tier I DEIS

1) Page ES-1, Executive Summary, Introduction, the DEIS states a “collaborative effort involving members of the I-69/TTC TAC and SC”. These two committees are biased since they are dominated by the proposers who have a conflict of interest since they want to construct the project and form a voting majority to move the proposal forward.

2) Page ES-1, Executive Summary, Introduction, the DEIS states ”evaluate corridor level alternatives and the No Action Alternative in reaching a Tier One Decision”. The No Action Alternative was not evaluated because the environmental impacts were ignored and the public was told that the impacts of the No Action Alternative would be assessed individually when the projects in No Action are moved forward. So there is no environmental impact analysis, evaluation, and assessment in the DEIS for the No Action Alternative which is illegal under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations.

3) Page ES-1, Executive Summary, Introduction, the Sierra Club does not agree that “Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative” should be pushed back to Tier II. By doing this the momentum for the “New Location Corridor Alternative” is pushed forward by the proposers, which they call their Preferred Alternative, and the No Action Alternative is not given the environmental analysis required by NEPA. The Tier I development and evaluation process has not been “rigorous” and there has not been a “proactive agency and public involvement program” because the public has spoken overwhelmingly that it does not want the proposal but the proposers still push the proposal. There is no “balance” in meeting the purpose and need and minimizing the potential for environmental effects” because there is a conflict of interest in pushing the proposal forward.

This leads the Sierra Club to the believe that instead of preparing a factual and unbiased DEIS the proposers are attempting to mislead and mold the opinions of the public and decision-makers by misinterpretation via language of what really is at stake and exists in the I-69/TTC project area. This is the very antithesis of what an EIS is supposed to be and do. Such actions call for a withdrawal of the DEIS and a total reanalysis that is based on factual evidence and narrative and not manipulative and self-serving language that predetermines the outcome of this proposal.

Under CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, Section 1502.2(g), states “EISs shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made” and Section 1502.5, states “The statement shall be prepared early enough so that it can serve practically as an important contribution to the decision-making process and will not be used to rationalize or justify decisions already made.”

It appears that the proposers have already made a decision to construct I-69/TTC and are using the DEIS as a way to justify this decision. We object!

It is illegal to segment a project under the CEQ regulations so that it is piecemealed as stated in Section 1502.4(a), “Agencies shall make sure the proposal which is the subject of an EIS is properly defined Agencies shall use the criteria for scope to determine which proposals shall be the subject of a particular statement. Proposals or parts of proposals which are related to each other closely enough to be, in effect, a single course of action shall be evaluated in a single impact statement.”.

The effects of current actions are not considered in the analysis of whether I-69/TTC should be constructed. For instance, global warming and the effects it is having and the generation of greenhouse gases that roads cause; the increased cost of oil, up to about $100/barrel; the increased cost of gasoline which is $3/gallon now and if expected to go to $4/gallon this summer; the collapse of the housing market; the recession that is evident in the United States economy; the reduction in funds for roads due to funding two wars, etc. All of these and more current actions affect and should play a role in determining whether I-69/TTC should be built. But there is no discussion about how these actions affect the decision of whether to build I-69/TTC.

The DEIS does not cover all viable alternatives and therefore does not meet the “all reasonable alternatives” rule that the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) requires in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Chapter 1502.14(a). Alternatives that deal strictly with freight rail or other modes, should also be considered “reasonable alternatives” since multi-modal facilities may not be feasible or affordable and their environmental impacts may be too high. In addition the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative are not analyzed for their environmental impacts in the DEIS even though they are reasonable alternatives. There is no “no toll” alternative provided as a reasonable alternative.

Therefore this DEIS does not contain all reasonable alternatives. CEQ says in 1502.14 “Alternatives including the proposed action – This section is the heart of the EIS … it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public … Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives … Include reasonable alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the lead agency”.

The proposers eliminate all alternatives arbitrarily by making them not meet the “purpose and need” for the project. In essence the proposers are violating 1502.2(f) of CEQ’s NEPA implementing regulations which states “EISs shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made.”

4) Pages ES-2 and ES-3, Executive Summary, What is the Purpose and Need for the Project, the purpose and need statement states that the purpose of I-69/TTC is:

1. Improve the international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people

2. Address anticipated south and east Texas transportation needs for the next 20 to 50 years

3. Sustain and enhance the economic vitality of Texas

The problem with this stated purpose is:

1. What international, interstate, and intrastate movement of goods and people are we talking about?

2. What are the anticipated south and east Texas Transportation needs for the next 20-50 years?

3. What does the “anticipated” consist of?

4. How accurate are projections of what south and east Texas Transportation needs are for the next 20-50 years?

5. How would the economic vitality of Texas, as a whole, be sustained?

6. How would the economic vitality of Texas, as a whole, be enhanced?

7. What is “economic vitality”? How is it defined?

8. What assumptions were made?

9. Was peak oil analyzed?

10. Was $100/barrel oil analyzed?

11. Was $4/gallon gasoline analyzed?

12. Was terrorism and interruption of our fuel supplies analyzed?

13. What analysis was done about possible spread of human and animal disease throughout the United States due to I-69/TTC?

14. What analysis was done about possible spread of exotic species throughout the United States?

Without such information there is no way the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand the purpose and need for the proposal. The public does not know what was taken for granted so that the purpose listed above was agreed upon. The public must know this information and has a right to know this information since its money and its federal and state agencies are making such decisions.

The purpose and need statement goes on to say that several trends and issues strongly indicate the need for transportation planning of the scale and magnitude proposed for the I-69/TTC:

1. Large projected increases in corridor and statewide population, which will result in substantially increased demand for additional transportation infrastructure

2. Large expected increases in freight movement, resulting in the need for additional multi-modal capacity and inter-modal linkages

3. Planning for an uncertain future by preserving a corridor that can accommodate multiple, evolving transportation forms and modes over the next 50 years

4. Economic vitality in areas underserved by existing transportation infrastructure

5. Accomplishing the goals set forth by state and federal legislation

Notice the statement above does not say that the trends and issues support the construction of I-69/TTC, merely that transportation planning of the scale and magnitude of I-69/TTC is necessary. We all know that population is likely to increase greatly. Yes, that does mean we need better transportation planning. This does not justify I-69/TTC.

1. What does “substantially increased demand for additional transportation infrastructure” mean?

2. What kind of transportation infrastructure?

3. How do we know what kind of transportation infrastructure will be needed or technologies exist 50 years from now?

4. Where are the “large expected increases in freight movement” coming from?

5. What additional multi-modal capacity and inter-modal linkages are referred to?

6. How can buying land 50 years in advance of potential need provide certainty since we do not know accurately what our transportation needs and technologies will be?

7. How do you define “economic vitality?

8. What underserved areas are referred to?

9. What existing transportation infrastructure is referred to?

10. Do we need to service these so-called underserved areas the way the purpose indicates?

11. What goals in federal and state legislation does the purpose support?

The proposers do not acknowledge and analyze that NEPA talks about economics in relation to environmental impacts:

1) Section 101(a) of the NEPA states, “The Congress, recognizing the profound impact of man’s activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances … to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans.”

2) Section 101(b)(5) of the NEPA states, “achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities”.

3) Section 102(1)(B) of the NEPA states, “… which will insure that presently un-quantified environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate consideration in decision-making along with economic and technical considerations”.

4) Section 102(1)(C) of the NEPA states, “… major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”. (what is economics but a part of the human environment)

4) Section 201(2) of the NEPA states, “current and foreseeable trends in the quality, management and utilization of such environments and the effects of those trends on the social, economic, and other requirements of the Nation”.

5) Section 201(3) of the NEPA states, “the adequacy of available natural resources for fulfilling human and economic requirements of the National in the light of expected population pressures”.

6) Section 202 of the NEPA states, “to be conscious of and responsive to the scientific, economic, social, esthetic, and cultural needs and interests of the Nation”.

7) Section 204(4) of the NEPA states, “to develop and recommend to the president national policies to foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality to meet the conservation, social, economic, health, and other requirements and goals of the Nation”.

8) Section 1501.2(b) of CEQ NEPA regulations states, “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses.”

9) Section 1508.8(b) of CEQ NEPA regulations states, “… Effects includes ecological … aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative”.

10) Section 1508.14 of CEQ NEPA regulations states, “… This means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement. When an environmental impact statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the human environment”.

Without a full accounting the proposers are not integrating all the costs of I-69/TTC (in fact the cost of the proposal is not even given in the DEIS) and providing that information to the public for its review and comment about all costs/benefits.

5) Page ES-6, Executive Summary, What does tiered mean regarding this project, the Sierra Club believes that TxDOT’s proposal to be “allowed to purchase options on land upon completion of the Tier I environmental process” is prejudging the proposal which is illegal under NEPA and CEQ regulations. Section 1502.2(f) states “Agencies shall not commit resources prejudicing selection of alternatives before making a final decision” and Section 1502.2(e) states “EISs shall serve as the means of assessing the environmental impact of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made”. How can TxDOT use public tax dollars to preserve a corridor before Tier II is done which will provide most of the environmental analysis and will have most of the environmental alternatives comparative assessment and evaluation? Neither the No Action or the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative have been environmentally analyzed and yet TxDOT has chosen the New Location Corridor Alternative as the Preferred Alternative and now wants to buy options to hold land for this alternative.

By not including important information in the DEIS (like the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative) the proposers hide from the public and the decision-makers the magnitude and significance of the I-69/TTC. This action violates the following:

1. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.1(b), “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken. The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEPA.”

2. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.1(c), “The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions that are based on understanding of environmental consequences.”

3. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.2(b), “Implement procedures to make the NEPA process more useful to decision-makers and the public.”

4. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.2(d), “Encourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment.”

5. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.4(b), “Preparing analytic rather than encyclopedic environmental impact statements.”

6. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1500.4(f), “Emphasizing the portions of the EIS that are useful to decision-makers and the public.”

7. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses.”

8. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.2, “EISs shall be analytic rather than encyclopedic.”

9. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.4(a), “Agencies shall make sure the proposal which is the subject of an EIS is properly defined.”

10. CEQ NEPA Regulation 1502.16, “This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons … environmental impacts of the alternatives including the proposed action, any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented, the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity, and irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources.”

11. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.21, “No material may be incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed for comment.”

12. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1502.24, “Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions and analyses in EISs. They shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.”

13. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1506.6(a), “Agencies shall make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures.”

14. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.3, “Affecting means will or may have an effect on.”

15. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.14, ”Human Environment shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment … When an EIS is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated then the EIS will discuss all of these effects on the human environment.”

16. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.18, “Major Federal action includes actions with effects that may be major and which are potentially subject to Federal control and responsibility. Major reinforces but does not have a meaning independent of significantly … Actions include new and continuing activities, including projects … approval of specific projects, such as construction or management activities located in a defined geographic area.”

17. CEQ NEPA Regulation, 1508.27, “Significantly as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity … Context means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts … For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as whole … Intensity refers to the severity of impact … impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believe that on balance the effect will be beneficial … Unique characteristics of the geographic area … The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial … The degree to which the possible effects … are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks … Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts … Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.”

6) Pages ES-6, ES-7, and ES-10, Executive Summary, What is the project study area, the Sierra Club believes that the Modal Transition Zones (MTZ) are being used to hide the connections that will be made from I-69/TTC to, for example, the Grand Parkway and or State Highway 122. The possible connections to the MTZs should be revealed now and the potential environmental impacts should be analyzed since I-69/TTC is worthless without connections to ports and other facilities in the MTZs.

7) Page ES-7, Executive Summary, What is the project study area, the Sierra Club is concerned that Tier I is the only opportunity for the public to look at the environmental impacts of the entire 650 mile long project at one time. Otherwise the proposers plan to chop up the proposal into “segments of independent utility” which will hide the total impacts of the proposal from the public and decision-makers.

8) Page ES-9, Executive Summary, What Alternatives are being considered in Tier One, the Sierra Club certainly does not consider the I-69/TTC a “visionary concept”. It certainly is not the vision of the public who have overwhelmingly rejected the proposal.

9) Pages ES-9 and ES-18, Executive Summary, No Action Alternative, the proposers have illegally avoided analyzing and stating what the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative are. The DEIS admits that no environmental analysis has been performed on the “No Action Alternative” when it says “Any direct effects of these projects would be evaluated under their own NEPA environmental studies”. So there are no environmental impacts revealed for the “No Action Alternative”, whether direct, indirect, cumulative, or connected. This is illegal under the NEPA and CEQ regulations:

1. 1500.1(b), “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken”

2. 1500.2(e), “Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment”

3. 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses”

4. 1502.1, “It shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment … Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses”

5. 1502.14, ”it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public”

6. 1502.14(a), “Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives”

7. 1502.14(b), “Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits”

8. 1502.14(d), “Include the alternative of no action”

9. 1502.16, Environmental consequences, “It shall include discussions of:

(a) Direct effects and their significance

(b) Indirect effects and their significance

(d) The environmental effects of alternatives including the proposed action. The comparisons under 1502.14 will be based on this discussion.

By not revealing the environmental impacts of the “No Action Alternative” the proposers violate all of the above sections of CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and be revised to legally be in compliance with NEPA and CEQ regulations.

10) Page ES-9, Executive Summary, Use of Existing/Planned transportation Facilities Alternative, the DEIS states “Reconstructing existing transportation facilities”. Which facilities are these? The public and decision-makers have a right now to review, comment on, and understand these so they understand the proposal

11) Page ES-9, Executive Summary, New Location Corridor Alternative, the DEIS talks about Quantm. However, the Quantum assumptions are not explained. The public and decision-makers need detailed information about Quantm to review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

12) Page ES-10, Executive Summary, New Location Corridor Alternative, since linkage to the Rio Grande Valley makes or breaks this proposal the alternatives for this linkage should be revealed now and not in Tier II.

13) Pages ES-17 and ES-18, Executive Summary, How did agencies and the public participate in the project development and decision-making process, the public has been ignored even though most comments have been opposed to this proposal. The TAC and ST are dominated by the proposers and thus create a conflict of interest because they approve the forward motion of the proposal. The public has no input into “Concurrence Points” which the proposers control because they make up the majority of the TAC and SC.

14) Page ES-18, Executive Summary, How were the Reasonable Corridors and Reasonable Connector Corridors evaluated, and what were the results, the proposers never discuss how the environmental evaluation (DEIS Chapter Three) and the transportation planning evaluation (DEIS Chapter Four) are linked together. The transportation planning process should use environmental factors in deciding which corridors should go forward. Unfortunately the proposers use the transportation planning process, with no environmental factors, to choose the corridors when environmental factors should have been used to choose the corridor first and not as an after thought.

15) Pages ES-18 through ES-24, Executive Summary, Environmental Evaluation, the environmental evaluation is flawed because it is too broad and not specific enough to determine what the environmental impacts are and provide a thorough analysis, assessment, and evaluation. Environmental factors should have been used in the Transportation Planning Evaluation (User Benefit Analysis and Supplemental Performance Index Analysis).

Percent coverage is so broad that the quality of habitat is not known; distribution (blockage) does not take into account ephemeral streams; overlap does not look at quality of habitat; and proximity is inaccurate because the assurance of presence cannot be made based on the data provided. There is no “balance” in meeting the purpose and need and environmental impacts because the proposers have already made up their minds that they are going to construction this proposal no matter how much opposition they get from the public. If there is a so-called balance then tell the public and decision-makers what that is so they can review, comment on, and understand the proposal. Suppose the public doesn’t want a balance. Suppose don’t want the project? What right have the proposers to overrule the public’s will?

16) Pages ES-29 and ES-30, Executive Summary, What are the indirect and cumulative effects of an I-69/TTC corridor, the proposers ignore the requirements in NEPA and CEQ regulations that quantification of environmental effects must be provided.

The proposers have not provided the “hard look” at environmental impacts that is required under NEPA. Words are used which are conclusory in nature and which do not clearly define the environmental impacts of I-69/TTC. In a recent court ruling a judge ruled in favor of the Sierra Club and against the National Park Service about assessment of impacts and the methodology used which was deemed inadequate, arbitrary, and capricious. United States District Judge John D. Bates stated, in part, in Sierra Club v. Mainella the following:

“Because NPS’s impairment analysis served as its NEPA analysis, the flaws in the impairment analysis also apply to the environmental assessment. Those shortcomings are, first, NPS’s lack of explanation as to how it reached its conclusions, typically simply describing the impacts followed by a conclusion that the impact was not an impairment or, in the case of NEPA, that it was not “significant”; and second, the use of the descriptors “negligible”, “minor”, “moderate”, and “major” that are largely undefined or are defined in a manner that includes few objective bounds … nowhere explained the basis for its conclusion that potentially “moderate” impacts could not be significant under NEPA … There is no basis in the administrative record for accepting NPS’s conclusion that even a “minor” impact is not significant under NEPA, because there are no determinate criteria offered for distinguishing a “minor” impact from a “moderate” or “major” impact other than NPS’s conclusory say-so … the scoping regulations still require the agency to explain why they {dismissed issues} will not have a significant effect on the human environment … Thus, the EA must provide a realistic evaluation of the total impacts and cannot isolate a proposed project, viewing it in a vacuum … In short, NPS’s three findings of no significant impact are, the court concludes, arbitrary and capricious for many of the same reasons as are the impairment determinations. In each decision, NPS has failed to take a “hard look” at impacts on the Preserve from adjacent surface activities, as evidenced by the lack of explanations supporting its conclusions and, in particular, its methodology of describing impacts using conclusory labels and then setting forth a bare conclusion without explanation as to the significance of an impact. NPS also failed to provide an adequate cumulative impacts analysis that included the other oil and gas operations in the Gore Baygall Unit … However, NPS’s ultimate conclusions that the drilling activities would not result in impairment of park resources and values under the Organic Act, or a significant impact on the human environment under NEPA, are not supported by reasoned explanations, and hence are arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.”

The proposers are repeating the inadequate NEPA analyses in I-69/TTC DEIS that was the basis for the successful Sierra Club v. Mainella decision. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the proposers conduct analyses for I-69/TTC DEIS that does not use conclusory statements.

For the DEIS, dictionary usage of words or phrases will not suffice to provide the public and decision-makers with a clear picture of what the intensity, significance, and context of environmental impacts are. In other words, an all qualitative assessment, analysis, and evaluation of environmental impacts is not sufficient to deal with the clearly articulated CEQ requirements in Section 1502.14, that the EIS “should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public”.

1. Quantitative assessment, analysis, and evaluation are necessary to ensure that alternatives and environmental impacts are clearly defined and shown in the EIS. As stated in the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, Section 1500.1(b), Purpose, “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens … The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis … are essential to implementing NEPA”.

2. As stated in Section 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses.”

3. As stated in Section 1502.8, “which will be based upon the analysis and supporting data from the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts.”

4. As stated in Section 1502.18(b), about the Appendix, “Normally consist of material which substantiates any analysis fundamental to the impact statement”.

5. As stated in Section 1502.24, “Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, of the discussions and analyses … They shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.”

The analysis that the proposers must conduct for the DEIS is much more than “best professional judgment”. “Best professional judgment” is where a group of people, using their experience, decide what is important. This level of assessment, analysis, and evaluation for environmental impacts and alternatives is an insufficient foundation upon which to base a DEIS. The proposers must define what phrases and words mean so that the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand what the proposers refer to regarding this proposal.

The qualitative description of phrases used to describe environmental impacts or the protectiveness of an alternative does not provide the public with the degree of comparison required by the CEQ’s mandatory NEPA implementing regulations. These regulations state, in Section 1502.14, Alternatives including the proposed action, that, “This section is the heart of the EIS … it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public … Devote substantial treatment to each alternative in detail … so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.”

The CEQ also states, in Section 1502.16 and (d), Environmental consequences, that, “This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons … The environmental effects of alternatives including the proposed action the comparisons under Section 1502.14 will be based on this discussion.”

It is key that the proposers clearly compare and make apparent the distinctiveness of each alternative (both the No Action Alternative and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative environmental impacts are ignored in the DEIS) and its impacts or protectiveness. This is not accomplished when phrases are used qualitatively (substantial) instead of quantitatively with more detailed and clear descriptions of qualitative information. The Sierra Club requests that the proposers clarify and detail clearly the comparative differences between each alternative and define clearly what the words or phrases used mean.

In addition, the DEIS cumulative impacts analysis is incomplete and does not cover all cumulative impacts and projects that cause cumulative impacts. Particularly of concern is how the DEIS fails to quantify secondary impacts caused by development induced or encouraged by the I-69/TTC and other roads that will be expanded in the project area.

The actual quantified cumulative impacts due to these developments are not presented in the DEIS. Some of the questions that should be answered via analysis of cumulative impacts for I-69/TTC in the project area about secondary development include:

1. How many additional roads will be built?

2. How much additional fragmentation will occur?

3. What amount of storm water run-off will be created?

4. What levels of water pollutants will be generated in the storm water run-off?

5. What impacts will this additional storm water run-off have on aquatic life?

6. How much additional stream bank and bed scouring will occur?

7. What amount of what types of air pollutants will be generated?

8. What health, welfare, and environment effects will this air pollution have?

9. What are the environmental impacts of light pollution?

There are many cumulative impact questions that must be asked and answered. There are many cumulative impacts that must be quantified and cause/effect analysis provided. The DEIS is silent on these site-specific environmental questions.

The Sierra Club requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and a supplementary DEIS be prepared with a public scoping period and public review and comment period for the issue of cumulative impacts and actions that cause cumulative impacts. We recommend that the basis of the cumulative impacts analysis, assessment, and evaluation be the CEQ’s document on cumulative impacts. This document is entitled, “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act” and was published in January 1997.

Some of the especially important quotes from this document include:

a. On page v, “Only by reevaluating and modifying alternatives in light of the projected cumulative effects can adverse consequences be effectively avoided or minimized. Considering cumulative effects in also essential to developing appropriate mitigation and monitoring its effectiveness.”

b. On page v, “By evaluating resource impact zones and the life cycle of effects rather than projects, the analyst can properly bound the cumulative effects analysis. Scoping can also facilitate the interagency cooperation needed to identify agency plans and other actions whose effects might overlap those of the proposed action.”

c. On page vi, “When the analyst describes the affected environment, he or she is setting the environmental baseline and thresholds of environmental change that are important for analyzing cumulative effects. Recently developed indicators of ecological integrity (e.g., index of biotic integrity for fish) and landscape conditions (e.g., fragmentation of habitat patches) can be used as benchmarks of accumulated change over time … GIS technologies provide improved means to analyze historical change in indicators of the condition of resources, ecosystems, and human communities, as well as the relevant stress factors.” The DEIS uses a GIS but not to analyze historical change in indicators of the conditions, resources, ecosystems, human communities, and relevant stress factors.

d. On page vi, “Most often, the historical context surrounding the resource is critical to developing these baselines and thresholds and to supporting both imminent and future decision-making.”

e. On page … the consequences of human activities will vary from those that were predicted and mitigated … therefore, monitoring the accuracy of predictions and the success of mitigation measures is critical.” The DEIS does not set up a process and procedures to monitor the accuracy of predictions and the success of mitigation measures.

f. On page vi, “Special methods are also available to address the unique aspects of cumulative effects, including carrying capacity analysis, ecosystem analysis, economic impacts analysis, and social impact analysis.” The DEIS does not or does little to address carrying capacity, ecosystem, economic impacts, and social impacts analyses.

g. On page vii, Table E-1, “CEA Principles … Cumulative effects analysis …Address additive, countervailing, and synergistic effects … Look beyond the life of the action.” The DEIS does not list and discuss additive, countervailing, and synergistic effects or look beyond the life of the GP.

h. On page 1, “The range of actions that must be considered includes not only the projects proposal but all connected and similar actions that could contribute to cumulative effects.” The DEIS does not look the cumulative impacts of all connected and similar actions, like other road projects.

i. On page 2, Table 1-1, “Federal Agency, … Federal Highway Administration … Cumulative Effects Situations … cumulative commercial and residential development and highway construction associated with suburban sprawl.”

j. On page 3, “The purpose of cumulative effects analysis, therefore is to ensure that federal decisions consider the full range of consequences of actions … If cumulative effects become apparent as agency programs are being planned or as larger strategies and policies are developed then potential cumulative effects should be analyzed at that times.” In the DEIS all road widening actions and their cumulative impacts in the area of interest have not be presented and quantified.

k. On page 3, Cumulative effects analysis necessarily involves assumptions and uncertainties, but useful information can be put on the decision-making table now … Important research and monitoring programs can be identified that will improve analyses in the future, but their absence should not be used as a reason for not analyzing cumulative effects to the extent possible now … adaptive management provisions for flexible project implementation can be incorporated into the selected alternative.”

l. On page 4, “The Federal Highway Administration and state transportation agencies frequently make decisions on highway projects that may not have significant direct environmental effects, but that may induce indirect and cumulative effects by permitting other development activities that have significant effects on air and water resources at a regional or national scale, The highway and other development activities can reasonably be foreseen as “connected actions.” The GP, Segment E, has significant direct environmental impacts as well as significant cumulative impacts.

m. On page 7, “Increasingly, decision makers are recognizing the importance of looking at their projects in the context of other development in the community or region (i.e., of analyzing the cumulative effects) … Without a definitive threshold, the NEPA practitioner should compare the cumulative effects of multiple actions with appropriate national, regional, state, or community goals to determine whether the total effect is significant … Cumulative effects results from spatial (geographic) and temporal (time) crowding of environmental perturbations. The effects of human activities will accumulate when a second perturbation occurs at a site before the ecosystem can fully rebound from the effect of the first perturbation.”

n. On page 8, Table 1-2, lists 8 principles of cumulative effects analysis (copy enclosed). The DEIS does not use or uses poorly these principles in analyzing cumulative effects.

o. On page 19, “The first step in identifying future actions is to investigate the plans of the proponent agency and other agencies in the area. Commonly, analysts only include those plans for actions which are funded or for which other NEPA analysis is being prepared. This approach does not meet the letter or intent of CEQ’s regulations … The analyst should develop guidelines as to what constitutes “reasonably foreseeable future actions” based on planning process within each agency … In many cases, local government planning agencies can provide useful information on the likely future development of the region, such as master plans. Local zoning requirements, water supply plans, economic development plans, and various permitting records will help in identifying reasonably foreseeable private actions … These plans can be considered in the analysis, but it is important to indicate in the NEPA analysis whether these plans were presented by the private party responsible for originating the action. Whenever speculative projections of future development are used, the analyst should provide an explicit description of the assumptions involved … NEPA litigation … has made it clear that “reasonable forecasting” is implicit in NEPA and that it is the responsibility of federal agencies to predict the environmental effects of proposed actions before they are fully known.” The DEIS does not provide the explicit description of the assumptions involved for the development contemplated.

p. On page 23, “Characterizing the affected environment in a NEPA analysis that addresses cumulative effects requires special attention to defining baseline conditions. These baseline conditions provide the context for evaluating environmental consequences and should include historical cumulative effects to the extent feasible.” Historical cumulative effects, in most cases, are missing from the DEIS.

q. On page 29, “Lastly, trends analysis of change in the extent and magnitude of stresses in critical for projecting the future cumulative effects.” Trends analysis of all cumulative impacts are not included in the DEIS.

r. On page 29, “Government regulations and administrative standards … often influence developmental activity and the resultant cumulative stress on resources, ecosystems, and human communities.” The DEIS does not address these governmental actions, like the creation of MUD and similar utility districts and how this affects development and cumulative impacts.

s. On page 31, “Cumulative effects occur through the accumulation of effects over varying periods of time. For this reason, an understanding of the historical context of effects is critical to assessing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed actions. Trends data can be used … to establish the baseline for the affected environment more accurately (i.e., by incorporating variation over time) … to evaluate the significance of effects relative to historical degradation (i.e., by helping to estimate how close the resource is to a threshold of degradation) … to predict the effects of the actions (i.e., by using the model of cause and effects established by past actions).”

t. On pages 38-40, “Using information gathered to describe the affected environment, the factors that affect resources (i.e., the causes in the cause-and-effect relationships) can be identified and a conceptual model of cause and effect developed … The cause-and-effect model can aid in the identification of past, present, and future actions that should be considered in the analysis … The cause-and effect relationships for each resource are used to determine the magnitude of the cumulative effect resulting from all actions included in the analysis … one of the most useful approaches for determining the likely response of the resource … to environmental change is to evaluate the historical effects of activities similar to those under consideration.” The DEIS does not provide historical data about past cumulative effects that other freeways and roads have encouraged or induced.

u. On page 41, “The analyst’s primary goal is to determine the magnitude and significance of the environmental consequences of the proposed action in the context of the cumulative effects of other past, present, and future actions … The critical element in this conceptual model is defining an appropriate baseline or threshold condition of the resource.” The DEIS does not provide the magnitude for most cumulative impacts that are caused by the GP or other actions.

v. On page 43, “Situations can arise where an incremental effect that exceeds the threshold of concern for cumulative effects results, not from the proposed action, but the reasonably foreseeable but still uncertain future actions.” The GP by itself will have significant impacts but these will be dwarfed by the cumulative impacts of secondary development encouraged or induced by the GP. These secondary cumulative impacts are not fully explained or quantified in the DEIS.

w. On page 45, “The significance of effects should be determined based on context and intensity … Intensity refers to the severity of effect … As discussed above, the magnitude of an effect reflects relative size or amount of an effect. Geographic extent considers how widespread the effect might be. Duration and frequency refers to whether the effect is a one-time event, intermittent, or chronic.” The DEIS is weak in defining the significance of effects using intensity, magnitude, geographic extent, and duration and frequency and quantifying these factors of effects.

x. On page 45, “Determinations of significance … are the focus of analysis because they lead to additional (more costly) analysis or to inclusion of additional mitigation (or a detailed justification for not implementing mitigation) … the project proponent should avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects by modifying alternatives … in most cases, however, avoidance or minimization are more effective than remediating unwanted effects.”

y. On page 51, “different resource effects that cumulatively affect interconnected systems must be addressed in combination.”

17) Pages ES-30 through ES-33, Executive Summary, What is the Recommended Preferred Alternative, the DEIS chooses a Preferred Alternative before all alternatives (the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative) have been analyzed for environmental impacts and other factors. This is not legal especially since the comparative analysis that Section 1502.14 requires has not been done.

18) Page ES-34, Executive Summary, Mexican and other connections to I-69/TTC have not been discussed and the environmental impacts they will have. This is required by NEPA and CEQ regulations. What are substantive comments? How will these be determined? The Sierra Club sees no way that the proposers can state that any part of I-69/TTC is benign enough environmentally to be called a categorical exclusion.

19) Page 1-1, 1.0 Purpose and Need, the DEIS states “Tier One will not authorize the construction of any portion of an I-69/TTC facility.” However, TxDOT will pay money if Tier I is approved to hold right-of-way which prejudges whether the proposal will be built. The Sierra Club objects to paying any money to hold any land for a potential corridor for this proposed project.

20) Page 1-1, 1.1 I-69/TTC Description, the DEIS fails to tell the public, the taxpayers, how much this proposal may cost. A range of costs should be provided. The public has a right to this information. Why would anyone support a proposal when the agency cannot or will not even provide an estimate of the cost?

21) Page 1-3, 1.2 Purpose and Need, see comment 4) above, about the purpose and need statement. That same comment applies here.

22) Pages 1-4 and 1-5, 1.4 Tier One EIS Scope, the DEIS fails to assess the environmental impacts of connected, indirect, and cumulative actions in Mexico, Louisiana, and other places which will be linked to this proposal. This is required by NEPA and CEQ regulations. Since this proposal may last 50 years an analysis of this timeframe of implementation should be in the DEIS. It is obvious that the entire I-69/TTC consists of “independent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification” (Section 1508.25).

The No Action Alternative has not actually been environmentally analyzed in the DEIS because the proposers have put off the analysis, evaluation, and assessment of environmental impacts to some time in the future when federal and other monies are available for their approval and implementation. This is illegal under NEPA and CEQ regulations.

It is amazing that this proposal is so poorly developed that where utilities will be and the width of the corridor are not known. It is not appropriate that Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative is not analyzed now and is automatically advanced to Tier II. This cannot be done legally under NEPA and CEQ regulations which require comparative analysis of all reasonable environmental alternatives. The proposers evade this by advancing the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative and not doing any environmental analysis on the No Action Alternative.

23) Pages 1-5 through 1-7, 1.5 Tier One EIS Decision, the DEIS in this part fails to state what are “substantive comments” (this definition is given on page ES-35,“comments that would provide new information relative to the Tier I decision”) and show which comments have indeed been considered “substantive” and why. CEQ regulations only say, Section 1503.4(b), “All substantive comments received on the Draft Statement (or summaries thereof where the response has been exceptionally voluminous), should be attached to the final statement”. The definition for “substantive comments” is an artificial construct of the proposers.

There has been no collaborative effort with the public. The TAC and SC are dominated by a majority of the proposers employees so there is not way for the proposal not to advance. This is a conflict of interest. Costs should be addressed now before deciding to spend more public money on this proposal. It is the public’s money and the public deserves to know what the cost is now. Millions of dollars of the public’s money have already been spent on this proposal. By hiding the costs now the proposers attempt to generate momentum for the proposal to force it past public opposition which is overwhelming. Public involvement has been after-the-fact, in the sense that the TAC and SC and has been ignored.

24) Page 1-8, 1.6 Study Area, the MTZs should be presented now with connections to I-69/TTC so that the true environmental impacts and economic costs can be analyzed and not delayed in an attempt to create momentum for the proposal.

25) Pages 2-1 and 2-2, 2.1 Tier One Alternatives, the proposers illegally ignore the environmental costs of the No Action Alternative and advance the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative without any environmental analysis. The Sierra Club objects to this illegal hiding of alternative comparison of environmental impacts.

26) Pages 2-2 through 2-7, New Location Corridor Alternative, it is amazing that air pollution is not one of the seven avoidance criteria. Air pollution should be analyzed, assessed, and evaluated both quantitatively and qualitatively in this DEIS.

For instance, mobile source air toxics (MSAT) must be analyzed. But MSAT must be analyzed correctly. This includes recognizing that the MSAT analysis uses, MOBILE 6.2, which underestimates air pollution from vehicles. Therefore reductions in MSAT can be overestimated if this is not taken into account. Further, an important point is that it is the total air pollution plume from roads that causes human health effects and not just a few air toxics. The DEIS should not focus on these few air toxics but analyze the effects that the total air pollution plume has on people who live close to roads (about 1,000 feet).

The MSAT analysis must also acknowledge the large diesel truck impacts that I-69/TTC will have. In addition it is not likely that “traffic flow improvements” will occur, if you base your analysis on what has happened in the past 30 years as new or expanded roads fill to capacity and create more congestion and air pollution and while still below capacity create more air pollution due to vehicles traveling at high speeds (higher nitrogen oxides which help cause ozone). The public and decision-makers have a right to know all the information about air pollution now so they can review, comment on, and understand all the environmental impacts of I-69/TTC.

The DEIS is deficient regarding adequate quantitative and qualitative air quality assessment, evaluation, and analysis. Some questions that need to be answered include:

What amount of what types of air pollutants will be generated by I-69/TTC (emissions inventory)?

What health, welfare, and environment effects will this air pollution have?

The public needs to know the tons/year of different air pollutants like particulates, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides (NOx), diesel exhaust, volatile organic compounds (VOC), and certain air toxic compounds, including carcinogens that are generated by I-69/TTC and associated development. The public and the decision-makers must know the additional air pollution burden generated before I-69/TTC is built, when it initially opens, and when it reaches capacity.

Modeling CO must not be what the air pollution analysis of I-69/TTC should solely consist of. The pollutant of most immediate concern is ozone because of the several non-attainment areas for ozone that I-69/TTC goes by. That means that hydrocarbons (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide inventories should be estimated before the proposal, when it first is opened, and when it reaches capacity. This includes secondary development impacts and the emissions that are generated by residential and commercial development, both construction and operation.

Instead of taking the health effects of air pollution seriously the DEIS does no analysis on air pollution. The need for MSAT and other air analyses is obvious. This includes determining how long it takes for a vehicle year car/light truck fleet to turnover (about 10 years) for a heavy truck fleet (about 20-20 years). There must be discussion of how MOBILE 6.2 continually underestimated emissions and that we know that VOC and NOx are emitted at much greater amounts than models and emission inventories have shown.

For instance, in the August 31, 2007 “Final Rapid Science Synthesis Report: Findings from the Second Texas Air Quality Study (TexAQS II)”, A Report to the TCEQ by the TexAQS II Rapid Science Synthesis Team prepared by the Southern Oxidants Study Office of the Director at North Carolina State University, states on page 59 “On-road mobile emission inventories developed from MOBILE 6 have significant shortcomings. MOBILE 6 consistently overestimates CO emissions by about a factor of 2. It accurately estimated NOx emission in the years near 2000, but it indicates decrease in NOx emissions since then, while ambient data suggest NOx emissions have actually increased. Consequently in 2006, NOx to VOC emission ratios in urban areas are likely underestimated by current inventories … The HGB (Houston-Galveston-Brazoria) inventory overestimates the CO to NOx emission ratio, and that overestimate becomes worse with time as the inventory does not show a significant temporal decrease … Parish (2006) showed that the rapid decrease (6.6%/yr) in the ratio is partially due to a slower decrease in CO emissions (4.6%/yr), which implies a significant increase in NOx emissions (approximately 2%/yr). The large inventory overestimates in the CO to NOx ratio at the present time are attributed to a factor of 2 overestimate in CO emissions, and an underestimate in present NOx emissions.”

The air pollution analysis for the DEIS should look at all health effects studies and adequately analyze the threat of air pollution (not just air toxics) on people living close to roads (about 1,000 feet). In addition, since air does not stay in one place, and since there are industrial sources, many area sources, and a large number of off-road sources of air pollution that emit air toxics the entire parcel of air that people breathe should be considered and not just MSAT.

As the Health Effects Institute’s November 2007 Special Report 16, “Mobile-Source Air Toxics: A Critical Review of the Literature on Exposure and Health Effects” says, “However, the introduction of reformulated or alternative fuels might pose its own risks, and the removal of individual fuel components does not automatically ensure safe fuels.” It is a red herring to focus only on MSAT, which is a “subset of all air toxics”, when the focus should be total air pollution that people are exposed to. Certainly, the DEIS analysis should be preventive of public health and demonstrate the use of the “precautionary principle”.

There is no assessment of what the health effects are due to total air pollution (the entire plume emitted by vehicles as they drive by on a road) exposure on people living close to roads (about 1,000 feet). This is what many recent studies on air pollution health effects do. It is an abdication of authority to ignore this problem. There is no analysis that looks at the impacts that driving large diesel trucks from I-69/TTC will have on air pollution and people’s health.

The Sierra Club submits with these comments the following documents that deal with air pollution from vehicles and its possible effect on human health:

1) Particulate Matter and Air Toxic Pollutant Exposures Near Heavily Traveled Roadways in the U.S., by Patricia Rowley and Richard Cook, U.S. EPA.

2) Bibliography of Near Roadway Health Effects (I) and Exposure Studies (II), U.S. EPA, March 2007.

3) Highway Health Hazards, Sierra Club 2004.

4) Freeways & Health: Recent Studies, Dr. Winifred J. Hamilton, June 4, 2002.

5) Diesel and Health in America: The Lingering Threat, Clean Air Task Force, February 2005.

6) Health Assessment Document for Diesel Engine Exhaust, U.S. EPA, May 2002.

7) Health Effects of Air Pollution: Beyond the Criteria Pollutants, Dr. Philip Bromberg, et. al., Air Toxics Workshop II, Section 1, Mickey Leland Center, June 12, 2007.

8) Near-Roadway Exposure and Health, Chad Bailey, U.S. EPA, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Air Toxics Workshop II, Mickey Leland Center, June 12, 2007. Attachment 1

The DEIS does not provide information about the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that will be generated due to the construction and operation of I-69/TTC. The DEIS must provide information about the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that all of the cumulative actions and impacts (including, direct, indirect, secondary, and connected impacts) generate, encourage, or accelerate due to the construction and operation of I-69/TTC. The impacts of these greenhouse gas emissions must be assessed, analyzed, and evaluation and this information must be discussed in the DEIS so that the public and decision-makers can review and comment and understand this issue. This includes analyzing the impact of vehicle miles traveled increases or decreases in the study area due to the construction and operation of I-69/TTC, connections to the MTZs, and associated development.

The DEIS must but does not talk about mitigation measures and a dust control plan that will be prepared before construction. NEPA and CEQ regulations require that the public and decision-makers be fully informed. A dust control plan must be in the DEIS so the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand the full impacts of the I-69/TTC. Section 1502.14(f) of CEQ regulations requires that “Include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives”; Section 1502.16(e), which requires “Energy requirements and conservation potential of various alternatives and mitigation measures; Section 1502.16(h), which requires “Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (if not fully covered under 1502.14(f); and Section 1505.2(c) requires that “A monitoring and enforcement program shall be adopted and summarized where applicable for any mitigation.”

This must be done with this DEIS. For instance, one source of dust that the Sierra Club often sees on road projects is the use of a rotary cleaner which buffs and cleans recently poured concrete. Oftentimes this equipment generates huge amounts of dust that can obscure traffic and create dangerous safety situations. A dust collector, like a bag-house, or a series of sprinkler heads could be mounted on this piece of equipment to collect or reduce dust as it is generated. Another way to reduce air emissions from this equipment is to wet the concrete. This type of detail is needed in the dust control plan so the public can see what will be done and what is committed to by the proposers.

27) Page 2-3, New Location Corridor Alternative, the proposers have failed to describe Quantum adequately and the assumptions and limitations that it possesses including accuracy of predictions and data used, deficiencies, and any percent error for outputs that it provides.

28) Page 2-3, New Location Corridor Alternative, the proposers need to state what they mean when they say “Minimize the potential to affect existing infrastructure, “as practical”. How will the proposers “Allow a buffer from development around protected sources”? How do the proposers feel that “Consider local and regional planning objectives” will reduce environmental impacts for this proposal? What are the impacts of the MTZs?

29) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what is a “transportation planning perspective”?

30) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what are the “Level 1a Preliminary Corridor Transportation Planning Review findings and recommendations”?

31) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what are “Purpose and Need planning performance measures”?

32) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what “deletion, addition, and consolidation of some corridors” will occur?

33) Page 2-4, New Location Corridor Alternative, what are the “Level 1b Preliminary Corridor Transportation Planning Review findings and recommendations”?

34) Page 2-5, New Location Corridor Alternative, the use of GISST and TEAP criteria is inadequate as stated in these comments below.

35) Page 2-5, New Location Corridor Alternative, it is disingenuous to say “Actual construction costs are currently unknown” since the proposers have the experience to estimate costs and the public has a right to know these costs since it is their money that will be used and is being used to prepare this proposal.

36) Page 2-5, New Location Corridor Alternative, the DEIS should state what the deficiencies, percent error, accuracy of data, and assumptions used for the Statewide Analysis Model (SAM) are.

37) Page 2-6, New Location Corridor Alternative, the DEIS states “The non-numeric values were often similar for corridors within an evaluation sections, and therefore were not considered distinguishing for making corridor recommendations”. What are these “non-numeric values”? What does “similar” mean?

38) Page 2-6, New Location Corridor Alternative, the TAC and SC certainly were not open to public participation by non-governmental organizations and the public and the additional resource and planning agency meetings were not open to public participation by non-governmental organizations and the public.

39) Page 2-7, New Location Corridor Alternative, what is “an environmental and or planning perspective”?

40) Page 2-7, Reasonable Corridors and Reasonable Connectors Corridors, a “Relative Construction Cost Factor” is not enough. The public deserves an estimated cost since tax dollars have been used to prepare this DEIS and will be used for proposal if it is approved. It is a cop-lout to state that “Costs of right-of-way, culverts, and other necessary facilities components were not included because they are based on alignment levels studies, thus they could not be quantified at the corridor level of analysis during Tier One.” If the proposers cannot estimate its costs then this means that the proposers are not qualified to construct this proposal if it is approved. Certainly the public and decision-makers deserve an estimate of cost and certainly the proposers have the experience the make an estimate of costs. If the proposers cannot do this then they should not be allowed to push this proposal forward. That is what the public pays the proposers to do.

41) Pages 2-8 through 2-23, how accurate is the “Relative Construction Cost Factor”? What is the estimated construction cost for this proposal? The public deserves to know this since its tax dollars are being used now and will be used in the future if the proposal is approved.

42) Page 2-22, Evaluation Section N, the Big Thicket National Preserve and the Alabama-Coushatta Indian Reservation are also near the proposed project area and this should be recognized in the DEIS.

43) Pages 2-22 and 2-23, RCC-N1 and 2.3 Recommended Preferred Alternative Identification, it is important that the DEIS talk about the proposed connection of Segments H and I-1 of the Grand Parkway to I-69/TTC and what this will cost environmentally and economically.

44) Page 3-1, 3.2 Affected Environment, Natural Environment Setting, the DEIS states “Using ecoregions to define the study area environment strengthens an ecosystem approach in transportation planning, development, and implementation.” What is an “ecosystem approach”? There is no definition or statement of goals for an “ecosystem approach”. What development is contemplated?

45) Page 3-14, Land Use, why does the DEIS use data based on a study that is 18 years old? What updates have been done to make sure the data is accurate and reflects what happens today? Certainly it appears that residential land uses account for more than 3% of study area particularly in the Houston area. What comprehensive plans for the Houston-Galveston Area were reviewed? The City of Houston does not have a comprehensive plan. How has the real estate downturn been taken into account in the DEIS?

46) Page 3-17, Air Quality Environment, the DEIS fails to consider that MOBILE 6 underestimates emissions from vehicles. Please see our comments above in this letter that state what the air quality analysis should consist of. There are no one hour ozone non-attainment areas anymore because that standard no longer exists. So stating that there are no “areas in non-attainment for one hour ozone” means nothing.

47) Page 3-18, 3.3 Potential Consequences, the proposers have not revealed the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative by illegally avoiding this analysis by saying that “Any direct effects of these projects would be evaluated under their own environmental studies”.

CEQ regulations, Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c), require full revelation and comparison of all reasonable alternatives regarding the environmental impacts that they have. By not revealing the environmental impacts of the “No Action Alternative” the proposers violate all of the above sections of CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and be revised to legally comply with NEPA and CEQ regulations.

48) Page 3-19, GISST Ozone Non-Attainment, the one hour ozone standard should not be used. The ozone standard that exists today is the eight hour standard. The eight hour ozone standard changed on March 12, 2008 and is now 0.075 ppm. The DEIS air quality analysis should be changed to reflect the changed ozone standard. The most recent information should be used and not information that is 8-10 years old (1998 and 2002).

49) Page 3-19, GISST Managed Lands, the Sierra Club is very concerned that Texas state forest land, national wilderness areas, national or state designated wild and scenic river segments, national trials, national preserves, or Louisiana publicly owned lands are not part of the GISST analysis. We are also concerned that all private conservation lands are not included in this analysis.

50) Page 3-21, GISST Wildlife Habitat, the Sierra Club is very concerned that eight year old data was used with no specific habitat types included. Only the very broad and general land cover types of forests, shrub-lands, grasslands, wetlands, and open water were used. No habitat quality, vulnerability, uniqueness, connectivity, rare species, and land cover types are represented in the GISST coverage and are not specifically identified and were not used. This means the analysis is less than complete and is arbitrary and capricious.

51) Page 3-21, GISST Federal Threatened and Endangered Species and GISST State Threatened and Endangered Species, the Sierra Club is very concerned that state and federal candidate species are not included in this analysis and that federally listed species in Louisiana are not part of the GISST.

52) Page 3-21, GISST Stream Density, the Sierra Club is concerned that the GISST Stream Density data does not include ephemeral streams. This failure to include ephemeral streams underestimates the amount of stream miles that are impacted by all proposed corridors. Thus the environmental impacts are underestimated. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

53) Page 3-21, GISST TMDL/CWA 303(d), not all streams have been assessed for impairment in the project area. Therefore the possible environmental impacts are underestimated.

54) Page 3-21, GISST Floodplain, the Sierra Club is concerned that 16 Texas counties and two Louisiana parishes are not represented by the same floodplain data as 27 other Texas counties. The same level of environmental analysis was not conducted for all parts of the proposed project area.

55) Page 3-22, GISST Ecologically Significant Stream Segment, this is a poor criteria to use because the Texas Legislature has approved no more than a few streams (about 16) and most of the Regional Water Planning Groups have not designated ecologically significant stream segments. Also Louisiana streams were not considered which means the same level of environmental analysis was not conducted for all parts of the proposed project area. This analysis underestimates the impacts to ecologically significant stream segments.

56) Page 3-22, GISST Wetlands, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information about wetland quality, significance, size, site specific type, or connectivity to other water resources and uses data that is eight years old. What are the limitations of the 2000 USGS NLCD data? The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

57) Page 3-22, GIST Agricultural Lands, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide specific agricultural land use, type of production, and prime or unique farmlands. All this analysis does is identify the presence of broad categories of farmland (orchards/vineyards/other, pasture/hay, row crop, small gains, and fallow) which is not specific enough to determine what the actual environmental impacts will be. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

58) Page 3-22, GISST Hazardous Waste, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information about the size of the facility, extent of potential contamination, or environmental sensitivity. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

59) Page 3-22, TEAP Rarity, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information specific about threatened and endangered species, wildlife habitats, and plant communities. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

60) Page 3-22, TEAP Diversity, this analysis is deficient because it relies on the incomplete ecologically significant streams segment data. Most of the project area has not had complete species inventories and monitoring of species. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

61) Page 3-23, TEAP Sustainability, this analysis is deficient because it assumes that we have information that can determine an area’s ecological resistance to disturbance and resiliency to recover after human disturbance. Much of the information used is biased against urbanized areas and industrialized areas and does not take into account adequately the ecological changes that loss of fire, logging, grazing, and agriculture have on the environmental. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

62) Page 3-23, TEAP Composite, this analysis is deficient because it is based on three other deficient criteria. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

63) Pages 3-23 and 3-24, GISST and TEAP Scoring, this analysis is deficient because the actual location or percent coverage of the resource within the gird cell is not known; the quality, quantity, and specific location of a particular resource is not given; no field surveys were conducted; and a resource represented by the GISST or TEAP may not occupy or be found within the entire grid cell, even in the highest scoring cells. Presence/absence scoring is not sufficient to allow real data analysis. How can there be any scoring when you do not know what is in the grid cells? The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

64) Pages 3-24 and 3-25, Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects, this analysis is deficient because GISST and TEAP data is so poor that you cannot even tell if a resource is found in the grid cell. In addition, the failure to conduct any indirect and cumulative effects analysis and no quantitative direct effects analysis is illegal under NEPA and CEQ regulations (Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c)). The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

65) Pages 3-25 through 3-29, Method for Evaluating the New Location Corridor Alternative, this method is deficient. The percent coverage of resource data is too broad and general and does not tell what type of specific habitat type will be impacted; the distribution is incomplete because it does not include ephemeral streams; the overlap of resource data is deficient because you do not know if species are even in grid cells; and the proximity of resource data is inadequate because absence or presence is not really known, the data used is old, and “may indicate” answers are provided instead of any assurance that real resource problems exist. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

66) Page 3-30, GISST Wildlife Habitat, this method is deficient because habitat quality, vulnerability, uniqueness connectivity, rare species, and land cover types within the coverage are not specifically identified or are not included. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

67) Pages 3-30, 3-34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-39, 3-42, 3-46, 3-49, 3-53, 3-57, 3-61, 3-64, 3-68, 3-69, 3-71, 3-75, 3-78, 3-81, 3-82, 3-84, 3-88, 3-89, 3-93, 3-96, 3-97, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, and 3-105, No Action Alternative, the proposers have not revealed the environmental impacts of the No Action Alternative. This has been done illegally by saying that “Any direct effects of these projects would be evaluated under their own environmental studies”.

CEQ regulations, Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c), require full revelation and or comparison of all reasonable alternatives with regard to the environmental impacts that they have. By not revealing the environmental impacts of the “No Action Alternative” the proposers violate all of the above sections of CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and be revised to legally fit NEPA and CEQ regulations.

68) Page 3-30, GISST Wildlife Habitat Findings, this method is deficient because habitat quality, vulnerability, uniqueness connectivity, rare species, and land cover types within the coverage are not specifically identified or are not included. This means that this analysis is dangerous and less than useless because it gives the air of authority, professionalism, and scientific accuracy and acceptability when it has none of these things. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

69) Pages 3-33 and 3-34, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, this analysis is deficient because what is slated for Tier II should be done for Tier I. The promises made are not useful because they are discretionary. For instance, the DEIS states “If effects could not be avoided, efforts to analyze effects and identify potential mitigation would be conducted”. There is no commitment here to actually mitigate or avoid any damage to the environment. Another example is “Existing vegetation … would be avoided and preserved where practicable”. There is no commitment to preserve any wildlife and habitat values, water quality protection, and soil conservation.

In addition, the Pineywoods Mitigation and Conservation Area is not appropriate for mitigation of impacts in other watersheds like those of the Trinity River and San Jacinto River. Mitigation needs to be done in the watershed where the destruction and damage occus. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

70) Page 3-34, GISST Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species, this analysis is deficient because it “does not identify what specific species may be located within the grid cell”. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

71) Page 3-35, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, what is important is not that the Section 7 consultation process occurs at some time in the future. What is important is that the DEIS fails to tell the public and decision-makers now so they can review, comment on, and understand what impacts on state and endangered species will occur.

72) Page 3-35, Important Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats, what is important is not whether corridors are differentiating but what the impacts are on important terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Of course the corridors are not differentiating when the method of analysis is so crude and broad that it cannot provide important information about habitats.

73) Pages 3-35 and 3-36, TEAP Rarity, Diversity, Sustainability, and Composite, it is of great concern that an equivalent analysis was not done for Louisiana because the TEAP criteria do not exist for Louisiana.

A “may provide” answer for avoiding or minimizing potential impacts, which is provided throughout Chapter 3, is not good enough for the DEIS because it does not give a firm basis for choosing one corridor over another.

74) Page 3-52, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how can Tier I result in a Selected Alternative, called Preferred Alternative in Chapter 6, when all reasonable alternatives have not been compared (No Action Alternative and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative) regarding their environmental impacts. This is not legal under NEPA and CEQ regulations (Section 1502.14).

75) Page 3-53, Water Resources, GISST Stream, Density and Stream Crossing, this analysis is deficient because ephemeral streams are not included in the analysis. Ephemeral streams have an important impact on water quality and must be used in any stream analysis.

76) Page 3-54, Surface Water Findings Stream and River Crossing, groundwater and recharge area impacts are ignored even though groundwater is connected to surface water.

77) Pages 3-54 and 3-61, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, what does “where feasible and appropriate” mean regarding mitigation measures and best management practices for Section 401 and 404 permits?

78) Page 3-57, GISST TMDL/CWA 303(d), this is a deficient analysis because the five mile proximity analysis is not used in Louisiana. There must be an equivalent analysis used for all parts of the proposed project.

79) Page 3-61, GISST Floodplain, this analysis is deficient because 16 Texas counties and two Louisiana parishes are not given equivalent analysis. In addition, Executive Order 11988 on floodplains is not mentioned with regard to how I-69/TTC will comply.

80) Page 3-63, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how is “substantial damage” defined?

81) Pages 3-67 and 3-68, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how are “appropriate and practicable measures; “appropriate and practicable steps”; “greatest extent possible”; “appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation”; and “appropriate and practicable minimization” defined?

82) Pages 3-69 and 3-70, Groundwater, “how is “ecological functions of aquifers” defined? What amount of the recharge area will be crossed by the proposal in each segment and what is the environmental impact on the recharge area?

83) Page 3-70, GISST Managed Lands, the Sierra Club is concerned because all private lands that are protected for conservation purposes are not included in this analysis.

84) Page 3-71, Table 3.22, the name of the park in Section N is Lake Houston Park and not Lake Houston State Park. The Texas Parks and Wildlife department has allowed the City of Houston to take over management of what used to be Lake Houston State Park.

85) Page 3-72, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, how is “feasible or prudent” defined?

86) Page 3-75, GISST Agricultural Lands, this analysis is deficient because it does not provide information about agricultural soils, land quality, production, and does not identify prime or unique farmland soils.

87) Page 3-78, GISST Ozone Non-attainment, this analysis is deficient because it does not include an emissions inventory for air pollutants that will be generated by this proposal, including those emitted due to secondary development. The new EPA ozone eight hour standard must be used (0.075 ppm).

88) Page 3-80, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, this analysis is deficient because it waits until Tier II before considering the “potential effects of an I-69/TTC facility on air quality”. This information must be provided now as required by CEQ regulations, Sections 1500.1(b), 1500.2(e), 1501.2(B), 1502.1, 1502.14, 1502.14(a), 1502.14(b), 1502.14(d), and 1502.15(a), (b), and (c).

89) Page 3-83, GISST Percent Minority, this analysis is deficient because it is so broad it cannot analyzed minority areas like Kendleton which is majority African-American and Hispanic and could be heavily impacted by the proposal.

90) Page 3-88, Economy, this analysis is deficient because it does not include an estimated cost of the proposal.

91) Page 3-96, Tier Two Method and Potential Mitigation, this noise analysis is deficient because it does not estimate what the noise increase in decibels will be. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

92) Page 3-102, Energy, this analysis is deficient because it does not discuss the changed energy situation including peak oil, $100/barrel oil, $4/gallon gasoline, and our increased dependence on foreign oil via using more cars and trucks. The DEIS fails to inform the public and decision-makers so they can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal.

93) Page 3-103, Construction, what is the definition for “feasible and reasonable”?

94) Pages 3-103 and 3-104, Relationship of Local Short Term Uses vs. Long-Term Productivity, this section is incorrectly titled. It should be “The relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” as stated in NEPA.

The DEIS fails to discuss the increased use of oil and gasoline and the vulnerability of Texas using this proposal road versus other alternatives and gives no analysis for the No Action Alternative or the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative.

95) Page 3-105, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources, the DEIS gives no analysis for the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative. In addition, there will be the permanent loss of wildlife habitat and all natural processes and ecological functions (natural capital). The Sierra Club is opposed to using purchase options because they illegally subvert the alternative comparison and selection process. See Sections 1502(f) and (g) of CEQ regulations.

97) Page 4-1, Planned Roadway Projects, the list provided fails to show the connection to road projects like the proposed Grand Parkway and U.S. 290 which may be used by I-69/TTC to enter the Houston MTZ. All potential environmental impacts must be analyzed now.

98) Page 4-2, Hurricane Evacuation Routes, the DEIS refers to “developed a statewide evacuation plan” regarding emergency management. However, there appears to be no official state “hurricane evacuation plan” for Texas or for a specific area, like Houston. Hurricane evacuation is much more than providing additional capacity. It also entails good coordination, communications, adequate personnel, appropriate training, and acquisition and maintenance of equipment. A real hurricane evacuation study would include all of these elements and more with public participation and input to ensure that people can be moved safely and property protected in as expeditious and economical a fashion as possible. And the results of that study would be provided to the public to review, comment on, and understand. This has not happened for I-69/TTC.

99) Page 4-4, 4.2 Transportation Planning Evaluation Method, the Sierra Club is concerned that environmental factors were not considered in the transportation planning evaluation process even though they should be because they affect the economic and engineering features the proposed project.

100) Page 4-6, User Benefit Analysis and Supplemental Performance Index Analysis, the Sierra Club is concerned that environmental factors were not considered in the transportation planning evaluation process (user benefit analysis and supplemental performance index analysis) even though they should be because they affect the economic and engineering features the proposed project.

101) Page 4-14, System Connectivity Analysis, the Sierra Club is very concerned that no estimated cost of the proposal is given. It is not clear who the system users are when a benefit has been calculated. The Sierra Club does not understand how a system user benefit can be calculated when the actual cost of the proposal is not estimated. Total cost and maintenance costs have a lot to do with whether there will be system user benefits and how much they are.

102) Page 4-16, 4.6 Supplemental Rail Review, the analysis for rail is non-existent. It makes no sense to talk about high-speed rail or commuter rail when the proposal does not go to cities.

103) Pages 5-1 through 5-21, 5.0 Indirect and Cumulative Effects, the proposers ignore the requirements in NEPA and CEQ regulations that quantification of effects must be provided.

The proposers have not provided the “hard look” at environmental impacts. Words are used which are conclusory in nature and which do not clearly define the environmental impacts of I-69/TTC is. In a recent court ruling a judge ruled in favor of the Sierra Club and against the National Park Service about assessment of impacts and the methodology used which was deemed inadequate, arbitrary, and capricious. United States District Judge John D. Bates stated, in part, in Sierra Club v. Mainella the following:

“Because NPS’s impairment analysis served as its NEPA analysis, the flaws in the impairment analysis also apply to the environmental assessment. Those shortcomings are, first, NPS’s lack of explanation as to how it reached its conclusions, typically simply describing the impacts followed by a conclusion that the impact was not an impairment or, in the case of NEPA, that it was not “significant”; and second, the use of the descriptors “negligible”, “minor”, “moderate”, and “major” that are largely undefined or are defined in a manner that includes few objective bounds … nowhere explained the basis for its conclusion that potentially “moderate” impacts could not be significant under NEPA … There is no basis in the administrative record for accepting NPS’s conclusion that even a “minor” impact is not significant under NEPA, because there are no determinate criteria offered for distinguishing a “minor” impact from a “moderate” or “major” impact other than NPS’s conclusory say-so … the scoping regulations still require the agency to explain why they {dismissed issues} will not have a significant effect on the human environment … Thus, the EA must provide a realistic evaluation of the total impacts and cannot isolate a proposed project, viewing it in a vacuum … In short, NPS’s three findings of no significant impact are, the court concludes, arbitrary and capricious for many of the same reasons as are the impairment determinations. In each decision, NPS has failed to take a “hard look” at impacts on the Preserve from adjacent surface activities, as evidenced by the lack of explanations supporting its conclusions and, in particular, its methodology of describing impacts using conclusory labels and then setting forth a bare conclusion without explanation as to the significance of an impact. NPS also failed to provide an adequate cumulative impacts analysis that included the other oil and gas operations in the Gore Baygall Unit … However, NPS’s ultimate conclusions that the drilling activities would not result in impairment of park resources and values under the Organic Act, or a significant impact on the human environment under NEPA, are not supported by reasoned explanations, and hence are arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion.”

The proposers are repeating the inadequate NEPA analyses in I-69/TTC DEIS that was the basis for the successful Sierra Club v. Mainella decision. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the proposers conduct analyses for I-69/TTC DEIS that does not use conclusory statements.

For the DEIS, dictionary usage of words or phrases will not suffice to provide the public and decision-makers with a clear picture of what the intensity, significance, and context of environmental impacts are. In other words, an all qualitative assessment, analysis, and evaluation of environmental impacts is not sufficient to deal with the clearly articulated CEQ requirements in Section 1502.14, that the EIS “should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public”.

1. Quantitative assessment, analysis, and evaluation are necessary to ensure that alternatives and environmental impacts are clearly defined and shown in the EIS. As stated in the CEQ NEPA implementing regulations, Section 1500.1(b), Purpose, “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens … The information must be of high quality. Accurate scientific analysis … are essential to implementing NEPA”.

2. As stated in Section 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses.”

3. As stated in Section 1502.8, “which will be based upon the analysis and supporting data from the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts.”

4. As stated in Section 1502.18(b), about the Appendix, “Normally consist of material which substantiates any analysis fundamental to the impact statement”.

5. As stated in Section 1502.24, “Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, of the discussions and analyses … They shall identify any methodologies used and shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for conclusions in the statement.”

The analysis that the proposers must conduct for the DEIS is much more than “best professional judgment”. “Best professional judgment” is where a group of people, using their experience, decide what is important. This level of assessment, analysis, and evaluation for environmental impacts and alternatives is an insufficient foundation upon which to base a DEIS.

The proposers must define what phrases and words mean so that the public can review, comment on, and understand what the proposers refer to regarding this proposal. Decision-makers also need to know this information.

The qualitative description of phrases used to describe environmental impacts or the protectiveness of an alternative does not provide the public with the degree of comparison required by the CEQ’s mandatory NEPA implementing regulations. These regulations state, in Section 1502.14, Alternatives including the proposed action, that, “This section is the heart of the EIS … it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public … Devote substantial treatment to each alternative in detail … so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits.”

The CEQ also states, in Section 1502.16 and (d), Environmental consequences, that, “This section forms the scientific and analytic basis for the comparisons … The environmental effects of alternatives including the proposed action the comparisons under Section 1502.14 will be based on this discussion.”

It is key that the proposers clearly compare and make apparent the distinctiveness of each alternative and its impacts or protectiveness. This is not accomplished when phrases are used qualitatively instead of quantitatively with more detailed and clear descriptions of qualitative information. The Sierra Club requests that the proposers clarify and detail clearly the comparative differences between each alternative and define clearly what the words or phrases used mean.

In addition, the DEIS cumulative impacts analysis is incomplete and does not cover all cumulative impacts and projects that cause cumulative impacts. Particularly of concern is how the DEIS fails to quantify secondary impacts caused by development induced or encouraged by the I-69/TTC and other roads that will be expanded in the project area.

The actual quantified cumulative impacts due to these developments are not presented in the DEIS. Some of the questions that should be answered via analysis of cumulative impacts for I-69/TTC in the project area about secondary development include:

1. How many additional roads will be built?

2. How much additional fragmentation will occur?

3. What amount of storm water run-off will be created?

4. What levels of water pollutants will be generated in the storm water run-off?

5. What impacts will this additional storm water run-off have on aquatic life?

6. How much additional stream bank and bed scouring will occur?

7. What amount of what types of air pollutants will be generated?

8. What health, welfare, and environment effects will this air pollution have?

9. What are the environmental impacts of light pollution?

There are many cumulative impact questions that must be asked and answered. There are many cumulative impacts that must be quantified and cause/effect analysis provided. The DEIS is silent on these site-specific environmental questions.

The Sierra Club requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and a supplementary DEIS be prepared with a public scoping period and then put out for public review and comment for the issue of cumulative impacts and actions that cause cumulative impacts. We recommend that the basis of the cumulative impacts analysis, assessment, and evaluation be the CEQ’s document on cumulative impacts. This document is entitled, “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act” and was published in January 1997.

Some of the especially important quotes from this document include:

a. On page v, “Only by reevaluating and modifying alternatives in light of the projected cumulative effects can adverse consequences be effectively avoided or minimized. Considering cumulative effects in also essential to developing appropriate mitigation and monitoring its effectiveness.”

b. On page v, “By evaluating resource impact zones and the life cycle of effects rather than projects, the analyst can properly bound the cumulative effects analysis. Scoping can also facilitate the interagency cooperation needed to identify agency plans and other actions whose effects might overlap those of the proposed action.”

c. On page vi, “When the analyst describes the affected environment, he or she is setting the environmental baseline and thresholds of environmental change that are important for analyzing cumulative effects. Recently developed indicators of ecological integrity (e.g., index of biotic integrity for fish) and landscape conditions (e.g., fragmentation of habitat patches) can be used as benchmarks of accumulated change over time … GIS technologies provide improved means to analyze historical change in indicators of the condition of resources, ecosystems, and human communities, as well as the relevant stress factors.” The DEIS uses a GIS but not to analyze historical change in indicators of the conditions, resources, ecosystems, human communities, and relevant stress factors.

d. On page vi, “Most often, the historical context surrounding the resource is critical to developing these baselines and thresholds and to supporting both imminent and future decision-making.”

e. On page … the consequences of human activities will vary from those that were predicted and mitigated … therefore, monitoring the accuracy of predictions and the success of mitigation measures is critical.” The DEIS does not set up a process and procedures to monitor the accuracy of predictions and the success of mitigation measures.

f. On page vi, “Special methods are also available to address the unique aspects of cumulative effects, including carrying capacity analysis, ecosystem analysis, economic impacts analysis, and social impact analysis.” The DEIS does not or does little to address carrying capacity, ecosystem, economic impacts, and social impacts analyses.

g. On page vii, Table E-1, “CEA Principles … Cumulative effects analysis …Address additive, countervailing, and synergistic effects … Look beyond the life of the action.” The DEIS does not list and discuss additive, countervailing, and synergistic effects or look beyond the life of the GP.

h. On page 1, “The range of actions that must be considered includes not only the projects proposal but all connected and similar actions that could contribute to cumulative effects.” The DEIS does not look the cumulative impacts of all connected and similar actions, like other road projects.

i. On page 2, Table 1-1, “Federal Agency, … Federal Highway Administration … Cumulative Effects Situations … cumulative commercial and residential development and highway construction associated with suburban sprawl.”

j. On page 3, “The purpose of cumulative effects analysis, therefore is to ensure that federal decisions consider the full range of consequences of actions … If cumulative effects become apparent as agency programs are being planned or as larger strategies and policies are developed then potential cumulative effects should be analyzed at that times.” In the DEIS all road widening actions and their cumulative impacts in the area of interest have not be presented and quantified.

k. On page 3, Cumulative effects analysis necessarily involves assumptions and uncertainties, but useful information can be put on the decision-making table now … Important research and monitoring programs can be identified that will improve analyses in the future, but their absence should not be used as a reason for not analyzing cumulative effects to the extent possible now … adaptive management provisions for flexible project implementation can be incorporated into the selected alternative.”

l. On page 4, “The Federal Highway Administration and state transportation agencies frequently make decisions on highway projects that may not have significant direct environmental effects, but that may induce indirect and cumulative effects by permitting other development activities that have significant effects on air and water resources at a regional or national scale, The highway and other development activities can reasonably be foreseen as “connected actions.” The GP, Segment E, has significant direct environmental impacts as well as significant cumulative impacts.

m. On page 7, “Increasingly, decision makers are recognizing the importance of looking at their projects in the context of other development in the community or region (i.e., of analyzing the cumulative effects) … Without a definitive threshold, the NEPA practitioner should compare the cumulative effects of multiple actions with appropriate national, regional, state, or community goals to determine whether the total effect is significant … Cumulative effects results from spatial (geographic) and temporal (time) crowding of environmental perturbations. The effects of human activities will accumulate when a second perturbation occurs at a site before the ecosystem can fully rebound from the effect of the first perturbation.”

n. On page 8, Table 1-2, lists 8 principles of cumulative effects analysis (copy enclosed). The DEIS does not use or uses poorly these principles in analyzing cumulative effects.

o. On page 19, “The first step in identifying future actions is to investigate the plans of the proponent agency and other agencies in the area. Commonly, analysts only include those plans for actions which are funded or for which other NEPA analysis is being prepared. This approach does not meet the letter or intent of CEQ’s regulations … The analyst should develop guidelines as to what constitutes “reasonably foreseeable future actions” based on planning process within each agency … In many cases, local government planning agencies can provide useful information on the likely future development of the region, such as master plans. Local zoning requirements, water supply plans, economic development plans, and various permitting records will help in identifying reasonably foreseeable private actions … These plans can be considered in the analysis, but it is important to indicate in the NEPA analysis whether these plans were presented by the private party responsible for originating the action. Whenever speculative projections of future development are used, the analyst should provide an explicit description of the assumptions involved … NEPA litigation … has made it clear that “reasonable forecasting” is implicit in NEPA and that it is the responsibility of federal agencies to predict the environmental effects of proposed actions before they are fully known.” The DEIS does not provide the explicit description of the assumptions involved for the development contemplated.

p. On page 23, “Characterizing the affected environment in a NEPA analysis that addresses cumulative effects requires special attention to defining baseline conditions. These baseline conditions provide the context for evaluating environmental consequences and should include historical cumulative effects to the extent feasible.” Historical cumulative effects, in most cases, are missing from the DEIS.

q. On page 29, “Lastly, trends analysis of change in the extent and magnitude of stresses in critical for projecting the future cumulative effects.” Trends analysis of all cumulative impacts are not included in the DEIS.

r. On page 29, “Government regulations and administrative standards … often influence developmental activity and the resultant cumulative stress on resources, ecosystems, and human communities.” The DEIS does not address these governmental actions, like the creation of MUD and similar utility districts and how this affects development and cumulative impacts.

s. On page 31, “Cumulative effects occur through the accumulation of effects over varying periods of time. For this reason, an understanding of the historical context of effects is critical to assessing the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of proposed actions. Trends data can be used … to establish the baseline for the affected environment more accurately (i.e., by incorporating variation over time) … to evaluate the significance of effects relative to historical degradation (i.e., by helping to estimate how close the resource is to a threshold of degradation) … to predict the effects of the actions (i.e., by using the model of cause and effects established by past actions).”

t. On pages 38-40, “Using information gathered to describe the affected environment, the factors that affect resources (i.e., the causes in the cause-and-effect relationships) can be identified and a conceptual model of cause and effect developed … The cause-and-effect model can aid in the identification of past, present, and future actions that should be considered in the analysis … The cause-and effect relationships for each resource are used to determine the magnitude of the cumulative effect resulting from all actions included in the analysis … one of the most useful approaches for determining the likely response of the resource … to environmental change is to evaluate the historical effects of activities similar to those under consideration.” The DEIS does not provide historical data about past cumulative effects that other freeways and roads have encouraged or induced.

u. On page 41, “The analyst’s primary goal is to determine the magnitude and significance of the environmental consequences of the proposed action in the context of the cumulative effects of other past, present, and future actions … The critical element in this conceptual model is defining an appropriate baseline or threshold condition of the resource.” The DEIS does not provide the magnitude for most cumulative impacts that are caused by the GP or other actions.

v. On page 43, “Situations can arise where an incremental effect that exceeds the threshold of concern for cumulative effects results, not from the proposed action, but the reasonably foreseeable but still uncertain future actions.” The GP by itself will have significant impacts but these will be dwarfed by the cumulative impacts of secondary development encouraged or induced by the GP. These secondary cumulative impacts are not fully explained or quantified in the DEIS.

w. On page 45, “The significance of effects should be determined based on context and intensity … Intensity refers to the severity of effect … As discussed above, the magnitude of an effect reflects relative size or amount of an effect. Geographic extent considers how widespread the effect might be. Duration and frequency refers to whether the effect is a one-time event, intermittent, or chronic.” The DEIS is weak in defining the significance of effects using intensity, magnitude, geographic extent, and duration and frequency and quantifying these factors of effects.

x. On page 45, “Determinations of significance … are the focus of analysis because they lead to additional (more costly) analysis or to inclusion of additional mitigation (or a detailed justification for not implementing mitigation) … the project proponent should avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects by modifying alternatives … in most cases, however, avoidance or minimization are more effective than remediating unwanted effects.”

y. On page 51, “different resource effects that cumulatively affect interconnected systems must be addressed in combination.”

104) Pages 5-1 and 5-2, 5.1 Introduction, it is simply disingenuous to say that “Based on the general nature of the indirect and cumulative effects analysis in Tier One, no differentiation could be made among the corridors’ potential to generate indirect of induced growth affects. Therefore, these issues are not distinguishing factors in identifying a Recommended Preferred Alternative.”

NEPA and CEQ regulations do not state that if alternatives have indirect or cumulative effects that are, as the proposers state, “no differentiation … no distinguishing factors” then the environmental impacts do not have to be revealed and assessed, evaluated, and analyzed comparatively. But that is exactly what the proposers do in an illegal end-run around NEPA and CEQ regulations. This is arbitrary and capricious and against the law. As the proposers well know they have not revealed or analyzed the environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) for the No Action Alternative and for the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative.

105) Page 5-2, Step 1 – Define Study Area, the proposers have not revealed or analyzed the environmental impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative) for the No Action Alternative and for the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative. The public and decision-makers must have this information now about the entire proposed project so they can review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of this proposal.

106) Page 5-3, Step 2 – Identify Effects of Selecting a New Location Corridor Alternative, the proposers state “it is recognized that if the New Location Corridor Alternative is selected there may be effects to land use, land use planning, and land values associated with the local and regional economy.” So the Sierra Club asks, “Why is this information, the environmental impacts that could occur, not in the DEIS?”

107) Page 5-3, Step 3 – Identify Indirect Effects of Construction and Operation of an I-69/TTC Facility, the proposers state “the selection of a New Location Corridor Alternative does not predict where the I-69/TTC facility alignments may ultimately occur within the corridor.” This is a cop-out, inaccurate, statement. In fact estimates can be made to determine what the approximate environmental impacts would be, in other words quantification.

However, the proposers have so distorted the analysis process that they claim this cannot be done. Certainly, this has been done with the Grand Parkway EISs that have come out even when the exact corridor location was not known. Certainly, it is possible to estimate how much water will run-off a certain volume of pavement; it is possible to estimate the water pollutants that will run-off with that water volume; it is possible to estimate air emissions from a road; it is possible to estimate specific habitat types that will be damaged or destroyed. It is possible to estimate many environmental impacts now. The proposers just don’t want to do so because environmental analysis now would reveal massive environmental impacts. Under NEPA and CEQ regulations it is not legal to avoid analyzing and quantifying environmental impacts. The public and decision-makers need this information to review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of this proposal.

There is a body of scientific research that demonstrates the approximate environmental destruction that induced travel from transportation causes. The proposers ignore this. The public and decision-makers need this information to review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of this proposal. Attachment 2

108) Pages 5-3 and 5-4, Step 4 – Identify Strategies for Evaluating Tier Two Indirect Effects, the proposers state “TxDOT is in the process of developing specific guidance on the assessment of indirect effects.” The CEQ regulations have been in existence since 1978 (30 years) and all this time TxDOT has had a legal obligation to follow those regulations which require analysis of indirect environmental impacts. It is not an excuse now or at any time in the past 30 years for TxDOT to state it is “in the process of developing specific guidance on assessment of indirect effects”. Why was this guidance not put together 30 years ago? The proposers are negligent.

109) Pages 5-4 through 5-13, 5.3 Findings, the proposers fail to quantify the environmental impacts of Terrestrial and Aquatic Resources Including: Vegetation and Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species, and Important Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats; Water Resources Including: Surface Water, Water Quality, Floodplains, Wetlands, and Groundwater; Public Land; Agricultural Land; air Quality, Hazardous Waste, Social Characteristics Including; Population, Community Facility and Neighborhood/Community Cohesion, Environmental Justice; Economic Resources and Characteristics; Land Use; Cultural Resources; Noise; Utilities; Mineral Resources; and Visual Resources for the alternatives provided: No Action Alternative, New Location Corridor Alternative, and Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative.

On page 5-5, Public Land, how is “feasible and prudent” defined?

On page 5-6, Agricultural Land, why should this proposal “accommodate induced development?

On Pages 5-6 and 5-7, Air Quality, what are the air pollution impacts of regional haze, air toxics, and ozone due to this proposal?

On pages 5-7 and 5-8, Social Characteristics Including: Population, Community Facility and Neighborhood/Community Cohesion, Environmental Justice, what are the quantified environmental impacts on the community of Kendleton?

On pages 5-8 and 5-9, Economic Resources and Characteristics, what is the estimated cost of this proposal? What are the induced land use effects?

On pages 5-9 and 5-10, Land Use, what are the specific habitat type losses and the natural capital and ecological processes and functions losses that this proposal will cause?

110) Pages 5-13 through 5-21, 5.4 Cumulative Effects Assessment, see our comments above about cumulative impacts analysis. The CEQ document “Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act”, published in January 1997, should be used to determine cumulative impacts now in this DEIS.

On pages 5-14 through 5-16, the idea that the DEIS does not and cannot estimate the amount of land that will be taken for right-of-way, or the wetlands; prime and unique agricultural lands; and national forest land that will be impacted is unacceptable. The public and decision-makers have a right to know this information so they can review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of the proposal.

On page 5-17, Step 5 – Identify Other Reasonably Foreseeable Projects, the proposers state “These planned projects are listed … and are assumed to be reasonably foreseeable in the context of NEPA for this assessment … Nearly 50 percent of these projects were located in the Houston metropolitan area”. It is unacceptable that the environmental impacts of these proposed projects are not provided to the public and the projects themselves are kept in the Technical Support Data File and not revealed to the public.

On page 5-20, Steps 6-7 – Identify and Assess Cumulative Effects and Report Results, the proposers state “transportation corridors that are one-half mile to four miles in width rather than detailed alignment level alternatives, it was not possible to quantify any foreseeable resource specific cumulative effects”. This is an unacceptable excuse to ignore NEPA and CEQ regulations which require that you quantify environmental impacts including cumulative effects. See our comments above which state the specific sections of CEQ regulations that the proposers violate with this excuse.

On page 5-20, Wetlands, Agricultural Land, National Forest Land, the proposers suggest that the Section 404 permitting process will be used but in a previous statement in the DEIS (page 3-68) the Letter of Permission Procedure (LOPP) may be used which could reduce public involvement; that it is not “possible to quantify cumulative effects to agricultural lands”; that “induced indirect development could incrementally contribute to cumulative impact” for national forest lands. But there is no environmental analysis, quantification, assessment, and evaluation for cumulative impacts. This is not acceptable or legal under NEPA and CEQ regulations.

On page 5-20, Step 8 – Assess Need for Mitigation, the proposers state “it is not possible to quantitatively assess the direct, indirect, or cumulative effects of the project”. This is not legal under NEPA and CEQ regulations and is an excuse to hide from the public and decision-makers important information that they need to review, comment on, and understand for the DEIS.

On page 5-21, Environmental Management System (EMS), an EMS does not provide the environmental impact analysis, assessment, and evaluation that is needed for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts and an EMS does not assure that better environmental results will occur. There are many businesses that have EMSs but who were caught violating environmental laws and regulations. A commitment is needed.

111) Page 5-21, Step 8 – Assess Need for Mitigation, there is no analysis, evaluation, and assessment of light pollution and its impacts due to the proposal and the secondary development it causes. The Sierra Club highly recommends a book, “Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting”, edited by Catherine Rich and Travis Longcore, Island Press, 2006.

Titles of some of the chapters in this book include: Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Terrestrial Mammals; Bats and Their Insect Prey at Streetlights; Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Migrating Birds; Road Lighting and Grassland Birds: Local Influence of Road Lighting on a Black-Tailed Godwit Population; Night Lights and Reptiles: Observed and Potential Effects; Observed and Potential Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Anuran Amphibians; Influence of Artificial Illumination on the Nocturnal Behavior and Physiology of Salamanders; Artificial Night Lighting and Fishes; Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Moths; Artificial Light at Night in Freshwater Habitats and Its Potential Ecological Effects; and Physiology of Plant Responses to Artificial Lighting.

This book has much of the information that is necessary to describe the environmental impacts of light pollution and should be used with other sources to discuss the environmental impacts of light pollution. This information is needed so that the public and decision-makers can review, comment on, and understand the full environmental impacts of the proposal and the secondary development that it causes. Attachment 3

112) Page 6-1, 6.0 Recommended Preferred Alternative Identification and 6.1 No Action Alternative, the Sierra Club does not understand how the proposers can choose a preferred alternative when not all alternatives have been assessed, evaluated, and analyzed. For instance the DEIS fails to assess the environmental impacts of connected, indirect, and cumulative actions in Mexico, Louisiana, and other countries or states that may be affected. This is required by NEPA and CEQ regulations. In addition, where and what utilities will occur in what parts of the proposal and the width of the right-of-way are not revealed. Since this proposal may last 50 years an analysis of this timeframe of implementation should be in the DEIS. It is obvious that the entire I-69/TTC consists of “independent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification (Section 1508.25).

The No Action Alternative has not actually been analyzed in the DEIS because the proposers have put off the analysis, evaluation, and assessment of environmental impacts to some time in the future when federal and other monies are available for the approval and implementation of proposed projects in the No Action Alternative. This is illegal under NEPA and CEQ regulations.

It is not appropriate that Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative is not analyzed now and is automatically advanced to Tier II. This cannot be done legally under NEPA and CEQ regulations which require comparative analysis of environmental alternatives. The proposers evade this by advancing the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative and not doing any environmental analysis on the No Action Alternative.

113) Page 6-4, 6.3 Conclusions, the DEIS states “Connectivity to the two MTZs the three Potential Connection Zones is also critical to addressing the purpose and Need of the project.” If this is so then the proposals and alternatives to connection I-69/TTC to these areas should be in the DEIS. This DEIS is the only time that the public has to see the complete impacts of the entire proposed project. The Sierra Club objects that this has not been done.

114) Page 6-5, Corridor Preservation, the Sierra Club believes that purchasing options for a corridor is illegal because it violates CEQ regulations, Sections 1502.2(f) and (g), which do not allow agencies to commit resources prejudicing selection of alternatives before making a final decision and requires that the EIS serves as the means of assessing the environmental impacts of proposed agency actions, rather than justifying decisions already made.

115) Page 6-6, Letter of Permission Procedure with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Sierra has never heard of a LOPP and is opposed to the issuance of one since the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are too great to allow Section 10/404 actions without nationwide or individual permits. In addition, this action would keep the public from commenting on the proposal. Since the proposers are keeping the public from commenting on the environmental impacts of the proposal now, regarding Section 10/404 issues, when would the public get to have its say? We oppose this method of shutting out the public from commenting on environmental impacts of I-69/TTC.

116) Pages 7-2 through 7-4, 7.3 Technical Advisory Committee and Steering Committee, these two committees are biased in favor of what the proposers want which is forward progress and support for I-69/TTC. Of the 31 members of the TAC, 16 of the members are FHWA or TxDOT employees. For the SC, of the 20 members, 14 of the members are FHWA or TxDOT employees. There is no way for the DEIS not to move forward since both committees are dominated by a majority of the proposers employees which is a conflict of interest.

117) Page 9-1, 9.0 Comments and Coordination, the DEIS states “Public involvement and coordination with agencies and elected officials are key elements in the development of the project. The purpose of this public involvement and agency coordination effort is to offer every reasonable opportunity to interested citizens, civic groups, public officials, and state and federal resource agencies to participate in the project decision-making process.” But the reality is that the TAC and SC are controlled by the proposers and the public and non-governmental organizations were not allowed to participate. The public has spoken for years against I-69/TTC. The proposers have ignored the public will.

Charging the public for a CD and approximately $370 for a hard copy of the DEIS is not inclusive and does not encourage people to participate. This type of petty action strikes at the very heart of NEPA and CEQ regulations which require public participation and the encouragement of public participation.

118) Page 9-2, I-69/TTC Mailing List, it is of interest that in Chapter 8 in this DEIS, 8.0 DEIS Distribution List, there is not a single non-governmental organization or citizen on the distribution list. This does not document the proposers concern for public participation.

119) Page 9-2, I-69/TTC Website, the comments/mailing list section of the website is a failure. I sent a question to TxDOT in February and have never had my question answered. Enclosed is a copy of the question I asked and the generic response saying that the question will be “review and consideration”. Attachment 4

120) Page 9-3, TAC and SC, the TAC and SC do not facilitate the process but dominate it so that I-69/TTC will continue forward because the proposers are in the majority on both of the committees. There are no citizens or non-governmental organizations on the committees. There is no chance of voting by the TAC and SC against the proposal. This is due to a conflict of interest by those who want the proposal. The proposers are in the majority on the two committees that vote on the proposal. A no vote is not possible.

121) Page 9-4, Agency Scoping, notice that no citizens or non-governmental organizations were invited to participate.

122) Page 9-6, Table 9.1, what are the “state-of-the-art computer techniques to automatically generate sets of planning routes”? Please enlighten the public so it knows how Quantm works.

123) Page 9-7, Table 9.2, why was the Lower Neches River Authority not invited to the scoping meeting?

124) Page 9-23, 9.6 Consideration of Comments, Comment Evaluation Process, this consideration of comments process appears to be set-up to ignore public comments. By requiring that comments pass all three “initial screening criteria” to be “advanced for further analysis” the proposers effectively ensure that almost all comments go to the “project’s repository database” where little or nothing happens. If the proposers are interested in public comments then they should list the total number of comments they received and how many of those comments support and or oppose the proposal. By not revealing this information the proposers make it obvious they do not want to publicly reveal what public support exists for this proposal.

125) Page 9-24, 9.8 Public Hearing and Draft DEIS Review Comment Period, the DEIS states “The Tier One DEIS is available to the general public and agencies as indicated in the distribution list”. This shows the limiting effect that the proposers have on the public because only by having a computer or going to the library can the public access for free the DEIS. Otherwise the public must pay for a CD or about $370 for a hard copy. The distribution list has no citizens’ names or non-governmental organizations on it. This violates the spirit and letter of NEPA and CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects to this parsimoniousness regarding public information.

126) Page 12-1, 12.1 Glossary, Community Cohesion, the definition is not complete. The definition talks about “connections between and within communities” but does not explain what these connections are. The definition is incomplete.

127) Page 12-2, 12.1 Glossary, Concurrence, this definition documents that the process in this DEIS is biased. It requires that the TAC and SC agree on advancing the I-69/TTC proposal. Yet both the TAC and SC are dominated by the proposers and have a majority of FHWA and TxDOT employees on them. Therefore there is no way that any rejection of the proposal is possible since both agencies are actively pushing the proposal. This is a conflict of interest and the Sierra Club objects to this biased process.

128) Page 12-2, 12.1 Glossary, Ecologically Significant Stream Segment, this definition is different than the one used in the DEIS. The one in the DEIS states that TPWD has analyzed for ecologically significant stream segments. This is true for many segments but not true for many other segments. So all the ecologically significant stream segments have not been found and analyzed by TPWD. In addition, the Texas Legislature has only approved about 16 ecologically significant stream segments because most of the Regional Water Planning Groups have refused to designate and place ecologically significant stream segments in the Regional Water Plans that the Texas Water Development Board puts together as the official state water plan. So this means there are very few streams that qualify as ecologically significant stream segments even though many of streams not so designated are ecologically significant. The Sierra Club objects to this biased process.

129) Page 12-6, 12.1 Glossary, Supplemental Performance Index, this index does not include environmental factors and so is biased by engineering factors and does not give environmental factors the same consideration at the earliest time in the process when the supplemental performance index is developed.

130) Page 12-7, 1.1 Glossary, User Benefit, this economic ranking factor does not include environmental factors and so is biased by economic factors and does not give environmental factors the same consideration at the earliest time in the process when the User Benefit is developed.

Volume II, Figures, I-69/TTC Study, Tier I DEIS

1) Figures 2.1, 2.3, and 2.4, perhaps it is just a coincidence but the Sierra Club finds it interesting that the arrow pointing to the MTZ in the Houston area, actually points to Segment C of the Grand Parkway within the MTZ, which has not been approved or constructed. Perhaps this is a Freudian slip or perhaps it speaks to the real connection of I-69/TTC and the proposed Grand Parkway that should be admitted and the environmental ramifications analyzed in this DEIS.

Is it also coincidence that at the public hearing in Rosenberg, Texas on February 25, 2008, on the large boards showing Reasonable Corridor C, that the proposed Grand Parkway was already drawn in, showing its closeness to the Reasonable Corridor and the Reasonable Connector Corridor but in Volume II of this DEIS the proposed Grand Parkway is not drawn in on the same map, RC-C2, Figure 2.29? The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

2) Figures 2.24, 2.29, 2.35, 2.69, 2.72, 2.85, and 2.87 show the Recommended Preferred Alternative listed on Table 6.1, page 6-1, of Volume I of the DEIS. However, these figures reveal no real discernable difference between them and the corridors that were not chosen. The public cannot tell by simply looking at the figures any significant differences between the corridors. It makes it evident that there are really no choices at all between corridors. They all are very much alike.

3) Figure 3.12, shows little of the Katy Prairie as GISST Wildlife Habitat 4 and 5. This appears to the Sierra Club as a great weakness in the GISST data that is used. The assumption is that areas that are not shown in color code as Wildlife Habitat 4 and 5 are of lesser importance for wildlife. This certainly is not true for the Katy Prairie and we believe is not true for other areas as well.

The fact that this DEIS relies on an environmental analysis method that makes such a massive error for one of the most important wildlife areas in the State of Texas (the FEIS for the proposed Grand Parkway, Segment E, states on pages 3-36, 3-37, and 3-40, of Volume I, “The North American Waterfowl Management Plan identifies wetlands within the Katy Prairie as having international significance … Currently, the Katy Prairie is dominated by ranching and agriculture with substantial amounts of surface water that together provide an internationally substantial migration and wintering habitat for mid-continental waterfowl”) is of great concern and places in question the reliability of the environmental analysis provided in the DEIS.

The same is also true for Figures 3.31 and 3.85, which deal with TEAP Rarity 4 and 5 and GISST Managed Lands 5. There appears to be no recognition of the 20,000 acres that have been acquired on the Katy Prairie (including Nelson Farms and Warren Ranch) by the Katy Prairie Conservancy and their importance for wildlife, threatened, and endangered species. This is a good example of how private land conservation efforts are mostly ignored by the GISST and TEAP methodologies/processes. It is like these significant conservation efforts do not exist. What an incredible flaw in the environmental analysis process.

In a similar vein, Figures 3.55 and 3.56, ignore important ecologically significant streams in the GISST like Spring Creek and the West Fork of the San Jacinto River and Figures 3.79 and 3.80 ignore wetlands (GISST Wetlands 4 and 5) along the East Fork of the San Jacinto River and Spring Creek.

Further, in Figure 3.86, instead of using the actual federal property boundaries to show people what actual land is protected in Sam Houston National Forest (SHNF) and Davy Crocket National Forest (DCNF) the congressionally designated boundaries are used. This gives the public the erroneous idea that all of SHNF and DCNF are protected when only about one-third of the property within the congressionally designated boundaries is owned by the federal government. Also Lake Conroe is shown as GISST Managed Lands 5 when in fact except for the northern part, which is surrounded by SHNF, the rest is surrounded by private lands that have been developed as residential areas. Figure 3.86, is incorrect because it does not show Winters Bayou and Big Creek Scenic Areas in SHNF.

4) Figure 3.19, this is an example of GISST Federal Threatened and Endangered Species maps and evaluations. The problem is you cannot tell which threatened or endangered species is located via color coding and therefore as a member of the public you cannot determine if what you have seen matches what is on the map.

5) Figure 4.2, shows State Highway 122 in purple. Is SH 122 a possible connection to I-69/TTC that has been or will be studied? The proposers should list the possible connections to I-69/TTC that will be studied so the public and decision –makers can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

Volume III, Appendices A-F, I-69/TTC Study, Tier I DEIS

Appendix A, Purpose and Need Statement Support Document

1) This purpose and need statement is manifestly deficient. First, it does not include a total cost or range of costs for the proposed I-69/TTC. Taxpayers want to know what a proposal will cost them as one factor in consideration of whether they will support that proposal. This Appendix and the DEIS does not do this and are silent about any estimated costs.

At the very least this proposal could estimate costs of two alternatives: the most likely alternative to be implemented, construction of a four lane truck road and a six lane auto road, and the least likely alternative to be implemented, construction of a four lane truck road, a six lane auto road, two tracks of high-speed passenger rail, two tracks of commuter rail, two tracks of freight rail, and a utility corridor (petroleum, electricity, water, fiber optic, natural gas, and telecommunications). The best guess the Sierra Club has for the cost of this proposal (very inadequate admittedly) is that I-69-TTC will cost $20-30 billion. We believe this is an understatement of the costs but the Sierra Club should not have to guess like this in a DEIS which is supposed to provide and be based on facts.

Second, this purpose and need statement does not provide to total land base that would be required for implementation of the proposal. Again, taxpayers want to know the extent and magnitude of a proposal as one factor in consideration of whether they will support that proposal. The only information given is that the project area is about 650 miles long and the corridor would be up to 1200 feet wide. Using this information the Sierra Club calculated an acreage figure as follows:

1200 feet x 5,283 feet x 650 miles divided by 43,560 feet = 94,599 acres

This is the best estimate the Sierra Club can make with the information available in the DEIS. But the Sierra Club wonders why it has to make such an estimate in the first place? Why have the proposers not done this? And why does the purpose and need statement not provide this information? What kind of purpose and need statement is this when this simple, basic, information is not available? If the answer is no one knows, again the Sierra Club suggests that an acreage range could be determined, linked for example, to the two alternatives outlined above. Again, why would the public support a proposal if it does not know the size of that proposal?

2) Page 1-1, 1.1 Purpose and Need, the Sierra Club comments on the purpose and need statement are the same as those found in comment 4) for Volume I, Pages ES-2 and ES-3, Executive Summary, What is the Purpose and Need for the Project.

3) Page 1-2, 1.2 Study Are, how can a purpose and need statement not include a better description and possible alternatives for connections in the MTZs in Houston and Corpus Christi? This is particularly important since the proposers state on page 6-4, Volume I, I-69/TTC Study, Tier I DEIS, that “Connectivity to the two MTZs and three Potential Connection Zones is also critical to addressing the Purpose and Needs of the project.”

4) Page 2-3, 2.3 Project Status and Development, the proposers state “High priority corridor selections was based on:

1) Relieving congestion in metropolitan areas

2) Rerouting hazardous materials to avoid urban areas

3) Selecting corridors most likely to generate toll revenue

4) Potential for economic development opportunities”

These selection criteria do not make sense.

Since I-69/TTC has been moved west and north of Houston because it is growing so quickly how can it relieve congestion for people in Houston?

Since many hazardous material and waste sites are in or near Houston how can this proposal reduce the transportation of such materials?

The public is not supportive, in general of toll roads so why are the proposers forcing them on the public?

Why are the proposers interested in economic development opportunities? What are the opportunities? Who will specifically benefit? The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

5) Page 2-3, 2.3 Project Status and Development, it is of concern that the proposers admit that “The Tier Two process may address more than one mode”. In other words there are no guarantees that this proposal will only have additional truck and car lanes. It is of further concern that this DEIS is so deficient in environmental analysis that the proposers do not reveal the full environmental impacts of the complete project now, in Tier I, and will not do so in Tier II because they will use the excuse of “segments of independent utility” to ignore a total, comprehensive, cumulative and indirect impacts analysis for the entire project.

6) Page 2-7, 2.5 2000 I-69 (Corridor 18) Special Environmental Study, lists seven goals based on the overall purpose including:

1. To improve international and interstate movement of freight and people by ensuring a safe transportation system that is accessible, integrated, and efficient, while offering flexibility of the transportation choices

2. To enhance regional and local transportation systems by providing transportation capacity to meet current and future needs

3. To facilitate economic development and enhance economic growth opportunities domestically and internationally through efficient and flexible transportation

4. To facilitate connections to inter-modal facilities and major ports along the corridor

5. To facilitate the safe and efficient movement of people and goods by fostering a reduction in incident risk

6. To upgrade existing facilities to be utilized as I-69 within the corridor to design standards suitable for an interstate highway and commensurate with projected demand

7. To directly connect the urban areas Congress named with Interstate highway connections

Some of the questions that these goals bring out include:

1. What are the definitions used for “accessible”, “integrated”, “efficient”, and “flexibility”?

2. What transportation capacity is talked about?

3. What current and future needs are talked about?

4. Is the economic growth envisioned sustainable? How much economic growth is enough? How much economic growth is too much?

5. What connections to inter-modal facilities and major ports will be facilitated?

6. What is reduction in incident risk?

7. What is the goal in reduction in incident risk?

8. What does safe and efficient mean?

9. What people and goods will be moved and where from?

10. What are the other ways that urban areas can be connected using interstate highway connections than I-69/TTC?

Unfortunately, these questions are not answered.

7) Page 2-7, 2.5 2000 I-69 (Corridor 18) Special Environmental Study, states that “would lower existing accident rates”. From what? For what roads? Since I-69/TTC will be a new road what will its accident rate be? What do other studies show about existing highways that were built to reduce accidents on other roads? Ultimately roads fill up and become more dangerous.

8) Page 2-8, 2.5 2000 I-69 (Corridor 18) Special Environmental Study, states ”are noted as being accomplished more efficiently on a new route, new location facility”. It would be unbiased to also state that a new route and new location alternative is also the most environmentally destruction alternative.

In addition, where in the hurricane evacuation plan that currently exists for Houston does it say we need I-69/TTC? Another road can always be justified by saying it provides additional hurricane capacity. However, hurricane evacuation is much more than providing additional capacity. It also entails good coordination, communications, adequate personnel, appropriate training, and acquisition and maintenance of equipment. A real hurricane evacuation study would include all of these elements and more with public participation and input to ensure that people can be moved safely and property protected in as expeditious and economical a fashion as possible. And the results of that study would be provided to the public to review, comment on, and understand. This has not happened for I-69/TTC.

9) Page 3-4, 3.2 Trans-Texas Corridor Plan, states “The TTC System purpose is to:

1. Allow for faster and safer transportation of people and goods

2. Relieve congested roadways

3. Keep hazardous material out of populated areas

4. Provide a more reliable utility transmission system

5. Create new markets and jobs for the Texas economy

6. Develop new cities and enhance existing cities

This purpose begs a number of questions:

1. Which roadways will be relieved of congestion and for how long?

2. How much faster will goods be transported?

3. How much faster will people be transported?

4. How much safer will goods be transported?

5. How much safer will people be transported?

6. Which populated areas will hazardous material be kept out of?

7. What is the reliability of our current utility transmission system?

8. How much more reliable will the utility transmission system be if I-69/TTC is constructed?

9. What new markets and jobs will be created?

10. Where will the new markets and jobs be created?

11. Why does Texas need to develop new cities?

12. What existing cities will be enhanced?

These are all very important questions. But The Tier I DEIS does not answer them. It should. The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

10) Page 3-4, 3.2 Trans-Texas Corridor Plan, states “The TTC Plan includes connections between the corridor and nearby urban areas through existing highway system improvements … proposes that private enterprise or public-private partnerships could provide transportation between the corridor and destination cities.” What are these “existing highway system improvements”? What destination cities are being referred to? The public is being asked to support a “pig in a poke” since it is not told where I-69/TTC will connect with destination cities or what the environmental, economic, financial, and social impacts of the proposal are. The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

11) Page 3-4, 3.2 Tran-Texas Corridor Plan, states ”benefits identified could be safety, improved travel times, and greater reliability”. The DEIS does not discuss how much “improved travel times” and “greater reliability” will be. The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal. If the proposers are going to advocate based these supposed benefits then they should know where and how much of the benefits will occur.

12) Page 3-5, 3.2 Tran-Texas Corridor Plan, states “could help reduce pipeline damage and the related safety and environmental consequences”. If this is so why is there nothing in the DEIS that discusses what the current pipeline damage and related safety and environmental consequences are? How much will I-69/TTC resolve this problem? How much of a problem is it now? The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

13) Page 3-6, 3.5 Texas Department of Transportation Strategic Plan 2007-2011, states “These strategies are:

1. Use all available financial tools to build transportation projects

2. Empower local and regional leaders to solve local and regional transportation problems

3. Increase competitive pressure to drive down the cost of transportation projects

4. Demand consumer driven decisions that respond to traditional market forces

There are many questions that come to mind about these strategies:

1. Is there any financial tool the proposers will not use?

2. Should the proposer sell-off the public “commons” to private entities?

3. What local and regional leaders want the I-69/TTC?

4. What competitive pressure is there when a CDA is signed with one company?

5. What consumer driven decisions are the proposers talking about when the public is against the I-69/TTC?

6. What traditional market forces are referred to?

14) Page 3-6, 3.5 Texas Department of Transportation Strategic Plan 2007-2011, states “would assist in achieving the five strategic goals, which are:

1. Reduce congestion

2. Enhance safety

3. Expand economic opportunity

4. Improve air quality

5. Increase the value of transportation assets

Questions that these goals should answer include:

1. How much would congestion be reduce?

2. How much would safety be enhanced?

3. How much will economic opportunity be expanded?

4. How much will air quality be expanded?

5. Will more Mexican, Central, and South American trucks be allowed?

6. How much more air pollution do these trucks emit?

7. What transportation assets are referred to?

8. How do the proposers expect to make trucks use I-69/TTC and not avoid the tolls?

9. What Mexican or other transportation links are contemplated due to I-69/TTC or will be assisted by it? Where are they located? What are their environmental impacts?

15) Page 5-2, 5.2 Passenger Traffic, talks about increases in daily vehicle trips and increasing capacity. However, there never is a discussion about how the proposers have never been able to build out of congestion. Always, within a few years, carrying capacity is reached again for expanded roads and then more congestion remains than before the road expansion. There is no discussion about travel demand and the role this plays in filling up increased capacity. Without understanding and determining how to work with travel demand no truck or car dominated transportation option will succeed. The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal. Attachment 4

16) Page 5-5, 5.3 Freight Traffic, states “increased truck traffic related to Latin American trade is expected to shorten pavement life … Moving freight traffic from highways to rail could be cost effective in terms of highway rehabilitation, improve safety fro truck drivers and motorists, and reduce highway congestion ”. Why are these problems not discussed in the DEIS as environmental and economic factors? The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

17) Page 5-5, 5.4 Economic Vitality and Social Advancement, states “the proposed I-69/TTC … could contribute to economic vitality … could increase employment in these regions and help raise income”. Notice the key word is “could”. What job creation and business opportunities may be spurred? The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

18) Page 6-1, 6.1 Corridor Preservation and Environmental Consequences, states ”preserving corridors can help … by precluding development in likely corridors”. Why should the proposers choose where the development will occur rather than let the market do so? This especially seems odd since we are talking 20-50 years from now. Changes that will occur cannot be guessed at and buying land now to preserve a corridor locks public money into something that might not be needed or has become obsolete. The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

19) Page 6-1, Corridor Preservation and Environmental Consequences, the example about the loss of a transmission corridor is not necessarily bad. If the proposers really are concerned about land use then they need to control it, reduce population, and reduce consumption and we will not have a growing congestion problem fueled by insecure foreign oil sources. The problem is whether the infrastructure is needed or not. The proposers always say there is a need when often we are talking about their desire to develop more undeveloped land that has little infrastructure which means that land with infrastructure investment is ignored and deteriorates. At 50 years out from such a decision we cannot predict yes or no reliably and should not try to say we can.

20) Page 6-2, 6.2 Infrastructure Condition, System Redundancy, and National Security, states “Alternative transportation facilities … can provide the necessary back-up systems when improving older, deteriorating facilities”. What is not said is that the proposers are unable to take care of what we already have. There is less money for maintenance than we need. We are wasteful to continue to build more when we cannot take care of what we have. There already is much “system redundancy” in roads and this has not helped congestion and has increased maintenance costs.

21) Page 7-1, A. Facilitate International, Interstate, and Intrastate Trade, states “Objectives: Improve border crossing traffic flow”. What border crossings? Why is there a flow problem? What other ways are there to improve border crossing traffic flow?

22) Page 7-1, A. Facilitate International, Interstate, and Intrastate Trade, states “Objectives: Provide opportunity for multi-modal … connections … to inter-modal facilities and major ports”. If this is so, why at this stage should not these connections be worked out since if they do not work I-69/TTC fails?

23) Page 7-1, B. Serve Areas Not Previously Served by the Interstate System, what areas are currently underserved or not served? The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

24) Page 7-1, C. Improve East, Southeast, Laredo, and Rio Grande Valley Transportation System, states “Provide multi-modal capacity to meet future needs”. What are these future needs? What multi-modal capacity will be needed? How much capacity of each mode will be needed? What are “cost-effective strategies”? The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

25) Page 7-1, D. Improve Transportation Operations, define “transportation efficiency”. If the proposers build car and truck facilities these will be inefficient compared to freight and passenger rail. How can traffic congestion be reduced when the road will be outside the major cities but will in fact funnel more trucks through the city? The urban areas are already connected to each other.

26) Page 7-1, E. Sustain and Enhance Economic Vitality, why do “undeveloped areas”, which is another word for saying farmlands and natural areas, need to be connected to economic centers unless it is to destroy them? Whose “local planning objectives” are the proposers trying to “coordinate”? More developers of “undeveloped areas”? The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

27) Page 7-1, F. Protect the Cultural, Natural, and Social Environment, what are “existing and future land use and development patterns”? Who will gain and who will lose? The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

28) Page 8-1, 8.0 Conclusions, there is no documentation in the DEIS that I-69/TTC will “accommodate more and heavier freight loads, and limit the deterioration of existing facilities.” In fact this statement is counterintuitive because more and heavier loads will cause more maintenance problems on new facilities and if traffic is higher then older facilities will be used more and also deteriorate and maintenance funds will be limited.

29) Page 8-1, 8.0 Conclusions, there is no documentation in the DEIS that I-69/TTC will reduce by any significant amount any “higher unemployment and lower income” in south and east Texas. The public needs this information so it can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

30) No Comments on Appendices B-D

31) Page 15, Appendix E, the increase in air pollution and noise is not “perceived” near a major road but is very real factual scientific phenomena that studies have shown. This is a biased statement that must be removed.

Volume IV, Appendices G-H, I-69/TTC Study, Tier I DEIS

1) Page iii, Preface, states “because the I-69/TTC has a 50 year project planning horizon … This tiered approach to transportation decision-making involves preparing a Tier I EIS that makes a broad, corridor-level decision”. The problem with the construct of this DEIS is it is so undefined, so loose, and so unanalyzed that it does not give the public and decision-makers the ability to review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of the entire proposed project. The Tier I DEIS should have such analyses because when Tier II occurs the entire project will not be assessed but will be broken up into so-called “segments of independent utility”. If the entire proposal’s environmental impacts are not sufficiently analyzed in Tier I then they never will be and the public and decision-makers will not be able to understand the full magnitude of the environmental damage that will occur.

2) Page iii, the Sierra Club comments on the purpose and need statement are the same as those found in comment 4) for Volume I, Pages ES-2 and ES-3, Executive Summary, What is the Purpose and Need for the Project.

3) Page iii, Alternatives Considered in this Technical Memorandum, the Sierra Club is opposed to the I-69/TTC DEIS because: it ignores looking at existing roads as a viable alternative until Tier II; a true no action alternative is not analyzed since the environmental impacts are pushed off to some uncertain future when individual projects will be analyzed instead of right now as required by NEPA; and the appropriateness of the corridors are not assessed appropriately now but are pushed off for environmental analyses in the future when full environmental assessment needs to be done now. In other words, the environmental analysis has been inadequate for this DEIS.

4) Page 1-1, 1.0 Affected Environment, the DEIS states “an ecosystem approach in transportation planning, development, and implementation”. What does “ecosystem approach” mean? Certainly, the level of environmental analysis, which the DEIS admits is not such that actual ecosystem damages can be determined, is inadequate for the public and decision-makers to review, comment on, and understand the proposal. Where is the “ecosystem approach” regarding how this proposal will enhance the environment and protect natural features and ecological processes and functions? The opposite is true, “ecosystems” are degraded, dismantled, and destroyed by the proposal.

5) Page 1-5, Central Gulf Prairies and Marshes Ecoregion, there is no discussion about the aquifers that exist in this ecoregion. This ecoregion is also a “migratory and bird stopover area”.

6) Page 1-5, Oak Woods and Prairies Ecoregion, there is no discussion about the aquifers that exist in this area (Gulf Coast Aquifer).

7) Page 1-6, Mid Coastal Plains (Western) Ecoregion, this ecoregion is also a “migratory and bird stopover area”.

8) Page 2-1, 2.0 Environmental Evaluation, the DEIS states “resource agencies with jurisdictional authority and other stakeholders on the I-69/TTC Technical Advisory Committee and Steering Committee”. The TAC and SC are dominated by FHWA and TxDOT. In fact these two entities have a majority on both committees so there is no way a contrary view can be raised. Further, other stakeholders, like the Sierra Club, Corridor Watch, and the public have been locked out of participating on these committees.

9) Page 2-1, 2.0 Environmental Evaluation, the DEIS admits that no environmental analysis has been performed on the “No Action Alternative” when it says “Any direct effects of these projects would be evaluated under their own NEPA environmental studies”. So there are no environmental impacts revealed for the “No Action Alternative” whether direct, indirect, cumulative, or connected. This is illegal under the NEPA and CEQ regulations:

1) 1500.1(b), “NEPA procedures must insure that environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before actions are taken”

2) 1500.2(e), “Use the NEPA process to identify and assess the reasonable alternatives to proposed actions that will avoid or minimize adverse effects of these actions upon the quality of the human environment”

3) 1501.2(b), “Identify environmental effects and values in adequate detail so they can be compared to economic and technical analyses”

4) 1502.1, “It shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decision-makers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment … Statements shall be concise, clear, and to the point, and shall be supported by evidence that the agency has made the necessary environmental analyses”

5) 1502.14, ”it should present the environmental impacts of the proposal and the alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision-maker and the public”

6) 1502.14(a), “Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives”

7) 1502.14(b), “Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits”

8) 1502.14(d), “Include the alternative of no action”

9) 1502.16, Environmental consequences, “It shall include discussions of:

(a) Direct effects and their significance

(b) Indirect effects and their significance

(d) The environmental effects of alternatives including the proposed action. The comparisons under 1502.14 will be based on this discussion.

By not revealing the environmental impacts of the “No Action Alternative” the proposers violate all of the above sections of CEQ regulations. The Sierra Club objects and requests that the DEIS be withdrawn and be revised to legally comply with NEPA and CEQ regulations.

10) Page 2-1, GISST, the GISST analysis is missing key environmental factors. For instance, aquifers, recharge areas, seeps, bogs, and shallow water aquifer connections with streams are ignored. Subsurface water is integrated and connected to surface water. But this analysis ignores this and does nothing to assess how recharge areas are altered by the alternatives and what can be done to mitigate this damage.

While ecologically significant streams segments are important unfortunately not all have been identified by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and only about 16 such streams have been designated by the Texas Legislature so this data base is incomplete. This is one of the most significant issues. There are obvious holes in the environmental assessment methodology but instead of discussing these holes and how they were addressed so that the deficiencies are resolved the proposers ignore this and act like nothing can be done or that everything is fine.

11) Page 2-2, GISST Federal Threatened and Endangered Species, uses 2002 database. How accurate is this database today, 6 years later? It is of great concern that candidate species are not included in the database.

12) Page 2-2, GISST State Threatened and Endangered Species, uses 2002 database. How accurate is this database today, 6 years later?

13) Page 2-2, GISST Stream Density, this database is deficient since it does not include ephemeral streams. Ephemeral streams are crucial in the protection of water quality downstream. In addition, surface area of water should be reflected in this database. Lake and reservoir shorelines and streams are different and should not be reported together. The emphasis appears to be on lake area with no emphasis on groundwater and aquifer recharge areas.

14) Page 2-2, GISST Floodplain, there is significant data gap when 16 Texas Counties and two Louisiana parishes do not have floodplain information. How was this flaw ameliorated? You need to mitigate the gap or it provides for unequal environmental analysis which is not appropriate under NEPA and CEQ regulations.

15) Page 2-2, GISST TMDL/CWA 303(d), the problem with this database is not every stream has been sampled or sampled enough to determine if it is impaired. What a terrible assumption to assume that “Stream segments with no GISST data in Texas are assumed to be good quality”. The DEIS must discuss this problem and how it affects the environmental analysis. What was done to mitigate for this gap?

16) Page 2-2, GISST Ecologically Significant Stream Segment, the problem with this database is not every stream has been sampled or sampled enough to determine if it is an ecologically significant stream segment. The fact that this designation is not in Louisiana is a tremendous gap. The Texas Legislature has only designated about 16 streams. The DEIS must discuss this problem and how it affects the environmental analysis. What was done to mitigate for this gap?

17) Page 2-2, GISST Wetlands, using 2000 NLCD data means that the information is 8 years old. The fact that the GISST Wetland information does not provide quality, significance, size, site-specific type, or connectivity to other water resources for wetlands is a tremendous flaw. How does this affect environmental analysis and accuracy? What was done to mitigate for this gap?

18) Page 2-2, GISST Managed Lands, this database does not include Texas state forest land, national wilderness areas, national or state designated wild and scenic river segments, national trails, national preserves, or Louisiana publicly owned lands. This is a huge flaw in the database. How does this affect environmental analysis and accuracy? What was done to mitigate for this gap?

19) Page 2-2, GISST Agricultural Lands, using 2000 UFGS NLDB data means that the information is 8 years old. How does this affect environmental analysis and accuracy? The idea that prime or unique farmland, specific agricultural land use, type of production and quality are not identified is a huge gap in the database. How does this affect environmental analysis and accuracy? What was done to mitigate for this gap?

20) Page 2-2, TEAP, the DEIS states “This is a multi-agency, stakeholder driven ecoregion level natural resource assessment tool.” How does one become a stakeholder? The Sierra Club has not been contacted. If you are not a stakeholder then the inference is that your information and concerns are not represented. The use of this “natural resource assessment tool” sounds less than comprehensive.

21) Page 2-2, TEAP Rarity, this is an inadequate basis to make the natural resource assessments that are made because threatened and endangered species, wildlife habitats and plant communities are not included. The vegetation rarity, natural heritage rank, taxonomic richness, and rare species richness that is included appears impossible if the former are not included. How does this affect environmental analysis and accuracy? What was done to mitigate for this gap?

22) Page 2-2, TEAP Diversity, this factor ignores that we know so little about the Texas landscape so our ability to use land cover, contiguous size of an undeveloped areas, Shannon Land Cover Diversity index, and ecologically significant stream segments is limited. Most of Texas is private land which means landowners do not have to share any information about ecological factors with the government. This is especially of concern when it has been acknowledged previously that quality, significance, size, site specific type, or connectivity to other water resources for wetlands, Texas state forest land, wilderness areas, national or state designated wild and scenic river segments, national trials, national preserves, or Louisiana publicly owned lands are not included in the analysis. How does this affect environmental analysis and accuracy? What was done to mitigate for this gap?

23) Pages 2-2 and 2-3, TEAP Sustainability, purports to represent “an area’s resistance to disturbance and its resiliency to recover after human disturbance” by using contiguous land cover type, ecosystem boundary regularity, land cover appropriateness, waterway obstruction, road density, and stressors (airport noise, Superfund National Priority List and State Superfund Sites, water quality air quality, waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, waste treatment storage disposal sites, Corrective Action and State Voluntary Cleanup Program sites, and urban/agricultural disturbance.

But many of these factors will not be found in rural areas or are less likely to be found so they have little to do with “resistance to disturbance and resiliency to recover after human disturbance” but rather are factors that deal with how close you are to an industrial area. What about the impacts of no fire, logging, grazing, draining wetlands, channelization of streams, and agriculture, There is no definition for what a waterway obstruction is, what land cover appropriateness is, what is ecosystem boundary regularity (we were under the impression irregularity in ecosystem boundaries gives you more diversity), how road density was determined. How does this affect environmental analysis and accuracy? What was done to mitigate for this gap?

24) Page 2-3, TEAP Composite, is a catchall that uses the other three TEAP categories (Rarity, Diversity, and Sustainability) and includes all of their flaws and therefore does not represent anything but a mishmash of information of varying quality. How does this affect environmental analysis and accuracy? What was done to mitigate for this gap?

25) Page 2-3, Additional Data, it is not clear what additional data was used and how it was able to fill in the data gaps because there is no explanation in the DEIS. The public and decision-makers need to review, comment on, and understand this so that the environmental impacts of the proposal can be understood.

26) Page 2-3, 2.2 Method, because the environmental analysis is so poorly done choosing New Location Corridor Alternative cannot be done with any modicum of confidence that it avoids or is the best alternative to avoid environmental impacts. The Sierra Club vigorously disagrees that “This data … is sufficient to evaluate corridors in support of reaching a Tier One decision.”

The inadequacy of the environmental analysis is further emphasized when the DEIS states “It cannot be predicted based on current information where I-69/TTC facility alignments might occur within the Reasonable Corridors or Reasonable Connector Corridors … Much of the corridor level data collected for this analysis would not provide useful information for assessment alignment level effects”.

In other words the data collected is so broad and indistinct that you cannot even determine environmental impacts with it. It almost seems as if the proposers are saying that we do not need an EIS at all. Spending money on the DEIS has been a waste because the DEOS cannot show what the environmental impacts are in any quantitative and even in many qualitative ways.

Percent coverage, distribution (blockage), overlap, and proximity of resource data is inadequate to cover environmental impacts and to provide environmental analysis for the DEIS. By ignoring obvious impacts, like the potential destruction of 94,600 acres in a 1200 foot wide corridor, and habitat quality, which is not known, the environmental analysis is such a broad exercise that it overlooks the significance and magnitude of real environmental impacts. This analysis is so flawed it cannot be used to determine environmental impacts with any specificity or clarity.

27) Page 2-4, Table 2.2, Additional Data Sources, Vegetation and Wildlife, the statement “and several additional region-specific vegetation characterization resources” is made. What are these “additional region-specific vegetation characterization resources” and how were they used?

28) Page 2-4, Table 2.2, Regional for Considering Additional Data, Public Land, the DEIS states “additional data sources were reviewed.” What did the additional data sources provide to the analysis? In addition, Winters Bayou, in Sam Houston National Forest and the Neches River in the Davy Crockett and Angelina National Forests have been found to meet the criteria as candidates for wild and scenic river in the 1996 Revised Land and Resource Management Plan by the U.S. Forest Service. Was this taken into consideration in the GISST and TEAP analyses? If this even known?

29) Page 2-4, Table 2.2, Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species, Additional Data Sources and Rationale for Considering Additional Data, the DEIS states “This additional data was not useful for the corridor analysis as specific locations of candidate and Louisiana listed species were not retrieved for the additional data. The additional site-specific data would be more detailed and therefore would not be comparable to the level of information provided by GISST.” This statement makes no sense. The more data you have and the more detailed the data is about location the better the data is. Instead the proposers are trying to protect some level of inadequacy by not using the best data possible. Using the best, sound, science is what NEPA is all about. If you do not have certain data you can use 1502.22 of the CEQ regulations to state why you cannot obtain the data and why your analyses is the best that can be done. But to ignore data because it is not the same (it is better than) what you have is an indefensible position and should not be taken.

30) Page 2-4, Table 2.2, Additional Data Sources, data which is 10 years old is being used for Essential Fish Habitat. Is there no data that is more recent than this?

31) Page 2-5, Table 2.2, Rationale for Considering Additional Data, Migratory Birds, the DEIS states “Migratory birds and their habitats are not specifically covered in the GISST or TEAP. However, the types of habitats which have been identified and peer-reviewed and accepted additional data for indirectly part of the following GISST and TEAP which were used to analyze corridors”. This statement does not make sense. What peer-review is being talked about? Why, who, and when did it occur? What were the outcomes of the peer-review? What does it mean when it says “indirectly part”? It sounds to the Sierra Club that the proposers were not able to adequately analyze migratory birds and instead of saying this they are trying to act like they have. The public and decision-makers need this information so they can review, comment on, and understand the environmental impacts of the proposal.

32) Page 2-5, Table 2.2, Rationale for Considering Additional Data, Surface Water, the GISST Stream Density and other information ignores ephemeral streams which are important wildlife habitat and ensure that by keeping the upper watersheds intact that water quality is maintained in the mid and lower portions of the watersheds. This is a severe oversight when looking at possible environmental damage (blockages) to streams in the DEIS.

33) Page 2-6, Table 2.2, Rationale for Considering Additional Data, Floodplains, the DEIS sates “No additional digital floodp0lain information was available at the time of the analysis to compare to the GISST Floodplain data. This is not adequate since 16 counties and two Louisiana Parishes do not have the same data and level of analyses that was done for the other counties in Texas. Section 1505.22 of CEQ regulations must be used to discuss this problem and an equivalent analysis is needed for floodplains so the entire length of the proposal can be analyzed in a similar fashion.

34) Page 2-6, Proximity, a five mile downstream proximity to where the proposed corridor crossed the stream has been added to the analysis. There is no explanation or justification for doing this.

After all is said and done with the analyses the best that the DEIS can say is “The corridor evaluation findings present the percent coverage, distribution (blockages), overlap, and proximity differences which identify those corridors in each evaluation section that may provide better opportunities to avoid or minimize the potential to affect a particular resource.” So there is no guarantee that the corridors that are being kept in fact “provide better opportunities to avoid or minimize the potential to affect a particular resource”. So this entire analyses effort cannot even say that the least impacting corridors have been chosen. This is disheartening and is not sufficient analyses for a DEIS. More certainty is needed than “may provide”.

35) Page 2-9, 2.3 Findings, there is no attempt to look at light pollution and the impacts it will have in the corridors analyzed and or chosen. This is an oversight that must be addressed in the Tier I DEIS.

36) Page 2-9, 2.3 Findings, the DEIS states “New location corridors were considered to provide the best opportunities to avoid or minimize the potential to affect resources in an evaluation section if they met one or more of the following thresholds”. New location corridors are the most environmentally destructive of all alternatives because they destroy new natural habitat and disrupt and fragment plant and animal migrations. This should be stated in the DEIS.

37) Page 2-9, Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities, the DEIS states “Field surveys of vegetation and wildlife resource were not conducted for this Tier One EIS”. That is one of the things that is wrong with this DEIS. The DEIS is based on databases of unknown accuracy so public and decision-makers have no idea of how accurate the databases are. Even after all the so-called analyses the best the DEIS can say is that a corridor “may provide” better protection of the environment than another corridor.

The DEIS states that “groups of plants and animals in an ecoregion are dependent on related habitats” but then does not tell the public what these related habitats are and does not use the related habitats in the analyses. Instead a broad, generalized “percent coverage” is used which tells nothing about which and how much “related habitat” may be destroyed or damaged by each corridor. In fact the DEIS states “GISST Wildlife Habitat does not include information about habitat quality, vulnerability, uniqueness, connectivity, or rare species. In addition, land cover types within the coverage are not specifically identified.” So the analyses is so broad it tells you virtually nothing about the habitat that will be destroyed or damaged and therefore is virtually useless about giving information about which alternative corridor will do more or less damage to the environment.

So the public cannot tell what it means when the DEIS says, for example, “Reasonable Corridors contain between 63 and 71 percent coverage” or “between 90 and 96 percent coverage”, etc. Without a specific habitat type and quality attached to these figures they are meaningless. They do not help determine differences between corridors because they are too broad to help make determinations which is why the DEIS says “may provide” and nothing stronger.

38) Page 2-10, Tier One Avoidance Measures, the DEIS states “Efforts were made during corridor development to avoid and minimize the potential to affect federal and state listed threatened and endangered species”. But how can this be so when the DEIS states that it cannot even tell if a species is found in a grid cell?

39) Page 2-11, Other Federally Protected Wildlife: Migratory Birds and Their Habitats; Bald and golden Eagles, the DEIS states Migratory bird habitat elements … are considered … although these data do not capture every possible habitat area.” The DEIS does not tell all the habitats migratory birds use, which ones are ignored or partially ignored by the analyses, and how these overlooked habitats were considered. This is not an acceptable level of environmental analyses for a DEIS.

40) Page 2-11, Important Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats, the DEIS states “TxDOT and FHWA policies, guidelines, and interagency formal agreements serve to protect fragile, unique, or vanishing habitats and species during project planning, alternatives, analysis, and implementation.” If this is so then the specific policies, guidelines, and interagency formal agreements that have been used and how they have protected specific fragile, unique, or vanishing habitats and species for this proposal must be revealed to the public and decision-makers so they can be reviewed, commented on, and understood. The Sierra Club’s perspective is that in the past that TxDOT and FHWA often have ignored important wildlife habitat issues and have caused tremendous destruction and or damage to habitats and species.

41) Page 2-12, Federally Designated Critical Habitat, the DEIS states “No designated Critical Habitat occurs within the Reasonable Corridors or Reasonable Connector Corridors; therefore, no direct effects to designated Critical Habitat are anticipated.” This statement does not tell the entire story. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been loath, due to political pressure, to designate critical habitat. In addition, this statement ignores there is habitat that listed species use in the corridors even if it is not designated as critical habitat. This habitat, whether designated or not, is critical for these listed species because they have chosen to use it.

42) Pages 2-12 and 2-13, Texas Ecological Assessment Protocol, the DEIS states “The four TEAP data are the best available data for identifying potential significant terrestrial and aquatic habitats and evaluating corridor level potential effects to ecologically significant habitats defined by state and federal regulatory agencies in Texas. This information is not available for Louisiana.” This is an untrue statement. Since the habitat quality and many other factors, as mentioned previously in this volume, are not part of the TEAP or this entire analyses you cannot assert this is the best. Individually, looking at each 247 acre grid using site-specific, qualitative and quantitative habitat data is much more protective and a better analysis method. But the proposers have rejected this type of analysis because they do not want to spend the money and time to do it right. The fact that Louisiana is totally left out and there is no alternative analysis that is equivalent means that unequal environmental analysis is being applied to different parts of the proposal. This is not using the best, sound, science and under Section 1502.22 in CEQ regulations must be discussed thoroughly.

In addition, the TEAP does not appear to recognize, acknowledge, or protect private lands that are protected for wildlife and habitat. The best that the DEIS can say is that “Disruption though and at the edge of TEAP complexes “may compromise” the integrity of known mapped centers of high ecological importance.” Once again the best the analysis can say is “may” and not will protect or will destroy or damage. Although the DEIS says that transportation corridors can serve as major pathways for invasive species it cannot tell us which corridors will be worse at causing this condition and which invasive species are of concern.

When the DEIS talks about avoidance it ignores the secondary development that will occur and negatively impact federal public lands like SHNF. TEAP problems have not been avoided, except in the Tier I DEIS, but simply delayed and will show up again in the Tier II EISs.

When the DEIS states “Broad concentrations of TEAP Sustainability were avoided” there is no way for the public and decision-makers to see this since the analysis are not spelled out in the DEIS. Where is the detailed narrative and analyses that shows exactly how these matrix conditions were derived? The public and decision-makers have to take the proposers at their word which is not good enough in a DEIS under NEPA and CEQ regulations. The “no differentiating blockages or overlap occurrences” ignore that ephemeral streams are not taken into account and that all ecologically important streams have not been determined.

43) Page 2-14, TEAP Findings, the DEIS states “Corridors which have the least percent coverage, fewest or no differentiating distribution and least overlap occurrences offer the best opportunities to avoid or minimize potential to affect resources represented by TEAP.” The Sierra Club disagrees. The percent coverage does not reveal the quality and exact type of habitat that could be impacted. In addition the blockages do not include ephemeral streams and so are incomplete and do not result in protection of upper watersheds. At least 16 counties and two Louisiana parishes do not have the same floodplain analysis that the other counties have. These flaws cause the environmental analyses to be less than complete and not equivalent for all locations and resources and therefore are arbitrary and capricious and not NEPA adequate.

44) Pages 2-15 and 2-16, GISST Ecologically Significant Stream Segment, the TPWD has not assessed all streams along the corridors to determine all ecologically significant stream segments. The Texas Legislature has only designated about 16 streams. In addition, Louisiana does not have this type of analysis and is bereft of equivalent methodology. Therefore the environmental analysis is incomplete.

Of course ecologically significant stream segments will be directly affected because the corridors have been chosen based on this analysis and TxDOT states that it wants to pay public money to hold the land in possible easement for a corridor for the future.

45) Pages 2-16 and 2-17, Water Resources, the weakness of the environmental analysis is shown by no discussion of recharge areas and their protection and how much will be affected by different corridors as well as secondary development. It is patently wrong to say that “while surface waters may be ecologically linked to groundwater resources, those connections can only be known from site-specific environmental investigations if the study proceeds to Tier Two.”

There is information now that links groundwater to surface water sources in Texas Water Development Board document and other sources of information. It is self-serving to say “all corridors within an evaluation section cross the same aquifers and would provide equal opportunity to avoid or minimize the potential to affect groundwater resources.” In fact some corridors will cross more recharge area than others. Finally, to suggest that “This table is not intended to be a complete catalogue of water resources in each evaluation section, but is representative and related to water features associated with water resources GISST data.” What good is this DEIS if it does not provide for the public and decision-makers what water resources may be impacted so that this information can be reviewed, commented on, and understood regarding environmental impacts?

46) Page 2-18, Tier One Avoidance, the DEIS states “Efforts were made during the development of alternatives to avoid existing and proposed reservoirs identified in the 2002 Texas State Water Plan to the extent practicable.” It is not reassuring to the public and decision-makers that the proposers are only trying “to the extent practicable” to avoid reservoirs.

47) Page 2-18, New Location Corridor Alternative, the bankruptcy of this environmental analysis is shown when the DEIS states “The precise function and quality of the streams are not known based on the review of the Tier One data.” Again, what good is this DEIS if you do not even know the function and quality of streams based on Tier One data?

48) Page 2-20, Surface Water Findings, the DEIS states “Those corridors with the fewest stream crossing … may provide the best opportunities to avoid potential effects to stream resources.” Notice the “may provide” standard. In addition this environmental analysis does not take into account ephemeral stream crossings so the analysis is incomplete.

49) Page 2-20, Table 2.13, the list of impaired streams segments is incomplete. Recent public meetings have been held by the TCEQ which have included many more stream segments that are on the 303(d) list due to high bacteria counts including the East and West Forks of the San Jacinto River.

50) Pages 2-21 through 2-23, Floodplains, the fact that 16 counties and two Louisiana parishes (information was “not evaluated in sections B, E, or F”) do not have the floodplain data that the other Texas counties have and there is no equivalent environmental analysis is arbitrary and capricious and is against what NEPA and the CEQ regulations require. In addition, induced secondary development and its effects on floodplains due to I-69/TTC must be assessed in this DEIS. The San Jacinto River, East or West Forks, is not listed on Table 2.15 and should be.

51) Pages 2-23 and 2-24, Wetlands, the DEIS must discuss how accurate the NLCD data is. How likely is this data to determine all the wetlands? The San Jacinto River and its forks are missing from Table 2.17. Some of the best bottomland hardwood forested wetlands left are found in the San Jacinto River floodplain.

The DEIS needs to be specific about how it avoided GISST Wetlands. Just saying there are “no differentiating blockages or overlap occurrences” is not good enough especially since ephemeral streams are not included in this analysis.

52) Pages 2-24 and 2-25, Public Land, Including Section 4(f) and Section 6(f), it is ridiculous that for GISST Managed Lands grid cells “The specific location, type, function, quality, and connectivity of public land within the GISST Managed Lands are not known.” So the environmental analysis is fatally flawed and inadequate. In Table 2.19, Big Creek Scenic Area, Winters Bayou Scenic Area, and the portion of Winters Bayou that is a candidate for Wild and Scenic River are missing from the public lands list.

53) Pages 2-26 and 2-27, Agricultural Land, it is ridiculous to sates “use of the prime farmland soils for highway projects would not be considered as farmland conversion in areas committed to residential and commercial development.” This is a sneaky way of ignoring I-69/TTC environmental impacts. Who will decide which areas are “committed to residential and commercial development”. This analysis ignores the secondary development that highways cause which fragments agricultural lands and makes them more vulnerable to development. The environmental analysis is shown as being flawed and inadequate when the DEIS states “The GISST Agricultural Lands data do not provide information about agricultural soils, land quality, or production. This data does not identify prime and unique farmland soils as defined by the FPPA.” The analysis cannot even tell where the most important agricultural lands are and how many will be affected by each corridor alternative.

54) Page 3-1, 3.0 Natural Resources Public and Agency Comments, the DEIS states “The public and resource agencies also noted that an absence of GISST avoid grid cells cannot imply a lack of resource concern. As mentioned in the methodology, the presence of GISST is based on the best publicly available data at the time of the tool’s development. Public and agency comments also revealed privately held deed restricted conservation properties … While boundaries and status for such properties was not available during the Tier One analysis”. Again this environmental analysis is flawed. Why did the proposers not find these properties? Obviously all they had to do was ask the public agencies. By not including these properties in the environmental analysis the proposers prejudice against their protection.

55) Attachment A: GISST and TEAP Criteria, the Sierra Club is concerned about the assumptions and flaws in the GISST and TEAP environmental analyses. For instance, the idea that in many cases the quality, size, and other important features of habitat are not known using this methodology does not allow the public and decision-makers the information they need to determine whether what is proposed or what is analyze is done correctly and sufficiently.

For example:

1) For Stream Density, ephemeral streams are not included in developing the miles/square mile of shore or stream length criteria. How the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told?

2) For TMDL/CWA 303(d), water bodies, since not all streams have been sampled we do not know the status of all streams in the corridors.

3) For Floodplains, 16 counties and 2 Louisiana parishes were not included or did not have equivalent data or analysis. How the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told?

4) For Ozone Non-attainment, monitoring for ozone is not conducted in every county or along every corridor. In addition, a new ozone standard has been designated and this DEIS does not take into account that it is more stringent than the present standard.

5) For Hazardous Waste, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told? The lists for hazardous waste sites are notoriously incomplete.

6) For Managed Lands, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told? Most private protected managed lands are not included.

7) For Agricultural Lands, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told? Actual prime and unique farmlands are not designated.

8) For Wetlands, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told? Actual size, quality, and type of wetlands were not designated. The accuracy of the National Land Cover Database is not discussed.

8) For Wildlife Habitat, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told? Actual wildlife habitat types is not designated only broad categories that do not tell you quality like forest lands, shrub-lands, grasslands, wetlands, and open water.

9) For TPWD Federal and Threatened and Endangered Species, whether the threatened and endangered species are actually in a grid cell is not known.

10) TPWD State Threatened and Endangered Species, whether the threatened and endangered species are actually in a grid cell is not known.

11) For Percent Minority, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told?

12) For Percent Economically Stressed, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told?

13) For Population Density, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told?

14) For Texas Ecologically Significant Stream Segments, this information is not available for Louisiana and not all ecologically significant stream segments have been analyzed.

15) For TEAP Diversity, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told? Using vegetation coverage tells you nothing about the quality of the habitat.

16) For TEAP Rarity, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told? The actual presence of rare species is not known in the grid cells.

17) For TEAP Sustainability, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told? The stressors used are more indicative of urban development versus any delineation of sustainability. We know relatively little about resilience in ecosystems or habitats must less individual species. Sustainability is not defined.

18) For TEAP Composite, how the actual five criteria were developed is not provided. Was this due to studies, was it best professional judgment, we are not told?

The scoring for these criteria is arbitrary and subjective and we are not told how it has been accomplished. For instance, recharge areas for aquifers are not given as a vulnerable type of habitat. In addition, the EPA states plainly that this is a “screening level tool only. It does not replace traditional risk assessment or field investigations.” Yet no field investigations or risk assessments have been done. The broad, screening tool is the only environmental analysis that is presented. What is needed now, for corridor decisions are ground truthing requirements. The GISST and TEAP document sound like sales pitches and not scientific documents. The EPA states that “Consequently, a particular certain may not be used until a viable data set becomes available.” This means that important information may be overlooked and not taken into account during the corridor analysis. This in not acceptable.

The Sierra Club certainly does not agree that “Traditional NEPA comments letters are generic in that they refer to regulation and not to information contained in the NEPA document.” This makes no sense since both the biological information in the EIS and the regulatory requirements are part of what makes an EIS and are both important. In addition, verification of data will be even harder to do now with this screening tool because it is GIS based and it is difficult to track down where the actual information came from. Serving customers sounds more like rushing through permits instead of protecting the public interest.

Volume V, Appendix I, Transportation Planning Evaluation Technical Memorandum, I-69/TTC Study, Tier I DEIS

1) Page iii, Alternatives Considered in this Technical Memorandum, “because the No Action Alternative would have no additional direct effects to natural resources beyond those that may result from projects already planned and programmed in the TxDOT Unified Transportation Program and Metropolitan Transportation Plans. Any Direct Effects of those projects would be evaluated under their own environmental studies.”

This statement is an evasion and an illegality of the law. The NEPA and CEQ NEPA implementing regulations require and are very clear that the EIS must “rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives considered”; “Devote substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail including the proposed action so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits”; and “Include the alternative of no action” (Sections 1502.14(a), (b), and (d)).

The proposers have provided zero environmental impact analysis, evaluation, and assessment in the DEIS about the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative. There is no quantitative or qualitative environmental impact data about the No Action Alternative and the Use of Existing/Planned Transportation Facilities Alternative in the DEIS. There is no comparative merits analysis possible because there is no discussion of environmental impacts at all in the DEIS for the No Action Alternative only the dismissive phrase “Any Direct Effects of those projects would be evaluated under their own environmental studies”. It is illegal to propose an alternative and not reveal the environmental impacts. That is exactly what this DEIS does and the Sierra Club objects!

2) Page iii, Reasonable Corridors and Reasonable Connector Corridors, the relative construction cost factor is not sufficient for costs. The taxpayers need operation, maintenance, and life cycle costs too! Even more important the DEIS must reveal the total cost. In the entire DEIS the Sierra Club has found no hint of what this proposal will cost. Since cost and financing is important for environmental impacts and since taxpayers will foot the bill they deserve at the very least a range in costs.

3) Page 1-1, 1.1 Highways, states “As a result, US 59, US 77, and US 281 accommodate local as well as long distance travel within the study area. These facilities do not function as continuous high speed, access controlled transportation facilities.” This argument can be used near any urban area. In Houston certainly Interstate 10 accommodates “local as well as long distance travel” as does Interstate 45 not to mention Interstate 610. So how can US 59, 77, and 281 be turned into Interstates and retain that characteristic and how much would it cost in comparison to this proposal? These are reasonable alternatives to pursue.

4) Page 1-2, Hurricane Evacuation Routes, the DEIS refers to “developed a statewide evacuation plan” regarding emergency management. However, there appears to be no official state “hurricane evacuation plan” for Texas or for a specific area, like Houston. However, hurricane evacuation is much more than providing additional capacity. It also entails good coordination, communications, adequate personnel, appropriate training, and acquisition and maintenance of equipment. A real hurricane evacuation study would include all of these elements and more with public participation and input to ensure that people can be moved safely and property protected in as expeditious and economical a fashion as possible. And the results of that study would be provided to the public to review, comment on, and understand. This has not happened for I-69/TTC.

5) Pages 1-4 and 1-5, Figures 1.8, 1.9, and 1.10, it is of interest that most of the truck and rail crossings and all trade passing through the study area border crossings from 2002 to 2004 show a flat trend or a slight increase.

6) Page 2-1, 2.1 Methods, Figure 2.1, the Transportation Planning Evaluation Process shows no input by environmental factors in this process. This is a sad because then the environment becomes a secondary consideration for screening instead of the primary consideration it should be. In fact the only place where we see the environment mentioned is page 2-4, Table 2.4, which lists under Supplemental Performance Index Linkage to Purpose and Need Goals, F. Protect the cultural, natural and social environment, and this just says, “Addressed in the Environmental Evaluation”. This is one of the greatest flaws in this DEIS process. The environment takes second place to the justification for a specific proposed transportation project.

7) Page 2-1, 2.1 Methods, there is no discussion or consideration of homeland security, illegal drug importation, illegal weapons importation, immigration and population movements, peak oil, $100/barrel oil, $4/gallon gasoline, etc. Where is the discussion of the future, what it may bring, how we are adapting to the present? What assumptions have been made about the future and what are they based on? We face building and investing money in a $20 billion 650 mile wide ribbon across Texas that may be obsolete before a decision is made whether to construct it or not. This does not make sense.

8) Pages 2-1 and 2-2, Prepare Input Data and Assumptions, the DEIS must discuss the percent error assigned to the Texas Statewide Analysis Model (SAM) and the assumption that this model uses. What really is needed is a backward look study to determine how the model has operated in the past. How often were its’ predictions correct? Why were the predictions correct or incorrect? What are the “Network coding assumptions”? The same percent error and assumption revelation is needed for passenger trip generation forecasts, population forecasts, and employment forecasts.

What is the accuracy of the “original 1998 truck trip tables” and why were they increased? What about the 2025 trip tables? How accurate are the average annual growth rates, compound average annual growth rates, reasonable annual growth rates? The public and decision-makers must have this information to review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

9) Page 2-2, 2030 Network Updates and Preparation of Test Networks, the DEIS states “The first product of 2030 network coding was the Existing plus Committed (No Action) network of transportation facilities. “Committed” means those projects that have been planned and for which funding has been identified in the State Transportation Plan and the MTPs for 2030.” If this is the case, that we assume that these projects occur, then the DEIS must present all of their environmental impacts (each project’s environmental impacts added to each other projects environmental impacts) in the No Action alternative.

10) Page 2-2, Forecast Travel Demand, what is the % error for the forecast 2030 Build travel demand?

11) Pages 2-3 and 2-4, Step Two: Evaluate User Benefit, environmental protection analysis is left totally out of User Benefit. The User Benefit Analysis is incomplete because it ignores the cost of foregoing or using buses, trails, etc. as alternatives. There is no definition of “economic vitality. Although the User Benefit Analysis says it uses time and costs of all trips made it does not does not measure people in vehicles, workers, recreation family and other measures that signify user benefit. The DEIS does not explain why the User Benefit Analysis supports destroying natural capital and why this is more important than time and costs of all trips. The environment is left to the goal, “F. Protect the cultural, natural and social environment” and is not even used in or to determine User Benefit Analysis. Once again the environment is not a part of the evaluation process until after decisions have been made which ensure than certain environmental damage is allowable.

In addition, there is no discussion about the adequacies of the Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment Analysis System software for mobility, safety, and environmental benefits of transportation projects. What are its limitations and how well does it estimated results in the past?

How can User Cost be calculated using User Benefit when the environment and its destruction has been left out as a cost or benefit? All user benefit appears to be is money. It has nothing to do with environmental constraints. It does not explain why it is an objective method when it arbitrarily ignored the destruction of the environment. The public and decision-makers must have this information to review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

12) Pages 2-4 and 2-5, Step Three: Evaluate Supplemental Performance Index, Table 2-4, environmental concerns are not addressed by Supplemental Performance Index. A screening matrix without the environment is hardly worth mentioning. Again the environment is second place with regard to this proposed project and its creation.

There is no assurance that trucks will use the proposed I-69/TTC because of the tolls that will be charged. Truck drivers are notorious for avoiding tolls if at all possible. The environmental impacts that are caused by these trucks using other roads are not discussed. The same is true for cars using toll roads. Those that can do so have money. Those that do not will use other roads and there will be an increase in congestion for those roads. But these costs are ignored in the DEIS.

When discussing Proximity to Regional Activity Centers (RAC) the statement is made that there are ten categories of RACs. However we only count eight: 1) airports, 2) inter-modal facilities, 3) seaports, 4) planned industrial development, 5) planned distribution facilities, 6) military complexes, 7) retail, and 8) universities. What are the other two RACs?

13) Page 2-17, Evaluation Section F, the DEIS states “The User Benefit analysis results were distinguishing in identifying the best performing corridor. As a result it was not necessary to calculate the Supplemental Performance Index in Evaluation Section F”. Again, there is no mention of environmental factors used to help identify the “best performing corridor”. This means that when environmental factors are applied already there is a compromise of no environmental consideration in the User Benefit and Supplemental Performance Index Analyses to choose the “best performing corridor”. The environment is obviously a second place screening criteria. The environment must be integrated into corridor prioritization at the earliest possible time and not after engineering and cost considerations have already reduced the number of options.

14) Page 3-1, 3.0 Supplemental Rail Review and Table 3.1, the DEIS states “high speed rail was not addressed in the supplemental rail review.” So again, other modes, other than cars and trucks, are not given the same analysis and review. This ensures that there is a car and truck mode bias in the DEIS. Again, no environmental factors were used to choose the corridors initially. Environmental factors should be used first, along with engineering and economics to choose the best corridors not as secondary screening factors.

There is no definition of what “gateway connections” are? This should be provided so the public and decisions-makers can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

If one “Measure/Qualitative Test” used is “Corridors maximize potential for connectivity to existing highway network by facilitating connections with existing facilities in areas where adequate capacity exists” then the proposers should be able to show the public and decision-makers where those connections with existing facilities are in the Houston MTZ so they can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

Table 3.1 does not define what “OD pairs” are. This should be provided so the public and decisions-makers can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

On page 3-2, Table 3.1, states under “Measure/Qualitative Test” “Corridors promote operational efficiency by complementing planned major increase to roadway capacity”. Do we want to support this? If we do then the DEIS must specifically say which corridors assist “planned major increases to roadway capacity” and what projects they assist in doing this. In addition the environmental impacts of these connected actions then need to be assessed in the DEIS. This must be provided so the public and decisions-makers can review, comment on, and understand the proposal.

On page 3-2, it is not clear how the “Measure/Qualitative Test” “Does corridor provide viable transportation capacity during catastrophic event” is determined. There is no explanation or criteria given.

On page 3-2, why is “Connect undeveloped areas to economic centers” and “Does this corridor provide access to undeveloped areas” considered to fulfill “E. Sustain and enhance economic vitality” when in fact this results in destruction of the natural environmental and the natural capital that the environment gives us for free (water quality, water quantity, flood control, clean air, wildlife, natural beauty, recreation, etc.)? How can such actions be sustainable?

On page 3-3, F. Protect the cultural, natural and social environment, the Objective “Provide transportation system that serves the existing and future land use and development patterns” and the “Measure/Qualitative Test” of “Corridors are located to serve without constraining existing and future land use by proximity to compatible industrial land which the facility will serve but located to avoid constraining industrial expansion” and “Corridors cross high-level highway and rail facilities in areas that would support economic growth and development” do not fit the goal of protecting the cultural, natural and social environment. In fact they all contradict this goal by destroying or damaging the cultural, natural, and social environment. The Objective and the two “Measure/Qualitative Test” should be removed and some others added that really do protect the cultural, natural and social environment.

The Sierra Club appreciates this opportunity to comment. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Brandt Mannchen

Air Quality Issue Chair

Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club

Chair, Air Quality Committee

Houston Regional Group of the Sierra Club

5431 Carew

Houston, Texas 77096