Having reviewed the UDOT Heber Valley Bypass Draft EIS, a very simple picture begins to emerge. The point of this letter is not to debate any of the points of the DEIS, but rather to show how the DEIS fails to adequately address fundamental impacts and corresponding alternatives in a fair and evenhanded manner that sufficiently informs decisionmakers and stakeholders of the challenges before us.
This selection of the preferred alternative, though the pristine wetlands of the North Fields, was purportedly rendered based on the requirements of the Clean Water Act Section 404 pertaining to wetlands and US Department of Transportation Act Section 4(f) including historical preservation requirements. But the DEIS fails to evenhandedly apply the mandatory LEDPA (Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative) standard under Clean Water Act 404(b)(1).
The draft wetlands study determined that 24 acres of Alternative A and 54 acres of Alternative B are jurisdictional wetlands. The Clean Water Act mandates that under LEDPA, the least environmentally damaging alternative concerning water resources must be chosen, unless that alternative has even greater “environmental damage.”
Enter DOT Section 4(f), wherein it was determined that there are three structures (mid-20th century residences on US 40) that qualify as “at risk”; though the State Historic Preservation Office has indicated that they are not of historical significance.
The driveways of these three houses extend into the Alternative A planned frontage road, thus defining them as “at risk” under Section 4(f). The DEIS concludes that their avoidance is “not considered feasible and prudent,” thus, concluding that alternative A is impracticable. In essence, the DEIS concludes that Transportation Act 4(f) requires protecting three driveways which takes priority over CWA 404 that otherwise would be considered more environmentally damaging to at least 54 acres of wetland.
The DEIS further concludes that “both alternatives meet the purpose and need of the project,” while “alternative A is substantially better in terms of effects on aquatic resources, and slightly better in terms of farmland and noise impacts,” while B is better for traffic. Concerning cost, route A was $49 million less.
Yet the DEIS concludes, “Based on an assessment of all seven of the least overall harm factors, Alternative B is the least overall harm alternative” (emphasis quoted). So it seems that UDOT is more concerned about preserving three driveways than they are the wetlands of the North Fields.
The conclusion of the above observations should be both intuitively and explicitly obvious to the reader. UDOT must apply Transportation 4(f) and CWA 404 in an evenhanded and accurate manner as the law requires.
George Hansen, Midway
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible