Mr. Wesley Mitchell
ICC Project Manager
Maryland State Highway Administration
707 North Calvert Street
Mail Stop C-301
Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Dear Mr. Mitchell,

Please acknowledge and record this document as the Montgomery Intercounty Connector Coalition (MICC) comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on an Intercounty Connector (ICC) released by your office on November 22, 2004. As Cochair of MICC, representing more than Maryland 4,000 residents, I request that you consider every point in this epistle and respond to each one in detail with full supporting technical data.

First, allow me to state our formal objection to the way that the process of releasing and soliciting comments for the DEIS. Your office released the DEIS in electronic form on December 8th, just before the holidays. Although you did not release the technical reports for the DEIS or hard paper copies until much later, and to very few libraries, the State Highway Administration (SHA) originally set a deadline of February 1, 2005 for public comment. That is less than two months to read a 1,450-page preliminary report, and some 7,000 pages of technical reports, plus 2,300 pages of minutes and notes, that weren't available until much later.

Also, it is well documented by copies in our possession of complaints to you that the electronic form of the DEIS frequently was difficult to open and gain access to, that some of the subsequent technical reports online were corrupt; that actual printed were difficult to find, that the document is too large to download via dial-up, and that those copies in libraries were limited to the initial study without technical reports.

The eight technical reports were not provided to all of the libraries along with the DEIS (which they were in the 1997 ICC study), and they are difficult to find on your website. Once they have been downloaded (which takes many hours, even on a high-speed hook-up, for they are over 875 MB), they are user-unfriendly, without consistent numbering of pages. Most pages are not listed in a Table of Contents, and the documents have multiple Tables of Contents, most interspersed in no particular order amid the unnumbered pages. Once one has manually scrolled through the 1000-2000 pages to find this key information, printing out a single page can take over 5 minutes.

Also, the SHA made it even more difficult for those who requested and were willing to pay for printed copies to receive them in timely fashion. Indeed, I sent you a letter on November 4th, 2004, requesting a printed copy for MICC, and never received any response from your office about it at all. Other affiliates of MICC have reported that they received their paid-for copies just a few weeks ago.

Considering the torturous process by which members of the public were compelled to endure, it is hardly reasonable to expect them to have reviewed this document with the care it requires and have their comments in by an extension of only 25 days.

Given this information, please inform us as the first part of your response to this study as to why the comment period could not be extended to the 180 days that we solicited also in my November 8, 2004, letter. Please explain how you can consider 95 days (arrived at after SHA was compelled to allow for two extensions totaling 25 days) scheduled around the holidays, and with all of the difficulties in gaining access to the DEIS, time enough for people who work at other full-time jobs to analyze this critically important document.

Also, please delineate why this process has been accelerated so when the decisions to be made about an ICC could have enormous impacts upon our communities, our environment, our water resources, our air quality, our dependence upon fossil fuels supplied from abroad, and myriad of other significant factors in determining the future quality of our lives and those of our children and grandchildren. If the ICC has been considered on and off for the past half-century, why must we rush to judgement now rather than take our time in such crucial deliberations?

Purpose and Need Statement

The findings of this DEIS should be rejected because of the limitations inherent in its scope. That is, the Purpose and Need Statement (PNS) has called for a highway alone, rather than a multi-modal transportation system. This PNS has rejected alternatives including upgrading existing roads and intersections, and also transit orientation, and a balance of jobs and homes in close proximity to each other.

Because both the 1997 impact study and the 2002 Transportation Policy Review (TPR) Task Force report include data that demonstrate the viability of the above alternatives, why did SHA quickly dismiss them in the 2004 PNS without supporting data? I would appreciate a detailed, technical explanation of this oversight. This failure to consider other alternatives violates the intent of the National Environmental Policy Act.

With this as the starting place for the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement, how can you consider the information it presents as comprehensive and objective? Comparison only to the no-build option required by law offers no viable choices at all, and considering the data in the new DEIS that traffic will be increased on I-495 indicates that even fleeting traffic relief figures cited in the rest of the report must be suspect.

Environmental Impacts

Generally, this DEIS leaves an impression as a hodge-podge of questionable statistics and gross generalizations. Reading the part on its effect on the environment, you make statements such as the majority of residents in Montgomery and Prince George's County who wouldn't be by building the ICC feel it would improve their quality of life. You don't present any proof of this statement, and you ignore the quality of life of those people living along the proposed corridors. Have you surveyed these people to see how they feel about an ICC?

One glaring omission in this DEIS is a consideration of its impacts as they relate to Global Warming. Global Warming has been accepted by the majority of the scientific community, and also by most of the leaders of the world's nations. Some experts estimate that a worldwide crisis could be as few as 75 years away, an eyelash of time in the span of the billion years of the planet's existence. These experts and that unanimous change in the behavior of those countries using fossil fuels must begin now, as evidenced by the recently enacted Kyoto Protocol.

With a narrow window of less than 100 years, every measure that can reverse this disastrous trend needs to be taken. An ICC defies science and logic, and threatens our environment in this way. Considering this major threat to our environment, please explain in detail how building an ICC and thereby increasing fossil fuel use and a significant amount of impervious surface conforms to the Global Warming imperative to effect just the opposite.

Regarding specifics in the DEIS, in your section on Environmental Stewardship (I-14), you discuss Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) or "Thinking Beyond the Pavement." You state that "CSS requires a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility." Please explain how a six-lane highway that by virtue of allowing semi-tractor-trailer trucks corresponds to the concept of preserving scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources.

You continue by declaring that "CSS is an approach that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist. CSS has established a foundation for Environmental Stewardship practices." This can be described as a worthwhile effort, but the very nature of an ICC defeats this because of the magnitude of environmental destruction it would cause.

In a September 8, 1997 letter, the U.S. EPA denounced end-on construction as a method to mitigate the environmental impacts associated with an ICC (see enclosed copy). The letter states:

"EPA does not feel that this technique would serve as a mitigative measure for the wide variety of long term environmental impacts identified in our comment letter on the draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).... These impacts would be realized regardless of the construction technique employed."

Parallel to this recognition of the vast environmental damage that an ICC would cause, I submit to you that all of the environmental stewardship initiatives that you plan in conjunction to an ICC would not mitigate the overwhelming direct deleterious impacts that constructing it would engender.

Indeed, the projects that you intend to undertake to repair past environmental impacts in the area are commendable, and they should be executed. However, they should not be used to justify building an ICC, as the evidence shows in straightforward fashion that this highway is too destructive to our environment to build.

The DEIS text on page IV-84 claims that "no park and recreation facilities would be impaired to the extent that a substantial diminishment of its function, features, or attributes would occur from noise, visual intrusion, or restriction of access or vibration."

This contradicts the M-NCPPC Park Classification System (page 23 & 24 of the Park, Recreation, and Open Space Master Plan - A Local Land Preservation and Recreation Plan, M-NCPPC, July 1998), which defines Stream Valley Parks as "Conservation-Oriented" parks. The PROS Master Plan (page 24) characterizes and defines Stream Valley Parks in the following way:

"Stream Valley Parks form the foundation of the park system, extending as greenways throughout the urban areas and into the countryside, putting the natural environment within close reach of all Montgomery County citizens. They separate communities with green open space buffers and provide easy access to nature for adjacent residents. Just as they were 70 years ago, stream valley parks today are acquired primarily for conservation purposes. They hold the key to watershed protection throughout the County by reducing flooding, sedimentation, and erosion, and they furnish valuable habitat for many species of wildlife. Some stream valleys, such as the Upper Paint Branch Stream Valley are also designated as special protection areas that area subject to a special set of regulations designed to protect them.... More recent environmental regulations now limit or prevent intensive development along stream banks to reduce sedimentation and erosion and environmental degradation caused by urban runoff."

In addition, the PROS Master Plan states that, "Regional Parks are large, typically over 200 acres, and contain a wide range of recreation opportunities and facilities, while retaining two-thirds of the park for conservation."

Rock Creek Regional Park is defined as a "Recreation Oriented" park. The portion of Rock Creek Regional Park east of Redland Road, south of Muncaster Mill Road and north of Needwood Road is devoted to conservation purposes in the M-NCPPC Rock Creek Regional Park management plan. The active recreation facilities of this Park are restricted to areas south of Needwood Road.

An ICC will compromise these parklands severely, costing hundreds of acres of forested public parkland, native habitats, and native species. Also, the edge effect from land disturbance by an ICC will cause an influx of nonnative invasive plants that will disrupt remaining habitats within these parklands.

Noise pollution would further affect many of our finest parks. The proposed alignment for Corridor 1 would be in close proximity, no more than a few hundred feet away, from the Northwest Branch Park, the Paint Branch Park, Fairland Park, and segments of Rock Creek Park. The latter two parks would suffer the same noise pollution along with the Rocky Gorge Protection Area if an ICC were to be constructed on Corridor 2. Noise pollution of this nature is well-known to disrupt nesting of interior-forest dwelling birds, a serious environmental concern.

In your ICC Noise Quality Technical Report, you assert on page 18 that a park "in which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance" is 57 dB, yet you state 42 dB on Corridor 2 as a measure of a quiet residential neighborhood. So, please explain how a housing development can be quieter than a serene park? Also, your measurements were taken during mid-day, without rush hour noise taken into account. Your technical log states that extra noise was experienced during several measurements (see pages 225, 336, 345, 347, 348, and 351). Yet, there is no indication in the logs that further measurements of these areas were conducted. The text contradicts the logs, however, by saying that measurements with extraneous noises were re-done. Obviously, these inconsistencies need to be addressed fully.

Also, saying on page 25 that efforts were made to place noise meters near roads defeats the purpose of measuring parklands in their natural state. ICC noise would severely damage Mill Creek Stream Valley Park, Rock Creek Park, Northwest Branch Park, Paint Branch Park, and Burtonsville Park.

Construction of an ICC to transverse these parks also would destroy County Champion trees and rare plant species. In effect, the very natural resources and natural attributes that attract us to visit these parklands would be diminished substantially. The ICC would severely intrude upon and destroy the natural conservation qualities that these parks were set aside for.

These publicly owned natural resources contain forests, streams, wetlands, flood plains, and native bio-diversity that increasingly is under threat from development on private and public lands in this highly urbanized area. The parklands are sensitive natural resources that deserve to remain in a natural condition for future generations of wildlife, flora, and people. Each park has its own distinctive character and setting derived from local geology, soils, topography, flora and fauna. The ICC, if built through any of these parks, will substantially detract from the unique settings that originally made these parks attractive to the Society and the general public in the first place. What scientific criteria were used to determine that no park and recreation facilities would be substantially impaired? What unscientific criteria were used, if any, to make this claim? Although there is some discussion about noise impacts, there is no discussion concerning visual intrusion or restriction of access to parks. How can a reader make an informed decision regarding visual intrusion and restriction of access to parks when the text does not provide an adequate discussion to support its claims?

Given the impacts upon our parklands, it is incumbent upon SHA to answer these vital questions about our park resources, preferably in a completely redrafted DEIS:

(1) Has SHA evaluated the noise impact by traffic on the wildlife that exists in the Paint Branch and Northwest Branch?

(2) Is there an evaluation showing the ecological value (not just the amount of land) that would be lost in the Paint Branch and Northwest Branch if the ICC would be constructed using end-on-construction?

(3) How would noise barriers be constructed on an elevated highway that would pass through pristine parklands and established neighborhoods?

Until these issues are addressed thoroughly and satisfactorily, this aspect of the DEIS does not meet the 4(f) requirements of NEPA for parkland impacted by an ICC.

Part IV, page 88 describes the visual impact of an ICC without really being specific. Wouldn't an ICC along any route be an eyesore, and a tremendous creator of noise? What about these aspects of the quality of life? How can a six-lane highway be safe and attractive, especially when it would have trucks roaring by on it?

You mention ICC Aesthetic Guidelines on IV, page 91, yet they are not listed. Just what are the aesthetic guidelines for an ICC? How can you make a six-lane highway more aesthetically appealing than stream valleys, woods, parkland, and other green space?

Also, please account for the loss of wildlife habitat; the increase in air pollution, and the ensuing upswing in respiratory disease; the further pollution of our water sources, and the increase in water treatment costs that will follow; the greater use of fossil fuels; the surge of development and growth resulting from the ICC.

This new document is ingenuous when it touts efforts to avoid or minimize impacts to ecologically sensitive areas (IV, p.81). An ICC will compromise not only the areas adjacent to its length. The ripple effect from its severe curtailment of our quality of life will be general throughout Montgomery and Prince Georges Counties both.

In reading the new DEIS and comparing it to the 1997 DEIS findings, the damage to forests, trees, and wetlands will be more extensive rather than less. For example, in the 1997 study, the loss of forest to an ICC would be 552 acres on the Master Plan Alignment, compared to 794 acres in the 2004 study. Never mind that these estimates are significantly higher than the previous study's estimates (and you're spending an additional $900,000 above the 2001 $1.5 billion estimate for further environmental mitigation in the form of long bridges?). Where is your count of the specimen trees within these lost forest acres, and what will happen to the county's champion trees?

Comparing wetland losses, the 2004 study says that 22-30 acres will be loss, not to mention mining wetlands now included, bringing the total up to as much as 67 acres. The 1997 study reported a loss of 19 acres of wetlands.

The same is true with stream impacts. The 1997 study estimated 29,451 linear feet would be impacted; the 2004 impact study reports up to 46,204 linear feet on Corridor 1. Overall, the new study already predicts an increase in damage to stream valleys in linear feet by 17% over the impacts in the 1997 DEIS.

The new DEIS also reveals significant secondary and cumulative environmental effects created by an ICC. According to the study, building an ICC would directly result in additional development of homes and commercial buildings that would not otherwise appear. This has a vast impact on the environment and community landscape by negatively effecting farmland, forests, streams, wetlands, flood plains, and reservoirs. Below are the impacts:

Farmland: Corr. I: 2,102 acres Corr II: 2,348 acres (p. 163-164)
Forest: Corr. I: 3481 acres Corr II: 3504 acres (p. 179-180)
Flood plains: Corr I: 420 acres Corr II: 419 acres (p. 129-130)
Wetlands: Corr I: 209 acres Corr II: 216 acres (p. 155-157)
Streams: Corr I: 117,500 feet (22.3 miles) Corr II: 119,500 feet (22.6 miles) (p. 140-142)
Reservoirs: Corr I: 313 acres Corr II: 659 acres [[Source: DEIS section IV, page 373]

Contradictions exist in the text and tables in your Secondary and Cumulative Effects Assessment (SCEA) about many of these figures also. Table 8 of the SCEA cites 252.6 acres of secondary impacts to the flood plains, but the text says 420 acres (p. 129). The table states a loss of 160 acres of wetlands, whereas the text says 209 acres (p. 155). The table says 1,200 aces of forest will be lost to secondary development compared to the text's estimate of more than 3,481 acres lost (p. 179). From the increased direct environmental impacts listed in this DEIS compared to the 1997 DEIS, we can extrapolate that the higher number of acres for each of the indirect impacts would be most likely. Still, the discrepancies between the tables and the text need to be resolved, another sign that this DEIS was rushed to completion. Regardless, the losses are significant. Considering the enormous scope of these impacts, and adding them to direct impacts of an ICC, please explain how this version of the ICC can be touted as environmentally sensitive.

This new DEIS is also rife with inconsistent comments on the environmental impacts. For example, in Chapter 2 of part one on page 64, you describe the Northwest Branch as having "a degraded stream condition." Yet, later on you say that "the Northwest Branch has been and is currently managed as a successful recreational trout fishing stream."? In any case, if you plan for an ICC to cross the Northwest Branch stream valley three times, how can you expect the environmental impacts to be mitigated under any circumstances?

The proposed ICC routes traverse six watersheds and snake through sensitive stream valleys. Corridor 1 cuts through the heart of the Paint Branch headwaters, crosses these tributaries three times, and parallels the trout spawning and nursery area for more than a mile. Corridor 2, while further removed from the most sensitive areas, also cuts through the headwaters.

This DEIS presents impacts in tables, but fails to assess the consequences of the net impacts after mitigation. NEPA requires that specific parameters are tailored to each resource, such as the Northwest Branch and the Paint Branch. SHA does NOT claim that the ICC will comply with the Upper Paint Branch Special Protection Area and the Environmental Overlay Zone requirements. Building the ICC through the heart of the Paint Branch Special Protection Area defies decades of land use decisions at the local, state, and federal level.

Also, SHA claims that the impacts of the ICC would not constitute a constructive use of public parkland or resources. However, ancillary impacts of the ICC would extend to include parkland. According to Section 4(f), these impacts to parkland and the resulting loss of the Paint Branch fishery constitutes constructive use.

The two previous ICC studies made clear that an ICC should not be built due largely to its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Below are some of the conclusions drawn from these studies:

"EPA finds potential adverse impacts to the naturally reproducing brown trout stream in the Paint Branch watershed unacceptable . . .and believes that these impacts would likely eliminate the trout resource from the watershed. Elimination of the trout would remove the existing use of the stream, a violation of EPA's antidegradation policy." — Environmental Protection Agency in letter to Federal Highway Administration, 8/1/97

"Even with substantial mitigation, the Master Plan Alignment's direct and indirect impacts on the Paint Branch and Northwest Branch parks still would be substantial." — Army Corps of Engineers in briefing to Governor's Transportation Solutions Group, 12/11/98

"Based on the DEIS...staff cannot conclude that the mitigation concepts for aquatic systems impacts can ensure adequate mitigation and protection of these natural resource systems. — M-NCPPC Staff Review of ICC, 7/97, Review of DEIS Concepts for Mitigation of Natural Environment Impacts.

Considering these statements, please explain those dynamics that have changed these assessments in the past eight years, a short time when considering environmental impacts in any given area. Indeed, the current DEIS reveals that the environmental impacts from an ICC would be greater than anticipated in the previous studies.

The new study shows that 17 species of rare and threatened species of plants and animals still will be destroyed by an ICC. The study says that the Bonifant Flood plain contains state rare and watch-listed species. The new DEIS offers nothing about what will happen to these species if this Flood plain is crossed by the ICC? The increase of these impacts reveal that your plan to utilize longer bridges will not mitigate the environmental damage from an ICC in either corridor.

Also, Table II in Volume II, shows that the Northwest Branch Stream Valley has the largest number of deer in the area. But it does not have anything about what will happen to them if an ICC were built through the Valley. What is going to happen to those deer? Where will they go?

According to this DEIS, many environmental challenges have been identified, yet few have been thoroughly resolved. For instance, on page 127 the study discusses how storm water run-off will be handled by the ICC, with ponds. It is my understanding, however, that infiltration trenches would be more effective. Why are you recommending the use of ponds when they are obsolete, and no longer permitted in the county? Ponds increase heat pollution compared to infiltration.

Also, the study is providing run-off controls for only a 1.5-inch storm water event. There is plenty of evidence that storms creating much more than this have occurred with great frequency, showing the parameter used in the study to be insufficient. Please explain why the ICC will use inadequate, out-dated controls for the very serious problem of storm run-off, especially given the amount of impervious surface that an ICC will contribute to this ongoing problem.

We have experienced several severe storms in recent years that have matched or come close to matching the 100-year standard that has been used in the past for construction like the ICC's would be. Using only 1.5 inches as the measure for controlling ICC runoff is inadequate.

In Special Protection Area of Paint Branch, you propose to infiltrate first 3 inches of a storm event by putting storm water storage chambers and pipes under the proposed ICC. Please explain why you do not plan to do so along the entire ICC length. One caveat; you are encouraged not to suggest that additional cost would be the reason, given that our environment is irreplaceable and priceless.

The same with saying that SHA has avoided and minimized wherever possible impacts tells me that there were places that you could not avoid or minimize. Where are these places, and how bad will the total damage be? If they are the Potomac River, the Anacostia River, and the Patuxent Rivers you mention, how much more damage can these important rivers bear?

In your environmental analysis, you also declare that you intend to protect all infiltration during construction. Yet, I have seen presentations of numerous violations by state hired contractors at various SHA sites where sediment has been horribly out of control. Most recently, contractors working on Route 28/198 allowed sediment to run rampant from the construction area. This contractor was cited, but the damage had already been done.

In fact, SHA owns a poor record on control of sedimentation at its projects. A U.S. Department of Interior – Fish and Wildlife Service letter from June 13th 1989 concerning the ICC stated that, ""Past and current projects have demonstrated that the State Highway Administration is either unable or unwilling to control sedimentation." Considering the recent sedimentation resultant from the aforementioned 28-198 project and the Route 29 realignment, it is apparent that SHA still fails to control sedimentation.

The Technical Appendix on Natural Resources has generalized statements supporting the generalized conclusions of the DEIS. For example, on page II-24 it says "...An Erosion and Sedimentation Plan (ESCP) would be developed and administered in order to minimize the soil erosion associated with steep slopes and unstable and erodible soils. The ESCP would be prepared during final design in accordance with the guidelines provided by the MDE, and would include erosion and sediment control such as sediment traps,.... Pre-design permeability testing would be needed along the corridor to determine the effectiveness of infiltration as a SWM technique."

Rather than state what needs to be done to control erosion, this DEIS must thoroughly delineate with full technical detail how SHA will avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impact of "soil erosion associated with steep slopes and unstable and erodible soils"?

In the same vein, the study talks about controlling run off on roads and decks in Stream Protection Areas, and that quote state of the art sediment and erosion control procedures will be used to control both coarse and fine sediment, unquote. Given your poor record in the past, how can we expect you to do this; how do you intend to do this to a zero tolerance level that our stream valleys require, and why don't you intend doing it over the entire 17+-mile length of the proposed ICC?

Where is the evidence, for example, that mechanical excavation of bedrock has little effect on the environment? Dust and debris has no effect on ground water? What about the wildlife near the blasting? Can you prove that they won't be disturbed? More to the point, where is this blasting plan that you refer to in the study? Part IV, p. 129 states that "A blasting plan would be designed." Shouldn't full details of such a plan and its total effects be included in an environmental statement?

On page 158 of the same part, the study says that mitigation is being evaluated and sites are being reviewed. In order for this report to be a thorough and useful tool, shouldn't the results of evaluation of sites already be included? Indeed, the entire report suffers from a lack of complete, detailed technical information

Also, this DEIS fails completely to quantify either the direct or indirect water quality impacts of the highway. The greater growth caused by an ICC will increase polluted runoff, and air pollution, thereby threatening any restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. Please thoroughly analyze and document the safeguards being taken to ensure that the increase in runoff will be adequately controlled to save our water quality and the Chesapeake Bay.

These questions point to the larger truth about building an ICC; that the massive size of it preemptively rules out the kind of stewardship that is necessary to preserve our community health and our environmental treasures.

This study consistently makes statements such as "analysis of direct and indirect impact must await further study"; "Must make considerable effort to avoid and minimize"; "investigating the feasibility to further minimize impacts; and "efforts to minimize are underway." (195, P. IV) These statements indicate that the study is incomplete and under detailed.

The impacts on communities has not been sufficiently documented, especially the indirect impacts. Noise, air, and other forms of pollution will have a wide spread effect on many residents, not just those in immediate proximity to the proposed alignments. These deleterious effects should be fully explored and assessed, which they are not in this document.

This new DEIS documents that building either alternative would increase total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the study area by 20 percent compared to the no-build option. This 20% increase also translate into a corresponding 20% increase in carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, benzene, and other toxic emissions? These air pollutants were not studied in this DEIS. Given their proven poisonous nature and the fact that they are emitted by internal combustion engines, it behooves you to add a complete analysis of the impacts of these and other known pollutants from an ICC.

The Metropolitan Washington area has been designated by the EPA as being in severe non-attainment for ozone (a main ingredient of smog). A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that even a relatively small increase in ozone is directly linked to an increase in deaths from heart and lung ailments. Tailpipe emissions from auto and truck traffic are already a major source of ozone and other pollutants in the Washington area. A recent Sierra Club report summarized 24 medical studies showing that people who live in close proximity to highways are at greater risk of developing asthma, cancer, heart disease, and respiratory illnesses. By increasing sprawl and long distance driving, an ICC would worsen our already bad air pollution and put more residents at risk of serious health problems.

Numerous other scientific studies have shown that people who live near highways face increased risks of such medical problems as asthma, heart attacks, premature births, and cancer, because of pollutants from vehicle exhaust. Your study should take into account the ancillary medical costs that result from the 20% increase in air pollution promised by construction of an ICC.

Aside from the paucity of analysis and technical detail (e.g. IV, p. 205, "detailed reviews are promised"), the report is plagued with speculation and opinion expressed specifically to support the ICC rather than appraise it objectively.

In your study, you estimate the loss of as much as 552 acres of forest on the Master Plan Alignment, and possibly 492 acres sacrificed on the Northern Alignment. The loss of these high quality forests will diminish severely the habitats for wildlife and interior forest-dwelling birds. What will happen to these birds, and what will happen to the residents of Montgomery County when the song birds that live in these forests are gone?

The ramifications of an ICC go well beyond your ability to mitigate (and where are the sites you propose for mitigation [IV, 233]?). The cumulative effect of these impacts reveal that your best efforts to plan an environmentally sensitive ICC have failed. This should not come as big a surprise in light of the fact that four different federal agencies, including the United States Environmental Protection Agency, ruled against an ICC in 1997 due to the severe environmental impacts. Indeed, your own office The Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration concurred in a September 9, 1997 letter, agreeing with the federal agencies (see enclosed copy). What has changed in eight short years to reverse this position so completely?

Given the failure of your study to refute the damage referred to in these letters, and the recurring inconsistencies in statements that you make throughout the review, how can you consider it to be an accurate document that will serve as an environmental basis for an ICC?

The ICC Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that the SHA just published does not meet the criteria of NEPA Section 4(f). The reason for this assessment is that you have not finished the study, yet you have put it out for public criticism as though it were complete.

In Part V, page 63, you state "This Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation does not specifically conclude that any of the analyzed alternatives or shifts are not prude or feasible but rather provides the information and analysis along with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement to allow those conclusions to be drawn, where appropriate, in the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation." If you conclusions will be drawn later, how can anyone assess the accuracy and value of this report and an ICC? Does not the NEPA Section 4(f) require that this DEIS come to a conclusion now, then to be vetted by the public?

You go on in Part VI to discuss the extra steps you will be taking for ancillary environmental stewardship, which should be undertaken, but as a separate initiative from the ICC. Indeed, the damage of a six-lane highway to our water resources, forests, wetlands, rare species, and wildlife seems insurmountable, which would account for the U.S. EPA drafting a letter in 1994 saying that no mitigation could offset the destruction to the ICC.

Hence, extra environmental stewardship will not work as a salve for the damage of an ICC.

Traffic Congestion

Regarding traffic congestion, please explain how the study can claim to reduce local traffic when it shows that traffic on Georgia Avenue and Colesville Road to and from the Beltway will be more congested? According to this new DEIS, 3,000 to 7,000 cars per day will be added to the Beltway coming off these roads. Why is an ICC, which would create more traffic on these already severely over-crowded roads, better than dedicated lanes on them at rush hour for Ride- On buses to Metro stops, as well as other buses?

You contend that traffic on I-495 from I-95 will be reduced by an ICC in different places. What you fail to discuss is that this evening-out effect simply means that traffic on I-495 will be horrible in different ways and different places – temporarily. Also, your traffic models do not include the increased traffic from the additional development that an ICC would spur, some 5,000 more acres. You need to analyze traffic with the vehicles that this new development from an ICC will introduce into the current DEIS projections.

Your discourse on the effect that "secondary" development, such as Konterra, dodges the common-sense knowledge that a complex of that size will affect traffic on that part of I-95 and I- 495 that the ICC supposedly would relieve. The Beltway will blot out any momentary light that an ICC might shed in no time with thousands of new cars. Remember, it was declared obsolete in 1964, the year it was completed.

The real question is why are you ignoring the 1997/2001 models that showed that an upgraded road scenario without an ICC but with transit would do better than a road-build scenario? Where is the data that refutes this data that was assembled by SHA previously? Isn't it true that we cannot build our ways out of growth and sprawl with an ICC?

The ICC is supposed to relieve traffic, yet it increases in the worst possible places, north and south between I-495, Rt. 29, and Georgia Avenue. Can you please explain the logic behind the claim that an ICC will relieve traffic on local roads when the data itself shows that at the very best traffic congestion will be the same or worse?

In your section on tolls, you estimate $.13 per mile in off-peak hours, and $.17 per mile tolls during peak hours. Considering the cumulative expense of such tolls, doesn't this model favor freight companies and other commercial users, and also individuals with greater disposable income? If a daily commuter were to rely upon the full length of an ICC, the daily cost would be close to $6.00 per day, or $30.00 per week, $1,487.50 annually. For lower-income workers, this is a substantial amount of money that is not taken into account regarding the socioeconomic impacts of an ICC. Considering SHA's original plan to establish a toll rate double the above, a legitimate question to ask is how long would the propose rate be in effect before SHA would institute a toll hike. Yet, SHA's willingness to underwrite this economic inequity, due to its dependence upon tolls to help finance an ICC, stands as another indicator of the gross expense of this highway in comparison to any benefits it might afford taxpayers.

Also, please delineate how a toll road will help local traffic? Tolls will discourage people from using an ICC if it were built. In fact, representatives of SHA have said that the toll would be a way of controlling flow on an ICC. Is this a guised way of saying that tolls would reduce the number of potential users, thereby allowing those who do pay a toll move faster? If that's what is meant, then where do all those local drivers who might have used an ICC go, back on local roads?

Doesn't that mean that traffic on local roads will be just as bad or worse than ever? The 1997 study said that local road use would increase 8% because people would be getting on and off an ICC. Now, because of the toll, will they just stay on the local roads?

It is apparent that an ICC isn't going to solve any traffic congestion problems except for those who can afford a $5 or more toll per trip, or the trucks that will be on what was originally proposed as a Baltimore-Washington Parkway type of highway. (By the way, this road has no tolls or trucks, and it's frequently crowded around rush hour, too.) This seems economically inequitable, and also outrageous, given the capital cost of $2.1-$2.4 billion to build an ICC. It sounds like a really bad investment that you should turn down in favor of other solutions that could work, like more buses going to Metro.

Also, the study claims that 100,000 cars and trucks per day will use the ICC. Is this figure more than 300,000 cars less than the number estimated by the 1997 study? How can you explain that, and how can you expect an ICC to relieve traffic on local roads if it is a toll road, discouraging drivers from using it to make short trips? Also, by permitting semi-tractor trailer trucks on an ICC, doesn't this further defeat the already compromised concept of an ICC as an environmentally sensitive parkway?

Furthermore, state and federal policy have set mandates to curb growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Yet, this DEIS hardly mentions VMT, other than the undocumented statement that an ICC would mean fewer traffic fatalities. However, the DEIS does reveal that building either alternative would increase total VMT in the study area by 20 percent compared to the no-build option. This seriously compromises state and federal policy to reduce VMT.

In a January 24, 2005, study entitled "The Future Isn't What It Used To Be: Changing Trends And Their Implications For Transport Planning," (http://www.vtpi.org/future.pdf), author Todd Litman, of the Victoria Transport Policy Institute examined demographic, economic and market trends that affect travel demand, and their implications for transport planning. He notes that motorized mobility grew tremendously during the Twentieth Century due to favorable demographic and economic conditions. However, he also determined that the factors that caused this growth are unlikely to continue. Per capita vehicle ownership and mileage have started to decline, while demand for alternatives such as walking, cycling, public transit and telework is increasing. These trends indicate that future transport demand will be increasingly diverse. Transport planning can reflect these shifts by increasing support for alternative modes.

Litman notes that between 1900 and 2000 per capita vehicle travel increased by an order of magnitude due to favorable technical, demographic and economic trends but that toward the end of the century per capita automobile travel stopped growing in the U.S., and started to decline after 2000. His report presents evidence that this decline will continue. An increasing portion of the population will need or prefer to rely on alternative mod es such as walking, cycling, ride sharing, public transit, telework and delivery services. Automobile transport will continue to be important, but the role of other modes will increase.

Litman concludes that transportation professionals should take these trends into account when making strategic decisions. We should plan for a mature transport system, with less emphasis on roadway system expansion and more emphasis on improving transport system efficiency and diversity.

This DEIS, with its virtual tautological PNS calling for the building of an ICC, and the dismissal of transportation alternatives cited above, plainly shows that SHA is failing to exercise any vision to manage our future transportation needs.

Please refer to the January, 2005 Smart Mobility, Inc. study The Intercounty Connector: Performance and Alternatives (http://savecommunities.org/iccalternatives.html). In it, you will find a careful analysis of six scenarios: an ICC tolled highway along the State's Corridor I, and four sets of complementary transportation improvements combined in some instances with future land use changes, along with a "no build" alternative. The study examined the ICC study area set by the State, as well as Montgomery County and Northern Prince George's County. To undertake the task, the regional Transportation Planning Board's traffic model was utilized, and a set of commonly used transportation measures of effectiveness were employed to evaluate the performance of each alternative.

This report demonstrates that all alternatives to an ICC improve travel conditions at less cost. In all of the alternatives to the ICC, less time is spent in cars than with the ICC. All of the alternatives show fewer hours of delay due to congestion than the ICC. The ICC was the only alternative that would increase vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips made each day. The ICC ranks second to last in removing traffic from local roads and major arterials. Three of the alternatives increase average speed more than the ICC. All of the alternatives, except the ICC, result in lower air pollution emissions for the study area and the region as a whole.

These findings parallel the trends documented by Litman above, pointing toward the obsolescence of an ICC as a transportation solution. Another indicator of this obsolescence is the failure of SHA to consider the fast disappearance of oil and other fossil fuels in the world. Oil is what powers all the cars and trucks on the road, including those on an ICC if it were to be built. It is well-known, however, that the world's supply of fossil fuels, particularly oil, is being depleted at a rapid rate.

Global oil discoveries peaked in the early 1960s, and users in the U.S. have been burning more oil than has been discovered since the early 1980s. U.S. oil production peaked in 1970 and has since fallen back to the level of production from the early 1950s. The U.S. has 2% of world oil reserves, but uses 25% of world production. The peak of oil production throughout the world is close at hand. The Association for the Study of Peak Oil predicts that the peak will be around 2008. Also, other demand will grow, as the world population is still growing at around 80 million people per year. In other words, an oil crisis in this country is imminent, not distant.

Nonetheless, SHA predicts 25% more traffic in 2030, either ignoring or ignorant that oil production will have been falling for 20 years by then. The new DEIS cites oil 19 times, but only as a pollutant, never as the source of energy for every car and truck that would ride on the ICC. Also, the development of a usable alternative fuel, such as hydrogen, is considered to be as far off as 30 years or more.

To discount the oil reality in conjunction with an ICC is truly imprudent. Two scenarios spring to mind at once as consequences of the inevitable depletion of oil resources, and they are not exclusive. That is, building an ICC would exacerbate the local oil crisis by encouraging its use; and second, the ICC would eventually see less use due to citizens turning to more affordable means of transportation. Building an ICC would delay the development of these alternative means because our financial and other resources would have been invested in an ICC. Also, if an ICC is funded by GARVEE bonds, the income from freight fees and tolls would reduce, thereby forcing Maryland citizens to pay for the greater part of the loan and its high interest, thus further delaying the accumulation of state revenue to build the alternative transportation systems called for in Litman's report and the alternative studies cited above.

The DEIS does mention fossil fuels as being needed for construction of the ICC, though not to run the cars on it. The DEIS also assures us that we can use fossil fuels to build the ICC without reducing the fossil fuels available to us. This statement does not make sense, and requires an explanation and technical support.

Given all of the above information, no other conclusion can be reached regarding an ICC's function as a transportation solution other than an exorbitantly expensive failure. The results above require you to prepare a supplemental DEIS that includes these alternatives in search of genuine transportation solutions.

Homeland Security

The rationale on homeland security in this DEIS borders upon the ridiculous. Allow me to quote V-65-66: "… the No-Action would not advance homeland security as it would not provide much-needed capacity for military access…."

Highways go in two directions no matter how many one-way signs are put up. A terrorist can use a brand new highway just as well as any military vehicle. From your study, too, it looks like parts of your ICC will pass very close to some of our reservoirs, a perfect opportunity for an evil-doer to introduce something into our drinking water.

The cavalier use made of genuine threats to our well-being to advance the Inter-county Connector is inappropriate and disrespectful.

Economics

In your discussion of the economic impacts of an ICC (IV-92), you cite the study performed by the Maryland Transportation Initiative (MTI) at the University of Maryland. The methodology and its results are seriously flawed. First, the vehicle operating cost projections do not appear to account for the cost of tolls, which are essential to the financing plan for the ICC. Also, the projections of time saved cannot be trusted because the Transportation Planning Board traffic model used by the study has been found by the National Academy of Sciences to be seriously flawed ("A Citizen Guide to Critiques of the Metropolitan Washington Area Travel Model: What Does it All Mean?" June 15, 2004, Norm Marshall, Smart Mobility, Inc.). In addition, the study's time savings compare doing nothing to building the ICC. The viable alternatives documented in the 1997 DEIS and the Transportation Policy Review Task Force Report, which proved to perform just as well or better than an ICC, are not considered.

The study also fails to take into account the environmental costs of the ICC, including impacts on parks, recreation, wildlife, and air and water quality. It also does not include the costs of longer commutes for those in Prince George's County who have access to too few jobs, and may actually have longer commutes as a result of an ICC.

Furthermore, the survey of 15 unnamed business leaders is hardly scientific and the process used to select those leaders needs to be disclosed. Neither does the on-line survey section specify the size and statistical accuracy of the sample. The study cites business leaders "belief" in a "Diversion Effect," where the ICC diverts and reduces traffic on other roads. The data in this new DEIS refutes this argument, which clearly indicates that an ICC in fact will induce additional traffic without relieving existing roads. As stated before, this DEIS neglects to quantify VMTs, but the last ICC DEIS from 1997 revealed that it would increase miles driven on local roads.

In addition to the above omissions and errors in execution, the MTI study's assumption of a net economic gain misconstrues the more likely effect of constructing an ICC, as demonstrated by Professor Robert Cervero, Professor of City and Regional Planning at the University of California, Berkeley. His analysis of the full range of transportation studies on induced traffic produced the conclusion that, "The dominant effect of building roads is likely to reshuffle growth within a region, not to add jobs and households." (http://www.planning.org/newsreleases/2003/ftp050803.htm).

Also, the MTI study assumes a net economic gain because it ignores the diversion of economic investment from other locations including Prince George's county, the District of Columbia and Baltimore. The Council of Governments Transportation Planning Board analysis of the expansion of I-270 concluded that this highway's expansion shifted jobs and population to the I-270 corridor that would have otherwise located in the District of Columbia and Prince George's County (http://www.mwcog.org/uploads/committee- documents/9F5WXg20030415103348.pdf).

The current DEIS cites Freight shipment as a major economic benefit of an ICC. However, the MTI report states that, "those interviewed believe that the economic benefit of the ICC to regional carriers and shippers is likely to be only incremental." (p. 12). Specific analysis of Federal Express deliveries from Rockville to Bethesda show that any time savings would only be 4-6 minutes, the equivalent of the time it takes to serve just one customer. Furthermore, "the majority of the day is spent loading and unloading vehicles or making multiple stops within a small area." (p. 13). The latter information actually helps to confirm the efficiency provided by compact development patterns for the collection and delivery of a higher volume of packages to a greater number of customers.

The greatest omission of the MTI report, a reflection of the previously stated, overarching flaw in this DEIS, is the failure to analyze the economic benefits of an alternative transportation solutions outlined in the 1997 DEIS and the TPR Policy Review Task Force. It is not unreasonable to propose that any major transportation initiative would result in significant economic benefits such as those associated with the construction of the region's METRO, and also the redevelopment of areas such as Ballston, VA, with both residences, employment opportunities, and easy access to transit. Therefore, it is disingenuous to posit that an ICC would be the only transportation means for spurring economic development.

Also, considering the expense of an ICC, $2.1– $2.4 billion in capital costs alone, a genuine cost-benefit study needs to be conducted, which this DEIS has not done. A cursory examination of those claimed for an ICC by this DEIS reveals that they are marginal at best.

The DEIS Economic Impact Study attributes daily savings of $978,364 to single- occupancy vehicles to an ICC on Corridor 1. But, when you divide the time saved per capita, it is amounts only to an average 1.2% faster than the No-Build option, producing an average time savings per person-trip of 13 seconds, which works out to 3.7 cents The time savings for the afternoon rush hour is an average of 2.7% faster, producing an average time savings per person-trip of 40 seconds worth 11.2 cents. The study did not factor in the cost of tolls, which most likely would significantly reduce these per capita savings. These are incremental savings per capita at best.

In 2010, the value of the yearly ICC travel time and car maintenance savings will be $373 million according to the DEIS estimate. But, when compared to the total 2002 personal income of $70 billion for Montgomery and Prince George's Counties, this savings works out to ½ of 1%. SHA states that annual user benefits starting in 2010 will be $5 to $7 billion over 20 years. For the same time period, Montgomery and Prince George's Counties will have total personal income of $1.4 trillion dollars before inflation. The user benefits are thus equal to 1/3 to ½ of 1% of that amount. The study states that 14,200 jobs will be generated by Corridor 1. In 2002, there were 1,018,914 full and part-time jobs in the two counties, an increase of 13,292 from the year before. Hence, the total number of jobs estimated to be created by an ICC equal just 1.4% of the current total and represent about 13 months of job creation at the current rate.

These calculations demonstrate that an ICC would not contribute in any significant way to the economic betterment of Montgomery and Prince George's County over the no-build option. Again, without an analysis of what the other alternative transportation and land-use solutions might produce economically, this DEIS cannot be considered an exhaustive and acceptable document on this basis.

Also, please itemize the additional fiscal cost of all of the unplanned development created by the ICC itemized on page 5 of this letter. That is, please analyze how much new infrastructure will cost to service this ICC-generated development. For example, Montgomery County already has multiple portable classrooms in all of its elementary schools and most of its middle schools. Yet, school construction is significantly under-budgeted. Montgomery County already has stretched police and fire fighting capabilities in order to cover an expanded population and jurisdiction, thereby diminishing services. The new development from an ICC will compound this crisis dramatically. Therefore, it is vital that you account for all new infrastructure, its cost, plus the cost of alleviating the burden on existing infrastructure created by an ICC.

Given these serious, multiple shortcomings of the DEIS, I will reiterate the recommendation to select the no-build option until a complete and accurate economic analysis can be performed.

Summary Comments

Please explain how you can present this massive document with all sorts of technical information about an ICC without any outside objective review to verify its accuracy? How can you make statements about the expertise invested in this report without any independent analysis that confirms its findings?

I will cite one example: in the fourth part on page 293, a blanket statement is made regarding 25 years of the "best professional judgment and prior experience." Considering that the ICC has been debated by professionals using their best judgment for close to 50 years, and that it has been rejected again and again, including by four federal agencies twice in the past two decades, how can you make this claim without offering specific supporting information?

Considering the comments above (which would be even more extensive if there was sufficient time to analyze this 10,000 page document, it is clear that this DEIS serves poorly a an environmental study of the viability of building an ICC. Nonetheless, this DEIS provides sufficient information by itself and in conjunction with the irrefutable facts from preceding DEIS and other studies, that building an ICC on either of the proposed corridors should be rejected. From this information we can conclude that an ICC will offer little in the way of transportation or economic benefits at enormous detriment to our communities, our environment, our health at too great a financial cost. Therefore, we recommend and urge SHA to choose the no-build option

The scale of the inadequacy of this DEIS is such that should SHA and the other agencies choose either of the build alternatives, they should be compelled to begin again with a new Purpose and Need Statement that includes transportation alternatives not restricted to a highway alone. Thereafter, they should be required to prepare an entirely new DEIS that is well-researched with technically-sound supporting data. And, they arrange for full access to it by all interested residents, and allow for a six-month comment period after the entire document has been made available.

Regarding these comments, I reiterate my request that you respond to each and every statement and question in them, point by point, with full supporting data.

Cordially,

Dan Wallace
Cochair
Montgomery Intercounty Connector Coalition

Enclosures: September 8, 1997 United States Environmental Protection Agency letter; September 9, 1997 Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration letter.