[ Home ] [ Up ] [ About the Partnership ] [ Reports ] [ Regional Advocacy ] [ News ] [ Resources ] [ Archives ] [ Job Openings ]

Exhibit 2

Jennifer Aiosa, Staff Scientist
Kimberly Coble, Senior Scientist
Maryland Office, Chesapeake Bay Foundation
111 Annapolis Street, Annapolis MD, 21401
410-268-8833

Prepared for:
Baltimore Regional Partnership

May 18, 1999

The purpose of the DEIS is to provide the public and decision-makers with thorough understanding of the environmental consequences of proposed actions so that informed decisions can be made in determining the most socially and environmentally beneficial course of action. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for MD 32 Planning Study, from MD 108 to I-70 does not present sufficient information or analysis of environmental impacts to provide the basis for assessing the trades-offs between the benefits of the proposed project and damage to environmental resources.

1. From a scientific perspective, the DEIS is woefully inadequate for estimating and evaluating the likely environmental consequences of the proposed actions.
2. It is inadequate for the DEIS to claim that more detailed study of environmental impacts will be done at a later stage of project planning when the DEIS makes no attempt to provide estimated effects.
3. Existing impaired conditions of environmental resources or predicted future trends of continued degradation of environmental resources do not justify the environmental degradation caused by the proposed actions.
4. Wetlands mitigation should not be confused with avoidance and reduction of impacts. Stormwater management "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) should not be confused with avoiding and reducing actions that disturb natural hydrologic systems.
5. The deterioration in air quality caused by an increase in vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips generated by this project is not considered in the DEIS.

1. From a scientific perspective, the DEIS is woefully inadequate for estimating and evaluating the likely environmental consequences of the proposed actions.

The DEIS lists potential environmental impacts from actions such as road building, culverting, devegetation, stream and floodplain encroachment etc., rather than quantifying and assessing the likely direct and indirect effects caused by the specific actions proposed. The DEIS lacks sufficient detail to assess the likely impacts of the proposed build alternatives. Based on the DEIS, it is impossible to have any knowledge of what the likely direct, let alone secondary and cumulative, effects of the proposed actions will be. Since insufficient information was provided on the environmental impacts of the proposed actions, it is not possible to determine if those impacts can be further avoided, reduced or mitigated; or if they are outweighed by the project benefits.

Examples of inadequate estimation of impacts:

Page IV-15-17. The DEIS presents an overview of types of adverse effects to surface water quality associated with construction activities from a generic viewpoint, however the specific adverse effects from this project are not presented. On page IV-16, the DEIS lists the linear feet of stream to be effected, and numbers of stream crossings and encroachments that would potentially occur under Build Alternative I and II, yet this information provides few details about the specific activities and fails to quantify the impacts associated with these activities. The DEIS makes no attempt to quantify the identified impacts for the Build Alternatives.

Page IV-17. The DEIS states that sediment and highway runoff can have effects on surface water quality, and that highway runoff contains an array of pollutants. The DEIS states that the degree of water quality impacts from roads is related to the amount of impervious surface, yet fails to quantify the amount of impervious surface proposed under Build Alternatives I and II, and thus fails to even estimate water quality impacts.

Page IV-18,Table IV-8: Mean Pollutant Concentrations in Highway Runoff from Urban and Rural Highways. This table provides virtually no usable information, as the DEIS has not quantified the amount of impervious surface that will be added by this project and the DEIS provides no information on how to apply the quantities of pollutants in the table in order to estimate project impacts.

Page IV-18-19. The DEIS states "Potential groundwater impacts from the project could conceivably include adverse effects upon groundwater recharge, availability (well yield), and water quality." The DEIS, presenting no analysis or data, concludes that this project would not "pose any substantial threat to groundwater resources." The DEIS claims that the added impervious surface would be small compared to the recharge area of the watershed. The DEIS should provide quantification of these claims.

Page IV-20. The DEIS states that changes in floodplain capacity caused by added impervious road surfaces will "not be a significant impact to the watersheds or the total storage of the floodplain associated with the streams in the project area." The DEIS offers no data or further analysis to support this assertion. Secondary effects of increased impervious surface coverage caused by new development are not considered in the DEIS (see Page IV-75-76).

Page IV-74. No specific discussion of cumulative effects is provided in the DEIS. Instead, the DEIS cites State and federal laws related to water quality protection and ongoing programs to protect and improve water quality. Apparently, the authors provide this information as a secondary and cumulative effects analysis. No specific analysis of effects from the proposed project are provided.

2. It is inadequate for the DEIS to claim that more detailed study of environmental impacts will be done at a later stage of project planning.

The DEIS mentions several times that although it is not providing specific information on the detailed and quantifiable environmental impacts of the project in this document, further study will be carried out at a later date. If exact location and design of the actions is not available until the final stage of project engineering, the DEIS should provide a range of the estimated quantified consequences of environmental impacts based on preliminary designs of the two build alternatives. Only the DEIS’s analysis of wetlands impacts attempts to estimate likely impacts. The purpose of the DEIS is to provide the public and decision-makers with thorough understanding of the environmental consequences of proposed actions so that informed decisions can be made in determining the most socially and environmentally beneficial course of action.

Examples from the text:

Page IV-15. The DEIS states "Type and size of stream encroachments (culverts and/or relocations) will be determined in later phases of this project."

Page IV-16. The DEIS states "The amount of stream impacts determined more definitively during the final design phase of the project."

Page IV-16. The DEIS States: "Detailed studies would be conducted during later stages of this project to select specific stream reaches...."

Page IV-18-19. The DEIS states "geotechnical and hydrogeologic studies would be performed to quantify those effects [on a well] before the construction phase of the project and remedial measures would be evaluated."

Page IV-19. The DEIS states "A technical hydrology and hydraulics engineering analysis of the actual floodplains within the impact study area would be conducted, as more detailed design data becomes available."

The DEIS constantly justifies the environmentally damaging consequences of the proposed actions by citing existing conditions such as impaired surface water quality, existing impervious surfaces generating polluted runoff, land development activities projected to destroy 805 acres of palustrine wetlands in Howard County, etc. State law specifically call for anti-degradation. This means that the condition of the state’s waters cannot be degraded further.

For example:

Page IV-16. The DEIS states that "With or without construction of this highway project, stream bank erosion, channel downcutting and bed material deposition are likely to continue...."

Page IV-75. The DEIS states that it is "reasonable to expect that as these [Tributary Strategies] programs become further implemented, anticipated development, including the MD 32 project, will have no cumulative effects on surface water resources, including the Terrapin Branch." Contrary to the DEIS’ assertion about Tributary Strategies activities, a recent study by Maryland Office of Planning, "Smart Growth Options for Maryland’s Tributary Strategies," concludes that the greatest water quality benefits for Howard County are derived from concentrating growth in development districts in the eastern portion of the county and reducing development in the western portion.

Page IV-76. The DEIS states, "most of this project’s impacts are the continuation or expansion of previous effects and are limited in severity and can be mitigated through typically-required design measures."

4. Wetlands mitigation should not be confused with avoidance and reduction of impacts. Stormwater management "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) should not be confused with avoiding and reducing actions that disturb natural hydrologic functions.

References to mitigation, avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetland and other natural resources are inconsistent with EPA and State mitigation sequencing rules. EPA defines mitigation sequencing as the following: (1) avoiding impacts, (2) reduce those impacts that cannot be reasonably avoided, (3) mitigation of impacts. Such sequencing is required of proposed impacts to wetlands and other natural resources.

The DEIS frequently discusses wetlands impacts mitigation and reduction in the same sentence, making no distinction between the order of consideration of these approaches to protection of the resource. The DEIS asserts that whatever impacts to wetlands or other aquatic resources are likely to occur from proposed actions, engineering solutions are interchangeable with protection of natural resource systems. The scientific and engineering literature demonstrates that this is not the case. These facile assertions call into question the scientific competency of this study and its proper sequence of consideration of alternative approaches to environmental impacts. Mitigation project often fail due to the difficulty inherent in replacing or recreating a natural system where one previously did not exist. The benefits of maintaining natural resource systems far surpass the benefit of mitigation.

Examples:

Page IV-16. The DEIS states, "Detailed studies would be conducted during later stages of this project to select specific stream reaches and to design restoration and remediation options using bioengineering techniques." This is an inappropriate sequence of addressing environmental effects of proposed actions. The first step is to avoid and minimize impacts. After opportunities for avoidance and minimization have been exhausted, unavoidable impacts are to be compensated by engineered management of impacts and other remediation measures including restoration.

Page IV-20. The DEIS states, "In designing stream crossings, all possible measures would be included to reduce or mitigate the impact of flooding" [emphasis added]. Both reduction of impacts and mitigation of unavoidable impacts must occur – not one or the other. From the DEIS, it is difficult to ascertain whether all possible avoidance and reduction of proposed impacts has been achieved. All impacts should be reduced. Only after reduction should mitigation be considered.

Page IV-17. The DEIS states that highways generate polluted runoff but that BMPs such as infiltration basins are highly effective in controlling runoff temperature and providing a high level of pollutant removal. Regardless of the efficacy of engineering measures to address increased runoff and pollutants generated by the project, the first order of assessing and addressing environmental effects is to avoid and minimize. To assert that BMPs are "very effective" provides no information about the environmental potential impacts associated with the project activities, nor does it truly demonstrate efforts to avoid/reduce impact altogether.

Page IV-81. The DEIS states, "while large scale actions may impact greater wetlands areas, mitigation measures, including wetland construction, offset resource and habitat losses with any given region." This is incorrect; mitigation is not a substitute for loss of natural wetlands, and usually results in some net resource and habitat loss.

5. The deterioration in air quality generated by the probable increase in vehicle miles traveled and vehicle trips generated is not considered in the DEIS.

Only Carbon Monoxide (CO) impacts are highlighted in this DEIS. Limiting the analysis to CO is unacceptable by law, and it is unacceptable for the full presentation of impacts to decision-makers. The ostensible reason for such limited analysis of air pollutants and effects is because impacts to seasonal ozone levels form any of the build alternatives is lost in the "noise" of the air quality modeling of the regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Unfortunately, that is the reason given for analytic limitations on every new regional roadway component – and when measured and inputted individually, indeed, such may be the results in a region that travel tens of millions of miles per day.

Increases in pollution by ozone precursors must be assessed cumulatively and collectively. The build alternatives will increase area-wide VMT and vehicle trip numbers. The freeway alternatives will increase average speeds to the point that nitrogen oxide emissions will increase. In accordance with the federal Clean Air Act, as well as federal transportation law (Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act and TEA-21), these factors must be used in regional modeling, together with other likely area-wide "improvements," so that a likely overall impact can be derived. To simply say that this or that road will not cause ozone exceedances within this air quality severe non-attainment area is disingenuous and unlawful.

4. Conclusion

The DEIS for MD 32 does not provide an adequate basis for assessing the likely environmental impacts of the proposed project. We suggest more detailed studies be conducted as part of a draft EIS and specific assessment of impacts caused by the proposed project be provided prior to any decision on a project of this magnitude.

410-268-8833

email:jaiosa@savethebay.cbf.org

WORK EXPERIENCE

Staff Scientist – Chesapeake Bay Foundation Maryland Office – 10/98 – present.

Provides technical review on legislative, regulatory and programmatic initiatives regarding wetlands, natural resources, nonpoint source pollution, water resources and agricultural issues. Prepares written and oral comments and testimony on proposed regulations, NEPA documents, proposed permits, and legislation. Researches technical information in support of organization efforts. Represents organization on several committees including the State On-Site Disposal System Task Force, the State Dredging Needs and Placement Options Program Management Committee, and the State Animal Waste Technology Fund Workgroup.

Natural Resources Planner/Technical Coordinator - Maryland Coastal Bays National Estuary Program – 7/97 –10/98.

Coordinated activities of Federal, State and local governments relevant to the development of a comprehensive conservation and management plan for the protection of water quality, restoration of habitat, and promotion of sustainable growth in Maryland’s coastal bays watershed. Provided technical support to local government officials and staff, stakeholder groups and local citizens, and the Program’s Habitat and Living Resources and Sustainable Growth subcommittees. Initiated and managed cooperative projects among participating agencies and local citizens including initiatives to curb non-point source pollution, promote large parcel nutrient management, and coordinate wetlands restoration and protection. Position included extensive writing and editing, public outreach and education, meeting facilitation, long-term programmatic planning and evaluation and research.

Special Assistant to U.S. Congressman Wayne T. Gilchrest, MD – 1/96 – 7/97.

Responsible for tracking Federal, State and local environmental legislation, policies and programs specifically related to water resources, wetlands, estuarine and marine issues; specific concentration on Chesapeake and Maryland coastal bays programs and policies. Acted as a liaison between State, local and Federal interests on wetlands, shellfish and water resources issues. Planned meetings and a statewide conservation forum, and conducted public education and response to citizen inquires. Position included extensive work with local and state governments, private citizens, nonprofit organizations and stakeholder groups.

Teaching Assistant, Urban Planning - Environmental Choices – 1/95 – 6/95.

Responsible for leading graduate and undergraduate students through critical thinking exercises regarding the economic, ecological and aesthetic consequences of short and long term environmental practices and policies. Facilitated group activities, goal setting and comprehensive project development.

Research Assistant - Microbial Ecology Laboratory, Charlottesville, Va. – 8/93 – 12/95. Extensive independent lab and field research investigating microbial mediated processes in a salt marsh ecosystem subjected to rising sea level. Planned and executed water column and soil analyses and presented research findings at scientific and management conferences though oral and poster presentations.

Research Assistant - Long-Term Ecological Research Program Water Quality Monitoring Project, Virginia Coastal Reserve – 9/93 – 8/94. Responsible for monthly water quality sampling and chemical and physical analyses as part of a long-term data collection project.

Research Assistant – 5/92 – 8/92. South Carolina Sea Grant Consortium sponsored investigation of chemical and physical characteristics associated with vegetation dieback in coastal salt marshes. Evaluated local land use changes, interviewed residents, and identified potential correlations between land uses and vegetation changes. Performed independent soil and porewater analyses in order to identify differences between healthy and unhealthy sites.

EDUCATION and HONORS

M.S. Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903. May 1996.

Dean John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship - Jan. 1996 - Jan. 1997 - US House of Representatives.

W.E. Odum Foundation Research Grant - May 1995. A single annual award to continue exemplary estuarine research.

Estuarine Research Federation/Hydrolab Corporation Student Presentation Award - November 1995. Estuarine Research Federation Conference, Corpus Christi, TX.

B.S. Marine Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208. May 1993.

Cum Laude, With Honors from the South Carolina Honors College.

ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE

Horton’s Kids, Inc. - 2/96 - present. Weekly tutoring and mentoring of at-risk youth.

Volunteer Coordinator 4/98 – present - responsible for coordinating weekly activities of 100 volunteers, volunteer recruitment and orientation for new volunteers, and management of volunteer information.

Horticulture Assistant, National Aquarium at Baltimore - Monthly work in aquarium’s tropical rainforest.

 

410-268-8833

Baltimore Regional Partnership · 512 Orchard Street  · Baltimore, MD 21201-1947
 phone: (410) 523-8150  x249 · fax: (410) 523-4022