Cynthia Elkins
PO Box 220
Whitethorn, CA 95589
March 11, 2009
Kim Floyd
Project Manager
Calif. Department of Transportation
PO Box 3700
Eureka, CA 95502
kim_floyd@dot.ca.gov
Deborah Harmon
Senior Environmental Planner
Calif. Department of Transportation
1656 Union Street
Eureka, CA 95501
deborah_harmon@dot.ca.gov
Re:
Richardson Grove Operational Improvement Project – Draft Environmental
Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment and Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation
Dear Ms. Floyd and Ms. Harmon,
Please consider the following comments on the proposed Richardson Grove Operational
Improvement Project. I have reviewed the draft EIR/EA/4(f) evaluation and believe fundamental
and fatal flaws exist. Context and feasible alternatives are missing, and a real analysis would
reveal that this project is unnecessary and unwarranted. These and other issues are discussed
below.
The purpose and need is narrowly defined, violating CEQA and NEPA and skewing the
environmental analysis
As a threshold concern, I believe the purpose and need of the project is erroneous and ill defined,
creating a fundamental problem that pervades the entire environmental analysis. The purpose
and need statement of any environmental analysis is its most basic and primary component,
forming both the foundation and framework for virtually everything else that follows. “The
statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is
responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.” 40 CFR § 1502.13
(emphasis added). According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, this statement “serves
as the cornerstone for the alternatives analysis … Care should be taken that the purpose and need
statement is not so narrowly drafted that it unreasonably points to a single solution.” FHWA
2003. http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/Gjoint.asp.
This guidance echoes federal requirements and rulings of the courts. For example, the