Public Scoping Forum

ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FORUM ON THE PENNS NECK AREA EIS

Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment Prepared by NJDOT for
Millstone Bypass Project

Prepared by:
Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition

For Submittal to:
Helen Neuhaus & Associates
432 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016

Email: hna1977@aol.com

January 7, 2002

Comments on Draft EA

Executive Summary
The Millstone Bypass will significantly impact many of the area's cultural and environmental resources. The construction of this federally funded roadway-a 2.3 mile expanse with a 64-foot wide right-of-way and 54-foot paved width-was designed with a four-lane cross section. The Bypass, because of its geographic proximity to important historic sites, park lands, scenic rivers, and ecologically critical areas will have direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the natural and human environment and the unique characteristics of the area. Those areas most impacted include: the Delaware & Raritan Canal State Park, the Washington Road Elms, the Millstone River stream corridor and surrounding wetlands and the entire region's air and water quality.

Impacts of the currently proposed alignment
Although the stated purpose of The Millstone Bypass is to remove traffic signals on Route 1, it is not simply an overpass. It is a 2.3-mile new roadway and part of a larger segmented project. The Bypass, in combination with the Hightstown Bypass (formerly an integral part of S-92) and the proposed widening of 571 in East and West Windsor, constitutes a major east-west arterial and link to the New Jersey Turnpike. Not taking these interrelated connections into the traffic analysis gives faulty induced demand data. The segmentation of these projects is in violation of NEPA requirements and obscures the total social and cumulative environmental impacts. Mercer County is considered a severe non-attainment area under the Federal Clean Air Act. Currently, the State of New Jersey is in non-compliance with Clean Air Act requirements for reducing air pollution. The NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan states: "with regard to transportation investment decisions, the State will need to significantly change the way it provides transportation control measures that will offset the growth in ozone precursor emissions resulting from the growth in vehicle miles of travel." The Air Quality Models used in the Environmental Assessment did not evaluate the project impact on residences along Harrison Street in Princeton, nor did it evaluate the project and its compliance with the new National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The Millstone Bypass as currently designed by NJDOT will be constructed on twenty-five acres of wetlands and undeveloped old growth woodlands on SRI David Sarnoff property adjacent to the Millstone River and Little Bear Brook. This project will impact the wetlands and woodlands known as Penns Woods. The Bypass will encroach upon the Millstone River stream corridor and proposes filling wetlands in this environmentally sensitive site. Policy 12 of the revised State Development and Redevelopment Plan, dated 6/25/97, reads: "Protect wetlands as a means of protecting water quality, controlling floods and ensuring habitat by controlling wetland filling and through watershed planning, local land use planning incentives, education and regulation." The Environmental Assessment disregarded the impact of the project on the drinking water quality of the Delaware & Raritan Canal and the Millstone River. This is a severe oversight since the Canal and the Millstone River are used as a source of drinking water for over a million people in central New Jersey.

This project will run parallel and in close proximity to the Delaware & Raritan Canal State Park, a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is the most widely used recreational facility in the area for walking, jogging and boating. This park is the largest uninterrupted segment of the East Coast Greenbelt. The D & R Canal State Park is recognized in The NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan as an Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area (PA5) and a Critical Environmental/Historic Site (CEHS). The Bypass will have negative visual, noise, storm drainage, and water quality impacts on the State Park. The negative noise and visual impacts constitute constructive use under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. The Federal Highway Administration has determined constructive use occurs when: "the projected noise level increase attributable to the project substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of a noise-sensitive facility...such as a historic site where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature."

The three-quarter mile section of Washington Road (Mercer County Road 571) between Route 1 and Faculty Road is one of the region's most scenic and important features. Since 1806, when it was designated as the entrance into Princeton, it has served as the eastern gateway into the community. In 1920, after the completion of Lake Carnegie, it was lined with American Elms, Ulmus Americana, by William Flemer, the owner of Princeton Nurseries. The trees were planted on fifty-foot centers and were a variety of elm known as Princeton, which had been developed by the nursery after many trials to find a superior American elm both in vigor and beauty. The now mature trees form a majestic canopy across the road and provide a dynamic visual perspective for residents and visitors. The elms, together with the D & R Canal and Lake Carnegie, form an historic entrance into The Princeton's and Princeton University. It is a defining aspect of the area, nationally and internationally recognized as one of finest planned and planted gateways into a community.

The Washington Road Elms are listed on the State and National Register of Historic Places. They are important to the area as an integral part of the Washington Road gateway into Princeton. They are also scientifically important. The elms are being studied as part of the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) ongoing research into Dutch Elm Disease (DED). In previous tests by that agency, the trees were found to be resistant to DED, which has destroyed over 100,000,000 American elms, a native species, and once the country's favorite shade tree. USDA is currently involved in further genetic studies of the Princeton Elms to discover what is responsible for this natural protection. This research has far-reaching horticultural importance. The current "final" design for the Millstone Bypass will destroy approximately one quarter of these trees.

Alternatives to the currently proposed alignment
There are prudent and feasible options to the NJDOT "final" design for the Millstone Bypass. The West Windsor Township Master Plan Update adopted Sept. 3, 1986, is the source of several options. The Plan strongly endorses a service road parallel to Route 1, to act as an intra-municipal connection and an internal distributor of local traffic from high density housing to office parks, future Princeton University development, and Lawrence and Plainsboro townships.

To that end, and with these recommendations in mind, the following design alternative, moves the Millstone Bypass away from the D & R Canal, and positions it close to Route 1 as a parallel frontage road, thus eliminating the negative impacts on the historic and environmentally sensitive area around the D & R Canal and the elms. This alignment also uses less Princeton University land.
The same Master Plan also envisions a connector road linking Vaughn Drive through Station Drive, joining Alexander Road with Washington Road. It also shows an improved bridge over the Amtrak lines joining Alexander Road to North Post Road with connections via Clarksville-Grovers Mill Road to County Road 571. This is an alternative to the northern portion of the proposed alignment of the Bypass. It would remove impacts to the stream corridor and surrounding wetlands, by not paralleling the Millstone River thus allowing traffic to bypass the Penns Neck area by channeling non-local traffic to the Alexander Road/Route 1 interchange.

At the intersection of Route 1 and Washington Road, the use of a "cut-and-cover" design as recommended by FHWA to preserve and enhance historic properties and parks, would create a wide plaza in front of the historic Penns Neck Baptist Church with Route 1 traffic passing underneath. "Cut-and-cover" tunnels have saved historic properties in other parts of the country, and given local traffic, pedestrians and bicycles improved and safe access between communities. This concept could be accomplished by removing the hill that currently exists at Washington Road and creating a level grade for Route 1 from the Dinky overpass to Harrison Street. In combination with a frontage road, all the current traffic movements that exist for the Washington Road/Route 1 interchange would remain without signal lights on Route 1.
These prudent and feasible options warrant serious analysis as a means of avoiding the significant impacts posed by the current "final" alignment on the adjacent natural and human environments.

Introduction
Description of Comments Report
This report comprises the comments of the Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition (MBA) on the NJDOT's Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) regarding "Improvements Route U.S. 1/Penns Neck Area". These comments were prepared by the members of the MBA and identify the weaknesses of the NJDOT draft EA. MBA's comments also describe the issues that should be addressed properly and in full in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Route U.S. 1/Penns Neck Area Improvement Project. Included in this report are suggestions on study areas and points of concern that should be considered during the EIS. Furthermore, alternatives to the Millstone Bypass "Preferred alternative" are provided. MBA strongly believes that there are numerous more suitable alternatives to this project that the NJDOT never considered or dismissed erroneously.

Section 1 Comments on EA Section 1
Comments on Section 1.0 Introduction
The statement that the proposed project is the final component of an overall plan of regional improvements to RT 1 to improve traffic flow refers to a policy based on the 1986 recommendations of the RT 1 Corridor Study to grade separate intersections within a segment of RT 1 between College Road and 295. These RT 1 improvements were to be implemented in conjunction with the building of a new east/ west arterial, S-92, between RT 206 and the NJ Turnpike. The recommendations were based on a number of planning assumptions that have changed: S-92 will not bypass Princeton if it is built, but instead terminate at RT 1. The Hightstown Bypass was segmented from the S-92 proposal and built as part of RT 571 Corridor improvements. West Windsor Township brought legal action with FHWA and NJDOT in 1996. The Millstone Bypass is also a component of the proposed 571 Corridor improvements cited in the lawsuit. Along with improving the east/west travel flow in the area, the purpose of S-92 was to: relieve congestion in Princeton and Hightstown, which were noted in the 1986 S-92 EIS as the most severely congested areas; and, to relieve the local roadways of truck traffic by providing a high speed congestion free alternative for traffic wishing to bypass Princeton and Hightstown. It was argued in the S-92 EIS that the project would remove significant amounts of
truck traffic off local roads and away from residential areas.

The RT 1 Corridor Study noted that congestion in sections of Route 1, including the northbound direction of Route 1 between Route I-295 and Harrison Street, and the southbound direction of Route 1 between College Road and Harrison Street could be exacerbated. The reason for these variations "appears to be that in certain locations improvements to Route 1 feeder roads will divert more of the local trips to Route 1 increasing congestion."

The policy of removing signalized intersection and replacing them with grade-separated interchanges has been inconsistent (addition of lights). At Nassau Park Boulevard, this inconsistency has had a profound effect on localized congestion. Most importantly, however, s that both the NJDOT Route 1 Corridor Study and the Princeton Area Transportation Study completed by New Jersey Transit determined that even with planned improvements, unless transportation and land use policy are linked in the Route 1 Corridor, traffic congestion will worsen. In fact, the 1984 traffic figures and the projected traffic volumes for both the No-Build and Build alternatives were restrained, reflecting traffic volumes which were constrained by the physical features of the roadway (restrictive lane width).

Comments on Section 1.1: Existing Facility
The March 1991 EA referred to, did not evaluate Penns Neck improvements. The EA listed the Penn's Necks project as a proposed action under study. The proposal was to construct a new grade-separated interchange just north of Washington Road which "would provide loop ramps, finger ramps, and connector roads to Washington Road both east and west of Route US 1 (See alternative) Reference is made to the 1987 report provided to NJDOT by West Windsor Township. The report opposed certain NJDOT conceptual schemes and proposed others. More importantly, the report stated: Because of the complexity of varied environmental and community impact issues involved with this area, a full EIS of various road alignments for this complex is envisioned by NJDOT" The study concludes that "the township trusts that the dialogue which has begun will continue as the DOT begins the EIS and design refinement process...". That study also stipulated that S-92 is built before construction begins.
Since this project was announced, STOP has been asking for a true EIS and a consideration of alternatives that reflect Context Sensitive Design and regional needs, not just commuter and interstate trucking needs or the needs required of a Federal-Aid Primary System.The community outreach process conducted by DOT has been exclusive of citizens with alternative viewpoints, as evidenced by the lack of all dissenting or questioning letters, etc. that were prepared by the citizens,that are NOT in the EA. There is no reference to letters sent to the commissioner of transportation by more than 1,000 people who do not support the current alignment.Furthermore, the original conceptual engineering for this project dates over ten years ago back to 1987. The original design did not consider newer technologies, better traffic data, and the changed regional/local needs of today. If the project will provide the current level of service as in the build-out year and with only 35% increased capacity, why not look at new technologies as well as new traffic control and transportation concepts that may do better?

In general, the proposed project description is unevenly described and ignores many points that are cons in the description (lights on bypass for instance that will bring traffic to a stop, traffic backing up into Princeton on Harrison, and inaccurate assertions that the project will not induce traffic). The proposed project description does not account for the potential impact on bypass traffic of NEW developments on Princeton University land, Sarnoff land or when Washington Road is closed between Faculty and Nassau.

Also, the project description does not clearly state what the design speed of the new Rt. 1 facility will be. Is this supposed to be an uninterrupted highway? It is not because of the continued turning movements at Washington and Fisher Place, not to mention places of business on Rt. 1. NJ DOT has two opposing goals for the Rt. 1 corridor, to allow municipalities to develop properties at will (which creates traffic demand beyond capacity) and to make Rt. 1 a free flowing corridor for transportation of goods and commuting.

Furthermore, the project description does not provide any mitigation of visibility and noise impacts, does not fairly deal with the impact of the Millstone Bypass on the Delaware and Raritan Canal, does not adequately address the impact on the Millstone River, and does not provide specifically for the ability of bicyclists or pedestrians to cross 1 even though the Introduction says the impacts will be mitigated.

Finally, throughout the document there are maps, figures, tables, studies, and reports referenced but the publicly available draft EA did not have them appended. The EIS's must be complete with all supporting documents. This is standard practice in EIS's.

Comments on Section 1.2.2:
In regard to negotiations with Princeton University and Sarnoff Research Center. According to 23CFR710.203(a)(3): Preliminary acquisition activities, including a title search and preliminary property map preparation necessary for the completion of the environmental process can be advanced under preliminary engineering prior to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) clearance, while other work involving contact with affected property owners must normally be deferred until after NEPA approval. This is order not to prejudice or predetermine the Federal decision making process on highway alternative locations.

Also, this section of the EA states, "This design would provide a continuous, uninterrupted flow of traffic in both directions between Princeton Borough and the State Highway 64 bridge over Amtrak." What about the traffic lights, the on and off ramps, the intersections with Harrison and back to Washington Road? Clearly the design will not provide an uninterrupted flow between Princeton Borough and the State Highway 64 bridge. Especially now that Sarnoff plans to develop their property and to include traffic lights at the proposed conference center and hotel.

Furthermore, traffic flow will be interrupted by the "stop sign-controlled 'T'-intersection" at Washington Road. Traffic flow will also be impeded by the decrease in speed limit. The proposed speed limit for the Millstone Bypass is 35 mph. This is lower than the current 40-mph on East Side of Rt. 1 and 50 mph on West Side. Adding the traffic lights, travel times will increase.

As a "local collector road for the Penns Neck Community, " one would definitely have to add that much of the traffic flowing north on Route 1 and then intending to go east on Route 571 (most of West Windsor, Cranbury, East Windsor, and many other points east) will continue to use Washington Road east of Route 1. Likewise, those traveling westward from these towns and intending to travel north on Route 1 may choose to take Washington Road in order to avoid traffic lights on the new bypass. Thus, traffic in Penns Neck will still be heavy at certain times of the day.

Regarding the relocation of the parking areas for the Canal Park, the proposal to relocate Washington Road parking to south side of Washington Road. The draft EA says, "These relocations would improve accessibility as well as pedestrian mobility." Since most of the pedestrian and bicycle traffic along the canal path goes from Washington Road northward, placing the parking area on the southern side will be hazardous, forcing pedestrians to cross where there is no traffic light and near where traffic is feeding onto and off of the relocated roadway. The parking area should remain on the northern side of Washington Road.

Section 2 Comments on EA Section 2
Project Purpose and Need - EA Section 2.1
Explain how NJDOT's 5 Project objectives do not correlate with project needs. Refute points in Section 2.1.1 NJDOT lays out five project objectives that the preferred alternative supposedly meets. These objectives are:
1) Operating conditions on Route U.S. 1 in the project area should be maintained or improved by the project;
2) The existing distribution of east-west traffic entering and exiting Princeton from Alexander Road, Washington Road, and Harrison Street should be maintained by the project;
3) The project should be compatible with local, county, and regional planning initiatives;
4) The project should avoid or minimize impacts to the local community, including its residents, business, educational institutions, building fabric, and historic resources;
5) The project should avoid or minimize environmental impacts.

NJDOT judges the acceptability of the different alternatives based on these objectives. The alternatives were not equally judged with the objectives in mind. Furthermore, the preferred alternative did not satisfy the objectives any better than any of the other objectives.

With respect to Objective No. 1, what good will it be to maintain the operating conditions at Level of Service F? The project will not substantially improve the Level of Service on U.S. 1. The additional commercial development of at least 14 million square feet will overwhelm the functionality of the preferred alignment.

With respect to Objective No. 2, the preferred alignment will not maintain the existing distribution of traffic through Princeton. Construction of the preferred alignment, (i.e., the Millstone Bypass), will encourage more traffic to use Harrison street (to reach 206 via Ewing and to reach Route 27 N) and less traffic on Washington Road. Thus, the current traffic distribution will not be maintained. Furthermore, there is a strong likelihood that Princeton University will close Washington Road to through traffic.

Objective No. 3 is not met by NJDOT's "preferred alignment" because it does not meet the planning initiatives of Princeton Borough or Princeton Township. Conveniently, the NJDOT did not consider that they needed to consider the local planning of these two municipalities and these local planning initiatives were ignored. Regional planning initiatives for Central New Jersey are only now truly coming together so the "preferred alternative" could not be analyzed for how meets regional planning initiates. Even so, the draft EA does not even consider that there is a State initiative that asks municipalities to consider regional cooperation when planning development that impacts neighboring municipalities. NJDOT, an agent of the State and a servant of the people should have considered the regional impact.

NJDOT claims that Objective No. 4 is met by the "preferred alternative" because it avoids impacts to the D&R Canal Park corridor while improving site distances on Harrison Road. This totally ignores all the other impacts and also minimizes the impacts on the Canal Park. It completely ignores the impact on residents in Princeton, businesses in Princeton and on the environment. Again, the NJDOT only considers the impacts on the local community of West Windsor.

Finally, the draft EA does not summarize the impact of the "preferred alternative" on the environment. It does not state here that the project will minimize impact on the environment compared to other alternatives. This is Objective No. 5, "minimize environmental impacts."

Clearly, the objectives are not met by the Preferred Alternative.

2.1.2 Traffic Demand
This analysis was based on 1992 traffic volumes and uses 1994 version of the Highway Capacity Manual to analyze current traffic demand and existing conditions. The main concerns with this are:
The traffic demand numbers have greatly changed during the last 10 years; and,
And why is the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) being used to design a roadway which needs an increasing amount of local traffic access to and from the increasing number of office developments and retail establishments? Furthermore, the distance from the railroad underpass to the proposed Harrison Road overpass is less than a mile, a constraint on the ability of the HCM to provide accurate results.

Finally, the traffic study purportedly uses the "latest development data provided by local officials" Are these data accurate and representative? The information is not provided to the public to assess what information was used in the traffic model.

2.1.2.2 Traffic Forecasts
"As development in the surrounding communities approaches build-out, traffic volume growth will moderate." This statement in the draft EA sums up the total inadequacy of the traffic forecasts used by NJDOT and highlights the flawed information used to conclude that the "preferred alignment" is the Millstone Bypass. First, the statement says that build-out will occur in the local vicinity and that traffic volume growth will moderate. This conflicts directly with the stated NJDOT desire to create a continuous flow of traffic on Route 1, traffic that is not being generated in the local area but is instead through traffic whose growth will not necessarily moderate.

Second, the statement flies in face of reality. NJDOT says build out will occur and traffic growth will moderate. NJDOT anticipates growth in the Penns Neck area will develop 14 million square feet by 2022. They never use projected numbers from planned projects. Sarnoff is estimating 10,000 cars a day will use their proposed 2.5 M sq. feet development. This project was a surprise to DOT! The preferred alignment can not handle this kind of development.

Third, the statement refers to the Penns Neck Area and does not account for adjacent development planned for Forestall Village, Princeton Nurseries Land, Princeton Plasma Laboratory, Carnegie Center expansion, and the American Home Products land along Route 1. These developments will directly impact traffic flow through the Penns Neck Area. None of these projects were included ion the data to forecast traffic.

It is clear that the preferred alignment will hit a LOS F well before 2022 (when the draft EA acknowledges this design will fail!) and therefore other alternatives need to be evaluated in the EIS.

2.1.2.3 Capacity Restraints
Given the uncertainty surrounding the quality of the traffic data used by NJDOT, it is not possible to simply accept the conclusions NJDOT has presented here. Furthermore, if the US1 bridge was widened over the Millstone River without a bypass being built then it might be possible that restraint points identified at North and southbound Route 1 at Harrison might be alleviated. There was no analysis done of this alternative. Finally the figures referenced in this section were not made readily available to the public.
Traffic Analysis Findings
Cycle length of traffic signals has been changed since the publication of this document. How does this change the amount of throughput?

2.1.3 Economic Development
The draft EA claims that the, "Elimination of through traffic on Washington Road in the Penns Neck community would yield quality of life benefits to local community, including but not limited to traffic and noise relief." Not all residents agree. These residents will find it more difficult to access Route 1 South. There will still be traffic flowing in both directions on Washington Road (as previously noted). Some residents in Penns Neck (particularly along Lower Fisher Place) will endure higher traffic noise due to the relocated road.

The draft EA also claims the Preferred Alternative will serve a "mix of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists". However, few if any pedestrians and bicyclists are observed on Route 1 north or south. However, there are bicyclists on Washington Road and there is now sufficient space for them. Harrison Street and Alexander Roads are far more difficult to navigate. The addition of an overpass which will mimic Alexander Road with its on and off ramps will make it far more dangerous for cyclists than the currently existing at-grade intersection. Unless there is a commitment to the "pedestrian/bicycle crossing between Washington Road and the Dinky Railroad crossing," the new alignment fails to meet the needs of this segment of the population.

2.1.4 Safety
The draft EA says, "The number of traffic signals within a section of roadway is in direct relation to the number of accidents." Is there proof for this statement for U.S. 1 in the Penns Neck Area? What about the number of accidents caused by cuts in the roadway for driveways to shopping centers, industrial/office/research parks when traffic moves quickly?

2.1.5 Congestion Management Systems Analysis
"Physical conditions along Route U.S. Route 1 hamper the roadway's ability to function as a regional and local facility." The MBA does not believe that Route U.S. 1 would ever be able to be a local facility if the traffic signals were removed. Frontage Roads would provide the local aspect of the roadway but they are summarily dismissed by NJDOT

The CMS Analysis recommendations:
A) Pedestrians will not use the new route, since it would have dangerous crossings at the clover leaves and it will be too long a road to be effective as a pedestrian route. There will be no homes or businesses along the route; why would anyone use it for walking?

B) Paved shoulders for bicycles: again, the crossings at the clover leaves, the on-off ramps are incompatible with bicycle safety. Few bicyclists are on Alexander Road for just this reason.

C) Investigate potential locations for pedestrian crossing: where are these locations on the maps?

2.1.6. Summary of Environmental Impacts
In this section the NJDOT does not state the project will avoid environmental impacts. Instead the draft EA claims that unavoidable environmental impacts will be mitigated. This totally disregards the thrust of Objective No. 5. Furthermore, other less environmentally damaging alternatives were discarded by the NJDOT based on Objective No. 5.

Section 3 Comments on EA Section 3
Alternatives Considered - EA Section 3
Memoranda describing meetings with those who NJDOT considered the "stakeholders" in the Penns Neck project are contained in Appendix B of the draft EA. These 1994 documents from Frederick R Harris, the project consultants and designers clearly outline the goals of those organizations and individuals in defining a preferred alternative: Both Princeton University and Sarnoff favored Scheme E-1 which positioned the bypass close to the Canal and the Millstone River. Both recognized that "serious environmental constraints would likely render the alignment infeasible". Minor adjustments were made and a new scheme, D-1, was advanced. The memoranda notes on 8/24/00, 9/15/94. 9/23/94 and 9/29/94 that "Scheme D-1, however, still has significant impacts to environmentally sensitive areas such as the Millstone River and its adjacent wetlands. At an October 18, 1994 meeting with NJDEP, officials from that agency indicted that "from the environmental view and without consideration for other factors, Scheme C offers NJDEP the least concern. As a result, it will be the most difficult for NJDEP to dismiss. [They] noted that when a formal presentation is made to NJDEP, historic, engineering, and land use criteria should be demonstrated to show that Scheme C is not considered a viable plan."

In addition, any scheme that maintained through traffic on the section of Washington Road bisecting Princeton University's future campus, which carries approximately one third of the traffic burden to and from RT 1 was dismissed.

3.1 Preferred Alternative
Comments as above; it's clear that Princeton University and Sarnoff, being the major stakeholders, are given preference. Was the Canal Commission consulted about the moving of the parking areas?

3.2 Alternative A
Substantial impacts to wetlands and in 100-year flood plain. "Would not meet project Objective Nos. 3, 4, and 5." #5 is related to environmental impact. Since the preferred alignment has as much impact on the wetlands as Alternative A, it must not meet Objective 5 either. Alternative A also allows for traffic on Washington Road, as does the Preferred Alignment.

3.3 Alternative C
This alternative looks like it should never have been considered; there are too great impacts. It seems thrown in to make it look like other options were considered.

Alternative D-1.1A
No map was given; meets project objectives, but costs too much.

Alternative d-1.1B
Also rejected

3.12 Depress Route 1
Not enough creative thinking seems to have gone into this alternative. There are not even drawings for it. The argument that the drilling would cause problems with structural integrity is not completely fleshed out. One could move, either temporarily or permanently, the affected buildings, including the church. This is done for other projects and could be done here, if the result were a better option. Comments about the "views across Route 1" are odd, since the overpass will certainly cause an eyesore (e.g., Alexander Road)

3.13. Frontage Road
The design seems to place the frontage road farther from Route 1 than is necessary. This option gives Princeton unobstructed land to the Canal, surely a great advantage. Development on the small amount of property between the road and Route 1 might be restricted. The DOT has summarily dismissed this option too quickly.

3.15 No-Build
There wasn't a consideration of improvements to the Washington Road/Route 1 intersection, which could be done to address safety concerns. There is also not enough thought given to the possible change in demographics of the working public. Already ten percent of the workforce are "teleworkers." The number has grown dramatically in the past 5 or 10 years and may continue to grow at a greater rate than the increase in population in the area. This may decrease the number of cars on the roads at peak times and spread the traffic out more during the day. It is possible that the traffic predictions could be wrong; building another roadway would therefore be premature.
A final point is that not all the figures, tables, studies, and maps supporting the conclusions and statements in this section of the draft EA were made available to the public.

Section 4 Comments on EA Section 4 - Existing Environmental Conditions, Impacts, and Mitigation
Comments on Air Quality - Section 4.1
Air quality impact assessments of the different alternatives were conducted to assess the impact on ozone. The study area is designated as Severe 1 ozone non-attainment. The EA does not address the potential PM10 impacts because the area is in attainment for those compounds. Although this evaluation may not be required by 40 CFR Part 51, it should be done for two reasons. First, the EPA has created new NAAQS for PM10 that will be the enforceable limits in the future. Secondly, the NJDEP predicts that in the future much of NJ will not meet the new particulate standard. NJDEP also predicts a ten-fold increase in the number of ozone violations if the proposed EPA standards are upheld. Also, there should be some consideration as to the potential impact due to PM2.5 emissions. Clearly, the future standards for air quality must be considered when an air quality impact analysis for this project is prepared.

According to the EA, at the design year the LOS will be Level E but the capacity will have increased by 35%. This means emissions will not be lower from reduced idling time. Instead, the emissions will be higher because of the increased number of vehicles idling. Furthermore, any predicted reduction of emissions credited to the different alternatives is probably minimal compared to the decreases that will occur due to improved engine technology. EPA has mandated stricter emissions limits and controls on a variety of engines. These mandates will be phased in over the next ten years and will have greater impact on vehicle emissions than the construction alternatives described in the draft EA.

In summary, the draft EA does not truly assess how badly the air quality may be degraded by the different alternatives. It does not assess whether very real proposed EPA NAAQS will be exceeded or exacerbated by this project.

What was the data input?
A thorough evaluation of the draft EA Air Quality impact is difficult to do because the input data for the analysis is not available in the document. It is hoped that it will be made available for the EIS. What data was used? From what monitoring stations? What models were used? What was the source of the trip data that was used? Who validated the model? The trip data? The model output?
Where is the Model Report?
Presumably there was a model report for the draft EA. The EIS modeling reports need to be made available to the public. Also, where is the analysis on the air quality impact in Princeton along Harrison St.? The Air Quality Impact raises the concern about localized hot spots of CO and describes in detail the temporary localized elevations of CO at Route 1/Harrison, Route 1/Washington, Route 1/Fisher due to the existing traffic patterns.

Unfortunately, the draft EA does not describe the new localized elevated hotspots of criteria pollutants created at the new intersections that are part of the design of the preferred alternative. Especially the light at the 571 connector to Harrison Street that will be a hot spot caused by the traffic idling at that new light and queuing up Harrison Street into Princeton.

How can Air Quality be used to eliminate options when most likely the greatest impact will be from engine improvements planned for the next 20 years?

The build alternative will not reduce the severity of CO violations any more than the no-build alternatives. As discussed previously, the advent of cleaner engines will have a greater positive impact on air quality than the construction of the preferred alignment. Furthermore, the construction of the preferred alignment will induce ancillary development that will bring more mobile and stationary sources air pollution sources to the area that will have a greater aggregate impact than the no-build alternative.

The statement in Section 4.1.2, "In comparison to the Build Alternative, the No-Build alternative would result in higher CO levels due to the fact that no measures would be taken to improve flow and congestion in the Route US1/Penss Neck Area." is not supported any where in the draft EA. To summarily dismiss the no-build alternative on air quality issues, which the remaining sentences in Section 4.1.2 do, is specious. No is presented. The general argument made in Section 4.1.2 to dismiss the No-build alternative is not sound without providing any supporting data. Again, where is the supporting data? What models were run? What inputs were used? What standards were used? What traffic studies? Did it take in to account induced traffic from this project?

The no-build alternative with a wider bridge might have a lesser impact than the build alternative.
Disagree strongly with the mitigation section

Finally, we disagree with the statement made in Section 4.1.3, " that the project (build alternative) would comply with federal transportation conformity guidelines as the project would not cause or contribute to any new localized CO violations or increase the frequency or severity of any existing CO violations in CO non-attainment areas. In accordance with the TCR for ozone non-attainment areas, the project would be part of the DVRPC TIP. No mitigation measures are warranted."

There are not enough data to support the conclusion. First of all, there is no assessment of the propensity for increased CO and new localized CO hot spots on Harrison Street in Princeton by the canal and up into the residential area.

Secondly, the project must come from a conforming TIP. Will this TIP conform to the EPA proposed ozone standard? The new standard was already finalized and it was overturned in the Supreme Court. It is highly likely that it will be finalized and it is prudent to assess whether the build alternative will comply with a TIP that is based on the updated SIP that NJ will produce to meet the new ozone standard. Mitigation standards may be necessary. It is shortsighted to plunge ahead with an alternative that may not meet the criteria of the TCR before the project is completed.

An important issue not addressed by the draft EA that should be addressed by the EIS is the emissions of air toxics associated with the build alternative. Mobile sources as a group are the second largest source of air toxics in New Jersey with On-road vehicles being 29% of the whole state inventory. Mobile sources in Mercer County account for 10 tons/day of air toxics emissions. The EIS needs to assess the impact of 35% increase in capacity at LOS E by the build out year. Furthermore, what kind of air toxics impact will occur from the induced traffic the project will bring from the build-out of the properties along the proposed alignment?

To summarize, the study area is designated as Severe 1 ozone non-attainment and only addresses that impact. The EA does not address the potential PM10 impacts because the area is in attainment for this compound, although the EPA has created new NAAQS for PM10 that will be the enforceable limits in the future. Furthermore, the NJDEP predicts that in the future much of NJ will not meet the new particulate standard will experience a ten-fold increase in the number of ozone violations of the new ozone standard. Also, there should be some consideration as to the potential impact due to PM2.5 emissions and air toxics emissions. Clearly, the future standards for air quality must be considered when an air quality impact analysis for this project is prepared.

In conclusion, the draft EA does not truly assess how badly the air quality may be degraded by the different alternatives. It does not assess whether very real proposed EPA NAAQS will be exceeded or exacerbated by this project. We strongly recommend that the EIS review all alternatives fairly and with the promulgated (1997) EPA NAAQS as the air quality criteria standard used for the impact assessment. Also, we recommend that the reports, models, and data used to reach conclusions regarding the air quality impacts be provided for public review.

Comments on Noise - EA Section 4.2
The EA assigns the Park to category B for Noise Abatement Criteria of the FWHA guidelines. This is erroneous. Category B refers to "picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas" (table 4-1 of the EA). This Park should, however, properly be classified as category A. Category A includes "tracts of land on which serenity and quiet are of extra-ordinary significance and serve an important public needinclud[ing] particular parks or portions of parks". The uses of the Park, including fishing, birdwatching, canoeing, and many other activities, are certainly ones in which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need. The measured sound levels in the Park at present (see discussion of section 4.2.1 below) are completely consistent with that-in the region of 42 to 49 dBA.

The acceptable noise levels for a category A activity are 10 dBA lower than for category B: a threshold of interference (above which the noise begins to intrude) of 45 dBA, and an abatement criterion of 57 dBA Leq. A "noise impact" would be found for sound levels louder than 54 dBA (defined in the FWHA guidelines as 3 dBA less than the abatement criterion).

It is most important to note that the Bypass would run parallel to the Park, along its entire 3000-foot length between Harrison St and Washington Rd. The noise of the Bypass would be a problem, therefore, for this entire length. This is a much more severe impact than for the perpendicular crossings of Harrison and Washington, which have a noise impact for only a portion of the Park.

Section 4.2.1 Existing Conditions.
The existing noise levels were measured by Harris (Harris, 1996d, also Harris, October 1999) at selected locations. Three of the locations were along the Park (sites 45, 46 and 47). But of these, two were right next to roads crossing the park, giving inflated traffic noise levels. Only one (Harris' site #46) was in a properly representative region of the Park, at a reasonable distance from such roads, as is most of the Park. At that location, the sound level was measured as 45 dBA (Harris, October 1999, table 1). The EA, however, fails to include this 45 dBA level in its data presentation, reporting only locations with higher noise levels, which gives a view of the data that is biased to higher noise levels. (The lowest level noted in table 4-2 of the EA is 52 dBA.)

The Princeton Environmental Commission, in concert with Resource Systems, Inc, White River Junction, Vermont, an Environmental Consulting Group, has made measurements of the sound levels near site 46, in June and July 2000. Measurements were conducted with Resource Systems' professional B &K type 2236 sound level meter, which measured and recorded sound levels every 10 seconds. Data were collected on 5 separate occasions at various times of the day, rush hours and otherwise, for periods of 35 to 55 minutes each. The results can be summarized as follows (complete data is available from Resource Systems):

Section 4.2.2 Impacts.
The EA properly lists the Park as a Sensitive Receptor, but ignores the Millstone River, which would be even closer to the Bypass than the Park would be.

The proposed Bypass would run along the Park as close as 350 feet, far closer to the Park than US Route 1, which is 3000 feet away from the Park.

The Harris (1996d) reference cites a traffic study which is for 3 earlier Bypass alignments, but none of these are not the same as the proposed alignment (for example, Washington Rd would be a cul-de-sac). The calculations of noise impact given in the Harris (1996d) are therefore not valid. Furthermore, the EA itself provides no data at all about projected noise levels at any Park site. The noise impact on the Park of the Bypass cannot be assessed from the EA or from the Harris references.

Harris (October 1999) notes that "at site 46 [in the Park], traffic noise levels are expected to increase somewhat due to new Relocated Route 571" (this study uses the earlier Bypass alignment which may have less traffic on it than the EA alignment). Indeed, table 1 of that reference predicts an increase of 7 dBA, to a level of 52 dBA, if the Bypass were built. This is a significant increase; given the uncertainties of the traffic analyses, it is statistically similar to the "noise impact" level of 54 dBA in the FWHA guidelines. In other words, the noise level in the Park would be adversely affected by construction of the Bypass.

In the other major natural environment affected by the Bypass, the Millstone River, the EA fails to provide any noise impact estimates at all. The Bypass would pass closer than 100 feet to the river, and would clearly have a significant impact on the noise level on this section of tranquil river, which should be classified as FHWA Category A.

Section 4.2.3 Mitigation.
The EA states that a noise impact would occur at the road crossings (Harrison St and Washington Rd) of the Park, but ascribes this to area traffic growth, not to the Bypass. It is, in fact, expected that the Bypass itself would lead to significant additional traffic on these roads. For example, Sarnoff Corporation is already proposing a fourteenfold site expansion from the current 700 employees to 10,000, directly because of the proposed Bypass, which the company proposes to use for employee access).

The EA does not discuss impact or mitigation of noise to the Millstone River at all. This section of the river is very peaceful and will definitely be adversely affected by the Bypass.

In addition, there are two major mitigation items that are not addressed at all by this section of the EA:

Conclusion. The proposed Preferred Alignment of the Millstone Bypass in the Draft Environmental Assessment would have severe adverse environmental impacts on noise levels both in the Delaware & Raritan Canal Park and on the Millstone River to the north of the Bypass. These impacts are unacceptable and unnecessary. An alternative alignment or other solution to the traffic needs of this region could substantially avoid these and other environmental impacts, and must be chosen in preference to the alignment proposed in this Environmental Assessment.

Comments on Topography, Geology, Soils and Groundwater - EA Section 4.3
General Comments
Topography - The project is in the floodplain. Increased non-permeable surface area from roadway combined with the loss of wetlands vegetation will increase the potential for flooding.

Groundwater quality will be impacted by stormwater runoff, recharge reduction.

Contaminated Groundwater/contaminated soil may impact environment during construction
There are drinking water wells near project, how will they be protected?

Project impact includes excavation, detention basin construction, and change in runoff characteristics and quality.

What about wetlands loss and planned mitigation, recent studies in NJ and from the EPA question effectiveness of mitigation measures.

Soils impact evaluation needs to include new parking lot along canal.

Groundwater and stormwater sections are not accurate with regards to impacts on runoff and recharge quantity and quality. Detention basins do not treat toxics from stormwater runoff.

Comments on EA Section 4.4 - Floodplains
General Comments
Has the Floodplain characteristics changed since 1983 when FEMA did the first study? How much has runoff increased in the area because of development?
Where is figure 4-4?
Floodplain impacts are not the same for each alternative
How can there be no shoulder on the connector road for Harrison? Is not this a constriction? How do bikes use the road?
What about a full impact analysis for the Stream Encroachment Permit?
The mitigation measures are superfluous. There are no concrete measures; no designs that show what will be going on to mitigate impacts.

Comments on EA Section 4.5 - Water Quality
Surface Water Bodies

4.5.1 Existing Conditions
The NJDEP Surface Water Quality Standards used for the report are the 1994 version. There is a newer version from 1998 available. There is also no mention of the newly proposed Surface Water Quality Rules and how they may impact this discussion.

Furthermore, the Millstone River and Little Bear Brook, the waterbodies directly impacted by the "preferred alternative", are Freshwater Class 2, Non-Trout Waters and are suitable for:

These uses will be directly impacted by the runoff from the roadway created by this project. Stormwater runoff is recognized as a major contributor to non-point source pollution of surface water. The runoff from this project will contain suspended and dissolved solids, heavy metals, semivolatile organic compounds, pesticides, salt, volatile organic compounds, and fecal coliform. The first flush from a storm event can increase levels of pollutants to the point where the designated uses listed previously are impaired. The draft EA does not adequately address this issue.

Table 4-7 contains information that is between 6 to 17 years old. Depth and width could have changed dramatically in this time period. As this information is used later to indicate that the pollutant loads will have little to no effect due to dilution, we need current data. Average velocities are reported in this table and should include measurements for 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year floods, so that a complete set of information is present. This relates to the dilution effect mentioned later on in the assessment. The information on substrate and average velocity should be obtained for the Delaware and Raritan Canal.

Discharges Affecting Water Bodies

The State Water Quality Inventory Report that is cited is 8 years old and has been updated in 1995 and in 1997. The report used to identify water resource developments planned for the project area, including channelization, reservoirs, potable water intakes or sewage outfalls is from 1995. A lot of development and plans for development have been submitted in the last six years. Updated information should be collected.

Surface Water Quality

Data from both the NJDEP and Bauersfeld/USGS reports were from 1995 and 1994, respectively. The USGS report that is referenced has a 1999 version available. The data are from areas not representative of the project area for the 'Bypass.' Current water quality monitoring needs to be conducted. There is no mention that the Millstone River is listed on the 303 (d) list of impaired waters (NJDEP. 1998. Identification and Setting of Priorities for Section 303 (d) Water Quality Limiting Waters in New Jersey). At Grovers Mill, the Millstone River is impaired for dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform and total phosphorus and has use impairments for primary contact and aquatic life support. At the Kingston site, the River is impaired for temperature, pH, fecal coliform and total phosphorus and has a use impairment for primary contact.

There is also no mention of the biological sampling that has been conducted by the NJDEP. There are two sites on Bear Brook. One at Old Trenton Road in West Windsor Township and one on Stobbe Lane in Princeton Junction. There is also a site on the Millstone River, off of Route 27 in Kingston. All three sites are rated as moderately impaired.

The EA notes that each of the three sampling stations "has average fecal coliform counts higher than the Maximum Contaminant Level set by the state. The report glosses over this concern. However, although not suitable for trout production, as stated in the EA, the Millstone River is still designated for primary and secondary contact recreation and high fecal coliform levels are a concern for this type of use. The local health department should be notified or involved in a sampling study or mitigation design.

Finally, there is no discussion of the NJDEP 10 Year Total Maximum Daily Load Development and Adoption Schedule. The Millstone River is undergoing this process. Monitoring and assessment is to be conducted from 1999 to 2001 and a TMDL developed in 2002 and finalized in 2003. This process needs to be integrated into this project.

4.5.2 Impacts

Build Alternative

The first paragraph mentions vegetative cover for the proposed ditches. What kind of vegetation are they going to use? The report mentions grass and "other suitable herbaceous material." There should be some indication that only native species are planted. There is also no mention of NJDOT's proposed maintenance schedule for the proposed ditches.

The second and fourth paragraph mentions various stormwater management techniques such as wetlands, detention basins and vegetated swales, to deal with pollutant loading and stormwater flow. There is no mention of the pollutant removal efficiencies or the flow reductions associated with these techniques. For example, swales remove only 29 percent of total phosphorus. Are there going to be any other ways to deal with runoff and pollutant loading?

Furthermore, paragraph three addresses the hydrologic ability of the wetlands along the canal to control flooding. It does not talk about the impact of pollutants in the runoff on surface water (Millstone River) or on the wetlands. What will be the impact of contaminants associated with stormwater runoff?

The two models used to assess the roadway-associated pollutant loading are anywhere from 20-30 years old. Are there newer models available that would be more accurate?

Paragraph five describes impacts to the Millstone River and Little Bear Brook from, "three distinct activities associated with the construction of the proposed roadway". There are two more activities that were not identified here and should have been. The fourth potential impact is an accidental discharge from a vehicular accident. The fifth potential impact arises from the use of fertilizers/herbicides to manage the roadside and the "natural" berms between the project and the waterways. Although it is not NJDOT "standard practice" to use fertilizers and herbicides this is no guarantee that they will never be used. Typically, a soil sterilant is put down on the roadbed before asphalt is placed. Also, the "berms" that have been proposed as aesthetic mitigation are not going to be planted or maintained by NJDOT. Herbicides and fertilizers may be used as a result of this project and the potential impact needs to be explored in greater detail in the EIS.

In Table 4-8 the 'Existing Millstone River Concentrations' are what existed in 1996, as the data used are from a study conducted that year. A more current assessment is needed. Also, the data used for the 'Existing Millstone River Concentrations' are different for the data presented in the Surface Water Quality Data section. Why not use one, the other, or both? However, in both cases, more current information is necessary. Suspended solids would double after building the roadway, bringing the parameter close to the standard threshold. There should be more concern over this than given in the report, especially in light of the State's mandate to protect, restore and enhance our water bodies. Especially since the elevated levels bring the parameter close to the standard's threshold. The total nitrate (TN) standard should read '10 mg/l'. Within this table, there is no State standard for total phosphorus (TP) given and one does exist. For FW2-NT streams, the TP should not exceed 0.1 mg/l, except in cases where the stream is a tributary to a lake, pond, or other impoundment. This portion of the Millstone River flows into Carnegie Lake. The TP standard for these exceptional FW2-NT streams is 0.05 mg/l. The Total Build Concentration of 0.24 exceeds this amount. Lead levels would quadruple, as well, well above standard's threshold, which is incorrect in the report. The state standard for lead should be 0.005 mg/l (listed as 5.0 ug/l in Surface Water Quality Standards). The build concentrations then become eight times the standard! The state standard for chromium is actually 0.16 mg/l and not 0.05 mg/l (listed as 160 ug/l in Surface Water Quality Standards). The state standard for mercury is actually 0.000144 mg/l and not 0.002 mg/l (listed as 0.144 ug/l in Surface Water Quality Standards), unless 0.002 mg/l is the minimum detection limit on the laboratory analysis.

There is no mention of what effects these increases in pollutant loading will have on aquatic life and other uses of the Millstone River. This should be discussed in further detail.

A particularly disturbing statement made in the draft EA and which it is hoped will not appear in the EIS is the assertion that, "once in the river the project contribution [of pollutants] would be substantially diluted in the river volume, and further diluted when the Millstone discharges to the Raritan River". Dilution is not the solution to pollution. The engineering truth behind this statement is the basis for the Clean Water Act Total Maximum Daily Load program. There is a TMDL being prepared for the Millstone and the Raritan Rivers. Regardless of how diluted the project contribution of pollution is, the daily load is a real concern and this is not addressed at all in the draft EA. The EIS must address the TMDL for the project, especially since the TSS concentration in the Millstone will be doubled.
Furthermore swales and detention basins do not treat chemicals; at best they only slow the release of the chemicals into the environment. In large storm events they will not always prevent the "first flush" of stormwater run-off that contains high concentrations of pollutants to the surface waters.

 

4.5.3 Mitigation

Road Salts

Is the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Standards manual of 1989 and the NJDEP Stormwater and Non-Point Source Pollution Control: Best Management Practices Manual the latest versions? There is mention of a consideration to use urea as a substitute for traditional road salt. What is the potential for urea to convert to nitrate or nitrite and add to the Total Nitrate concentration in the Millstone? What does it mean to "consider" using a substance when explaining a mitigation procedure? A "consideration" does not qualify as a positive step to mitigate the impact of road deicing chemicals.

How will the plowing techniques minimize and mitigate the loading of road salt into the Millstone or groundwater? When the snow piles plowed to the side of the road melt, dissolved road salt will drain into the river or migrate to groundwater.

Sand and gravel mixed into road salt are suggested as a mitigation measure. However, there is no discussion of the possible impact of the gravel and sand loading on the Millstone. Will there be increased turbidity? Will there be unnatural covering of benthic organisms below and downstream from stormwater outfalls?

Furthermore, does the DOT have jurisdiction on what deicing road salts are used at various times during the winter season? This would be a county roadway; wouldn't the county decide what to use, and might that not affect the run-off?

Is the DOT aware that road salts have a real impact on water quality and groundwater quality? The potential is great enough that the environmental regulatory agency in Canada is considering listing road salts as toxic chemicals.

In general, the impacts and mitigations on the surface waters within the project area are not fairly assessed in the draft EA. It is strongly urged that the EIS considers the points discussed in these comments to fully characterize the potential impact of this project and the preferred alternative on the Millstone River, the Little Bear Brook, and the D&R Canal.

Fertilizers/Herbicides

As mentioned previously, although it is not NJDOT "standard practice" to use fertilizers and herbicides this is no guarantee that they will never be used. Typically, a soil sterilant is put down on the roadbed before asphalt is placed. Also, the "berms" that have been proposed as aesthetic mitigation are not going to be planted or maintained by NJDOT. Herbicides and fertilizers may be used as a result of this project and the potential impact needs to be explored in greater detail in the EIS.

 

Comments on EA Section 4.6 - Aquatic Ecology

Wetlands and Aquatic Habitat

The proposed preferred alternative (A) would have substantial negative impacts to valuable wetlands and riparian habitat. The substantial increase in impervious surface (they calculate ~13%) in an area already having a large amount of impervious surface will likely increase flood hazard, add to sediment and contaminant loadings to the Millstone River and its tributaries, and have a truly negative impact on valuable aquatic habitat.

Alternative C, which parallels Fisher Place to the south of the Sarnoff buildings, would have substantially less impact on wetlands and aquatic habit. This alternative was rejected mainly because of the alleged wishes of the landowners, Sarnoff and Princeton University. In the EA (page 3-5) it is asserted that alternative C would more greatly impact wetlands than their preferred alternative A, because it crosses the flood plain of Little Bear Brook at the widest point. This is disingenuous for at least two reasons: Alternative A crosses Little Bear Brook at a very shallow angle, almost parallel to the Brook, thus impacting a great deal of the stream with its associated wetlands and riparian habitats. Moreover, Little Bear Brook has already been crossed, and thus impacted, near or at a logical crossing by alternative C, whereas Alternative A would do much more damage to an area not so far disturbed. To the extent that this project, if implemented as alternative A, has such severe habitat consequences, and certainly impacts many land owners and citizens in the region, undue influence should not be given to mere preferences by Princeton and Sarnoff..

The topography and soils, as described in section 4.3.1, make erosion and sediment transport to wetlands and aquatic systems highly likely (pp 4-11, 4-12). And, as they note "Soils located proximate to the Millstone River, Little Bear Brook and the D&R canal are relatively undisturbed as they are located primarily within wetland/floodplain areas." (p 4-12) "Disturbance of forested areas and subsequent tree removal would leave soil highly susceptible to erosion during rainfall. The alluvial deposits associated with Little Bear Brook and the Millstone River also represent sources of erosion, as these materials are easily transported downstream during construction activities." (p 4-15). Their mitigation during construction may well be inadequate; they do not really spell out in detail such mitigation. Moreover, after construction, because the area has been disturbed and modified, such erosion is likely to continue. This aspect is certainly not adequately addressed.

Without much greater analysis and explanation it is nonsense to assert, as is done on p 4-18, that proposed vegetated swales and detention basins, would mitigate aquifer recharge and water quality concerns.

P. 4-19: In view of the severe flooding occurring in the Millstone basin, last year, analysis of potential flood impacts are inadequate.

Detention basins and swales are proposed to mitigate runoff. No analysis of the negative habitat implications of these structures is given, especially if they are situated in wetlands. (As is likely, since the proposed road skirts the wetlands in some places, and the proposed mitigation structures would be between the road and streams.

P. 4-21: "All NJDOT alternatives investigated would require crossing Little Bear Brook (Section 3.0). The location and alignment of the proposed crossing was designed to minimize impacts to floodplains and wetlands by traversing the brook at the narrowest point of these resources." - see above, and look at maps - this statement is pure balderdash.

P. 4-23 (last paragraph) "All potable water for Princeton and West Windsor Townships is derived from the Jefferson Park Well...." I very much doubt this statement!!! - Elizabethtown Water Co. has substantial surface water supplies.

P. 4-24 notes that waters are already impaired for bacterial contamination. Project would likely exacerbate this problem as well as the runoff of other contaminants. The note, in the next to last paragraph on the page that some runoff would discharge directly into the river. On the same page they indicate that the wetlands would mitigate some of the runoff. No analysis, however, is given for damage to the wetlands resulting from such runoff.

Table 4-8 gives pollutant loading estimates. Note that for some contaminants there is almost no room for error, in that estimates are near or right at standard limits. (Lead and Cadmium, for example). Moreover, the standards quoted are out of date.

P. 4-26 - to depend on dilution to solve pollution problems from runoff is absurd. Carnegie Lake already has fish with elevated tissue levels of methyl mercury.

P. 4-29 (last paragraph) The assertions of minimal impacts, that management systems would suffice, and that no long term impacts would occur are totally unsupported by any real discussion of methodology, impacts, consequences, etc. (This approach is typical throughout the EA - "the impacts are minimal, unavoidable, and the engineers can overcome any adverse consequences.)

Comments on EA Section 4.7 - Vegetation and Wildlife
Is assessment accurate and representative? How old is it? How was the impact on endangered species evaluated?
There are some statements that allude to the benefit gained from creating a roadside edge that birds and small animals can use to live. This an unreasonable positive statement to make. Roadside hedges are not a substitute for natural ecosystems.

Comments on EA Section 4.8 - Socioeconomics and Land Uses

4.8.1 Impacts to Community Facilities and Services
"Accessibility to Princeton Medical Center is expected to be improved by the project."
Since the distance one would have to traverse on this new roadway is longer, since there will be extra traffic lights along the way, since there will probably be increased traffic in Princeton (caused by the introduction of this roadway as well as the Hightstown Bypass and improvements along 571 throughout West Windsor), I can only assume that it will take far longer than the 10-15 minutes it now takes to get from the Amtrak bridge to the hospital.

See my comments above in regards to the parking areas for the D&R Canal Park. The change is not a "beneficial impact."

Secondary Growth Impacts
"no substantive effect on the pace of future development" If the roadway makes it easier to access Route 1 in this way, then the new road, along with improvements to the rest of 571 and the addition of the Hightstown Bypass will create an attractive link between the Turnpike or Route 130 and Route 1. This might, indeed, cause extra secondary growth in the eastern portion of 571 and thus increase the number of cars coming through.

Comments on EA Section 4.10 - Cultural Resources

In the mandated Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act, the NJ State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined that the preferred alignment of the Millstone Bypass will adversely affect multiple historic sites: three prehistoric Native American archeological sites adjacent to the Millstone River: 28-ME-2, 28-ME-23 and 28-ME-86; the D&R Canal Historic District; Covenhoven Silvers Logan House; Princeton Operating Station; Aqueduct Mills Historic District; and the Washington Road Elm Allee. According to the statues, after a determination of adverse impact has been made, NJDOT must work with the SHPO and designated consulting parties to "avoid, minimize and mitigate" these adverse effects. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in Washington D.C. may, in certain instances, elect to participate in the consultation process. The Council has indicated their intention to do so in regard to the Millstone Bypass. Section 4.17 of the EA, states that "the project would have an adverse effect on eight historic resources. Mitigation would be implemented in accordance with an agreement reached in a Memorandum of Agreement between the FHWA, the NJDOT, the SHPO, and the Advisory council on Historic Preservation." This conclusion was reached be before a consultation process was initiated to "avoid or minimize' impact to these adversely affected historic sites. There are prudent and feasible alternatives that have not been adequately examined that would "avoid and minimize" adverse impact to the properties (see below).

4.10.1 Existing Conditions
Washington Road Elm Allee was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1998.

The Penns Neck Cemetery is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a part of the First Baptist Church of Princeton in Penns Neck/Red Lion Inn/Skenk/Covenhoven Historic District.

It is worthy of note that in many of the referenced documents dating from 1986 and 1988, produced by consultants for the DOT, although their investigations and documentation is not questioned, their conclusions about the eligibility of various properties has been grossly wrong. The following properties, The Penns Neck Baptist Church, The Red Lion Inn, and the Washington Road Elm Allee initially were deemed by the consultants to not be eligible, have since been listed on the National
Register off Historic Places. Other properties: the Covenhoven-Silvers-Logan farmhouse and the Princeton Operating Station, also deemed ineligible, have been determined to be eligible for National
Register listing.

These glaring errors in judgment should cause serious doubts about the abilities of the consultants used by DOT to make any conclusions about eligibility for listing on the National Register for any property or site within the APE.

4.10.2 Impacts - Build Alternative
The concluding statement is nonsensical. It states that any of the build alternatives would affect two or more historical sties or structures. In a total non-sequitur, it then states that the build alternative would fulfill the project need and purpose objectives. This has nothing to do with the impact on the historical resources. What is entirely missing is that under the 4(f) regulations, if there is an impact on a historic resource (they admit impacting six) it MUST be avoided unless no prudent and feasible alternatives exist.

We know alternatives exist which would not impact any historic resources.

4.10.3 Mitigation
This paragraph is the largest understatement of the entire report. DOT is fully aware of the impacts and they must be fully discussed in an EIS. They intended to mitigate all of these impacts at a future date and behind closed doors. The Memorandum of Agreement is typically signed just prior to construction and spells out what mitigation would be done. This is a major document and a major omission in this report.

Comments on EA Section 4.11

4.11 Aesthetics

This section is narrowly concerned with just visual impacts. Missing are audible (traffic noise and uncharacteristic noise introduced), atmospheric (smell of automotive exhaust) and other visual (light
pollution at night) impacts.

4.11.2 Impacts
All impacts would fall into category 3, the most intense impact.

It is ludicrous to say that by having the public be able to drive on a new road built through a pristine waterway, the Millstone River, that it is now a positive advantage that the public can view this once-pristine area from the convenience of their automobile.

Paragraph 4 states that "The D&R Canal Park would experience no direct impacts that would alter the aesthetic elements of the park." This is a blatant untruth. The SHPO determination letter of February 16, 2000 has stated many impacts.

The DOT proposes mitigating the visual effect of the roadway on the canal with vegetative planting, but there is no mention of the noise effect that would certainly be apparent. We need to have the Canal commissioners walk the path. This is probably the most heavily used part of the path and provides what the EA describes as "an important visual resource." This is because one can presently walk along the canal path (or canoe the canal itself) and feel very much apart from the surrounding traffic, congestion, buildings.

Further on in this paragraph, the justification that the preferred alignment meets the project goals is given that the impact on the Elm Allee is unavoidable. This is again not true. Alignments exist that
would avoid such a large impact.

4.11.3 Mitigation
It is ironic that the DOT has managed to preserve the oak tree lined entrance to Sarnoff, a private corporation, yet sees no alternative to destroying the Washington Road Elm Allee and the ambiance of the Millstone River and the D&R Canal State Park.

The last paragraph contains so many maybe's that it is sure that all of these plans will not be realized. The last paragraph says they are negotiating with Princeton University and Sarnoff for additional
landscaping. Good luck.

Comments on EA Section 4.12 - Hazardous Waste Screening

The material in the draft EA is inadequate. There are known sites of groundwater contamination in the project area and near the Millstone River. There is no supporting evidence to make the sweeping statement in Section 4.12.2 Impacts Build Alternative that "the preferred alignment is not impacted by any potential residual soil contamination and is not likely to be impacted by the groundwater contamination from this area of concern." Many construction/transportation projects have required reviews and remediation efforts prior to and then during the project life. The preferred alignment has the potential to spread hazardous waste by two methods. Construction on the Sarnoff property can change the topography and hydrology impacting the existing groundwater hydrology. It is possible that contaminated groundwater might enter the Millstone because of the project activity.

Second, construction activity on contaminated soil may spread the contaminated soil either by wind-borne or equipment borne modes a contamination. Pollutants can move from the work site and into the sensitive wetlands, the waterways, and if airborne into surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Another issue that must be addressed by the EIS is whether or not the soil at the Princeton Power Station is contaminated with PCBs. Since this is an old power station, transformer oil containing PCBs were probably used here. PCBs were ubiquitous in the power industry and for decades of use the material was considered inert and was handled without attention to environmental impact. The EIS must look to see if construction at this site will require the remediation of soils and groundwater containing PCBs.

Finally, the EIS must address the potential mitigation strategies. The draft EA leaves the development of mitigation strategies to the future development of a Phase 1 SA. This is not satisfactory for this project. As pointed out in Table 4-10 of the draft EA, there are locations in the project area that have contaminated soil and groundwater. A fair and accurate project analysis must include the cost of remediation and special construction pollutant control measures for each alternative.

Comments on EA Section 4.13 - Wetlands

page 4-30 paragraph 2:

"Re-vegetation of stream banks."
What type of vegetation? What are the monitoring plans?

page 4-30 paragraph 4:

"Figure 4-6."
No such figure online.

page 4-31 paragraph 4:

"In particular, edges act as transition zones between fields and forests, supporting high densities of wildlife." This is not an accurate statement. Any first-year ecology student learns that edges are bad things when they chop areas into smaller and smaller bits. Create enough edge and you have no middle left to speak of. While the creation of edge supports high densities of wildlife, the wildlife supported tends to be animals such as deer, which any NJ resident can tell you we have too many
of already. Meanwhile, denizens of the area's interior find less and less suitable habitat. There are plenty of references out there on forest fragmentation. We can safely assume the ecologists at the DOT know full well what the results of fragmentation are.

page 4-35 paragraph 4:

"Impacts to wildlife resulting from roadway construction would involve the reduction in the amount and quality of habitat within the project right-of-way." Just as I was saying above. This contradicts what was written 4 pages ago.

page 4-35 paragraph 5:

"...certain wildlife species may acclimate to newly created roadside habitat ... and may compensate for a portion of lost habitat." What's being created is more edge and more habitat for edge species.
Internal species won't benefit at all. The only truly happy species will be vultures and crows feeding off the roadkill.

page 4-36 paragraph 3:

"Pesticides used to maintain rights-of-way and vehicular related contaminants can also be ingested by animals, posing additional health hazards." Why use pesticides at all? What kind of right-of-way vegetation does the DOT want to preserve from herbivory? Grass?!?

page 4-37 paragraph 5:

"...the major impact to wildlife would be displacement ... These populations would be forced to relocate..." This is an inaccurate and misleading statement. The ecological niches and territories supporting the wildlife will be destroyed. There are no new niches ready to be occupied by the displaced wildlife. Many organisms will not be relocated. They will be destroyed.

This idea of relocation appears several times in the EA, and the DOT fully expects it to have merit. The only way it has merit is if they prove that the existing territories and niches are not already fully occupied. By this theory, no animal should ever become extinct due to habitat loss. How many deer can you pack vertically?

page 4-54 paragraph 2:

"...undisturbed and natural condition of the wetlands." high quality; mitigation won't equal

page 4-57 paragraph 2:

"Wetland area 3 ... is more diverse than others within the project area ... Wildlife is more abundant in this area ... The fact that Route U.S. 1 divides this wetland area lessens its relative value. Although parts of wetland area 3 may be higher in value than others, taken as a whole, wetland area 3 is of moderate value." This is a nice trick that serves to lessen the value of a section of wetland area 3. If sections of this wetland are of high value, that must be taken into account. Any mitigation of high-quality wetland destruction will not equal the original quality unless careful long-term monitoring is performed. What are the odds of that happening?

page 4-57 paragraph 4:

"Although parts of WA 4 may be higher in value than others, taken as a whole, WA4 is of moderate value." See comment above.

page 4-58 paragraph 2:

"Total impacts would require the taking of approximately 1.1 acres of the 74.81 acres of wetlands..."
How many acres would other alternatives take? What about the alternatives that take no wetlands?

page 4-58 paragraph 3:

"Potential indirect wetland impacts may include erosion and sedimentation, increases in total suspended solids (TSS), and roadway-associated pollutant loading ... the contribution of particulate matter to downstream wetlands would be minimal." What about the effect on the on-site wetlands? What does "minimal" mean? How far downstream are they talking? Another nice trick.

page 4-58 paragraph 6:

"A potential wetland creation site was identified along the Millstone River ... adjacent to wetland area 3." Good; at least they're not going offsite and the hydrology might already be there. What about monitoring? Can we get a detailed mitigation plan? Can we get a guarantee that the quality of the wetlands being created will be equal or better than those being destroyed, and that the mitigation
site will be closely monitored and maintained? I didn't think so. What is the success rate for mitigated wetlands?

"unavoidably impacted by construction of the proposed roadway." This sounds very damning. Even if you relocate the wetlands within the area along the Millstone River, you are then taking away another habitat.

Comments on EA Section 4.14 - Construction Impacts

4.15
The report claims that depressing Route 1 would have an impact on the Elm Allee. While this may be so (the DOT includes no drawings to define this alternative), I suggest that the loss of a few trees near Route 1 would probably be preferable to losing them nearer to the canal, since the visual effect of entry into Princeton would be preserved with the former.

Would it be necessary to construct a new interchange in addition to depressing Route 1? Again, where are the drawings?

Would there have to be barriers or fences to protect residents from falling into a depressed Route 1 if a plaza were constructed (making the depression more like a tunnel)? This will still enable an unobstructed view across Route 1.

Frontage Road; DOT only proposes one route for Frontage Road. Surely there are other options which would discourage building next to Route 1.

Comments on EA Section 4.16 - Cumulative Impacts and Induced Growth
SECT. 4.16 Cumulative and Indirect Effects, Growth Inducing Effects

The EA proceeds from the faulty premise that building the Millstone Bypass "would have no substantive effect on the pace of future development, and is unlikely to induce additional growth." (Secondary Growth Impacts at 4-43, see also 4-64.) By examining just two parcels (Princeton University, which the EA claims will expand regardless of whether the Bypass is built) and Sarnoff (which the EA claims has no plans to develop further), the EA has missed the need to examine the regional growth and changes in land use and development that will be induced-and all the associated direct, indirect and cumulative impacts-by construction of the Bypass with its attendant mobility improvements. All of the statements in the EA point to continued sustained growth and say that each local development plan has planned for such growth alone with infrastructure "improvements" to serve that growth. At a minimum, the growth must be allocated amongst these infrastructure projects. Further, the traffic portion of the EA identifies a clear and high level of induced traffic (trip) growth associated with this particular project. It is axiomatic that land development changes are stimulated by growth in highway travel, access and mobility. In fact, federal courts in other states have determined that highway authorities are not permitted to use a straight-line projection of development as though the highway's creation will not affect land development.

In not recognizing the impacts of both the mobility improvement and the quality of life benefit of which the EA makes much, the EA fails to comply with the Department's statutory duty to fully examine direct effects (which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place), see 40 C.F.R. 1506.8(a), and indirect effects (which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. See 40 C.F.R. 1506.8(b).

The Council on Environmental Quality regulation implementing NEPA clearly states that: "Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems." See id. By claiming that the bypass will significantly improve mobility, safety, quality of life, etc, and then claiming that it will induce no changes to land use or development, the Department of Transportation attempts to have its cake and eat it too-sidestepping the entire thorny issue of the changes that will be wrought to the otherwise relatively sleepy corner called Penn Neck.

In the full EIS, we expect that a full chapter will be devoted to the build out of near and distant parcels that will occur as a direct or indirect result of the construction of the Bypass.

The EA also dismisses the probability of cumulative impacts impermissibly. The principal cumulative impact of the proposed Bypass is that 30% more autos and trucks will traverse the Penns Neck area and Millstone River in the 2020 Build scenario than in the No Build scenario. This is a major increase in the amount of trips in the area. Obviously a significant portion of the trips are being attracted to the area because of the transportation "improvement" (Bypass) itself. The Bypass will clearly attract other sorts of development, trip-,making development. The EA readily concedes, at page 4-61, that Yet in almost every he construction of the highway will have incremental noise, floodplain, vegetation and wildlife, socioeconomic (ROW acquisition), visual and wetlands impacts. Yet only the wetlands impacts are discussed in any detail. And that is more limited to an identification of them and description of their disturbance or destruction. In almost every other case of every other parameter (vegetation and wildlife, aesthetics, hazardous materials, cultural resources, etc.) the EA states that the projects (the Bypass is lumped in with other projects in the area in a prior EA not readily available to this writer) "were determined to have only incremental impacts on [name of each topic]" and that the "impacts are localized and property-specific."

This sleight of hand has not fooled the public. Using the word "only" in front of the word "incremental," and using the work "incremental" in place of the word "cumulative" is inappropriate at best. Incremental impacts are often cumulative impacts. This highway project obviously has large and varied cumulative impacts and effects. To say that each impact is property-specific is to state the obvious-it is not the same as saying that each property's impact does not have a cumulative effect or impact of the neighborhood, the town, the river, the region, etc. Especially, as many of the impacts are conceded to exist by the Department (see pages 4-61 to 4-64).

This error should be corrected in the full EIS; it should devote a significant section to incremental, cumulative impacts and effects.

Comments on EA section 4.17 - Conclusions

Where are all figures, tables, and reports for people to review? They were never made easily accessible to the public.

Section 5 - Comments on EA Section 5 - 4(f) Evaluation

Section 5: 4(f)

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 prohibits federally funded transportation projects from using any historic site, public park, recreation area, or wildlife refuge of national, state, or local significance unless there are no "prudent and feasible" alternatives. A road project will "use" 4(f) property if it will either occupy or destroy the property or have impacts that will "substantially impair" its value to the public. "Substantial impairment" could result from noise, shadow, visual blight, or other such impacts that diminish the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for protection. In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, the Supreme Court interpreted section 4(f) to mean that an alternative is "feasible," and use of a protected resource thus
prohibited, unless the alternative is untenable "as a matter of sound engineering," and that it is "prudent" if it does not present "unique problems" or "truly unusual factors" or cause community disruption "reach[ing] extraordinary magnitudes." The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Section 4(f) to mean that "protection of parkland [i]s to be given paramount importance." If no feasible and prudent alternative exists, then a project must incorporate "all possible planning to minimize harm."
Such planning includes selecting an alternative that would impose the least amount of harm on the park or historic site being used.

According to the FHWA regulation implementing Section 4(f), "substantial impairment" occurs "when the protected activities, features or attributes of the resource are substantially diminished." "Use" of the resource is prohibited if a feasible and prudent alternative exists.

NJDOT's preferred alignment will "use" and directly and indirectly impact multiple National Registered listed and eligible sites: three prehistoric Native American archeological sites adjacent to the Millstone River: 28-ME-2, 28-ME-23 and 28-ME-86; the D&R Canal Historic District; Covenhoven Silvers Logan House; Princeton Operating Station; Aqueduct Mills Historic District;
and the Washington Road Elm Allee.

NJDOT has not satisfied 4(f) requirements by thoroughly analyzing alternatives that would avoid the use of these protected historic resources listed in and eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

Alternatives that meet the definitions of "feasibility" and "prudence" set out in the statutes were dismissed arbitrarily in the EA without the benefit of thorough analysis. Consideration of a frontage road was dismissed out of hand simply because of Princeton University's position. Reasonable
alternatives are those that may be feasibly carried out based on technical and economic factors. An alternative does not become infeasible because the project proponent doesn't like it or if it is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agency. A potential conflict with local law or master plans does
not make and alternative unreasonable, although the conflicts must be considered. [ CEQ:Forty Questions No. 2(a) ] Elimination of other alternatives including a grade separated "under pass" or tunnel at Washington Road, which would maintain much needed local connectivity between Princeton
and West Windsor and a "southern connector" between Washington Road, Station Drive, Vaughn Drive and Alexander Road were also dismissed without adequate study or thorough analysis.

Section 6 - Comments on Permits Required
This transportation project will need permits from the NJ DEP. Wetlands permits will be needed, stream encroachment permits, and also a stormwater discharge assessment and permit may be required. Also, NJPDES permit for construction. Possibly a PSD permit?

Section 7 - Comments on Coordination and Comments

April and May, 1996
Clearly, there were residents in Penns Neck who were opposed to the roadway

June 1, 1998
"NJDOT is considering advancing the Route U.S. 1 improvements ahead of the Route 571 improvements. This would allow the replacement of the U.S. Route 1 bridge over the Millstone Rive ,the removal of the signals and the widening of U.S. Route 1." The surrounding towns opposed this option. This certainly sounded like the DOT using blackmail.

August 1998
Public forum canceled; why wasn't it rescheduled? The DOT said that the public had input; this input was extremely limited.

February 1999
Letter rejects depressed Route 1 without supporting documentation

June 22, 1999
Meeting, but no comments about the meeting

July 22, 1999
"A community involvement program was initiated early in the design phase of the project_" It seems that by community, the DOT means the elected official and those representing Princeton University, Sarnoff, Eden, etc. What real "community" involvement was there?

Key Issues
4. Why should Princeton University be such a driving force as to whether there is a frontage road or not?

6. I don't see how the road will improve access to the "Princeton" train station. If the DOT means the Princeton Junction station, I still do not see how it accomplishes that goal either.

9. "minimize floodplain and wetlands impact" The road clearly will impact these sensitive lands.

10. "adequate distance buffer from D&R Canal" The road will still add noise and sight problems when leave are down.


 

Return to
Main Scoping Comments Page

Return to
Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition Home Page