 |
||
 |
||
| VDOT says new interstate would reduce air pollution | ||
|
By RON NIXON
THE ROANOKE TIMES The proposed Interstate 73 promises to bring good things to the Roanoke Valley and surrounding areas: an increase in jobs, safer highways and less congestion. The highway also promises to bring some things that aren't so good, its critics say: an increase in pollution, urban sprawl and destruction of animal habitats in a region known for its natural beauty. The draft version of an environmental impact statement by the Virginia Department of Transportation has done little to relieve those concerns. The 550-page draft statement, released Nov. 1, was approved by the Federal Highway Administration and was produced after millions of public comments were submitted. It describes several impacts an interstate can have on the natural environment. The document acknowledges that road building can hurt the environment, and it also describes several ways the road might benefit the region. For example, according to the statement, pollution levels will be lowered if a new interstate is built because it would allow cars to travel at higher speeds and reduce the time they spend in congested traffic. The statement says many kinds of environmental harm can be reduced through careful planning before construction begins. The document doesn't go into detail about what those mitigation efforts could be, but Patsy Napier, project manger for VDOT, said the public shouldn't be too concerned. "When we look at mitigation at this stage, we are looking at it broadly," she said. If the Commonwealth Transportation Board decides, possibly in April, to build the road, "then you'll see more detail during the design phase." Despite mitigation efforts, construction of an interstate could hurt the Roanoke Valley's environment, according to VDOT. The draft statement says all of the possible corridors would affect the Roanoke logperch, a federally listed endangered fish in the Roanoke River. VDOT said it can minimize the impact on the logperch through erosion control measures. Still, the statement shows that no one has done enough studies to know how much the river would be disturbed or whether the fish "would return to affected areas following an initial period of adjustment." VDOT said that if the transportation board decides to build an interstate, a biological assessment will be included in a final environmental impact statement. The draft statement also shows an interstate could significantly increase the amount of storm water runoff. Runoff is a primary concern in the Roanoke area because of flooding. It also can pollute ground water and drinking water supplies. Four basic corridors, or options, for a new interstate are covered in the draft statement. Option 4, which goes through western Roanoke County, would increase runoff more than the other options — about 32 percent above 1997 levels, the draft statement shows. Option 2, a route that passes near Windy Gap Mountain, would have the least runoff impact. A new Interstate 73 would unavoidably cross dozens of streams. In some cases it might require that a stream be relocated, according to the draft statement. Wetlands also would be disturbed. These natural bodies of water are important to flood storage and preventing floodwaters from peaking. They serve as wildlife habitat and as a natural filter for drinking water. Option 2 and its alternatives near Windy Gap Mountain and eastern Franklin County would have the most impact on wetlands, disturbing nearly 5 percent of the regional total, the draft statement shows. People who oppose the interstate are most concerned about what's not in the draft statement. Trip Pollard, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center in Charlottesville and a student of the environmental impact caused by highways, said one of the biggest issues is air quality. Although VDOT's study says air quality would improve with a new road, that conclusion counts only seven air pollutants, as required by federal law. "But there is no question that there are other things coming out of the tailpipes of vehicles," Pollard said. Studies show airborne cancer-causing chemicals such as benzene have been found in amounts considered to be health hazards in parts of the Roanoke Valley. The draft statement fails to consider that Roanoke has been designated for possible non-attainment status in air quality, noted Ann Rogers, of Virginians for Appropriate Roads. "They're treating it like a non-issue," Rogers said. Chris Lloyd, a VDOT consultant, said the draft statement was intended to look only at chemicals for which federal monitoring standards are established. "On a project level, all we're required to look at are the seven pollutants," Lloyd said. Another study will be done by state and local officials to examine the effect from dozens of other chemicals on air quality, he added. If a larger study of air quality in the region shows that the interstate could add to pollution, then VDOT would have to do further study, Lloyd said. VDOT's insistence that a new interstate would reduce air pollution is a major problem, opponents say. Research by scientists at the National Research Council, a part of the National Academy of Sciences, seems to support the VDOT position. Vehicles in congested traffic emit more pollution at low speeds. But the studies also show that vehicle emissions can increase at higher speeds. One kind of pollutant, nitrogen oxides, seems to increase when a car's speed exceeds 60 mph, research shows. While nitrogen oxides are lower at speeds below 60, the speed limit on an interstate would be higher. Nitrogen oxides are the key component of ozone, a colorless, odorless gas that can cause breathing problems. That's a major concern, opponents say, because the interstate is likely to cause more cars to travel through the region. "The statement that having all these cars in there won't impact the air quality doesn't compute," said Jerryanne Bier, an I-73 opponent from Ferrum. Rogers and other opponents say that while air quality is a major issue, they are also concerned about the road's impact on scenic views and the loss of farmlands and open space. Highways, they say, increase the likelihood that development and other types of activity will swallow up undeveloped land and farms. The Blue Ridge Parkway "generates thousands of dollars in revenue from tourists and the loss of that does not seem to be a concern," Bier said. The National Park Service also raised concerns about an interstate's impact on the parkway in a letter to VDOT. VDOT consultant Lloyd said, "Ultimately what we want people to realize is that this is a decision-making document. It's giving policy makers and the public a broad overview of large areas and we likely overestimated some of the impacts. "If a route is ever chosen, then more detailed information would be developed" describing the actual impacts, Lloyd said. |
|
|
|
|
||