FHWA-AZNV-EIS-98-03-F
U.S. 93 Hoover Dam
Bypass Project
Final
Environmental Impact Statement
and Section 4(f) Evaluation
Volume II
Comments and Responses
Federal Highway Administration
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
January
2001
SCO142883 18 05 243S OflhO 11(00
-------
VOLUME II
U.S. 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Project
Final
Environmental Impact Statement and
Section 4(f) Evaluation
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION
JANUARY 2001
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
-------
Contents
Chapter Page
2-1 Comments Received on the Draft EIS 2-1-1
2-1.1 Introduction 2-1-1
2-1.2 Notice of Availability in Federal Register 2-1-1
2-1.3 Distribution of DEIS 2-1-1
2-14 Website 2-1-2
2-1 5 Public Hearings 2-1-2
2-1 6 Comments on the DEIS 2-1-5
2-2 Responses to Comments 2-2-1
2-2.1 Responses to Comments 2-2-1
Responses to Government Agency Comments A-l
Responses to Organizations' Comments B-l
Responses to the General Public's Comments C-l
Responses to the Public Hearing Transcript Comments
Kingman, Arizona, October 13,1998 D-l
Boulder City, Nevada, October 14,1998 D-ll
Las Vegas, Nevada, October 15,1998 D-35
Responses to the Comment Sheets Received During or After
the Public Hearing E-l
Tables
2-1-1 Index of Comment Letters on the DEIS 2-1-6
2-1-2 Summary of Comments 2-1-11
Figures
.2-1 Notice of Availability 2-1-3
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
-------
-------
VOLUME II / CHAPTER 1
Comments Received on the Draft EIS
2-1.1 Introduction
This volume of the Hoover Dam Bypass Project final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
contains a discussion of the circulation of the Draft EIS (DEIS) and public hearing process and
provides copies of the comments received on the DEIS along with responses to those
comments. The comments are reproduced with an identifying document number at the top of
the first page of each letter The comments were submitted as letters, electronic mail (e-mail),
public hearing transcripts, and public hearing comment sheets Each letter, e-mail, or speaker
at the public hearing has been assigned a letter and number designation at the top of the
comment letter The letter portion of the designation, corresponding to one of the five
comment categories, are listed below to assist in finding individual comments
• A Government Agencies
• B Organizations
• C General Public
• D Public Hearing Transcripts
• E Public Hearing Comment Sheets
Chapter 2 contains the responses to these comments coded in the same letter-number
designation as listed above
2-1.2 Notice of Availability in Federal Register
The comment period on the DEIS began on September 25,1998, when the Notice of
Availability was published in the Federal Register A copy of the notice is included as
Figure 2-1 The 45-day public comment period closed on November 10,1998 Comments were
received from approximately 142 government agencies, organizations, and members of the
general public before the close of the comment period Another 14 comments were received
from organizations and members of the public after the close of the comment period, making a
total of 156 commenters on the DEIS
2-1.3 Distribution of DEIS
Approximately 180 complete DEISs were mailed out during and after the comment period. In
addition, approximately 125 copies of the Summary DEIS were distributed. The list of
agencies, organizations, and persons who received copies of the DEIS is in Chapter 10 of
the EIS
The complete DEIS document was made available for review at the following locations.
• Boulder City Public Library, Boulder City, Nevada
• Bullhead City Public Library, Bullhead City, Arizona
• Clark County Public Library, Las Vegas, Nevada
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580 2-1-1
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
• Green Valley Public Library, Henderson, Nevada
• Henderson Public Library, Henderson, Nevada
• Kingman Public Library, Kmgman, Arizona
• Laughlin Library, Laughlin, Nevada
2-1.4 Website
The entire DEIS was activated on the project website on September 25,1998. The document
could be accessed at the following website address
http://hooverdambypass org
The online DEIS included all figures, tables, chapters, and text as the paper document. It
included an online comment feature, which enabled the reviewer to click on a comment box;
insert name, address, and phone number; and type in comments and submit them
electronically. Prior to activating the online DEIS, the project website averaged about five hits
per day. After activating the online DEIS, the website was accessed an average of about
35 times per day during the comment period. On November 10,1998, the website access count
was 3,894. Prior to activating the online DEIS, the website access count was 2,372.
2-1.5 Public Hearings
From October 13 to 15,1998, the Project Management Team (PMT) hosted a series of Public
Hearings to provide the interested parties with an opportunity to provide comments on the
project and the DEIS The PMT and technical staff were available to discuss the project
purpose and need, major issues; alternatives and design features; and the potential social,
economic, and environmental effects related to each alternative
The public hearings were held in the following locations:
• Tuesday, October 13
Kingman High School
400 Grandview
Kingman, Arizona
• Wednesday, October 14
Community College of Southern Nevada
700 Wyoming Street
Boulder City, Nevada
• Thursday, October 15
Clark County Government Center
500 South Grand Central Parkway
Las Vegas, Nevada
The public hearings were held on successive nights to receive public comments on the DEIS
An open house format was used at each meeting, allowing members of the public to discuss
the project alternatives and the DEIS with members of the PMT. Attendees were encouraged
to submit comments on the DEIS using one of the following methods: completing a comment
2-1-2 SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
-------
.C
J5
're
CM 'S
22 g
iff
"~#
2>
il
M
SJ
-5 if a
^ Hslli
» as B 1 c*
:« -«?"-2 tji-'Sa
jgpi-s^-sB^
g:i|5lf|Si
2"i:IiaS?3i
||?pli
jit:ll|illS
tiili^Ifis
•it^ii-gl^ ej
4<53lj. E-?
|f
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
sheet, providing oral comments to a court reporter (one court reporter at the Kmgman and
Las Vegas hearings, two court reporters at the Boulder City hearing), mailing written
comments, or using the online comment system through the project website Approximately
55,145, and 50 people were in attendance at Kmgman, Boulder City, and Las Vegas,
respectively. The transcript from the court reporter(s) at each meeting is included in Chapter 2.
The following items were on display at each of the three meetings:
• Project schedule
• Summary table of potential environmental impacts for all four alternatives (including
No Build)
• Summary table of engineering and construction features of the three alignments
• Aerial photograph of the project area showing the three alignments
• Topography map with the three alignments
• Plan and profile of the three alignments
• Bridge-type simulation (s) and highlights for the three alternatives
• Videotape describing the project and the three alignments
• Computer demonstration of the online DEIS and commenting system
2-1.6 Comments on the DEIS
Approximately 142 commenters from government agencies, organizations, and members of the
general public provided input on the DEIS before the close of the comment period on
November 10,1998 Another 14 commenters from organizations and members of the public
provided written statements after the close of the comment period, making a total of 156
commenters on the DEIS. Out of this total, 60 comment letters and e-mails were received on
the DEIS. Of the correspondence received, 15 letters were from government agencies, 11 were
from organizations, and 34 letters and e-mails were from the general public. Some of the
comments from the general public were submitted via e-mail directly to the lead agency or
through the project website. In addition, 38 people provided oral comments to the court
reporters at the 3 public hearings, and an additional 58 people submitted comment sheets
during or after the public hearings Table 2-1-1 provides an index of the agencies,
organizations, and individuals that submitted written or oral comments on the DEIS
Table 2-1-2 provides a detailed summary of all substantive comments on social, economic,
environmental, and engineering issues on the DEIS, both from the public hearings and those
received through direct mail and e-mail Chapter 2 contains the responses to comments,
discusses the consideration given to any substantive issues raised, and provides supporting
information
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580 2-1-5
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-1
Index of Comment Letters on the DEIS
Comment Number Commenter
A. AGENCIES
A1 Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD)
A2 Nevada Health Division, via the Nevada Department of Administration
A3 United States (U S ) Department of the Interior (DOI)
A4 US Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers (ACOE) (11/12/98)
A5 ACOE (12/8/98)
A6 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
A7 Nevada Department of Museums, Library, and Arts - State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
A8 Nevada Natural Heritage Program, via the Nevada Department of Administration
A9 Divisions of State Lands, Health, and Environmental Protection, via the Nevada Department of
Administration
A10 Nevada Department of Human Resources, Health Division
A11 Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental
Protection
A12 Mohave County Public Land Use Committee
A13 Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
A14 Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), from Jim Hartzell
A15 WAPA, from John Bridges
B. ORGANIZATIONS
B1 Sierra Club, Toiyabe Chapter
B2 Arizona Motor Transport Association
B3 Nevada Motor Transport Association, Inc
B4 Pahrump Paiute Tribe
B5 Las Vegas Paiute Tribe
B6 Las Vegas Indian Center, Inc (1/7/99)
B7 Colorado River Indian Tribes
B8 Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians
B9 Las Vegas Indian Center, Inc (2/10/99)
B10 American Indian Chamber of Commerce of Nevada (2/17/99)
B11 American Indian Chamber of Commerce of Nevada (4/14/99)
B12 Ahamakav Cultural Society
C. GENERAL PUBLIC
C1 Adams, Theresa A
C2 Berdme, V M
C3 Bravo, Richard J
C4 Brose, Robert C
2-1-6 SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-1
Index of Comment Letters on the DEIS
Comment Number Commenter
C5 Burdette, Buck
C6 Byford, Betty
C7 Campbell, Greg (with attachment dated 10/12/98)
C8 Campbell, Greg and Signatories (10/28/98)
C9 Chnstensen, Nick
C10 Clark, Dennis
C11 Easley, Karl C
C12 Fraga, Roland M
C13 Hansen, Hank
C14 Heidel, Raymond
C15 Lasko, Fred J
C16 Leavitt, D Henry
C17 Laune, Larry
C18 Lee, Ingrid
C19 Lewis, Patti
C20 McDonald, Patricia E , Alan C , and George D
C21 Murray, Russell
C22 Partam,J B
C23 Rementena d Cosio, Jon Alford
C24 Siccardi, A Joseph
C25 Stewart, Mickey
C26 Sturgill, Warren
C27 VandeBerg, Russel
C28 Wilson, Katheryn and Alonzo M
C29 Wilson, Fred
C30 Rosen, Mark
C31 Beymer, Easton
C32 Beymer, Easton
C33 Chnstensen, Peter
C34 Ensign, Frank E
D. PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS
D1 Kniffen, Robert Earl
D2 Shull, Charles
D3 Hums, JoElle
D4 Tester, Patricia
D5 Elters, Sam
D6 Jenkins, Frank
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580 2-1-7
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-1
Index of Comment Letters on the DEIS
Comment Number Commenter
D7 Mornssette, Elaine
D8 Mornssette, Robert
D9 Castillo, Larry
D10 McFernn, Edith
D11 McFernn, James
D12 Works, Don
D13 Benton, Richard L
D14 Hughes, Ralph L
D15 Shannon, Robert
D16 Stuckey, Wade
D17 Uehlmg, Ed
D18 Anonymous
D19 Berman, Mrs
D20 Vandeberg, Russell
D21 Anonymous
D22 Floyd, John
D23 Adams, Thomas W
D24 Lee,Jones
D25 Zimmer, Ed
D26 Rementena, John
D27 Thompson, Larry
D28 Spurlock, Robert
D29 Burger, Sue
D30 Blackwell, Charlene
D31 Whelan, Tom
D32 Hordan, Bill
D33 Cody, Georgi
D34 Pollock, Doug
D35 Anonymous
D36 Qumn, Pat
D37 Hughes, Nicholas M
D38 Lachase, Dennis
E. COMMENT SHEETS RECEIVED DURING OR AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING
E1 Agnew, John H
E2 Anderson, Carol S
E3 Andersen, Giles C
E4 Austin, Robert D
2-1-8 SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-1
Index of Comment Letters on the DEIS
Comment Number Commenter
E5 Benton, R L
E6 Blakesley, Leonard E , Jr
E7 Blockley, Marge
E8 Blockley, W (illegible)
E9 Bolton, Paul
E10 Brandhagen, Layne, Kimley Horn and Associates
E11 Bravo, Richard J
E12 Cannon, Jerry
E13 Carlton, Gregory
E14 Cooper, Donald K
E15 Denison, Andrew N
E16 Doty, Jack and Marilyn
E17 Edwards, William
E18 Fagg, Darrell
E19 Fitzgibbons, Bobbye
E20 Fitzgibbons, Pat
E21 Gibson, Dan
E22 Glynn, Jennifer
E23 Gomez, William
E24 Huffman, Robert
E25 Hughes, Ralph L
E26 Hughes, Rhea Renee
E27 Ishiki, James
E28 Keller, Lily
E29 Keller, Ronald W
E30 Kmn, Rebecca
E31 Kos, L H
E32 Kostner, Mark
E33 Kuster, Jack
E34 Laughhn, Don
E35 Lienhard, Reagan
E36 Lmdberg, Carl W
E37 McCormick, Paul
E38 Miller, Byron L
E39 Miller, Pat and Ray
E40 Moe, John
E41 Mornssette, Robert B
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580 2-1-9
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-1
Index of Comment Letters on the DEIS
Comment Number Commenter
E42 Nielsen, J D.
E43 Olbert, Bradford D
E44 Perry, Ronald
E45 Prather, Roger
E46 Qumn, George
E47 Rementeria, John
E48 Shannon,John H
E49 Shannon, Robert
E50 Sorensen, Lou
E51 Strange, Richard
E52 Stuckey, Wade
E53 Tester, Patricia
E54 Thompson, Dorothy S
E55 Tomlmson, Michael
E56 W , Russell (illegible)
E57 Wiens, Ed
E58 Wilkerson, Mark
2-1-10 SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
-------
CHAPTER 2 1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT E1S
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
A1-1
A1-2
A1-3
A1-4
A1-5
A1-6
A1-7
A1-8
A1-9
A1-10
AGFD
IO-Nov-98
Sugarloaf, with the proposed mitigation, has least impact
Initial mitigation measures appear suitable AGFD wants to be involved in ail future aspects of fish and wildlife mitigation in Arizona
Recommends monitoring of peregrine falcons before, during, and after construction
Section 3331 AGFD monitoring of peregrine falcons no longer continues AGFD supports monitoring, but funding would need to be
identified
Recommend no. blasting or excavation activities conducted during the breeding season (March through July) within 1 mile of breeding
territories, 0 5 mile is not adequate
Sheep mitigation appears adequate AGFD interested in monitoring the effectiveness of underpasses and overpasses for bighorn
sheep Additional mitigation should include speed reductions within 2 miles of bridge and signage warning motorists of wildlife in area
Want to be involved in all aspects of mitigation related to bighorn sheep
Measures to protect water resources appear adequate Stormwater and chemical spill basins should be covered and fenced to reduce
the likelihood of wildlife contact with contaminated water sources
Recommend, where feasible, efforts to incorporate bat-friendly structures within bridge design
Table 3-14 - Reword EIS to state that impacts to Peregrine falcons are possible without mitigation
Table 3-12 - Revise EIS to include status symbol ASC for Las Vegas bear paw poppy and bicolored penstemon Other status
changes required for Peregrine falcon, banded Gila monster, desert bighorn sheep, and bat species
A2-1
A2-2
Nevada Department of
Administration
02-Nov-98
Duplicate of November 2, 1998, letter from Nevada Department of Human Resources, Health Division (see A10-1}
Duplicate of November 2, 1998, letter from Nevada Department of Human Resources, Health Division (see A10-2)
A3-1
A3-2
A3-3
DOI
04-Nov-98
Concur that there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the proposed project, if project objectives are to be met Concur with
proposed mitigation measures to minimize Section 4(f) impacts
Stated that "proactive tribal consultations" have been undertaken for the project They note it appears Sugarloaf will have the least
environmental impact to Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LMNRA), however, the National Park Service (NFS) will not identify a
Preferred Alternative until all processes, including the Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP), have been finalized
DOI has no objection to Section 4(f) approval provided that the Preferred Alternative and mitigation measures to Section 4(f) resources
are coordinated with and approved by NPS
A4-1
ACOE
12-Nov-98
Project includes alternatives that would fill in wetlands or waters of the U S Every effort should be made to avoid this If no
practicable alternatives, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for losses
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-11
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
A4-2
A4-3
ACOE concurs with Purpose and Need of the DEIS as meeting 404(b)(1) guidelines
All comments provided in review of the DEIS at the mteragency coordination meetings have been fully addressed
A5-1
A5-2
A5-3
ACOE
08-Dec-98
Verifies the project's Section 404 junsdictional delineation and concurs that the project does not contain any wetlands, but does
contain other waters of the U S
A Section 404 permit will be required prior to discharging dredged or fill materials into waters of the U S
This verification is valid for 5 years unless new information warrants revision of this determination before the expiration date
A6-1
A6-2
A6-3
A6-4
A6-5
A6-6
A6-7
A6-8
A6-9
EPA
No date
This document was rated as Category EC-2, Environmental Concerns, Insufficient Information This rating is primarily based on
concerns regarding cumulative effects, indirect impacts, impacts from excavation and erosion and runoff, encountering hazardous
materials, and recreational impacts Overall, the document was well written and concise The Purpose and Need should be used as a
model of a clear statement, containing the appropriate amount of supporting documentation
Indirect Impacts - Unclear regarding possibility of relocating power lines and utilities No discussion or disclosure of the degree and
effect of impacts Recommend final EIS (FEIS) discuss impacts of relocations (grading, erosion, habitats, etc )
Cumulative Impacts - Discussion is too vague to clearly have an understanding of past, present, and future effects Must discuss
long-term impacts on water quality and wetlands, fish species, etc
Cumulative Impacts - Discussion too focused on highway projects and roadway programs Needs to discuss any action regardless of
agency or person Needs to indicate what has been ongoing that may be minor in nature but continues to have an effect on the
environment What are Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and NPS management practices in the area'
Cumulative Impacts - Document relies too heavily on the fact that the individual projects' mitigation will minimize the cumulative effect
EPA doesn't believe this to be true Analyze in terms of resources, ecosystems, and societal values affected (e g , desert tortoise,
sheep habitat, dry washes, and cultural properties) Convene a meeting of other resource agencies, Reclamation, and NPS - EPA will
assist
Avoidance of water resources is an imperative There was no discussion of wildlife water sources (i e , sewage ponds) removed or
relocated. Must be in FEIS
Needs details regarding proposed National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative Discuss water quality standards for the receiving waters
Data regarding extent of contaminated sites not presented Include information regarding the types of contamination and level to
which areas may be contaminated Identify potential risks, costs, and procedures required
FEIS must identify that Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and associated state hazardous waste disposal
requirements apply to this project and how hazardous material will be handled and treated if encountered Discuss preconstruction soil
sampling, extraction, handling, transport, haul route, onsite treatment, disposal, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) health and safety
SCO/LAW2680 000/003672580
2-1-12
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Code
A6-10
A6-11
A6-12
A7-1
A7-2
A7-3
A7-4
A8-1
A9-1
A10-1
A10-2
A11-1
A12-1
A12-2
Commenter
Nevada SHPO
Nevada Natural
Heritage Program
Nevada Division of
State Lands
Nevada Department of
Human Resources,
Health Division
Nevada Division of
Environmental
Protection
Mohave County Public
Land Use Committee
Date
09-NOV-98
25-Sep-98
25-Sep-98
02-NOV-98
19-Oct-98
05-Nov-98
Comment
Disclose if there would be airborne concentrations of the hazardous materials found in the soils and which measures would be used to
control them
Mitigation measures for hazardous materials on Page 3-113 seem more appropriate for energy Include recommended hazardous
material mitigation here
Recreational Opportunities - Concerned that there is no discussion of traffic operations on the remaining U S 93 and Hoover Dam,
and enhanced recreational opportunities with the bypass Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NPS should discuss, disclose
in FEIS
The unevaluated TCPs that might exist within the area of potential effect (APE) should be addressed Table on Page ES-5 should
include effects to these properties Statement might read "Potential effect to 4 (5) historic features eligible for or listed in the National
Register Potential effect to unevaluated Traditional Cultural Properties "
Table ES-3 - Include potential effects to the unevaluated TCPs If found eligible, an adverse effect would require a memorandum of
agreement (MOA) regardless of the alternative Revise EIS table
Table ES-3 - Include discussion of the unevaluated TCP in the discussion of Land Use/Section 4(f) Effects under all three alternatives
Consultation with SHPO, and possibly the Keeper of the Register, has not been conducted regarding TCP eligibility Section 351
should reflect this
Final Environmental Assessment (EA) should analyze the potential effects of alternatives on the introduction and/or spread of invasive,
noxious, and other undesirable weed species, and incorporate monitoring and control measures
An easement from the Nevada Division of State Lands for encroachment into the Colorado River will be required before construction
Finds the Sugarloaf and Gold Strike Alternatives acceptable without comment Has concerns with the Promontory Point Alternative
Concerns that spills into lake would contaminate Lake Mead's public water system, which draws its drinking water at the dam
NPDES permit will be required for rolling stock Extensive erosion control measures will be required Revegetation of the disturbed
sites after completion will be required Water quality monitoring will depend on site option chosen (Nevada State Clearinghouse
July 1, 1998, Guidelines for Revegetation enclosed )
Regrets dismissal of alternatives that would have diverted truck and commercial traffic around Boulder City, Nevada Noted same
risks of accidents involving trucks carrying flammable and hazardous loads exists with passage through the city
Recommends adoption of Sugarloaf Alternative with steel arch bridge based on steel deck arch bridge more seismically flexible, least
cost, least desert tortoise impact, least acres of desert bighorn sheep habitat, visually superior to Promontory Point, and inaccessible
views of dam from downstream bridge for traffic safety
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-13
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
A13-1
A13-2
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
(ADEQ)
OS-Nov-98
A13-3
A13-4
A13-5
A13-6
A13-7
A13-8
A13-9
A13-10
A13-11
A13-12
A13-13
A13-14
A13-15
A13-16
A13-17
A13-18
Lake Mead watershed indicators suggest that stressors include turbidity, which could be exacerbated by construction activities
Build would require steep approach with many switchbacks Build alternatives will require new bridge Risk of accidents reduced
thereby
Build alternatives would affect 143 acres of land and habitat resulting in water quality impacts Two alternatives would require
characterization and possible mitigation of hazardous waste sites Options for mitigating habitat are provided in EIS but cannot be fully
evaluated until Preferred Alternative selected and specific plans developed
The Management Agency or Owner/Operator should oversee construction to ensure that discharges to waters of the state/U S meet
all standards
BMPs should be implemented during and after construction to protect watershed and riparian areas, maintain vegetative cover, and
minimize harmful discharges into waters of state/U S
BMPs should be implemented for mechanical equipment to minimize ground disturbance
Monitoring program should be implemented to evaluate effectiveness of watershed BMPs
Portable sources of air pollution (e g , rock, sand, gravel, and asphaltic concrete plants) must be permitted by ADEQ Contractors and
subcontractors must comply
Management Agency and/or Owner/Operator should be knowledgeable of waste streams, permits, and hazardous materials handling
and offsite destination
Water supply systems shall be developed to comply with rules
Underground storage tanks (USTs) must be registered with ADEQ
Solid wastes shall be transported to an ADEQ-approved facility Waste stored, treated, or disposed of on site may require facility
approval
Sewage facilities for human waste shall be planned and developed to ensure protection of water resources An Aquifer Protection
Permit (APP) may be required
Sanitary waste facilities provided during construction shall protect water resources
An APP may be required
A NPDES permit is required for ground disturbing activities exceeding 5 acres
A Section 404 permit may be required A Section 401 Certification may be required from ADEQ
Prescribed burns and resulting air quality issues must be addressed and a permit may be required
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-14
-------
CHAPTER 2 1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
A13-19
Water quality standards must be complied with Contact ADEQ for a copy
A14-1
A14-2
WAPA, Desert
Southwest Customer
Service Region
IQ-Nov-98
A14-3
A14-4
A14-5
A14-6
A14-7
A14-8
A14-9
A14-10
A14-11
A14-12
A14-13
A14-14
A14-15
A14-16
Concerned that not contacted sooner WAPA not invited to participate in the drafting process As owner of affected electrical facilities,
has helpful input
All Department of Energy (DOE) WAPA environmental requirements should be addressed in this EIS so WAPA doesn't have to
prepare a new document for construction on power systems
Promontory Point - Route crosses two WAPA transmission lines just east of Gold Strike Casino Blasting in this area is a concern
Construction near 230-kilovolt (kV) lines is a potential safety concern Western inspectors will need to be on the job site near
transmission lines Movement of structures or lines will require right-of-way (ROW) issues to be addressed and cleared
Promontory Point - Road will affect two structures They may need to be replaced if clearance above the roadway is inadequate
Promontory Point - Additional structures may need to be replaced where the road crosses the lines again near the warehouse to allow
adequate clearing Line may need to be relocated
Promontory Point - Northeast of the warehouse, the road crosses under two more 230-kV lines and a 69-kV line that provides
emergency service to Kmgman Clearance is of concern
Promontory Point - Road cuts right through the abandoned 69-kV switchyard Structures in this vicinity are used with the line
Promontory Point - Before crossing the lake, north of dam, road again crosses 69-kV line
Promontory Point, DEIS Page 3-109 -Though switchyard is abandoned, there is a 69-kV line that is still used as an emergency feed to
Arizona cities between the dam and Kmgman Transmission structures near the yard are part of the line
Promontory Point, DEIS Page 3-115 - Add text stating outages on lines for highway construction may be limited only to certain times
of the year, or the day, based on customer needs
Sugarloaf Mountain - Same comment as A14-3
Sugarloaf Mountain - Same comment as A14-4
Sugarloaf Mountain - Same comment as A14-5
Sugarloaf Mountain - Northeast of the warehouse, the alignment curves southeasterly and could impact up to five transmission
structures associated with three 230-kV lines New structures and alignments may be needed for clearance
Sugarloaf Mountain - Further southeast it crosses six additional lines New structures may be required for clearance
Sugarloaf Mountain - Road cuts across southwest corner of the Hoover Arizona/Nevada 230-kV switchyard May have to relocate
switchyard, relocate lines to the north, and modify the lines leaving the existing yard May impact several acres of new ground
SCO/LAW266Q DOC/003672580
2-1-15
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
A14-17
Sugarloaf Mountain, DEIS Page 3-50 - DEIS incorrectly states the switchyard would be "indirectly affected" Rather, it will probably
require demolishing existing yard and building a new switchyard
A14-18
Sugarloaf Mountain, DEIS Page 3-115 - WAPA doubts DEIS statement that Sugarloaf will only relocate four towers Mitigation for the
switchyard is required The two circuits spanning the river cannot just be removed, but must be relocated or replaced with new
structures in a new location This will require double circuiting and temporary lines and structures for relocation of the switchyard to
minimize outages
A14-19
Sugarloaf Mountain - Power outages will be required during construction of any facilities, and there are potential related revenue
losses Outages may be permissible at certain times of the year without penalty due to other scheduled maintenance activities
A14-20
Sugarloaf Mountain - Rough cost estimate for potential transmission and switchyard construction would be $7 to $10 million, not
including any potential loss of revenue costs
A14-21
Gold Slnke Canyon - Just east of the Gold Strike Casino, the route crosses six WAPA transmission lines and has three bridges very
close to existing structures Also see comments A14-3 and A14-11
A14-22
Gold Strike Canyon - Same comment as A14-4 and A14-12
A14-23
Gold Strike Canyon, DEIS Page 3-116 - Clearance above the road grade is a potential concern 6-12 structures could be affected and
may need to be replaced with taller structures
A14-24
Gold Stnke Canyon - Gold Strike is the best alternative from an electrical power transmission standpoint There would be minimal
tower relocations and outages and minimized revenue losses It would also be less affected by time of year for construction
A15-1
A15-2
Bridges, John M (from
WAPA in Golden, CO)
IO-Nov-98
Commenter believes it is important to get in touch with WAPA engineers in Phoenix, Arizona
DEIS Pages 3-115 to 3-116 - Must contact Western's Assistant Regional Manager for Power System Maintenance and the
Environmental Manager The discussion of relocation and removal of electric transmission facilities has not been adequately
addressed WAPA was not asked to be a cooperating agency, and unless there is future coordination, the project may be delayed
A15-3
The relocation of several lattice steel towers will be needed to construct any alternative This will require power outages on customer
lines, which cannot be permitted at certain times of the year
A15-4
DEIS Chapter 5 - There is no discussion of cumulative impacts relating to relocating transmission lines associated with the
construction of the new highway
ORGANIZATIONS,
B1-1
B1-2
Sierra Club, Toiyabe
Chapter
04-Nov-98
Would like their comments to be included in the public record
Believe the scope of the project is grossly inadequate Disagree that the project can stand alone without regard to adjacent U S 93
projects Adjacent projects are driven by the proposed traffic improvements over the bridge Will result in Kmgman-to-Henderson
U S 93 improved to interstate freeway standards As a result, public will be inadequately forewarned of project impacts until too late
SCO/LAW2660 000003672580
2-f-f6
-------
CHAPTER 2 1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
B1-3
B1-4
B1-5
B1-6
B1-7
B1-8
B1-9
B1-10
B1-11
B1-12
B1-13
B1-14
B1-15
B1-16
On Arizona side, needs more discussion of impacts through NFS land and associated bighorn sheep and desert tortoise habitats
How will frontage roads and highway ramps serving recreational access roads be designed and what will be impacts'? How will these
add to cost of the entire U S 93 Kmgman-to-Henderson program'
On the Nevada side, any bypass bridge will result in Boulder City acquiring a freeway within its borders with resulting impacts The city
needs to know about the impacts
Believe that the scope needs to be expanded to include the entire U S 93 Kingman-to-Henderson highway improvements, including a
route via Arizona Route 68/Nevada Route 163/U S 95, the Laughlm-Bullhead City Alternative (LBA) This was given only cursory
analysis in DEIS but needs more for valid comparisons
The EIS needs to include a cost comparison between the entire U S 93 Kingman-to-Henderson improvements and the LBA -
comparison to the bridge only is invalid This comparison would show the U S 93 Kingman-to-Henderson improvements as more
costly to build
Analysis of LBA needs to include economic benefits to communities versus higher costs to motorists from longer route Long-term
economic considerations for communities are as worthy of analysis as costs to truckers
The LBA avoids environmental impacts of a U S 93 Freeway in Arizona Selection of the LBA should improve environmental
conditions on both sides of the dam for at least some years to come, although future improvements may be needed
The Gold Strike Alternative impairs the canyon and hiking trail The Sugarloaf Alternative would impact the views from the dam
Promontory Point has the least visual impacts In comparison, the LBA's low bridge near Laughlm has less visual impact
Analysis of the LBA's impact on desert tortoise would show a positive effect, with fencing along the freeway and limited access
Bighorn sheep would be little affected along the route of this alternative
Recreational access points to BLM and NPS lands on the west side of Lake Mohave would be fewer and more spread out, thus less
environmentally damaging than off of a U S 93 Kingman-to-Henderson freeway
The LBA would be less visually obtrusive and more attractive for motorists
Problems with 4(f) rationale 15-mile U S 93 Kingman-to-Henderson freeway in LMNRA would have much greater 4(f) impact
Diversion of commercial trucks and motorists from the LBA to the dam crossing could be avoided by charging a toll to cross the dam,
thereby meeting the goal of reducing accidents and congestion on the dam Suggests various toll strategies
Should be feasible to redirect the U S 93/North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Kmgman-to-Henderson segment to follow
the LBA with little overall impact
Some points raised during scoping were not addressed 1) relative bridge and highway maintenance costs and toll costs, 2) relative
time/distance risks for water polluting accidents on U S 93 versus LBA bridges, and 3) relative project completion times and effects on
congestion relief
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1 17
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
81-17
81-18
Summary of major comments
Believe the DEIS should be reissued for public comment reflecting the expanded scope and analysis of both the LBA and U S 93
Kingman-to-Henderson freeway
B2-1
B2-2
B2-3
Arizona Motor
Transport Association
03-Nov-98
Attached Resolution passed by executive committee and board of directors Make it a part of the public record
Resolution states that the Hoover Dam Bypass Project is designed to resolve the mobility and safety problems of the current location
of U S 93
Resolves that the project is primarily a federal responsibility and should not compete for funding with other state projects, and that the
future costs should come from the "National Corridor and Development Program" and the "Federal Lands Highway Program" funds
B3-1
B3-2
B3-3
B3-4
Nevada Motor
Transport Association
15-Oct-98
Believes that the three Build Alternatives are viable options No Build is unacceptable.
Supports rejecting the LBA due to the high costs of diverting traffic 23 miles, road safety concerns, and lack of congestion relief at the
dam
Supports the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative to be the most attractive of the three Build Alternatives for its road geometries, cost, noise
effects, etc
HOOVER DAM BYPASS RESOLUTION is adopted by the Nevada Transport Association, Resolution supports the advancement of the
Hoover Dam Bypass as a Federal High Priority Project
B4-1
B4-2
Arnold, Richard -
Chairman, Pahrump
Paiute Tribe
06-Jan-99
Regrets selection of Sugarloaf Alternative Elders spoke about importance of the cultural landscape and the adverse impacts to
Sugarloaf Mountain, known as the "healing mountain" among Southern Paiutes
Area should have been considered as a cultural landscape under Bulletin 30 or Bulletin 38 There was disregard for evaluating
impacts to access rights under Executive Order (EO) 13007
B5-1
B5-2
Anderson, Curtis -
Chairman, Las Vegas
Paiute Tribe
12-Jan-99
Regrets selection of Sugarloaf Alternative It contains numerous resources making it eligible as a sacred site and TCP This area is
known as a healing spot that falls within an important cultural landscape
Decision didn't consider nomination for the cultural landscape under Bulletin 30, nor was Sugarloaf considered for nomination as a
TCP under Bulletin 38 Tribe did not see any assessment evaluating impacts to rights of access under EO 13007.
B6-1
B6-2
Cloquet, Don - Board
of Directors, Las
Vegas Indian Center,
Inc
07-Jan-99
Sugarloaf Mountain area is considered a very spiritual place Considering Sugarloaf the preferred route would be a mistake
There was disregard for Indian opinions and a failure to nominate Sugarloaf Mountain as a cultural landscape and a TCP, per the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
B7-1
Eddy, Daniel -
Chairman, Colorado
River Indian Tribes
14-Jan-99
Concern regarding choice of Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative, the importance of preserving Sugarloaf Mountain, and its nomination as a
TCP under the NHPA In past, native people have inhabited the whole Colorado River corridor and are yet familiar with ancestral ties
to significant sites
SCQ/LAW2660 DOC/003872580
2-1-18
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Comnrtenter
Date
Comment
B7-2
B7-3
EO 10037 requires access to such sites and preservation of such sites through formal recommendations and ethnographical studies
These measures need to be adhered to for complete consultation requirements to be met
FHWA needs to re-evaluate Sugarloaf alignment decision and request continued consultation to develop a consensus regarding
compliance
B8-1
Bradley, Carmen M -
Chairperson, Kaibab
Band of Paiute Indians
21-Jan-99
Sugarloaf Mountain is looked upon as a sacred entity It should not be impacted by traffic, noise, etc Consideration for the site as a
TCP hasn't been given What actions have been completed for meeting the NHPA, EO 13007, and Bulletin 38 Guidelines?
B9-1
B9-2
Arnold, Richard W
Executive Director,
Las Vegas Indian
Center
10-Feb-99
The Sugarloaf Alternative will significantly impact a sensitive site that has immense cultural implications There appears to be
adequate information to designate Sugarloaf Mountain as both a sacred site and a TCP under Bulletin 38 These guidelines should
not be interpreted as limiting the size of area, but to identify a well-defined unit that can be clearly substantiated
Requests a copy of correspondence with Fort Mojave Tribe in Needles documenting their decision not to participate FHWA's efforts to
consult with the Fort Mojave tribe should satisfactorily address any future concerns
B10-1
B10-2
B10-3
B10-4
Morales, Larry -
President, American
Indian Chamber of
Commerce of Nevada
17-Feb-99
Oppose construction of roads and bridges on sacred Indian ground
Recommend allowing only automobile traffic on Highway 93 and routing truck traffic through Searchlight via Highway 95 and I-40
Widen Highway 95 between Interstate and Highway 93 to four lanes or six lanes This avoids impacting sacred sites, takes trucks off
dam, and decreases nontounst automobile traffic over dam and through Boulder City
Understand approximately $2 5 million of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funds were used for study of bridge alternatives If true, these
funds should be restored to BIA, as they are for benefit of American Indians
Recommend an addendum to bridge study addressing alternative route for cost comparison, cost of destruction of sacred Indian land,
cost of improving roads on either side of the dam, and the hidden costs that are a potential threat to Boulder City, LMNRA, and the
Indian community
B11-1
Simecka, Karl D -
President, American
Indian Chamber of
Commerce of Nevada
14-Apr-99
It appears lead agency has done a very thorough study and has minimized adverse impact to the environment and culture Pleased
lead agency has consulted many tribes or tribal organizations and is continuing to do so in an effort to minimize construction on sacred
Indian ground
B12-1
B12-2
B12-3
Butler, Elda - Director,
Ahamakav Cultural
Society
26-Apr-99
Concern about possible negative impact on future burial sites Are aware that human remains and associated funerary objects have
been unearthed at Willow Beach and nearby locations
Mojave People of the lower Colorado River began their existence in the Black Canyon/Spirit Mountain locale, evidenced by caves, rock
shelters, petroglyphs, and trails These traditional lands extend to present Blythe, California
Urge compliance with P L 106 for divulgence of burial sites and treatment of any burial remains
SCO/LAW266Q DOC/003672580
2-1-19
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
B12-4
B12-5
Concern for endangered wildlife species in the project area, namely the tortoise and eagle What protection measures would be
provided'-' Would future removal to other sites be considered?
Regardless of the route and bridge site, TCPs will be affected to some degree
WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS (LETTERS & B
• ' '•.--'-" •--
C1-1
C1-2
Adams, Theresa A
28-Sep-99
(sic)
In favor of Sugarloaf Alternative, despite disruption to Bighorn sheep lambing grounds and loss of desert tortoise habitat
Keep us on your mailing list
C2-1
Berdme, V M
14-Oct-98
Project should be built as soon as possible in order to avoid an accident closing down the highway over the dam
C3-1
C3-2
C3-3
C3-4
C3-5
C3-6
C3-7
Bravo, Richard J
25-Oct-98
Keep the highway and bridge away from Gold Strike Canyon
Southern California should be involved in paying for this project, since they benefit from the dam No Build has high risk of major truck
accident and radioactive spill
Opposed to toll crossing, since faster north-south transit and protection of dam benefits all, and all should share in the cost Also, it is
a mistake to discourage use of the new bridge by applying a fee only to commercial vehicles
is there a schedule for the completion of the Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT)/Anzona Department of Transportation
(ADOT) "financing study" and for the solicitation of public input?
Assumes NFS opposes the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative - and agrees
Disagrees with the length of Lake Mead shoreline as stated in the DEIS
Commenter attached a detailed list of reasons to discontinue consideration of the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative List cites statistics
derived directly from the DEIS
C4-1
C4-2
C4-3
C4-4
C4-5
Brose, Robert C
07-Nov-98
Disappointed that DEIS did not address crossing near Willow Beach Considers this a fatal flaw in the document
Does not agree that 4(f) prohibitions eliminate the Willow Beach alternative, since other alternatives also have 4(f) impacts Need to
consider qualitative differences
Statement that the proposed alternatives are less expensive is unsupported Willow Beach is 2 to 3 miles shorter, which amounts to
significant time savings, and reduced maintenance costs and emissions
It may be that an equal analysis of Willow Beach will show it is not viable, but it should be presented in the EIS for the benefit of
decisionmakers
Bothered by the format of the "public meeting" The format precluded any public discussion, and the format may not meet the
requirements of NEPA
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003872580
2-1-20
-------
CHAPTER 2 1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
C4-6
Expects that his comments will be addressed in the FEIS, especially concerning the format of the public meeting
C5-1
Burdette, Buck
01-Sep-98
(01-Oct-
98?)
Prefers the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative
C8-1
Byford, Betty
08-Oct-98
Feels the Sugarloaf Alternative would be the best because it's the cheapest and a more direct route Plus, the view of the dam would
be outstanding
C7-1
C7-2
C7-3
C7-4
C7-5
C7-6
C7-7
C7-8
C7-9
C7-10
C7-11
C7-12
Campbell, Greg
27-Oct-98
(with
attachment
dated
12-Oct-98)
Sent a letter to newspapers to gather support for closing Hoover Dam to trucks on a temporary basis Include the responses from the
public in the DEIS Realizes that the Laughlin route is not perfect, but is a good temporary solution
Do not underestimate public support for the LBA Using the Laughlin route would be a good temporary solution until the Hoover Dam
Bypass bridge is built
Attachment - The EIS is flawed because the Primary Objective "virtually eliminates" the Laughlin Bypass with weak conjectures and
wrong conclusions
Attachment- Laughlin deserves to have four-lane highways and a second bridge
Attachment - If you fail to act now, Laughlin will be bypassed and the city will lose money
Attachment - The most serious problem is traffic If there were a toxic or nuclear waste spill on any of the alternatives for the proposed
project, the water would be unfit for humans With a spill on Hoover Dam, gasoline would land on the Powerhouse roof, causing power
disruption for several months
Attachment - The EIS does not discuss the possibility of a terrorist attack, with a truck being deliberately exploded or run through the
guardrail and into Lake Mohave Why was this omitted from this study'?
Attachment - Commenter lists the opinions and desires of many organizations Claims the solution for all is to build a second bridge
north of the Laughlin Bridge
Attachment - Commenter describes the new Laughlin bridge and its claimed benefits
Attachment - Cites earlier Reclamation figures claiming a lower cost for the LBA Claims the cost estimate for the LBA in the DEIS is
artificially inflated to approach the Hoover Dam Bypass alternatives costs Discusses tolls and other funding scenarios
Attachment - To make truckers drive the additional 23 miles out of their way, Reclamation could close Hoover Dam to force them to
cross at Laughlin after the second bridge and U S 95 improvements were completed
Attachment - Has the NDOT study about the possibility of prohibiting trucks from crossing Hoover Dam been completed1' (Senate
Concurrent Resolution No 60 is attached ) Claims the results of this study were not included in the EIS
SCO/LAW2660 DOCfflQ3672580
2-1-21
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
17-13
;7-14
J7-15
C7-17
C7-18
Attachment - To compensate truckers who would drive the additional 23 miles, Laughlin casinos and businesses would offer room and
food discounts Nevada could reduce its diesel fuel tax by 6 to 10 cents per gallon at stations along the LBA
Attachment - Acknowledges the steep grades on Routes 68 and 163; however, cites NDOT study showing that Highway 95 is 5 times
safer than the current dam crossing Would be federal maintenance funding (NAFTA) if LBA were redesignated U S 93
Attachment - EIS states that Highway 95 runs through tortoise habitat Cites study saying tortoises don't burrow near highways due to
noise and vibration Claims the EIS is wrong
Attachment - Since the LBA only uses 36 acres of Section 4(f) land, it would become the highest priority of the Secretary of
Transportation for permit issuance
Attachment - Because of the primary objective of maintaining a direct route from Las Vegas and Kingman, Laughlin has been
conveniently eliminated as an alternative
Attachment - Boulder City Bypass is being offered as an alternative, even though there is no funding This may be because of the
Gold Strike and Railroad Pass Casinos, who would lose business due to the Laughlin route
C8-1
Campbell, Greg and
Signatories (10/28/98)
28-Oct-98
Sent letter to local newspapers encouraging a petition supporting routing Hoover Dam traffic through Laughlin on a temporary basis
until the permanent Hoover Dam Bypass bridge is built Believes the Laughlin route is a good temporary fix that could become the
permanent solution (Petitions were attached with 104 signatures)
C9-1
C9-2
C9-3
C9-4
Chnstensen, Nick
22-Sep-98
Has the U S Department of Transportation (USDOT) approached the Las Vegas Convention and Visitor's Authority on a potential
room/gaming tax to help fund this project?
If improvements to U S 93/60 from Wickenburg to I-40 were made, the visitor count from the Phoenix area would increase
Doesn't support a bridge over Black Canyon The Bullhead City crossing would be the most sensible and affect the most people A
crossing at Cottonwood Cove would not involve as steep a grade and would not require a"huge suspension bridge, but would require a
new highway in Arizona
Has the idea of tolling people to cross the dam ever been explored' Instead of tolling traffic across the bridge, toll people to cross
Hoover Dam
C10-1
Clark, Dennis
14-Oct-98
Expects that the bypass will be located within a few miles south of the dam and will accommodate an interstate freeway, eventually
linking Las Vegas and Phoenix
C11-1
Easley, Karl C
No date
Public did not have an appropnate venue to respond to this proposed project Either the scoping process failed or the public is being
offered preconceived choices from the PMT Public Input may not have been as thorough as it should have been to really devise a
proper analysis of needs.
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-22
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
C11-2
C11-3
C11-4
C11-5
C11-6
C11-7
C11-8
C11-9
C11-10
C11-11
C11-12
C11-13
The DEIS states the new bridge location would save approximately 10 to 12 minutes of driving time Questions such a large price for
this benefit The project serves one purpose only - removing truck traffic from the dam, a simple safety measure Alternatively, DOT
and Commerce should just ban trucks from the dam
A better solution is improving US 93 to an interstate from the current four-lane portion north of Kingman, bridging the river near
Willow Beach, bypassing Boulder City and connecting at the 93/95 junction Truck and commercial traffic across the dam should be
prohibited and save the dam for tourist traffic and recreation
Disruption of commerce and lifestyle, along with spending public monies to protect turtles and wild sheep, borders on criminal mischief
The main idea is to improve timing and access for interstate commerce and travelers who don't desire to stop at the dam The longer
the government waits, the worse the problem will become
The DEIS states that several routes were discussed and rejected Doesn't feel the public had relevant opportunity to discuss alternate
routes and uses Crossing near the dam is not the best alternative for interstate travel
Prefers the Sugarloaf Canyon crossing, among the three near-dam crossings
The bridge should be built south of Hoover Dam over Black Canyon Promontory is an "ugly choice '
The bridge design should have a western flavor, using the rail through arch design already proposed, but with an even more pleasing
design
The bridge should be designed to include pedestrian traffic A bridge designed for a 1-minute, 60-mile-per-hour (rnph) passover,
where one can see nothing and is unable to stop, suggests a sterile approach
The bridge should serve both goals of rapid transit and scenic values by constructing a parking lot for tourists and recreational vehicles
(RVs) on the Arizona side of the bridge The pedestrian accessway should either be on the north side of the road facing the dam, or
on the underside of the bridge
It would be in the best interest to re-evaluate the location and impacts of a new bridge and corridor for traffic and trade through a
broader scoping process
The average citizen doesn't understand an EIS or a scoping process Reopen the planning and design process to reconsider or
reaffirm the original conclusions
G12-1
Fraga, Roland M
12-Oct-98
Disapproves of all three plans with steep grades and forced to terminate at Gold Strike Casino Willow Beach would be a much better
solution It would be nice to know the reason it is not in the plan
C13-1
Hansen, Hank
No date
Prefers the Temple Bar Corridor The Hoover Dam routes, converging on Las Vegas, pose a hazard from radioactive materials in
event of an accident
C14-1
Heidel, Raymond
16-Oct-98
Prefers the Sugarloaf Mountain route - best road geometries and least expensive
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-23
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Code
C14-2
C15-1
C15-2
C15-3
C15-4
C15-5
C15-6
C15-7
C15-8
C16-1
C17-1
C17-2
C17-3
C17-4
C18-1
C18-2
C19-1
Commenter
Lasko, Fred J
Leavitt, D Henry
Laune, Larry
Lee, Ingrid
Lewis, Patti
Date
16-Oct-98
12-Oct-98
29-Sep-98
29-Sep-98
10-Oct-98
Comment
Strongly recommends that an alternative be chosen soon The dam crossing has now reached the dangerous point with traffic and
congestion
The outline does not have a title for safety comments This is an important issue
The best location for a crossing would be the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative It eliminates or reduces the hazard from tourists
stopping on the bridge to get a view or take pictures of the dam and lake A vehicle stopping on the bridge or pedestrians walking on
the bridge is a foolish act and extremely dangerous
The outline does not have a title for security comments
A 10-year-old report discussed security problems and concluded that the dam has a high exposure for this type of problem Moving
the traffic downstream lessens this problem
Does not agree with the report on the need to charge a toll A toll would defeat the time savings Funding should come from a user
tax on the traffic using the highway
Would like to see a Boulder Bypass incorporated into the plan Many trucks hauling hazardous materials come right through
Boulder City - a similar safety issue as at the dam
Both the Promontory and Sugarloaf alternatives have negative visual impacts These sites also have the potential safety problem of
people stopping on the roadway to view the dam, unless the design has side walls that would preclude viewing the dam
Both the Promontory and Sugarloaf alternatives would present potential sites for suicide victims Screening to prevent this type of
problem would detract from the view
Saw notice in the Arizona Republic Votes for the Gold Strike option in order to alleviate congestion and enhance traffic flow
Chooses Route 3 because the others would cause a cost-of-hving rise due to longer distances
Harm to businesses in Boulder City would be minimal
Claims that all cities who fight bypasses do not grow, while those that don't do grow
Route 3 (Gold Strike) would be the cheapest way to build the bypass in the long run.
Supports the Sugarloaf Mountain bypass due to minimal environmental impacts, best geometries, and least cost
Why is a bridge/route through Laughlm not one of the choices^ Is it because of Route 68? Because Boulder citizens are concerned
about bypass of their city? Would the cost be less?
Supports the Promontory Point crossings because of safety
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-24
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
C20-1
C21-1
C21-2
C21-2a
C21-3
C21-4
C21-5
C22-1
C22-2
C22-3
C22-4
C23-1
C24-1
C24-2
C25-1
C25-2
C25-3
Commenter
McDonald, Patricia E ,
Alan C , and
George D
Murray, Russell
Partain, J B
Rementena d Cosio,
Jon Alford
Siccardi, A Joseph
Stewart, Mickey
Date
07-Nov-98
12-Oct-98
No date
27-Sep-98
19-Oct-98
16-Oct-98
Comment
In favor of halting truck traffic over the Hoover Dam, directing it through Laughlin, to begin immediately
Does not support any of the alternatives
Supports the Willow Beach route
The original concerns were money and that people would lose viewing Hoover Dam as we are now accustomed to be able to do so
The Hoover Dam viewing concern has been mute
Additional road building for Willow Beach would be a saving to the U S by not having to purchase/import as much oil
People living on the 7-mile stretch between Boulder City and Hoover Dam complain about the highway noise
There is plenty of space in the dry lake to build an 8- or 10-lane highway
Immediately eliminate all truck traffic on the Hoover Dam Supports this option because of lessened danger of spills into the river and
lake, less smog from trucks, less noise, and no impact on animals
Supports crossing at Willow Beach, but since Boulder City residents don't support, don't harm indigenous humans in the desert That
means take Route Number 3 (Gold Strike)
Both the peregrine falcon and bighorn sheep can adapt well to Gold Strike
Do not choose Routes 1 or 2 - will cause further impact in Hemenway Valley
No need to attend the October meetings, because nothing will change Many feel this way, as witnessed in the poor turnout at the last
six meetings The federal government will do what they want - shut down the dam regardless of the public's wishes and needs Only
government employees and families will have privileges of access to dam
The DEIS should not limit the structure type to a specific material at this early stage The arch could be either steel or concrete Cost
comparisons at this stage are not sufficiently accurate to determine the most economical material for a given structure type The view
from the dam of a steel or concrete bridge would not be materially different Construction techniques are equally applicable FHWA
may wish to utilize the alternate design process, to save money
Recommend the FEIS include a provision to further evaluate the use of a concrete bridge and include alternate designs to ensure that
the least cost arch structure with comparable visual impacts is constructed
Why can't we cross at Willow Creek*? Why at the Gold Strike crossing?
Supports anything that's not north of the dam North of the dam is a bad choice geologically and environmentally
The Willow Creek crossing fits the criteria well Why isn't it a choice?
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1 25
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
Commenter
Date
Comment
C26-1
Sturgill, Warren
13-Oct-98
The bridge should look good with Hoover Dam The Gold Strike looks a lot better than the other two, which are a lot closer and higher
than the dam
C26-2
Are you planning on building a freeway with the bridge so that U S 93 will be a freeway from Kmgman all the way to Las Vegas?
C27-1
VandeBerg, Russel
22-Oct-98
Willow Beach remains the best alternative - cheaper and shorter in the long run
C27-2
Sugarloaf Mountain route is the best choice for the new bridge Boulder City Bypass should have been part of this project
C27-3
Claims huge cost of the project relating to construction delays is getting no consideration Impact and cost on existing traffic avoided if
Willow Beach selected
C28-1
C28-2
Wilson, Katheryn and
Alonzo M
09-Oct-98
Prefers the Gold Strike Alternative, downstream from the dam, in case there is an accident
This alternative should keep the shops in Boulder City happy Does not support bypassing Boulder City
C29-1
Wilson, Fred
11-Dec-98
Thinks U S 93 should go south of Boulder City and go to U S 95 directly, and go further on to meet 1-15 about milepost 27 Would
provide a faster route for through traffic
C30-1
Rosen, Mark
19-Dec-98
Need to consider expanding U S 95 and using US 95 to I-40 as a bypass U S 95 needs to be expanded and divided from a two-
lane highway This would have less environmental impact on the canyon
C31-1
Beymer, Easton
07-Jan-99
Are the proposed bridges and connecting highways to be two or four lanes'? Four lanes should be built, even if the other highways,
primarily in Arizona, would still be two lanes until demand warranted an additional two lanes
C31-2
Which alternative is favored? The Gold Strike would probably be the best
C32-1
Beymer, Easton
08-Jan-99
Sugarloaf will provide an awesome view (similar to Glen Canyon Dam, but further downstream) which will be distracting to motorists
C33-1
Chnstensen, Peter
17-Jan-99
Choice would have been the Gold Strike Canyon route because tourists will slow down, and one of the reasons for the bridge is to stop
the bottleneck at the dam
C-34-1
Ensign, Frank E
16-Jan-99
The dam, Boulder City, roads, railroads, tunnels, utilities, etc are all part of the historic project, and the bypass bridge, on any of the
proposed alignments, would degrade the historical significance
C34-2
A dam bypass bridge will only exacerbate traffic congestion and accidents on U S 93 between Gold Strike Inn and Railroad Pass
C34-3
The dam bypass should be designed to handle traffic smoothly for the next 100 years.
C34-4
The recreational value of a new highway opening up a remote section of Lake Mohave or the deterioration of a city's life-style should
be evaluated
C34-5
To avoid impacts on the infrastructure, environment, and historic atmosphere of Boulder City, the No Build Alternative should be
selected
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-26
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EiS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
C34-6
D1-1
D1-2
D2-1
D3-1
D4-1
D4-2
D4-3
D5-1
D6-1
D7-1
D8-1
D9-1
D10-1
D11-1
D12-1
D13-1
Commenter
Kmffen, Robert Earl
Shull, Charles
Hums, JoEHe
Tester, Patricia
Elters, Sam
Jenkins, Frank
Mornssette, Elaine
Mornssette, Robert
Castillo, Larry
McFerrin, Edith
McFerrin, James
Works, Don
Benton, Richard L
Date
13-Oct-98
13-Oct-98
13-Oct-98
13-Oct-98
13-Oct-98
13-Oct-98
13-Oct-98
13-Oct-98
13-Oct-98
13-Oct-98
13-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
Comment
FHWA, NDOT, ADOT, Reclamation, NFS, and U S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) should come up with a four-lane bypass
between U S 93 and U S 95 south of Boulder City
jXv "''..•/','• ; PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS ?'«
Believes the Gold Strike is the best because of traffic - avoids the tourists at the dam
Wants the bridge at Gold Strike 100 to 200 feet higher, despite costs
Sugarloaf is a bad alternative and Gold Strike is more viable in the fact that it takes it out of view of the dam, for safety reasons
Supports the Hoover Dam bypass, but stands ready to look at the Laughlin route for environmental impact, economic impact, and
financial impact to the area
How much longer before they will do something'?
Are they going to wait for a major disaster, like toxic waste in the water, before putting in new roads'?
Going through Laughlin is 30 miles further, with steep grades in and out of Laughlin, US 95 is only two lanes with lots of traffic, and
Route 68 is bad too Truckers won't do it
Supports project and believes the Sugarloaf alternative is the best due to cost and better grades The No Build Operation is not viable
option
They need a viewing area on the Arizona side and on the Nevada side, and it isn't in the proposal
In favor of the Sugarloaf route
Feel the same Sugarloaf route would be our choice based on environmental, cost, and time to construct versus others
Build it quick Traffic safety problem at dam and need for convenience Should be an urgent project
Build as soon as possible due to traffic on dam Likes the Gold Strike Canyon route Safer out of sight of the dam so that people
aren't stopping to look at the dam
Start alternative bridge as soon as possible due to traffic on dam In favor of Gold Strike Canyon, despite expense Less impact on
animals and beauty of terrain If voted down on Gold Strike, then wants Sugarloaf
They're going to be hauling nuclear disposal through Boulder City Move it down to Searchlight Nuclear stuff crossing the dam could
get into the water system
Sugarloaf Mountain would be the best Cost more to research problem than to build dam Make a decision and get the job done One
bad spill will annihilate the lower Colorado and cause international problems with Mexico Boulder City businesses concerned about
tourism shouldn't be listened to
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-27
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
D14-1
D15-1
D16-1
D17-1
D18-1
D19-1
D20-1
D21-1
D22-1
D23-1
D24-1
D25-1
D26-1
Commenter
Hughes, Ralph L
Shannon, Robert
Stuckey, Wade
Uehlmg, Ed
Anonymous
German, Mrs
Vandeberg, Russell
Anonymous
Floyd, John
Adams, Thomas W
Lee, Jones
Zimmer, Ed
Rementena, John
Date
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
Comment
Can't find any negative part of the alternatives The bypass is what we need It would become a tourist attraction itself Likes the
upstream bridge because less work on the approaches to the bridge Could put a viewpoint at each end of the bridge
Environmentally and aesthetically it's a very pleasing project on the Promontory bridge approach
Likes the Promontory Point Alternative More feasible as far as cost and traffic
Wants the bridge built with union help Thinks Promontory Point is more feasible Better for the tourist industry Prefers the cable
suspension bridge
Mam concern is design of the bridge and visual impacts on the dam Dam is national treasure Visitor's center clashes with the dam's
architecture and defaces the dam Bridge should not do the same If you don't do an art deco 1930s industrial-type structure, then
build it away from dam where can't be seen
Object to the Promontory bridge due to visual impact, extra mileage, and danger of spills in lake Object to Sugarloaf due to visual
impact and motorists stopping on the bridge to view dam, especially at night Prefers Gold Strike, but understand the road is steep
Prefers to make it a toll bridge
Wants alternative with least stress on animals
Don't like any location, however, Sugarloaf looks like the best Keeps the lake free and bridge up in the air. No problems with view
Go back to the Willow Beach crossing - many miles saved Park service should grant a variance for Willow Beach Present route
through Boulder City is a mess, but due to cost it probably should be a separate project.
He's a structural ironworker Thinks it's urgent to get the project under way Start soon, so workers with knowledge for this type of
construction can assist
Project won't do any good because of the casinos They want the truck parking and trucker's money Recommends the Laughlm route
for the cheaper bridge and need to rebuild the roads
Would like to work on the bridge Gives access to Las Vegas
Would like to see it have a building Likes the Promontory Alternative Likes it because it's on top of the water Also because there is
more construction work and would be safer for highway workers
Promontory Point would be the most advantageous Grades aren't severe Cost difference between this and Sugarloaf isn't
significant Erosion could be a problem for bridges below the dam Steel rib through arch would be more aesthetic and pleasing than
the other
Road over dam should be left open to tourists Heard rumors that the dam will be closed to the public and only open for government
official use - that is wrong and improper
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1 28
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
D27-1
D28-1
D29-1
D30-1
D31-1
D32-1
D33-1
D34-1
D35-1
D36-1
D37-1
D38-1
E1-1
Commenter
Thompson, Larry
Spurlock, Robert
Burger, Sue
Blackwell, Charlene
Whelan, Tom
Hordan, Bill
Cody, Georgi
Pollock, Doug
Anonymous
Quinn, Pat
Hughes, Nicholas M
Lachase, Dennis
•'" • ^.'T^,:'..'
Agnew, John H
Date
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
14-Oct-98
15-Oct-98
1 5-Oct-98
15-Oct-98
15-Oct-98
15-Oct-98
15-Oct-98
15-Oct-98
' t'-'t
Oct-98
Comment
The trucks are still going to have to go through town They should cut in and go down south of the town by the airport Should come in
oy Willow Beach Doesn't want his town messed up by NAFTA trade route Would have to go to Sugarloaf if the other alternatives
won't work
Upstream portion of the dam has been already altered by the water and visitors Downstream is relatively wild For that reason,
Promontory Point is the only acceptable option
Supports project Concerned about the environmental impact - especially for the bighorn sheep
They should scrap the present dam project and have trucks go down through Laughlm
Bridge should be downstream near Laughlm due to hazardous waste and nuclear waste contamination Move bridge south Would
help Laughlin's economic slump Bridges near dam will turn Boulder City into a median strip because NDOT will build a bypass
Need to do something immediately to improve traffic flow Sugarloaf has a lot of advantages It has the best location in relationship to
the dam and the view of the dam
Attended on behalf of the Nevada Motor Transport Association Excellent DEIS No Build is not a viable option Glad to read that the
Laughlm-Bullhead City option has been rejected Sugarloaf is the most attractive alternative, based on road geometries, cost, noise,
and other factors Hopes that adverse impacts may be avoided or minimized
Is promoting a route on Route 165 through Nelson This would help rebuild the old manna area Anything further north than Nelson is
a restricted area
Haven't given Bullhead City a chance at the new truck route There are no sheep in the area of the Bullhead Road and no tortoises
Locks could be put below the new Laughlm bridge to contain any chemical spills in the river It's farther, but Laughlm needs a shot in
the arm Also, Boulder City is against trucks coming into their town
A shame Willow Beach bypass not used Gold Strike is the only one to really take - less cumbersome to traffic during construction
and the most direct route
Gold Strike is the way to go because of less disturbance to existing roads during construction Also, the other roads run together
causing delay Promontory would be most congested, between the warehouse to Gold Strike Casino
Should have happened 15 years ago Environment suffers from long traffic delays more than what they're doing Sugarloaf has least
impact and can be installed the quickest, but will just move the bottleneck up to Boulder City It's easier now to go through Laughlm to
Kmgman than to go across the dam
•"••V":"-1' ' ' \VV> 3 •'*''£,' - . , PUBLIC HEARlMG CblMNT SHEef § ! : V^V.'1- :-'^"-~ ' '. » '
=. •> <- „ ,*• S- - „ '- "- ! T > I f „* ^ !|.. s , j '* w* • - - . if-
Supports Sugarloaf because of cost, it's the shortest route, would take the least time to construct, would be safer from spills, and
wouldn't interfere with rafting or hiking
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
21-29
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
E2-1
E3-1
E4-1
E5-1
E6-1
E7-1
E8-1
E9-1
E10-1
E11-1
E12-1
E13-1
E14-1
E15-1
Commenter
Anderson, Carol S
Andersen, Giles C
Austin, Robert D.
Benton, R L
Blakesley, Leonard E ,
Jr
Blockley, Marge
Blockley, W
Bolton, Paul
Brandhagen, Layne,
Kimley Horn &
Associates
Bravo, Richard J
Cannon, Jerry
Carlton, Gregory
Cooper, Donald K
Denison, Andrew N
Date
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Comment
Prefers the Sugarloaf Alternative and then the Gold Strike Canyon Both are better than Promontory Point due to visual impacts and
safety from spills in lake Cost-wise, prefers Sugarloaf Also prefers the steel arch bridge as more compatible with the era of Hoover
Dam
Sugarloaf is the best Highway 95 would be better yet
Gold Strike is most desirable because construction activities would be removed from existing roads However, greater costs are a
factor A No Build alternative is ridiculous
Sugarloaf is the best route Must address the many tourists that would stop/slow down to take a picture of the front of the dam Some
provision must be made for this problem Any crossing should be a toll road It worked well with the Golden Gate Bridge Get on with
the job and get it done'
Requests a copy of the EIR, including all maps and future updates
Votes for Gold Strike Canyon because it will have little effect on views from Hoover Dam Prefers that trucks travel over the bridge at
Laughlm There is a difficult traffic intersection on U S 93 in Hemenway Valley
Would like to see information on 20-year user costs for the three build alternatives in the FEIS After having this information, then will
provide an opinion on other factors associated with this proposal
Sugarloaf is the preferred alternative because it has the minimum impact on the environment, is the least costly, and is the least
visually intrusive It offers a spectacular view of Hoover Dam Prefers the steel or concrete arch more than the steel suspension The
no build is not acceptable Construction should start as soon as possible - 1999?
Prefers the Sugarloaf Alternative from the engineering/operational standpoint
See attached table which provides a basis for deleting the Gold Strike Canyon from consideration (NOTE This table was already
summarized in comment letter C3 )
Prefers the Sugarloaf Alternative Least cost Built where the environment is already damaged Good fit for new bridge Can be
made visually compatible Road grades reasonable
Project deserves the best quality workmanship available Local unions should work on this project
Prefers the Sugarloaf Alternative Need to build safe interchanges on the Nevada and Arizona sides for people who will access the
dam via existing U S 93 Keep the existing road across the dam usable for the public
Prefers the Sugarloaf Alternative Getting the Coast Guard involved means more delay and cost for the Promontory Alternative The
grades of Gold Strike are a real negative Sugarloaf is the cheaper option
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-30
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Summary of Comments
Code
E16-1
E17-1
E18-1
E19-1
E20-1
E21-1
E22-1
E23-1
E24-1
E25-1
E26-1
E27-1
E28-1
E29-1
E30-1
E31-1
Commenter
Doty, Jack and Marilyn
Edwards, William
Fagg, Darrell
Fit/gibbons, Bobbye
Fitzgibbons, Pat
Gibson, Dan
Glynn, Jennifer
Gomez, William
Huffman, Robert
Hughes, Ralph L
Hughes, Rhea Renee
Ishiki, James
Keller, Lily
Keller, Ronald W
Kmn, Rebecca
Kos, L H
Date
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Comment
Promontory Point would detract from the overall look of the dam Gold Strike is too expensive Prefers Sugarloaf as the shortest and
straightest road, and from it there is still a view of the dam
Prefers the Sugarloaf Alternative
Prefers the Gold Strike Canyon with steel arch bridge The traffic on Hoover Dam is unreal The contract should go to a union
contractor
Concerned about impacts to trout fishing below the dam, so against the Gold Strike Alternative Noise concerns are high in the canyon
below the dam Prefers Promontory Point, because does not feel that it would affect the view of the dam - same for Sugarloaf
Concerned about environmental impacts from the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative - including fishing and boating Also concerned
about noise of traffic from bridge Prefers Promontory Point or Sugarloaf
Prefers Sugarloaf using the concrete cable-stayed bridge
Supports bridge project Prefers Gold Strike Canyon route Bridge close to dam will take the "awe" from it Construction will create
many (hopefully union) jobs
Prefers the arch steel bridge - higher than the dam in case it goes
The alternatives don't address the traffic problems in Boulder City The state and federal government should cooperate and correct
both problems at once Prefers Gold Strike because it separates the traffic further away from the dam
Prefers the Promontory Point suspension It would enhance the view of the dam
Prefers the Promontory Point suspension It is attractive Boulder City already has traffic, so it shouldn't make that much difference
Better for shipping nuclear waste into Nevada
Is there any source of information that projects the possible effects on proximal communities such as Dolan Springs'? Interested in
potential socioeconomic impacts on outlying areas
Truck traffic should not go through Boulder City, thus route the trucks through Laughlm If either bridge is constructed, what will be
done to decrease U S 93 congestion? Addressing only the Hoover Dam project and not effects on Boulder City is inappropriate
Why consider the three build alternatives, since there is open space to build 9 highway to Arizona beginning at Railroad Pass This
would bypass the crowded U S 93 that goes through Boulder City and on the dam Charge a toll at the bridge
Prefers the Sugarloaf Mountain route A toll bridge is a good plan, as is restricting truck use
Promontory Point is too dangerous due to potential spills in lake Traffic on Highway 93 tn Hemenway Valley and into Boulder City is a
major concern and will only increase, it is noisy, even at night These concerns need to be addressed
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
21-31
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Code
E32-1
E33-1
E34-1
E35-1
E36-1
E37-1
E38-1
E39-1
E40-1
E41-1
E42-1
E43-1
E44-1
E45-1
E46-1
Commenter
Kostner, Mark
Kuster, Jack
Laughhn, Don
Lienhard, Reagan
Lmdberg, Carl W
McCormick, Paul
Miller, Byron L
Miller, Pat and Ray
Moe, John
Mornssette, Robert B
Nielsen, J D
Olbert, Bradford D
Perry, Ronald
Prather, Roger
Qumn, George
Date
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Comment
Prefers the Gold Strike Canyon or Sugarloaf Mountain Opposed to Promontory Point The bridge should be an attractive piece of art,
particularly if tolls are charged The roadway should be six lanes, three each way. Perhaps the bridge should be built with the
capability of being double-decked to handle the Las Vegas population projections
Disappointed in the three build alternatives This leaves Boulder City with traffic increases Is an advocate of one single bypass, either
at Willow Beach or Laughhn A toll bridge would need legislation A Boulder City bypass would probably hurt the city's tourism
Leave well enough alone This will give Laughhn a shot in the arm Build a new bridge at Laughhn and widen U S 95 from Route 163
to the Railroad Pass Casino
Prefers Gold Strike Canyon for speedy movement of traffic Erecting a bridge at Promontory Point or Sugarloaf would cause the same
traffic slowdowns now experienced due to tourists stopping and slowing to view the lake and the dam
Prefers Gold Strike Canyon for shortest distance Sugarloaf Mountain is too close to Hoover Dam
Prefers Sugarloaf - most direct and less incline and decline Need to fight for a share of available funding and push for additional
federal allocations
Prefers either bridge below the dam Get with it'
Prefers Sugarloaf with steel deck arch and gawk screen blocking the dam from view A bridge below the dam would be a better plan if
a spill should occur in public waters
Prefers a steel arch bridge The project is long overdue
Prefers Sugarloaf
Wants to work on the iron bridge Must learn how to build in the desert without damaging the land and wildlife
Prefers Sugarloaf, but does not like the concrete cable-stayed option Does not believe the Gold Strike Canyon route would enable
trucks to maintain speeds of 55 mph at a 6 percent grade Adding climbing lanes would increase construction costs Does not like
location of Promontory Point because of poor view of dam In contrast, the view with the Sugarloaf Alternative would be fantastic
Questions Appendix A traffic analysis for not addressing impact of steep grades on the 24 percent truck/RV traffic - impacts speeds
and level of service (LOS) How do you get to the new visitor center from the three alternatives'?
Prefers either bridge site below the dam Build the bridge as soon as possible
None of the alternatives will keep high-level nuclear waste out of Boulder City Suggests the old Willow Beach bypass be
reconsidered Find a route to keep nuclear waste and other hazardous materials out of Boulder City Of the three alternatives, prefers
Gold Strike because it has the least visual impact on dam
Prefers Sugarloaf because of cost, location below the dam, and good view Concerned about how traffic will be handled in Boulder
City Asks is any thought going into diverting the traffic around the city? Improved crossing will increase traffic problem in city
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-32
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
TABLE 2-1-2
U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Draft EIS
Code
E47-1
E47-2
E48-1
E49-1
E50-1
E51-1
E52-1
E53-1
E54-1
E55-1
E56-1
E57-1
E58-1
Commenter
Rementena, John
Shannon, John H
Shannon, Robert
Sorensen, Lou
Strange, Richard
Stuckey, Wade
Tester, Patricia
Thompson, Dorothy S
Tomlinson, Michael
W , Russel! (illegible)
Wiens, Ed
Wilkerson, Mark
Date
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Oct-98
Comment
Heard all three alternatives require closing the road over the dam Thinks the dam road should be kept open for tourists and locals,
and not just government officials to entertain their families and friends Allow nothing larger than a van or station wagon to cross the
dam All others should be required to use one of the alternative roads
Knows of a foreign-owned construction company that would finance 100 percent of the new bridge, if allowed to participate in
speculative development projects in Arizona and Nevada
Alternative 4 (no build) is not an option Chaos is the end result Prefers Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative with low profile arch List of
Sugarloaf benefits best alignment, least adverse profile, good sight distances, least environmental impact, separates through traffic
from dam traffic, most direct route, and lowest cost
Prefers Promontory Point It is most feasible, cost effective and has good grades
The No Build is not an option, given the growing congestion on the dam Prefers the Sugarloaf option
Prefers Sugarloaf Mountain Opposed to the Gold Strike Alternative due to the environmental impacts Promontory Point would be
OK, but is the second choice
No comment
Where has all the money gone for this project for the past 35 years? Will there have to be a major disaster before the road is
constructed Afraid of toxic waste getting into the lake or river drinking water No more studies, start constructing
Prefers Sugarloaf Mountain because of grades and fewer impacts on the environment Going across Sugarloaf at 60 mph, no one
would be able to stop to look at the dam, but you could go to the dam to see it
Reconsider Bullhead/Laughlin corridor
Promontory Point would be the first choice Gold Strike Canyon would be last Favors suspension for aesthetics only
Prefers Sugarloaf
Prefers Sugarloaf for environmental, safety, engineering, and construction reasons Something must be done soon to avert major
accidents on the dam
SCQ/LAW2660 000003672580
2-1-33
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT E1S
This page intentionally left blank
SCQ/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
2-1-34
-------
VOLUME II / CHAPTER 2
Responses to Comments
2-2.1 Responses to Comments
This FEIS for the United States Highway 93 (U.S 93) Hoover Dam bypass includes copies
of all substantive comments received from government agencies, organizations, and the
general public on the DEIS. A response is provided to each substantive comment. Where
the FEIS text is revised as a result of the comments received, the response indicates where
revisions were made, and the FEIS changes are highlighted in the margins of the document.
The response attempts to adequately address the issue or concern raised by the commenter
or where substantive comments do not warrant further response, explain why they do not,
and provide sufficient information to support that position
The FEIS incorporates the DEIS in its entirety with changes made as appropriate
throughout the document to reflect the identification of a preferred alternative,
modifications to the project, updated information on the affected environment, changes in
the assessment of impacts, the selection of mitigation measures, wetland and floodplam
findings, the results of coordination, comments received on the DEIS, and responses to
these comments
SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580 2-2-1
-------
CHAPTER 2-1 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DRAFT EIS
This page intentionally left blank
2-1-2 SCO/LAW2660 DOC/003672580
-------
Responses to Government Agency Comments
SCO/LAW2661 DOC/003672581
-------
Responses to Organizations' Comments
SCO/LAW2661 DOC/003672581
-------
Responses to the General Public's Comments
SCO/LAW2661 DOC/003672581
-------
Responses to the Public Hearing Transcript Comments
Kingman, Arizona, October 13,1998
SCO/IAW2661 DOC/003672581
-------
Responses to the Public Hearing Transcript Comments
Boulder City, Nevada, October 14,1998
SCO/LAW2661 DOC/003672581
-------
Responses to the Public Hearing Transcript Comments
Las Vegas, Nevada, October 15,1998
SCO/LAW2661 DOC/003672581
-------
Responses to the Comment Sheets Received
During or After the Public Hearing
SCO/LAW2661 DOC/003672581
-------
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
THE STATE ("
? OF ARIZONA
A1
GAME & FISH DEPARTMENT
2221 West Greenway Road Phoem« Arizona 85023 4399 (602)942 3000
www gf stale az us
GOKJTior
JMK DM Hull
Herb Gu*nth«r Tito.
hid M GolijMlj Fligiuff
Willmn »tfUi T«icson
M Jem HatMll ScciudiJc
OcMniiD Minainj Alpine
0'rriJyr
Dvtnc L Sluoufc
November 10, 1998
Mr Terry Haussier (HDP-16)
Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, Colorado 60223
Re Draft Epvironnental Impact Statement (EIS) for US 93 Hoover
Dam Bypass
Dear Vr Haassler
The Ari2ona Game and Fish Department (Department) has reviewed the
draft EIS, dated Septemcer, 1998, for the proposed US 93 Hoover
Dam Bypass project The Department appreciates the close
interagency cooperation and coordination daring deve_opmer C ot this
draft EIS. The following comments are provided for your
consideratior
Alorg WLtn the No Build Alternative, three build alternatives are
evaluated in this document Fro-n ncrti to south, they are
Prciroitory Point, Sugarloaf fountain, ana Gold Strike Canyon Fan
alternative would include construction of a four-lane hignway a
new stse] or concrete four-lane bridge over the Colorado Rivei near
Hoovex" Dar, four-lane approaches, and tne approacn bridges and
cunnels needed for the 3 S-nule-long project Tne fteleetion of a
preferred alternative will net be made until the alternatives'
impacts and comments on the document have been fully evaluated
General Comments
wildlife and Wildlife Habitat Values
The lands that will be affecced by the proposed bridge and
associated highway alignments are comprised priirarxly of the Mohave
Desert Scrub habitat type The associated plart community and
unique topography of the area provides exceptional, higi-quality
bighorn sheep habitat as well as habitat for quail, dove, peregrine
falcon, Sonoran desert tortoise* and numerous small game and
nongarae birds and mammals The project area also provides habitat
for predacor/furbearer species such as coyote, bobcat, and some
mountain lion Aquatic species found in this portion of the
Colorado River include rainbow trout, striped bass and the
Endangered razorback sucker
An Equal Opportunity Reasonable Accommodations Agency
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A1
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A1-1
At-2
A1 3
Mr, Terry Haussler
November 10, 1998
2
Past land development and disturbance near Hoover Dam has been
substantial, thus diminishing habitat values in the area However,
despite these disturbances, the project area does contain high
numbers of desert bighorn sheep and two known peregrine falcon
aeries In addition, the area within the proposed alignments
encompasses several trinor washes These drainages and associated
vegetation are important to wildlife because they provide feeding,
nesting, breeding and resting sites Washes also serve as
important wildlife movement corridors
Proposed Alternatives
Overall, potential environmental impacts associated with the three
build alternatives appear to be adequately addressed in the draft
EIS Potential impacts to wildlife, and particularly those species
of greatest concern to the Department, such as the desert bighorn
sheep and peregrine falcon, have been identified and addressed in
the draft EIS
Based on our review of the three build alternatives, the Sugarloaf
Mountain alignment, coupled with the proposed miticaticn, is
expected to have the least amount of adverse impact Co wildlife and
wildlife habitat Of the three build alternatives, the Sugarloaf
Mountain Alternative will affect the smallest amount of land,
including important wildlife habitats such as desert wash habitat
and cliff habitat
Mitigation Measures
The initial mitigation measures appear suitable and should wcrk to
minimize impacts to wildlife resources As the project moves
forward, the Department would appreciate the opportunity to be
involved in all aspects of fish and wildlife mitigation associated
with this project (in Arizona)
Specific mitigation measures proposed for the Sugarloaf Mountain
Alternative appear appropriate and should help to minimize impacts
to wildlife resources in the project area The Department
recommends that this alternative also include before, during and
after construction monitoring of peregrine falcons as a mitigation
measure Currently, the closest peregrine falcon nest site is
greater than one mile away from this alignment However, peregrine
falcons will often choose alternative nest sites in the same
general area from year to year Therefore, it is possible that the
location of this nest could change over time In addition,
peregrine falcons from the current nest site likely forage within
the proposed Sugarloaf Mountain alignment Significant impacts to
cliff habitat from any of the alternatives could potentially affect
the peregrine falcon prey base
Response to Comment Al-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative,
with the proposed mitigation measures, as the preferred alternative on the
basis of minimizing environmental impacts, engineering and operational
advantages, and lower construction cost. Section 2 6.2.1 of the FEIS
discusses the rationale for its selection.
Response to Comment Al-2
FHWA and our respective cooperating agencies commit to involve AGFD
in the development and implementation of specific mitigation measures for
fish and wildlife affected by the preferred alternative as the project
proceeds through final design and construction.
Response to Comment Al-3
The lead agency will coordinate with appropriate state and federal agencies
to ensure that peregrines will be monitored 3 to 4 times a year for at least
2 years before, during, and after 1 year of public use of the new bridge.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003572582
A2
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A1 7
A1 8
Mr Terry Haussler
November 10, 1998
3
Section 3 3.3, Subsection 3331, Construction Mitigation: the
following statement appears under Peregrire Falcon "Biologist from
AGFD and NFS would continue to monitor peregrine falcons in the
proposed project area " The Department recently stopped our
monitoring efforts on peregrine falcons in the project area This
was due to potential status changes with the peregrine falcon as an
Endangered species The Department supports monitoring efforts on
the peregrine falcon n relation to this project Funding will
need to be identified in order to continue monitoring efforts and
to ensure that peregrine falcon mitigation objectives are met
Section 3.3.3 Subsection 3.3.3.1: On page 3-34, under Peregrine
Falcon, we recommend that breeding territories located within 1
mile of construction activities have no blasting or excavation
activities conducted during the Breeding season (March through
July! A 0 5-mile buffer may not oe an aaequate distance to
minimize disturbances to peregrine falcons due to blasting and
excavation work The Department is interested ir wording with the
cooperating agencies on th-S issue in order to minimise potential
adverse impacts to the peregrine falcon
The bighorn sheep mitigation appears adequate The use of
underpasses and overpasses by bighorn sheep is of interest to the
Department and we look forward to monitoring the effectiveness of
these structures The use of fencing should facilitate the use of
these structures by sheep and other wildlife Additional
operational mitigation could include speed reductions within two
miles approaching the bridge, and roadside signing warning
motorists of the possibility of encountering wildlife in area We
would appreciate the opportunity to be involved in all aspects of
mitigation as it relates to bighorn sheep
Measures to minimize and eliminate impacts to water resources also
appear adequate All storm-water and potential chemical spill
related runoff collected and drained to settling basins snould be
covered and fenced This will reduce the likelihood of wildlife
coming into contact with these contaminated water sources
The status of bat populations in Arizona is of concern to the
Department National Park Services biologists have found bat
densities to be low near Hoover Dam The Department believes that
opportunities exist to create and enhance bat habitat in the Hoover
Dam Bypass project area Bridge structures are often used as day
roosts for a variety of bat species Simple modifications of
bridge design features can easily create bat habitat We recommend
that where feasible, as detailed design planning IB initiated,
efforts be made to incorporate bat-friendly structures within the
bridge design The Department would he willing to assist in this
planning effort
Response to Comment Al-4
FHWA will coordinate with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to
reinitiate the monitoring program for peregrines Section 333,
Subsection 3 3.3.1 of the EIS has been changed to delete the wording
"continue to," implying that AGFD is still monitoring peregrines in the
project area when in fact this practice has recently stopped.
Response to Comment Al-5
Consistent with the Biological Opinion of USFWS for this project, if
occupied peregrine falcon nests are found within 0.5 mile of construction
activities, consultation will be reinitiated with USFWS to determine
appropriate mitigation measures.
Response to Comment Al-6
The following sentence has been added in Section 3.3.3.1, Desert Bighorn
Sheep- "Roadside signing will be installed warning motorists of the
possibility of encountering wildlife in the area."
Response to Comment Al-7
These settling basins will periodically need to be cleaned. Any fences that
may be incorporated into the basin design must be compatible with basin
maintenance and function. The FEIS, Section 3.4.3.2, has been clarified.
Response to Comment Al-8
There were no areas with high densities of bats found during surveys
conducted for this project by NFS (see Table 3-12). Hence, there is not a
demonstrated need for providing bat roosts on the bridge structures
SCO/IAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A3
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
AMD
Mr Terry Haussler
November 10, 1998
4
Spaeific Comments
Table 3-14
Under impacts associated with the Sugarloaf Alternative
peregrines, it states that "impact unlikely, bridge site is in area
buffered by existing disturbances, and breeding area is greater
than 1 mile" He suggest this be reworded to state that impacts
are possible without mitigation As stated previously, nest sites
may change from year to year and peregrine falcons located at the
nest site downstream of this alternative likely forage wifun the
project area associated with this alternative
Table 3-12
Page 3-23 should include the acatus symbol ASC for Las Vegas bear
paw poppy and bicolored penstemon On page 3-24, the status symbol
ASC should be added to tne Peregrine falcon and banded Gila
monster On page 3-25, the status symbol AT should be deleted for
desert bighorn sheep and the status synbol ASC should be added to
all of the bat species except the small-footed myotis bat
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft EIS Again, the
Department appreciates the close interagsncy coordination during
development of this draft EIS We look forward to participating in
the development o5 fish and wildlife mitigation measures associated
with this project If you have any questions regarding this
letter, please contact me at (602) 789-3602 If you would like to
schedule a meeting to discuss these comments aid specific
mitigation measures in irore detail, please contact Tom Fresques,
Region III Habitat Specialist, at (520) 6S2-7700, extension 118
Sincerely,
VV\/JUI*^L
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A2
STATE OF NEVADA
JOHN P COMCAUX
Director
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
209 E Mussel Street, Room 200
Carson City. Nevada 89701 4298
Fax (702) 687 3983
(702) £87 4065
November 12, 1998
Terry Hausler
Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street Room 259
Lakewood, CO 80228
Re SAI NV#E 1999-040
HPD-16
Project DEIS for the Hoover Dam Bypass Project
Dear Terry Haussler
Enclosed is an additional comment from the Nevada Health Division that was received after
our previous letter to you Please incorporate this comment into your decision making process If
you have any questions, please contact me at (702) 687-6367
Sincerely,
c
Heather K Elliott
Nevada State Cleannghouse/SPOC
Enclosure
Response to Comment A-2
DELETED — Duplicate letter from the Nevada Department of Human
Resources, Health Division via the Nevada Department of Administration
(see response to Comment A10)
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A-5
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
CHAfiLOTTE CRAWFORD
Dll»CIOf
Caison Cily NV 89701 S4G5
,702,, 667 6353
/a* rn?t 687 s><)7
Cjrson Cily HV B9731 iJOS
•J<\2\ 687 4/54
ftjuDlnific«l Hell fi
1179 Fai.vww Df,ve
Suite 02
Ci scr CI'Y NV 83"0 ^0$
1702) 63/ 539-
Fax \>Q2\ u3? a?5l
nnirnial
A2-1
Cj[-.-)n Cit/ If 897tM S.105
rigj h ^ijtect'M SEM«,
GJQ SWOK Street
Suite »
En;
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A3
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, DC 202«
A3 1
A3 Z
ER-98/610
NOV 4 1998
Mr John T Price
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
705 N Plaza Street, Suite 220
Larson City Nevada 89701-060:
Dear Mr Price
This is in response to the request for the Department ol the Interior's comments on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Section 4(f) Evaluation for the US-93 Hoover
Dam Bypass Project - Construction of a New Bridge and Highway Access across the
Colorado River, Clark County, Nevada and Mohave County, Arizona
We concur that there is no prudent and feasible allenuti\e to the proposed project, if
project objectives are to be met We also concur with the proposed measures to minimize
harm to Section 4(0 resources which may be affected b> the proposed project
The Lake Mead National Recreation Area has served as a cooperating agency on the
Project Management Team during the conservation planning and impact analysis effort
for the proposed project Also, proactive tribal consultations have been undertaken as a
key part of this process Although it appears that the Sugarloaf Alternative will have the
least environmental impact to Lake Mead National Recreation Area, the National Park
Service (NPS) will refrain from identifying a Preferred Alternative until all processes
including the Traditional Cultural Properties have been finalized We also note that
according to the Federal Highway Administration's analysis of three public m2ei'ng£ he'd
during October 13-15, more participants supported this alternative than the Gold Strike
and Promontory Alternatives combined
The Lake Mead National Recreation Area will continue to represent the NPS in the
collaborative mteragency efforts to select an alternative that will meet the purpose and
need while protecting park values and prepare ihe Final Environmental Impact Statement
and the Record of Decision for the proposed project Should you need any clarification
of our comments, please contact Mr Allan ONeill, Superintendent, Lake Mead National
Recreation Area at (702) 293-8920
Response to Comment A3-1
The specific measures to minimize environmental harm to Section 4(f)
resources are documented in the final Section 4(f) evaluation and EIS for
this project (see Chapter 6, Section 6 6) Those measures will be adopted in
the Record of Decision (ROD).
Response to Comment A3-2
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative,
with the proposed mitigation measures, as the preferred alternative on the
basis of minimizing environmental impacts, engineering and operational
advantages, and lower construction cost Section 2 6.2 1 of the FEIS
discusses the rationale for this decision.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/003672582
A7
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
The Department of the Interior has no objection to Section 4(f) approval of this project by
the Department of Transportation, providing that the Preferred Alternative and mitigation
measures to Section 4(f) resources are coordinated with and approved by the NFS
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments
Willie R Taylor
Director, Office of Environmental
Polity and Compliance
cc Mr. Tom E Stephens, P E
Director
Nevada Department of Transportation
1263 South Stewart Street
Carson City. Nevada 89712
Response to Comment A3-3
As a cooperating agency in development of this EIS and Section 4(f)
evaluation, the NFS staff was instrumental in defining the project
alternatives and the specific mitigation measures for Section 4(f) resources.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A8
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A4
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U S ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 95814 2922
November 12, 1998
Regulatory Branch (19972548!)(FEC)
Federal Highway Administration
ATTN Terry Haussler
565 Zang Street, Room 259
I^akewood, Colorado 80228
Dear Mr Haussler
I am responding (o the Draft Environmental Impac! Statement for FHWA HOOVER
DAM BYPASS US 93, 199725481
The Corps ol Engineers jurisdiction within the study areas is under the authority of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters
of the United States or excavation that has more than minimal ettect on the aquatic
environment in these waters Waters of the United States include, but are not limited to, the
following perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, ponds, as well as wetlands in marshes,
wet meadows, and side hill seepi Project features that would occur from development
within che study areas that result in the discharge of fill material into waters of the United
States will require Department of the Army authorization prior to initiating work
The range of alternatives considered in the DEIS included alternatives to fill in
wetlands or other waters of the United States within the study area Every effort should be
made to avoid project features which require the discharge of fill into waters of the United
States In tlie event it can be clearly demonstrated there are no practicable alternatives to
filling waters of the United States, mitigation plans should be developed to compensate for
the losses resulting from project implementation
Although we are not providing a comprehensive review of the DEIS, as a cooperating
agency for the preparation of the DEIS, we have reviewed those sectioni pertaining to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act We also
reviewed the Purpose and Need to determine if it met with our criteria regarding the Section
A4-2 I 404{b)(l) Guidelines We concur with the Purpose and Need as contained in the DEIS
Response to Comment A4-1
As documented in Comment A5-1 (ACOE letter dated December 8, 1998),
ACOE concurred with the determination that the project does not contain
any wetlands.
All build alternatives for the Hoover Dam bypass involve placement of fill
in waters of the U S. to varying degrees (see EIS Figure 3-3) The preferred
alternative has the lowest potential acreage of fill (0.11 permanent acres)
among the three project alternatives studied in detail in the EIS. Mitigation
plans to compensate for this loss will be developed through the permitting
process.
Response to Comment A4-2
Concurrence by ACOE in the DEIS Purpose and Need/Alternatives
constitutes this agency's affirmation of the project under the\s&&^p$sxk
>!S^W^&5ss^V?^5&s^T^^ dated March 3,1994.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A9
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A4-3
The comments provided in our review of the DEIS at the mteragency coordination
meetings on August 11 and 12, 1998 have been fully addressed, with the inclusion of the
maps from the preliminary delineation, the 404 sequencing (Avoidance, Minimization,
Mitigation), and the information regarding impacts to waters of the United States As slated
at the coordination meeting the inclusion of this information allows for the E1S to be utilized
to satisfy our NEPA documentation and the 404(b)(l) Guidelines
If you have any questions, please write to Mr Kevin Roukey at our Nevada Field
Office, C Clifton Young Federal Building, 300 Booth Street, Room 2103, Reno, Nevada
89509, telephone (702) 784-5304, FAX (702) 784-5306 We appreciate the opportunity to be
included in your review process
Sincerely,
Chief, Nevada Office
Response to Comment A4-3
Measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts on waters of the U.S
identified in the EIS will be incorporated in the ROD for this project (see
response to Comments A4-1 and A5-2).
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/003672582
AID
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A5
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U 5 ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1325 J STREET
SACRAMENTO CALIFORNIA 9S«1« 2922
ATUMIIOMCF
December 8, 1998
Regulatory Branch (199725481XFJL)
Federal Highway Administration
ATTN Terry Haussler
565 Zang Street
Denver, Colorado 80225-0246
Dear Mr Haussler
This leuer concerns the FHWA HOOVER DAM BYPASS, US 93 located within
Section 29, Township 22 Soulh and Range 65 East, M D B & M . in Clark County,
Nevada
We have reviewed and verified the Section 404 Jurisdictional Delineation HOOVER
DAM BYPASS PROJECT, CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA AND MOJAVE COUNTY,
ARIZONA dated April 1998 The map was Held verified on March 16, 1998 by me and
yourself and representatives from the USDOR, NFS and your consultant We concur with the
determination that the project does not contain any wetlands but does contain other waters of
the United States as indicated on Figure 2 at the Delineation
Our jurisdiction in this area is under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act A
Department of the Army permit is required prior to discharging dredged or fill materials into
waters of the United States Discharge of dredged material includes but is not limited to any
addition, including redcposn, of dredged material, including excavated material, into the
A5-2 waters of the United States which is incidental to any activity including mechanized land
clearing, ditching, channelization, or other excavation Accordingly, a permit will be
required prior to filling any of (he waters present on the FHWA HOOVER DAM BYPASS
US 93 property The type of permit required will depend on the type and amount of waters
which would be lost or adversely modified by fill activities
A5-31 This verification is valid for five years from the date of this letter unless new
information warrant!, revision of the determination before the expiration date Please refer to
identification number 199725481 in any correspondence concerning this project
Response to Comment A5-1
See response to Comment A4-1.
Response to Comment A5-2
An ACOE permit will be required under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
for placement of fill in waters of the U.S. The specific impacts on waters
and the type of permit will be determined and acquired during final design
of the roadways and bridges, prior to construction of the U S 93
Hoover Dam bypass.
Response to Comment A5-3
Assuming that funding becomes available and environmental clearances
are obtained, construction could start on the project by 2002. This falls
within the 5-year verification period of the Section 404 Jurisdictional
delineation for this project.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/003672582
A11
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
If you have any questions, please write to our Nevada Field Office, C Clifton Young
Federal Building, 300 Booth Street, Room 2103, Reno, Nevada 89509, telephone (702)
784-5304, FAX (702) 784-5306
Sincerely,
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 12
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
AB
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL, PROTECTION AGENCY
REOION IX
?S Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 941QS 3i01
Mr Larry Smith
Division Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
Central Federal Lands Highway Diviiion
515 Ziing Street
Denver CO 80228
Dear Mr Srrutrt
The U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the Diaft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS) tor the proposed Hoover Dam Bypass Project, in Clark County,
Nevada and Mojave Countv, Arizona. We provide our comments puriium to Section 309 of
the-Clean Air AM the National Environmental Policy \a (NEPA), and the Council on
En% ironmental Quality's Regulation!) for Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1100-1508)
The Federal Highw.iv Administration (FHWA) proposes to construe! a new bridge and
highway access across tlie Colorado River 111 the vicinity ot Hoover Dam far approximate!) four
miles The project takes placs on lands held by the Bureau ot Reclamation and the National Park
Service A total of fourteen "build' alternatives were proposed, with tour including the no-build
ultimately being fully examined in this DEIS One ' Build" alternative, the Promontory Point
alternative, propoisi to crow Lake Mead upstream of the Hoover Dam The other two "Build"
alternatives, Su|4rlo
-------
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on ihe DEIS Please send us two copies of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) at the same time «is officially filed with the U S
EPA's Washington, D C office If you have any questions, please feel free to call me or have
your staff call David J Carlson of my staff at 415-744-157?
Sincerely,
David Parrel Chief
Office of Federal Activities
cc Jeffrey R Brooks, FHWA, San Francisco
Katiann Wong-Munlto, FlfWA, San Franciiio
Steve Thomas, FHWA-AZ
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
Response to Comment A6-6
The preferred alternative will result in approximately 0 66 acres of
temporary fill and 0,11 acres of permanent fill placed in waters of the U.S.
from construction of bridges over the dry washes tributary to the Colorado
River, The main bridge will be a clear-span structure, requiring no fill or
footings below the ordinary high water mark of the Colorado River, The
avoidance and minimization measures stipulated in the EIS to reduce
impacts on water resources will be adopted in the ROD, implemented
during construction, and monitored for effectiveness.
Relocation of the Reclamation sewer evaporation ponds has been discussed
in the EIS as an impact of the preferred alternative. Subsequent to
circulation of the DEIS, additional archaeological survey was conducted on
the Arizona side of the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment to include the sewer
pond and transmission tower relocation area within the area of potential
effects of the Hoover Dam Bypass Project, Although the relocation design
has not been developed, the FEIS commits to maintaining access to the
ponds by wildlife currently using the existing water source.
Response to Comment A6-7
The following detail has been included in the FEIS on the specific BMPs
that will be applied and on the applicable water quality design standards
and how the adopted mitigation measures for the preferred alternative will
protect those standards for receiving waters.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A14
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A6-2
A6-3
A6-4
A6-5
u s z?A Continents- Draft Env-ranr«rca. Iirpacc Scac«m«nc
hoovor Dam Bypass
Nevada and Arizona
199B _
GENERAL COMMENTS
Indirect Impacts
The DEIS was unclear regarding the possibility for relocation of transmission power lines
and utilities which appear to be common in the area We are concerned that it appears that any of
the alternatives could impact these facilities causing them to either be removed and then
modified or relocated altogether If the power lines and transmission towers will need to be
relocated depending on alternative, we recommend that the FEIS discuss, the impacts related lo
further construction, erosion, and intrusion into sensitive habitats There are references that there
may be utility relocations and relocation of the transmission lines, but there was no definitive
discussion and disclosure of the degree and effect of the impacts
Cumulative Impacts
We appreciate the discussion of the cumulative effects related to the project and the area,
however, we found the discussion to be too vague to clearly have on understanding of past,
present and luture effects The discussion mentions impacts related to the exiting facilities which
have already occurred wnhout discussing what those effects were Obviously, the construction
of Hoover Dam and the related power generation facilities had a dramatic and profound effect on
the environment yet that action is never treated in the appropriate detail The DEIS briefly
mentions the development of facilities, but does not discuss the specific long-term elfects to any
aspect of the environment For example is there a sense ol the condition of water quality over
time, and is it getting better or worse due to on-going or past activities' Has there been a change
in the quality, and function of the wetlands in the area1' The DEIS mentioned that the
construction of the Dam had profound effects on the fish species downstream, could there be
others and what have other actions done to either further or reduce that impact'
Also, the discussion was focused on Highway projects and roadway programs in the area
Certainly this seems to be a logical connection to examine the related activities with this project
however, the CEQ regulations, as were correctly pointed to in the DEIS, state that any action
regardless of agency or person should be examined While the discussion mentions that no major
actions arc proposed for the area, the section did not indicate what programs or proposals have
been on-going that may be minor in nature but continue to have an effect on the environment
For example, what are BOR and NPS's current management practices of the area, what has been
their effect and is there a proposal to change those
While the DEIS recognizes that these impacts from the other future planned road
development projects, when token in context with this project, will be long-term, it relies too
heavily on the fact that the individual projects' mitigations will minimize the cumulative effect
We don't believe this to be tnie Cumulative effects may result from repeated or similar actions
Implementation of BMPs along the project corridor will dramatically
reduce water quality impacts to the Colorado River below Hoover Dam
As discussed in Chapter 3 of the EIS, both construction and operational
impacts are to be mitigated through the use of BMPs. During construction,
it will be imperative to manage stormwater runoff above and below the
project so that the net impact to receiving water is negligible This will be
achieved by routing upslope runoff around the construction site,
minimizing exposure to disturbed slopes, and collecting and treating onsite
runoff and discharging it so that the water quality entering the receiving
waters is not impaired.
During system operation, channels conveying roadway-derived runoff will
be designed to resist erosion. Cut-and-fill slopes will be stabilized using
vegetative and/or mechanical means, and roadway-derived runoff will be
captured and treated to remove suspended solids prior to discharging from
the project area.
For both the construction and operation phase, the main concern will be to
isolate runoff-rich suspended sediment in treatment basins By ignoring
this issue, the volume of runoff derived from this project, although small,
could potentially impact receiving water quality to varying degrees.
Immediately downstream of the project area, sediment-rich roadway runoff
could mix with unimpaired runoff and degrade localized water quality
Further downstream, as additional runoff water is added, the impacts from
the project area are reduced due to dilution. By the time the roadway
runoff enters the Colorado River, effects to water quality from the roadway
would most likely be negligible. Based on the anticipated impacts to water
quality immediately downstream of the roadway, water quality
parameters, such as suspended solids, turbidity, color and total dissolved
solids (IDS), will be elevated if not collected and treated It is possible this
runoff could exceed the threshold limits for suspended solids and turbidity.
Collecting and treating this runoff prior to discharging to natural drainage
channels will prevent impacts to localized water quality.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 15
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A6-5
A8-?
A68
*™ Prafe Environmental l-epact stace-rent
Hoover Dam sypaKS
Hevs4a arid Arizona
that, though the direct effects have been minimized, the effects interact to produce cumulative
effects greater than the sum of the effects from the individual projects Cumulative effects
should be analysed m terms of specific resource, ecosystem, or human community bemg affected
We believe that you have identified specific resource area where further analysis is warranted,
such as, Desert Tortoise and Big horn sheep habitat, dry wash water quality and their a$!>ociatecl
communities of vegetation and wildlife, and cultural properties We recommend that you consul!
with the recent (January 1997) CEQ guidance on evaluating cumulative impacts We also
recommend that you convene a meeting of the other resource agencies, and the BOR and NFS to
discuss these mun We would be pieced to assist your office in beginning the process of
examining ine cumulative effects
WATER QUALITY AND W VTERS OF THE U S
We strongly believe that based upon the scarceness of water resTurces and the rarity of
wetland ecosystems in the area, avoidance of impacts to those areas is an imperative The DEIS
goes into some detail regarding the areas of the dry washes and npan60
June-Oct >50
SV <25
S V.. < 10
Increase must not be more that 10 PCU above natural
conditions
SV <723
Less than 25 percent change from natural conditions
< 200/400°
Response to Comment A6-8
The FEIS Hazardous Materials section has been augmented to include
information on the extent of contaminated sites affecting implementation of
the project alternatives, with emphasis on the preferred alternative. Under
Affected Environment (Section 3.10.1), additional details are provided
about the following sites: the Reclamation Warehouse, including previously
listed hazardous materials and leaking USTs at the site and details from a
1996 inspection report, wherein paint waste samples were tested for lead;
the visitor center construction staging and disposal area site descriptions
include additional details on previous hazardous material storage from the
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003S72582
A-16
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
U S EPA
loovei 3eu
ommerces -
n Bypass
Novprcbar. 1998
A6 8|Poteil(ia' r's^s, costs, and procedures that may be encountered depending on alternative and the
I type and extent of contamination
FHWA does not identify in the DEIS that the provisions of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and associated sute hazardous waste disposal
requirements apply to this project, and does not disclose how FHWA proposes to handle and
treat hazardous material if u is encountered Therefore, in the FEIS, FHWA should identify that
the provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Acl (RCRA) and associated state
hazardous waste disposal requirements apply to this project, and disclose how FHWA proposes
to handle and ireat the nazaruous material We itoommend Mat tne FEIS describe in detail the
procedures that FHWA wil! follow in order to meet the requirements The FEIS should discuss.
1) that FHWA or their contractor may become a hazardous waste generator upon extraction of
the soils, 2) that a generator Identification number must be obtained in order to transport
hazardous materials, and identify the location of, and haul route to, the anticipated disposal
tacility 1) the methods that will be used to treat the material on-sile, and 4) the procedures that
will be used to comply with the land ban requirements for handling and disposing of hazardous
waste The FEIS should also disclose that FHWA or the contractor has met all of the provisions
of the OSHA regulations regarding health and safety and handling ol hazardous w aste We also
recommend that the THIS discuss how HHW A, will determine which soils will be handled as
hazardous waste and which soils will he handled as non-hazardous waste and if there will be
further soils sampling as the prefect progresses
A6-9
A6-10
A6-11
A6-12
The FEIS should also disclose if there could be airborne concentrations of the hazardous
materials found in the soils and which control measures will he followed b) FHWA to ensure
that the airborne toxics concentration levels do not exceed any state or federal standards
We were concerned with the discussion of mitigation measures tor hazardous materials
impacts found on Page 3-113 It seems that this is a discussion more appropnate for mitigation
for energy use rather than hazardous materials clean up and disposal We recommend that if this
is a discrepancy, that the FEIS contain the appropnate discussion for mitigation for hazardous
materials treatment, following the suggestions above
R£CREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
We were concerned that we could not find a discussion of the traffic operations on the
remaining US 93 and Hoover Dam, and the recreational opportunities, once the Bypass is
constructed Wilt there be more opportunities for more passive uses of the dam and enhanced
bicycle and pedestrian access1 We understand that FHWA and NFS may be meeting to discuss
this further once a preferred alternative is selected We recommend [hat those discussions are
disclosed in the FEIS
Reclamation 1992 Level I Contaminant Surveys for the project alternatives,
and updated information for the A&N Switchyard based on interviews
with WAPA staff indicating no polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) use on the
site.
Under Environmental Consequences (Section 3.10.2.2), the FEIS concludes
that contaminated soil may be encountered at the Reclamation Warehouse
and the A&N Switchyard, and that there is a potential for encountering
hazardous materials at the visitor center construction staging and disposal
areas. Due to a lack of existing information, further studies and soil
sampling will be completed prior to advertising for construction at the
Reclamation Warehouse to determine handling, treatment, and disposal
requirements; this will ensure a more complete bid document and
minimize surprises during construction Procedures for discovery of
unknown hazardous materials during construction are also discussed for
the potentially contaminated sites.
Response to Comment A6-9
As discussed in response to Comment A6-8, the FEIS commits FHWA to
conducting further soils sampling during final design of the preferred
alternative, if the identified sites with potential environmental
contamination cannot be avoided. These sites are the Reclamation
Warehouse, the contractor staging/disposal areas for construction of the
visitor center, and the A&N Switchyard; however, at this time it does not
appear that the switchyard will be directly or indirectly impacted by
development of the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment
The FEIS also states that if hazardous materials are discovered during soil
sampling or construction, FHWA or its contractor may become a hazardous
waste generator. A generator identification number would need to be
obtained in order to transport hazardous materials, identify the hazardous
material, and disclose the haul route to a specific treatment and/or disposal
facility. The FEIS also stipulates that the contractor would be required to
comply with all requirements of the RCRA, associated state hazardous
waste disposal requirements, and all of the provisions of the OSHA
regulations regarding health and safety of workers, and handling of
hazardous waste
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A17
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
SUMMARY OF EPA RATING DEFINITIONS
This rating system was developed is a means to sumnunzs EPA's level of concern with t proposed action
The ratings are a combination of alphabetical categories for evaluation of the environmental impacts of the
proposal and numerical categories for evaluation of the adequacy of the E1S
JNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OFTHE ACTION
"LO" (Lack of Objections)
The EPA review has not identified any poienti.il environmental impacts requiting substantive changes to the
proposal The review may have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measure;* that could be
accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal
"EC" (Environmental Concerns)
The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order so fully protect the
environment Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of miBgatiGn
measures that can reduce the environmental impact EPA would like to work with the lead agency to reduce
these impacts
"EO" (Environmental Objections)
The EPA review lias identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide
adequate protection for the environment Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred
alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new
alternative) EPA intends to wort, with the lead agency to reduce these impacts
"EU" (Etivtr&nmentalty Unsatisfactory)
The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they are
unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality EPA intends to work
with the lead agency to reduce these impacts K the potentially unsatisfactory impact* are not corrected at the
final EIS siage, Ihts proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ
ADEQUACY OF THE IMPACT STATEJVfEOT
Category I" (Adequate}
EPA believes me draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental «npacl(i) of the preferred iltematiye and those
of the alternatives reasonably available to the project or action No further analysis or data collection is necessary,
but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or information
"Category 2" (Insufficient Information)
The draft EiS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should
be avoided in order H> fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available
alternatives Hut are within the spectrum of alternatives analysed in die draft EIS, which could reduce the
er.vironmcnt.il impacts of the action The identified additional information , data, analyses, or discussion should
be included in the final BIS
"Category 3" (Inadequate)
EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental impacts of the
action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum
of alternatives analysed in (he draft EIS, which should be analysed in order to reduce the potentially significant
environmental impacts EPA believes Uiat me identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussions are
of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage EP ^ does not believe that the draft
EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and
made available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS On the basts of ihe potential significant
impacts involved, this proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ
*Fiom
anual IMQ "Policy and Procedure for the Renew of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment '
Response to Comment A6-10
The FEIS discloses that contaminants could become airborne during
removal at the Reclamation Warehouse, Hence, additional control
measures would be taken to ensure that airborne toxics concentration levels
do not exceed any state or federal standards. Specific appropriate control
measures will be determined by FHWA, depending on the nature and
extent of the hazardous materials identified, during the design phase soil
sampling.
Response to Comment A6-11
Section 3.10.3 of the FEIS has been revised to include appropriate
mitigation measures for hazardous materials treatment. These measures
address: conducting site assessments and soils sampling (depending on
individual site conditions) at the Reclamation Warehouse, the contractor
disposal areas, the A&N Switchyard, and the Reclamation sewer
evaporation ponds; abating airborne toxics (if needed); monitoring soil
excavation to segregate out any contaminated soils; handling and treatment
or removal of contaminated soils in compliance with applicable state and
federal regulations; and disposal of contaminated soils in accordance with
applicable environmental regulations.
Response to Comment A6-12
As stipulated in the EIS, the dam crossing will stay open to automobiles,
recreational vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists after the bypass route is
constructed (see EIS Section 3.9.2.1, Bicyclists and Pedestrians). This
commitment to keeping the dam crossing open to tourists will also be
adopted in the ROD for this project.
The project traffic analysis indicates the U.S. 93 dam crossing currently
operates at LOS F with 11,500 vehicles per day (average), whereas there
would be 26,000 vehicles per day crossing the dam in year 2027 without the
bypass (see EIS Appendix A), With opening of the new bypass bridge,
truck traffic will be prohibited from crossing the dam. The future bypass
bridge is projected to carry 19,900 vehicles per day in year 2027. As
discussed in the EIS (Section 3.8.2.2), this diversion of through traffic (and
all trucks) from atop Hoover Dam to the new bridge will enhance the
recreational experience at the dam complex due to Increased pedestrian
safety, reduced congestion and accidents, and elimination of noise and air
pollutants emitted by trucks
SCWLAW2662 DOG/ 003672582
A 18
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A7
STATE OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF MUSEUMS LIBRARY AND ARTS
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
100 N Stewart Street
Carson City Nevada 89701 4285
JOAN P KSRSCHNER
November 9, 1998
Mr Terry Haussler
Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street Room 259
Lakewood CO 80228
RE
Proposed U S Highway Hoover Dam Bypass Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Colorado River Basin, Clark County
Dear Mr Haussler
The Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject
document and has the following comments
1 The unevaluated Traditional Cultural properties that might east within the
area of potential etfert (APE) should be addressed within the genera) discussion
of effects to historic properties The Table oiipagc ES-5 should include effects
to potential Traditional Cultural Properties The statement under each
alternative might read as follows
Potential effect to 4 (5) historic features
eligible for or listed m the National Register
Potential effect to unevaluated Traditional
Cultural Properties
Table ES-3, page ES-10, should include potential adverse effects to the
unevaluated Traditional Cultural Properties If these features are determined
eligible, and the undertaking will pose an adverse effect to these properties, this
eftect would also require a MOA regardless of the alternative chosen The
table should be revised to reflect this possibility
Table ES-3, page ES-11, should include a discussion of the unevaluated
Traditional Cultural Properties m the discussion of 'Land Use/Section 4 (f)
Effects" Again these properties need to be addressed under all three build
alternatives
2 Consultation with this office, and possibly the Keeper of the Register,
concerning the. National Register eligibility of the potential Traditional
A? * Cultural Properties m the APE in Nevada has not been conducted The
Affected Environment, section of the document (351, page 3 42 paragraph 41
should reflect this fact 8 F S V '
A72
Response to Comment A7-1
May^June 1998 site visits and field interviews with tribal elders, conducted
for FHWA by the University of Arizona, resulted in completion of an
ethnographic study report for the Hoover Dam Bypass Project in December
1998. That report included preliminary findings, summarized in the DEIS,
indicating the presence of potentially significant traditional cultural
properties in the vicinity of the bypass project.
The SHPOs subsequently requested that FHWA conduct an ethnohistoric
study to provide documentary context for assessing the potential
traditional cultural properties identified by the tribal elders during the 1998
field interviews, and that FHWA commence formal government-to-
government consultation with affected Native American tribes concerning
the significance and National Register eligibility of the potential traditional
cultural properties in the project area. At the first meeting between the
Native American tribal representatives and the federal agencies, held on
January 11, 2000, the tribes requested that ethnographic studies be
expanded to other locations and include additional tribes and elders. As a
result, the University of Arizona conducted additional site visits and
interviews during May 2000. The resulting report, coupled with the
ethnohistoric assessment report, provided documentation supporting a
determination by FHWA and the SHPOs that the Gold Strike Canyon and
Sugarloaf Mountain TCP is eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places.
Table ES-1 has been revised to reflect this new TCP information. (See also
EIS Section 3.5 for full discussion of the TCP.)
SCO/IAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 19
-------
Mr Terry Haussler
November 9, 1998
Page 2 of 2
Thank you for providing this office with an opportunity to comment on this
document
If you have any questions concerning this correspondence, please fee! free to contact
me by phone at (702) 687-5138 or by e-mail at rlpalmer@clan lib nv us
_
Rebecca Lynn Palmer
Historic Preservation Specialist
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
Response to Comment A7-2
In June 2000 FHWA applied the criteria of adverse effect and determined,
in consultation with the Nevada and Arizona SHPOs, that the undertaking
would have an adverse effect on the Gold Strike Canyon and Sugarloaf
Mountain TCP. As a result, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) that commits
FHWA to implement specific activities and mitigation measures to resolve
the adverse effects on historic and cultural properties from the preferred
alternative was developed in consultation among the ACHP, FHWA,
Nevada and Arizona SHPOs, NFS, Reclamation, WAPA, NDOT, ADOT,
and interested Native American Tribal Governments.
Table ES-1 has been revised to include the adversely affected TCP, and
Table ES-3 has been revised to include the Programmatic Agreement.
Response to Comment A7-3
Discussion of the TCP has been added to Table ES-3, under "Land Use/
Section 4(f) Effects."
Response to Comment A7-4
See response to Comment A7-1.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 20
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
BOB MILLER
Covar latter tor M and A9
STATE OF NEVADA
JOHN P COMEAL'X
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
209 E Musser Street Room 200
Carson City, Nevada 89701 4298
Fax (702) 687 3983
(702) 687-4065
Novembers, 1998
Terrv Haussler
Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street Room 259
Lakewood, CO 80228
Re
SAINVlKE 1999-040
HPD-16
Project DEIS for the Hoover Dam Bypass Project
Dear Terry Haussier
Enclosed are the comments from the Nevada Natural Heritage Program, and the Divisions of
State Lands Health and Environmental Protection concerning the above referenced report In
addition, please find the Nevada Guidelines for Revegetation which outline the State s position
These comments constitute the State Clearinghouse review of this proposal as per Execuwe
Order 12372 Please address these comments or concerns in your final decision If you have
questions please contact me at 687-6367
Sincerelj , •>
Heather K. Elliott
Nevada Stale Cleannghouse/SPOC
Enclosures
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 21
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
DATE September 25,1998
Governors Ofto
Ag«ncy tor Nuclear Projects
Business S Industry
AgncJIure
Energy
S5
NEVADA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Department of Administration
Budget and Planning Division
209 East Musser Street, Room 200
Carson City, Nevada 19701 4298
(702)687-4065
fax (702) 687-3983
RECE- _1 -E
Legislative CounseJ dureau
Information Tedwolagy
Emp Training & Rehab Research 0«
PUC
Transportation
LINK Bureau of Mines
JNR library
UNLV Urary
Historic Pfeservauon
Emergency Managerwil
Washington Office
Conservation Natural Resources
Dtfeclcr's Office
i
Slate Lands >
I Environmental P
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
DATE September 25,1998
Governors Office
Agency for Nud«ar Projects
Business S Industry
Agnoilluie
Energy
MlfteralS
A9
NEVADA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE —
Department of Administration
Budget and Planning Division
209 Eist Matter Street, Room 200
Canon City, Nevada 89701-4298
(702)687.4069
fax (702) 687 3983
Legislative Counsel Bureau
Informatics Technology
Emp Training & Rehab Research On
PUC
Transportation
UNR Bureau of Mines
UNRUbrary
UNLVbbrary
Historic Preservation
Emeigency Management
Washington Office
lion
jion
>m200
•4298
GIVjS'fiN uf
Conservation Natural Resources ~ • ^
aatoLands -no cj-p ">fl pa
Environmental rawST ^ ' * '
Forestry
IMdMe
t
HUI '
we
TOOT
uwin
MB* ._
"9
KAM
nw
DON
OWE
S>
i r'l*
HT^J —
:.~tnii!
Regiotl
Region 2
Region 3
Conservator Dislnds
Slate Partis
Indian Commission
Colorado RIVK Commission
j Nevada Assor of Counties I I Water Resources
Water Banning
Natural Heritage
Wild Horse Commission
Nevada SAI# E1999-040
Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hoover Dam Bypass project on US 93
I _ Yti _ No Send more Information on Dili ptojtct M it btcomw availabli I
CLEARINGHOUScLNOTES
Enclosed, for your review and comment, is a copy of the above mentioned protect Please evaluate it wild respect to its effect on your plans ano program
the importance of its contnbutoon to state and/or local areawide goals and objectives and its accord wiln any applicable laws orders or regulations with v«hic
you are familiar
Please submit your comments no later than November 2.1998 Use the space bek>» for short comments II significant comments are provided, pleas
use agency letterhead and include me Nevada SAI number and comment due date for cur reference Questions'' Heater Elliott 667 6367
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY REVIEW AGENCY
. No comment on this project
Proposal supported as wilten
JJ^Addirjonai information below
.Conference desired (See below)
^_CondibonaJ support (See beWw)
Disapproval (Explain below)
AGENCY COMMENTS
An easement from Che Nevada Division of State Lands
tor encroachment into the Colorado River will be required
before construction Contact State Lands at 333 W Nye
Lane Roon 118 Carson City NV 89706 (702) 687-4363
Signatui
Agency
Date
Response to Comment A9-1
The preferred alternative does not require an easement from the
Nevada Division of State Lands for encroachment into the Colorado River
prior to construction. State Lands has jurisdiction below the "pools" south
of Hoover Dam; however, the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment crosses the
Colorado River north of the "pools."
This easement would only have been required for the Gold Strike Canyon
Alternative.
SCO/LA W2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 23
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
nun
p.o<>
A10
BOI MILLER
Bunttt Umlnlslullon
C»i)vn air NV 19701 5*OS
(TOl 687-4JS)
F» (702) 687 6197
C P«WC Heal* Encmierirg
>l79FUrvie»Du6S7
lonopjl NV MOODM7
(702) 46! 3997
A10-1
A10-2
STATF OF NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
HEALTH DIVISION
BUREAU OF HEALTH PROTECTION SERVICES
November 2, 199B
Nevada Slate Clearinghouse
Department of Adminl»lratjon
Budget and Planning Division
209 East Musser Street, Room 200
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4298
RE: NEVADA SAW E1999-MO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR THE HOOVER DAM BYPASS PROJECT ON US 39S
The Nevada State Health Division, Bureau of Health Protection Services, has
received the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hoover Dam Bypass
Project on United States Highway 95 (US 95). The Nevada State Health Division
supports two (2) of the three (3) alternatives Both the Sugarloaf at Mountain
Alternative and the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative are acceptable for the Hoover
Dam Bypass without comment However, tha Nevada State Health Division is
concerned with the Promontory Point Alternative Bypass
There are several public water systems that draw their drinking water from Lake
Mead The most critical of these water systems is the Hoover Oam public water
svstem which draws its drinking water at the dam Since the Promontory Point
Alternative proposes to span Lake Mead at or near the dam, (he Nevada State
Health Division Is concerned with the possibility of a traffic accident that may
cause a spill into the lake, thereby, subjecting the drinking water to possible
pollution and/or contamination
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this Issue
questions, please celt me at (702) 637-4754, extension 230
Sincerely,
If you have any
Rick ReigMey. P E
Public Health Engineer
Bureau of Health Protection Services
cc Jon Palm, Manager. Public Health Engineering
Response to Comment A10-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative,
with the proposed mitigation measures, as the preferred alternative on the
basis of minimizing environmental impacts, engineering and operational
advantages, and lower construction cost. Section 2.6.2.1 of the FEIS
discusses the rationale for this decision.
Response to Comment A10-2
One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point Alternative was not
identified as the preferred alternative was the concern expressed by
numerous agencies and citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill
into Lake Mead.
Furthermore, the issue of bridge traffic accident spills potentially polluting
drinking water sources in the Colorado River is a concern with the
preferred alternative (several downstream entities rely on Colorado River
water as a potable source also). A spill containment system will be
incorporated into the bridge design that will trap potential pollutants
resulting from spills. The system will also function as an engineered
system to collect and contain storm runoff that is generated from the
bridge. (See EIS Section 3.4.3.2, Water Quality Operational Mitigation).
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 24
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A11
PCTEJi U
ALiEN mA
51 ML Of NE\AD\
HOH Mf[ ( TR
DtPXRTMIM Ol (.ONSCRUTiOS *Nf> ?> Wl'Rtl RCSOLRCfi
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
3J3 tt s,cUm RnomlJe
Urwn dl> Ninil» 8971)8 (mi
October 19, 1998
CLFARIKGHQUSE COMMENTS
NDEP # 1999-053
SA1 NV t E1999-040
TI1LE USDOT-FHA Draft CIS for Hoover Dam bypass bridge
The Division of Environmental Protection hjs reviewed tlie aforementioned State Clejrmghouic
item and has the following comments
The project proponent will he required to obtain a NPDES waier pollution comrol
discharge permit tor rolling stock It is anticipated that extensive erosion (.ontrol measures will
be required Re-vegetation of the disturbed sites after completion of the project will be required
Rsijuired water quality moiwonng will depend upon which site option is eventually choien
D
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
NEVADA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
Department of Admiraslraboti
Budge: and Planning Division
209 East Musser Street, Room 200
Carson City, Novada 8970142S8
(702)8874065
fax (702) 687-3983
NEVADA GUIDELINES FOR REVEGETATION
July 1, 1998
Dear Cooperate*
Please find the attached Nevada Guidelines for Revegetation {hereinafter
"Guidelines") for your use Historically, the review of revegetation activities
throughout the state has produced a variety of perspectives for the Nevada State
Clearinghouse, creating comment conflicts between agencies Conflict
resolution has required both time and energy, resulting in economic impacts and
confusion for our clients The Guidelines represent the combined efforts of
numerous State of Nevada agencies and the Nevada Seedbank Coordinating
Committee, each of whom are involved in land use, transportation, research,
education and/or natural resource management activities Our goal is to bring a
consistent basis and a common starting point for applicable Nevada agencies
regarding revegetation activities throughout the state It is our mutual hope that
the Guidelines will assist the public and private sector in understanding the State
of Nevada s position on revegetation, thus improving efficiencies and economy in
environmental assessments and project design and review processes
It should be emphasized that these are Guidelines and are not to be construed
as regulatory in any form or fashion The Guidelines can be utilized for any
revegetalion project in the State of Nevada, consistent with the site specific
objectives of the project
The purpose of revegetation supported by the State of Nevada is to return the
land to conditions and productive use(s) as similar as practical to its pre-
disturbance conditions and use(s), or to a sits specific desired plant community
The Guidelines provide the reader revegetation objectives, planning
considerations and general preferences for selecting plant species Additional
information is available from the Nevada Slate Clearinghouse (702}-887-6367
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/003672582
A 26
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
NEVADA
GUIDELINES FOR REVEGETATION
The botanical makeup of Nevada has unarguably changed over the last two
hundred years The introduction of some exotic European, Asian, noxious and
other plant species into Nevada, both accidentally and deliberately, has altered
native plant communities Some of these exotic and noxious plants can become
dominant and exclude native plants from an area, and hava resulted in
substantial economic impacts to some sectors of the state While usually
desirable, remtroducing native plants into these areas is sometimes not practical
or even possible, and the impacts on the rest of the ecosystem must be
considered In general, viable habitats and land stabilization must be the final
objective of any revegetation or reclamation project These guidelines are
provided to assist in the preliminary planning process for projects involving
revegetation Consultation with appropriate State agencies is advised and
encouraged for either site-specific, or general questions and concerns that may
arise
Definitions
The following definitions are offered to aid with these revegetation guidelines
Conversion replacement of one or more dominant plant species with another
plant species
Desired Plant Community a plant community which produces the kind,
proportion, and amount of vegetation necessary for meeting or exceeding the
land use plan/activity plan objectives established for an ecological site(s) The
desired plant community must be consistent with the site's capability to produce
the desired vegetation through management, land treatment, or a combination of
the two
Exotic any plant species not falling under the native definition
Exotics Indigenous to North America a plant species that is indigenous to North
America but not to Nevada
Invasive tending to displace, or increase in cover relative to, surrounding
vegetation
Locally Adapted Natives a native species that has adapted to the climate and
soil conditions of a specific area
Native plants indigenous to Nevada immediately prior to European contact
Non-Persislent Exotic an annual or perennial exotic that dies off in less than 10
years, or is pushed out as native vegetation becomes established
Page 1
July 1, 1998
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 27
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
Noxious Weeds any species of plant which is, or is liable to be detrimental or
destructive and difficult to control or eradicate, which the Administrator (Division
of Agriculture), by regulation, designates to be a noxious weed
Off-site Natives a native plant species whose seed source is from ars area with
different climate and/or soil conditions (e g , a species that is native to one part
of the State being used in another part of the State)
Purpose
The purpose of revegetation supported by the State of Nevada «to return the
land to conditions and productive use(s) as similar as practical to its pre-
disturbance conditions and use(s), or to a site specific desired plant community
Revegetation Objectives
The State of Nevada urges that native or non-persistent exotic plant species be
used in the revegetation process whenever and wherever possible and practical
The use of these plants can promote the long-term maintenance of Nevada's
remaining native vegetation, as well as improve and restore degraded habitat
Consistent with the above Purpose, the following are the State's objectives
(hereafter collectively referred to as "the revegetation objectives") for conducting
or supporting revegetaiion projects
* To utilize native or non-persistent exotic plant species in the revegetation
process whenever and wherever possible and practical, and consistent with the
other revegetation objectives
To promote the long term maintenance of Nevada's remaining native
vegetation, as weli as improve and rehabilitate degraded habitat
* To provide viable habitat (forage, cover, soils, etc.) for wildlife, livestock, and
other species appropriate to the site
* To re-establish vegetation as quickly as necessary io minimize erosion and
invasion of species inconsistent with the desired plant community
* To provide fire resistant qualities to the environment where applicable to meet
ecological or public safety objectives
* To maximize the cover and diversity of locally adapted natives n the final re-
established vegetation, consistent with the other revegetation objectives
Planning Considerations
The State of Nevada requests that projects proposing the direct or indirect
alteration of existing vegetation, or creating an opportunity for invasion of
unwanted exotic species, fully evaluate fhe likely short- and long-term impacts to,
Page 2
July 1,1998
SCO/LAW266Z DOC/ 003672582
A 28
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
and management needs of, vegetation in any accompanying environmental
documentation The State further requests
" That impacts to existing native vegetation be minimized or mitigated,
* that suitable topsoil and/or growth medium be stockpiled, managed, and
replaced, and
" that project proponents attempt to adhere to these guidelines as closely as
possible, particularly in implementing measures to avoid invasions of unwanted
exotic species
When revegetation selections or practices less preferred by the State of Nevada
are proposed for a particular project, the State of Nevada requests that the
reasons supporting such choices be detailed in any accompanying
environmental documentation
Plant material cost and/or availability are often impediments to using otherwise-
desirable native plants The State encourages agencies and project proponents
to develop pro-active cooperative efforts with suppliers of native plant materials
to address these issues
Conversion Activities
Pioposals for conversion should consider the impacts to all land users and uses
on and adjacent to the site All conversion projects should be based on site
specific goals and objectives Sites should be converted to an appropriate
desired plant community with a preference for native plant species, when
possible
General Preferences for Selecting Plant Species
Below are listed the State of Nevada's general preferences in selecting species
for revegetation This listing identifies plant species selection criteria for
revegetation in order of most preferred The most preferred selection (or
combination of selections) practicable under the conditions of each specific site
and project, and capable of meeting the revegetation objectives, should be used
Whenever practical and possible, revegetation activities should be conducted at
the time(s) of year best suited for establishment of native species, and any off-
site seed used should be certified weed-free
NOTE Species listed as noxious weeds under Nevada Administrative
Code Chapter 555 010 are prohibited and must ba controlled
Page 3
July 1, 1998
SCO/LAW2662 DOCI003672582
A 29
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
(Nevada Revised Statute Chapter 555.010)
1 Use unaided natural revegetation, where the size and condition of the site
make it unlikely that significant erosion, or invasion of unwanted species,
would occur during plant re-establishment
2 Use locally collected and adapted natives
3 Purchase and use off-site natives source-identified to Nevada
4 Use non-persistent exotic annuals or perennials
5 Use exotics indigenous to North America
6 Use non-invasive exotics not indigenous to North America
7 Use invasive exotics not indigenous to North America Invasive exotics
should be used with extreme caution, and only to replace or suppress even
less-desirable invasive exotics
Page 4
July), 1998
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 30
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A12
MOHAVE COUNTY PUBLIC LAND USE COMMITTEE
P O Box 7000 * Kjrtgpian, Anaons 66402 7U30
3675 £ Highway 68 » (520i 7S7-0903 » FAX 75?-3S?7 * 100(520)753 0?2B
Michael Renders Chairman Jamas Butcher Vice Chairman
November 5,1998
Terry Haussler
Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street, Suite 259
lakewood, CO 80228
Subject Comments on Hoover Dam Bypass Project DEIS
Dear Sir
The Mohavc County Puhlic Lind Use Committee expresses ils regret at the dismissal of the alternatives
which would have diverted the truck and commercial traffic around Boulder City, Nevada The same risks
of accidents involving trucks carrying flammable, hazardous and volatile loads crossing Hoover Dam also
exist with passage through the center of Boulder City
Based upon the three alternatives being evaluated m the current Draft Environmental Impact Statement and
Section 4(f) Evaluation for the U S 93 Hoover Dam Bypass Project, the Mohave County Public Land Use
Committee recommends adoption of the Sugarloaf Alternative with ihe steel deck arch bndge and offers the
following rationale
A12-1
A12-2
1 Steel Deck Arch Bridge This DEIS contains no analysis of earthquake frequency or probability
The Colorado River is an earthquake zone and there are numerous faults running near the surface
and through Las Vegas It is our belief that the steel deck arch bndge is more flexible and will
sustain less damage from an earthquake ihan the more rigid steel cable stayed bndge or the cable
suspension bndge designs
2 Cost The Sugarloaf Alternative is less expensive than the Promontory Point Alternative by some
six million dollars which is only a three percent difference in cost We feel the nature and position
of the Promontory Point Altematn e has a higher possibility of construction change orders and cost
overruns than the other alternatives
3 Desert Tortoise The Sugarloaf Alternative has the least impact in terms of acres of Desert Tortoise
habitat destruction The tortoise numbers per 100 acres are so low there » no substantial difference
in the alternatives
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS
Truman PucMaauer Anil* Wait*
Timber fi«j/flfl
Jim Butcher
Butwess &
Itutusvy
Vacant
Ait Qualify 4
Mlto Kondell*
Mining
Pinl Stritlmattir
Trtntportatton
Vacant Don MMItn
W*t*r HMtmost
WUdOAi,
Response to Comment A12-1
One of the primary purposes of the Hoover Dam bypass is to safeguard the
waters of Lake Mead, a major public drinking water source, from
hazardous spills at the present narrow, accident-prone crossing of the dam
(see Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need). Diverting truck and commercial
traffic around Boulder City, Nevada, is not part of the purpose and need for
the Hoover Dam bypass
Response to Comment A12-2
See response to Comment Al-1 concerning the rationale for identifying the
Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative as the preferred alternative.
Either a concrete or steel arch or a cable-stayed bridge type (or other bridge
types that may be considered) on the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment can be
designed and built to meet current seismic standards.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 31
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
Terry Haussier
page 2
Desert Bighorn Sheep The Sugarloaf Alternative impacts the least number of acres of Itmbmg
habitat The one man-made water source, the sewage ponds, would have to be moved It is
probable the sheep will adapt to the new source and location if they are moved further south, as they
did to the present sewage ponds If this is true, there may be no loss Additionally, mitigating
measures such as a burner fence should be provided to prevent the sheep from entering the roadway
The Gold Strike Alternative has senous impact on the bighorn sheep water sources on the Nevada
side
Visual Resources As viewed from the dam, the Sugarloaf Alternative is more desirable than the
Promontory Point view The Promontory Point view completely despoils enjoyment of the natural
landscape There is no way to look upstream without the bridge structure dominating the view
Looking downstream toward the Sugarloaf Alternative, one could view the water or photograph the
river downstream without the bridge being m the picture The bndge and the water level would not
be seen at the same time
Traffic Safety In addition to the usual and accepted Highway Safety Design Standards, any
proposed view overlooks of Boulder Dam from downstream should not be accessible from any
portion of the new route, but only ftorn existing Arizona Highway 93
Other Cnlcna The differences in the other evaluation criteria among the three alternatives are
minor and do not present a significant difference in choice
Thank you for Ihe opportunity to comment on this important project
Sincerely,
Michael Kondshs, Chairman
Mohave County Public Land Use Committee
Mohave County Board of Supervisors
Chm Ballard, Planning & Zoning Director
SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRPERSONS
Truman Pyrtbauw AnttaWuu JlmBuMm V«e«it Hike Komtoltt Bryin Cwtoln Ph.l Sinnm«n.r VauM Don Martin
Timbmf Gfmzlng BuflntM i Afr Quality & Muting fteenitton T/msportottoa Water Wlttiffitst
Industry Hutidou* Wldllft (.,
Soeaes
Concerning Comment Number 4, barrier fencing will be installed and
maintained to protect the desert bighorn sheep from traffic collisions (see
Section 3.3,3.1). Reclamation's sewage evaporation ponds will be relocated
for construction of the preferred alternative; the new ponds will be
accessible to wildlife (see Section 3.3 3.2).
Concerning Comment Number 6, there was feedback from numerous
agencies and citizens about potential traffic and pedestrian safety hazards
related to providing viewing areas of the lake and dam on the new bridge
The EIS (Sections 3.7 and 3.8) states that there will be no stopping for views
of the dam on the new bridge. Parking, pedestrians, and bicycles on the
bridge would create a safety hazard. This determination will stand for the
preferred alternative in the ROD.
However, in anticipation of great public desire for views of Hoover Dam
from the new bridge on the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment, FHWA will
study the technical feasibility of a separate viewing facility associated with
the bridge. Further details of such a facility cannot be determined until
design of the bridge and approaches is advanced beyond the current level.
Details of how people would be conveyed to the viewing facility and
evaluation of environmental impacts would be addressed in a separate
NEPA document if the construction scope exceeds the anticipated impacts
addressed in this EIS.
SCO/LAW2662 D00 003672582
A 32
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A13
A13-1
A133
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Governor Jane Dee Hull
Russell F Rhoadcs, Directoi
Pluming Section 2nd Floor
MOO 234 5b?7(AnionaOnl>t
F\X (602) 207-<6M
(602) 207-4610
Novembers, 1998
Mr James W Keelev, P h
Project Development Engineer
USDOT Tederal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street (Room 259)
Lakcwood, CO 80228
Re Hoover Dam by-pass on U S. 93 draft Environmental Impact Statement (HPD-16)
Dear Mr Keele)
The Arizona Department of environmental Quality, Division of Water Quality, Planning Section,
appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hoover
Dam by-pass on U S 93 (HPD-16) The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality offers the
following comments
1 The Hoover Dam is in the Lake Mead U S Geologic Service Cataloging Unit (HUC
15010005) I he watershed indicators scorcsheet for the Lake Mead watershed suggests that
stressors include turbidity, which could be exacerbated by consiruction activities
2 The no-build alternative would require vehicles to continue using a steep approach to the
dam with many switchbacks The three build alternatives will require a new bridge be built
to provide a new approach with reduced slopes and switchbacks 1 he risk of car accidents
with their potential for contaminant releases into the environment will be reduced thereby
3 The build alternatives would disturb up to 143 acres of land and habitat, with resultant
temporary and potentially permanent water quality impacts. Two of the alternatives would
require characterization and possible mitigation of hazardous waste sites Habitat near the
project area potentially supports several species on various special-status state or federal
lists two plants, three fish, one amphibian, three reptiles, peregrine falcon, bald eagle,
willow flycatcher, seven bat species and bighorn sheep Options for mitigating the habitat
and other environmental impacts are provided in the E1S, but cannot be fuJly evaluated until
an alternative is selected and specific plans are developed
3033 North Central Avenue. Phoenix Ansona 85012, (602) 207 2300
Response to Comment A13-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative,
with the proposed mitigation measures, as the preferred alternative on the
basis of minimizing environmental impacts, engineering and operational
advantages, and lower construction cost. Section 2.6 2 1 of the FEIS
discusses the rationale for this decision
Construction within the Lake Mead watershed would impact water quality
The Promontory Point Alternative would involve disturbing the slopes
directly above Lake Mead during construction. Both during and after
construction, sediment and other pollutants would enter the lake,
increasing the turbidity levels The amount of increase would depend on
factors such as type and amount of sediment and location of sampling
stations. The increase would be more noticeable on low-flow years for the
Colorado River.
Response to Comment A13-2
The existing steep approaches, switchbacks, and the narrow dam crossing
over Lake Mead and the Colorado River, with the resulting high potential
for accidents, is one of the principal reasons for alternative routes across the
Colorado River (see Chapter 1, Purpose and Need). The preferred
alternative resolves the negative impacts associated with the No Build
Alternative (e.g., the risk of truck accidents on the dam crossing
contaminating the waters of Lake Mead and the Colorado River).
Section 2.6.2.1 of the FEIS discusses the rationale for selection of the
preferred alternative.
Response to Comment A13-3
The preferred alternative will result in varying short- and long-term
impacts to water quality. The magnitude of these impacts will be a
function of factors such as slope and amount of area disturbed. Until the
actual design is underway, the potential impact to water quality and
recommended mitigation measures cannot fully be quantified. The FEIS
and ROD commits to specific mitigation measures identified in the USFWS
Biological Opinion (Appendix E) and NPDES permit requirements
developed during final design (see Section 3.4.3).
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/003672582
A 33
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
November 5,1998
Page 2
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality recommends that
A13-4
A13-S
A138
A13-7
A138
A139
7
A13-1O
A1311
The Management Agency and or Owner/Operator should over-see construction to ensure that
discharges to all Waters of the State/Waters of the U S shall meet all applicable Walcr
Quality Standards,
Best Management Practices should be implemented dunng and after all construction phases,
and throughout the life of the by-pass to protect watershed condition and riparian areas, to
maintain adequate vegetative cover, and to minimize the discharge of sediment, petroleum,
nutrients, bacteria and other pollutants to the watershed or to all Waters of the State/Waters
oftheUS,
Beit Management Practices should be implemented for construction activities for mechanical
equipment to minimize ground disturbance,
A monnoring program should be implemented to ewaluate the effectiveness of Best
Management Practices in protecting watershed condition and Waters of the State,
Be aware that portable sources of air pollution i e rock, sand, gravel and asphaltic concrete
plants, arc required to be permitted by ADEQ prior to commencing operations Contractors
and subcontractors working on this project may be required to comply with these regulations
Contact Mr Prabhat Bbargava at (602) 207-2329 with the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, Air Quality Permits Section,
Where applicable the Management Agency and or Owner/Operator should demonstrate a
knowledge of waste streams, permits and hazardous materials handling as well as indicate
the destination of each hazardous waste being disposed off-site,
Public or semi-public water supply systems shall be developed to comply with Public and
Semi-Public Water Supply Systems Rules Contact Mr, Dal* Obnmeus at (602) 20? 4648
with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Program Development & Outreach
Unit, regarding assistance,
All underground storage tanks must be registered with ADEQ Contact Mr. Slaci Munday
at (402) 207-4329 with the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Inspection and
Compliance Unit, regarding assistance in registration,
Response to Comment A13-4
Agency inspection during construction will be an important aspect of
ensuring waters of the State of Arizona and the U.S. meet appropriate
water quality discharge standards. Through terms and conditions in the
NPDES permit, both discharge limitations and water quality standards will
be implemented and enforced (see Section 3,4.3).
Response to Comment A13-5
BMPs are to be implemented before, during, and after construction to
preserve receiving water quality (Section 3.4.3).
Response to Comment A13-6
See response to Comment A13-5.
Response to Comment A13-7
Due to construction-related disturbance, steep terrain, limited vegetation,
and potential for high-intensity, short-duration precipitation events,
conventional BMPs will be evaluated to optimize their effectiveness at
preserving downstream water quality. Depending on the terms and
conditions in the NPDES permit, procedures in the evaluation process may
include monitoring.
Response to Comment A13-8
The requirement that portable sources of air pollution (i.e., rock, sand,
gravel, and asphaltic concrete plants) require an ADEQ permit has been
added to the FEIS (Section 3,1,3.1 and Table 7-1).
Response to Comment A13-9
See response to Comment A6-11.
Response to Comment A13-10
No public or semipublic water supply systems will be developed for
construction or operation of the proposed project.
Response to Comment A13-11
No USTs will be required in Arizona.
SCO/LftWZ66Z DOC/ 003672582
A 34
-------
si
•jBAoadi
jo 'SA"BP 06 i
Novembers i998
Page 3
A13 12
10
A13-13
A13-14
A13 15
A13 16
A1317
15
16
A1319
aqj JE pajDajas'
S3JSBM
All solid wastes generated by the activity shall he transported to an ADEQ approved facility
Waste stored on site for more than 90 days, or will be treated or disposed of on-site, may
require facility approval Contact Mr, David Phillip*« (602) 207-4122 with the Arizona
Department of Environmental Quality, Solid Waste Plan Review Unit, regatd
in applying for this permit, JX
Sewage treatment facilities for human waste shall be planned and developed in such a
manner to ensure protection of both surface and groundwater resources An Aquifer
Protection Permit (APP) may be required for such facilities Contact Mr. ('harks Graf at
(602) 207-4661 with :he Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Aq«if$rtIftiecfi893JnOSaj
Program Section, regarding assistance in apply ing for this permit, T „ »
B m padojaAap puB pauaisap aq IJTAA saijijpBj BJSBM AJBJIUBS
Sanitary waste facilities provided dunng construction phases shall be planned and developed
in such a manner to ensure protection of both surface and groundwater resources.
An Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) may be required Contact Mr Troy Day at (602) 297-
4661 with the
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
Novembers, 1998
Page 4
The Anzona Department of Environmental Quality would appreciate receiving information on the
progress of this project Thank you for your cooperation, should you have any questions, please
contact me at (602) 207-4535
Sincerely,
Ren Northup, Watershed Coordinator
cc Russell Rhoades, ADEQ
Karen L Smith, ADEQ
Jack Bale, ADEQ
Larry Stephenson, ADEQ
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 36
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
U/1B/-96 09.87 ---jUfiPfl CONSTRUCTION OFFICE •» H3O3969S983
•* * -*'•*» '^- _ i - »• **- A14
-' . ,v3^i";^-^lV".!-J-l»-''>^"'' "v- %-,^» V '«f , HMHB *
HI 064 001
\ \ \ MEA
AOIIi
MEAP0WEX
DESERT SOUTHWEST CUSTOMER SERVICE REGION
P.O. BOX 6457 (85005)
615 S. 43rd Ave. (85009)
Phoenix, Arizona
Fax Numbers:
Send: 402.352-2630
Verify: 402-352-2525
To: J?fi
^
C«npanrN«me/
Mail Code:
From:
Mail Cade:
Phone*:
Fn Numhm
?<
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
AI4-1
COMMENTS ON HOOVER DAM BYPASS PROJECT November 10,1998
DRAFT - EIS Dated: September 1998
By Jim Kartzell, Maintenance Engineering, Code 05530, Desert Southwest Region, Phoenix
Arizona, Western Area Power Administration, US Dept of Energy - Phone (602) 352-2763
Due to the «ry short review time 1 have attempted to review the entire document in one day and
consider the possible impacts that may affect our electrical system or Hoover Dam power
operation !l is somewhat appalled that Western Area Power Administration {WAPA) was not
contacted sooner than a few days before the final comments are due on the review of the Draft
EIS From the list of report preparers 1 can see that Western was not invited to participate in ihe
drafting process With so many electrical faulilies in the air throughout these three alternatives
one would think that the owners of the facilities may iwve some input that might be helpful
AH Dept. Of Energy fDOEl / WAPA enviraftffieittal nqmremeMi ihoald be atUressfd in Iks
EIS and not require Western to prepnre a new document, other than an adoption, to cover
environntental issues rnultmf m the conslructtan work en transmission lines or suhttattons.
Alternative: Promontory Point
I) 'U the beginning of the project, just east of the Gold Stnke Casino (assuming they re-Kiild it
after the fire), the route crosses two Western Area Power transmission lines (formerlv LADWP
lines) and shows the construction of a bridge and tunnel very close to existing transmission
structures Construction of bridges and tunnels will likely require blasting and tins is of concern
A14-3 to Western due to the close proximity to the transmission structures Highway construction of
anv kmd near energize 230-kV (230,000 volts) transmission lines is a potential safety concern
Western inspectors will need to be on Ihe job site any time work is being performed near our
transmission lines Potential movement of structures or alignment of the transmission line will
require right-of-way issues to be addressed and associated clearances
[This location of the road will likely effect two structures They may need to be replaced with
(different structures if clearances above the new roadway is inadequate
12) As the highway proceeds, paralleling the existing road, it again crosses these same two lines
|pnor to reaching the warehouse area Structures many needed to be replaced to allow adequate
(ground clearance between the line and the road bed The line may even need relocated since the
[road loolcs like it may be right under the hnes
A14-6
3) Northeast of the warehouse, the road crosses under two more 230-W lines (formerly MWD
line.) and a 69-kV transmission line that provides emergency service to Kmgman, Arizona
Clearance agam is of concern
14) The road alignment next cuts right thru the abandoned 69-kV switchyard Some of the
A14-7istructures in this vicinitv are used with the 69-kV transmission line
Response to Comment A14-1
FHWA contacted WAPA engineers and began discussing the agency's
interests and concerns about this project immediately after receipt of
WAPA's November 10, 1998, comments on the DEIS. This was followed up
with a formal letter dated November 20, 1998, from FHWA requesting
WAPA to become a cooperating agency on the EIS, in accordance with
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulation 1501.6. In a response
letter dated November 27,1998, WAPA agreed to participate in the Hoover
Dam Bypass EIS process as a cooperating agency. FHWA has continued to
consult with WAPA during preparation of the FEIS. (See Appendix C,
Volume I, for copies of this correspondence.)
Response to Comment A14-2
To the extent that it is feasible, based on the limited level of engineering
design completed at this time, impacts to the WAPA power transmission
facilities have been identified in the FEIS (see Section 3.11.2 2). FHWA will
work with WAPA during final design of the project to select the most
beneficial solution when all project factors are considered. At the present
time, it appears that one, and possibly two, of the transmission lines can be
eliminated. There are numerous options and configurations to be
evaluated. The certain elimination of one, and possibly a second,
transmission crossing may result in an environmental enhancement to the
area.
Response to Comments A14-3 through A14-10
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative
as the preferred alternative on the basis of minimizing environmental
impacts, engineering and operational advantages, and lower construction
cost. At the very conceptual design stage upon which the EIS build
alternatives are based, WAPA correctly states that the Promontory Point
Alternative would potentially impact some of the same towers affected by
the preferred alternative, as well as the abandoned 69-kV switchyard, but
there does not appear to be any adverse effect on transmission facilities on
the Arizona side. Much of the discussion in response to Comments A14-11
through A14-20, referring to the preferred alternative, would also apply to
the Promontory Point Alternative.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/003672582
A 38
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A14 8 I 5) Prior to crossing the lake, north of the dam, the road again crosses the 69-kV line
6) The reminder of the roadwav does not appear to have any adverse effect on transmission
facilities
A14-9
A14-10
7) Pg 3-109 - Though the switchvard is abandoned, there is a 69-kV transmission line that is still
used as an emergency feed to cities, in Arizona between Hoover Dam and Kingman, and
transmission structures in the close proximity of this vard are part of the transmission line
8) Pg 3-115 paragraph beginning "An electric transmission " - It should be added that
outages on transmission lines to facilitate highway construction ma> be limited to certain times
of the year due to critical power deliveries to customers At other times ouuges may be limited
to certain limes of the day and for short periods of time
Alternative: Sugarloaf Mountain
I) Mthe beginning of the project, just east of the Gold Strike Casino (assuming they re-build it
after the fire), the route crosses Uvo Western Area Power transmission lines (formerly LADWP
lines) and shows the construction of a bndge and tunnel very close to existing transmission
structures Construction of bridges and tunnelb will likely require blasting and this is of concern
to Western due to the close proximity to the transmission structures Highway construction of
any kind near energise 230-kV transmission lines is a potential safety concern Western
inspectors will need to be on the job site any tune work is being performed near our transmission
lines Potential movement of structures or alignment of the transmission line will require nght-
of-wa\ issues to bt addressed and associaied clearances
Thii location of the road Hill likely effect (wo structures They may need to be replaced with
different structures if clearances above the new roadway i> inadequate
2) As the highway proceeds, paralleling the existing road, it again crosses these same two lines
prior to reaching the warehouse area Structures many needed to be replaced to allow adequate
ground clearance between the line and the road bed The line may even need relocated since the
road looks like it may be right under the lines
3) Northeast of the warehouse the road curves from a northeasterly to a southeasterly direction
At the ape\ of this curve the roadway could impact as many as 5 transmission structures
associated with three 230-kV transmission lines (two SCE lines and the Henderson line) New
structures and possibly new alignments may be required for clearance
I 4) As the road proceeds in a southeasterly direction it crosses 6 additional lines (the three former
A14-151 LADWP lines, two MWD lines, and the Hoover-Mead line) New structures may be required
I for clearance
A14 161 5) Now it gets really concerning The road cuts right across the southwest corner of the Hoover
A14-13
Response to Comment A14-11
Discussion concerning the preferred alternative's impact on WAPA towers
and lines has been expanded in FEIS Section 3.11.2.2. Any necessary
relocations, removals, and decommissioning of transmission lines will be
performed with direct oversight by WAPA. Meetings with WAPA
engineers indicate that the need for additional right-of-way is not a major
concern and will not likely cause indirect impacts outside the project limits
covered in this EIS This was agreed upon during discussions between
FHWA and WAPA, and the FEIS (Section 3.11) has been amended to state.
"The ultimate configuration for removal and/or relocation of
towers and transmission lines will be determined during final
design. The right-of-way needs for the alternative configurations
are minor. A right-of-way and easement agreement will be
completed with Reclamation, NFS and/or the appropriate State
DOT."
Response to Comment A14-12
See FEIS Section 31122
Response to Comment A14-13
The alternative configurations for removal of transmission lines will
eliminate vertical clearance concerns in most cases. It is possible that
during erection of the bridge, temporary facilities will have to be placed to
ensure adequate clearance during construction See also the field
inspection report of April 7, 1999 (Appendix C), for further discussion on
this issue.
Response to Comment A14-14
See FEIS Section 3.11.2.2.
Response to Comment A14-15
See response to Comment A14-13.
SCO/LAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A 39
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A14-16
A14-I7
A14-18
A14-19
A1420
A14-21
Arizona/Nevada 230-kV switchyard In Section 262! this area of the alignment is referred to
as "a gap in the high rock ndge that parallels the river" This gap is the location of an energized
switchyard and the transmission lines leading back to the generators at Hoover Darn
The existing switchyard may have to be completely relocated, the transmission lines from the
Dam double circuited and moved in alignment to the north, and modify the transmission lines
leaving the existing switchyard This would impact several acres of new ground
6) The reminder of the roadway does not appear to have any adverse effect on transmission
facilities
7) Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Ref T pg 3-50 Related to Construction Impacts Under Biology, states "The Southern most
electrical power transmission switchyard would be indirectly affected' - There is no indirect
about it It will be affected !t will probably require moving the switchyard to » new location,
leveling (hat site and building a new switchyard
S)Pg 3-115
Comments
a) 1 find it very hard to imagine that these 4 structures are the only structures needing
relocation
b) It seems to be implied that nothing needs to be done about the location of the
sw itchyard
c) The two circuits spanning the nver cannot be just removed, but need relocated or
replaced with new structures in a new location This may be possible if circuits are
double circuited and Ihe switchyard is relocated A temporary transmission line and
temporary structures will be needed during any relocation of the switchyard to minimize
power outages
9) Power outages wilt be required during construction of any facilities and there are potential
revenue losses due to (he outages or restrictions imposed Certain tune* of the year outages may
be possible without penally due to other scheduled maintenance activities
10) A rough cobt estimate for just the potential transmission and switchyard construction would
be 7-10 million dollars, which docs not include any loss of revenue costs, should they apply
Alternative: Gold Strike Canyon
1) At the beginning of the project, just easl of the Gold Strike Casino (assuming (hey re-build it
after the fire), the route crosses six Western Area Power transmission lines and shows Ihe
construction of three bridges very close to existing transmission structures Construction of
bridges may require blasting and this is of concern to Western due to tl« close proximity to the
Response to Comment A14-16
One of the reconfiguration alternatives under development by WAPA
includes the bypassing of the Arizona-Nevada Switchyard. This has many
uncertainties at this time. It may be evaluated further in conjunction with
the other alternatives as final design progresses; however, the Arizona-
Nevada Switchyard bypass would be a separate future project by WAPA
In addition, this would require converting the line to the Mead Substation
from a single-circuit to a double-circuit line. This conversion would occur
within the right-of-way corridor using existing structures and/or
footprints.
Response to Comment A14-17
The discussion of potential effects to the Arizona-Nevada Switchyard
under EIS Section 3.5.2.4 (and elsewhere where this discussion occurs) for
the preferred alternative has been changed to state the "switchyard may be
directly impacted." See also response to Comment A14-16.
Response to Comment A14-18
As noted in response to Comment A6-1, WAPA developed preliminary
layouts for several revised transmission line configurations. In each
configuration, an existing single-circuit line will be double circuited in a
manner similar to the other existing lines. This double circuiting, when
combined with removal of the existing line that is not in use, has the
potential to eliminate two existing crossings, thus eliminating the need for
any relocations. The conversion from single to double circuiting would be
completed at the southern Reclamation powerhouse at the base of the dam.
The need for temporary transmission structures is dependant on which
alternative is selected. A temporary transmission line and structures is not
anticipated at this time. If one becomes necessary to facilitate construction
activities, it will be constructed within the roadway right-of-way.
SCO/LAW2662 DOG/ 003672582
A 40
-------
transmission structures Highway construction of any kind near energize 230-kV transmission
lines is a potentMl safety concern Western inspectors will need to be on the job site any time
work is being performed near our transmission lines Potential movement of structures or
alignment of the transmission line will require right-of-way issues to be addressed and associated
clearances
A14-22I "rhls I003110" of the road mav effect several transmission structures They may need lo he
I replaced with different structures if clearances above the new roadway is inadequate
A14 23
,J2}Pg 3-116 Clearance above the road grade is a possible concern 6-12 structures could be
I effected and may need to be replaced wiih taller structures
A1424
3) The reminder of the roadway does not appear to have any adverse effect on transmission
facilities
4} This is the best alternative from an electrical power transmission standpoint. There
would be very minimal tower relocation outages computed to the other alternative* and
minimized potential revenue losses It would also be less effected by time of year for
construction.
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
Response to Comment A14-19
All relocations, removals, and decommissioning of transmission lines will
be performed with direct oversight by WAPA. It is anticipated that these
activities will occur in advance of the road construction work in each area.
If necessary, road construction activities will be phased or restricted to
minimize disruptions to power delivery. Temporary backup lines may also
be installed as a precaution during times when threatening construction
activities are adjacent.
Response to Comment A14-20
The $198 million estimated cost for engineering and constructing the
preferred alternative includes approximately $1.65 million for relocation of
three to four power transmission towers. At this conceptual stage of
design, it is uncertain, but considered unlikely, that the Arizona-Nevada
Switchyard will require reconstruction. No loss of revenue cost is
anticipated (see response to Comment A14-19).
Response to Comments A14-21 through A14-24
FHWA has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative as the preferred
alternative on the basis of minimizing environmental impacts, engineering
and operational advantages, and lower construction cost. At the
conceptual design stage upon which the EIS build alternatives are based,
WAPA correctly observes (as shown in Figure 2-11) that the Gold Strike
Canyon Alternative would require construction in close proximity to
existing transmission structures and crossing under transmission lines (see
DEIS Section 3,11.2.3) Much of the discussion in response to
Comments A14-11 through A14-20, referring to the preferred alternative,
would also apply to the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative.
SCO/LAW2662 DOG/ 003672582
A 41
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
ft1S
Btidg»», 11 35 AM~p/10/98_, _
Return-Path «BRIDGES8wapa gov>
Date- Tue, 10 Nov 1998 11 35-23 -0700
From: John Bridges
To- hausslerSraad cflhd.gov
Subject Comments on Hoover Bypass Draft EIS
Encoding 48 Text
Below are tiy comments on tne subject document I did not have time to
review it
thoroughly, (a result of my schedule and yours) but I do believe it is
A1S"1[important
(that you get in touch with our engineers in Phoenix, AZ
I hope this helps, if I can do more, let me know
J.H. Bridges (303)275-1712
Comments en Hoover Dam Bypass Project Draft EIS
J M. Bridges, A34QO/ Western Aiea Powei Administration, Golden, CO
A very brief review of the Environmental Consequences Chapter and
Cumulative
Impacts Chapter
Constriction Activities 0.1 Page 3-115-116 — I would strorgly urge you
to
contact Western's Assistant Regioral Manager for Power System
Maintenance in
Pnoeiix, AZ Mr. Bruce Berg, 602/352-2440, and Westerr's Regional
Environmental
Manager, Mr John Holt 602/352-2592 It is apparent from the
discussion on
these pages regarding the "relocation" and "removal" of electric
transmission
facilities that this action is either not well thought out or not well
understood. Removal and/or relocation of these facilities will
lequire a NEPA
document for Western, fts we have not been asked to be a cooperator on
this
project, there may be some delay in youi proposed action until we can
come up to
speed
Without a field check, I would guess that relocation of several
[lattice steel
A153|towers will be needed to construct any of the alternatives This will
[require
(outages on lines to customers that at certain times of the year cannot
~~T~]
A152
_grtntad_tot_ Tarry
Response to Comment A15-1
WAPA accepted FHWA's invitation to become a cooperating agency for the
Hoover Dam Bypass project by their letter dated November 27,1998 (see
Appendix C). Since that time, FHWA has been working closely with
WAPA's Phoenix, Arizona, engineering staff to assess potential
transmission tower relocations for construction of the preferred bypass
alternative
Response to Comment A15-2
See responses to Comment Letter A14 from WAPA Section 3.11.2 2 of the
FEIS now includes discussion of impacts to electric transmission facilities
due to the relocation and/or removal of such facilities for construction of
the preferred alternative. As part of the research of these impacts, WAPA's
staff has been contacted to discuss the location of and potential impacts to
the electrical transmission facilities. Based on several meetings with WAPA
engineering staff, it does not appear there would be indirect impacts from
tower relocations not covered in this EIS. A separate NEPA document will
not be required since WAPA has joined as a cooperating agency.
Response to Comment A15-3
Relocation of transmission towers for the preferred alternative is discussed
in the FEIS, Section 3.11.2.2. See response to Comment A14-19 regarding
potential power outages.
SCOJLAW2662 DOC/ 003672582
A-42
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
A154
utayes
'emulative Impacts Chapter — There is no discussion here regarding
the impacts
of relocating electric transmission lines associated with construction
of
hwa^- bridges and tunnels
for Tacry Haa«al»r OiauaslarBroad eflhd ggy>
Response to Comment A15-4
No cumulative or indirect impacts associated with the relocation of
electrical transmission facilities are anticipated. This is based on meetings
between FHWA and WAPA engineers since circulation of the DEIS,
SCO/UW2662 DOC/ 00367258Z
A 43
-------
RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY COMMENTS
This page intentionally left blank.
SCO/LAWZ662 DOW 003672582
A 44
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
B1
SIERRA CLUB
Mr Terry Haussler (HPD-16)
Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewcod, CO 80228
Dear Mr. Hdussler-
Toiyabc Chapter — Nevada and Eastern California
PO Box 8096, Reno, Nevada 89507
Sierra Club
LAS VEGAS GROUP
P 0. Box 19777
Us Vegas, Nv.89119
MOV 4, 1998
Bl-2
I The Las Vegas Group, Toiyabe Chapter, Sierra Club, would like these
Garments on the Hoover Dam Bypass DEIS (September 1998) to be included
in the public record for tne project.
We firmly believe the scope of this project/ which is to relieve
congestion and reduce the threat of serious accidents at Hoover Dam, is
grossly inadequate Ke disagree with the DEIS' statement that this
project can stand alcne without regard to adjacent US93 projects on the
tazona side and through BoulJer city on the Nevada side. It appears
clear to us that these adjacent projects are driven in large part by the
proposed traffic improvements over a bridye and that these projects,
though possibly incremental in time and extent, will as a result proceed
to a level where the entire Kingman-to-tfenderson (KH) segment of US 93
is improved to interstate freeway standards. All those concerned with
this, including tne public, will by the present limited scope of the
project be inadequately forwarned of any unacceptable US93 KH
environmental, social and cost factors and their levels of mitigation
until after the construction of a bridge makes it impossible to change
course me fact that different state and federal agencies may be
currently managing each of these projects or that each is financed frcm
a separate source does not alter these conclusions
Cn the Arizona side of tha dam, for instance, the environmental impacts
of a freeway through National Park Service (NFS) land and associated
bighorn sheep and desert tortoise habitats needs much discussion. How
will frontage roads or Highway on/off ramps necessary to service
approximately six recreational access roads and trails within this 15
mile segment of highway be designed and what will be the total impacts
of this highway complex'3 Hew will this segment's improvement add to the
cost of the entire US93 KH program''
On the Nevada side of the dam, any of the bypass bridges will surely
result in Boulder City soon acquiring a freeway within its borders with
varying degrees of social and environmental impacts dependent on the
choice of routing. The city and its citizens need to know the effects of
this improved highway on noise, air pollution, flood control,
fragmentation of the city, visual elements and inducements to growth and
sprawl (prime concerns in Boulder city). The contribution of this
segment to total US93 KH program costs need to be analyzed
B1-3
B1-4
LAS VEGAS GROUP
PO Box 19777
Las Vegas Nevada 89119
To explore, enfoy and protect the utld placet oj the earth
GREAT BASIN GROUP
PO Box 8096
Reno Nevada 89507
Response to Comment Bl-1
Comments received from circulation of the DEIS and public hearings are
included as part of the FEIS along with responses to these comments, which
become part of the public record for this project.
Response to Comment Bl-2
As described in Chapter 1 of the EIS, the need for this project centers on
increasing roadway capacity at a bottleneck operating at LOS F, correcting
severe highway design and operational deficiencies concentrated within
approximately a 2-mile stretch of U.S. 93, alleviating a high accident rate
within a 1-mile segment of this same roadway that is over 3 times the State
of Nevada average, and relieving over 1,170 hours of daily travel-time
delay at this location The only portion of U.S. 93 in the region with such
serious traffic problems is at the crossing of Hoover Dam - not through
Boulder City or on U.S. 93 to Kingman in Arizona. These traffic capacity
and safety problems, and the related adverse effects on dam operations and
the threat of a major hazardous material spill in the Lake Mead/Colorado
River water supply, exist today and are projected to substantially worsen
over the next 20 years. Thus, the proposed dam bypass in this section has
independent utility from other planned improvements along U S. 93.
Improvements currently under construction by ADOT on SR 68 and in
planning by NDOT on U S. 95 will result in a continuous four-lane divided
highway between Kingman and Henderson via Laughlin However, this
improved highway will not be a fully access-controlled facility to interstate
freeway standards. Moreover, these improvements have been
programmed by the states based on present needs that do not include
rerouting all trucks from the Hoover Dam crossing, as envisioned in the
LBA. Without other improvements, such as pavement overlays for U.S. 95,
SR 163, and SR 68, a new 1-mile section of SR 163 and a runaway truck
ramp, and a new Colorado River Bridge, the programmed projects would
not likely accommodate the additional traffic demand projected with the
LBA.
As a result of the Purpose and Need evaluation in the EIS, the logical
termini for the proposed project are clearly definable as the 3 7-mile stretch
of U.S. 93 encompassing the narrow dam crossing and the steep switchback
approaches in Nevada and Arizona (see Section 2.8). The EPA commented
on the DEIS (see Comment A6) that
SCO/LAW2664 DOCW03672584
B1
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
B1 5
B1-6
B1-7
B1-8
B1-9
The need to expand the scope of this project to include the entire US93
KH highway improvements of course required that the EIS include detailed
analysis of other feasible alternatives (besides a status quo analysis).
We believe the most logical of these is the one we have always
advocated, a KH bypass of Hoover Dam via AZ Rt 68/NV Rt 163/US95, the
DEIS' Laughlin-Bullhead City Alternative (LBA) This was given a cursory
analysis in Appendix B of the DEIS but needs considerable elaboration if
comparisons are to be valid. With a fair analysis of all relevant
factors for toth KH routes, the LBA may well prove to be the route of
choice.
First of all, a more rational cost comparison between the US93 KH
Alternative (93A) and the LBA can be obtained than that presented in the
DEIS, which compares LBA construction costs with that of the bridge
segment alternatives only and concludes that they are in the same
ballpark. Comparing costs of the entire 93A and LBA will likely show
that the 93A would be very much more costly to build.
The increased inconvenience and longteirm driving costs of the LBA over
those of the 93A, as included in the DEIS analysis, may be valid but
need to be compared with the impacts, favorable or not, environmental
and economic alike, potentially affecting conraunities along entire
routes. We understand that sane or all ccnriunities along the LBA favor
its selection. Long term economic considerations for these ccranunities
(gains') are as worthy of analysis as the long term econatu.es of a
longer LBA are to the trucking industry or the private motorist
constituency (costs'5) In any case, highways are to serve ccomunities,
not the other way around
The environmental impacts mentioned earlier in this letter for 93A
highway improvements on the Arizona side of Hoover Dam would disappear.
While some continued improvements of traffic flow through Boulder City
on the Nevada side of the dam may necessitate improvements here in time,
a freeway and its impacts would be avoided. In fact, the selection of
the LBA should improve environmental conditions on both sides of the dam
for at least some years to cone.
Any one of the three bridge alternatives selected would ccrupy the
central segment of a 93A. The Goldstrike Alternative, well south of the
dam and the most costly to build, would not only impair the wild
character of northern Black Canyon but also that of a scenic hiking
route down Goldstrike Canyon to popular hot springs near the river. The
Sugarloaf Alternative, however graceful a span, would compete with and
therefore degrade those otherwise incredible views from either the dam
or visitor center. Such views are important for one to fully appreciate
the achievement in the construction of Hoover Dam. The Promontory Point
Alternative has least impact on one's views, whether up the lake from
the dam or of the dam fron the lake surface, since the lake fills much
- 2 -
Response to Comment Bl-3
The Cumulative Impacts chapter in the FEIS (Chapter 5) has been
substantially rewritten in response to direction from EPA (see
Comment A6). It now includes more assessment of other programs and
projects affecting the area's resources, including future U.S. 95 and U.S. 93
projects that are in the planning stages by NDOT and ADOT.
Response to Comment Bl-4
See response to Comment Bl-3.
In November 1999, NDOT began an environmental study for
improvements to the segment of U.S. 93 between the Wagonwheel
interchange and the Hacienda Hotel. In programming this project, NDOT
determined that the Boulder City/U.S. 93 Corridor is completely
independent from the Hoover Dam bypass in terms of its purpose and
need, as well as its potential social and environmental impacts. In
discussions with EPA concerning the cumulative impacts of the Hoover
Dam bypass, they concluded that the dam bypass does not result in direct,
indirect, or cumulative socioeconomic impacts related to Boulder City
(personal communication, Dave Carlson, EPA, February 11, 1999).
Traffic analysis conducted for the Hoover Dam Bypass indicates that, if
constructed on the proposed timeline, the new bridge crossing does not
generate additional traffic west of the dam. This is because there is not
currently a noteworthy volume of traffic utilizing an alternate route.
However, if the Hoover Dam Bypass were not constructed until 2027, the
project would result in a 24 percent increase in traffic west of the dam and
in Boulder City. This is because the gridlock at the dam will be so severe
that a substantial percentage of traffic would seek an alternate route simply
due to the extensive delays at the dam. Thus, if construction of the bypass
occurs in 2027, vehicles using an alternate route would return to the bypass,
resulting in an increase in traffic of approximately 24 percent (see
Appendix B).
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B2
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
B1-11
lof the canyon and placidly laps high against the dam's upstream face. By
9 (comparison with any of these the LBA's additional low bridge across the
(Colorado River near Laughlin would impose little more visual impact than
(the existing span connecting NV Rt 163 v.ith Kl Rt 6S
We feel that a careful analysis of the impacts of a LBA on the
threatened desert tortoise in Eldorado Valley and Piute Valley >«ould
show a positive effect, contrary to conclusions reached in the DEIS
B1 ]0 Tnis would result from both the more rigid control of traffic on a
freeway having limited access to adjacent tortoise habitat and the ease
of implementing tortoise fencing to essentially eliminate road kills.
Bighorn sheep habitat would be little affected along the route of this
alternative.
Recreational access points to BLM and UPS lands on the west side of Lake
Mohave would be fewer and snore spread out and thus less environmentally
damaging than off of a 93A because most recreational vehicle trails and
roads begin on NV Rts 164 or 165 or intersect power line corridor roads
that often are alligned nearly parallel to the route. These tend to
serve as frontage roads for recreational access.
|Phe LBA would be far less visually obtrusive in the expansive valleys
[occupied by US95 than would a freeway through the tocograpnically
B1 12|confined and visually stunning NFS lands along the 93A.~But the LBA
Iwould be scenically attractive for motorists in view of mountain
Ibackdiops along its course
•Sany of the environmental factors mentioned provided the rationale for
handling Sec 4(f) lands in the US Dept of Transportation Act of 1966 (49
USC P 303), as quoted in the DEIS, P 2-7 It seems haid to reconcile
the relatively large acreage of Hie 4(f) lands actually impacted by a
93A and the requirement which "dictates that alternatives requiring
substantially less land subject to 4(f) protection be selected." There
are a mere 36 acres of 4(f) lands along the LBft and these are located
B1-13|close to the already disturbed southern boundary of Lake Mead NBA
(LMTOA) By comparison, acreage associated with the 93A ranges from 50
to 73 acres for the bridge segments alone, depending on choice of
bridge, and as yet undetermined much larger acreage along the 15-
uile segment within LMNFA. All of the LMNRA 4(f) lands impacted involve
• scenic and wildlife habitat segments Tne scenic impacts due.to
the 93A would extend far beyond the actual disturbed acreage, however,
due to the degraded sense of wildness that would result for visitors to
•unrounding LWKA lands or the BLM's nearby Mt. Wilson Wilderness
The DEIS analysis attempts to show that goals of reduced accident hazard
and congestion on Hoover Dam would not be fully met by simply directing
coimercial truck traffic to a LBA since most motorists would opt for the
cross-dam US 93 route anyway and increased traffic with time would wipe
out the gains of a LBA We do not believe this to be the case, provided
seme imaginative traffic control methods such as a toll for crossing the
B1-14 dam were incorporated. A visit to the dam without crossing it and thus
without incurring a toll would be readily possible for those motorists
who want to return the way they had come (frcm either north or south).
Poc dam visitors continuing through from north or south, a toll could be
avoided with modest inconvenience by a detour of about eleven miles frcm
the LBA at the US95/US93 junction in Boulder City to parking facilities
on the Nevada side of the dam The relatively few motorists coming frcm
- 3 -
The severe congestion at the dam would also likely cause a reduction in
tourist traffic traveling through Boulder City to Hoover Dam and Lake
Mead, which could have an adverse economic impact on Boulder City
businesses. The new bridge crossing would improve the LOS west of the
dam from the current LOS E to LOS C in forecast year 2027, due to reduced
congestion (see EIS Appendix A).
Response to Comment Bl-5
Additional analysis of the Laughlin-Bullhead City Alternative (LBA) was
included in the DEIS at the request of the Sierra Club (per their
February 3, 1998 letter, see Appendix C), and the Laughlin Town Advisory
Board. The resulting report, with updates since the DEIS, concludes that
over a 20-year period, additional user costs totaling $14 billion would
result from the extra 23 miles of travel required for the LBA (see
EIS Appendix B). These high operating costs are associated with
approximately 30 million auto trips and 24 million truck trips that would
be diverted an additional 23 miles over the 20-year period
In addition to the extra 23 miles of distance, this route would have 17 more
miles of steep grades (greater than 3 percent) than the U.S 93 route via
Hoover Dam, adversely affecting a projected 3,600 additional trucks per
day that are predicted to use the LBA route in year 2027. It may result in
proportionately higher traffic accident and fatality rates. It would have
substantial impacts to critical desert tortoise habitat (according to May 4,
1998, USFWS letter, Appendix C) and would spread traffic-related air
pollution over a larger area. The study also concluded that a substantial
amount of through traffic would continue to use the U.S. 93 route over
Hoover Dam. Thus, even with all trucks diverted through Laughlin, in less
than 20 years the road across the dam would again function at an
unacceptable LOS This does not meet the purpose and need of the project
Response to Comment Bl-6
As discussed in the response to Comments Bl-2 and Bl-4, the Hoover Dam
bypass is an independent, stand-alone project with a unique purpose and
need relating to alleviating severe traffic safety and operations problems
only experienced in the dam crossing area. Thus, future highway
improvement projects on U.S. 93 between Henderson, Nevada, and
Kingman, Arizona, must be evaluated on their own merits, including
construction costs.
SCO/LA W2664 DOC/003672584
B3
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
B1-14
B1 16
B1-17
the Nevada side wishing recreation or having other business on the
Arizona side of the dam or Lake Head north of, say, a toll station
located between the Dolan Springs/Pearce Ferry turnoff and the Chloride
turnoff could be allowed to cross the dam toll free if they remained in
northwest Arizona for more than a prescribed number of hours before
exiting the area through either the Arizona or Nevada-side toll
stations. Times of entry and exit would be stamped on a toll ticket
received at the Nevada-side boll station. Similarly, traffic passing the
aforementioned toll station in Arizona from the south could cross the
dam toll free with tne requisite number of hours spent, for whatever
reason, south of the dam. Of course, motorists from Kingman entering
Nevada for whatever reason and not seeking this pause between toll
stations would normally drive via the toll free LBA. People living off
of US93 between the A2 toll station and the daro could be given permanent
free passage over the dam for whatever needs they have in Nevada. These
arrangement-? would provide tor oil those unfairly inconvenienced by the
long drive via the LBA/Arizona US93 circuit that would be required to
avoid a toll that for some persons could be repetitive over a year's
tune. Cither refinements or alternatives to this scenario may be
considered to the same end of encouraging travel via the LBA and thus
reducing Hoover Dam traffic and congestion to acceptable limits. The
amount of the toll could be adjusted to achieve the desired goals.
•stand the designation of US93 as a NAFTA trade route, it
•fectly feasible to redirect the US93/NAFTA KH segment to
•nth little overall impact on the efficiency and cost of
segments of the entire NAFTA route.
tony of the points raised in this letter were also included m our
ccmments during the scoping process. Some other points we have raised
that we believe were not addressed in the DEIS include: 1.) The relative
93A and LBA costs of bridge and highway maintenance over the long run
and possible vehicle costs if these are paid for through initiation of a
vehicle bridge toll, 2 ) the relative tune/distance risks for water
polluting accidents on the respective 93A and LBA bridge saans, and 3.)
the relative 93A and LBA project completion time estimates and their
respective effects on the soeed and the magnitude of relief from
congestion en the Boulder City and dam segments of US93
In summary, we wish to emphasize the main thrust of these ccnnents: The
bridge bypass project DOES NOT stand alone but drives the magnitude and
therefore the considerable cost, environmental and social impacts of the
adjacent Arizona and Nevada segments of the US93 Kingman-to-Henderson
route. The total end point to end point costs and effects are what
should be analyzed in comparison with those of any reasonable
alternatives. The LBA is the most reasonable alternative and a
comparison of the environmental and economic factors of the LBA and 93A
Will likely show the LBA to be the preferred alternative. There are
likely no real obstacles to designating the LBA to serve the goals of a
dam bypass ana residual cross-dam traffic occuring subsequent to
completion of the LBA can be regulated to achieve needed goals by use of
imaginative methods such as manipulating a cross-dam toll fee
Response to Comment Bl-7
The LBA might have economic benefits for communities along this route;
however, this is not part of the purpose and need for the Hoover Dam
bypass (see response to Comments Bl-2 and Bl-5). Furthermore, no
comments on the DEIS were received from communities along the LBA
supporting this alternative. In addition, any long-term economic gains
these communities might receive would be offset by long-term negative
community impacts from substantial additional truck and automobile
traffic (e.g., noise and air pollution).
Response to Comment Bl-8
See response to Comments Bl-3, Bl-4, and Bl-5.
Response to Comment Bl-9
See response to Comments C3-1 and C3-7 pertaining to the Gold Strike
Canyon Alternative.
The EIS concludes that the new bridge on the Sugarloaf Mountain
alignment, the preferred alternative, would dramatically alter the view of
Black Canyon from the dam (Section 3.7.2.2). However, this view is already
disturbed by the numerous electrical transmission towers and lines
crossing the canyon immediately south of the dam (see EIS Figures 3-9 and
3-10). Depending on the bridge type selected, the impact on views from the
dam can be mitigated by coloring the concrete or painting the steel to blend
with the surrounding environment.
Response to Comment Bl-10
See response to Comment Bl-5.
Response to Comment Bl-11
Improvements to U.S. 93 south of Hoover Dam in Arizona or to U.S 95,
State Route (SR) 164, and SR 165 in Nevada, including provision of
recreational access points, are not related to or part of the proposed project.
Response to Comment Bl-12
According to NFS, a new bridge between Laughlin and Bullhead City
would have a significant impact on Mohave County Park and, specifically,
Davis Camp, which is included in the LMNRA (Appendix B, Section 7.1).
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B4
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
Bi isl1* bslieve the DEIS should be reissued for public cemnerit reflecting an
[expanded scope and mace complete analyses of both the LBA and 93A.
We appceciate the v«ork the Project Managanent Team has accoraplished on
tins project even as we disagree with the DEIS on important points. We
ajte also appreciative of this opportunity to
Sincerely,
Howard Booth
Chairman, Hoover Dam
Bypass Gamut tee
Response to Comment Bl-13
None of the alternatives meeting the project purpose and need affect
substantially less land subject to Section 4(f) protection than the preferred
alternative As discussed in response to comments Bl-2 and Bl-5, the LBA
was eliminated from consideration because it can be clearly shown to not
meet the project purpose and need and, therefore, is not a reasonable
alternative as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
regulations
Response to Comment Bl-14
NDOT and ADOT conducted a financial feasibility study to determine
viable funding sources for the Hoover Dam bypass (June 2000) The study
assessed toll crossings among other options (see response to
Comment C3^2). The scope of the study focused on the viability of tolling a
new bridge crossing near the dam, rather than on the dam itself.
Serious present and projected congestion levels and delay time experienced
for several miles near the dam would argue strongly against placing a toll
crossing on existing U.S. 93 over the dam (see response to Comment Bl-2)
Furthermore, to charge a toll to promote drivers to use the Laughlin^
Bullhead City route would encourage people to drive a road with inferior
roadway geometries (horizontal and vertical alignments) and reduced
travel speeds, consume more fuel, and generate more air pollution.
Additionally, instituting a toll at the dam to encourage travelers to use the
LBA would create a bureaucracy that may not generate enough revenue to
pay for itself. This would not be consistent with the mission of FHWA or
NDOT and ADOT, which is to enhance the operation and efficiency of the
transportation system in the U.S.
Response to Comment Bl-15
One of the primary purposes of the project is to remove a major bottleneck
to interstate and international commerce and travel by reducing traffic
congestion and accidents in this segment of the major commercial route
between Phoenix and Las Vegas. A related purpose is to reduce travel time
in the vicinity of the dam (Section 1.5). As discussed in response to
comment Bl-5, these goals cannot be met by the LBA,
Response to Comment Bl-16
A Kingman, Arizona, to Henderson, Nevada, U.S 93 Alternative would not
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
65
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION
B2
B2-1
November 3, 1998
The Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street
Room 259
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Attention Terry Haussler
Attached is a copy of the Resolution passed by the Arizona Motor Transport
Association's Executive Committee and Board of Directors on October 30'", 1998
The resolution, I believe, is self-explanatory Therefore, I would appreciate your
making it a part of the official public hearing record
If you need additional information, or have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact me
Sincerely,
e Vice President
TS/mw
HE VOICJ O*
«S TRUC*
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
/MOTCR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION
RESOLUTION
HOOVER DAM BYPASS
WHEREAS I'S 93 S THE MAIN HIGHWAY BETWEEN ARIZONA AND NEVADA AND IS A
TWO-LANE HIGHWAY WHICH CROSSES HOOVER DAM, AND
WHEREAS US 93 AS PRESENTLY LOCATED, CAN NO LONGER ADEQUATELY HANDLE
THE 14.UW) VEHICLES, INCLUDING AUTOMOBILES, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, WHICH CROSS HOOVER DAM EACH DAY,
DOUBLE THE VOLUME OF FIFTEEN YEARS AGO, AND
WHEREAS THIS SECTION OF HIGHWAY IS NARROW, WINDING AND STEEP,
INADEQUATE Aft D UNSAFE FOR THE CURRENT VOLUME OF TRAFFIC, AND
WHEREAS US 93 IS A SIGNIFICANT SEGMENT OF A MAJOR NORTH AMERICAN
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (NAFTA) ROUTE BETWEEN MEXICO AND CANADA
AND A MAJOR COMMERCIAL ROUTE BETWEEN THE STATES OF
AK1/.O.NA, NEVADA AND UTAH, AND
WHEREAS THERE IS NO OTHER ROUTE 1*1 THE WESTERN UNITED STATES THAT
CAN EFFICIENTLY AND SAFELY ACCOMMODATE THIS TRAFFIC, AND
WHIREAS AN ALTERNATE CROSSING OF THE HOOVER DAM HAS BEEN US
THE PLANNING STAGES FOR MORE THAN THIRTY YEARS,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY TH£ ARIZONA MOTOR
TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION THAT THE HOOVER 0AM BYPASS PROJECT,
DESIGNED TO RESOLVE THE MOBILITY AND SAFETY PROBLEMS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRESENT LOCATION OF US 93, BE ADVANCED
AS A FEDERAL HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT, AND
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE ARIZONA MOTOR TRANSPORT
ASSOCIATION THAT THE HOOVER DAM BYPASS PROJECT IS
PRIMARILY A FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY AND SHOULD NOT COMPETE
FOR FUNDING WITH OTHER STAID PROJECTS AND THAT THE FUTURA
COSTS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT SHOULD COME FROM THE
"NATIONAL CORRIDOR AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM" AND THE
"FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY PROGRAM" FUNDS
ADOPTED THIS 30™ DAY OF OCTOBER, 1998
602252/559 211!
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B7
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
WCHAELAPfLJGATC
STEVE fcATEi
C E.IACNC
WUJJAMCLtGQ
JOANNA DAVIS
PCNM5 FftCCUAM
FETIFUHWi
STEVEM JfihSEN
LILANDA,iWLUEft
FRANK KAHSHSKI
ftAIWYFERE*
ALBEJTTQ PUUZ
LHJNAW o Roeiws
JOHN SUNDEKLAMD
CENiTEU£N
CAMCNCe OWCGEPI
B3
NEVADA MOTOR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, INC.
tl ORGAMOATON)
October 15,1998
Terry Haussler(HPD-16)
Project Management Team/Hoover Dam Bypass
Federal Highway Administration
Re Comments regarding Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on the Hoover Dam Bypass
Good evening For the record, my name is Georgi Cody and I am here tonight on
behalf of the Nevada Motor Transport Association, a statewide membership
organization representing the motor earner industry in Nevada
I would like to begin by commending the Project Management Team for their
excellent Draft Environmental Impact Study The DEIS provides a clear and
concise picture of the problems associated with the current route over the Hoover
Dam Problems, I might add, the trucking industry has long been aware of US93 is
a major commercial route between Anzona, Nevada and Utah It is also a
significant segment of a major NAFTA route between Mexico and Canada The
trucking industry faces this narrow, winding, steep, congested section of US93 daily
and knows first-hand its dangers and potential for disaster
We have carefully reviewed the information provided in the DEIS and agree with
the Team's conclusion that each of the three recommended Build Alternatives —
Promontory Point, Sugarloaf Mountain, and Gold Strike Canyon are viable options
The No Build Alternative is, in our estimation, not an alternative at all Ignoring a
problem of the magnitude of that which currently exists would be beyond merely
foolhardy or unwise - it would be courting disaster. The problems associated with
the current Hoover Dam crossing will not go away, they will only increase over
We were glad to read in the DEIS that the Laughlm-Bullhead City option had been
studied and rejected as a Build Alternative The trucking industry opposes this route
because of the high cost associated with diverting truck traffic 23 miles and
concerns over road safety The DEIS nghtly concludes this route does not address
the critical needs of the Hoover Dam Bypass Project Simply put — it would
provide a poor alternative, not a solution
f 0 BOX 91660, SPARKS, NV 89435 • 2215 GREEN VISTA DR , SUITE 304, SPARKS, NV 19431 • (702) 873-6111 » FAX (702) 673-1700
WE RENO AVE.. SUITE C-f UkS VEGAS, NV M119* (70J) J62-SS65 • FAX (702) !62 5668
E-MAIL ADDRESS NvTRNS^AOC COM • WEBSITE ADDRESS WWWMMTACOM
B3 1
83-2
Response to Comment B3-1
See response to Comments Al-1 and C3-2.
Response to Comment B3-2
The LBA does not meet the project's purpose and need (see responses to
Comment Bl).
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B8
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
NEVADA MOTOR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION, INC.
B3-3
B3-4
T OROANOATKM)
Based on the information contained in the DEIS, The Nevada Motor Transport
Association has concluded the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative to be the most
attractive of the three Build Alternatives Oils decision is based on road geometries,
cost, noise impacts, and other factors We are, however, cognizant of the potential
problems each of [he alternatives presents to wildlife and cultural resources in the
area We await further details on the full impact of whichever of the Build
Alternatives is selected We hope any adverse impacts may be avoided or
minimized
US93, as currently located, can no longer adequately handle the 14,000 vehicles,
including automobiles, recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles which cross
the Hoover Darn each day The Hoover Dam reached its traffic capacity seven years
ago The route is congested, dangerous, and vulnerable to damage It is time to
move ahead, to find solutions, and to work together to meet the challenges of
providing an alternative to the US93 Hoover Dam crossing
As a final note, along with my comments here today, I would like to provide you
with a copy of the HOOVER DAM BYPASS RESOWTIOH adopted by the Nevada Motor
Transport Association on October 5, 1998 This resolution has been sent to each
member of the Nevada Congressional Delegation and to Nevada's Governor Bob
Miller The resolution supports the advancement of the Hoover Dam Bypass as a
Federal High Priority Project, with future costs coming from the National Comdor
Planning and Development Programs and the Federal Lands Highway Program
I would like to thank you all for this opportunity to provide our comments to you
here tonight I am happy to answer any questions you may have
Respectfully Submitted,
Georgi Cody
Industry & Government Relations
Response to Comment B3-3
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative,
with the proposed mitigation measures, as the preferred alternative on the
basis of minimizing environmental impacts, engineering and operational
advantages, and lower construction cost. Section 2.6.2.1 of the FEIS
discusses the rationale for its selection
Response to Comment B3-4
The attached Resolution passed by the Nevada Motor Transport
Association has been made part of the public record for the project
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B9
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
RESOLUTION
HOOVER DAM BYPASS
WHEREAS US 93 rs the mam highway between Arizona and Nevada and is a two-Jane
highway which crosses Hoover Dam, and
WHEREAS US 93 as presently located, can no longer adequately handle the 14,000
vehicles, including automobiles, recreational vehicles and commercial vehicles,
which cross Hoover Dam each day, double the volume of fifteen years ago, and
WHEREAS this section of highway is narrow, winding and steep, Inadequate and
unsafe for the current volume of traffic, and
WHEREAS US 93 is a significant segment of a major North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) route between Mexico and Canada and a major
commercial route between the states of Arizona, Nevada and Utah, and
WHEREAS there is no other route in the Western United States that can efficiently and
safely accommodate this traffic, and
WHEREAS an alternate crossing of the Hoover Dam has been in the planning stages
for more than thirty years,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by The Nevada Motor Transport Association
that the Hoover Dam Bypass Project, designed to resolve the mobility and
safety problems associated with the present location of US 93, be advanced as
a Federal High Priority Project, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by The Nevada Motor Transport Association that the
Hoover Dam Bypass Project is primarily a Federal responsibility and should not
compete for funding with other state projects and that the future costs to
complete the project should come from the "National Corridor Planning and
Development Program" and the "Federal Lands Highway Program' funds
Adopted this S"1 day of _
er.. 1998
DarylE Capurro
Managing Director
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B10
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
B4
D4-1
B4-2
PAHRUMP PAIUTE TRIBE
January 6, 1999
Mr Terry Haussler, Project Manager
Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Sfreet, Room 259
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
RE Hoover Dam Bypass
Dear Mr Haussler
Today, I learned that you have made a definitive decision to select the proposed Sugarloaf
Alternative as the preferred rouie for the Hoover Dam Bypass Project Thrs decision concerns me
and our tribal members greatly not to mention the numerous other Southern Paiutes tribes who
express similar discord
I regret that a decision was made to select the Sugarloaf Alternative and that the Federal Highway
Administration has ignored the cultural concerns of our elders I believe that our elders have spoken
with great clarity about (he importance of the cultural landscape and the adverse impacts to Sugailoaf
Mountain, as it is known as a "Healing Mountain" among the Southern Parutes No other cultural
landscape is known to exist that contains the vast amount of important cultural resources that are
needed by Indian doctors
Your decision appears to be made before any consideration for the cultural landscape to be
nominated under Bulletin 30 Guidelines for Ewluanng and Documenting Rural Historic Landscape*
as mandated under the National Historic Preservation Act Nor was this important area considered
for nomination under Bulletin 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Culttnal
Properties of the same act Equally important is the disregard for evaluating the impacts to our nghts
of access to this sacred site as promulgated under Presidential Executive Order 13007, Access to
Sacred Sites
Clearly, it appears that this decision WP; r»ade in error and should be immediately reconsidered
Based upon our earlier conversations, ,t was my understanding that you would make no M.I - ,,.•!
until such tune as all studies were complete and properly evaluated I would urge you to review the
merits of our concerns before making any hasty decisions
Sincerely,
RionardWVAraoUK'
Tribal Chairman
P.O Box 3411 'Patirump, Nevada t3041
Response to Comments B4-1 and B4-2
See the following FHWA Central Federal Lands Highway Division letters
(dated January 15, 1999, January 25, 1999, and February 22, 1999, from
Mr Terry K. Haussler). The letter dated February 22, 1999, was specifically
in response to comment letter B5, dated January 12, 1999, from the Las
Vegas Paiute Tribe.
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B11
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
Higftwty aws
R
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
USOportmenl
at Transportation
Fed«ral Highway
Adminlilralkm
CHUM federal Lands
Htgftway Oivoion
555 Zang SEr*«t Ream
UMv*»a CO bCZ.'B
In Reply Refer To
HP0-16
Mr Allen Cross
Haliock and Gross
517 W University Dr
Tempe, AZ 85281
Dear Mr Gross
1 am enclosing a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Hoover Dam
Bypass Project on U S 93 Based on our discussion and on my discussion with Gary Goforth,
Tribal Administrator, at Fort Mohave, it appears that thu project is considerably north of where
Fort Mohave concerns may be Although the formal comment period expired in November, \ve
still welcome your comments and concerns on behalf of the Fort Mohave Tribe
We would appreciate receiving your written comments by February 26 Please contact me at
(303) 716-2116 if you need additional information
Sincerely yours,
I'/
Terry K Haussler, P E
Project Manager
Enclosure
cc (w/o enclosure)
Ms Nora Helton, Chairperson, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, 500 Mernman Avenue,
Needles, CA 92363
be (w/o enclosure)
T Haussler
JeffBinghani, CH2M HILL, 3 Hutton Center Drive, Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92707
yc reading file
THAUSSLER jm i/25/99 L\design\lioover\mohave wpd
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B13
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
US Deoortmenl
oftnrapoftoiico
Ftoteral Highway
Admlnlitratlon
CefiMU Ftderal Lands
Highway Dlwion
SS5 Zang SUMl Room 259
Latorood CO 80228
JAN 2 5 1999
In Reply Refer To
HPD-16
Mr Steve Parker
Acting Environmental Director
Salt River Pima-Mancopa Indian Community
10005 E Osbome Road
Scottsdale, AZ 85256
Dear Mr Parker
Per our discussion, I am enclosing a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
and a copy of the Summary DEIS for the Hoover Dam Bypass Project on U S 93 Although the
official comment period expired in November, we still welcome your comments and concerns on
behalf of the Salt River Pima-Mancopa Indian Community
We would appreciate receiving your written comments by February 26 Please contact me at
(303) 716-2116 if you need additional information
Sincerely yours,
Terry K. Haussler, P E
Project Manager
Enclosures
cc (w/o enclosures)
Mr Ivan Makil, President, Pima-Mancopa Indian Tnbaf Council, 10005 E Osbome Road,
Scottsdale, AZ 85256
be (w/o enclosures)
T Haussler
JeffBingham, CH2M HILL, 3 Button Center Drive, Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92707
yc reading file
THAUSSLERjm 1/25/99 L\design\hoover\mancopa wpd
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B14
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
US Deportment
of Transportation
F«d«ral Highway
Administration
Central federal Linds
Highway Division
SS5 Zang Slnsel Room 259
Ukewood CO 30223
JAN 2 5 1999
In Reply Refer To
HPD-16
Ms Pauline Owl
Cultural Commission
Fort Yuma Quechan Tribal Council
PO Bax 282
Wmterhaven, CA 922S3
Dear Ma Owl
Per our discussion, 1 am enclosing a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
for the Hoover Dam Bypass Project on U S 93 Although the official comment period has
expired, we still welcome your comments and concerns
We would appreciate receiving your written comments by February 26 Please contact me at
(303) 716-2116 if you need additional information
Sincerely yours,
Terry K Haussler, P E
Projecl Manager
Enclosure
cc (w/o enclosure)
Mr Michael Jackson, President, Fart Yuma Quechan Tribal Council, PO Box 11352,
Yuma, AZ 85366-9352
be (w/o enclosure)
T Haussler
Jeff Bingham, CH2M HILL, 3 Hutton Center Drive, Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92707
yc reading file
TI1AUSSLER jm 1/25/99 L\design\hoover\quechan wpd
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B15
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
Identical letter to
Mr Richard Arnold
Tribal Chairman
The Pihrump Pasyte Tribe
PO Box 34II
Pahrump,NV$904l
Mr Phil Swane
Tribal Chair
The Moapi Paiute Tnbc
PO Box 340
Moapa, NV 89025
Ms Oeneal Anderson
Tnbal Chair
The Paiute Indian Tribes of Utah
440 North Paiute Drive
Cedar City, UT 84720
Mr Daniel Edd?
Tribal Chair
The Colorado River Indian Tnbes
Rt l,Box23-B
Parker, A2 85344
Ms Vivienne-Caron Jake
Director of Environmental Program
The Kaibab Paiuto Tnbe
HC 65, Box 2
Pipe Springs, AZ 86022
Mr Richard Arnold
Executive Director
The Las Vegm Indian Center
2300 West Bonanza Road
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Ms Vivian Clark
The Chemehuevi Tribe
PO Box 1976
Havasu Lake, CA 92363
Ms Alfreds Mitre
Tnbal Chair
The Las Vegas Pnute Tnbe
tt I Paiute
Las Vegas, NV S9106
yc reading file
THAUSSLERjm 1/15/99 L DesgnWooveAtnbes eov
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
BIB
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
USDeporlrneni Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Room 259
of Transput ration Highway Division ukawood CO 802?a
Federal Highway
Adtntrastratfon
FEB1 8 1999
In Reply Refer To
HPD-16
Ms Elda Butler
Cultural Resource Management
Fort Mohave Tribe
1909 Smokestack Drive
Needles, CA 92363
Dear Ms Butler
1 enjoyed talking with you yesterday about the proposed Hoover Darn Bypass Project on U S 93
As I mentioned, the archeoiogists with the National Park Service, Western Area Power
Administration, and the Bureau of Reclamation indicated that you are the primary cultural
contact for the Fort Mohave Tnbe
As we discussed, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) initially notified the Fort
Mohave Tnbe about this project in a letter dated February 16,1998 The letter was from
CH2M HILL, FHWA's consultant The tnbe did not respond and the ethnographic interviews
were conducted without participation from Fort Mohave In late January of this year, I talked
with Gary Goforth, Tnbal Administrator, and with your consulting firm, Hallock and Gross A
copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was sent to Mr Allen Gross on
January 25 We requested written comments/concerns on behalf of the Fort Mohave Tnbe by
February 26
Now we are enclosing a copy of the DEIS for your review Although you may not be able to
meet our February 26 deadline, please coordinate your comments with Hallock and Gross so that
all Fort Mohave comments are consolidated We would appreciate your written comments by
March 12 After we receive your comments, we will determine whether additional meetings
and/or ethnographic interviews are required
Thank you for your valuable time and effort on this important project Please feel free to contact
me at (303) 716-2116 if you have any questions
Sincerely yours,
Terry K Haussler, PE
Project Manager
Enclosure
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
817
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
cc (w/o enclosure)
Mr Allen Gross, Hallock and Gross, 517 W University Dr, Tempe, AZ 85281
Ms Nora Helton, Chairperson, Fort Mohave Indian Tribe, 500 Memman Avenue,
Needles, CA 92363
be (w/o enclosure)
Mr JeffBmgham, CH2M HILL, 3 Button Center Drive, Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92707
T Haussler
yc reading file
TKHAUSSLER jm 2/18/99 L\design\hoover\butler wpd
818
SCO/LA W2664 DOC/003672584
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
faallocfc Atross me.
planning • land design • environment • tourism
602.967.4356 • fax 602,967.2878 • Mqros@amuq orq
02 22.99
Terry K. Haussler, P.E., Project Manager
US Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
HPD-16: Hoover Dam Bypass Project on US 93
Dear Mr Haussler
I have received my copy of your letter to Mrs Efda Butler, Fort Mojave Cultural
Resource Management I will contact Mrs Butler to assist in combining the
Tnbal comments and the Cultural Resource Department comments into one
letter Thank you for the extension to allow a complete review of the project
Please feel free to call if we may help in any additional way Mrs Butler is
certainly the person who should lead the review and comment on the project
Best regards,
Hallock/Gross, Inc.
Mojavejrlbal Planners
517 West University Drive • Jempe, Arizona S5251
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B19
-------
B5
Las Vegas Taiute (Tribe
( urtis Anderson
Tribal Chairman
B5-1
B5-2
January 12,1999
Mr Terry Haussler, Project Manager
Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, CO 80228
RE Hoover Dam Bypass
Dear Mr Haussler
The Las Vegas Paiute Tribe has been informed that you have made a decision to select the
proposed Sugarloaf Alternative as the preferred route for the Hoover Dam Bypass Project This
decision Is of great concern to our tribe and other Southern Paiutes tribes
We are disturbed that a decision was made to select the Sugarloaf Alternative and that the
Federal Highway Administration has not listened to the concern: of our elders Sugarloaf
Mountain Is known to contain numerous resources that are not found in other locations making it
eligible as a sacred site and Traditional Cultural Property This area is known as a healing spot
that falls within a very important cultural landscape
Your decision appears to be made without any consideration for the cultural landscape to be
nominated under Bulletin 30 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic
Landscapes nor was consideration given to nominating Sugarloaf Mountain as a Traditional
Cultural Property as defined under Bulletin 38 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Cultural
Properties of the National Historic Preservation Act Executive Order 13007 Access to Sacred
Sites requires federal agencies to make provisions to allow access to areas such as the Sugarloaf
Mountain area We have not seen nor participated in any assessments evaluating the Impacts to
our rights of access to this important sacred site
In closing, I would urge you to reconsider this option and view the merits of our concerns before
making any hasty decisions
Sincerely,
Curtis Andersen
Tribal Chairman
Number One Paiute Drive • Las Vegas, Nevada 89106-3261 • (702) 386-392b • Fax (702) 383-4019
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
US Deportment
of Transportation
Federal Highway
Administration
Central Federal Lands
Highway Division
555 Zing Street Room 259
Lakewocd CO 80228
FEB 2 2 1995
In Reply Refer To
HPD-16
Mr Curtis Anderson
Tribal Chair
The Las Vegas Paiute Tnbe
#1 Paiute Dnve
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Dear Mr Anderson
We have received your letter dated January 12, 1999, regarding our selection of a preferred
alternative on the Hoover Dam Bypass project The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative was
selected because it meets the purpose of the project, while minimizing environmental impacts
Much of the corridor has already been disturbed with roads, transmission lines, and other Hoover
Dam appurtenances
We acknowlege your concerns with the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative, as well as with the other
two "build" alternatives The guidelines in NFS Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and
Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties, are being followed to evaluate potential
Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP's) The requirements in Executive Order 13007, Access to
Sacred Sites, will also be met so that access to sacred areas is accommodated
The Federal Highway Administration will initiate the Section 106 consultation process with the
State Historic Preservation Offices in Arizona and Nevada sometime within the next six weeks
This consultation will include our eligibility recommendations for traditional cultural properties,
as well as for historic and prehistoric features In the meantime, we are proceeding with the Final
EIS with Sugarloaf Mountain as the preferred alternative Please keep m mind that the final
decision will not be made until the Record of Decision is issued this fall
We appreciate your comments and concerns on this important project If you have any questions
or concerns, feel free to contact me at (303) 716-2116
Sincerely yours,
/•'*/
Terry K Haussler
Project Manager
B20
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
B6-1
B6-2
B6
Las Vegas Indian Center, Inc.
January 7, 1999
Mr Terry Haussler, Project Manager
Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
RE Hoover Dam Bypass
Dear Mr Haussler
Our organization has been informed that a decision has been made regarding the Hoover Dam Bypass
Project It is our understanding that the proposed Sugarloaf Alternative has been selected as the
preferred route for the Hoover Dam Bypass Project Our office represents over 15,000 American
Indians who have presented a unified voice through the Las Vegas Indian Center It is the position
of our constituency that you have errored tremendously by making this designation
The Las Vegas Indian Center has been acuvety involved m numerous cultural resources programs for
the past twenty years I personally participated in the studies facilitated through the University of
Anzona-Tucson The Sugarloaf Mountain area is considered to be a very spiritual place that was
unanimously confirmed by the various Inbal elders To consider this area as the preferred route,
would be a grave mistake and be analogous to desecrating a holy place or similar shjine
In monitoring this program, I am extremely concerned about the disregard for the Indian opinions
expressed and the failure to nominate Sugarloaf Mountain as both a "Cultural Landscape" and
I Traditional Cultural Property" as provided in the National Historic Preservation Act
I am hopeful that your decision to select the Sugarloaf Alternative is not based upon erroneous
information and most importantly in contrast with federal mandates It is the position of the Las
Vegas Indian Center to request your careful deliberation on the complex issues before you Any
impacts to this area will be considered a desecration of one of the few remaining sacred sites m our
area that is so highly revered
Sincerely,
>* '•ir~<. f~7^~
Don Cloquet, Member
Board of Directors
2300 WEST BONLNZA KOAD • L4S VEGAS, NEVADA 89106 • (702) 647 5842 • FAX (702) 647-2647
Response to Comments B6-1 and B6-2
See the FHWA Central Federal Lands Highway Division letter (dated
February 22, 1999, from Mr. Terry K. Haussler) in response to comment
letter B5, dated January 12, 1999, from the Las Vegas Paiute Tribe
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B21
-------
B7
COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES
Colorado River Indian Reser\>ation
ROUTE 1 BOX 21-B
PARKER, ARIZONA 85344
TELEPHONE (120) 669 9211
Mr. Terry Itiussler, Project Manager
Federal Highway Administration
555, Zang Street, Room 259
lakewood, Colorado 80228
RE Hoovor Dam Bypass
Dear Mr Hmuslcr
Jtaauaty 14, 1999
FfxteralrtghwayAdministraUon on the propo^ project for the Hoover Dam Bypasi Of (he
three alteniau ve bridge construction MM, the Sugarioaf Mountain alternative was tbe FH/i's
choice
We foci this choice is of concern u the ares u important to the affiliated tnbes involved in
the "AtnHncan Indian Ethnographic Studies Regarding the Hoover Dam Bypa»« Project"
completed and documented m May, 1998 Tnbtl expects ftmtlhr with cultural landtcapet and
oral traditions have stated and expressed, k thia report, die importance of preserving s»cred areas
such u Sijgarkaf Mountain, for posterity and tat tie eligibility of nonunaUon is i TrsdiUonal
Ciitard Property {TTCr^andertraNllJ^^ In the part, native people
iavt inhabited the whole corridor of tbe Colorado River tad are yet familiar with ancestral LES to
significant sites along this route. Executive Order 130G7 Access to Sacred Sites requires federal
^«»ew* to in»lMl«ovBK)ia to tJlowBrtiVBpef^itoaeoeaiaWiry to such anes and allow through
[•opei coniukabcn tine preservation ofiruch siles through formal recomrnendatiooa,
ethnographic*] itudies ami ajsessmenb. Tttf^ nicajurcs need lo be carefully sdbfrcd to 10 assure
complete cootuJlation requueiaeDU are met
I Therefore, we feel die Federal Highway Aitnnustratioo need* to reevaluale the decuion for
I the cuiturally sensitnB Sugarloaf Mountain. We request continued consultation of thu matter and
I cd(loyourattaiuontheueedtoestablisliacous«isuaregardirigceunpUince. We look forward to
I your coounenlj
Sinterely,
B7-1
37-2
Daniel Eddy Jr
Colorado River Indian Tribes
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
Cerlril r«lMal Li.-ns
S55 Zanj Slf««l HOMB 259
i CO 8022t
FEB22S9S
In Reply Refer To
HPD-16
Mr Daniel Eddy Jr
Chairman
Colorado River Indian Tribes
Route I,Box23-B
Parker, AZ 85344
Dew Mr Eddy
We have received your letter dated January 14, i 999, regarding our selection of a preferred
alternative on the Hoover Dam Bypass project The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative was
selected because « meets te purpose of the project, while m.n.mtzing environmental .mpacts
Much of the comdor has already been amuroed with roads, transmission lines and other Hoover
Dam appurtenances
We ocknowlege your concerns with the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative, as well as with the other
two "bu.ld" alternatives The guidelines m NFS Bulletm 38, Gmdelmesfor Evalua,,ng and
Documenlmg Traditional Cultural fropernes, are being followed to evaluate potential
Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP's) The requirements m Executive Order 13007 torn ,0
Sacred Sues, will also be met so that access lo sacred areas is accommodated
The Federal Highway Administration wil! initiate the Section 106 consultation process with -he
btate Historic Preservat.on Offices in Arsiona and Nevada sometime within the next six weeks
This consultation will include our eligibility recommendatwns for traditional cultural properties
as well as for hiaone and prehistoric features. In the meantime, we are proceedtng w,th the Fmii
EIS with Sugarloaf Mountain as the preferred alternative Please keep in mind that the final
decision will not be made until the Record ot Decision is issued this fall
We appreciate your comments and concerns on this important project If you have any questions
or concerns, feel free to contact me at (303) 716-2116
Sincerely yours,
f A/
Terry K Haussler
Project Manager
B-22
-------
Enclosures
Rosie Pepilo
National Park Service
Dr Richard Stoffle
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology
Richard Arnold
Las Vegas Indian Center
James Garrison
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office
Ron James
Nevada Stale Historic Preservation Office
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
B23
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
Resolution No_
RESOLUTION
COLORADO RIVER TUIoAl COUNCIL
A R.ioluiion 10 Assert and claim its sacred trust to respect and protect
traditional lands.
6. II re»olv«d by ih. Tribol Council of th. Colorodo Rlv.r Indian Trlb«$. In ragulor m.ttlng
on.mbl.don April 9. 1983
WHEREAS, Indian nations have occupied and exercised stewardship over the
lands throughout the North American continent since time Immemorial;
and
HHEREAS, the people of these Indian nations have always been aware of their
unique snd sacked relationship to these lands; and
HHEREAS, these lands and the relationship of the Indian people to them
have been the principal material heritage and spiritual inspiration
of all American people; and
WHEREA:>, many of these Unds have been ceded by Indian nations to the non-Indi
peoples, while other of these lands have been taken and are no longe--
considered to be owned by the Indian nations; and
UHEREAS, it is the sacred obligation of the Indian peoples to provide
stewardship for their traditional lands; and
WHEREAS, these lands from time-to-time are considered for use allocations
for power transmission lines, highways, gas pipelines',''hazardous
waste disposal sites, power plants and, other similar-developments;
an'd
Th. (ongoing r.*olulion wcu on
April 9, 19B3
8
. lor and .
duly approved by a vol» of
. agatnit, by lh. Tribol Council of th. Colorado Rlv.r Indian
Trib.i, puriuonl 10 authority v.tt.d In It by Section.
1.V.
.ArllcU.
VI
.of Ih.
Conilltulion and By lowi ol th. Trib.i, rallll.d by lh. Trlbo on March 1, 197S-ond approvid by th.
S.cr.lory of th. Inl.nor on May 39. 197i. punuonl lo S.ctlon 14 of lh« Ad of Jpn. 18. 1934, (4t Stat
984) Thn roolution if .If.ctiv. at of th. dot* of Hi adoption
COLORADO RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B24
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
RESOLUTION MO.
APRIL 9, 1983
2
H-33-33,
HHERttS,
MHEREAS.
' *^
some developments and activities nay be consistent with ine»wsereijjB;
of our stewardship responsibilities, while the eonstruetlon^of'Ji'tner
developments has in the past caused the damage and destruction "of the
religious and cultural values relative to the land, aswelVas ths
land itself, and
tht protection and preservation of these lands which constitute our
heritage depends upcm tht judicious, coordinated tfforts Of tht
American people, governments and commercial concerns with the
Indian nations,
Indian naions,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Colorado River Indian Tribes hereby
dedicate themselves to the protection and preservation of their
traditional lands,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that thB Tribes hereby assert and clsia * reserved
tisement over all off-reservation traditional lands for theTJu
of fulfilling their sacred trust with respect t8 -such lands', 1 ,
but not limited to, thi right to preserve and protect arsas Of .'parti culir
spiritual significance; a »''^-*c ^
SE IT FURTHER R6SOLVEO that the Tribes rtflueit the support af,.ths othtrgftJbaT;* ,".'•
goverraaents , tha featral, stite tnd local governwnts.fansailj'' £ l~. •"
other orgsniiitions and agencies, whentver th« pos"ftiw«'5feBch,,»!,;'->tfl
lovernments and organization* are in accord with'8tir*stsws5^slf""*? '
responsibilities, to preserve our traditional lands;" **J ,"-
5£ IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Tribes will aid other tribal governmer-fe', _
in their efforts to similarly preserve and protect their trac'v.MaX 7
_- ^nds.
BE IT FURTHER AND FINALLY RESOLVED that the fortgoing claim of reserved, easement;"
shall not be deemed or construed to be in derogation of any greater,'
right to property ownership and sovereignty that the Tribes nay hsve
to any of their traditional tribal lands. j
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B25
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
• RESOLUTION
COIO«AOO RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL
m««llng
ARtiolutloit to Take A prjpitlon concerning the Dr^sftr.vatlon pf
areas of the Mohave and other Tribes
M H r*iolv*d by the Tnbol Council of th* Colorado River Indian Trit»i. In
a»,.mbl.dor. Oecember 7. 1979 _
WHEREAS, the present administrations of both Federal and State government
support cultural area preservation for Native. Americans^ through
the following legislation existing: American Indian Religious
Freedom Act, P.L. 95-341; National Environmental Policy Act^
P.L. 91-190; Joint Resolution American Indian Religious ''Freedom
S.J. Res. 102; An Act for the preservation of American' antiquities,
June 8. 1906 (34 Stat. 225), Public Law No. 209; Archaeological
- -- Resources Protection Act of 1979, P.L. 96-95: »nd California legis-
lation establishing the Native American Heritage Commission, AS - 4239
• signed Into law, September 29, 1976 and legislation to protect the
Native American interest on Public Lands (Public Resources Code,
D1v. 5, Chapter 1.75, as revised) and Arizona Antiquities Act of
1960 amending Title 41, Chapter 4, Article 4, Arizona Revised
Statues, and
WHEREAS, fiers are areas on and contiguous to the Colorado River Indian
. Reservation extending to remote areas which are still the ancestral
anc traditioral use areas of the Mohave and Chemehuevl of the
Colorado River Indian Tribes, and
Tn« foregoing resolution wcj on
5 for and '
7. 1979_
.duly approved by 0 vet* of
„ ogolnit. by lh« Tribal Council ot Ih. Colorado Rtvir Indian
Trlbei, purtuant to authority vetted In it hy S«e«ian Krl Anli-l» VI ntih«
Cornlllullon and By low« of iK« Trib«». railfUd by th» Trlb.j en March 1, 1975 end approved by lh»
$*cr*laryef thelnurior on May 29, 1975, punwantto Section 16 of the Act al June la, >*34, (48 Slat.
f l4).Thli raso'utlon ii gfUcliv* o< of tn« dot* of It* adoption.
, CQIORADO RIVER TRIBAL COUNQI.
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B26
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
WHEREAS
at IT D
.^a-nu.-H.lfH-iy
R 7, 1979
, these lands will
development, use
timven »K,f ^h« Mni
• I
continue to be the subject for further
plans and/or preservation.
/ effected be consulted (mediately prior to «n«> during any j
discussions regarding the respective Indlin cultursl concernj
involving the disposition of lands, j
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all final decisions permitting the use of !
Indian cultural areas contain a written consent froa thi,re-
spective Tribe sr Tribei setting forth stipulations for the J ,
project,
BE IT FINALU RESOLVED that copies of this resolutions b« sent to all
the President, Senator Kennedy, state Delegations, the Gover-
nors of Arizona and California, Bureau of Indian Affairs ind
Its subagencies, southern California and Arizona Indian reser-
vations, Bureau of Land Management, California Heritage Coomlsiian,
Native American Museums Association, Public Service Companies,
Pa pi so Freeway Highway Court ssion, National Congress of American
Indians. National Tribal Chairmen's Association and others.
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
62?
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
RESOLUTION
COLCfUOO RIVIR TRIBAL COUNCIL
State the position of che Colorado River Indian Tribes regard!:
\ R«alut,on to antiquities, qeeurri-t vichin ?r*"J.Uto.n«.l..taiUn.«ais.«rcr.s..Bn.
public lands
Be it resolved by the Tribal Council of the Colorado Rlvtr Indian Tnbej, in regular meeting
assembled on _ MS?S!l.t6J.Jl279
WHEREAS, t"i«re are Indian artifacts found on public l«n ~-::. C:_-cil of the Coloro:; ^ivcr idlsn
Tribes, pursuont to outhonty vesteo in it ::/ Jcc:.on . ,1(\0 ™..4ttic'f -rr-J of **"
Constitution (or By-Lews) of the Tribes, tctif.ed.hi- the Tribes on'loVlS-.'iSa?.; ond approved
by the Secretory cf tr-e Interior an r ujust .Ijr-1:?.s7, pursurnt to Section 16 of the Act of June
18, 1934, (48 Stot 984) This resolution Is effective as of the date of il$ adoption.
COLORADO RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL
By
Approved
Sopcrinlcndtnl
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B28
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
MARCH 16, 1979
FACE 1
HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED chat interested tribe* of Cht Colorado T.tvtr
Indian Reservation eoqaidar thesivlvas -tha rishcful,owners at'tha
artifacts acquired fro'i Crcdlcional ui* «nd *«ercd areas. And " ' '
chcse Tiiucs tlirou£.i cr.c Tribal Council wish to rtstcva tha ri'jhc
to ulciraccly dsterainc Chs disposition of both sices and artifacts
under consideration. , !
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B29
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
Resolution No —teA&
RESOLUTION
COLORADO RIVER TRIBAL COUNCIL
State the position of th« Colorado River Indian Tribes concerning
a-: traditional use ereat by interested ncnberi of the Tribes at
thc_ Colorado River Indian Reservation
Be it rewlved by the Tribol Council of the Colorado rtiver Indian Tribes, In regular meeting
assembled on f*?-?h-,.JjS»..A.??A..~ .
WH2REAS, aeVeloLFisnt or use of traditional lands both new and in the future
ray h.-na ispzct on the Colorado River Indian Reservation and it*
people, and
WHEREAS, rrediciona) use areas and saerad areas of the Tribes of the Colorado
r.i-.er Indian Reservation are not all contained within che external
boundaries of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, and
WHEREAS, :.?di:icr.3l Indian lands under consideration may also be sacred, and
VHSREAS, chose tacred and traditional use areas hold continued Importance to
c.-e TnLes and their descendants, and
WHEREAS, ",'ribal government is sovereign, tad
KiiEXEAS, en; CO-.^IESS of tha Onited States in recognition of Tribal sovereignty
ind tracition through an Act have established the right of Hacive
.'.rsricii's to practice their own religion (P.I. So. 95-341), and
Ths 'i-cjsi-s -s:s'i."in v.os on . _ jl&EU ." j. .Q7? duly approved by a vote of
5. r -ana . '' against, by the Tribol Oxmcil of the Colorado River Indian
Tnb«s, pursuant to authority vested in it by Section .....liv).— Ar»icl} ..j-»?J. - of the
C;niti^:on cr Sy-Lc>vs)of the Tribes. !$fified,by the Tribes onafflE^-'Vzl•!«»;•'and opprovid
bv the S*crets-v of tn« Interior on August* 13, Is3?, pursuant to Section lo of the Act of June
16 1934, U3 Siot ;»
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
m. n-u-79
K*SCH 16, 1979
FACE a
WHEREAS, C'.IQ State of California haa established legislation Co protest the
Native .Vnic'ean intrreacs on Public l^nda (public Eaaourcea Co4««
Division 5, Chapter 1.75, as rtvlJcd),
SOa, TaERtTCRS, BE IT RCSOLVSD chac th« Irlbtl Sov«r»a»nt «tll «e«k to aeeara
for i.tf people the right: of accaas tad review of uaa and devele^fttttst
^Q 4^Ccr"iino if sttch tife is eositpasifala vtcb tradltiafial yaage,
Tnhal Oovarrwent trill not abrogate the Indian ptopl* from ch«*t
i.*3i.n^Es but will s«ek Cd perpccuace Ch« traditional and sacred u*e
at cradiciuaal lands.
SCO/UW2664 DOC/0036725B4
B31
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
B8-1
Cgancf o
January 21, 1999
Mr Terry Haussler, Project Manager
Federal Highway Administration
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Re Hoover Dam Bypass
Dear Mr Haussler
The decision regarding the proposed Sugar Loaf Alternative for the Hoover Dam Bypass
Project is a decision of great concern for us of the Kaibab Pamte Tnbe
To begin, we look upon the Sugar Loaf Mountain as a sacred entity An entity that should
not be impacted upon by traffic, people, noise, litter, and so forth Additionally,
consideration for the site as a Traditional Cultural Property hasn't been given It appears
that other considerations for following through the mandates of federal statutes, policy,
and regulations also are not being met What agency assessments regarding this action has
been completed for meeting the National Historic Preservation Act, Executive Order
13007, and Bulletin 38 Guidelines?
It is very important that you reconsider the decision you are making in this regard We
await your reply
Sincerely,
CARMEN M BRADLP
Chairperson
CMBvcj
cc KPT Tribal Manager
So Paiute Consortium File
Tribal Affairs Building
HC 65 Box 2 Phone {520)643-7245
Pipe Spring, Arizona 86022 Fax (520)643-7260
US Deportment
at Transportation
Fttterel Highway
Admlniilration
Ctmral Federal Undt
Highway Oivnwn
Hi Zang StiMt. Room 259
CO 80228
FEB 2 3 1999
In Reply Refer To
HPD-16
Ms Carmen M Bradley
Chairperson
Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians
HC 65, Box 2
Pipe Spring, AZ 86022
Dear Ms Bradley
Just yesterday I received your letter dated January 21, 1999, concerning the Hoover Dam Bypass
Project I cannot explain the reason for the delay m my receiving the letter If the delay occurred
at this end, I apologize for not responding earlier
We acknowledge your concerns with the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative We are proceeding
with Sugarloaf Mountain as our preferred alternative because it meets the purpose of the project,
while minimizing environmental impacts Much of the corndor has already been disturbed \vith
roads, transmission lines, and other Hoover Dam appurtenances
The guidelines in NFS Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional
Cultural Properties, are being followed to evaluate potential Traditional Cultural Properties
(TCP's) The requirements in Executive Order 13007, Access to Sacred Sites, will also be met so
that access to sacred areas is accommodated.
The Federal Highway Administration will initiate the Section 106 consultation process with the
State Historic Preservation Offices m Arizona and Nevada sometime within the next six weeks
This consultation will include our eligibility recommendations for traditional cultural properties,
as well as for historic and prehistoric features. In the meantime, we are proceeding with the Final
EIS with Sugarloaf Mountain as the preferred alternative Please keep m mind that the final
decision will not be made until the Record of Decision is issued this fall
We appreciate your comments and concerns on this important project If you have any questions
or concerns, feel tree to contact me ai (303) 716-2116
Sincerely yours,
Terry K.. Haussler
Project Manager
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B32
-------
RESPONSES TO GRGftNtZAl IONS' COMMENTS
B9
B9-1
B9-2
Las Vegas Indian Center, Inc.
February 10, 1999
Mr Terry K Haussler, PE
Project Manager - Hoover Dam Bypass
555 Zang Street, Room 259
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
Dear Mr Haussler
Thank you for the opportunity to meet both you and /antes Roller to discuss the proposed Hoover
Dam Bypass Project I believe that our meeting wa§ very productive and provided an opportunity
to further explain the Rapid Cultural Assessment that was conducted in collaboration with the
University of Arizona-Tucson
1 am pleased to learn of your commitment to working closeJv with the culturally affiliated tribes and
organizations in this effort As you have no doubt now found out, the project is full of a host of
complex issues, especially those surrounding trie American Indian perspective The Sugarloaf
Alternative that has been designated as the preferred alternative will significantly impact an extremely
sensitive and significant sue that has immense cultural implications Based upon the discussion!) with
numerous tnbaJ representatives, there appears to be adequate information to designate Sugarloaf
Mountain as both a sacred ate and a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), as defined in National
Register Bulletin No 38 As I shared with you during our recent meeting, Bulletin 38 establishes the
crrtena for designation, of a TCP These guidelines should not be interpreted as limiting the size of
area, but rather to identify a well defined unit that can be clearly substantiated
I am glad to learn that your office had made contact with the Fort Mojave Tnbe in Needles,
California It is my understanding thai based upon the correspondence that you received, they chose
not to participate Your efforts in this regard we commendable and should sattsfwtonly addresj any
future concerns that may arise With respect to this letter, I would appreciate you sending me a <-opy
so that I can include it as pan of our Hoover D»m Bypass Project flies
In closing, 1 wish to again express my gratitude for taking the time to meet and discuss some of the
cultural concerns surrounding this project I look forward to working closely with your office and
assisting in the development of acceptable mitigation measures
Richa« W "Arnold
Executive Director
2300 WEST BONANZA KOAD' LAS VEGAS, NEVADA t»ltt • (101) 047.5842 • FAX (701) ttl-MI
USDeporment
of lansponotion
federal Mghwar
Central Federal tat
555 Zang Sl'eel Room 259
Lakewood CO 30228
FEfl 2 2 J99S
In Reply Refer To
HPD-16
Mr Richard Arnold
Executive Director
Las Vegas Indian Center, Inc
2300 West Bonanza Road
Las Vegas, NV 89106
Dear Mr Arnold
Thank you for meeting with Mr Jim Roller and myself in your office on February 9 It was
interesting to learn more about the Las Vegas Indian Center, as well as some of the Native
American history along the Colorado River
After our meeting, we received your letter dated February 10 In your letter, you referred to the
additional coordination that we have initialed with the Fart Monavc Tnbe Your understanding
was that they chose not to participate in the Hoover Dam Bypass studies That is not necessarily
the ease We have sent them additional information and have requested their written comments
We have also received your letter on behalf of the Pahrump Paiute Tnbe, dated January 6, and
the letter from the Las Vegas Indian Center, dated January 7 These letters were regarding our
selection of the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative as the preferred alternative in the Final EIS The
selection of the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative was based on minimizing environmental
impacts, especially since the comdor has been previously disturbed with roads and transmission
lines
Now that a preferred alternative has been identified, our office will initiate the Section 106
consultation process with the State Historic Preservation Offices in Arizona and Nevada This
consultation will include our eligibility recommendations for traditional cultural properties
(TCP), as well as for historic and prehistoric features The TCP analysis will use NFS Bulletin
38 as a guide The requirements in Executive Order 13007, Access to Sacred Sites, will be met
so that access to sacred areas is accommodated
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B33
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
We are proceeding with the Final E.IS with Sugarloaf Mountain as the preferred alternative
Please keep in mind that the final decision will not be made until the Record of Decision is
issued this fall
We appreciate your comments and concerns on this important project Please feel free to contact
me at (303) 716-2116
S'ncerely yours,
/*/
r-
Terry K Haussler, P E
Project Manager
be T Haussler
J Bmgham, CH2M HILL, 3 Hutton Center Drive, Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92707
yc reading file
TKHAUSSLER jm 2/19/99 L\design\hoover\amold wpd
B-34
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
-------
American Indian Chamber of Commerce
of Nevada BIO
1404 Colorado Street
Boulder City, NV 89005
(702)293-4051
17 February 1999
Terry Haussler, Project Director
Federal Highwav Administration
55^ Zang Street
Room 259
LalewooiCO 80228
Dear Mr Haussler
The purpose of this letter is to express the concerns that American Indian Chamber of Commerce of
Nevada (A1CCN) has regarding the proposed bndge across the Colorado River below Hoover Dam
1, ; We strongly oppose the construction of roads or bndges on sacred Indian ground
2, We $trDtujl> recommend consideration of the following alternative to building a bndge over the
.Colorado River Allow only automobile traffic on Highway 93 between Boulder City and Kmgman
Route tract traffic between Boulder City and Kingman through Searchlight via Highway 95 and
Interstate 40 .Further, use a portion of the funds earmarked for the proposed bndge to widen
Highway 95 between Interstate and Highwav 93 to at least four lanes, possibly six lanes since this
route would become a major north-south artery This alternative has several appealing points
B10-1
B10-2
the City of Boulder
810-3
B10-4
. - -a. ft woulfavoid construction on sacred Indian ground ...,~.Mlj
.. b It would stop trucks from traveling over the HoovcjlEMuSfira
" ' City, thin avoiding possible spillage of daugH»^^|^i^pBP"
c. AUtagflBhe highway through (or r«ss*l3^ffl«^i^^Tsaia|gl« » a slightly'ongw
route distance-wise between KjBgrn|u)!4|^EaSB|s5H§iiJrii;rp actually be shorter tune-wise
once the vridenefRfilghway is "WmjleWdV'This improved highway would also provide
automobile tnrfr^Jt'rfliicl^mproV'eJJ-dtemativc to traveling over the dam Thus, it would
tend ta deereascaojspunst automobile traffic over the dam and through Boulder City The
automobile trafBjgfiirough Boulder City would most likely be tourists that visit the dam
and/or avail lhetns«iVes of Boulder Citv businesses
.; 'SSi^ tt
It is our undcrstaiidjiigthal approximatqlyi.5 million dollars of Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funds
were used to conducive study of bndge alternatives This fact should be confirmed and, if true,
these funds, that wereitndgeted for the btaofit of American Indians, should be restored to the BIA
4 We recommend an addendum to the bndge study
address the following issues
This study should invite public opinion and
a Why wasn't an alternative route studied for cost-companson?
b Was the cost of destruction of sacred Indians land considered at all''
c Was the cost of improving the roads on either side of the Dam considered'
d What other hidden costs, financial or not, are a potential threat to Boulder Citv, Lake Mead
National Park and the Indian community''
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
USDeportment
a* Transportation
F*d«ol Highway
Administration
Central Federal Lands
Highway Division
March 12, 1999
555 Zang Street Room 259
lakewood, CO 80228
In Reply Refer To
HPD-16
Mr Larry Morales, President
American Indian Chamber of Commerce of Nevada
1404 Colorado Street
Boulder City, NV 89005
Dear Mr Morales
We have received vour letter dated February 17, 1999, regarding our seleclion of a preferred alternative on
the Hoover Dam Bypass project The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative was selected because it meets the
purpose of the project, while minimizing environmental impacts Much of the corridor has already been
disturbed with roads, transmission lines, and other Hoover Dam appurtenances
Your letter addressed four specific concerns Following is a response to each
1 Concerns with impacts to sacred Indian ground
The guidelines in NFS Bulletin 38, Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural
Propeities, are being followed to evaluate potential Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP's) The
requirements in Executive Order 13007, Access to Sacred Sites, will also be met so that access to
sacred areas is accommodated
2. Recommendation to require truckers to use the U.S. 95 and 1-40 corridors
This alternative was considered and dismissed in Chapter 2 of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) Per your request, a copy of the DEIS is enclosed A similar alternative, the
Laughlm-Bullhead City Alternative, was studied in more detail and dismissed for similar reasons The
Laughlm-Bullhcad City study is included in the DEIS as Appendix 2 These alternatives were
dismissed for two primary reasons
• They do not meet a primary objective of the Hoover Dam Bypass Project, which is to remove
through traffic from Hoover Dam Although trucks could be restnctcd from crossing at Hoover
Dam (if a reasonable alternative was available), vehicular through traffic would continue to use
the Hoover Dani crossing
• The U S 93 route is 23 miles shorter than the Laughlm Bullhead City route and 70 miles shorter
than the U S 95/1-40 route The indirect costs associated with this additional distance are
enormous - approximately J770 million over a 20-year period for the Laughlm-Bullhcad City
route alone The indirect costs of the U S 95/1-40 route have not been computed, but would be
proportionately higher than the Laughlm-Bullhead City route These indirect costs arc based on
typical operating, vehicle, and maintenance costs - SO 32 per mile for cars and SI 00 per mile for
trucks Also, there would be costs and impacts associated with the additional accidents that
would result and from the additional air pollution that would be generated because of the
B35
-------
American Indian Chamber of Commerce
of Nevada
Page T«o
Please don't take these concerns lightly We are aware that other groups have similar concerns and hope
that you understand we all want what is best for all people Additionally, we would appreciate if vou
would send us the Environmental Impact Study and the related Hoover Dam Bypass update letters
Respectfully submitted.
Cc Richard Arnold, Las Vegas Indian Center
Fred Dexter, Sierra Club
Nevada Indian Environmental Coalmen
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
additional distance These costs have not been computed
.1. Understanding that BIA funds were used to conduct the bridge study
There have not been BIA funds used for any of the studies The studies have been funded by the
Bureau of Reclamation, the FHWA, and the two state highway departments
4 Recommend an addendum to the bridge study and additional public input
A Other alternative routes have already been studied and were dropped from further consideration
B The cost of the impacts to lands considered sacred by Native Americans has not been computed
This would be very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify
C The cost of improving the roads adjacent to the Hoover Dam Bypass project has not been
considered, since a new bridge crossing docs not necessitate the improvement of these roads
D We do not believe there are "hidden" costs or impacts associated with this project Certainly there
are indirect and cumulative impacts These are addressed in Chapter 5 of the DEIS
The Federal Highway Administration will initiate the Section 106 consultation process with the State
Historic Preservation Offices in Arizona and Ncv ida within the next six weeks This consultation will
include our eligibility recommendations for (rjcimunal cultural properties, as well as for historic and
prehistoric features In the meantime, we arc proceeding with the Final EIS with Suggrloaf Mountain as
the preferred alternative Please keep in mind that the final decision will not be made until the Record of
Decision is issued this fall
Per your request, we arc enclosing a copy of the five project newsletters that have been sent out dunng the
last year and a half You arc also being added to our mailing list to receive copies of future newsletters If
you have any additional questions or concerns, feel free to contact me at (303) 716-2116
Sincerely yours,
Terry K Haussler, P E
EIS Manager
Enclosures
be
T llaussler
Mr, Jeff Bingham, CH2M HILL, 3 Hulton Center Drive, Suite 200, Santa Ana, CA 92707
THAUSSLER 3/12/99 L Design\Hoover\tnbes4 wpd
B36
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
American Indian Chamber of Commerce
Bit
14Apnl 1999
1404 Colorado Street
Boulder City, NV IMH
Phone (702) 3»3 4«S I
F» (707) 1)3-S»SI
Board of Directors
PrtaMtal
LUIT) Mors
Vtte Prettittit
Karl Simrclu
m* bnd ItOiHdlngw* In
Joanna ROUM
STP n«*f JQpDMiit
Director
Lou Cm IK
Mr Arthur E Hamilton, P E
Program Manager, Federal Lands Highway
U S Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
400 Seventh Street S W
Washington, D C 20590
Dear Mr Hamilton
This is m response to vour letter dated 5 Aonl 1999 Mr Larry Morales recently resigned
as President of the American mdian Chamber of Commerce of Nevada to devote more
time to assisting needv Indians with their legal difficulties As the new President, I want
to thank you for your expeditious rcpfv to Senator Bryan's request to review Vlr
Morales' lener, and to Mr Terry Haussler, CFLHD, Denver for his earlier response to
Mr Morales' letter expressing concerns about {he Hoover Dam Bypass Project It
appears your agency uas concuv-ed a very thorough study and has minimized adverse
impact to the environment and culture I am particularly pleased that you have consulted
manv tribes or tnbal organizations and that you are continuing to do so m an etfort to
minimize construction on sacred Indian ground
Our Board of Directors has been bnefed on the responses we received from you and \lr
t inf Haussler and is m agreement that this is a closed issue as far as we are concerned Again,
thank you for providing us the facts
Respectfully submitted
B11-1
Bob O-QIV
Cc The Honorable Richard H Bryan
United States Senate
Terrv Haussler, Project Director
Federal Highway Administration
Founding Mem ben
Small Rnutm* Attaint .ration
Response to Comment Bll
See the FHWA Central Federal Lands Highway Division letter (dated
March 12, 1999, from Mr. Terry K Haussler) in response to comment letter
BIO, dated February 17, 1999, from the American Indian Chamber of
Commerce of Nevada.
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
B-37
-------
B12
B12-1
B12-2
B12-3
B12-4
B12-5
Apnl 26, 1999 Reference HPD-16
TeiTj FC Haussler, P E
U S Dcpt ol Transportation
Federal Highway \dirumstranon
555 Zang Street. Room 259
Lakewood. CO 80228
Dear Mr Haussler
Thank you for the subject material regarding the Hoover Dam flypast Proposal for
construction ol aii additional bridge over the Colorado Rivei to alLvute the heavy vehicle
traffic flow and influx of tourist at the Dam We appreciate the contact and solicitation for
tnbal input from the AHAMAKAV CULTURAL SOCIETY
Of utmost concern regarding the project is the possible negative impact on future bunal
sites We are aware human remains and associated funerary objects have been unearthed
at Willow Beach and nearby locations through archaeological surveys, floodwaters,
excavations and probably also through some inadvertent discovenes
The Mojave People of the luwei Colorado River began their existence on earth in the
Black Canyon/Spirit Mountain locale - where still is witnessed the caves, rock shelters
petioglyphs, trails, and wherein lie the source of Mojave legends and songs These
traditional lands extend to the present Blytlie CA area
Although the Vlojave has always cremated their dead, including associated funerary.
religious and ceremonial objects, there renuuts a deep concern for possible future
discovenes Therefore, we strongly urge P L 106 compliance in addition to 2) Prohibiting
photographs for public use in any manner, b) Divulgence of bunal sites, c) If tribal
permission allows analysis procedure of remains that no destructive material be utilized in
the performance, d) Completion of the analysts in a timely manner, e) Return of remains,
el al, to uutul site ior reintemmcnt if area safe, f) Contact of proper aliilulcd Inbe,
otherwise for other arrangements
An additional concern is for the endangered wildlife species in the project area namely
the tortoise and the eagle What protection/preservation measures would be provided9
Might future removal lo other sues be considered if necessary?
Irregardless of the route and bridge site selected by 1-HWA. Federal Highways
Administration, Traditional Cultuial Properties \\ould by affected to some degree
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
US Department
of Transporiaiion
Federal Highway
Administration
Central Federal Lands
Highway Division
May 21, 1999
555 Zang Slroel Room 259
Lakowood CO 80229
In Reply Rtfet To
HFL-16
Ms Clda Butler
Director
AHAMAKAV CULTURAL SOCIETY
PO Box 5990
Mohavc Valley, AZ 86440
Dear Ms Butler
Thank you for your letter dated April 26, 1999, with your comments and concerns about the
Hoover Dam Bypass project Your concerns are similar lo those we heard from other tribes
during the ethnographic interviews Last year
Much of your letter was concerning Die possibility of encountering burial sites during
construction During our cultural resource surveys, we did not find any burial sites along any of
the proposed corndors Because the terrain is very steep and locky (hroughout most of the
project area, we do not anticipate encountering any sites during construction either, however, if
any arc encountered, you can be assured that construction will be temporarily stopped in ilut
area Appropriate procedures will be followed, including the notification of tribal
representatives
During the biological surveys, no bald eagle roosting sites were found m the project area
Additional surveys will be done prior to construction If any perch sites or roosting silti aie
found, consultation will be re-imtiated with the U S Fish and Wildlife Service. We are now
consulting with them to develop a mitigation plan to minimize impacts to the desert tortoise
Mitigation is likely to include measures such as having a qualified biologist on site during
construction and relocating any tortoises thut are encountered dunng construction
In late December 1998, after evaluating comments from the public, agencies, and other
organizations, we decided to proceed with the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative as the preferred
alternative During our telephone conversation this week, you indicated that you prefer the
Promontory Point Alternative over the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative As we discussed, both
of these alternatives have less environmental impacts than the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
Both alternatives arc located less than 1/3 mile from the dam and both use comdois that ..re
already largely disturbed Most agencies and organizations prefer the Sugarloaf Mountain
Alternative because it has the least environmental impacts, the best roadway geometry, jrid
because it would distract less from the views from the top of Hoover Dam The Piomontory
Point Alternative requires the longest bridge ot the three "build" alternatives, because it spans
across Lake Mead Even though we arc proposing a "containment" system to capture any
B38
-------
Thank \ou Plca^ nuiif\ us uf fulUK uiiJoukuigs ftludi may he of loncem lo th«.
Vlojave
Sun.eri.iy yours
Elda Butler, Director
AHAMAKAV CULTURAL SOCIETY
P O Box 5990
Moliave Valley AZ 86440
tB Ido
cc .Vlr AJI.n Gross Bollock and Gross 517 W University Dr Icmpc AZ 85281
SCO/LAW2664 DOC/003672584
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
hazardous material spills on the bridge, we have received several comments with concerns about
the possibility of contaminating Lake Mead - a major source of drinking water for southern
Nevada
Even though we are proceeding with the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative, a final decision will
not be made until the Record of Decision is issued next year Our schedule is as follows
July 1999 - Begin consultation with State Historic Preservation Office
Aug 1999 - Begin additional tribal coordination
Dec 1999 - Distribute Final EIS for comments
Jan 2000 - Issue Record of Decision
Thanks again for taking the lime to review the Diaft E1S and lo provide your comments lo us
We will be contacting you later this summer as we continue to coordinate with interested tribes
If you wish to discuss our selection of the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative, or if you have any
other questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at (303) 716-2116 or Jitn Roller,
Project Manager, at (303) 716-2009
Sincerely yours,
jCf^i^y- fi
Terry K Haussler.PE
EIS Manager
B39
-------
RESPONSES TO ORGANIZATIONS' COMMENTS
This page intentionally left blank.
SCO/UW266
-------
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
HOOVER DAM BYPASS
HEARING
OCTOBER 13, 1998
KINGMAN, ARIZONA
Reported by. Christine Bem:Lt,s, CSR, RPR
(COPY)
Certified Court Reporters
PO Box 508-Lake Havasu City, AZ 86405-0508
(520) 453-6760•1-800-854-4796 • FAX (520) 453-5948
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
D1
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SPEAKERS
Robert Earl Kniffen (Bridge Builder)
Charles Shull (Concerned Citizen, Kingtian)
JoElle Hums (Director of Laughlin
Chamber of Commerce)
Patricia Tester (Concerned Citizen, Kingman)
Sam filters (Concerned Citizen, Kingman)
Frank Jenkins (Mohave County
Transportation Commission)
Elaine Momssette (Concerned citizen, Kingman)
Robert Morrissette (Concerned Citizen, Kingrian)
Larry Castillo (Moha-'e County
Transportation Comirission)
Ed- th McFerriti (Concerned Citizen, Kingman)
James McFerrin (Concerned Citizen, Kingman)
FAYETTE i ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
02
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
**
4
01-1 5
6
7
8
9
D1-2 10
1 i.
T ~>
13
14
15
16
17
18
13
20
21
22
23
D2-1 24
25
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1998
5-00 P K
Of
MR KMIFFEM- Hell, I believe this Gold
Strike one xs the best because of traffic. It don't
get in the way of all the tourists and everything
taat's there
And I think that the only thing I would
like to see is the bridge being, maybe, 100 feet or
2Cu £eet higher than w.ere it ~s no*, the elevation
of -t I think it woald be a lot easi°r — ev=>r>
though it cot,ts more, I think it hould be easier to
put it down there than i<- would ba closer to the dam
Try i no to get all the material IP and out down over
Dy the aair is going to be quite a chore, you know
When it's right there, -t woula be pretty simple to
get in
I'd like to see the Gold Strike alternative
go down through there. I think that will do it
* * *
D2
MR. SHULL I feel that the Sugarloaf is a
bad alternative and that Gold Strike is much more
viable in the fact that it takes it out of view of
FAYEffB s ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
Dl Kniffen, Robert Earl
Response to Comment Dl-1
See Sections 2,6.2 and 2 6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative.
Response to Comment Dl-2
The height of the Gold Strike Canyon bridge is dictated by the elevation of
the approach roadways. The profile of the bridge and roadways was set at
the conceptual design stage to maintain acceptable grades while
minimizing deep cuts, high fills, and numerous smaller bridges through the
mountains and canyons.
Construction of the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative will all be done on new
alignment, except at the tie-in points with existing U S. 93 in Nevada and
Arizona. Hence, disruption of U.S. 93 traffic and darn activities will be
minimized.
D2 Shull, Charles
Response to Comment D2-1
See Sections 2 6.2 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative.
Hoover Dam may be visible from high-profile vehicles traveling over the
Sugarloaf Mountain bridge; however, the high elevation of the bridge,
relative to the dam, and the safety rail will minimize viewing opportunities.
The EIS (Section 3.8.2.2) states that there will be no stopping for views of
the dam on the new bridge. Parking, pedestrians, and bicycles on the
bridge would create a safety hazard.
SCO/I.AW2666 DOC/003672586
D3
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
', 1
12
13
14
J.5
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the dam, for -safety reasons, I guess
*• * *
D3
MS. HURNS: About two years ago, Laughlxn
was approached by NDOT to discuss being considered as
an alternative for the Hoover Dam Bypass It was a
quick, poorly publicized meeting, and I think that
the buzz words were "hazard waste material" and
"18 wheelers "
As a conmunlty, we discouraged thu Laughlin
and Bulineac City route as being considered because
-is aid-.'t think we ccuJd provide s*fe passage for the
trucks with our existing roadways, and we also didn't
urderstar.d tl>a'- there nnight bo funds available to
address those i&sues.
Basically, we tnoughL that they were
transferring one problem aownstroam to another
comnunity
Sance that time, we've learned that there
are several sites being considered and that there's
upwards of $200 million available to accommodate the
need
Just six months ago, Laughlin asked to be
reconsidered, if not for economic reasons at least
for improvements to our highways. We understand
FAYETTE S ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D4
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
2
3
1
5
03-1 5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
D4-1 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
D4-2 21
22
23
24
25
we've been eliminated for reasons that deal with the
steepness of the grade in and out of our community,
and, also, that it's 23 miles longer than the
existing route
We support a bypass to Hoover Dam and stand
ready in the future, if our alternative is to be
considered
When I say "we stand ready," I mean ke
stand ready to look at the environmental impact, the
economic iripact, and the financial impact that it
would nave on our area
D4
MS TESTER- I was ^ust wnrder.ng i *• I will
see this new road in my la. retiree I ires'-, they have
ceen talking about this for 35 yeais, anc. horJ much
longer are we going to have to talk abouL _t before
we start doing something about if Are they going to
have to wait for a major disaster before they will
consider putting in new roads, like, you know toxic
waste, you know? Is that going to go into the water0
I mean, we have to drink this water here Are wo
going to have to wait until, you know, half the daT.
goes, you know, or contaminates the water before
they'll do something.
FAYETTE S ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
D3 Hums, JoElle
Response to Comment D3-1
For detailed discussion of the rationale for eliminating the LBA, please see
EIS Section 2.5 and responses to Comments Bl-5, Bl-7, C7-2, C7-3, C7-4,
and C7-9.
D4 Tester, Patricia
Response to Comment D4-1
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative can be officially adopted after
approval of the ROD in early 2001. After the ROD, engineering of the
roadways and bridges will be completed, and construction should begin by
2002 and be finished in 2007.
Response to Comment D4-2
The possibility of chemical spills affecting water quality was discussed in
Sections 3.4.2.2 and 3.4.3.2 of the DEIS. All three build alternatives would
include strategically located settling basins, which function as chemical
spill containment structures. Additionally, storm runoff from the bridge
roadways would collect in these basins. All bridges over live water would
have the potential to collect the "first flush" runoff volume from the bridge,
as well as the spill volume that might be generated from a semi-truck
tanker spill.
One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point Alternative was not
identified as the preferred alternative was the concern expressed by
numerous agencies and citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill
from the bridge into Lake Mead contaminating this major public drinking
water supply.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D5
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
3
4
5
D43 6
7
8
9
10
11
] 4
15
16
17
18
DM 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
well, I guess that's about It, you know I
just wanted to know if 1 was going to be able to see
this roaa go In my lifetime And I'n> not that old
yet,
Going through -Laughlin is 30 miles farther,
and they have to go down this steep grade, going to
Route 68 to Laughlin, and then go up the steep grade
going up the other way. And then Route 95 Is only a
two lane, and there's lots of traffic going there,
lots of traffic, you know Truckers won't do it.
They won't do j t. And 68 is bafi, too They said
they're supposed lo mcke that a four lane nay down
the mojntain, and there's an awful lot o^ accidents
on there?, too A lot of them burn up their brakes
going down the mountain
OS
KR ELTERS Basically, I an in support of
the project, and I feel that the Sucrarloaf
alternative, being the cheapest and being that it
offers better grades than the Gold Strike one, is
probably tne beat alternative to go voth.
I strongly believe that the No Build is a
no option at this tune, no viable option.
FAYETTE 4 ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
Response to Comment D4-3
For detailed discussion of the rationale for eliminating the LBA
(Route 95/163/68), please see E1S Section 2.5 and responses to
Comments Bl-5, Bl-7, C7-2, C7-3, C7-4, and C7-9.
D5 filters, Sam
Response to Comment D5-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative
as the preferred alternative Section 2.6.2.1 of the FEIS discusses the
rationale for this decision. The preferred alternative resolves the negative
impacts associated with the No Build Alternative (e.g., the steep grades
approaching the dam, hairpin turns, and the risk of truck accidents on the
dam crossing contaminating the waters of Lake Mead and the Colorado
River).
D6 Jenkins, Frank
Response to Comment D6-1
An overlook along the Nevada roadway approach to the bridge is not
possible because the mountain above the existing Nevada switchback
blocks the view (see EIS Figures 2-9, 2-10, 3-9, and 3-10). Another option
would be to provide a shuttle bus parking area and allow pedestrians to
walk to a viewing facility on or in the vicinity of the proposed Colorado
River bridge; however, because of the rugged terrain, the proposed rock
cuts (50 to 100 feet high) adjacent to the bridge, and the proximity of the
Arizona-Nevada Switchyard, the only possible locations for a parking area
would be either at the switchyard site, if the switchyard is removed, or
approximately 1,000 feet west of the Colorado River bridge. This relatively
long walk adjacent to a busy highway would discourage most travelers
from stopping. There would also be Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliance and safety issues to resolve.
Ten transmission towers and a hill between the end of the bridge and the
dam would interfere with the view on the Arizona side. Similar to the
Nevada side, a 1,200-foot-long, high through-cut (between 50 and 120 feet
high) is proposed at the east approach to the bridge. Although the terrain
1,200 feet east of the bridge would allow construction of a parking area, this
would complicate construction of a stormwater detention area that is
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D6
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
D6-1 2
3
4
5
6
D7-1 7
8
9
10
11
12
DS-1 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
D9-1 21
22
23
24
D6
MR JENKINS My suggestion is, they need a
viewing area on the Arizona side and on the Nevada
side, and they don't have it in their proposal,
* * -*
07
MS MORRISSETTE' I definitely am in Eavor
of che Sugarloaf route, Budging from what I read in
all the comments made about It That's it.
* * *
D8
KR. MORRISSETTE I feel the very same
The Sugar!ocf route would be oar choice, based on
environmental cost and the money, t lire it will take
for th<= proiect, versus the others
* * *
D9
MR CASTILLO Q"i the Boulder Dam Bypass, I
tiink we need to qet taat through just as soon as
possible because the traffic there is just atrocious.
And, really, we're afraid that someone is going to
get killed or hurt seriously There's already been
several accidents there. Not only in the sense of
Sdfety, bat its convenience Cor traveling without the
holdups, that I think it's one of the most urgent
projects we have.
FAYETTE & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COtfRT REPORTERS
proposed in this location. Even if there were room for a parking area,
visitors would not be likely to hike 1,200 feet along a busy highway to view
Hoover Dam from the new bridge Also, like the Nevada side, there would
be ADA compliance and safety problems
Despite these challenges, FHWA will study the matter during final design
of the highway bypass to determine the technical feasibility of a separate
viewing facility associated with the bridge Further details of such a facility
cannot be determined until design of the bridge and approaches is
advanced beyond the current level. Details of how people would be
conveyed to the viewing facility and evaluation of environmental impacts
would be addressed in a separate project report and NEPA document if the
construction scope exceeds the anticipated impacts addressed in this EIS.
D7 Morrissette, Elaine
Response to Comment D7-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment
as the preferred alternative. Section 2.6.2.1 of the FEIS discusses the
rationale for this decision.
D8 Morrissette, Robert
Response to Comment D8-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment
as the preferred alternative. Section 2.6.2.1 of the FEIS discusses the
rationale for this decision. See also response to Comment A1-1.
D9 Castillo, Larry
Response to Comment D9-1
Assuming that funding becomes available and environmental clearances
are obtained, construction will start on the bypass in 2002 and be completed
in 2007.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D7
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
D10 1 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
D11-1 22
23
24
25
* * *
D10
MS McFERRIN: I feel that the dam should
be built as soon as possible — the bridge, not the
dam — I'm sorry, the bridge, as soon as possible —
due to the amount of traffic, it's a grave concern to
me I don't think this dam or bridge that we have
now was built to anticipate the amount of traffic
that's over it now.
I personally like the Gold Strike Canyon
route 1 think that it's safer having it out of
sight of tr>c dam so that people aren't shopping to
look at the dam, and I don't feel the irrpact is that
rruch greater I nean, it is gre^to^, out not that
much greater
* * »
D11
MR. McFERRIN- We have lived in the Kingman
area for over 30 years We've seen the traffic
increase over Hoover Dam, during those 30 years.
probably 20 taipes the amount there was when we
started I do not believe the Hoover Dam can
withstand that much traffic. I would like to see an
alternative bridge started as soon as possible.
I favor the Gold Strike Canyon, even though
FAYETTE & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
D10
McFerrin, Edith
Response to Comment D10-1
Assuming that funding becomes available and environmental clearances
are obtained, construction will start on the bypass in 2002 and be completed
in 2007.
See Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative.
Hoover Dam may be visible from high-profile vehicles traveling over the
Sugarloaf Mountain bridge; however, the high elevation of the bridge,
relative to the dam, and the safety rail will minimize viewing opportunities
The EIS (Section 3.8.2.2) states that there will be no stopping for views of
the dam on the new bridge. Parking, pedestrians, and bicycles on the
bridge would create a safety hazard.
D11 McFerrin, James
Response to Comment Dll-1
See Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative. The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative has the most
severe impact on desert bighorn sheep and would adversely impact a
popular hiking trail through Gold Strike Canyon to the hot springs.
SCO/LA W2666 DOC/003672586
D8
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
"7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it will be the more expensive route, as far as money.
I feel that it would be less impact, on the anxmals
and the beauty of the terrain And if I get voted
down on Gold strike, then 1 go for SugarloaC
Thank you
(Whereupon, the hearing concluded at
8 00 p m )
FMETTE S ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COUBT REPORTERS
SCOAAW2666 DOC/003672586
D9
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
I
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1?
13
14
1 b
16
18
19
20
2 1
22
?3
24
25
CERTIFICATE
I, Christine Bemiss, CSR, RPR, do hereby
certify.
That the foregoing proceedings were taken by me
in shorthand and thereafter transcribed under my
direction;
That the foregoing nine (9) pages contain a true
and correct transcription, of my shorthand notes so
td ken
I further certify that I am not interested in
the events or this action.
WITStss my hand UM s> P^^ day of (DukHac /i_ /
19 1'< .
v , /f\W>Ui-Ji '«lSi.r«^V*-—
Christine Bemiss, CSft* RPR
FATCf TE 4 ASSOCIATES
CERTIflED COURT REPORTERS
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003B72586
D-10
-------
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
ORIGINAL
HOOVER DAM BYPASS PROJECT
PUBLIC HEARING FOR DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PUBLIC COMMENTS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1S9B
5 OD P M
Community College of Southern Nevada
700 Wyoming Street
Boulder City, Nevada
Reported by SHAWN E OTT, CCR No 577
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South Dtli Sired, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
D11
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
- 6
1 /
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
#*• 2 5
10/14/98 BOUliDER CITY
2
I. N D 5 x
COMMBMT OF r,rp
£j£jvj^
DON WORKS 3
RICHARD Li BENTQB 3
RALPH L HUGHES 4
ROBERT SHANNON g
WADE STOCKEY 6
ED tIEHLING fi
ANONYMOUS 7
I"RS HERMAN 8
RUSSELL VANDEBERG 8
AKOKYMCDS - n
JOHN FLOYD 1:L
I.AtlRTKWERR * ASSOriATITS f7ft1\ l«fi_o«-»
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Ne?ada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/W36725B6
D12
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
b
6
7
8
9
10
D12-1 11
12
13
!•,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
D13 1 23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
3
BOULDER CITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEV, WED , OCT 14, 1998
5 00 P M
- oOo -
D12
DON WORKS Don Works I'm a Reno
resident born and raised in Nevada, and I chink the
dam is a. good thing, but I don't really like the fact
that it's so close to Boulder City and they're goinc
to be hauling nuclear disposal through the town So
if they could move it down a little ways to
Searchlight it would be good It's a great idea
because Lhere could be an accident on the dam and who
knows what could happen, and if they are nauljng
nuclear stuff across the aan now, it coula also geL
in'io the water f.ynte-'i in whj.c!" you g-ys co drink out
of it and aump your stutl, tmnking of it I do.i' t
understand that So that's abojt it
D13
RICHARD BEN1ON Richard L Benton, 104
Graham Court, Boulder City I believe that the
Sugarloaf Mountain alternative would be the best way
to go It's already cost much more than it took to
build the dam ]ust in looking at the problem by our
many bureaucratic government facilities, much more
than it needed to be What we need to do is get the
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 Soutll 9th Street, Las VegM, Nevada 89101
D12 Works, Don
Response to Comment D12-1
The highway drainage system in the area near the dam on the Nevada side
of the river flows off the edge of the road, down the canyon face, onto the
Nevada power house roof, and into the Colorado River. In the event of a
serious spill, in addition to potential water pollution issues, materials
spilled on the road would drain off the road into the Nevada power house,
possibly resulting in powerhouse damage or destruction. The proposed
project will remove trucks carrying these materials from the dam crossing
and provide a straight, four-lane highway crossing on new alignment that
will reduce potential spill risks.
A spill containment system is proposed for the build alternatives. The
purpose of the system is to isolate and collect spilled material at the site and
convey the material off the bridge for containment This system will be
developed during the design phase of the project.
D13 Benton, Richard L.
Response to Comment D13-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment
as the preferred alternative. Section 2 6 2 1 of the FEIS discusses the
rationale for this decision. See also response to Comment Al-1.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D13
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
^2
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
014-1 20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
4
]ob done, make a decision and get the ]ob done I
know chat's difficult, for bureaucrats to do, but it
car. be done It will coee more thai the dam like the
gift shop and overview did, and I think that it's
about time it gets done
One bad spill on that dan will ;just
annihilate the lower Colorado, cause international
pronlems with Mexico, and we have wasted too much
time already, and if you greedy little people ir.
Boulder City who think they're going to make a nickel
from sons tourist stopp-ng at their store should not
oven be considered or listened to Let's get the job
done Thar.k you, citizen, voter and concerned
D14
RALPH HUGHFS Ralph L Hughes I came
out tonight to kind of look over tne alternatives and
sec what possible negative part there could be to
it I can't seem to find any The congestion at the
dam has gotten worse and worse I have been here 30
years and use the route numerous times, and in the
last few years, it is ]ust been atrocious It's
anywhere from an hour to 40 minutes to get across, go
over the nine miles front the top on the Arizona side
to come this way
Also I teel like we've just been leading a
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, LM Vegas, Nevada 89101
D14 Hughes, Ralph L.
Response to Comment D14-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment over the
Promontory Point alignment as the preferred alternative are presented in
Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the FEIS and in response to Comments A10-2,
A13-1, and Cll-6. One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point
Alternative was not the preferred alternative was the concern expressed by
numerous agencies and citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill
from the bridge into Lake Mead contaminating this major public drinking
water supply. It also has the most impact to water recreation, since boating
restrictions would be implemented during construction.
Comparing existing topography along the approaches of the alternative
bridge alignments, it would be most practical to construct a west-end
parking lot and walkway to a viewing facility on or in the vicinity of the
Promontory Point bridge. The Promontory Point bridge is more conducive
to accommodating a viewing area of the dam than the Sugarloaf Mountain
bridge (compare Figures 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7 with Figures 2-9 and 2-10 in the
EIS, and see response to Comment D6-1). The Promontory Point bridge is
also 500 feet closer to Hoover Dam and has no intervening transmission
towers to block views of the dam.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D14
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14, 1998
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
1 1
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
73
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
S
charmed life not having an accident down there or
something serious happening There's been so many
times that we've come within just an eyelash of
losing a tanker over the edge of one of them curves
Truck, lose its brakes and crash into those tourist
crowds on top oi the dam
I think the bypass is really what we need,
and I really like the one above the dam I think it
will be become a tourist attraction in itself That
suspension bridge, I think that will Become a
Landmark in its own right People will oe corripg
from around the world just to look at the bridge, an
if tney put a viewpoint at each end of those bridces
there, that's going to be anotner dtav-ing card, I
thi n^
I've beei n construction for 4C years,
and I really like the idea of the upstieam bridge
mairly because they don't have to do nearly as much
work on the approaches to the bridge There's not
that much land and keeping the wildlife disturbances
at a minimum Environmentally and aesthetically, I
think it's a very pleasing project on the Promontory
bridge approach That's all I have to say
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South »Ii Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D15
-------
D1S-1 5
9
10
15
IS
17
20
21
D17-1 23
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
D15
ROBERT SHANNON Robert Shannon
I would
like to see the promontory Point Alternative as the
bridge to cross over I thirk it's more feasible as
far as cost and the fact that you don't have to
drive -- you'll avoid a lot of the same traffic going
to the dam, and the trucks will have an easier time
crossing over without slowing you up on the other
alternatives That's all
D16
WADE STUCKEY Wade Stuckey I'm a
resident of. Henderson, ^evadi ~ " m interested in the
bridge going up and going up union, and out of the
ones 1 saw, I th^nk tne Proirontory Point wojld be the
more feasible one, Detter for the tourist industry
And I prefer the cable suf-pi c - on bria$e That's
aoout al_ I can tell you That's what I prefer
O17
ED tJEHLlMQ
My name is Ed Uehltng
My
main concern is the design of the bridge and the
visual impact it will have on the dam The dam is a
valuable national treasure It has a specific
architecture to it
The visitors center that was
constructed clashes with that -- with that
architecture and it defaces the dsti. In essence,
defaces this national treasurer, and it would be a
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 SMiih Mil Street, Las Vegas, Nerada 891111
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
D15 Shannon, Robert
Response to Comment D15-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment as the
preferred alternative rather than the Promontory Point alignment are
presented in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the FEIS and in response to
Comments A10-2, A13-1, and Cll-6.
D16 Stuckey, Wade
Response to Comment D16-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment as the
preferred alternative rather than the Promontory Point alignment are
presented in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the FEIS and in response to
Comments A10-2, A13-1, and Cll-6.
D17 Uehling, Ed
Response to Comment D17-1
Construction of the preferred alternative (or the Promontory Point
Alternative) will have an adverse effect on Hoover Dam due to the
introduction of visual elements that are out of character with the landmark.
As required under Section 106 of the NHPA, FHWA consulted with the
Nevada and Arizona SHPOs and entered into a PA with the SHPOs, the
federal ACHP, and other parties committing to measures that will mitigate
the adverse visual effect. Those measures will be adopted in the ROD for
this project.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D16
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1?
^ 3
*4
1 S
16
17
i e
19
D18-1 20
21
??
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
7
tragedy if the bridge also acted in Che same
capacity, to trash the design, the architecture, the
heritage of this incredible building, incredible
structure that exists here
So in conclusion, if you can't find a
designer that's going to do an art deco 1930s
industrial-type structure, then clearly the best
alternative is to have it as far away from the dam as
possible where it can't be seen, where it doesn't
pollute rhe visuals and tne architecture and the
her-lags cf the aaii
018
ANONYMOUS Well, I object ro the
Promontory bridge from the aesthetic Viewpoint, extra
mileage ana it's rore dangerous thar t-e bridge
because rrac-ks could go off both sjdes and fall into
the lake My objection to tne Sugarloaf Mountain
would again take away from the bridge, and I think
you would have danger of motorists stopping on the
bridge or slowing down to view the bridge at night --
I mean, tne dam at night when it's lit up
And I suppose I would prefer the Gold
Strike Canyon, but I understand that the road is very
steep compared to the others, and if I had my way, I
would make it a toll bridge to get it completed and
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9«h Street, Las Vegas, Netada 89101
D18 Anonymous
Response to Comment D18-1
One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point Alternative was not
identified as the preferred alternative was the concern expressed by
numerous agencies and citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill
into Lake Mead affecting this major drinking water supply.
Hoover Dam may be visible from high-profile vehicles traveling over the
Sugarloaf Mountain bridge; however, the high elevation of the bridge,
relative to the dam, and the safety rail will minimize viewing opportunities.
The EIS (Section 3.8.2.2) states that there will be no stopping for views of
the dam on the new bridge. Parking, pedestrians, and bicycles on the
bridge would create a safety hazard.
See Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative.
NDOT and ADOT conducted a financial feasibility study to determine
viable funding sources for the Hoover Dam bypass The study assessed a
toll crossing among other options (see EIS Section 2.9 and response to
Comment C3-2).
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D17
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
D19 1 5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
D20-1 14
1 r>
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
8
make the people who use it pay for it Thank you
D19
MRS BERMAN Berman Really and
truthfully I'd like to have the one that's the least
stress on the animals That's the main thing So
that's all I have to say
D20
RUSSELL VA.NDEBERG Russell Vandeberg,
Boulder City here My thought here, I don't like any
of these locations ac far as the best location, as
far as the best As far as the one of the three
being considered, Sugarloaf Mountain looks by far the
better of ary of the three Keeps the lake free,
keeps the biidge up in the a 11 , and I see no problem
as far as ary view is concerned They ^hine and
moan We see bridges all over So trat would be the
best of those three
But ray thought, we'll go righ- back to
Willow Beach crossing, north route, as far as the
best of all ideal routes I know the Sierra Club is
fighting it like old Harry, and I know the park
service is unhappy wltn it, but who tnaae the park
service'3 The people made it, and they can grant a
vaiiance to put a highway across there just as damn
quick as they granted them permission to stop all
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 91h Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D19 Mrs. Berman
Response to Comment D19-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative
as the preferred alternative partly because it has the least impact on desert
bighorn sheep, peregrine falcons, and the desert tortoise. Section 2.6.2.1 of
the FEIS discusses the rationale for this decision.
D20 Vandeberg, Russell
Response to Comment D20-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment
as the preferred alternative. Section 2.6.2.1 of the FEIS discusses the
rationale for this decision. See also response to Comment Al-1.
The Willow Beach crossing has been eliminated from further detailed
consideration. After being compared to screening criteria, this alternative
fell short in five important areas, thus eliminating it as a potential route (see
Section 2.5 of the EIS and response to Comments C4-1, C4-2, C4-3, and
C4-4). As explained in the EIS Executive Summary under Areas of
Controversy, this route was eliminated from further consideration because
it requires about 19 additional miles of new roadway, primarily through
NFS land, and has substantially greater environmental impacts and higher
construction costs.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
018
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
9
construction A stroke of the pen will do it.
They've got millions of acres in
California that they just set aside here a couple of
years for these turtles, and the sheep, there is
millions of acres out there for them That little
bit that the highway takes, no problem
So the Sierra Club doesn't rate high in my
book at all, a bunch of kooks and trust babies if you
want ny version of them They want something to yap
on and don't know half of what they're talking
about
The Willow Beach route is so simple Look
at the map is all you need to do, and you will see
many [riles saved fiOfi tne present routes that are
bejng proposed, ar.d you multiply tiat by 1C,000
vehicles a day -- DOT says 14,COO crass the dam
This would still leave 4 000 tourists across the dan
and 10,000 trucks and business people to take the
shortcut route, saving many miles every day and
cruising it at 60 miles an hour rather than a crawl
or stopping for stop signs
This present route through Boulder City
will have five stop signs by the time at is in if
they place one at Gold Strike, and they'll need
another one on the exits down below Now, even four
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D19
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
1 0
i <
12
13
14
1 5
13
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/96 BOULDER CITY
10
stop signs in a nine-mile stretch of road from
Railroad Pass to Gold Strike does not constitute a
highway, an interstate highway It constitutes a
mess, and that's what Boulder City is right now, a
mess
So, okay, I realize that one bigger
appropriation will be hard to get Two smaller
appropriations will probably fit the pie so if it
has to be the two smaller, certainly the Sugarloaf
crossing is the ideal one to go for now, and then
however they want to bypass Boulder City is another
Ailing I'll be aead long before that ever hapoens so
there's no need for n.e to worry a great deal about it
except it irritates ire to see so mjct money wabted
I urdorstand this project begar in 1960
whet, the first talk war, started with the Arizona and
N'evada states, acid surveys, evaluations done, if you
add tnose together, the total cost of those surveys
and evaluations will far exceed the cost of this
present project Had it been built 10, is years ago,
it would have been built at half or a third the price
is going to cost today So how smart can we get,
wait another ten years and let it cost double again'
That's about the way it's going to happen unless soire
people get off their duff and get this thing done
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
$17 South 9lh Sired, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D-20
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
S
6
D21 1 7
8
9
10
ia
12
11
i
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
10
11
12
) 3
14
15
16
1 /
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
12
parking or they want Che truckers' every nickel they
can get And if you go the Railroad Pass way now,
there's 24 or 30 trucks there, and from there across
the darn is probably the most dangerous road in the
United States, partly because of their stoplight
But it wouldn't surprise me to see a stoplight on the
freeway for Railroad Pass and the Gold Strike
That's all I got to say I think it ought to go
through Laughlin The bridge would be a lot cheaper
and that road's terrible and needs to be rebuilt
anyway Would kill two Dirds with one stone TharV
you
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9lb Sued, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D22
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/yu
CITY
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF NEVADA. )
) ss
COUNTY OF CLARK )
I, Shawn E Ott, Certified Shorthand
Reporter, do hereby certify that I took down in
Stenotype all of the proceedings had in the
before-ent1tled matter at the time and place
indicated and that thereafter said shorthand notes
were transcribed into typewriting at and under iiy
direction and supervision aid that the foregoing
transcript constitutes a full, true and accurate
record of the proceedings bad
IS WITNESS WK2HEO?, I have hereunto set my
hand and affixed my official seal in try office in the
County 01 C.ark, State of Nevada, this J3O day of
AAVCA ) , 1998
Shawn E Ott
CCR No 577
LAURIE WEBB
$6-9322
517 South 9lh Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LA W2666 DOC/003672586
023
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
o
10
1 1
12
1 j
14
15
1 f,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
ORIGINAL
BOULDER CITY
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
In Re )
}
HOOVER DAM BYPASS PROJECT )
PUBLIC HEARING FOR
DRAFT L NVIRON^IENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
at the Commanity College of Sojthern Nevada
Soulder Cily Campus
700 Kyotring Street, Room 100
Boulder City, Nevada
Ot. Wednesday, October 14, 1998
At 5 CO p i-
Reported by
Teresa Lynn Dougherty
CCR No 365
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Neiada 891(11
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D24
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
I
2
3
4
023-1 5
6
7
8
9
] 0
1 1
12
13
D24-1 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
D23
thereupon,
MR ADAMS This is Tho-nas w Aaatns,
2900 El Camir.o, Apartment 13U, Las Vegss 89102
Weil I - I'm just waiting on the bridge
to coipe through I'd like to work on it You
know, give access to -- another access Lo Vegas
Anymore tian that I'd be repeating myself
D24
MR LEE Jones Lee, 3850 Mt V>sta,
Apartment 145, I,as Vegas 89121
I'd like to see it have a building
becajse ; commute back and forth from here I wort
en the Venetian, now, and every two weeks I go bac<
to Albuquerque, Seti Mexico Soiretiraes it's a
headache going acruss the bridge, ei-b.ei going back
or coming oack Into Vegas
And ail the traffic tha.'s i-i there and
ta~ people at the dam, »• o mo Lt would b^ a gooa
idea to build one of tne three briaqes
Ana I like the one that's -- what's the
name -- the promontory, the one that's further on
top of the water, it's the longest, and I think
that'k the most second expensive I think
The reason I nke it is because like for
us it would be more work fcr us because the
construction is longer, and it would be safer for
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 Sooth Mh Street, I at Veg«, fteatta 8»I»1
D23 Adams, Thomas W.
Response to Comment D23-1
Assuming that funding becomes available and environmental clearances
are obtained, construction will start on the bypass in 2002
D24 Lee, Jones
Response to Comment D24-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment over the
Promontory Point alignment as the preferred alternative are presented in
Sections 2.6.1 and 262 of the FEIS and in response to Comments A10-2,
A13-l,andCll-6.
SCO/LA W2666 DOC/003672586
D25
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
D2S-1 1 2
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
23
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
highway workers too because -- you know, I'm
sure - -
I th_nk that is the best having to have
a bridge and that's it
D2S
>'R ZIMMER Ea Zimmer, 5530 Plainview
Avenue, Las Vegas 89122
Looking at the designs I feel Promontory
Point would oe probaoly the most advantageous Or.c
significant thirg is that the grades approaching
the bridge aren't severe, would be beneficial to
trucking passing through the area They wouldn't
have tne long grades to pull tha^ they would have
on the other two
Also a oiidge above the dam would
preclude any possibil-ty oC erosion being a factor
in the bridge necausc tae Lake -- if anything
happened tc the dam, the lake above the dam would
e-npty out whereas belov. the cam there may be
significant wasning to erode footings and so forth
of the base rock
The cost of 704 million as opposed to
198 million for Sugarloaf isn't in my estimation
that significant
I think the steel rib through arch would
be more aesthetic and pleasing than the other
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9lh Street, Us Vegas, Nevada 89101
D25 Zimmer, Ed
Response to Comment D25-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment over the
Promontory Point alignment as the preferred alternative are presented in
Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the FEIS and in response to Comments A10-2,
A13-l,andCll-6.
One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point Alternative was not the
preferred alternative was the concern expressed by numerous agencies and
citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill into Lake Mead.
Construction within the Lake Mead watershed would impact water quality.
The Promontory Point Alternative would involve disturbing the slopes
directly above Lake Mead during construction. Both during and after
construction, sediment and other pollutants would enter the lake,
increasing the turbidity levels.
In identifying the preferred alternative, there was not a concern about the
potential for Hoover Dam failing and eroding or washing out a new bypass
bridge downstream. The planned bridge crossing on the Sugarloaf
Mountain alignment will be elevated 254 feet higher than the crest of
Hoover Dam, 836 feet above the Colorado River, and anchored to the
bedrock walls above Black Canyon.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D26
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 1
D28-1 12
-4
IS
16
1 7
18
19
2C
2 1
22
23
24
desi gns
10/14/98
I think that's the best choice
And that's my opinion and ^ur
appreciate your chinking about them
D26
MR REMENTERIA John Heroent Stntt, lai Vtgu, Neva* 89IJI
D26 Rementeria, John
Response to Comment D26-1
As stipulated in the EIS, the dam crossing will stay open to automobiles,
recreational vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists after the bypass route is
constructed (see EIS Section 3.9.2.1, Bicyclists and Pedestrians), This
commitment to keeping the dam crossing open to tourists will also be
adopted in the ROD for this project.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D27
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
D27 1 9
10
11
12
1 3
14
-.5
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
town I buy my groceries here and everything I
go to Henderson LO buy my lumber Everything I buy
is right here I've got a PO box over here .even,
but this is irrelevant
What I'm getting ready to say is tne way
we got it planned here and what I see, tne trucks
are still going to have to come through part of the
town, and the noise, everything is going to be
still there Wny don't they cut in and go down
south of the town by the airport and go out that
way
Now I'm going to tell you what this is
going to do It'i going to bring all of the trade
from Meadv.ew, Dolan Springs, and the people from
around the lake over there on this Side, all of
them cut right on through con_ng oveir lie^e anyway,
and going to build rhcir trade up in town
This will be ene last place they can get
gas cheap or anything else And it will gave the
people over there money even for buying their
groceries right here rather than going to Kingraan
I thins. It would be a better deal if
they went through down below the town and coring in
by WilJow Beach This is ]ust iry idea, and I
[really think it would build the town up It's
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South SUh Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D27 Thompson, Larry
Response to Comment D27-1
The Willow Beach crossing has been eliminated from further consideration.
After being compared to screening criteria, this alternative fell short in five
important areas, thus eliminating it as a potential route (see Section 2.5 of
the EIS and response to Comments C4-1, C4-2, C4-3, and C4-4). As
explained in the EIS Executive Summary under Areas of Controversy, this
route was eliminated from further consideration because it requires about
19 additional miles of new roadway, primarily through NFS (Section 4[f])
land, and has substantially greater environmental impacts and higher
construction costs.
See response to Comment Bl-4.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D-28
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 3
14
15
IS
17
', 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
going Co bring traffic and trade as far as cars,
but the big trucks and people that don't have use
for this will be bypassed
And 93 is going to be the NAFTA trade
route I don't want my town messed up Like I
said, this is home Let's keep it home I want
the business in here, but I don't want all this
extra stuff like the big trucks and all
Go out on the highway and arive 20 miles
in either direction, and you'll see what I mean
Tne highways are -gre up baa enough That way once
we keep the scenic route XL would be a halfway
aecent route
Between here and tec dam there's aL
least two herds of the long horn sheep I think
i t ' •! rbe -nost beautiful thing in the woild I
don't want them d.^turbcd They can't say we're
tearing up a habitat going the other way
I want somebody to understand what I'm
trying to say as well as for me just to sit here
and talk through my hat I know what I'm doing I
went out and looked these places over, so I know
what we're going through
T'ie next place it we can't get it that
way we'll have to go to Sugarloaf My best one
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D29
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
D28 1 11
1?
13
^ \
15
16
17
18
19
D29 1 20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
would be Lo bypass the town because of all the
truck traffic and stuff The truck is not going ,. o
stop anyway Why have them coming through the
town
We can take it off the record now
D28
MR SPURLOCK Robert Spurlock, 901
South Boulder Highway, #143, Henderson 89015
It's ray belief that the upstream portion
of tne dam has been forever altered by 700 feet o£
water and 7 mi113 on visitors a year Whereas
downs, tieim is still relatively *ild territory and
unchanged. For that reason, Promontory Point is
the orly acceptable alternative ir my opinion
D29
I MS BURGER Sue Bui-jer, 1457 Rawhide
Road, Boulder City 89005
I'm for it I wo^-k at the dam I can
see firsthand what the traffic proble-is are, ->ot
only for the truck drivers but for tourists
'visiting the dam and for those people crossing from
Nevada into Arizona ar>d vice versa
One concern is environmental impact
Seeing how the big horn sheep have adjusted, to the
road that's been there for some 60 years now, I
would imagine they're going to adjust to that too
It's nothing to go to work n the morning and see
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D28 Spurlock, Robert
Response to Comment D28-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment rather than
the Promontory Point alignment as the preferred alternative are presented
in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the FEIS and in response to Comments A10-2,
A13-l,andCll-6.
One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point Alternative was not the
preferred alternative was the concern expressed by numerous agencies and
citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill into Lake Mead. The
Sugarloaf Mountain route, being only 1,500 feet south of the dam, also
passes through a landscape heavily altered by construction of the dam,
with numerous electrical transmission towers and lines, substations, and
roadways.
D29 Burger, Sue
Response to Comment D29-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative,
with the proposed mitigation measures, as the preferred alternative on the
basis of minimizing environmental impacts, engineering and operational
advantages, and lower construction cost. Section 2.6.2.1 of the FEIS
discusses the rationale for its selection.
The preferred alternative includes four underpasses for bighorn sheep, as
well as two bridges and two overpasses that will be designed to encourage
safe sheep crossings of the U.S. 93 bypass.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D30
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
D30-1 10
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
D31 1 18
IS
20
21
22
23
74
25
10/14/98
the sr-eep along the sido of the road eating They
don't Jook like they feel threatened
Basically I'm for it, and I ] u s t hope it
can be done in the most efficient way with the
least impact to the environment I guess that's
1C D30
MS BLACKWELL Charlere Blackwel], 132
Forest Lane, Boulder City 89005
I tnink tney should scrap the present
datr project and have all the truck traffic go down
Lhrough Laughlin »*„..
M^l WHELAN Tor, Whelan, 701 Elm Street,
rflfl, Boulder City
Let's sec, I understand that the primary
reason to build t.ncse oridges is for safety, that
one of the safety issues is the traff.c itself
B_it a fi ture safety iss ie is going to be the
transportation of not only hazardous waste but
possibly nuclear waste
Therelore it is my suggestion that the
bridge should be as far downstream as it can
possibly be My suggestion would be Laughlin If
we could take th_s all the way Co Mexico, that's
really where the hazardous waste and nuclear wasto
should be crossing the Colorado River because it
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 Soulh 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D30 Blackwell, Charlene
Response to Comment D30-1
For detailed discussion of the rationale for eliminating the LBA
(Route 95/163/68), please see EIS Section 2.5 and responses to
Comments Bl-5, Bl-7, C7-2, C7-3, C7-4, and C7-9.
As discussed in EIS Section 2.5 and in response to Comment C7-12, NDOT
determined that a commercial truck ban on the dam is infeasible with no
existing practical alternative crossing. The crossing through Laughlin adds
23 miles to the trip from Las Vegas to Kingman, compared to the bypass
crossings near the dam.
D31 Whelan, Tom
Response to Comment D31-1
Please see response to Comment C7-9 for a discussion comparing the near-
dam crossings with a Laughlin crossing relative to the potential impact of a
hazardous material spill in the waters of the Colorado River. The
conclusion is that a major spill at the Laughlin crossing could cause
contamination in Lake Havasu, with the potential to affect millions of
people being much greater than a similar incident further upstream in
Lake Mohave. The CAP and the Colorado Aqueduct originate on this
stretch of the river, and both are major water suppliers to metropolitan
areas in southern Arizona and southern California.
The LBA might have economic benefits for communities along this route,
however, this is not part of the purpose and need for the Hoover Dam
Bypass (see response to Comments Bl-2 and Bl-5).
NDOT has begun preparation of an environmental study for the segment of
U.S. 93 between the Wagonwheel interchange and the Hacienda Hotel. In
programming this project, NDOT determined that the "Boulder City/
U.S. 93 Corridor Study " is completely independent from the Hoover Dam
bypass in terms of its purpose and need, as well as its potential social and
environmental impacts.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D31
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
10
11
1 ?
13
14
15
16
:i
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
wojld jeopardize the least amount of our water
resource if there was an accident
If the issue is safety, none of these
three options make any sense to me, because they
would jeopardize at least the Mojave if not the
Lake Mead Reservoir Let's move this thing as far
downstream as we possibly can
I understand the cridge in Laughlin
would cost somewhere around 35 to 40 million
These bridges are around 200 million Laughlin
wants this bridge and wanes the traffic to come
through tne.r town because they are in an economic
S 1 urrp
Let's irake sure the com-nunities along
the river benefit ana that we respond to the
interests and needs of those communities when we
make this decision
If any of these three bridges are built,
it will turn Boulder City into a median strip
between two freeways because NDOT will build a
bypass around Boulder City That bypass will cut
us off from our back door which is a recreation
area and turn it into a four lane international
freeway
That will destroy the property values of
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
032
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 C
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2B
10/14/98
10
many of the people who live in Boulder City on that
side of town, and it will destroy the aesthetic
value of the town and many of our opportunities for
capitalizing on our greatest resource which is the
fact that we're in a beautiful place surrounded by
open desert, and we are right up next to a
recreatioT area
Please move the bridge south Thank
you
* * * * *
(Ihe proceeding concluded at_ 8 00 p m )
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D33
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
17
18
IS
20
21
22
23
24
25
/
11
10/14/98
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss
COUNTY OF CLARK )
I, Teresa Lynn Dougherty, Certified
Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that I took
down in Stenotype all of the proceedings had ir the
before-entitled matter at the time and place
indicated and that thereafter said shorthand notes
were transcribed into typewriting aL and under my
direction and supervision and that the foregoing
transcript constitutes a full, true and accurate
record of t.TC proceedings had
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set
ray hand in my office in the County of Clark, State
o£ Nevada, tl"is ot.1^ day of C^ OMnt^*
:.99B
*T _
JlWt*^ VAAfott&T
Teresa Lynn Doucrherty
CCR 365
T A1IR IE WKRR & ASSOCIATES (7021 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D34
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
g
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
1 5
17
ia
19
2C
2 1
22
23
24
^ 25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
I
ORIGINAL
HOOVER D«IM BYPASS PROJECT
PUBLIC HEARING FOR DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PUBLIC COMMENTS
THURSDAY, OCTOBER _5, 1998
5 00 P M
Clark County GovcrnnenC Center
500 South Grand Central Paikway
Las Vegas, Nevada
Reported by SHAWN E. OTT, CCR No 577
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702} 386-9322
517 South 9lh Street, Us Vegai, Noada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D35
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
1C
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
*&>i 2 5
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
2
INDEX
COMMENT OF P^GE
BILL HORDAN 3
GEORGI CODY 3
DOUG POLLOCK 6
ANONYMOUS B
PAT QUINN 10
NICHOLAS M HOGHES H
DENKIS LACHASE 13
ATTACHMENT
Miscellaneous documents re Hoover Dam
Bypass through Laughlin
LAURIE WKBB A ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9lh Street, I as Vtgis, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D-36
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
032 1 1 .
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
D33-1
23
24
2 5
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
3
LAS VEGAS, CLARK COJNTY, NEV, THURS , OCT 15, 1998
5 00 P M
- oOo -
D32
BILL HORDAN Bill Hordan I'm a resident
of Las Vegas I use the highway to Arizona, and
something needs to be done whether it's any one of
the al terr.at _ ves We need to do something
immediately to improve the flow of traffic across the
Colorado River Looking at the displays, I think the
Sugarloaf ^oanta.n route has a lot oi advantages
You woa.d nave t^o man-made wonaers close together
The people visiting the dair would havs? an opportunity
to see a spectacular br.dge crossing the canyon, a-d
it ioo-ts to me like it has the best Location in
relationship to tie dam and the view ot the aair
Let'i huiiy up and get something constructed
D33
GEORGI CODY Good Evenir.y For the
record, my name is Georgi Cody and I am here tonight
on behalf of the Nevada Motor Transport Association,
a statewide membership organization representing the
motor carrier industry in Nevada I would like ro
begin by commending the Project Management Team for
their excellent Draft Environmental Impact Study
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 Soulh
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
l
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
9
10
II
1 •>
13
14
IS
16
il
is
19
20
71
22
23
24
2S
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
4
The DEIS provides a clear and concise picture of the
problems associated with the current route over the
Hoover Dam Problems, I might add, the trucking
industry has long been aware of
US93 is a 01330^ commercial route between
Arizona, Nevada and Utah It is also a significant
segment of a ma3or SAFTA route between Mexico and
Canada The trucking industry faces this narrow,
winding, steep, congested section of 0S93 daily and
knows first-hand its dangers and potential for
disaster
We h«ve carefully reviewed the information
provided ir. the DE'S and agree wic.i the Team's
conclusion that eac i of the three recommended build
alternatives — Promontory Point, Sugarloaf Mountain
ar.d Gold Strike Canyon are vianle options The Ko
Build Alternative is, in our estimation, not an
alternative at all Ignoring a problem of the
magnitude of that which currently exists would be
beyond merely foolhardy or unwise -- it would be
courting disaster
The problems associated with the current
Hoover Dam crossing w^ll not go away, they will only
increase over tiiue We were glad to read in the DEIS
that the liaughlin-Bullhead City option has been
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9ih Strett, LilS Vejas, Nevada 8»I«t
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D3S
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
12
.3
_ A
15
Ib
17
13
15
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
5
studied and re]ected as a build alternative
The trucking industry opposes this route
because of the high cost associated with diverting
truck traffic 23 miles and concerns over road
safety The DEIS rightly concludes this route does
not address the critical needs of the Hoover Dam
Bypass Project Simply put -- it would provide a
poor alternative, not a solution
Based on the information contained in the
DEIS, tha Nevada Motor Transport Association has
concluded the Sugfrloaf Mountain Alternative to DP
the most attractive of the three build alternatives
This decision is based OM road geometries, cost,
noise irpacts, arc other factors We are howe/er
cognisant of the potential problems each of the
alternatives presents "o wildlife and cultural
resources _n the area We await further details on
the full impact of whichever of the build
alternatives is selected We hope any adverse
impacts may be avoided or minimized
US93, as currently located, car. no longer
adequately handle the 12,000 vehiclen, including
automobiles, recreational vehicles and comnercial
vehicles which cross the Hoover Dan each aay The
dam reached its traffic capacity seven years ago
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D39
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
13
19
20
21
22
D34-1 2 3
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
6
The route is congested, dangerous ana vulnerable to
danage It is time to move ahead to find solutions
and to work together to meet the challenges of
providing a safe alternative to the US93 Hoover Dam
crossing
As a final note, along with a copy of my
comments here today, I would like to provide you a
copy of the Hoover Dam Bypass Resolution adopted by
the Nevada Motor Transport Association on October
5th, 1998 This resolution has been sent to each
netioer of the Nevada Congressional Delegation and to
Governor Bob Miller The resolution supports the
advancement on the Hoover Dam Bypass as a Federal
High Priority Project with future costs coming from
the National Corridor Planning and Development
Programs end the Federal Lands Highway Progra-i
I'd like to thank you for this opportunity
to provide our comments to you here tonight
D34
DOUG POLLOCK: My name is Doug Pollock
A, all the departments involved in building the
bridge should get together, the Department of
Reclamation, tne Bureau of Parks and Recreation, the
DOT, Department of Transportation Money was
utilized for something that was not necessary at
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D34 Pollock, Doug
Response to Comment D34-1
The Nelson Alternative, utilizing the Nevada 165 corridor and U.S. 95, was
evaluated and eliminated from further consideration primarily because it
would require construction of about 12 miles of new roadway causing
greater environmental impacts and at higher cost. For example, it would
impact approximately 491 acres of Section 4(f) land in the LMNRA (see EIS
Section 2.5 and Table 24).
SCO/LA W2666 DOC/003672586
D40
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
2
3
4
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
1 4
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/35/98 LAS VEGAS
7
Heaver Dam, the parking Iocs, that could have gone to
building a bridge The Department of Parks and
Recreations have created a restricted area in the
area that they want a bridge or the government has
At this point what would be feasible for a
bridge, because it can break at the points that they
want if that dam should break, they snould put a
longer span like Nelson which at one time was st
washed out marina Th€re was a marina in 1974 that
was washed out Tie government can reconstruct that
wash, rebuild the marina, put a cridge over there,
and everybody will derive revenue from it The
State, the citizens of Clark County, the State of
Nevada wLll derive use fro-n the i\ar~ra and the bridge
and tourism will derive use of the marina and the
bricge and also will iicraase tourism to Clark County
and the State of Nevada
Also an '83 tiere was an -- sometime in
the early '80s, there was an overflow at hoovet Dam
Tne overflow took it, but when they were built in the
'30s, they were very thick stainless steel They are
now paper thin Also Che dara has cracking, cannot
take the abuse of the heavy traffic over it Since
the contract has expired 01 whatever it was with
Southein Csl Edison, the government has not kept the
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702)386-9322
517 Smith »Ch 5«r«el, Lns Vegas, Nevada 8»101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D41
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
17
] 8
19
20
21
D35-1 22
23
24
25
10/15/96 LAS VEG?S
a
dam up Lo tne condition of what it should be 7'hat's
my input
And all of these people should get
together and find a way that's feasible that the
users can have and also that the states will derive
and the government will derive for care There
already is a road existing to Nelson, been there for
years So all they have to do is cut tip to two
townships north of the road of Nelson are not a
restricted area Anything further than that north is
a restricted area
Now, they're going to create a conflict
and say we want Lo cjo through a restricted area that
was designated restricted ten years ago Triat's
hypocritical Ihis is a lot of baloney Tils could
have been so_ved 20 years ago
035
ANONYMOUS Not even given Bullhead City a
chance at the new truck route that could come down
the Arizona side and go over the Davis Dan on a
brand-new four-lane 163 that dumps off on Highway 95
and heads north to the Railroad Pass through
Searchlight, and Garth Frainer, who has built 90
percent of the highways in the State o£ Nevada, will
give you a contract for $1 million a mile for
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegns, Nevada 89101
D35 Anonymous
Response to Comment D35-1
For detailed discussion of the rationale for eliminating the LBA
(Route 95/163/68), please see EIS Section 2.5 and responses to
Comments Bl-5, Bl-7, C7-2, C7-3, C7-4, and C7-9.
Moving the crossing downstream essentially increases the risk of impacting
water for millions of people located in southern Arizona and California. If
a spill were to occur at the Laughlin crossing, the potential for impacting
the water for several aqueducts located downstream becomes greater (see
response to Comment D31-1).
The USFWS has stated that the LBA would affect critical habitat for the
desert tortoise, and increased traffic in the area would result in substantial
direct and indirect impacts to the tortoise. Furthermore, the LBA might
have economic benefits for communities along this route; however, this is
not part of the purpose and need for the Hoover Dam bypass (see response
to Comments Bl-2 and Bl-5).
See response to Comment Bl-4, which discusses the rationale for
concluding that the Boulder City/U.S. 93 Corridor Study is a separate
project with independent utility.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D42
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
1 3
14
"t K
16
1 I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
9
blacktop p a v 111 g Ana it's 60 miles, so you are
calking $60 million
And if they wanted to uso the old Davi^
Dan route, they could build a new bridge in between
Davis Dara and the new Laughlin biidga for the trucks
and also put locks there that would rise, and if a
chemical truck spilled into the Colorado River, they
could close trie locks ac Davis Dam, shut the water
off, raise the locks, lower the new bridge and get
the pumps and trucks in there and pump it all out aid
nothing would 90 down the Colorado River and
contaminate real drastic such as mercury or
radioactive naterial, which a £ tnis scuff spills lr>
the new bridge that they're talkirg about or from
Boulder Dam, it's going into the river, and who knows
what wil_ happen from that point
And as far as the environmentalists are
concerned, there is no sheep 3n the area of the
Bullhead Road and there's no tortoises Tortoises
don't get within 1500 feet of the highway There is
j proven statistics here, and, yes, it is 23 miles
farther, bat Laughlir. needs a shot in the arm, and
this traffic i^ouid definitely do it, and the state
would receive many taxes front the casinos' profit and
also the sale o£ diesel fuel for the truckers that
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702)386-9322 _
517 Suulfc 9th SireeJ, L«s Vegas, Nevada W101
SCO/LA W2666 OOC/003B72586
D43
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Ib
-6
17
13
19
20
D36-1 7 \
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
10
they would purchase there if it was available, which
would consequently pay for this $60 million highway
expansion in a short time
And the people in Boulder City are
definitely against the trucks coming into their town,
and now with this new bridge that you propose, you
are directing it right into the back of Gold Strike
Inn which is a casino, and if nobody knows it by now,
Mr Ensign, our congressman, has a piece of the Gold
Strike Inn alorg witn Mr Bellomy and also owns the
Railroad Pass Well, how sweet i L _ s to ha^e all the
trucks co-ring into the back door of your casino
D36
PAT QU1NN My .iame is Pa- Quinn And
first on the record I would like to say it's a shame
they d.di't use the Willow Beach oypass that was
engineered 2b years ago, but of the three options
currently available, there is no doubt that Gold
Strike Canyon route is the only one to really take
It would be less cumbersome to traffic during
construction, and it is already bad enough coming
across the dam the way it is, and I ]ust think it
seems like tne most direct route and will give trie
people new vistas to see as they travel down through
into Arizona I guess that's about it
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D36 Quinn, Pat
Response to Comment D36-1
The construction of a bridge on the Willow Beach alignment is not an
acceptable alternative. As explained in the EIS Executive Summary, this
route was eliminated from further consideration because it requires about
19 additional miles of new highway construction, resulting in substantially
greater environmental impacts - most notably impacts to Section 4(f) lands
(public park and recreational areas) - and higher costs. See response to
Comments C4-1, C4-2, C4-3, and C4-4.
See Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cl 1-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative. The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative has the most
severe impact on desert bighorn sheep, has the highest cost of the three
near-dam alternatives, and would adversely impact a popular hiking trail
through Gold Strike Canyon to the hot springs.
Similar to Gold Strike Canyon, construction of the Sugarloaf Mountain
Alternative will all be done on new alignment, except at the tie-in points
with existing U.S. 93 in Nevada and Arizona. Hence, disruption of U.S. 93
traffic and dam activities will be minimized.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D44
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
/,
5
6
7
a
9
^ Q
12
O37 1 1 3
J
15
Ib
17
ia
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
11
D37
NICHOLAS H HUGHES My name is Nicholas
M Elughes That Gold •Strike, to me, that's the only
way to go Just like he said, in the fust place you
are not going to disturb the rest of the roads up
there on construction when they're constructing it,
see, and that isn't the concern that I'm thinking
about I'm thinking about a lot shorter distance,
and you are not -- on each end of the 93 going clear
over to those other two roads going over to Gold
S.r.ke Hotel, you have got a big long stretch there
where t.iose two roads are running together right
there, and that's a terrible delay I was across
-hat road, oh, about two nonths ago, and right after
I left; Gold Strike Inn, I got bu-nper to bumper witn
traffic and I was lust ooz_ng along, oozing a.onc, a
foot at a time Lntil I got down -- you know where
that road turns off to go to fiat lake, you know,
Observatior Point, you know what I'm talking about,
it turns to the left and goes off When I got to
that point, I turned around there immediately and
came back through Boulder City and went tc Railroad
Pass and on down to Searchlight and Laughlin and then
I went into Kingman from that way
I have occasion to go to Kingman a lot I
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9lh Slriet, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D37 Hughes, Nicholas M.
Response to Comment D37-1
See Sections 2.6.2 and 2 6 3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative. The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative shortens the
distance between the U.S. 93/95 interchange in Nevada and Kingman,
Arizona, by less than 1 mile when compared to the Promontory Point and
Sugarloaf Mountain Alternatives (see EIS Table 2-1). Hence, the difference
in distance is negligible.
Similar to Gold Strike Canyon, construction of the Sugarloaf Mountain
Alternative will all be done on new alignment, except at the tie-in points
with existing U.S 93 in Nevada and Arizona Hence, disruption of U S. 93
traffic and dam activities will be minimized.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D45
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGftS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
12
have got property over in Monave County, and I've got
property at Searchlight You know, it's terrible to
get slowed down with that tourist traffic, you know,
where you have got all sightseers I think either
one of those, especially that thing that has a bridge
across the lake, I think that's the most ridiculous
one, and you are going to be congested witn traffic
going up to where it leaves the present highway, and
you're going — when you get back on the Nevada side,
you are going to get back with that congestion on the
Nevada side fron that warehouse on to Gold Strike
And I t.iink the only way to go 11 co take
that Cold Strike route It is going Lo cost a little
b-t note for t-,mne1s and w.natnot, but 1C sa^es tire,
it's going to be shorter and it solves the problem
Ycu don't get into that congestion up e^re or either
siae of t-ie dam That's about all I have got to
say
I am just very much against those other
two routes, very much against tho'se other two
routes I know one of the national parknan I was
talking to there, they seem to favor that one "lust
below the darr, but that doesn't solve the problem
like that. Gold Strike route, see I aiu emphatically
against those other two routes, and I'm goiJig to
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Slrert, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW26B6 DOC/003672886
046
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
1 0
1 1
12
D38-1 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
2 3
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
13
write -- beside what you are taking, I'm going Co
write my opinions down and mail it in
D38
DENNIS LACHASE My name is Dennis
Lachase I live at 605 Spyglass Lane, Las Vegas,
Nevada One, this thing should have been in 15 years
ago I asked the environmental people what's
happening to the environment when they nave several
tnousa-ids of cars backed up houi s and hours every day
in botT directions To put it in, it would whisk
people thtough the area in 10, 1 rj rr^rutes instead of
keeping them there thiee, fojr hours I think th_s
is lorg _ong overdue
I did write sorctiirg down or 7 11s corrirerr
sheet here This project is 20 years too late,
shoul-. hive been done in the '70s wnen they first
proposed it Due to three, four-hour aeldys on going
across the dam tne environment suffers more than what
they'ie doing And the more they procrastinate and
delay, the longer it's going to -- the worse it's
going to get
We are getting mare and more tourists irto
town every year, so the jam is getting worse aid
worse They have stopped me from going fishing down
at Willow Beach Used to go down there after work
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D38 Lachase, Dennis
Response to Comment D38-1
FHVVA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative,
with the proposed mitigation measures, as the preferred alternative on the
basis of minimizing environmental impacts, engineering and operational
advantages, and lower construction cost. Section 2.6 2 1 of the FEIS
discusses the rationale for this decision.
See response to Comment Bl-4.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D47
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
i
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
1C
11
12
13
1 4
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
14
Now you have Co Cake an all-day trip End of
statement
The No 2. is supposed to be tne least
envxronmenta 11y impact, and it can be used or
installed the quickest, which I think would alleviate
this major problem that they have Just going to
move the bottleneck up to Boulder City I think that
will help Let's get it in and get it going
Let's get the road accesses to and from it
so that we can move people through here, because
they're mostly tourists They're not locals, and
wher. the locals get involved in this, we have places
to go and people to see and things to cio, and we
can't do that It's easier now to drive down to
Laughlin and go actoss the bridge up through Kingman
ana then ge; on the freeway, go that way, than it is
to sit tnere now a.id go acrost, the da-i It's 28
miles farther also
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D48
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
20
21
21
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
15
STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss
COUNTY OF CLARK )
I, Shawn S Ott, Certified Shorthand
Reporter, do hereby certify that I took down in
Stenotype all of the proceedings had in the
oefore-entit1ed matter at the time and place
indicated and that thereafter said shorthand notes
\vere transcribed into typewriting at and under rry
direction and supervision and chat the foregoing
transcript constitutes a full, true and accurate
'"^cord of the pioceedincrs haa
III WITNESS WHEREOF, I nave hereunto set my
hand and affixed ny official seal in my office in the
Courty of Clark, State of Nevada, this OCy a a y of
} , 1998
Shawn F Ott
CCR No 577
LAURIE WEBB&ASSULIAIES (lOtf 386-9322
S17 South 9th Streel, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D49
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
US VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
This page intentionally left blank.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
DSO
-------
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
HOOVER DAM BYPASS
HEARING
OCTOBER 13, 1998
KINGMAN, ARIZONA
Reported by. Christine Bemi&<3, CSR, RPR
V *•'*••' ' I/ ^H£f/0 Certified Court Heporterj
PO Box 508-Lake Havasu City, AZ 86405-0508
(520) 453-6760'1-800-854-4796 • FAX (520) 453-5948
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
D1
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SPEAKERS
Robert Earl Kniffen (Bridge Builder)
Chatles Shnll (Concerned Citizen, Kingman)
JoElle Hums (Director of laughlio
Chamber of Commerce)
Patricia Tester (Concerned Citizen, Kingman)
Sam Elters (Concerned Citizen, Kingman)
Frank Jenkins (Mai'ave County
Transportation Commission)
Elaine Mornssette (Concerned Citizen, Ka.n
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13, 1998
1
^.
3
4
Ot 1 5
6
7
8
S
D1-2 10
1 i
1?
13
1-1
15
16
I"1
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
D2-1 24
-"• \
25
KINSMAN, ARIZONA, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 1998
5 00 P K
. * , , „
D1
MH KNIFFEN Well, I bell?ve this Gold
Strike one is the best because of traffic It don't
get in the way of all the tourists and everything
t iat ' s there
And I think that the only thing I would
like to see is the bridge being, maybe, 100 feet or
2CG feet higher than wnere j-t _s no-;, the elevation
of - t I think it woa_d be a lot easier -- ever
though it costs more, I think jt would be easier to
put it down there than it would ba closer to the dam
Trvina to get all the material ir and out down over
Oy the cair is going to be quite d chore, you know
n'l.en it's right there, it woulo be pretty simple to
get in
I'd like to see the Gold Strike alternative
go down through there. I think that will do it.
* * k
02
MR SHULL I feel that the Sugarloaf is a
bad alternative and that Gold Strike is much more
viable in the fact that it takes it out of view of
FAYETTE & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
Dl Kniffen, Robert Earl
Response to Comment Dl-1
See Sections 262 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative.
Response to Comment Dl-2
The height of the Gold Strike Canyon bridge is dictated by the elevation of
the approach roadways. The profile of the bridge and roadways was set at
the conceptual design stage to maintain acceptable grades while
minimizing deep cuts, high fills, and numerous smaller bridges through the
mountains and canyons.
Construction of the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative will all be done on new
alignment, except at the tie-in points with existing U.S. 93 in Nevada and
Arizona Hence, disruption of U S. 93 traffic and dam activities will be
minimized.
D2 Shull, Charles
Response to Comment D2-1
See Sections 2 6.2 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative.
Hoover Dam may be visible from high-profile vehicles traveling over the
Sugarloaf Mountain bridge, however, the high elevation of the bridge,
relative to the dam, and the safety rail will minimize viewing opportunities.
The EIS (Section 3.8 2.2) states that there will be no stopping for views of
the dam on the new bridge. Parking, pedestrians, and bicycles on the
bridge would create a safety hazard.
SCO/LA W2666 DOCy003672586
D3
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
i 1
12
13
14
IS
16
17
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the dam, for safety reasons, I guess
* * *
03
MS H0RNS: About two years ago, Laughljn
was approached by NDOT to discuss being considered as
an alternative for the Hoover Dani Bypass. It was a
quick, poorly publicized meeting, and I think that
the buzz words were "hazard waste material" and
"18 wheelers "
As a corimunity, we discouraged the Laughlin
and Bulmeac City route as being considered because
ria Gid^'t think we ccuJd provide <3.3i~c passage for the
trucks with our existing roadways, and we also didn't
understand that there wight bo furds available to
address those issues.
Basically, we tnoughL that they were
transferring one problem downstream to another
coiwuinity
Since that time, we've learned that there
are several sites being considered and that there's
upwards of $200 million available to accommodate the
need.
Just six months agor Laughlin asked to be
reconsidered, if not for economic reasons at least
for improvements to our highways. We understand
FMETTE i ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
SCO/LAWZ666 DOC/003672586
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMftN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
3
4
5
03-1 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
D4-1 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
D4-2 21
22
23
24
25
we've been eliminated for reasons that deal with the
steepness of the grade in and out of our community,
and, also, that it's 23 miles longer than the
existing route.
We support a bypass to Hoover Dam acd stand
ready in the future, if our alternative is to be
considered
When I say "we stand ready," I mean (re
stand ready to look at the environmental impact, the
economic impact, and the financial impact that it
would nsve on our area
D4
MS TESTER T was jtst Border.ng if I will
see this new road in nay lifetime I rroa'-, they have
c=en talking about this for 35 years, anc ho-< much
longer are we going to have to talk about _t before
we start doing something about it' Are they going to
have to wait for a major disaster before tney will
consider putting in new roads, like, you know toxic
waste, you know? Is that going to go into the water?
I mean, we have to drink this water here Are wo
going to have to wait until, you know, half the dam
goes, you know, or contaminates the water before
they'll do something.
FAYETTE & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
D3 Hums, Jollle
Response to Comment D3-1
For detailed discussion of the rationale for eliminating the LBA, please see
EIS Section 2.5 and responses to Comments Bl-5, Bl-7, C7-2, C7-3, C7-4,
and C7-9,
D4 Tester, Patricia
Response to Comment D4-1
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative can be officially adopted after
approval of the ROD in early 2001 After the ROD, engineering of the
roadways and bridges will be completed, and construction should begin by
2002 and be finished in 2007.
Response to Comment D4-2
The possibility of chemical spills affecting water quality was discussed in
Sections 3,4.2.2 and 3.4.3.2 of the DEIS. All three build alternatives would
include strategically located settling basins, which function as chemical
spill containment structures. Additionally, storm runoff from the bridge
roadways would collect in these basins. All bridges over live water would
have the potential to collect the "first flush" runoff volume from the bridge,
as well as the spill volume that might be generated from a semi-truck
tanker spill.
One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point Alternative was not
identified as the preferred alternative was the concern expressed by
numerous agencies and citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill
from the bridge into Lake Mead contaminating this major public drinking
water supply.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D5
-------
3
4
5
D4-3 6
1
8
9
10
11
1?
13
34
15
16
17
18
05-1 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Well, I guess that's about it, you know I
]ust wanted to knot* if I was going to be able to see
this KOQO go in my lifetime And I'rr not that old
yet.
Going through Laughlin is 30 miles further,
and they have to go down this steep grade, going to
Route 68 to Laughlin, and then go up the steep grade
going up the other way. And then Route 95 is only a
two lane, and there's lots of traffic going there,
lots of traffic, you Know Truckers won't cio it
They won't do at. And 68 is bad, too They said
they're supposed to m-ske that a. four lane v,ay down
the mountain, and theie's an awful lot o~ accidents
on there, too A lot of thorn burn up their brakes
going down the mountain
05
KR ELTERS Basically, I am in support of
the project, and I feel that the Sugarloaf
alternative, being the cheapest and being that it
offers better grades than the Gold Strike one, is
probably tne best alternative to go wj tl~
I strongly believe that the No Build is a
no option at this time, no viable option.
FAYETTE 4 ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
K1NGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,19»
Response to Comment D4-3
For detailed discussion of the rationale for eliminating the LBA
(Route 95/163/68), please see EIS Section 2.5 and responses to
Comments Bl-5, Bl-7, C7-2, C7-3, C7-4, and C7-9.
D5 filters, Sam
Response to Comment D5-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative
as the preferred alternative. Section 2.6,2.1 of the FEIS discusses the
rationale for this decision. The preferred alternative resolves the negative
impacts associated with the No Build Alternative (e.g., the steep grades
approaching the dam, hairpin turns, and the risk of truck accidents on the
dam crossing contaminating the waters of Lake Mead and the Colorado
River).
D6 Jenkins, Frank
Response to Comment D6-1
An overlook along the Nevada roadway approach to the bridge is not
possible because the mountain above the existing Nevada switchback
blocks the view (see EIS Figures 2-9, 2-10, 3-9, and 3-10). Another option
would be to provide a shuttle bus parking area and allow pedestrians to
walk to a viewing facility on or in the vicinity of the proposed Colorado
River bridge; however, because of the rugged terrain, the proposed rock
cuts (50 to 100 feet high) adjacent to the bridge, and the proximity of the
Arizona-Nevada Switchyard, the only possible locations for a parking area
would be either at the switchyard site, if the switchyard is removed, or
approximately 1,000 feet west of the Colorado River bridge. This relatively
long walk adjacent to a busy highway would discourage most travelers
from stopping. There would also be Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compliance and safety issues to resolve.
Ten transmission towers and a hill between the end of the bridge and the
dam would interfere with the view on the Arizona side. Similar to the
Nevada side, a 1,200-foot-long, high through-cut (between 50 and 120 feet
high) is proposed at the east approach to the bridge. Although the terrain
1,200 feet east of the bridge would allow construction of a parking area, this
would complicate construction of a stormwater detention area that is
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003572586
D6
-------
1
06 1 2
3
4
5
6
D7-1 7
8
9
10
II
081 13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
091 21
22
23
24
25
D6
MR JENKINS My suggestion is, they need a
viewing area on the Arizona side and on the Nevada
side, and they don't have it in their proposal.
D7
MS. MORRISSETTE I definitely am in favor
of the Sugar-loaf route, Budging from what I read in
all the comments made about it. That's it.
* -* *
DB
KR MORRISSETTE I feel the very same
The Sugar!oaf route would be O4r choice, based on
environmental cost and the money, tiwe it will take
for the proiect, versus the others
* * *
D9
MR CASTIL1C. On the Boulder Dam Bypass, I
tiink wo need to get taat through ^ust as soon as
possible because the traffic there is just atrocious
And, really, we're afraid that someone is going to
get killed or hurt seriously There's already been
several accidents there Not only n the sense of
safety, bjt its convenience Cor traveling without the
hcldups, that I think it's one of the most urgent
projects we have.
FAYETTE S, ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
proposed in this location. Even if there were room for a parking area,
visitors would not be likely to hike 1,200 feet along a busy highway to view
Hoover Dam from the new bridge. Also, like the Nevada side, there would
be ADA compliance and safety problems.
Despite these challenges, FHWA will study the matter during final design
of the highway bypass to determine the technical feasibility of a separate
viewing facility associated with the bridge. Further details of such a facility
cannot be determined until design of the bridge and approaches is
advanced beyond the current level. Details of how people would be
conveyed to the viewing facility and evaluation of environmental impacts
would be addressed in a separate project report and NEPA document if the
construction scope exceeds the anticipated impacts addressed in this EIS.
D7 Morrissette, Elaine
Response to Comment D7-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment
as the preferred alternative Section 2 6.2.1 of the FEIS discusses the
rationale for this decision.
D8 Morrissette, Robert
Response to Comment D8-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment
as the preferred alternative. Section 2 6 2 1 of the FEIS discusses the
rationale for this decision. See also response to Comment Al-1.
D9 Castillo, Larry
Response to Comment D9-1
Assuming that funding becomes available and environmental clearances
are obtained, construction will start on the bypass in 2002 and be completed
in 2007.
SCO?LAW2666 OOC/003672586
D7
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
D10 1 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
D11 1 22
23
24
25
D10
MS McFERRIN- I feel that the dam should
be built as soon as possible — the bridge, not the
dam — I'm sorry, the bridge, as soon as possible --
due to the amount of traffic," it's a grave concern to
me. I don't think this dam or bridge that we have
now was built to anticipate the amount of traffic
that's over it now
I personally like the Gold Strike Canyon
route I think that it's safer having it out of
sight of fa dam so that people aren't shopping to
look at the dam, and I don't fee] the irrpact is that
iruch greater I nean, it is gre^te^-, out not that
much greater.
D11
MR. McFERRIN- We have lived in the Kingman
area foe over 30 years We've seen the traffic
increase over Hoover Dam, during those 30 years,
probably 20 times the amount there was when we
started I do no~ believe the Hoover Dam can
withstand Lhat much traffic. I would like to see an
alternative bridge started as soon as possible.
I favor the Gold Strike Canyon, even though
FAYETTE « ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
DIG
McFerrin, Edith
Response to Comment D10-1
Assuming that funding becomes available and environmental clearances
are obtained, construction will start on the bypass in 2002 and be completed
in 2007.
See Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative.
Hoover Dam may be visible from high-profile vehicles traveling over the
Sugarloaf Mountain bridge; however, the high elevation of the bridge,
relative to the dam, and the safety rail will minimize viewing opportunities.
The EIS (Section 3.8.2.2) states that there will be no stopping for views of
the dam on the new bridge. Parking, pedestrians, and bicycles on the
bridge would create a safety hazard.
Dl 1 McFerrin, James
Response to Comment Dll-1
See Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative. The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative has the most
severe impact on desert bighorn sheep and would adversely impact a
popular hiking trail through Gold Strike Canyon to the hot springs.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D8
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
I
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
xt wz 1 1 be the more expensive route/ as far as> money.
I feel that it would be less impact, on the animals
and the beauty of the terrain And if I get voted
down or Gold Strike, thon I go for Sugarloa£
Thank you.
* * *
(Whereupon, the hearing concluded at
8 00 p.m i
METTE & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
!
SCO/IAW2666 DOC/003672586
D9
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
KINGMAN, ARIZONA, OCTOBER 13,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
q
10
11
I?
13
1-1
Ib
16
-"
18
19
20
21
22
?3
24
! 25
CERTIFICATE
I, Christine Bemiss, CSR", RPR, do hereby
certify:
That the foregoing proceedings were taken by me
in shorthand and thereafter transcribed under my
direction.
That the foregoing nine (9) pages contain a true
and correct transcription of my shorthand notes so
tdken
I further certify that I am not interested in
the events or this action.
WITMhSS my hand tt- 1 & P^^ day of /DotcMQc ^_
19_1V
^
L J'Xu^-t^ I;S> A/U i^-
Christine Bemiss, CS&j RPR
FAYETTE & ASSOCIATES
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
DIG
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
ORIGINAL
HOOVER DAM BYPASS PROJECT
PUBLIC HEARING FOR DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PUBLIC COMMENTS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 14, 1598
5 OD P M
Community College of Southern Nevada
700 Wyoming Street
Boulder City, Nevaaa
Reported by SHAWN E OTT, CCR No 577
LAURIE .WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th SlreM, I,as Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
D11
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
' €
1 /
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
I N D E X
COMMENT OF
DON WORKS
RICHARD L BENTON
RALPH L HUGHES
ROBERT SHANNON
WADE STUCKEY
ED UEFLING
ANONYMOUS
CRS BERMAN
RUSSELL VANDEBERG
AKONYMCUS
JOHN FLOiTD
PAGj
3
3
4
6
6
6
' 1
li
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D12-1 11
1 2
13
1-,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
D13 1 23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
3
BOULDER CITY, CLARK COUNTY, NEV, WED , OCT 14, 1998
5 DO P M
- oOo -
D12
DON WORKS Don Works. I'm a Peno
resident born and raised in Nevada, and I chink the
dam is a good thang, but I don't really like the fact
that it's so close to Boulder City and they're gome
to be hauling nuclear disposal through the town So
if they could move it down a little ways to
Searchlight it would be good It's a great idea
because there could bo an accident on the dam and who
knows what could happen, and if they are naul:ng
nuclear stuff across the dan now, it could also get
into the water system in wb^c1- you g ys do drink out
of it and aump ynur stJlL, tmnking of it I don't
understand that So that's aboat it
D13
RICHARD BENTON Richard L Benton, 104
Graham Court, Boulder City I believe that the
Sugarloaf Mountain alternative would be the best way
to go It's already cost much more than it took to
build the dam just in looking at the problem by our
many bureaucratic government facilities, much more
than it needed to be What we need to do is get the
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 91b Slrert, Las Vegas, Ncradj 89101
D12 Works, Don
Response to Comment D12-1
The highway drainage system in the area near the dam on the Nevada side
of the river flows off the edge of the road, down the canyon face, onto the
Nevada power house roof, and into the Colorado River. In the event of a
serious spill, in addition to potential water pollution issues, materials
spilled on the road would drain off the road into the Nevada power house,
possibly resulting in powerhouse damage or destruction. The proposed
project will remove trucks carrying these materials from the dam crossing
and provide a straight, four-lane highway crossing on new alignment that
will reduce potential spill risks.
A spill containment system is proposed for the build alternatives The
purpose of the system is to isolate and collect spilled material at the site and
convey the material off the bridge for containment. This system will be
developed during the design phase of the project.
D13 Benton, Richard L.
Response to Comment D13-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment
as the preferred alternative. Section 2 6 2.1 of the FEIS discusses the
rationale for this decision. See also response to Comment Al-1
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D13
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
D14-1 20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
4
job done, make a decision and get the job done I
know chat's difficult for bureaucrats to do, but it
cap. be done It will cost more than the dam like the
gift shop and overview did, and I think that it's
about time it gets done
One bad spill on that dan will just
annihilate the lower Colorado, cause international
problems \»ith Mexico, and we have wasted too much
time already, and if you greedy little oeople ir.
Boulder City who think they're going to make a nickel
fJom some bourist stopS'ng at their score should not
even be considered or listened to Let's get the job
done Thank yoi_ , citizen, voter and concerned
D14
RALPH HUGHES Ralph L Hughes 1 came
out tonight Co kind of look over tne alterraLives aid
see what possible negative part there coild be to
it I can't seem to find any The congestion at the
dam has gotten worse and worse I have been here 30
years and use the route numerous times, and in the
last few years, it is just been atrocious It's
anywhere from an hour to 40 minutes to get across, go
over the nine miles from the top on the Arizona side
to come this way
Also I teel like we've just been leading a
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D14 Hughes, Ralph L.
Response to Comment D14-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment over the
Promontory Point alignment as the preferred alternative are presented in
Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the FEIS and in response to Comments A10-2,
A13-1, and Cll-6. One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point
Alternative was not the preferred alternative was the concern expressed by
numerous agencies and citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill
from the bridge into Lake Mead contaminating this major public drinking
water supply. It also has the most impact to water recreation, since boating
restrictions would be implemented during construction.
Comparing existing topography along the approaches of the alternative
bridge alignments, it would be most practical to construct a west-end
parking lot and walkway to a viewing facility on or in the vicinity of the
Promontory Point bridge. The Promontory Point bridge is more conducive
to accommodating a viewing area of the dam than the Sugarloaf Mountain
bridge (compare Figures 2-5, 2-6, and 2-7 with Figures 2-9 and 2-10 in the
EIS, and see response to Comment D6-1). The Promontory Point bridge is
also 500 feet closer to Hoover Dam and has no intervening transmission
towers to block views of the dam.
SCO/LAW266G DOC/003672586
D14
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
3
4
S
g
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
_
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
D1S1 5
6
1
a
9
10
11
12
D16-1 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
D17-1 23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
6
015
ROBERT SHANNON Robert Shannon I would
l)Ve to see the Promontory Point Alternative as the
bridge to cross over I think it's more feasible as
far as cost and the fact that you don't have to
drive -- you'll avoid a lot of the same traffic going
to the dam, and the trucks will have an easier time
crossing over without slowing you up on the other
alternatives That's all
016
WADE STUCKEY Wade Stuckey I'm a
resident of Eerdersoi, Nevada T'm interested in the
bridqe going up and going up union, ard out of the
ones 1 saw, I th^nk tTe Proirontcry Point wojld be the
more ledbible one, oetter for the tourist industry
And ~ prefer the cable su^pic o.i bricgs Tnat' s
aoout all I can tell you That's what I prefer
D17
ED UEHUNG My i^rne is Ed Uehling My
main concern is the design of the bridge and the
visual impact it will have on the dam The dam is a
valuable national treasure It has a specific
architecture to it The visitors center that was
constructed clashes with that -- with chat
architecture and it defaces the d?m, in essence,
defaces this national treasurer, and it would be a
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D15 Shannon, Robert
Response to Comment D15-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment as the
preferred alternative rather than the Promontory Point alignment are
presented in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the FEIS and in response to
Comments A10-2, A13-1, and Cll-6.
D16 Stuckey, Wade
Response to Comment D16-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment as the
preferred alternative rather than the Promontory Point alignment are
presented in Sections 2 6.1 and 2.6.2 of the FEIS and in response to
Comments A10-2, A13-1, and Cll-6.
D17 Uehling, Ed
Response to Comment D17-1
Construction of the preferred alternative (or the Promontory Point
Alternative) will have an adverse effect on Hoover Dam due to the
introduction of visual elements that are out of character with the landmark.
As required under Section 106 of the NHPA, FHWA consulted with the
Nevada and Arizona SHPOs and entered into a PA with the SHPOs, the
federal ACHP, and other parties committing to measures that will mitigate
the adverse visual effect. Those measures will be adopted in the ROD for
this project.
SCO/LA W2666 DOC/003672586
D16
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
10
1 1
1?
15
16
17
] B
19
D18-1 20
21
??
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
7
tragedy if the bridge also acted ir. the same
capacity, to trash the design, the architecture, the
heritage of this incredible building, incredible
structure that exists here
So in conclusion, if you can't find a
designer that's going to do an art deco 1930s
industrial - type structure, then clearly the best
alternative is to have it as far away from the dam as
possible where it can't be seen, where it doesn't
pollute the visuals and tne architecture and the
her _L age of the aati
018
ANONYMOUS Well, I object ro the
^icmontory bridge from the aesthetic v^ewooiut, extra
nileajc ana it's rore dangerous thar t • e bridge
because trjct-s could go off both sides and fall into
the lake My objection to tne Sugarloaf Mountain
would again take away from the bridge, and I think
you would have danger of motorists stopping on the
bridge or slowing down to view the bridge at night --
I mean, tne dam at night when it's lit up
And 1 suppose I would prefer the Gold
Strike Canyon, but I understand that tie road is very
steep compared to the others, and if T had my way, I
would make it a toll bridge to get it completed and
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D18 Anonymous
Response to Comment D18-1
One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point Alternative was not
identified as the preferred alternative was the concern expressed by
numerous agencies and citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill
into Lake Mead affecting this major drinking water supply.
Hoover Dam may be visible from high-profile vehicles traveling over the
Sugarloaf Mountain bridge; however, the high elevation of the bridge,
relative to the dam, and the safety rail will minimize viewing opportunities.
The EIS (Section 3.8 2.2) states that there will be no stopping for views of
the dam on the new bridge Parking, pedestrians, and bicycles on the
bridge would create a safety hazard.
See Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative.
NDOT and ADOT conducted a financial feasibility study to determine
viable funding sources for the Hoover Dam bypass. The study assessed a
toll crossing among other options (see EIS Section 2.9 and response to
Comment C3-2).
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D17
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
D19 1 5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
D20-1 14
1 r,
If
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
make the people who use it pay for it Thank you
D19
MRS. BERMAN Berman Really and
truthfully I'd like to have the one that's the least
stress on the animals That's the main thing. So
that's all I have to say
D20
RUSSELL VANDEBERG Russell Vandeberg,
Boulder City here My thought here, I don't like any
of these locations as far as the best location, as
far as the best As far as the one of the three
being considered, Sugarloaf Mountain looks by far the
better of ary of the three Keeps the lake free,
keeps the biidge up in the air, and I s:;e no problem
as far as ary view is concerned They *hine and
moan We see bridges all over So trat would be Lhe
best of those three
But my thought, we'll go right back to
tfillow Beach crossing, north route, as far as the
best of all ideal routes I know the Sierra Club is
fighting it like old Harry, and I know the park
service is urhappy witn it, but who tnaae the park
service' The people trade it, and they can grant a
vanance to put a highway across there just as damn
quick as they granted them permission to stop all
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9lh Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D19 Mrs. Berman
Response to Comment D19-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative
as the preferred alternative partly because it has the least impact on desert
bighorn sheep, peregrine falcons, and the desert tortoise. Section 2.6.2.1 of
the FEIS discusses the rationale for this decision.
D20 Vandeberg, Russell
Response to Comment D20-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment
as the preferred alternative. Section 2.6.2.1 of the FEIS discusses the
rationale for this decision. See also response to Comment Al-1.
The Willow Beach crossing has been eliminated from further detailed
consideration. After being compared to screening criteria, this alternative
fell short in five important areas, thus eliminating it as a potential route (see
Section 2.5 of the EIS and response to Comments C4-1, C4-2, C4-3, and
C4-4). As explained in the EIS Executive Summary under Areas of
Controversy, this route was eliminated from further consideration because
it requires about 19 additional miles of new roadway, primarily through
NFS land, and has substantially greater environmental impacts and higher
construction costs.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D18
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
9
construction A stroke of the pen will do it
They've got millions of acres in
California that they just set aside here a couple of
years for these turtles, and the sheep, there is
millions of acres out there for them That little
bit that the highway takes, no problem
So the Sierra Club doesn't rate high in my
book at all, a bunch of kooks and trust babies if you
wane ny version of them They want something to yap
on and don't know half of what they're talking
about
The Willow Beach route is so simple Look
at the map is all you need to do, and you will see
many rriles saved frori i_ne present routes that are
bejr.g proposed, ard yo j multiply that by 1C,000
vehicles a day -- DOT says 14,COO cross the dam
This woald Et-11 leave 4,000 tourists across the dan
and 10,000 trucks and business people to take the
shortcut route, saving many miles every day and
cruising it at 60 miles an hour rather than a crawl
or stopping for stop signs
This present route through Boulder City
will have five stop signs by the time it is in if
they place one at Gold Strike, and they'll need
another one on the exits down below Now, even four
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D19
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
c
6
7
8
9
: o
T T
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
stop signs in a nine-mile stretch of road from
Railroad Pass to Gold Strike does not constitute a
highway, an interstate highway It constitutes a
mess, and that's what Boulder City is right now, a
mess
So, okay, I realize that one bigger
appropriation will be hard to get Two smaller
appropriations will probably fit the pie So if it
has to be the two smaller, certainly the Sugarloaf
crossing is the ideal one to go for now, and then
however they want to bypass Boulder City is another
.-hing I'll be aead long before that ever happens so
there's no need for ir.e to worry a great deal aoout it
except it irritates ire to see so mach money wa&ted.
I understand this project began in 1960
whet, the first talk wan started with the Ari?ora and
Nevada states, and surveys, evaluations done, if you
add tnose together, the total cost of those surveys,
and evaluations will far exceed the cost of this
present project had it been built 10, 15 years ago,
it would have been built at half or a third the price
is going to cost today So how stnait can we get,
wait another ten years and let it cost double again'
That's about the way it's going to happen unless some
people get off their duff and get this thing done
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 Soulh fth Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D20
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
D21 1 7
10
1 1
12
11
i *!
3 •=,
16
17
18
19
20
21
022 1 22
23
24
25
JEnd of story
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
D21
ANONYMOUS I'd like to state that I ara a
structural iron worker by trade with 25 years of
experience Speaking from the point of view of an
experienced tradesman, I feel it's urgent that this
project get underway because there are still some men
within my trade that have, in fact, worked on this
very type of project Most of them are retired ard
would volunteer to come out of retirement to assist
in tnis type of project because of the nature of the
project In my opinion if we wait more thai fije
years to do this, the availab.lity of these
peisonalities is goiig tc be dimin_shea because of
the fact that they're getting old and they're dying
That's pretty much it
022
JOHN FLOYD Johr Floyd, 798 Fairway
Drive, Boulder City, Nevada I have driven a truck,
a 70-ton, across both ways The last time I went :
came through that way because I preferred it than
going over the dam, but even with the bridge, if it
went that way, I think that would be the best I
don't thirk It's going to do ten cents worth of good
because of the casinos because they want the truck
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South Mil Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D21 Anonymous
Response to Comment D21-1
The Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative can be officially adopted after
approval of the ROD in early 2001 After the ROD, engineering of the
roadways and bridges will be completed, and construction should begin by
2002 and be finished in 2007
D22 Floyd, John
Response to Comment D22-1
For detailed discussion of the rationale for eliminating the LBA
(Route 95/163/68), please see EIS Section 2.5 and responses to
Comments Bl-5, Bl-7, C7-2, C7-3, C7-4, and C7-9.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
021
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
6
7
B
9
10
1 I
12
J 3
14
15
16
1 /
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98 BOULDER CITY
12
parking or they want the truckers' every nickel they
can get And if you go the Railroad Pass way now,
there'
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14 1998
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
B
9
1C
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IB
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/itjyu
CITY
RFEORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF HCVADA )
) ss
COUMTY OF CLARK )
I, Shawn S Otc, Certified Shorthand
Reporter, do hereby certify that I took down in
Stenotype all of the proceedings had in the
before-entitled matter at the time and place
indicated and that thereafter said shorthand notes
were transcribed into typewriting at and under >ny
direction ard supervision and that the foregoing
tianscnpt constitutes a full, true and accurate
record of the proceedings had
IS WITNESS Wr3REQF, I have hereunto set tny
hand and affixed my official seal in try office n tne
County 01 Clark, State of Nevada, this ^3O^ day of
, J9S8
Shawn E Ott
CCR No 577
LAURIE WEBB
517 Smilli *h Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 OOC/00367e586
D23
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1 0
11
12
1 j
14
15
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
ORIGINAL
BOULDER CITY
CLARK CO-JNTY, B2VADA
In Re )
)
HOOVER DAM BYPASS PROJECT )
H EAR ING FC_R
_
DRAFT li MVIROM'MENTAL IMPACT STATEMEM^
isen at the Commanity College of Sojthern Nevada
3oulder City Campus
700 Kyoiring Street, Room 130
Boulder City, Nevada
O>. Wednetday, October 14,
AC 5 C 0 p >"
1 39E
Reported by
Teresa Lynn Dougherty
CCR No 365
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
511 South Dth Street, Las Vtgas, Neiada 8»U1
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D24
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOUIDERCITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
I
2
3
4
023-1 5
6
9
] 0
1 1
1 2
1 3
D24 1 14
15
1 6
1 7
18
19
2 0
2 1
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
023
Whereupon,
MR ADAMS This is Thotias w Aaaros,
2900 El Camxro, Apartment 1.18, I^as Vegss 89102
Well I -- I'm just waiting on the bridge
to come through I'd like to work on it You
know, give access to -- another access to Vogae
Anymore taan that I'd be repeating myself
D24
MR LEE Jones Lee, 3850 Mt Vjsta,
Apartmeit 145, I,as Vegas 89121
I'd like to see it have a building
because I commute back and forth from here I wort
en the Venetian now, and every two weeks I qo bac<
to flbaquerque, New Mexico Soire times, it's a
headache going across the bridge, ei^ier going back
or cooing oack into Vegas
And all the traffic tha.'s 1-1 there aid
<-.!•; people at the dam, <• o me it would bi a. gooa
idea to build one of tne three bridges
Ana 1 like the one that's -- wha-'s the
name -- the promontory, the one that's further on
top of the water, it's the longest, ara I think
the most second expensive I think
Ihe reason I like it is because like for
us it would be more work for us because the
construction is longer, and it would be safer for
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Stretl, I as Vegas, Ne»«ta 89101
D23 Adams, Thomas W,
Response to Comment D23-1
Assuming that funding becomes available and environmental clearances
are obtained, construction will start on the bypass in 2002
D24 Lee, Jones
Response to Comment D24-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment over the
Promontory Point alignment as the preferred alternative are presented in
Sections 2.6,1 and 2.6.2 of the FEIS and in response to Comments A10-2,
A13-l,andCll-6.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003872586
D25
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
I 0
11
D25-1 1 2
1 3
14
15
^6
1 7
18
19
20
2J
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
highway workers too because -- you know, I'm
sure - -
I th-nk that is the best having to have
a bridge and that's it
f*R ZIMMER Ea Zim.iier, 5530 Plainview
Avenue, Las Vegas S9122
Looking ac the designs 1 feel Promontory
Point would oe probaoly the most advantageous Or.o
significant thing is that the grades approaching
the bridge aren't •severe, would be beneficial to
trucking passing through the area They wouldn't
have tne long grades tc pull tha_ they would have
or the other two
Also a oridge above the dam would
preclude any possibil-ty oC erosion being a factor
in the bridge Because tne lake -- if anything
happened tc the aam, the lake above the dam would
e-npty out Whereas below the cam there may be
significant was.iing to erode footings and so forth
of the base rock
The cost of 704 million as opposed to
198 million for Sugarloaf isn't in my estimation
that significant
I think the steel rib through arch would
be more aesthetic and pleasing than the other
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South »th Street, I us Vtgas, Nevada 89101
D25 Zimmer, Ed
Response to Comment D25-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment over the
Promontory Point alignment as the preferred alternative are presented in
Sections 2.6.1 and 2 6.2 of the FEIS and in response to Comments A10-2,
A13-l,andCll-6.
One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point Alternative was not the
preferred alternative was the concern expressed by numerous agencies and
citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill into Lake Mead.
Construction within the Lake Mead watershed would impact water quality
The Promontory Point Alternative would involve disturbing the slopes
directly above Lake Mead during construction. Both during and after
construction, sediment and other pollutants would enter the lake,
increasing the turbidity levels.
In identifying the preferred alternative, there was not a concern about the
potential for Hoover Dam failing and eroding or washing out a new bypass
bridge downstream. The planned bridge crossing on the Sugarloaf
Mountain alignment will be elevated 254 feet higher than the crest of
Hoover Dam, 836 feet above the Colorado River, and anchored to the
bedrock walls above Black Canyon.
SCO/LA W2666 DOC/003672586
026
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
3
4
3
6
7
8
ij
10
a i
O26 1 ; 2
_ 4
IS
16
ia
19
22
23
10/14/98
designs I think that's the best choice
And tnat's my opinion and sure
appreciate your thinking about them
026
MR REHENTERIA John Remenlena, 1514
Sandra Drive, Boulder City 89005
My principal concern is that all three
of tne alternates -- and each one has its own
merit., but each and every one of ehese alternates
requires the closing of the roadway over the dam,
and I think that should be left open to tourists
I've heard these little snatches of
rumeni, that the dam will be closec to the public
ana closed to tourists and only oe open for
government official use for goveinment events and
functions and their facrxliea
And I feel that part IS not correct I
feel that leavirg the dcttn open for tourists and
small normal size vehicles no larger tnan a statior
wagon ;s f1ne
And then I could accept any one of the
three proposals, but nghe now all three proposals
require tnat the dam traffic be stopped I think
that is wrong and improper
D27
MR THOMPSON Larry Thompson, Kingman
To me, from City of Kingman, this is my
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702)386-9322
S17 South 9th Strtd, Lai Vegas, Nevada 8910!
D26 Rementeria, John
Response to Comment D26-1
As stipulated in the EIS, the dam crossing will stay open to automobiles,
recreational vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists after the bypass route is
constructed (see EIS Section 3.9,2.1, Bicyclists and Pedestrians). This
commitment to keeping the dam crossing open to tourists will also be
adopted in the ROD for this project.
SCO/LAW2666 000003672586
021
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
027 1 9
10
11
12
1 3
14
-.5
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
town I buy my groceries here and everything I
go to Henderson to buy my lumber Everything I buy
s right here I've got a PO box over here even,
but this is irrelevant
What I'm getting ready to say is tne way
we got it planned here and what I see, the trucks
re still going to have to come through part of the
own, and the noise, everything is going to be
till there W ly don't they cut in and go down
outh of the town by the airport and go out that
ay
How I'm going Lo tell yoj what Lhis is
oing to do It'i going to bring all of -he trade
rom Meadv-ew, Dolan Springs, and the people from
round the lake over there on this side, all of
hem cut- right on throjgh con_ng over heie anyway,
id going to build their trade up in town
This will be tile last place they can gee
ae cheap or anything else And it will save the
eople over there money even for buying their
rocenes right here rather than going tc Kingman
I thin< it would be a better deal if
they went through down below the town and coring in
by WilJow Beach This is just iry idea, and I
really think it would build the town up It's
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South SHh Street, La? Vegas, Nevada 89101
D27 Thompson, Larry
Response to Comment D27-1
The Willow Beach crossing has been eliminated from further consideration.
After being compared to screening criteria, this alternative fell short in five
important areas, thus eliminating it as a potential route (see Section 2 5 of
the EIS and response to Comments C4-1, C4-2, C4-3, and C4-4). As
explained in the EIS Executive Summary under Areas of Controversy, this
route was eliminated from further consideration because it requires about
19 additional miles of new roadway, primarily through NFS (Section 4[f])
land, and has substantially greater environmental impacts and higher
construction costs.
See response to Comment Bl-4.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D28
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
10
1-
i r
13
14
15
1 6
17
'. 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
going to bring traffic and trade as far as cars ,
but the big trucks and people that don't have use
for this will be bypassed
And 93 is going to be the NAFTA trade
route I don'c want my town messed up Like I
said, this is home Let's keep xt home I wart
the business in here, but I don't want all this
extra stuff like the big trucks and all
Go out on the highway and drive 20 miles
in either direction, and you'll see what I mean
Tne hignways are tare up baa enough That way once
we keep the scenic route -t would be a halfway
decent route
Between here and tr.c dam there's at
least two herds of the long horn sheep I think
it'1; rbe most beautiful thing in the world I
don't want them d^Tturbod They can't say we're
tearing up a habitat going the other way
I wart somebody to understand what I'm
trying to say as well as for me just to sit here
and. talk through my hat I know what I'm doing I
went out and looked these places over, so I know
what we're going through
Tne next place 11 we can't get it that
way we'll have to go to Sugarloaf My best one
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 Smith 9th Street, Los Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D29
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
D28 1 1 1
1?
13
15
16
17
18
19
D29 1 2 0
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
would be Lo bypass the town because of all Che
truck traffic and stuff The truck is not going ^o
stop anyway why have them coming through the
town
We can take it off the record now
D28
MR SPURLOCK Robert Spurlock, 901
South Bouldei Highway, #143, Henderson 89015
It's my belief that tne upstream portion
of tne dam has been forever alteied by 700 feet of
water and 7 million visitors a year Whereas
doviiit leiiH is still relatively *ild territory and
jnchaiged For that reason, Promontory Point is
the c-r.ly acceptable alternative ir Tiy op-nion
029
MS BURGER Sue Bulger, 1457 Rawhide
Road, Boulder City 89005
I'm for it I wo^k at the dam I can
see firsthand what the traffic proble-is are, not
only for the truck drivers but for tourists
[visiting the dam and for those people crossing from
Nevada into Arizona and vice versa
One concern is environmental impact
Seeing how the big horn sheep have adjusted to the
road that's been there for seme 60 years now, I
would imagine they're going to adjust to that too
It's nothing to go to work n the morning and see
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D28 Spurlock, Robert
Response to Comment D28-1
The reasons for identifying the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment rather than
the Promontory Point alignment as the preferred alternative are presented
in Sections 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 of the FEIS and in response to Comments A10-2,
A13-l,andCll-6.
One of the primary reasons the Promontory Point Alternative was not the
preferred alternative was the concern expressed by numerous agencies and
citizens about the risk of a hazardous material spill into Lake Mead. The
Sugarloaf Mountain route, being only 1,500 feet south of the dam, also
passes through a landscape heavily altered by construction of the dam,
with numerous electrical transmission towers and lines, substations, and
roadways.
D29 Burger, Sue
Response to Comment D29-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative,
with the proposed mitigation measures, as the preferred alternative on the
basis of minimizing environmental impacts, engineering and operational
advantages, and lower construction cost. Section 2.6.2.1 of the FEIS
discusses the rationale for its selection.
The preferred alternative includes four underpasses for bighorn sheep, as
well as two bridges and two overpasses that will be designed to encourage
safe sheep crossings of the U.S. 93 bypass.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D30
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
030 t 10
12
1 3
14
15
1 6
17
031 1 - 8
19
20
21
22
23
?4
25
10/14/98
the sheep along the ssdc of the road eating They
don't look like they feel threatened
Basically I'm for it, and I just hope it
can be done in the most efficient way with the
least impact to the environment I guess that's
1E D30
MS BLACKWELL Charlece Blackwell, 132
Forest Lane, Boulder City 89005
I tnin1; tney should scrap the present
daer pro]ecc and have all the truck traffic go down
through Lauqhlin pg^
M'-t WHELAN Tor, Whelan, 701 lira Street,
418, Boulder City-
Let's sec, ! uiderfetand that tre primary
rea3on to build t.icse Bridges is for safety, that
one of the safety issues is the traff.c itself
at a £!. t u r e safety issue is going to be the
transportation of not only hazardous waste but
possibly nuclear waste
Therefore it is my suggestion that the
bridge should be ae far downstream as it can
possibly be My suggestion would be Laughlin If
we could take th,s all the way to Mexico, that's
really where the hazardous waste and nuclear waste
should be crossing the Colorado River because it
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South Sth Since, Las V«e»s, Nevada 89101
D30 Blackwell, Charlene
Response to Comment D30-1
For detailed discussion of the rationale for eliminating the LBA
(Route 95/163/68), please see EIS Section 2 5 and responses to
Comments Bl-5, Bl-7, C7-2, C7-3, C7-4, and C7-9.
As discussed in EIS Section 2.5 and in response to Comment C7-12, NDOT
determined that a commercial truck ban on the dam is infeasible with no
existing practical alternative crossing. The crossing through Laughlin adds
23 miles to the trip from Las Vegas to Kingman, compared to the bypass
crossings near the dam
D31 Whelan, Tom
Response to Comment D31-1
Please see response to Comment C7-9 for a discussion comparing the near-
dam crossings with a Laughlin crossing relative to the potential impact of a
hazardous material spill in the waters of the Colorado River. The
conclusion is that a major spill at the Laughlin crossing could cause
contamination in Lake Havasu, with the potential to affect millions of
people being much greater than a similar incident further upstream in
Lake Mohave. The CAP and the Colorado Aqueduct originate on this
Stretch of the river, and both are major water suppliers to metropolitan
areas in southern Arizona and southern California.
The LBA might have economic benefits for communities along this route;
however, this is not part of the purpose and need for the Hoover Dam
Bypass (see response to Comments Bl-2 and Bl-5)
NDOT has begun preparation of an environmental study for the segment of
U S, 93 between the Wagonwheel interchange and the Hacienda Hotel. In
programming this project, NDOT determined that the "Boulder City/
U.S. 93 Corridor Study " is completely independent from the Hoover Dam
bypass in terms of its purpose and need, as well as its potential social and
environmental impacts.
SCO/IAW266B DOC/003672586
D31
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
-.7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
would jeopardize the least amount of Our water
resource if there was an accident
I£ the issue is safety, none of these
three options make any sense to me, because they
would jeopardize at least the Mojave if not the
Lake Mead Reservoir Let's move this thing as far
downstream as we possibly can
I understand the oridge in Laugnlin
would cost somewhere around 35 to 40 million
These bridges are around 200 million Laughlin
wants this bridge and waits the traffic to come
through tneir town because they are in an economic
s 1 uirp
Let's irake sure tne cotmiunities alorg
the river benefit ana that we respond to the
interests ard needs of those oommun.ties when we
make this decisior.
If any of these three bridges are built,
it will turn Boulder City into a median strip
between two freeways because NDOT will build a
bypass around Boulder City That bypass will cut
us off from our back dcor which is a recreation
area and turn it into a four lane international
freeway
That will destroy the property values of
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D32
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14, 1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 C
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/14/98
10
many of the people who live in Boulder City on that
side of town, and it will destroy the aesthetic
value o£ the town and many of our opportunities for
capitalizing on our greatest resource which is the
fact that we're in a beautiful place surrounded by
open desert, and we are right up next to a
recteat101 area
Please move the bridge south Thank
you
;1 he proceeding concljaed at
00cm)
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D33
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
BOULDER CITY, NEVADA, OCTOBER 14,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
1 J
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IS
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
10/14/98
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss
COUNTY OF CLARK )
I, Teresa Lynn Dougherty, Certified
Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that I took
down in Stenotype all of the proceedings had in the
bef ore -ent 1 tied matter at the time and place
indicated aid that thereafter said shorthand notes
were transcribed into typewiiting at and under my
direction and supervision and that the foregoing
tianscript constitutes a full, true and accurate
zeccrd of t.ic proceedings had
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have Tereunto set
my hand in my office in the County of Clark, State
of Nevaaa, this oil daY of \^/ CJvOl^-^
1998
1 r\
*jjm/tA* jDrt/upMCCT"
Teresa Lynn Dougherty
CCR 365
LAURIE WFRR & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
5 17 Sguth 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
034
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
O
D
1 0
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
ia
19
2C
21
22
23
24
^
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
1
ORIGINAL
HOOVER DAM BYPASS PROJECT
PUBLIC HEARING FOR DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
PUBLIC COMMENTS
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15,
5 00 P M
ClaiX County Government
500 South Grand Central
La& Vegas, Nevada
Reported by SHAWN E OTT, CCR No
1998
Center
Parkway
577
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (7024 38fi-9322
517 South 9lh Street, Las Vegas, Neiada
89101
!
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D35
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
•1
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1C
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
«=»£» 2 5
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
2
INDEX
COMMENT OF pzr.E
BILI, HORDAN 3
GEORGI CODY 3
DOUG POLLOCK 5
ANONYMOUS 8
PAT QUINN 10
NICHOLAS M HOGHES 11
DENNIS LACHASE 13
ATTACHMENT
Miscellaneous documents re Hoover Dam
Bypass through Lsughlin
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702^ 386-9322
517 South 9lh Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D36
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
7
8
9
10
032 1 I 1
12
13
1 -l
15
18
19
20
21
y ?
23
24
25
10/15/96 LAS VEGAS
3
LAS VEGAS CLARK COJMTY, NEV, THURS , CCT 15, 1998
5 00 P M
- oOo-
D32
BILL HORDAN Bill Hordan I'm a resident
of Las Vegas I use the highway to Arizona, and
something needs to be done whether it's any one of
the alternatives We need to do something
immediately to improve the flow of traffic across the
Colorado River Looking at the displays, I think the
Sugarloaf Mountain route has a lot oi advantages
You wou.d nave tuo man-made wonaers close together
The people visiting the dan- would have.- an opportunity
to see a spectac-ulsr bridge crossing the canyon, a"d
it loo-cs to me like it has the best location in
relationship to tne dam and the view ol the aarr
Let'L. huriy up ard get something constructed
D33
GEORGI CODY Good Evenirg For the
record, my name is Georgi Cody and I am hero tonight
on behalf of the Nevada Motor Transport Assocjatior,
a statewide membership organization representing the
motor carrier industry ir Nevada I would like to
begin by commencing the Project Management Team for
their excellent Draft Environmental Impact Study
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
5)7 Seulh 9
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
13
II
] •>
13
". 4
IS
16
17
18
19
20
71
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
4
The DEIS provides a clear and concise picture of the
problems associated with the current route over the
Hoover Dam Problems, I might add, the trucking
industzy has long been aware of
US93 is a major commercial route between
Arizona, Nevada and Utah It is also a significant
segment of a major NAFTA route between Mexico and
Canada. The trucking industry faces this narrow,
winding, steep, congested section of US93 daily and
knows first-hand its dangers and potential for
disaster
We have carefully reviewed the information
provided ir. the DE'S and agree witT the Team's
conclusion that eacn of the three recommended ouild
alternatives -- Promontory Point, Sugarloaf Mountain
and Gold Strike Canyon arc viable options The No
Build Altemativo is, in our estimation, not ar
alternative at all Ignoring a problem of the
magnitude of that which currently exists would be
beyond merely foolhardy or unwise --it would be
courting disaster
Tho problems associated with the current
Hoover Dam crossing w_ll not go away, they will only
increase over time We were glad to read in the DEIS
that the Laughlin-BulIhead City option has been
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D-38
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
5
6
7
8
9
10
;s
16
17
18
IS
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LhS VE3AS
5
studied and rejected as a build alternative
The trucking industry opposes this toxite
because of the high cost associated with diverting
truck traffic 23 miles and concerns over road
safety The DEIS rightly concludes this route does
rot address the critical needs of the Hoover Dam
Bypass Project Simply put -- it would provide a
poor alternative, not a solution
Based on the information contained in the
DEIS, the Nevada Motor Transport Association has
concluded the Sugrrloaf Mountain Alternative to OP
the most attractive of the three b u a. 1 d alternatives
This decision is based o.'i r?ad geometries, cost,
noise irpacts, ana other factors We are however
cognisant of the potential problpmq each of the
| alternatives presents 10 wildlife a*id cultural
re-souices _n the area We await further details on
the full inipacc of whichever o£ the build
alternatives IB selected We hope any adverse
impacts may be avoided or minirized
US93, as currently located, can no longer
adequately handle the 12,000 vehicles, including
automobiles, recreational vehicles and cotnnercial
vehicles which cross the Hoover Dan each aay The
dam reached its traffic capacity seven years ago
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 Soutli Sth Slreet, Las V«ga«, Nevjtla WW1
SCO/LAW266B DOC/003672586
039
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15, 1998
10
11
12
13
11
15
1 6
17
13
19
20
21
22
D34-1 23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
6
The route is congested, dangerous am vulnerable to
danage. It is time to move ahead to find solutions
and to work together to meet the challenges oC
providing a safe alternative to the US93 Hoover Dam
crossing
As a final note, along with a copy of my
comments here today, I would like to provide you a
copy of the Hoover Dam Bypass Resolution adopted by
the Nevada Motor Transport Association on October
5th, 1993. This resolution has been sent to each
nei^er or the Nevada Congressional Delegation and tc
Governor Bob Miller The resolution supports the
advancement of the Hoover Dam Bypass as a Federal
High Priority Project with future costs coming from
the National Corridor Planning and Development
Programs and the Federal Lanas Highway Progran
I'd like to thank you for this opportunity
to provide our comments to you here tonight
034
DOUG POLLOCK My name is Doug Pollock
h, all the departments involved in building the
bridge should get together, the Department of
Reclamation, tne Bureau of Parks and Recreation, the
DOT, Department of Transportation Money was
utilized for something that was not necessary at
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
$17 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D34 Pollock, Doug
Response to Comment D34-1
The Nelson Alternative, utilizing the Nevada 165 corridor and U.S. 95, was
evaluated and eliminated from further consideration primarily because it
would require construction of about 12 miles of new roadway causing
greater environmental impacts and at higher cost. For example, it would
impact approximately 491 acres of Section 4(f) land in the LMNRA (see EIS
Section 2.5 and Table 2-1).
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D40
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
2
3
4
3
6
7
8
9
10
.1
12
1 1
1 4
IB
16
1 ~l
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
7
Hoover Dam, the parking Iocs, that could have gone to
building a bridge The Department of Parks and
Recreations have created a restricted area in the
area that they want a bridge or the government has
At this point what would be feasible for a
bridge, because it can break at the points that they
want if that dam should break, they snould put a
longer span like Nelson wnich at one time was a
washed out marina Thete was a marina in 1974 that
was washed out TTC government ca-i reconstruct that
wash, rebuild the ma_ira, put a cridge ovor there,
and everybody will derive revenue from it The
State, the citizens of Claik County, the State of
Nevada will derive use from the -nar.ra and the bridge
and tourism will derive use of the marina and the
bricge and also will iicrease tourism to Clark County
and the State of Nevada
Also in '83 there was an -- sometime in
the early '80s, there was an overflow at hoover Dan
Tne overflow took it, but when they were built in the
•30s, tney were very thick stainless steel They are
now paper thin Also the dam has cracking, cannot
take the abuse of the heavy traffic over it Since
the contract has expired or whatever it was with
Southern Cal Edison, the government has not kept the
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9Ih Street, Las Vegas, Ne\ada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D41
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
10
11
12
13
11
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
D3S-1 22
23
24
10/15/96 LAS VEGAS
dam up to tne condition of what it should be That's
my ir.put
And all of these people should gee
together and find a way that's feasible that the
users car. have and also that the states will derive
and the government will derive for care There
already is a road existing to Nelson, been there for
yeais So all chey have to do is cut Up to two
townships north of the road of Nelson are not a
restricted area Anything further than that nortb is
a restricted area
Now, they're going to create a conflict
and say we want to go through a restricted area that
was designated restricted ten years ago Tnat-'s
hypocritical This is a lot of baloney T.iis could
have been solved 20 years ago
ANONYMOUS
035
Not even giver Bullhead Citv a
chance at the new tiuck rojte that could come down
the Arizona side and go over the Davis Dam on a
brand-new four-lane 163 that dumps off on Highway 95
and heads north to the Railroad Pass through
Searchlight, and Garth Franer, who has built 90
percent of the highways in the State o£ Nevada, will
give you a contract fox $1 million a mile for
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D35 Anonymous
Response to Comment D35-1
For detailed discussion of the rationale for eliminating the LBA
(Route 95/163/68), please see EIS Section 2.5 and responses to
Comments Bl-5, Bl-7, C7-2, C7-3, C7-4, and C7-9.
Moving the crossing downstream essentially increases the risk of impacting
water for millions of people located in southern Arizona and California. If
a spill were to occur at the Laughlin crossing, the potential for impacting
the water for several aqueducts located downstream becomes greater (see
response to Comment D31-1).
The USFWS has stated that the LBA would affect critical habitat for the
desert tortoise, and increased traffic in the area would result in substantial
direct and indirect impacts to the tortoise. Furthermore, the LBA might
have economic benefits for communities along this route; however, this is
not part of the purpose and need for the Hoover Dam bypass (see response
to Comments Bl-2 and Bl-5).
See response to Comment Bl-4, which discusses the rationale for
concluding that the Boulder City/U S. 93 Corridor Study is a separate
project with independent utility.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D42
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
2
3
1
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
1 I
12
1 3
.4
15
16
1 /
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
9
blacktop paving Ana iC's 60 miles, so you are
talking S60 millior
And if they wanted to use the old Daviq
Da-n route, they could build a new bridge in between
Davis Dam and the new Laughlin bridge for the trucks
and also put locks there that would rise, and if a
chemical truck spilled into the Colorado River, they
could close tne locks at Davis Dam, shut the water
off, raise the locks, lower the new bridge and get
the pumps and trucks in there and pump it all out and
nothing would go down the Colorado River and
cortaminate real drastic such as mercury or
radioactive natenal, which i £ tnis stuff spoils IP
the new bridge that they're talkirg about or from
Boulder Dam, it's going into the river, and who knows
what wil_ happen from that point
And as far as the envircnmsntal_sts are
concerned, there is no sheep in the area of the
Bullhead Road and there's no tortoises Tortoises
don't get within 1500 feet of the highway There is
proven statistics here, and, yes, it is 23 miles
farther, but Laughlir. needs a shot in the arm, and
this traffic v, o u j. d definitely do it, and the state
would receive many taxes from the casinos' profit and
also the sale o£ dxesel fuel for the truckers that
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D43
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
D36-1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
Ib
.6
17
18
19
20
•> I
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
10
they would purchase there if it was available, which
would consequently pay for this $60 million highway
expansion in a short time
And the people in Boulder City are
definitely against Che trucks coming into their town,
and now with this new bridge that you propose, you
are directing it right into the back of Gold Strike
Inn which is a casino, and if nobody knows it by now,
Mr Ensign, our congressman, has a piece of the Gold
Strike Inn alor.g witn Mr Bellomy and also owns the
Railroad Pass Well, how sweet i >_ .5 to ba/e all the
trjcks co-ning into the back door of your casino
D36
PAT Q'JINN My .lame is Pa: Quinn And
first on the record I would like to sf-y it's a shame
they d-di't use the Willow Beach oypass that was
engineered 25 years ago. but of the three options
currently available, there is no doubt thst Gold
Strike Canyon route is the only one to really take
It would be less cumbersome to traffic during
construction, and it is already bad enough coning
across the dsm the way it is, and I ]ust think it
seems like trie most direct route and will give trie
people new vistas to see as they travel down through
into Arizona I guess that's about it
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vega.;, Nevada 89101
D36 Quinn, Pat
Response to Comment D36-1
The construction of a bridge on the Willow Beach alignment is not an
acceptable alternative. As explained in the EIS Executive Summary, this
route was eliminated from further consideration because it requires about
19 additional miles of new highway construction, resulting in substantially
greater environmental impacts - most notably impacts to Section 4(f) lands
(public park and recreational areas) - and higher costs. See response to
Comments C4-1, C4-2, C4-3, and C4-4.
See Sections 2.6.2 and 2.6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative. The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative has the most
severe impact on desert bighorn sheep, has the highest cost of the three
near-dam alternatives, and would adversely impact a popular hiking trail
through Gold Strike Canyon to the hot springs.
Similar to Gold Strike Canyon, construction of the Sugarloaf Mountain
Alternative will all be done on new alignment, except at the tie-in points
with existing U.S. 93 in Nevada and Arizona. Hence, disruption of U.S. 93
traffic and dam activities will be minimized.
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D44
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
1 0
12
D37-1 .3
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
11
D37
| NICHOLAS M HUGHES My name IS Nicholas
M Hughes That Gold Strike, to me, that's the only
way to go Just like he said, in the first place you
are not going to distuib the rest of the loads up
there on construction when they're constructing it,
see, and that isn't the concern that I'm thinking
about I'm thinking about a lot shorter distance,
and you are not - on each end of the 93 going clear
over to those other two roads going over to Gold
S-r.ke Hotel, you have got a big long stretch there
where tiose two roads are running together right
there, and that's a terrible delay I was across
"hat road, oh, about two nonths ago, and right after
I left Gold Strike Inn, I got bumper to bumper with
traffic and I was last ooz_ng a^cng, coring a.one, a
foot at a time until I got down -- you know where
that road turns off to go to tnat lake, you know,
Observatior Poirr, you know wnat I'm talking about,
it turns to the left and goes off0 When I got to
that point, I turned aiound there immediately and
came back through Bouldor City and went to Railroad
Pass and on down to Seaichlight and Laughlin and then
I went into Kingman fiom that way
I have occasion to go to Kingman a lot I
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9ch Street, Las Vega*, Nevada 89101
D37 Hughes, Nicholas M.
Response to Comment D37-1
See Sections 2 6.2 and 2 6.3 in the FEIS and response to Comments C3-1,
Cll-6, and E4-1 for discussion about the Gold Strike Canyon Alternative
and the reasons that the Sugarloaf Mountain alignment was identified as
the preferred alternative The Gold Strike Canyon Alternative shortens the
distance between the U.S. 93/95 interchange in Nevada and Kingman,
Arizona, by less than 1 mile when compared to the Promontory Point and
Sugarloaf Mountain Alternatives (see EIS Table 2-1) Hence, the difference
in distance is negligible.
Similar to Gold Strike Canyon, construction of the Sugarloaf Mountain
Alternative will all be done on new alignment, except at the tie-in points
with existing U S 93 in Nevada and Arizona Hence, disruption of U S 93
traffic and dam activities will be minimized.
SCO/LA W2666 DOC/003672586
D45
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
11
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
12
have got property over in Monave County, and I've got
property at Searchlight You know, it's terrible to
get slowed down with that tourist traffic, you know,
where you have got all sightseers I think either
one of those, especially that thing that has a bridge
across the lake, I think that's the most ridiculous
one, and you are going to be congested witn traffic
going up to where it leaves the present highway, and
you're going -- when you get back on the Nevada side,
you are going to get back with that congestion on the
Nevada side frori tnat warehouse on to Gold Strike
And I tnink the only way to go is to take
that Gold Strike route It is going to cost a little
bit riore for c.innels and wnatnot, but it sa/es tiire,
it's going to De shorter and it solves the probZen
Yen don't get into that congestion up there or. either
sice of tie dam That's about all I have got to
say
I am just very much against those other
two routes, very much against those other two
routes I know one of the national parknan I was
talking to there, they seem to favor that one "just
below the dair, out that doesn't solve the problem
like that Gold Strike route, see I am emphatically
against those other two routes, and I'm going to
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D46
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l n
11
12
D38-1 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
1 3
write -- beside what, you are taking, I'm going Co
write my opinions down and mail it. in
D38
DENNIS LACFASE My name is Dennis
Lachase I live at 605 Spyglass Lane, Las Vegas,
Nevada One, this thing should have been in 15 years
ago I asked the environmental people what's
happening to the environment when they nave several
tnousaTds of cars backed up hours and hours every day
in botT directions To put it in, it would whisk
people through the area in 10, 15 ir^rutes instead of
keeping them there three, four hours I think this
is lorg, _orjcr overdLe
I did write porctnirg down or mis coirtrer-
shect rare This project is 20 years too late,
shouli hive been done in the '70s wnen they first
proposed it Due to three, four-hour delays on going
across the dam tne environment suffers more than what
they're doing And the more they procrastinate and
delay, the longer it's going to -- the worse it's
going to get
We are getting more and more tourists irto
town every year, so the jam is getting worse and
worse They have stopped rae from going fishing down
at Willow Beach Used to go down there after woik
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 Soulh 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
D38 Lachase, Dennis
Response to Comment D38-1
FHWA, the lead agency, has identified the Sugarloaf Mountain Alternative,
with the proposed mitigation measures, as the preferred alternative on the
basis of minimizing environmental impacts, engineering and operational
advantages, and lower construction cost. Section 2 6 2.1 of the FEIS
discusses the rationale for this decision
See response to Comment Bl-4
SCO/LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D47
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1C
11
12
13
3 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
14
Now you have Co take an all-day trip End of
scat ement
The No 2 is supposed to be tie leasr
environmentally impact, and it can be used or
installed the quickest, which I think would alleviate
this major problem that they have Just going to
move the bottleneck up to Boulder City I think that
will help Let's get it in and get it going
Let's get the road accesses to and from it
so that we can move people through here, because
they're mostly tourists They're not locals, and
wher. the locals get involved IP this, we have places
to go and people to see and things to ao, and we
can't do that It's easier now to drive down to
Laughlm and go actoss the bridge up through Kingman
ana then gei on the freeway, go that way, than it is
to sit tnere no* and go across the da^ It's 28
miles farther also
LAURIE WEBB & ASSOCIATES (702) 386-9322
517 South 9th Street, Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
SCO(LAW2666 DOC/003672586
D48
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
MS,
9
1 0
1 1
12
13
14
15
16
n
18
1 5
20
21
22
23
24
25
10/15/98 LAS VEGAS
RJLPO1TER ' S CERTI.FICATJ3
5 5
STATE OF NEVADA )
) ss
COUNTY OF CL-ARK )
I, Shawn 5 Ott, Certified Shorthand
Reporter, do hereby certify that I took down in
Stenotype all of the proceedings had in the
cefore -ent111ed matter at the time and place
indicated and that thereafter said shorthand notes
were transcribed into typewriting at and under ny
direction and supervision and that the foregoing
transcript constitutes a full, true and accurate
'••••cord of the proceedings haa
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I nave hereunto set my
•land and affixed ny official seal in my office ir the
Courty of Clark, State of Nevada, this oO aay of
1998
Shawn F Ott
CCR No 577
LAURIE WEB
386-9322
517 South
-------
RESPONSES TO THE PUBIIC HEARING TRANSCRIPT COMMENTS
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA, OCTOBER 15,1998
This page intentionally left blank.
SCO/LAW2866 DOC/003672586
050
------- |