Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colonel Steven G. West <br />July 8, 1985 <br />Page two <br /> <br />Department of Highways' 1984 final environmental impact statement <br />entitled "South Platte River Crossing." I realize that the final <br />decision on the extent and scale of improvements to be made on <br />Bowles Avenue could change the qualities which characterize <br />Littleton as a community. Rightfully so, the city is concerned <br />about these impacts. However, the impacts of the proposed road <br />crossing on the floodplain parK are equally important, may require <br />expensive mitigation to achieve. or may be an unacceptable <br />violation of the floodplain park concept. Furthermore, there may <br />be alignments other than Ken caryl for a new road if needed. <br /> <br />Third, while there are two environmental impact statements <br />which provide background data and analyses relevant to an <br />evaluation of the proposed road crossing, neither EIS deals with <br />the particulars of the the proposed Ken Caryl road. The 1977 <br />final revision by the Omaha District of the channel project EIS <br />does not deal with a road crossing in an analytical way. The 1984 <br />"South Platte River Crossing" final environmental impact statement <br />recommends widening Bowles Avenue, "with the understanding that an <br />alternate river crossing south of Bowles Avenue will continue to <br />be pursued in a supplement to t.he EIS." Thus, the final statement <br />leaves to that later supplement. much of the analysis pertinent to <br />evaluating river crossing alternatives. For instance, the <br />evaluation of impacts on the park of noise and of the 100-year <br />discharge rate, of needed mitigation, and of objections from <br />several agencies were deferred to a supplement. Finally, the <br />investment of nearly $1 million of federal money in the floodplain <br />park also suggests that a decision affecting the purposes of that <br />investment bears thorough analysis and a public comment process. <br />Thus, it appears that these statements need to be revised and <br />supplemented. <br /> <br />Fourth, it appears that Littleton should adjust its schedule <br />for considering the Ken Caryl proposal since immediate improve- <br />ments to Bowles Avenue can proceed first and independently. I <br />offer this thought for your consideration since Littleton is <br />requesting your response to a proposed schedule. <br /> <br />In summary, the floodplain park is clearly the community <br />asset that Littleton envisioned, even though its full recreational <br />potential has yet to be realized. Furthermore, community support <br />for trail extension and other related recreational uses is <br />evidenced by the many financial contributions which make the <br />improvements possible. While Littleton faces very real traffic <br />problems, this does not obviate the need for a careful evaluation <br />of alternatives to a Ken Caryl road crossing and of the <br />requirements of section 88. <br /> <br />~' .- <br />