Letter To The U.S. Department of Transportation About Adams County Rail Station

SULLIVAN GREEN SEAVY LLC
Barbara J.B. Green

3223 Arapahoe Avenue, Suite 300
Boulder, CO 80303
Phone: 303-355-4405
Fax: 303-322-5680
lawgreen@earthlink.net
November 19, 2010
United States Department of Transportation

Federal Transit Administration
Region 8
Terry J. Rosapep, Regional Administrator
12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 310
Lakewood, CO 80228
Re: Gold Line Federal Station Relocation
Dear Mr. Roaspep:
This letter has been prepared on behalf of our client, Lobo Inc., and the parties listed in
Attachment 1 to this letter, in response to the Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD)
proposal to change the location of the Federal station on the Gold Line project. We understand
that RTD has proposed to move the Federal station from the east location that was evaluated in
the EIS process and approved within the Record of Decision (ROD) (Federal East), to the west
location that was NOT assessed in the EIS process and not approved within the ROD (Federal
West). In a letter dated June 30, 2010 to RTD FasTracks Environmental Manager Liz Telford,
FTA made a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed change, and determined
that the proposed change would not require a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
The FTA relied on a Reevaluation prepared by RTD dated June 8, 2010 (“Reevaluation”). For the
reasons set forth in this letter, we are concerned that FTA has not followed the proper
procedure to allow the change in location to proceed, and in any event, the Reevaluation upon
which it relies is seriously flawed.
1. There is No Basis to Issue a FONSI.
A FONSI is not the proper regulatory mechanism. A FONSI is not the appropriate
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration
Region 8
Re: Gold Line Federal Station Reevaluation
November 19, 2010
Page 2
regulatory mechanism to evaluate the proposed change in station location. The FTA rules that
apply to issuing a FONSI are found at 23 C.F.R. § 771.121. Those rules apply to a decision
regarding whether an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) is required in the first instance.
In order to make that determination, FTA must rely on an Environmental Assessment (“EA”).
Based on the EA, either an EIS will be required, or a FONSI will be issued. In this case, NO
Environmental Assessment has been prepared for the station relocation and thus, no FONSI can
possibly be issued. Moreover, an EA has its own public comment requirements.
A Reevaluation is not the proper mechanism to support a post-ROD change in the

Preferred Alternative. The only documentation of the impacts of the change to Federal West is
the so-called Reevalaution prepared by RTD. A reevaluation is not the proper mechanism for
evaluating a post-ROD change in the Preferred Alternative. The Re-evaluation Regulation is
found at 23 C.F.R. § 771.129 and it does NOT apply to post-ROD changes to a preferred
alternative. At best, the Re-evaluation Regulation applies to whether the FEIS remains valid
prior to the issuance of an approval or grant. Moreover, there was no opportunity for public
comment on the Reevaluation.
In sum, FTA appears to have used the FONSI process to determine whether the
Preferred Alternative can be relocated, improperly issued a FONSI without an underlying EA
and the attendant public comment, and relied on a reevaluation that is not the proper vehicle
for changing a preferred alternative station location after a ROD has been issued.
2. A Revised Record of Decision is Required Before Federal West Can Be Pursued.
The purpose of a ROD is “to present the basis for the decision as specified in 40 C.F.R.
§ 1505.2, summarize any mitigation measures that will be incorporated in the project and
document any required Section 4(f) approval in accordance with part 774 of this chapter.”
23 C.F.R. § 771.127(a). The November 2009 ROD issued by FTA for the Gold Line Corridor
Project documents the basis of decision for Federal East.
Because the ROD does not designate Federal West for the Federal station site, and the
ROD is based on an FEIS that has assessed Federal East instead of Federal West, a new ROD is
required that is based on a new environmental assessment of the west location. Even when
FTA wishes to approve an alternative which was not identified as the preferred alternative but
was fully evaluated in the final EIS, a revised ROD is required. See 23 C.F.R. § 771.127(a).
Obviously, when an alternative was NOT fully evaluated in the FEIS, a new EA and a new ROD
would be required.
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 3
3. Even if the Reevaluation were the Proper Mechanism to Support a Change in the
Preferred Alternative, It is Fatally Flawed.
 As a result of the Gold Line EIS process, public involvement during the DEIS process focused
on Federal East. Federal West has no public scrutiny and comment because the west
location was discarded during the Alternatives Analysis.
 The Reevaluation states that the developer and Adams County had several local community
meetings to discuss their development plans. “The results of the public meetings were that
the community is generally supportive of those plans. . . .” (Reevaluation pg4).
Response. This statement is NOT CORRECT. For example, at the Adams County Planning
Commission meeting on August 26, 2010, according to the public record the developer
noted one person favored relocation of the Federal station to the west location.
 The Reevaluation incorrectly identifies benefits to relocating the Federal station to Federal
West (Reevaluation pg 4):
Cost Savings. The Reevaluation concludes that the developer will accommodate some of the
costs on the west site for the project.
Response. Federal West costs have not been fully analyzed – the developer’s share is not
documented, so analysis of costs is not complete. In fact, it is possible that additional costs
incurred with Federal West will include more extensive construction of infrastructure,
i.e. streets, utilities and water; construction of a minimum of two pedestrian bridge
structures not accounted for in the ROD; construction of a larger elevator than would be
required at Federal East and not accounted for in the ROD; mitigation of wetland impacts
not accounted for in the ROD; construction and reconstruction of parking facilities; and
more extensive installations to satisfy handicap access requirements.
Decrease in environmental impacts. The Reevaluation concludes that Federal West “has
fewer environmental impacts than the site to the east.”
Response. This conclusion is NOT CORRECT. In fact, avoidance of environmental impacts

has been the justification for selecting Federal East in the Preferred Alternative.
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 4
- Federal East causes positive environmental impacts with mitigation of any hazardous sites
connected with the east site’s industrial use; Federal West causes negative environmental
impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, wildlife, migratory birds, and Clear Creek.
- Federal West may include environmental impacts from tearing up and disposing of
surface parking after development occurs.
- “The Federal West Station Alternative was eliminated to avoid disturbances to wetlands,
which could only be avoided with additional infrastructure investments.” See pg 5, letter
from Susan K. Hall (URS) to Margaret Langworthy (US Army Corps of Engineers, Denver
Regulatory Office) dated February 12th, 2009.
 The Reevaluation states that RTD has required the developer to engineer the station area to
30% to be consistent with the FEIS level of engineering, and that this engineering must show
avoidance/minimization of any environmental impacts (particularly jurisdictional wetlands
and open waters at Clear Creek). (Reevaluation pg 9).
Response. This is NOT SUFFICIENT for purposes of changing the preferred station location
under the Preferred Alternative contemplated by the FEIS and the ROD. There has to be a
complete discussion of any mitigation before the Preferred Alternative can be changed.
 The Reevaluation states that“*t+raffic mitigation in the FEIS and ROD for the Federal east
site included adding separate right and left turn lanes at 60th Avenue (the main road
accessing the station from Federal) in 2015 and signalization of that intersection by 2030.
The traffic impacts would be the same for the Federal west site since the volume of traffic
for the project remains the same. The Federal west site would require the same mitigation
as the Federal east site.” (Reevaluation pg 11).
Response. This assumption is WRONG. Moving the station to Federal West DOES change
the flow of traffic, and the traffic studies did not include mitigation for Federal West.
- at Federal East the bulk of traffic approaching from the highway would be making a right
turn into the station; by moving the station to Federal West, the bulk of traffic
approaching from the highway would have to make a left turn into the station.
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 5
- the bulk of the residential traffic (including Berkeley and Regis) will approach the station
by heading north on Federal Boulevard; by moving the station to Federal West this traffic
would need to make a left turn.
- Federal East has options for additional east-west and north-south connectivity with the
addition of through streets connecting to Pecos and 60 th, easing congestion. Federal West
is only accessible from a single Federal Boulevard turn-in; traffic conditions will be
affected by the site’s proposed narrow streets and the high density residential, business,
pedestrian and bike traffic.
- The Reevaluation fails to evaluate the deceleration rate for the train and how far back
from the station the train needs to start slowing down. The Reevaluation fails to identify
or evaluate impacts to Lowell Boulevard that this could create. Lowell is already impacted
by multiple train crossings. The addition of FasTracks will exacerbate the problem.
 Potential impacts to Federal West access which are related to the planned 100-year bridge
at Federal Boulevard and the downstream channelization have not been evaluated.
 The Reevaluation states that “there will be a pedestrian structure from the station platform
to the parking area such that any potential impacts to open waters or wetlands will be
avoided.” (Reevaluation pg 14).
Response. In fact, there will be two pedestrian structures at Federal West, and they will not
completely avoid impacts to open waters or jurisdictional wetlands. The impact to wetlands
was NOT evaluated in the EIS process or in the Reevaluation.
 Concerns regarding parking provisions in the Clear Creek floodway were resolved by moving
the parking facility to the furthest east location, outside of the floodway. The EIS and the
Reevaluation do not establish whether or not Federal West parking, platform and
appurtenant structures are in the 100-year floodplain and if there will be impacts.
 The Reevaluation states that the number of parking spaces needed for the project are the
same for both Federal East and Federal West, therefore the new impervious surface created
for the park-and-ride would be the same for both locations and the water quality analysis
done for the EIS, relative to Federal East is applicable to either location. (Reevaluation
pg 17).
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 6
Response. This assumption is based on the premise that both sites are equal and
comparable in nature. This is NOT TRUE. Federal East, being industrial, cannot be equally
compared to Federal West which abuts to jurisdictional wetlands, historically protected
Kershaw Ditch and Clear Creek and will increase contaminated runoff loadings to Clear
Creek, while Federal East does not.
 The Reevaluation states that, with storm water controls, the FEIS indicated that there would
be no violations of water quality standards associated with the additional runoff directly
caused by the parking for Federal East. Therefore, there would be no violations of water
quality standards associated with the additional runoff directly caused by having parking on
the west side. (Reevaluation pg 17).
Response. This statement has no basis. It is incorrect to assume that no problem on the
east location equals no problem on the west location. On-site detention is required (per
FEIS mitigation) for the Federal station on either site.
 Handicap access is not addressed for Federal West, which poses significantly greater
challenges for the physically challenged, and RTD design guidelines specify that the site
selected should minimize or negate the need for vertical circulation.
 The Reevaluation states that “the Gold Line FEIS noted that the project would not cause any
regional air quality impacts for criteria pollutants and would result in a net decrease over
the No Action Alternative. Hot Spot analyses completed at station areas for the EIS also
showed no impacts. Since the parking/traffic would be essentially the same with the Federal
east and Federal west sites, there would be no difference in the hot spot analysis for either
site.” (Reevaluation pg 11).
Response. There is no basis to assume that there would be no difference in the hot spot
analysis for the two sites; Federal East is industrial while Federal West is in a basin by a lake
and wetlands, and is directly above Clear Creek.
 The Reevaluation states that the noise analysis completed for the FEIS indicated that there
are no noise impacts in the area of the Federal station. The Reevaluation states that there is
moderate impact to a residence near Lowell Boulevard (1,948 feet west of Federal West).
The closest sensitive receptors to the Federal West is neighborhoods 960 feet to the north,
well outside of the FTA screening distances for rail rapid transit, rail rapid transit stations
and parking facilities. (Reevaluation pg 13).
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 7
Response. These statements are WRONG. The noise analysis completed in the FEIS did not
include Federal West. Federal East comprises industrial land use, with the attendant noise
and truck traffic; Federal West comprises residential land use and open space, and is
peaceful and serene by comparison. Sound mitigation for the nearby residences of Aloha
Beach has not been addressed. Also, RTD is tearing down a mature riparian buffer that has
helped with sound issues.
 The Reevaluation states that “the Section 106 consultation for the Gold Line EIS included the
area of the Federal west station option within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) . . . There
were no listed or eligible properties within the APE in the Federal west station location and
therefore no historic properties are affected.” (Reevaluation pg 12).
Response. This conclusion is WRONG. Lake Sangraco was not included in the study area,
even though it is classified as “historic” and located closer to the tracks. Moreover, the
Kershaw Ditch is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under
Criterion A. On September 8, 2008, the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer
concurred that the linear resource is eligible for listing in the NRHP, and that this segment
retains sufficient integrity to support the overall eligibility of the entire resource. The
original Kershaw Ditch runs from Lowell Boulevard to Clear Creek, a segment of which is
located under Federal West. These historic properties have not been accounted for.
 The Reevaluation states that a “Phase I Site Assessment was completed for the Gold Line EIS.
There were 2 sites within the footprint of [Federal East]; a landfill within the footprint of the
station (the full acquisition) and a registered UST site at 5901 North Federal . . . The Federal
east site is within a methane overlay district; the Federal west site is not. No sites were
found within the Federal west footprint.” (Reevaluation pg 13).
Response. The registered UST site is actually located outside the current Federal East
footprint. Early in the EIS Alternatives Analysis screening process, two east locations were
considered for the Federal station; one of these eastern sites was discarded around the
time Federal West was brought forward for consideration. The UST site is in the area of the
discarded eastern site.
 The Reevaluation states that there are no community facilities within the areas surrounding
the station, and that there are fewer than 20% low income households and 45% minority
households within ½ mile of the station. “Access to transit would be enhanced for these
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 8
communities and would be a benefit. Therefore, there are no environmental justice impacts
for the Federal west station location.” (Reevaluation pg 13).
Response. This is not an accurate assessment of the community facilities around Federal
West. The original “study area” for these statistics was based on Federal East. It is possible
that moving the station to the west location will change the dynamics and these statistics.
For example, a reduction in the ridership population is possible due to commuter access
issues created by the west location.
 The Reevaluation states that there would be no additional wetland impacts by relocation of
the station from Federal East to Federal West (that impacts to .02 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands in this area are caused by the structure over the creek and not the station area),
therefore there will be no requirement to amend the existing 404 Nationwide Permit for the
project. (Reevaluation pg 14).
Response. This conclusion is NOT CORRECT. The rationale for selecting Federal East under
the Preferred Alternative reflected that jurisdictional impacts associated with Federal West
were avoided by selecting the east location.
- Chris Proud, CH2MHill, in a June 29, 2007 email to Rena Brand, Corps of Engineers, states
that “*a+ll station locations are located in developed, urbanized areas and, at this time,
have no impacts to wetlands. As we move forward with a preferred alternative, these
sites will be refined and ultimate locations determined in the project's next phase. A fatal
flaw for a station site would be impact to wetlands. We would design around, or select
sites so there were no wetlands impacts at station sites. The goal of the project is to stay
within the ROW and developed areas. . . .”
- In a letter from Timothy T. Carey, Corps of Engineers, dated August 29, 2008 Mr. Carey
notes that “*t+he DEIS indicates that you are currently in negotiations with Union Pacific
Railroad regarding the amount of clearance between the existing tracks and your
proposed set of tracks. If they require a 50 foot track center, the additional wetland
impacts for the project may exceed the 0.50 acre threshold and require an Individual
Permit rather than a Nationwide Permit.” RTD responded that “*d+ue to avoidance and
minimization efforts the project impacts have been maintained to less than 0.5 acre
qualifying the project for a Nationwide Permit.” *FEIS Vol. II, Response to Agency and
Public Comments for the Gold Line Corridor and Commuter Rail Maintenance Facility,
pg. 55]
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 9
- the size of the jurisdictional wetlands from Sangraco spillway to Clear Creek has been
underestimated.
- the wetlands affected on Federal East are non-jurisdictional.
 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) identified impacts to the Lake Sangraco
spillway and channel, which is the outlet for the Hidden Lake watershed. The EIS assumes
that the Preferred Alternative will include the Federal East station location. The impacts to
Lake Sangraco, Lake Sangraco spillway, and the abutting wetlands were NOT evaluated for
Federal West in either the EIS or the Reevaluation.
 The Reevaluation states that Federal West is not within the 100-year floodplain.
(Reevaluation pg 14).
Response. The map used in the Reevaluation shows that Federal West is not in a
floodplain. However, the map used in the Reevaluation differs from the maps used in the
ROD and in the FEIS. Both the ROD map and the map used in the FEIS (FEIS figure 3.10.10,
shown below) DO show that portions of Federal West would be in the floodplain. Based on
FEIS figure 3.10.10, it appears that features such as elevators, bridge pillars, and stairs to
access the station would be located in the 100-year floodplain, and that the station would
require construction of piers and other structural components in the floodplain.
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 10
 Neither the FEIS nor the Reevaluation discuss the following floodplain impacts from building
Federal West:
- floodplain impacts resulting from the increased embankment on the west (from the
tracks), fill in the floodplain and wetlands, and increased impervious surface along the
south side of Lake Sangraco.
- rise caused by building Federal West is not accounted for, nor is the rise caused by fill
between Lowell and Clear Creek.
- alteration to the floodplain from Lowell to Clear Creek.
 Impacts from the “fill” that is shown in FEIS Figure 3.10.11 below have not been addressed
for Federal West:
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 11
 Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and other water features at the Federal station were
avoided by selecting Federal East (impacts to jurisdictional wetlands could have only been
avoided with additional infrastructure investments). The Reevaluation does not assess these
impacts.
 The Reevaluation states that there are no impacts to high-quality habitat or listed
endangered or threatened species by the implementation of Federal West. (Reevaluation pg
17).
Response. Federal West contains wild life habitat, and the impacts to the habitat HAVE
NOT been evaluated.
 The Reevaluation states that RTD safety and security design features would be the same as
those implemented for any other park-and-ride. There will be emergency telephones in
station areas and closed circuit television coverage. (Reevaluation pg 17).
Response. There has been NO evaluation of safety and security for Federal West, which
abuts a creek, a lake, and wooded area that will be difficult to secure. Also, it is likely that
safety and security requirements and design features will differ with the addition of
floodplain guidelines and restrictions.
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 12
 The Reevaluation states that construction impacts will be the same for Federal West and
Federal East. Since neighborhoods are far removed from either station site, few impacts are
expected. (Reevaluation pg 17).
Response. Construction impacts are NOT the same. The mitigation for construction
impacts found in the ROD, as well as the FEIS, address Federal East. Federal West presents
a different scenario, and must be mitigated differently. Federal East contains industrial land
use while Federal West comprises a natural environment with residential housing across the
lake. Construction will have a much greater impact on wetlands, wildlife, and migratory
birds at Federal West than at Federal East. Construction associated with Federal West will
have a greater impact on Clear Creek which will be directly adjacent to the construction site.
Also, the Reevaluation does not evaluate impacts and mitigation for the south bank of
Sangraco, as well as the possibility of construction affecting the lake itself or the potential
sedimentation, erosion, noxious weed invasion to wetlands, and destruction of established
riparian buffers.
 Visual and aesthetic resources were not addressed in the Reevaluation. The visual impact
associated with Federal West is far greater than with Federal East: the visual change would
be minor for Federal East because the project is being constructed within existing industrial
and commercial land uses.
Under Federal East, impacts have been reduced because the majority of the project would
be located in a railroad ROW. The visual impact of the project has been a concern identified
in the public involvement process for the Gold Line study area, especially with respect to
overhead catenary and the architecture of the transit stations. Public input under the EIS
process identified concerns and allowed the team to address, avoid, or minimize these
concerns through the design process. Federal West has not been evaluated within such a
process.
 The FEIS concludes that the Preferred Alternative (which assumes Federal East) would be
both compliant and supportive of existing and future land use and transportation planning
within the Gold Line study area.
Response. The Reevaluation does not establish that the Proposed Alternative would
continue to “be both compliant and supportive of existing and future land use and
transportation planning within the Gold Line study area” if the Federal station is relocated
to Federal West.
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page 13
Thank you in advance for your consideration of our concerns with RTD’s proposal to
change the location of the Federal station on the Gold Line project. We would be glad to meet
with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this letter.
Sincerely,
Barbara J.B. Green

cc: Susan Borinsky,FTA
Scott Biehl, FTA
Kathy Sneed, Union Pacific
Patrick McGill, Union Pacific
Daniel Leis, Union Pacific
Larry Svoboda, EPA Region 8
Jody Ostendorf, EPA Region 8
Timothy T. Carey, Corps of Engineers
Margaret K. Langworthy, Corps of Engineers
Bill DeGroot, Urban Drainage and Flood Control
Adams County Board of County Commissioners
RTD Board
Phil Washington, RTD
Liz Telford, RTD
William G. McMullen, RTD
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page A1-1
ATTACHMENT 1
The following have joined as parties to this letter:
Lobo LLC Denver, CO

3556 W. 62nd Avenue Eric D Durnell
Denver, CO 80221 3090 W. 63rd Ave.
Denver Co 80221
Molen & Associates, LLC
Environmental Cousultants Teresa Fanton
2090 E 104th Ave, #205 3417 W. 62nd St.
Thornton, CO 80233 Denver, CO 80221
Toby Hood Rebecca R. Kokoszka

TDH Properties 3220 W. 62nd Ave
5897 Lowell Blvd. Denver, CO 80221
Denver CO 80221
Adam McClure
Hamid Taha 7598 Osceola St.
Alpine Lumber Company Westminster CO 80030
5800 N. Pecos St
Denver Co 80221 Dr Russell Knoth
3193 West Longfellow
Hamid Taha Denver CO 80221
3292 W. 62nd
Denver, CO 80221 Mile High Sprinklers
62nd Federal
Precision Sample, LLC Denver, CO 80221
7450 W. 52nd Ave., #M326
Arvada, CO 80002 Andrew Jordan
Jordan High Pressure Washer
S&W Performance 6241 Federal Blvd
2450 W. 63rd Ct. Denver, CO 80221
Denver, CO 80221
Great Western Erectors
Sanford M. Treat III 6320 Beach St.
3532 West 62nd. Ave. Denver, CO 80221
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page A1-2
Health Restoration Inc. Perditta Gillan

3220 W. 62nd Ave 3124 W. 62nd Ave.
Denver, CO. 80221 Denver, CO 80221
Thomas B. Stevens Christina Childs

3316 W. 62nd. Ave. 3412 W 62nd Ave
Denver, Co 80221-1907 Denver, CO 80221
Josh Carter William Todd Smith

3508 W. 62nd Avenue 3172 West 62nd Avenue
Denver CO 80221 Denver CO 80221
Jim Hohn Paul J Heffernan

3465 W. 62nd Ave. 3360 W. 63rd Ave
Denver, CO 80221 Denver, CO 80221
Brian T. Bakke Sandra Daley

3177 W 62nd Ave. 3196 W. 62nd Ave.
Christina M. Neher Kim Gillan

3100 W. 63rd Avenue 3556 West 62nd Ave
Thomas Ramey Watson, Ph.D., Dennis Bosko

3537 W 62 AVE 3153 W. 62nd Avenue
Denver, CO 80221-1907 Denver CO 80221
Dana Gillan Dr. Richard E. Winnick & Associates

6537 Bear Ridge Way 3000 E. 1st Ave #208
Golden, CO 80403 Denver, CO 80206
Daniel A. Rief Katherine F. Treat

3393 W 62nd Ave 3532 West 62nd. Ave.
Denver, CO 80221 Denver, CO
Region 8
November 19, 2010
Page A1-3
Lee Gillan Shannon M. Taha

3124 W. 62nd Ave. 3292 W. 62nd
Nigel V Alexander Lisbeth Roth

3080 W. 63rd Avenue 3417 W. 62nd St.
Denver CO 80221 Denver, CO 80221
Katie McClure Corrissa Gillan

3244 west 62nd ave 3556 W. 62nd Ave
Denver CO 80221 Denver, CO 80221
JD Ryan Investments LLC Patricia Bosko

3220 W. 62nd Ave 3153 W. 62nd Avenue
Denver, CO. 80221 Denver CO 80221
Don Golden Pat Daley

3148 W. 62nd Ave. 3196 W. 62nd Ave.
Rachel Carter Jeff Fujiki

3508 W. 62nd Avenue Denver, CO 80221
Denver CO 80221
Rick Gillan
Shane R. Kokoszka 6537 Bear Ridge Way
3220 W. 62nd Ave Golden, CO 80403
Denver, CO. 80221
Alan Gillan
Marty Hohn 3556 West 62nd Ave
3465 W. 62nd Ave. Denver, CO 80221
Denver, CO 80221
Concerned Citizens for Compatible
Katherine Golden Development
3148 W. 62nd Ave. Denver, CO 80221
Denver, CO 80221
DISTRIBUTION
11/19/10 letter to FTA: Re: Gold Line Federal Station Relocation
cc: Susan Borinsky,FTA

Scott Biehl, FTA
Kathy Sneed, Union Pacific
Patrick McGill, Union Pacific
Daniel Leis, Union Pacific
Larry Svoboda, EPA Region 8
Jody Ostendorf, EPA Region 8
Timothy T. Carey, Corps of Engineers
Margaret K. Langworthy, Corps of Engineers
Bill DeGroot, Urban Drainage and Flood Control
Adams County Board of County Commissioners
RTD Board
Phil Washington, RTD
Liz Telford, RTD
William G. McMullen, RTD
emailed to the following:

DALEIS@up.com, svoboda.larry@epa.gov, ostendorf.jody@epa.gov,
margaret.k.langworthy@usace.army.mil, bdegroot@udfcd.org, lpace@co.adams.co.us,
anichol@co.adams.co.us, sfischer@co.adams.co.us
hard copy mailed to the following:

United States Department of Transportation East Building, 4th Floor
Federal Transit Administration, Region 8 ATTN: Office of Chief Counsel
Terry J. Rosapep, Regional Administrator Scott Biehl
12300 W. Dakota Avenue, Suite 310 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Lakewood, CO 80228 Washington, DC 20590
US Department of Transportation
East Building, 4th Floor
ATTN: Office of Planning and Environment
Susan Borinsky Kathy Sneed
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Law Department
Washington, DC 20590 Union Pacific Railroad Company
1400 Douglas Street, STOP 1580
US Department of Transportation Omaha, NE 68179-1690
Patrick R. McGill
Senior Counsel
Law Department
Union Pacific Railroad Company
1400 Douglas Street, STOP 1580
Omaha, NE 68179-1690
Timothy T. Carey
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers
Denver Regulatory Office
9307 South Wadsworth Bld.
Littleton, CO 80128-6901
RTD Board
1600 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202
Phil Washington
RTD
1600 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202
Liz Telford
RTD
1600 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202
William G. McMullen
RTD
1600 Blake Street
Denver, CO 80202

Letter To The U.S. Department of Transportation About Adams County Rail Station

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Letter To The U.S. Department of Transportation About Adams County Rail Station

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SULLIVAN GREEN SEAVY LLC

Barbara J.B. Green

November 19, 2010

United States Department of Transportation

Re: Gold Line Federal Station Relocation

Dear Mr. Roaspep:

1. There is No Basis to Issue a FONSI.

A Reevaluation is not the proper mechanism to support a post-ROD change in the

2. A Revised Record of Decision is Required Before Federal West Can Be Pursued.

Response. This conclusion is NOT CORRECT. In fact, avoidance of environmental impacts

- the wetlands affected on Federal East are non-jurisdictional.

- alteration to the floodplain from Lowell to Clear Creek.

Barbara J.B. Green

Lobo LLC Denver, CO

Toby Hood Rebecca R. Kokoszka

Health Restoration Inc. Perditta Gillan

Thomas B. Stevens Christina Childs

Josh Carter William Todd Smith

Jim Hohn Paul J Heffernan

Brian T. Bakke Sandra Daley

Christina M. Neher Kim Gillan

Thomas Ramey Watson, Ph.D., Dennis Bosko

Dana Gillan Dr. Richard E. Winnick & Associates

Daniel A. Rief Katherine F. Treat

Lee Gillan Shannon M. Taha

Nigel V Alexander Lisbeth Roth

Katie McClure Corrissa Gillan

JD Ryan Investments LLC Patricia Bosko

Don Golden Pat Daley

Rachel Carter Jeff Fujiki

cc: Susan Borinsky,FTA

emailed to the following:

hard copy mailed to the following:

Federal Transit Administration

Вам также может понравиться