DETROIT — The environmental impact assessment (EA) for a new span next to the Ambassador Bridge linking Windsor, Ont. and Detroit continues to take a beating from a handful of U.S. government offices.

In three letters to the U.S. Coast Guard — which is accepting comments on the EA before making a decision on whether to issue a permit to the Detroit International Bridge Co. for its twin span “enhancement” project — the Michigan Dept. of Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Michigan State Historic Preservation officer all expressed major concerns with how the EA dealt with issues such as air quality and noise impacts, the relation of the new span to surrounding infrastructure, and its effect on the Canadian side of the border.

The letters, copies of which were obtained by TodaysTrucking.com, also questioned statements in the EA about future plans for the existing Ambassador Bridge.

The EPA issued perhaps the most powerful response, saying that many environmental and operational impacts of the bridge company’s enhancement project were “not fully addressed” in the EA, which was drafted by the bridge company and sent to the Coast Guard for review.

The agency cited long-term air quality and the impact of increased diesel fuel exhaust in the area, stormwater runoff, and transboundary impacts, all issues in need of further study.

Before any permit is issued for the twin span, the EPA recommended an “air quality conformity analysis” and a “qualitative hot spot analysis”. It also wants to see information about how the proposal would mitigate particulates to the maximum amount possible.

“Mitigation measures that should be considered include shifting transportation corridors to residential areas, anti-idling measures, and efficient management of truck traffic,” says EPA, which went on to suggest the Coast Guard also co-ordinate with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency in including similar concerns expressed by Canadian officials.

The Michigan Department of Transportation’s David E. Wresinski, administrator of the project planning division, echoed some of those concerns as well.

Artist’s rendering of a twin bridge to the Ambassador. Critics
charge that more study is needed before a permit is issued.

He added that the EA draft has no “quantitative traffic information”. Although the report contends there will be no increase in traffic congestion resulting from the new span, Wresinski said he wants to see the “traffic technical report” model that came up with that conclusion. “Traffic monitoring is the underpinning for any quality and noise analysis,” he said.

The Ambassador Bridge maintains that noise, local air quality, and the surrounding environment would all improve in time with the new bridge. But Dan Stamper admitted the case isn’t closed.

“We expected to receive some feedback on our Coast Guard EA. That is how the process works. We’re extremely willing to work with the proper authorities to give them responses to any questions they feel have gone unanswered,” Stamper tells TodaysTrucking.com.

In his comments, Michigan Historic Preservation Officer Brian Conway questioned the Coast Guard’s authority in issuing a permit for the project. “Upon our own analysis of these acts, we find that Congress specifically granted these authorities … to the U. S. Secretary of Transportation,” he wrote.

Now that the USCG is instead under the Dept. of Homeland Security, “the question remains as to when and how authority for issuing bridge permits was transferred from the Secretary of Transportation to the DHS, and therefore authorizes the USCG to continue issuing these permits.”

Beyond jurisdictional authority, Conway agreed a “more rigorous standard of analysis must be upheld in this EA.

“The document provides sweeping claims of how this alternative will provide every benefit from increased jobs to reduced air pollution without any substantial data to support these claims.”

Like the EPA, the history official seemed to doubt claims by the bridge company that the existing bridge — considered a historical landmark — would be maintained as a pedestrian crossing and used for slack capacity during days with heavy traffic or special events.

“Other than the word of the DIBC, there are no statements from the USCG, Customs and Border Patrol, or other relevant agencies in support of retaining the historic bridge,” he writes. “Indeed, such a structure, if not used to its fullest capacity, could be viewed as a navigational hazard, financial burden, or a threat to homeland security, therefore leading to pressures calling for its eventual demolition.”

The EA should also consider impacts to the existing bridge that may result from construction of a new bridge, says Conway, such as the effect of construction vibrations and debris.