Thread by @shayshinecastle

There are some topics that every city reporter in Boulder has to cover at some point. Rocky Mountain Greenway is one of those, and it's up next. My time has come. www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/Item_5B_-…

(The other is also topical now, FasTracks, but thankfully I can rely on CPR for excellent coverage of that.)

What is the Rocky Mountain Greenway? A connector from Front Range trails to RMNP.

27 miles of trails built so far in JeffCo, Adams; trail nearly to Rocky Flats

The RMP was "proposed by the federal government in 2012 to link the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), Two Ponds NWR, Rocky Flats NWR, and Rocky Mountain National Park”

What we're talking about tonight is “cost-sharing, operating and maintaining an underpass connecting city open space trails with the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge” as part of RMG, in partnership with BoCo, JeffCo, Arvada, Westminster

Boulder and those entities jointly applied for grant funding for the project from FHWA’s Federal Land Access Program (FLAP). This was approved in the city via May 2016 council vote; OSBT also OK’d 5-0 at the time

There are public speakers at nearly every council meeting arguing against this because of the historic use of the land as manufacturing parts used in nuclear weapons.

There were several incidents in which plutonium was released into the atmosphere, or waste put into nearby lakes/reservoirs or just sitting on the ground, leeching into it. Plutonium pollution is an ongoing and huge concern for many.

Cannot recommend this book highly enough for those who want to learn more. (Or just enjoy a good story)
kristeniversen.com/book/full-body…

Anyway, that's the bulk of opposition to this project, from what I can tell: People concerned about contamination / pollution.

Boulder's participation hinged on soil sampling. Per the packet: Soil sampling done from 2016 to 2020 showed “radionuclide activity levels at the sites of the proposed trail crossings were found to be consistent with the standards ...

... used by the EPA and CDPHE to demonstrate that the Rocky Flats NWR is safe for public use. “

“Without exception … lower than historic values”

Here's what other cities said/did recently:
Broomfield CC: OK’d with concerns about radiation at Indiana Street crossing
JeffCo commissioners: OK’d with condition that soil be sampled during construction
Westminster CC: Unanimously approved (7-0)

What will it cost us?
City of Boulder share: $95,200
Total: $883,353 (for this one piece; whole thing is ~$4M)

One of my readers hated the book I referenced, so here are some more official sources about contamination at Rocky Flats, later designated a Superfund site: kunc.org/science/2019-1…

colorado.gov/pacific/sites/…

cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/curs…

Which was my point. (I still like the book; it was engrossing).

Anyway, back to the soil samples. Here's a chart from the city.

In sampling, "We did not see any indication that" there was a higher risk than indicated by previous reports "which allowed for unrestricted access at the site," says J Andrews.

Wallach Sigh-O-Meter: 2

Wallach: We've been getting a lot of emails. Is there anything new out there, or just on stuff that we've already resolved? "Because I don't follow the science all that well."

Mark Gershmann: "There's been a lot of sampling conducted. Each of these have resulted in new results. So there is new information."

Wallach: Are you at all concerned about the Indiana Street samples? (With the highest level of contamination, but again, below pre-set thresholds.)

Gershman: We were doing confirmatory testing. That is, samples that exceeded regulatory standards. "We did not find that." There was a range, "but that's what we were asked to do and that's what we did."

Wallach: Will there be ongoing testing?

Andrews: The concerns at Indiana Street... if you look at historic sampling, the concentrations were historically higher bc of the location and wind.

I didn't follow all of what he said. As Wallach stated, the science is beyond me. Afraid I won't be able to add much value here beyond They say A; they say B and some other historic context.

Friend: Did council's 2016 approval include public hearings and robust engagement?
Yes, Gershman says. OSBT had a hearing; so did council. (Only 18 folks spoke at the latter, but still.)

There was some community support, Gershman says: From the mt biking community

Friend: Those are the same perspectives we're getting now. So would you say concerns have remained the same?
Gershman: Yes.

Friend: This is out of my expertise. But very basically, do the samples show contamination going down?
Andrews: Samples are lower, but I wouldn't say they are decreasing. Radiation... plutonium has a pretty long half-life.

Friend: How much, if any, would be in my back yard if we did sampling there?
Andrews: Plutonium is a manmade substance. It's my understanding there is plutonium worldwide as a result of testing of nuclear weapons, from that fallout.

Idk what's in your backyard, Andrews says, but there is some background plutonium in samples.

Lindsay Masters, CDPHE, is adding on: There is plutonium worldwide from fallout from testing.

"It is multiple times above background at Rocky Flats" but it's below federal regulations.

"The numbers we see are compliant with that federal risk range" for carcinogens like plutonium, Masters says.

Friend: If Boulder decided to drop out of this IGA, what would the impacts be? It's my understanding we're just being asked to help fund a bike underpass.

Gershman: "It's correct the city's choice wouldn't affect the fact that the trails on the refuge will remain open for public use." There would prob be impacts bc the underpass is on city of Boulder open space.

David Lucas from US Fish and Wildlife Service: "At present, the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge is open." It's required by a 2005 act that we provide recreation. "That is really the matter of business now."

Masters: Where the former plan was located, that has more restrictions on it, and it's subject to water sampling, etc. "These lands have been determined to be suitable" for some uses and released from those restrictions.

Joseph: Are you aware of any ongoing litigation?
Lucas: I can partially answer this, bc we don't comment on pending litigation.

There were several cases, Lucas says. Several were dismissed. There was a request to block this. The judge denied that. There is one outstanding NIPA (? NEPA?) case that is "sort of tangential to what we're talking about here."

Swetlik: We've gotten some questions claiming that soil sampling is not sufficient to demonstrate the risk of an inhalant. Are there any tests that would do that, rather than just showing the existence of plutonium in the soil?

Masters: Inhalation and ingestion were specifically considered as part of cleanup standards for this site, and the risk range.

There have also been various cancer incidence studies, Masters says, a dose model, and studies on risk to animals. "There was significant consideration, is the takeaway there."

Lots of technical language there, but Masters essentially saying that even a hypothetical worst-case scenario for plutonium levels were below the amount considered dangerous or risky, health-wise.

Lucas: We will maintain signage about the history of Rocky Flats at all trailheads and other locations. "There is a discussion about risk on there. ... It explains in general terms ... and provides links to additional info."

Friend: "We gave our word as council" (not this one; the 2016 council, obviously) "We need to honor our commitments."

"If we were to re-litigate this, it would eat. upa lot. ofour time ... We already have too much on our plate to get through," Friend says. I'm hesitant to re-litigate what a previous council decided without significant new developments.

Crap, sorry for the . and weird spacing in that tweet. Pretty sure I need a new laptop

Weaver: I think there is more concern around what's happening at Indiana Street, which is consistent with wind patterns and water flow from the waste that was there.

Forgot he and Young were on the 2016 council that OK'd this. They were first elected in 2013.

"I think the chance of getting hit by a car and dying while crossing this road is greater than dying of cancer" from plutonium exposure here, Weaver says.

"I think we're proceeding prudently."

Brockett: "I think it fundamentally comes down to relative risk ... The trails at the refuge are open. .. The q is whether we're increasing ppl's risk or decreasing ppl's risk by building an underpass."

That is a dangerous road, so I think we're not adding to people's risk with this underpass, Brockett says.

That's it for this one.

@threadreaderapp please unroll. Thank you!

One additional tweet to make a BIG correction: Broomfield voted to WITHDRAW from the IGA over concerns about Indiana Street levels.