Email to ITD: Data Not Shared with the Community

From: Brian Rogers
To: Carrie Ann Hewitt (Idaho Transportation Department), Brian Rogers, Brett Haney, Ronald McGhie
Cc: Jerry Wilson, Heather McDaniel, Michael Hartz, Damon Allen (Idaho Transportation Department); Dan Gookin (City of Coeur d’Alene); Doug O. (Idaho Senate); J. Palmer (Idaho House of Representatives); Dustin Woods (U.S. Department of Transportation); Glenn Miles, A. Marienau (KMPO); Teresa Roth; Don McGhie
Date: June 23, 2026
Subject: Re: RE: Rathdrum Prairie Area Transportation Plan Data

The attached letter is ITD’s letter of November 17, 2025. The quoted passages are from ITD’s letter of October 10, 2025.

Carrie Ann,

I wanted to merge these threads (again).

I have attached the letter ITD sent to us directly nearly a month after responding to this thread with unproductive information. I think it is important to show everyone on this email thread that there is no value in the PEL study for actual community members (non-government employees) as information will not be shared unless requested from multiple sources through formal channels. However, consultants, government employees, and other parties have been provided this information freely.

It is unclear how ITD is considering this a “Working Group” when directly requested information, which would support analysis, is not being shared unless requested through formal channels; even then, the NHB group is concerned that excessive fees will be requested as KMPO has done in the past. In a formal business setting, it is illegal for companies to make claims without providing the full research and analysis to which those claims are based. These documents cannot interpret data to make it “easier” for people to understand; that is manipulation of information.

In addition, the letter ITD replied with on this email thread is deflective at best but also uneducated in the response. ITD cannot answer if it is abiding by the law even if a federal approver does not see an issue. None of the representatives on this thread are judges from my understanding. That said, many of the actions taken by the CDA chapter of ITD appear to be outside the intent of the PEL process and directly impacting citizens’ rights to information and impacting transparency in the decision-making process. Moreover, although there were selective responses in the letter, none of them addressed the simple questions of the actual data that have not been shared with the community. It is truly sad to see a government organization this uncooperative; nearly as bad as the KMPO.

ITD has made multiple efforts to meet with communities, stakeholders, and especially representatives from the No Huetter Bypass group, including yourself, to explain our thought process in detail.

The quote above is a completely disingenuous statement. It feels as if ITD is being purposely obtuse about the issue that is being referenced. During the outreach meeting we, as a group, clarified it was not the process but the lack of transparent information sharing that was in question. In that meeting, we ask specifically for this data that still has not been provided after nearly 2 years. It is sad to see this level of deflection from the problem at hand.

It is not accurate to say ITD has worked with the No Huetter Bypass group (NHB) in a positive manner. To the contrary, the NHB group is requesting a formal, written notice from ITD stating that there is a non-transparent working process in place that is significantly different than government base “working group members” (such as the KMPO) regarding access to information, providing design input, and review of the data and analysis process. It is further disturbing that ITD claims it has used input from the NHB group yet provide no evidence of where; even after being requested.

It is concerning how difficult it has been to work with ITD on this PEL study. It is further concerning how non-transparent in the decisions making process ITD has been with actual citizens involved in this process. The Maine Department of Transportation: Gateway 1 Strategic Plan is a good example of how communities and groups should be involved in a process of this magnitude.

An Alternatives Evaluation Process Memo was also made available that went deeper into the scoring criteria for the colors used to represent significance of the alternative evaluation data. This information was available both in person and is actively available online.

Since the information was published, it is a cowardly statement to say that the NHB group leaving a meeting kept us from knowing the details. Due to the massive lack of documentation provided to the citizens, it is impossible to review or validate any of the options presented by the PEL study with much accuracy. The shift to colors from faces provides no additional details. I don’t understand if this is just an uneducated response from ITD or if the State really believes citizens don’t know what data should be provided.

The Rathdrum Prairie PEL study is clearly the local government’s method to push forward with failed concepts. Even what has been used from “community input” fails to meet needs and removes the community’s ability to access frontage roads from West to East due to removal of ingress and egress locations with no description on how this will be addressed or the additional costs. The State appears to be hiding behind bureaucracy and failed doctrine to attempt to prove “need.” The statements that these items will be “handled at a later stage” is deflective as dozens of PEL studies reviewed provide more thorough and transparent details (as pointed out to ITD on numerous occasions).

The methods used by the CDA division of ITD seem a far cry from what has been used in other parts of Idaho (see Idaho Transportation Department: Corridor Planning/NEPA Integration Guide). Regardless of ITD’s adoption or not of the State Smart Transportation Initiative or even willingness to understand what the group does, multimodal is to be considered in corridor planning per [reference missing in the original email]. The many deflective statements in the letter show that ITD is not willing to reduce taxpayer burden with educated solutions and is willing to increase the amount of land acquisition that will be required. The concern here is that this aligns with the KMPO’s agenda to negatively impact this area further. In dozens of conversations with rational government employees, they have made the statement over and over that these designs do not support the community’s needs. The community has fought against these for years, and somehow, the State is going to further destroy this area against the taxpayer’s will. After it is destroyed, all involved will use the “Nuremberg Defense” when pushed on why it happened.

Since the responses from ITD and the consultants have been so limited in educated options, it is unclear how any of the options can be considered valid. While the FHWA representative may be “checking the box” on moving forward, as mentioned in our letter, there are many missing FHWA options that would help address the area and community’s need more thoroughly. Many of the designs dismissed were inaccurately described in the little documentation provided, which means that any selection made by ITD or other parties are misrepresented and disingenuous.

It appears that this part of Northern Idaho is off the rails and contradictory in purpose and goals that support the community. In fact, many of the goals of the Rathdrum Prairie PEL study are so broad and abstract it is nearly impossible to say there is value in the project or that it would or, for the KMPO and State’s agenda, wouldn’t meet the criteria.

Making statements that the current population is not large enough to warrant a more thorough set of design alternatives while looking at designs that 15+ years forward looking is absurd. To that matter, with autonomous driving and new means of energy coming in the next 10 years, the need for much of the truck traffic will be changed an likely reduced. The plans being moved forward are outdated before they even move into the NEPA process due to lack of industry standard awareness pushed by the State, KMPO, and the consultant team. The PEL study is truly a disservice to the community and all people that have, in good faith, provided input.

At every turn of the Rathdrum Prairie PEL process, the community has been hit with deflection and diversion from ITD and others involved in the execution of this project. These have made it impossible to work on any positive options for the community as, when an option is favored by the State, the community is not provided details or information to review the option for truth. Further, when the community has found an option that works best for it, the State has dismissed this to future phases for review and, in most cases, just completely dismissed without detailed information as to why and inaccurately quoted its concept.

It is not too far to say that, not only has ITD failed this community, but the State representives have as well by enabling this poor behavior and mismanagement of taxpayer resources.

Over 4 years ago, the NHB group started working with local government agencies because a large set of local citizens are against the designs the KMPO and now ITD are forcing us all to accept.

Thanks,

Brian Rogers

“Intelligence removes complexity.” - Me