|
WETLANDS: SLIDESHOW: Permanent Cancellation?
West Eugene Collaborative: two flavors of elites exclude 9 neighborhood groups
Fake Alternatives
WEP a Federal, not city, decision
one of the most illegal highways ever
|
see also Section 4(f) protects parklands 1999: 4(f) removed In 1999, ODOT requested that FHWA remove Section 4(f) designation for the BLM’s West Eugene Wetlands parcels in the path of the parkway. This action was done without any public notice or input, and was only made known to any citizen in 2002 when the author of this report was told about it by an ODOT official. Section 4(f) is one of the strongest federal environmental laws, and one of the most important for protecting public lands from ill-conceived road projects. ODOT officials declined to inform anyone that FHWA had removed 4(f) from the process during the October 1999 public information session, the discussions at the Eugene City Council about segmentation and fiscal constraint during 2000 and 2001, the June 2001 “West Eugene Charette” or in Oregon Transportation Commissioner Randy Pape’s and ODOT Director Bruce Warner’s public statements during the debates leading up to Measure 20-54 in November, 2001. ODOT did tell the Eugene Planning Commission that they had done this after questions were raised, but ODOT not make a more public revelation about their actions. ODOT did tell this the OTC about the 4(f) removal in its September 2001 packet about the WEP, but they did not publicize this information. In addition, FHWA has never made any known public comments about their decision regarding 4(f). It is likely that the removal of 4(f) was due to the BLM’s objection to use of Land and Water Conservation Funds -- an act of pique by pissed planners, not a serious legal analysis. Section 4(f), which prohibits use of parklands and public conservation areas unless there are no prudent and feasible alternatives, is a different law than the requirements mandating protection of LWCF purchased nature refuges. In other words, the ODOT / FHWA effort to evade 4(f) analysis did not affect the fact that LWCF lands cannot be used for highway construction. Technically, the FHWA removal of 4(f) was not a final decision, since it was not published as part of a Record of Decision. But its removal ensured the disenfranchisement of citizens from the NEPA process, since there was no way for citizens to learn about this decision without constant pestering of ODOT officials, which is not a good public involvement process. Fortunately, the 2004 Re-evaluation suggests that 4(f) will probably be reapplied to the BLM lands, and 4(f) is likely to ensure that an alternative similar to WETLANDS must be given full consideration. Timeline of removal of 4(f) protection from the West Eugene Wetlands 1997 FHWA/ODOT Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement includes section on 4(f)
March 31, 1999 The BLM issues its policy on “Prohibition on Disposal of Acquired Land”
Immediately after the BLM issued this “Non Disposal” policy,
ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration, without any public notice,
removed “4(f)” designation for the West Eugene Wetlands, claiming
that these lands, which have had about $20 million spent on public acquisition
and restoration, no longer fit their definition of a “park.”
FHWA and ODOT made a number of excuses for this behind-the-scenes decision,
but the real reason is probably that 4(f) has managed to prevent a number
of stupid, expensive, destructive highway projects from coast-to-coast,
and is a major obstacle for WEP approval. However, 4(f) and LWCF are separate
legal issues, and the removal of 4(f) did not negate the separate legal
hurdles of seizing lands bought with LWCF money. In April 1999 ODOT asked the Oregon Department of Justice to review its
appropriateness. DOJ reviewed relevant documents, concluded that the BLM-owned
lands do not qualify for protection under Section 4(f) and recommended
that ODOT ask FHWA to reexamine their earlier determination.” June 15, 1999 - ODOT writes a letter to FHWA, Oregon Division requesting reconsideration of 4(f) protection for West Eugene Wetlands June 30, 1999 - FHWA concurs, grants ODOT’s request (but doesn’t tell the public) October 1999 - WEP public information meeting at Willamette High School. I attended this, and do not recall seeing any mention that 4(f) protection had been removed from our public lands. This was the first time I ever saw a copy of the SDEIS, and noted that it was also a “Section 4(f)” evaluation. Section 4(f) has been one of my favorite environmental laws for many years, and if there had been any public presentation that FHWA and ODOT had removed its designation, I would not only have noticed this that evening, I would have made it a public issue the next day. If ODOT was interested in public knowledge and participation, it would have included an “errata” explaining the removal of 4(f) protection. June 18, 2001 FHWA Oregon Division Administrator Dave Reilly attends West Eugene Charette. He did not tell the participants that his agency had removed 4(f) protection from the West Eugene Wetlands. October 2001 – ODOT director Bruce Warner speaks at Eugene City Club / League of Women Voters forum promoting the highway, yet does not mention the removal of 4(f) protection (even after he was given an article of mine that mentioned this law). January 2002 - Lane County sponsored a public forum titled “Rivers to Ridges” that showcased the region’s park planning process. Forum organizers did not respond to questions about the WEP’s threat to Eugene’s largest open space, but did show maps of “public lands” in West Eugene that did not distinguish between lands bought for habitat preservation and ODOT “highway reservations” bought for road construction. The handout for that meeting also listed Short Mountain landfill, just south of town, as “open space.” This designation gives new meaning to BRING Recycling’s sarcastic ad to “Ski Short Mountain” (a mound that grows 7 feet taller per year). In this upside-down, Alice-in-Wonderland approach to environmental protection, endangered natural habitats bought with local and federal tax dollars are not considered parklands but the County dump is. Since this is such a good idea, perhaps the County will also consider the sewage treatment center or the proposed jail near Junction City as “open space” while parklands that bureaucrats chose not to call “parks” get decimated by Wal-Marts and freeways. February 2002 I learned that 4(f) had been removed from these public lands by talking on the phone with an ODOT bureaucrat charged with overseeing the Supplemental Final EIS – an official listed as being employed by the contractor (CH2M Hill) in the 1997 Supplemental Draft EIS. I asked him, incredulous, how the public could know about this decision. He replied that “you can find out about it in the Final EIS.” This is not sufficient public involvement, given the fact that the last SDEIS is now stale and out of date, missing critical pieces of information. NEPA’s implementing regulations at 40 CFR 1502.21 states “Incorporation by reference ... Material based on proprietary data which is not itself available for review and comment shall not be incorporated by reference.” |
