Roosevelt
Blvd.is a better connector between Beltline and 99, it
serves northwest Eugene neighborhoods better than WEP could. Some
local traffic would use Roosevelt, regional through traffic would bypass
on Belt Line.
transfer WEP money to finish Beltline,
fix Roosevelt / 99 intersection two options for completing Beltline: (1) if Peak Oil is here,
(2) if Peak Oil is not yet here. The larger option could convert
Beltline to an interstate highway - perhaps I-605?
transfer ODOT / City lands for WEP to BLM's
West Eugene Wetlands Project
new roads:
First - 99 - Second Connector, Barger Road Extended & Trainsong
Connector (to NW Expressway)
fix West
11th intersections (would cost about $2 million, the cost
to complete WEP study), other road repairs
bicycle paths and lanes, pedestrian safety enhanced by road test for
drivers license renewals
land use shifts to coordinate transit and development, mixed use centers,
co-housing neighborhoods
"Saving Oil in a Hurry" - practical steps
toward coping with sudden energy shortages, road safety, speed limits
upgrade Amtrak to enable high speed trains to Seattle
Second and Garfield: ideal location for Eugene's
new hospital (central
& accessible)
Peak Oil and climate change are "new circumstances" that requires reopening
the NEPA process
City of Eugene Adopted Growth Management Policies
violated by WEP
Endangered
Species Act: a "license to kill" - Road Kill: Fender's
Blue Butterfly and Car Fenders
controlled burning for wet prairie restoration incompatible with WEP
environmental
justice: WEP traffic dumped onto 6th and 7th would severely impact
Whiteaker neighborhood
plants of the West Eugene Wetlands - photos by Linda Swisher
Endangered
Species Act: a "license to kill" - Road Kill: Fender's
Blue Butterfly and Car Fenders
controlled burning for wet prairie restoration incompatible with WEP
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglass
- a letter that protected a
park from a parkway
sand
and gravel - impacts of an elevated WEP in the wetlands
Osprey Group:
consultant for "West Eugene Collaborators" group
on this page:
Osprey Group consultants
selected in March 2006 to analyze WEP controversies
Osprey Group helped South
Lawrence Trafficway through wetlands, butterflies and Native American
sacred site
The Osprey Group is a Boulder Colorado consulting group that conducts "collaborations" between governmental agencies, business associations and citizens. They have been involved in projects that seek to mitigate the impacts of transportation projects - a very different goal than preventing destructive projects. One of the Osprey Group's main consultants stated in 2006 that the WETLANDS alternative was very well presented yet their reports for the City of Eugene have pretended that it does not exist.
The law is against the WEP, there is no money for the WEP, and Peak
Oil means there won't be enough oil to complete the project (we will be
lucky to have traffic jams in 2025, the design year for the project).
On June 18 and 19, 2001, an intergovernmental meeting called
West Eugene Charette brought together the City of Eugene, Lane County,
State and Federal agencies to discuss the future of the WEP. The meeting
reached a consensus to select "No Build"
for the Environmental Impact Statement, and to finish Beltline highway
instead.
This decision was not implemented (of course) and has been ignored by
nearly everyone on both sides of the WEP issue. Instead, a proposal was
put on the ballot to get the citizens of Eugene to endorse the WEP, but
that resulted in a virtual tie (with the pro-WEP forces getting slightly
more votes). That vote did not actually force the Federal Highway Administration
or the Bureau of Land Management to approve the road, and did not appropriate
any money for construction. If the City of Eugene really wanted the WEP,
it would have appropriated at least a token amount of money for the project,
but it has refused to do so.
New proposals for "mediation"
distract from the fact that the road component of the WEP alternative
is fairly straight forward, with only minor issues remaining to be discussed
(ie. would the Beltline / Roosevelt intersection remain at-grade or will
Peak Oil be held off a few years to require a grade-separated interchange
at that location).
The real issues to discuss are how the region will even HAVE
an economy in 2025, the design year of the WEP, and how refocusing on
sincere sustainability is needed to ensure we will have enough renewable
energy and local / bioregional food production to maintain a viable metropolitan
area after the era of cheap oil is past.
Osprey
Group consultants selected in March 2006 to analyze WEP controversies
Eugene Weekly, March 9, 2006
WHAT ABOUT NO-BUILD?
The Osprey Group of Colorado has been hired by city, state and federal
officials to try to facilitate consensus on the West Eugene Parkway
(WEP). Consultants John Huyler and Dennis Donald claim to be unbiased
and unattached to outcomes, but their website touts successes in the
construction of highway projects over the objections of environmentalists
and Indian tribes. The website (www.TheOspreyGroup.com) says "The
support we help generate means that projects are actually embraced and
then built or implemented."
The site says Osprey has "extensive experience helping jurisdictions
solve transportation problems at the state and local levels. Our public
engagement work has helped build community support on projects ranging
in complexity from specific intersections, to widening interstate highways,
to the design and implementation of TDM programs." (TDM refers
to Travel Demand Management.)
One example cited on the website is an apparent resolution over the
South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT) in Kansas, a project similar in many
ways to the WEP, including the filling and paving of high-value wetlands
over the objections of environmentalists. Native Americans objected
to the SLT's encroachment on spiritual and historic sites, and a local
university objected to anticipated traffic noise and pollution. Opponents
and proponents were nearly evenly divided on the project in 2001. Osprey
interviewed 30 individuals and reports that an agreement was made to
proceed with the SLT. Federal permits were issued in 2003, but the highway
has still not been built. The local newspaper, the Lawrence Journal-World,
reports of ongoing lawsuits and lack of funding that could either kill
the SLT or delay it until 2012. — Ted Taylor
Osprey has extensive experience helping jurisdictions solve transportation
problems at the state and local levels. Our public engagement
work has helped build community support on projects ranging in complexity
from specific intersections, to widening interstate
highways, to the design and implementation of TDM programs.
The support we help generate means that projects are actually embraced
and then built or implemented.
Interstate 70 in Missouri: Currently assisting the Missouri Department
of Transportation with public involvement activities associated with
the expansion and improvement of I-70 across
the entire state of Missouri. Osprey convened and is facilitating
a highly effective, 23-person Advisory Group. Current information on
this project is available at http://www.improvei70.org (this will open
a new window).
South Lawrence Trafficway (SLT): Osprey convened, designed and facilitated
meetings of the SLT Stakeholder Input Group in Lawrence, KS, and a retreat-type
meeting of the Board of Regents of Haskell Indian Nations University.
Products included a "Report to the Community" based on interviews
with 30 individuals and summaries of stakeholders’ perspectives.
We often use this type of neutral assessment and find it to frequently
be helpful and well received.
[emphases added]
[note: the South Lawrence highway would pave over wetlands and has been
extremely controversial for decades. Is this facilitation an effort to
stop the road or an effort to stop environmental objections to the road?]
Osprey
Group helped South Lawrence Trafficway
through wetlands, butterflies and Native American sacred site
The Osprey Group facilitated a survey-stake-holders group that was used
to help Kansas DOT run roughshod over the environmentalists to get the
"trafficway" approved in a final EIS. (It had previously been
blocked in federal court, just as the WEP has previously been blocked
in federal court.)
www.southlawrencetrafficway.org/3_projectnews.aspx Record of Decision Approved
The Kansas City District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has approved
the Record of Decision for a permit application under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344) and for a Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for the South Lawrence Trafficway project in southwest Lawrence,
Kan. The Record of Decision (ROD) documents the official decision of the
Corps regarding the Section 404 permit application and the Final EIS.
News Release Archives
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Corps Extends Comment Period on Final Environmental Impact Statement for
Kansas Highway 10 Bypass (South Lawrence Trafficway)
Sunday, September 01, 2002
Corps of Engineers Schedules Sept. 12th Hearing
Thursday, August 08, 2002
Commenting on the Draft EIS
Monday, February 11, 2002
Text of Corps of Engineers Outreach Letter
Wednesday, August 01, 2001
Public Meetings Scheduled
www.southlawrencetrafficway.org/2_community.htm
Stakeholder Input
The Stakeholder Input Group was formed to provide a forum where representatives
of interested organizations could meet, learn about and discuss the South
Lawrence Trafficway. KDOT assembled a group that represented broad cross
sections of the community and brought to the table a variety of interests
and concerns for the SLT. Here are summaries and transcripts from the
stakeholder meetings. Each pdf will appear in a new window. Requires Adobe
Acrobat Reader.
Oct. 17, 2001 Stakeholder Meeting
Meeting Summary (36k)
Meeting Transcript (123k)
Sept. 6, 2001 Stakeholder Meeting
Meeting Summary (37k)
Meeting Transcript (115k)
Stakeholder Interviews (89k)
www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/aug/08/community_perspectives_about/
Community perspectives about the South Lawrence Trafficway
Results of interviews in Lawrence, Kansas
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 8, 2001
The South Lawrence Trafficway, or SLT, has a long and controversial history.
The SLT is partially constructed, but has remained incomplete for years.
The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), through its engineering
consultant, HNTB, contracted with The Osprey Group to launch an effort
that will generate useful input to KDOT about the concerns and issues
in Lawrence relating to the Trafficway.
www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/oct/18/stakeholders_split_on/
Stakeholders split on SLT route
By Chad Lawhorn (Contact)
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2001
APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
(D.C. No. 97-CV-2132)
(972 F.Supp. 552)
The development of a southern bypass around Lawrence, Kansas has taken
a long and winding path. Although the idea for a southern bypass around
Lawrence has been under consideration for more than thirty years, the
FHWA became involved in the South Lawrence Trafficway project in 1986.
At that time, local, state and federal officials began planning the trafficway
as a jointly funded federal-aid highway project. Under the Federal-Aid
Highway Act, states may seek reimbursement for a percentage of the costs
incurred for highway projects. 23 U.S.C. § 101 et. seq. States seeking
federal highway funds must submit to FHWA a list of proposed transportation
projects. 23 U.S.C. § 105. Upon final approval of the project and
compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations, including NEPA,
FHWA reimburses the state for a portion of the project's cost. See 23
U.S.C. § 120; 23 C.F.R. § 1.36; 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
Thus, in order to be eligible for federal funding, the state needed to
prepare an environmental impact statement (hereafter "EIS").
On June 23, 1986, the FHWA published in the Federal Register a Notice
of Intent to Prepare an EIS for the trafficway. The notice stated that
the project "runs east-west near 31st Street in South Lawrence from
K-10 to the Clinton Dam and north-south from Clinton Dam to the Kansas
Turnpike." After public comment, FHWA approved and released to the
public a final EIS for the entire South Lawrence trafficway. The next
day, the FHWA issued a Record of Decision, selecting a route for the trafficway,
which included the eastern leg along 31st Street. In April 1993, the United
States Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit pursuant to the Clean Water
Act for the 31st Street route, allowing state and county authorities to
discharge dredge or fill material into wetlands. See 33 U.S.C. §
1344(a).
Congress appropriated $7.2 million in federal funding for the trafficway
on April 2, 1987, and designated the trafficway as a demonstration project.(1)
Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 ("STURRA"),
Pub. L. No. 100-17, § 149(a)(72), 101 Stat. 132, 192 (1987). On December
22, 1987, Congress amended § 149(a)(72) of STURRA to expand the trafficway
to:
approximately 14 miles in length, which, at its western terminus, will
provide access from an east-west Interstate highway [I-70] route to a
reservoir and a university research park, will proceed easterly around
the southern portion of the City of Lawrence and, at its eastern terminus,
will provide access to a business park and a limited access east-west
State highway [Kansas Highway 10].
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of
1988, Pub. L. No. 100-202, § 345, 101 Stat. 1329 (1987). In 1991,
Congress appropriated an additional $3.3 million for the years 1992 through
1997 for the trafficway. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (ISTEA), Pub. L. No. 102-240, § 1106(a)(2), 105 Stat.
1914, 2041 (1991). Of these funds, $108,000 have been expended on the
eastern leg of the trafficway for wetlands mitigation.(2) The remainder
of the $10.4 million in federal funds authorized for the South Lawrence
trafficway have been spent on the western portions.
In July and October 1993, representatives of Haskell Indian Nation University
expressed concerns that the 31st Street route adjacent to the campus would
impact its property, cultural traditions, and spiritual sites. When the
Haskell Board of Regents passed a resolution opposing construction of
the trafficway along 31st Street, Douglas County, the Kansas Department
of Transportation (hereafter "KDOT"), and FHWA suspended work
along the 31st Street portion of the trafficway. FHWA, KDOT and Douglas
County later determined that because the original EIS did not consider
the University's concerns, an SEIS was necessary. Accordingly, on October
17, 1994, FHWA published a Notice of Intent to Prepare an SEIS.
In April 1994, after Haskell University raised its concerns about the
31st Street leg of the project, KDOT requested that FHWA allow the trafficway
to be segmented in order to facilitate construction and funding limits.(3)
In May 1994, FHWA approved KDOT's request to segment the trafficway, with
three segments on the western leg (Kansas Turnpike south to U.S. 40, U.S.
40 south to Clinton Parkway, and Clinton Parkway south and west to U.S.
59) and one segment on the eastern leg (east of U.S. 59 to 31st Street
east to K-10). The three segments on the western leg have since been completed
and are in use.
On October 2, 1995, FHWA, KDOT and Douglas County released a draft SEIS
addressing the 31st Street portion of the trafficway for public comment.
On November 8, 1995, Douglas County, FHWA and KDOT held a public hearing
on the draft SEIS. After the hearing, the SEIS process stalled because
FHWA, KDOT and Douglas County were unable to reach an agreement on the
alignment of the eastern leg. On December 9, 1996, Douglas County sent
a letter to FHWA, notifying the agency that the county intended to proceed
with the original 31st Street route for the eastern leg of the trafficway,
and asking FHWA to "give their position in writing and recommend
a method to conclude the SEIS process." The letter expressed the
county's frustration with the SEIS process stating that "[t]he Douglas
County Board of County Commissioners is frankly disappointed that the
efforts of the last three years have not produced an acceptable alternative
to 31st Street . . . . The SEIS process is deadlocked. FHWA has yet to
take a stand in writing on any of the three alignments . . . . We await
your advice and position but must clearly proceed to complete the project
the County voters approved over six years ago."
Two months later, in February 1997, KDOT, in hopes of completing the project,
forwarded to FHWA an agreement between KDOT and Douglas County to construct
the eastern leg of the trafficway as a nonfederal project, without the
use of federal-aid highway funds. KDOT stated that the agreement should
"resolve the question of any further involvement by the FHWA [in
this project]." On February 21, 1997, FHWA responded by letter, acquiescing
to KDOT's decision to treat the eastern portion of the trafficway as a
local project. In the letter to Douglas County, Defendant David R. Geiger,
FHWA division administrator, stated that the FHWA "will no longer
be the lead Federal agency for this project. In accordance with 23 U.S.C.
§ 145, it is the State's decision on which highway projects they
will use their limited Federal-aid highway funds . . . ." On March
6, 1997, FHWA published a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing the
Notice of Intent to complete an SEIS.
On March 12, 1997, Plaintiffs filed their complaint seeking to enjoin
further action on the project. On March 15, 1997, the district court granted
a preliminary injunction. Following a hearing on May 2, 1997, the district
court issued a permanent injunction preventing FHWA, KDOT and Douglas
County from taking further action on the eastern leg of the trafficway
pending completion of the SEIS process, issuance of a final SEIS and entry
of a new Record of Decision. Applying the arbitrary and capricious standard
of review set forth in § 706(2)(A) of the Administrative Procedure
Act (hereafter "APA"), the district court concluded that Defendants
violated NEPA by not completing the SEIS.
....
The question now becomes whether Kansas and Douglas County can withdraw
a segment of the trafficway from federal funding and, as a result, discontinue
the segment's status as a "major federal action," circumventing
the SEIS process already begun. This question has not been directly addressed
by our circuit. The Fifth and Seventh circuits, however, have concluded
that states may not avoid NEPA's requirements by withdrawing a segment
of a project from federal funding. San Antonio Conservation Society v.
Texas Highway Dept., 446 F.2d 1013, 1027 (1971) (state cannot circumvent
federal laws by constructing segment of federal highway project with state
funding); Scottsdale Mall v. State of Indiana, 549 F.2d 484, 489 (7th
Cir. 1977) (withdrawal of federal funding from a segment of a "major
federal action" does not relieve state of NEPA compliance).
Archive of Prominent Section 106 Cases:
July 1999
Kansas: Construction of South Lawrence Trafficway (Lawrence)
(Latest update)
Agency: Federal Highway Administration
Criteria for Council Involvement:
This project will adversely affect the Haskell Institute, a National
Historic Landmark (Criterion 1).
Controversy over the project’s impacts and attempted segmentation
of the project resulted in litigation (Criterion 3).
National Indian organizations and more than 47 tribes have raised concerns
regarding identification of and impacts to properties of traditional religious
and cultural significance (Criterion 4).
Recent Developments
In May 1999, Council staff participated in a meeting and onsite visit
at Haskell Indian Nations University regarding the South Lawrence Trafficway
(SLT) project. Representatives of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Kansas State Historic Preservation Officer, the university, Kansas Department
of Transportation, Douglas County, Environmental Protection Agency, Army
Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Indian Affairs attended the meeting.
Participants discussed the sufficiency of FHWA’s efforts to identify
historic properties for Section 106 compliance, project planning, and
the Section 106 and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses.
Following the meeting, the Council wrote FHWA expressing its concern that
past identification efforts had inadequately considered the historical,
religious, and cultural significance of the Baker Wetlands to the university
community and Indian tribes. This wetlands area, which formerly belonged
to the university, is a National Natural Landmark. The Council also requested
the National Park Service (NPS), in accordance with Section 213 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, to prepare a report on the significance
of the Haskell Institute, how the proposed project would affect this National
Historic Landmark (NHL), and what measures would avoid, minimize, or mitigate
adverse effects.
Background
The SLT is a four-lane, high-speed highway on the western and southern
periphery of Lawrence, Kansas. The purpose of the project is to provide
a linkage between routes K-10, U.S. 59, and the Kansas Turnpike (I-70)
and thereby reduce congestion on local thoroughfares. Planning for the
14-mile-long SLT began as early as the 1960s. Under NEPA, FHWA issued
its Record of Decision to fund the project in 1990. Thereafter, the project
was split into two independent legs and construction commenced on the
nine mile western leg. After several years of dispute regarding the environmental
impacts of the five mile eastern leg of the project, Douglas County withdrew
its application for FHWA funding for that phase of the project. This led
to two successful challenges in Federal court by several University students
and alumni on the legality of FHWA's "de-federalizing" the eastern
leg of the federally funded SLT.
Three of the proposed alignments for the highway's eastern leg would adversely
affect the Haskell Institute, one of the first large off-reservation boarding
schools for Indian students established by the Federal government. Eleven
of the Haskell Indian Nations University's buildings and a cemetery are
included in the Haskell Institute NHL. In addition, the southern portion
of the university contains a medicine wheel and an area where sweat lodges
are used. This portion has historical, religious, and cultural significance
to the university community and Indian tribes and has been determined
eligible for the National Register by FHWA.
The preferred alignment would adversely affect this area, notably through
noise and visual impacts. It would also cross adjacent wetlands known
as the Baker Wetlands, the historical significance of which remains to
be fully evaluated. The University Board of Regents, National Haskell
Alumni Association, National Congress of American Indians, National Native
American Church Association, and more than 47 tribes nationally have opposed
the County's preferred alternative. Local environmental and civic groups
also oppose the project.
In February 1999, FHWA resumed environmental analyses of the SLT pursuant
to a court order. Since then, FHWA has issued a supplemental draft environmental
impact statement under NEPA and a draft 4(f) statement pursuant to the
Department of Transportation Act, as well as initiated consultation with
the Council.
Policy Highlights
The controversy surrounding this project emanates from inadequate consideration
of properties of historical and traditional religious and cultural significance
to many Indian tribes nationally. Both the National Historic Landmark
designation for the Haskell Institute and the county's initial planning
for the SLT took place in the 1960s, before the significance of such properties
to Indian tribes was generally recognized. Therefore, the NHL designation
of the Haskell Institute recognized only its buildings and historic cemetery,
not the area south of the campus which was historically part of the institution
and contains properties of religious and cultural significance to tribes.
This area is also unique in that it is an important intertribal historic
property. This challenges preservation guidance such as National Register
Bulletin #38 on traditional cultural properties which emphasizes the importance
of such properties to specific tribes.
Register-Guard
coverage of The Osprey Group
www.registerguard.com/news/2006/03/04/printable/d1.cr.parkway.0304.U3S52qE3.phtml?section=cityregion
Consultants due to take on roadway dispute
BY EDWARD RUSSO
The Register-Guard
Published: Saturday, March 4, 2006
A pair of consultants from Colorado are headed to Eugene on a difficult
mission: Find out if the city's residents have a chance to resolve their
argument about the West Eugene Parkway.
Consultants John Huyler and Dennis Donald will start work in the next
few weeks to determine if residents can put aside their differences
to find an alternative to the much delayed and controversial road project.
The Boulder-based consultants were selected Feb. 23 by state, local
and federal officials, the latest step in Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy's
quest to find some way to deal with growing west Eugene traffic other
than the proposed 5.8-mile highway.
"They have experience with transportation and environmental conflict
resolution," and helping people find ways to collaborate, Piercy
said. "I am very hopeful that they will help us move past the place
that we have been stuck for 20 years."
Later this month, Donald and Huyler will interview residents and politicians
who have a deep interest in the parkway. The consultants then will write
a report outlining the conflict.
Donald said he and Huyler will not try and tell residents what they
should do to resolve their differences.
Their assessment is meant only to see if there is chance residents could
agree, he said.
"We identify the issues and the controversy, but also the possible
process of going forward," Donald said. "Or we may say, 'It's
not worth going forward.' "
First proposed 21 years ago, the parkway would be a four-lane highway
meant to move traffic more speedily from Highway 126 west of Green Hill
Road through west Eugene to Highway 99. The road is opposed by residents
who say it would harm the West Eugene Wetlands, which have largely been
assembled for protection during the same period the roadway has been
planned. Other residents, however, favor the project, saying it would
unravel west Eugene traffic tie-ups.
Eugene voters approved the parkway idea in 1986 and 2000. In the last
election, they also rejected studying alternatives to the roadway.
But the project never got off the ground, mainly delayed by required
environmental studies. Also, in the past six years, the estimated cost
of the roadway has grown from $88 million to an estimated $169 million.
The state Department of Transportation wants to finish environmental
studies on the parkway by year end. The ultimate build-or-no-build decision
will be made by the Federal Highway Administration, along with other
federal agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management, which has assembled
much of the West Eugene Wetlands. The mayor got support for the community discussion from David
Cox, Oregon's top federal highway official. The city and the Federal
Highway Administration agreed to split the roughly $37,000 cost of hiring
the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, based in Tucson,
Ariz.
The Institute, a federal agency created to help resolve environmental
disputes involving federal agencies or interests, presented Donald and
Huyler and two other firms that specialize in helping communities resolve
disputes.
Donald and Huyler, who founded their two-person firm, The Osprey Group,
in 2000, will work under contract to the Institute.
Donald said it's likely that he and Huyler will come to Eugene in April
to interview people. Phone interviews will start this month, he said.
The consultants' report could be presented to officials and the public
in May. A public meeting to discuss the report could be in mid-May,
Donald said. Donald's brother, Dave, works as a computer
expert for the city of Eugene. Dennis Donald said he
told the selection committee about his brother in order to ease any
potential concerns by committee members that he, as a consultant, might
be biased about the parkway.
Earlier, in their written application for the job, Huyler and Donald
cited their experience in resolving community conflicts around the nation,
and the fact that they had "no familiarity" with the "transportation
controversy" in Eugene.
Dave Donald, a systems analyst in the wastewater division, said he got
a call from his brother last month.
Dave Donald said his brother wanted to make sure that his job was not
a Public Works position that might have a more direct connection to
the parkway.
"I told him that in my position here, I have nothing to do with"
the West Eugene Parkway, Dave Donald said.
Dennis Donald said that even after talking with his brother last month
that he knows very little about the parkway issue. "It heads west,
that's all I know about it," he said. "And it's a longstanding
controversy."
Piercy said those disclosures seemed to satisfy the committee. Dennis
Donald "was very open about it," she said.
PARKWAY CONSULTANTS
John Huyler and Dennis Donald, owners of The Osprey Group in Boulder,
Colo., have been selected to determine if Eugene residents can overcome
their differences on the proposed West Eugene Parkway. They were selected
by a committee composed of Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy, Springfield City
Councilor Anne Ballew, Lane County Commissioner Faye Stewart and representatives
from the Oregon Department of Transportation, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Federal Highway Administration
and other agencies.
John Huyler, 60: A facilitator and mediator since 1981, he worked for
The Keystone Center in Keystone, Colo., which tries to help people reach
consensus on public policy decisions. Huyler has a master's degree in
public administration from Harvard University.
Dennis Donald, 59: Experience includes working as regional director
of The Nature Conservancy, and as the deputy director of the Colorado
Department of Natural Resources. He has a Ph.D. in mineral economics
from the Colorado School of Mines and a master's in Urban and Regional
Planning from the University of Colorado.
Keystone
Center, gutting the Endangered Species Act, and corporate polluters
Dennis formed The Osprey Group with long-time friend and colleague,
John Huyler, in 2000. Prior to this, he
was a senior facilitator and director of The Keystone Center's Science
and Public Policy Program.
www.keystone.org/spp/env-esa.html
Executive Summary of Letter to Senators
The Keystone ESA Working Group on Habitat
February 17, 2006
"new provisions for integrating habitat protection and conservation
into the ESA to replace the current critical habitat framework"
note: they support undermining one of the strongest provisions in the
Endangered Species Act ...
Keystone hired by NASA to promote nuclear power in space
The Keystone Center aids in the design of an inclusive public involvement
strategy in coordination with NASA Headquarters and Jet Propulsion Lab
(JPL) staff, for ten years of Mars Missions, starting in 2003. The Keystone
Center has worked on potential areas of high concern such as the use
of space nuclear power sources including launch site
issues.
note: For a sensible view of launching plutonium on rockets in Florida,
including whistleblower testimony that virtually no preparations were
made by NASA to address the severe risks of a launch malfunction, see
www.space4peace.org
Pictures of other planets are nice, but if we wreck the biosphere of Earth,
we aren't going to be able to move to nearby planets that lack atmospheres
that sustain human life. Our omnicidal behavior does not justify the pretty
pictures of other planets.
Keystone promoting more industrial large-scale use of natural
gas even though supplies are in decline
There is widespread agreement that the demand for natural gas is likely
to increase significantly by 2010. .... The purpose of a Keystone Dialogue
is to bring a diverse group of stakeholders together to discuss the
nexus between current capacity, the emerging market and increased environmental
concerns. The goal was the creation of policy-related guidelines for
the development of criteria that is amenable to all stakeholders, for
new or expanded pipeline capacity.
note: natural gas supplies in North America are in decline, having already
past Peak. The proposed Liquid
Natural Gas terminals would be unlikely to mitigate the decline from
domestic supplies -- conservation is the real urgency. Furthermore, most
of the increase in natural gas consumption in the past two decades is
from construction of new power generation capacity that is powered by
natural gas. Much of this capacity was driven by a desire to burn lower-polluting
fossil fuels (natural gas is cleaner than coal) but no provisions were
made by utilities to contemplate the obvious impacts of these generators
accelerating the decline of natural gas supplies.
Thousand dollar a plate fundraiser for Keystone, ten thousand dollars
for a table (not a normal behavior for an environmental group)
Note: the "Master of Ceremonies" is a reporter for ABC News
(Disney) and National Public Radio (NPR's director came from Voice of
America, the US government propaganda network). Her brother is one of
the most influential lobbyists in Washington, D.C.
The Keystone Center Awards Dinner 2006
The 13th Anniversary Celebration of The Keystone Center Leadership Awards
Dinner will be held on:
June 8, 2006
Union Station
Washington, D. C.
Master of Ceremonies
Cokie Roberts
The Keystone Center is headquartered in Keystone, Colorado, with an office
in Washington, DC. Contributions to the 2003 Keystone Awards Dinner are
tax deductible as to the extent allowed under law. Tables - $10,000/Tickets - $1,000
www.keystone.org/general_section/board.html board of trustees for Keystone includes Dow Chemical, Dupont,
General Electric, Lockheed Martin, coal, nuclear power and a contractor
for the West Eugene Parkway
Dr. James J. Ferris
President and Group Chief Executive CH2M Hill Companies NUCLEAR WASTE, BIOSTITUTES,
FORMER WEP CONTRACTOR
Mr. Barry Brandon
Senior Vice President, General Counsel
Seneca Gaming Corporation
CASINOS
Mr. Richard N. Burton
Senior Vice President MeadWestvaco
CHLORINE BLEACHED PAPER COMPANY - ONE OF TOP POLLUTERS IN APPALACHIA
Mr. David T. Buzzelli
Co-Chair, Finance Committee
Retired VP, The Dow Chemical Co.
DIOXIN AND OTHER POISONS
Dr. Arthur Caplan
Director, Center for Bioethics
Chair, Department of Medical Ethics
University of Pennsylvania
Mr. Shelby Coffey
Senior Fellow
Freedom Forum
Mr. Thomas Connelly
Co-Chair, Center For Science & Public Policy Committee
Senior Vice President and
Chief Science and Technology Officer, DuPont
DUPONT OZONE HOLE
Mr. Robert Craig
Founder and President Emeritus
The Keystone Center
Mr. John E. Echohawk
Executive Director
Native American Rights Fund
Mr. Don Edwards
Principal and Chief Executive Officer
Justice & Sustainability Associates, LLC
Dr. James J. Ferris
President and Group Chief Executive CH2M Hill Companies
NUCLEAR WASTE, BIOSTITUTES, FORMER WEP CONTRACTOR
Mr. Dirk Forrister
Co-Chair, Nominating and Governance Committee
Managing Director,
Natsource Europe, Ltd.
Serves on the Executive Committee
Ms. Linda Gooden
President Lockheed Martin Information Technology
TOP MILITARY CONTRACTOR
Mr. Eliot P. Green
Chair, Audit Subcommittee
Partner
Loeb & Loeb
Mr. David I. Greenberg
Co-Chair of The Board
Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer, Altria Group, Inc.
THE NEW NAME FOR PHILIP MORRIS
Mr. Robert Hanfling
Co-Chair, Finance Committee
President and Chief Operation Officer KFx
COAL MINING
Mr. David Heil
Chair, Center for Professional Education & Leadership Committee
President,
David Heil & Associates, Inc.
Mr. Lee Henry
Managing Partner
Riverwood Partners
Ms. Binka Le Breton
Director
Iracambi Rainforest Research Center
Dr. Felice J. Levine
Executive Director
American Education Research Association
Dr. Gerald Lieberman, Ph.D
Director
State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER)
Ms. Elizabeth Lowery
Vice President, Environment & Energy, General Motors
WHAT'S BAD FOR AMERICA IS GOOD FOR GM
Mr. Roger McCarthy
Senior Vice President and COO Breckenridge and Keystone Resorts
SKI RESORTS (need cheap oil for tourists)
Dr. Diane Osgood
Consultant
La Hourne
Mr. Dennis Parker
Chair, Keystone Science School Committee
Retired Vice President, Safety, Health & Environmental Affairs, Conoco,
Inc.
OIL AND COAL
Dr. Bruce Paton
r. Joe Pierpont
Co-Chair, Development Committee
Pierpont Associates
Mr. Harold A. Pratt
President,
President, Educational Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Glenn Prickett
Executive Director, Center for Environmental Leadership in Business, Conservation
International
PSEUDO-ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP FUNDED BY POLLUTERS, NO GRASSROOTS BASE
Mr. Stephen Ramsey
Vice President, Corporate Environmental Programs, General Electric Company
GE BRINGS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO LIFE
Mr. Nicholas Reding
Mr. Howard "Bud" Ris
Co-Chair of The Board
President & Chief Executive Officer
New England Aquarium
Mr. William J. Roberts
Co-Chair, Development Committee
Executive Director,
Beldon Fund
Ms. Lois J. Schiffer
Co-Chair, Nominating and Governance Committee
General Counsel National Capital Planning Commission
FEDERAL PLANNING AGENCY THAT IS VERY ANTI-ENVIRONMENTAL
Dr. Rodger Schlickeisen
President and CEO, Defenders of Wildlife
NAIVE ENVIRONMENTALISTS WHO ENDORSED NAFTA TREATY
Mr. Bill Schultz
Partner,
Zuckerman Spaeder, LLP
Mr. Jeff Seabright
Vice President, Environment and Water The Coca-Cola Company
COKE IS THE DRINK OF THE DEATH SQUADS (Columbia, Guatemala ...)
Mr. Philip R. Sharp
President Resources for The Future
CORPORATE THINK TANK
Mr. Jerry Steiner
Executive Vice President, Global External Affairs, The Monsanto
Company
TERMINATOR SEEDS ARE FOOD FASCISM
Mr. Mervyn Tano
President
International Institute for Indigenous Resource Management
Ms. Susan Tomasky
Executive Vice President and CFO, American Electric Power
GIANT COAL AND NUCLEAR POWER CONGLOMERATE
Mr. Clinton Vince
Managing Partner,
Sullivan & Worcester, LLP
Mr. Ross Vincent
Senior Policy Advisor, Sierra Club
NAIVE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP RUN BY A POPE, SOME LOCAL CHAPTERS ARE EXCELLENT
BUT NATIONAL OFFICE SQUELCHES MOST GRASSROOTS INITIATIVES
Mr. Lawrence Washington
Vice President
Environment, Health and Safety
Human Resources and Public Affairs The Dow Chemical Company
Mr. Gregory Wetstone
Co-Chair, Center for Science & Public Policy Committee
Director, Advocacy Programs Natural Resources Defense Council
NRDC IS ONE OF THE FEW FOUNDATION FUNDED ENVIRO GROUPS TO ENDORSE THE
NAFTA TREATY. THEY ALSO HELPED UNDERMINE OZONE LAYER PROTECTION IN LATE
1980s AND PRAISED THE 1998 INTERSTATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM EXPANSION
Mr. Keith Wheeler
President
Foundation For Our Future
Mr. Durwood Zaelke
Director of the INECE Secretariat
International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (INECE)
previous
suggestions for "mediators" who had conflicts of interest
"There are established avenues within Oregon for moving beyond
community deadlocks. We need a creative solution that can be acted upon
quickly and less expensively. Oregon Solutions
and the Oregon Consensus Program are two Oregon organizations
that have helped other communities and could help us find a creative
solution that would address the traffic issues, protect our Wetlands,
and replace an extraordinary level of community acrimony with a community
solution we could all respect."
-- Kitty Piercy
Oregon Solutions and Oregon Consensus Program
have conflicts of interest that make this suggestion untenable for Parkway
opponents. Oregon Solutions is an organization with many
government contracts and several of its staff have conflicts of interest
that suggest they would not be impartial brokers.
It is also questionable who would and would not
get participate in this "consensus" process.
In the summer of 2002, a group of WEP opponents approached a Portland
architecture firm to help flesh out suggestions for the WEP alternative.
This good intention quickly morphed into a political disaster for WEP
opponents. While the principle in this firm had ties to 1000 Friends of
Oregon, the firm was also working for real estate speculator John Musumeci
on his plan to relocate Sacred Heart hospital to the McKenzie River floodplain
(something that was kept secret from the WEP opponents).
Despite several quality briefings, the firm (Crandall Arambula) chose
to ignore the stated position of the group of opponents, and developed
a series of different designs for a new option for the WEP. They had been
tasked to help illustrate an alternative TO the highway, not an alternative
route of the highway. The first round suggested a "half WEP"
option that had already been rejected through the Environmental Impact
Statement process as twice as illegal (federal law prohibits this sort
of "segmentation" of approving roads). A subsequent redesign
crafted a WEP route with nearly twice as much mileage as the option that
ODOT was promoting. It is hard to believe, but this new option would have
had more ecological and social impacts that the version "we"
were supposedly trying to stop. (This new option would have paved over
more acres of wetlands, cost more, clearcut more forests and would have
gone through the Royal Blue Organic blueberry farm -- see www.greenwash.com/crandall.html
for details.)
The reason to cite all of this history is that the WEP opponents who
opposed this disaster were shut out of this process. The one input that
we were allowed to have was to point out that the Crandall Arambula team
had proposed replacing a cemetery with a commercial shopping "development"
-- that proposal was quietly removed just before publication, which is
proof of their incompetence and refusal to look at any maps of the area
to see what was in the path of their proposal. If the promoters of the
WEP had tried to create an "alternative" to the WEP that was
deliberately designed to undermine the pro-environment side in federal
court, they would not have been able to craft a version worse than the
Crandall Arambula option.
www.orsolutions.org/biographies.htm
Steve Greenwood
Mr. Greenwood is a consultant in environmental and public policy, whose
clients include the City of Eugene, Lower Columbia Solutions Group, Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, ... He is the Board President of
the Oregon Environmental Council.
Mr. Greenwood is publicly promoting the Riverfront Research Park.
The Oregon Environmental Council is funded (in part) by many of the state's
largest polluters, and has an intermittent monthly program promoting corporate
environmentalism that shuns grassroots environmentalists (for example,
they sponsored a corporate environmentalist who helped bring Enron into
the Oregon energy market while ignoring local environmentalists opposed
to Enron, an alleged environmentalist promoting toll roads, etc)
Smart growth won't save river
By Robert Emmons, Fall Creek
The Register-Guard
In a Jan. 7 guest viewpoint, public policy consultant Steve
Greenwood contended that we can both develop the Willamette riverfront
and preserve its health. He's noticeably vague, however, as
to how this may be achieved.
Embracing the mythology that growth is inevitable, Greenwood promotes
the familiar smart-growth fallacy that opts for higher urban density
as an antidote to sprawl. He implies that University of Oregon professor
David Hulse's Willamette Basin Futures Report supports riverfront development.
But as Hulse's computer-generated flyover of the Willamette Valley from
1850 to the present reveals, the Willamette watershed needs our protection,
not more development.
While Portland has done a commendable job restoring parts of its riverfront,
much of the damage to the river's health has been done and won't be
readily undone. However smartly, Portland keeps growing, and developers
continue to build new houses and businesses in wetlands and riparian
setbacks.
Rather than take harder steps to address the root causes of growth --
overpopulation and overconsumption -- development facilitators such
as Greenwood make an easier living by dressing up in green and pretending
we can have our cake and eat it, too.
In the Eugene area, we still have an opportunity to get ahead of the
curve. However, honoring the river rather than exploiting it requires
the humility to recognize that with limitations begin possibilities:
the opportunity to make our absence the model of our presence.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/01/28/ed.letters.0128.html
Susan Brody (also with Oregon Solutions)
Susan Brody ... held a number of positions in state and local government,
including Director of the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
and Planning Director for the City of Eugene. She was appointed in 1992
to the Oregon Transportation Commission and served eight years.
These are not impartial individuals for helping a divided community
reach consensus.
