Chief
08-07-2007, 12:05 PM
http://www.westerndredging.org/cgi-bin/mail.cgi/archive/Local/20070807112711/
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/SeniorChieftain/network1.jpg
Vote NO on the Port's 132% Property Tax Increase.
Date: August 7th, 2007
It appears the Port is not providing the taxpayers with all the information surrounding their outrageous property tax increase. There are too many unanswered environmental questions for anyone to Vote Yes on this 132% property tax increase.
Vote NO ON PROPOSITION 1.
Larry Patella
CDR USN (ret)
----- Original Message -----
From: DM Bertish
Subject: NEPA regulations re: Port Railway Project
This information has been sent to Jonathan Nelson at the Columbian, who will be covering the story of the groundbreaking for the railroad and Patty Murray's visit. We have no idea if he is going to use this information.
In case anyone was concerned about facts of law supporting the arguments I've made about the port railroad, here are quotes regarding federal NEPA regulations on federally funded projects. Attached here are the NEPA regulations that help point to the fact that federally sponsored projects, such as the multi-phased railroad at the port, are supposed to be analyzed jointly, not broken down into separate and independent sections as is currently being done. The Port is required to perform mitigation for habitat destruction during the first phase of the railway. Federal dollars were used for environmental and design work on the raiload project in 2005 and 2006, but the first section of construction is being considered a separate project. NEPA prohibits this segmentation -- segmentation of this nature avoids public review. This is problematic when the Port is seeking public funds for contiguous portions of the project, especially when the US Army Corps of Engineers has been wo
rking on the earlier phases from their inception. In any event, it appears that the public has not been given the appropriate opportunities to comment on the railroad as a whole in one environmental document, and that is something to complain about. Patty Murray should have known better since she is going to shovel dirt tomorrow. The fact that this railroad is expected to travel near to or through Superfund property is of immence importance to this overall issue. We should have been given the chance to voice opinions on this before decisions were made to buy the property, not after the port made the decision for us.
Dvija Michael Bertish
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
National Environmental Policy Act
2.The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) is our “basic national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a). NEPA’s primary purposes are to insure fully informed decision-making and to provide for public participation in environmental analyses and decision-making. Id. §§ 1500.1(b), (c). The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) promulgated uniform regulations implementing NEPA that are binding on all federal agencies. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500 et seq.
3. Under NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) must be prepared for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C § 4332(2)(C). NEPA requires that the decision-maker, as well as the public, be fully informed so that “environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before action is taken.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b).
4. NEPA requires an environmental assessment (“EA”) when necessary to determine whether to prepare an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4. In determining whether to prepare an EIS, the federal agency must consider direct and indirect impacts as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.8. NEPA requires an adequate disclosure of all environmental impacts, and specifically requires federal agencies to discuss the potential cumulative impacts of their proposed actions. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.2(b), 1508.7. The NEPA documentation must provide the decision maker and the public with adequate information, evidence, and analysis to fully assess the potential impacts of the proposed actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9.
5. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(a). Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.8.
6. CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.25(a)) are directed at avoiding improper segmentation whereing the significance of the environmental impacts of an action as a whole would not be evident if the action were to be broken into componenet parts and the impact of those parts analyzed separately. The impacts from connected, cumulative, and similar action should be considered together in a single NEPA document. NEPA requires analyses of the cumulative environmental effects of the proposed action, recognizing impacts on traffic, air and water quality, noise, socioeconomic conditions, utilities, and other resources
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/SeniorChieftain/network1.jpg
Vote NO on the Port's 132% Property Tax Increase.
Date: August 7th, 2007
It appears the Port is not providing the taxpayers with all the information surrounding their outrageous property tax increase. There are too many unanswered environmental questions for anyone to Vote Yes on this 132% property tax increase.
Vote NO ON PROPOSITION 1.
Larry Patella
CDR USN (ret)
----- Original Message -----
From: DM Bertish
Subject: NEPA regulations re: Port Railway Project
This information has been sent to Jonathan Nelson at the Columbian, who will be covering the story of the groundbreaking for the railroad and Patty Murray's visit. We have no idea if he is going to use this information.
In case anyone was concerned about facts of law supporting the arguments I've made about the port railroad, here are quotes regarding federal NEPA regulations on federally funded projects. Attached here are the NEPA regulations that help point to the fact that federally sponsored projects, such as the multi-phased railroad at the port, are supposed to be analyzed jointly, not broken down into separate and independent sections as is currently being done. The Port is required to perform mitigation for habitat destruction during the first phase of the railway. Federal dollars were used for environmental and design work on the raiload project in 2005 and 2006, but the first section of construction is being considered a separate project. NEPA prohibits this segmentation -- segmentation of this nature avoids public review. This is problematic when the Port is seeking public funds for contiguous portions of the project, especially when the US Army Corps of Engineers has been wo
rking on the earlier phases from their inception. In any event, it appears that the public has not been given the appropriate opportunities to comment on the railroad as a whole in one environmental document, and that is something to complain about. Patty Murray should have known better since she is going to shovel dirt tomorrow. The fact that this railroad is expected to travel near to or through Superfund property is of immence importance to this overall issue. We should have been given the chance to voice opinions on this before decisions were made to buy the property, not after the port made the decision for us.
Dvija Michael Bertish
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
National Environmental Policy Act
2.The National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) is our “basic national charter for protection of the environment.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(a). NEPA’s primary purposes are to insure fully informed decision-making and to provide for public participation in environmental analyses and decision-making. Id. §§ 1500.1(b), (c). The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) promulgated uniform regulations implementing NEPA that are binding on all federal agencies. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500 et seq.
3. Under NEPA, an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) must be prepared for “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C § 4332(2)(C). NEPA requires that the decision-maker, as well as the public, be fully informed so that “environmental information is available to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and before action is taken.” 40 C.F.R. § 1500.1(b).
4. NEPA requires an environmental assessment (“EA”) when necessary to determine whether to prepare an EIS. 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4. In determining whether to prepare an EIS, the federal agency must consider direct and indirect impacts as well as the cumulative impacts resulting from all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.8. NEPA requires an adequate disclosure of all environmental impacts, and specifically requires federal agencies to discuss the potential cumulative impacts of their proposed actions. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.2(b), 1508.7. The NEPA documentation must provide the decision maker and the public with adequate information, evidence, and analysis to fully assess the potential impacts of the proposed actions. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9.
5. Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(a). Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1508.7, 1508.8.
6. CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.25(a)) are directed at avoiding improper segmentation whereing the significance of the environmental impacts of an action as a whole would not be evident if the action were to be broken into componenet parts and the impact of those parts analyzed separately. The impacts from connected, cumulative, and similar action should be considered together in a single NEPA document. NEPA requires analyses of the cumulative environmental effects of the proposed action, recognizing impacts on traffic, air and water quality, noise, socioeconomic conditions, utilities, and other resources