W.Chatham Rte.28 "Categorical Exlusion"; commenting on

[Stephen Buckley]

Hello,

I will have an item about the West Chatham Roadway Project (i.e. the last one: Item G) on the agenda of the Board of Selectmen meeting this Tuesday, Feb. 9, 2016.

I will be asking the BOS to send a letter to MassDOT about some inaccuracies in MassDOT's "Categorical Exclusion Checklist" that says the West Chatham Roadway Project has involved no "substantial controversy". (!)

The meeting's information packet (containing my draft letter) will not be available until Monday (that's when I will post a link to the email-group here).  However, the information packet is in .PDF file format that does not contain any active web-links (i.e., you can read it on your computer, but you can not "click" on the web-links).

Therefore, I am forwarding my original email (see below) that contains the active (i.e., "clickable") links to the web-addresses that I reference in the message and draft letter.

If, after reading this message, you would like to receive follow-up messages by email ... or share your thoughts with others on this topic, simply send a blank email to:  openchatham +subs...@googlegroups.com

If you have any questions, let me know.

best,

Stephen Buckley
OpenChatham email-group moderator


P.S.  To find past messages of the OpenChatham email-group, along with tweets @OpenChatham, go to OpenChatham.com.


=======================================
 

Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 11:58:17 -0500
To: Shanna Nealy <sne...@chatham-ma.gov>
From: Stephen Buckley <sbuc...@igc.org>
Subject: Agenda Item for BOS mtg, Feb. 9


Hello Shanna,

Thank you for informing me that the Board of Selectmen's agenda for its Feb. 9th meeting will include my request that they consider and respond to MassDOT about what appear to be significant inaccuracies in a planning document that was recently released for a 30-day period of public comment (i.e., due February 20) concerning the West Chatham Roadway Project.

I have drafted some language (below) that, I hope, briefly but accurately describes the nature of those inaccuracies, so that the Selectmen can more easily decide with which parts they agree (if any) and wish to express in a letter to MassDOT.

As you will see, the draft language contains references that are links to specific web-addresses.  As you know, the ability to "click" on a web-address will be lost when this email is transferred into the information packet provided to the Selectmen (and the public).  Therefore, I am also posting a link to this email on http://www.OpenChatham.com (under today's date) where those web-links will still be "clickable".

Also, in order to answer questions by the Selectmen more quickly, it would be save a great deal of time if I could use the meeting room's screen so that I can quickly pull up and highlight any particular language (or web-link) in question. 

Please include this introductory message, along with the draft letter (below), in the BOS information packet.  Thank you, and please let me know if there is any question about this message.

best,

Stephen Buckley
Chatham, Mass.
sbuc...@igc.org
http://www.twitter.com/OpenChatham


================================================
BEGINNING of DRAFT letter
================================================

Stephanie DiNezio, MEPA/NEPA Analyst
MassDOT Environmental Services
10 Park Plaza, Room 4260
Boston, MA 02116

Re: West Chatham Roadway Project; environmental impact of

Dear Ms. DiNezio,

The purpose of this letter is to provide comments on the MassDOT's document recently released for a 30-day period of public comment (i.e., due February 20) concerning the West Chatham Roadway Project.

"Categorical Exclusion Document" (January 2016)
http://www.wcroadwaydesign.info/documents.html

In that document (page 3 of 149), there is a question #7 (in the "Categorical Exclusion (CE) Determination Checklist") that asks:

"Does the project involve substantial controversy on environmental grounds?"

After that question, there is a box checked "No".  We believe that answer is not true.  It is more accurate to check "Yes".

It is our opinion and, we also believe, the opinion of most Chatham citizens, that there has been "substantial controversy" about the effects of the West Chatham Roadway Project, particularly its effect on traffic and pedestrian safety.

It is our understanding that this document uses words like " significantly" and "effects (impacts)" and " environmental" have federal regulatory (i.e., legal) definitions that are quite different than one would think would be coming from an ordinary dictionary.     

40 CFR 1508: Terminology
https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm

So, while the average person (including the editor of our local newspaper) would just assume that "environmental grounds" is limited only to the natural environment, the legal definitions under which MassDOT prepared this document indicate that MassDOT is required to consider if there is public controversy involving "public health or safety".

Therefore, the correct answer to Question #7 (above) is "Yes", because there has been substantial controversy about the project regarding public safety.  If you are unaware of the extended controversy, please consult past issues of the Cape Cod Chronicle, as well as the video of our Town Meeting vote on this topic in May 2013 --> http://ec4.cc/kc3927b43

sincerely,

Board of Selectmen
Town of Chatham, Massachusetts


=================================================
END of DRAFT letter
=================================================


References:

The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is part of the Executive Office of the President

https://ceq.doe.gov/

CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1500) that apply to Federal Agencies:

https://ceq.doe.gov/ceq_regulations/regulations.html

40 CFR 1508: Terminology

https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm

Note: MassDOT's CE constantly denies any sort of "significant impact" because, then, that would require an Environmental Assessment or Impact Statement which would require a genuine discussion of Alternatives (e.g., pedestrian islands).  Take a look at CEQ's regulatory definition for "significantly" and see if you think any of those conditions do NOT apply (as the CE has declared):

 

40 CFR 1508.27 - "Significantly"

https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm#1508.27

"Significantly" as used in NEPA requires considerations of both context and intensity:

(a) Context. This means that the significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole (human, national), the affected region, the affected interests, and the locality. Significance varies with the setting of the proposed action. For instance, in the case of a site-specific action, significance would usually depend upon the effects in the locale rather than in the world as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are relevant.

(b) Intensity. This refers to the severity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in mind that more than one agency may make decisions about partial aspects of a major action. The following should be considered in evaluating intensity:

Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial.

The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

Sec. 1508.14 Human environment. https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm#1508.14

"Human environment" shall be interpreted comprehensively to include the natural and physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. (See the definition of "effects" (Sec. 1508.8).) This means that economic or social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an environmental impact statement. When an environmental impact statement is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the environmental impact statement will discuss all of these effects on the human environment.


Sec. 1508.8 Effects.
https://ceq.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1508.htm#1508.8

"Effects" include:

(a) Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. (b) Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.

Effects and impacts as used in these regulations are synonymous. Effects includes ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects, even if on balance the agency believes that the effect will be beneficial.