consultant for "West Eugene Collaborators"
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
- Register-Guard coverage of The Osprey Group
- previous suggestions for "mediators" who had conflicts of interest
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.
[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.)
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
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)
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.
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:
Kansas: Construction of South Lawrence Trafficway (Lawrence)
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).
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.
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.
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|
Consultants due to take on roadway dispute
BY EDWARD RUSSO
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.
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.
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
Washington, D. C.
Master of Ceremonies
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
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
Mr. Richard N. Burton
Senior Vice President
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
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
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
Natsource Europe, Ltd.
Serves on the Executive Committee
Ms. Linda Gooden
Lockheed Martin Information Technology
TOP MILITARY CONTRACTOR
Mr. Eliot P. Green
Chair, Audit Subcommittee
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
Mr. David Heil
Chair, Center for Professional Education & Leadership Committee
David Heil & Associates, Inc.
Mr. Lee Henry
Ms. Binka Le Breton
Iracambi Rainforest Research Center
Dr. Felice J. Levine
American Education Research Association
Dr. Gerald Lieberman, Ph.D
State Education and Environment Roundtable (SEER)
Ms. Elizabeth Lowery
Vice President, Environment & Energy,
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
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
Mr. Harold A. Pratt
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
Ms. Lois J. Schiffer
Co-Chair, Nominating and Governance Committee
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
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
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
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
Sullivan & Worcester, LLP
Mr. Ross Vincent
Senior Policy Advisor,
NAIVE ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP RUN BY A POPE, SOME LOCAL CHAPTERS ARE EXCELLENT BUT NATIONAL OFFICE SQUELCHES MOST GRASSROOTS INITIATIVES
Mr. Lawrence Washington
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
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.
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
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.
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.