When supporters of the 241 (Foothill-South) toll road and its builder, the Transportation Corridor Agencies, hear opponents claim they'll stop the project, the reply is usually along the lines of, "You and what army?"
The United States Army, assholes. That's right, the Army is finally providing the necessary firepower to blow the TCA's lies clean out of the sky.
Colonel Thomas H. Magness is District Commander of the Los Angeles District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). You may remember their fine work on the levees in New Orleans. Colonel Magness sent a letter (Download file) dated April 7 to Thomas Street, staff attorney for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association, "to clarify and augment the project's administrative record before you...." The project in question is the Foothill-South extension.
"My staff consistently endeavors to render fair and balanced decisions within the bounds of our implementing regulations and based on the best available information. For this reason, I am compelled to highlight a few areas of the public record where I have found inaccurate statements as well as inferences that misrepresent the Corps preliminary determinations within the context of our CWA and NEPA statutory responsibilities."
Would you believe it gets better?
In February the California Coastal Commission vetoed the TCA's plan to pave through the Donna O'Neill Land Conservancy, inland San Onofre State Beach and the Juaneno village of Panhe. The TCA appealed the 8-2 decision to the Secretary of Commerce, who can reverse the decision (sending the project right back to the CCC). The COE is part of the so-called Collaborative of agencies which claims to have studied this project for decades, the same group the TCA repeatedly cites as having backed up all their information. Not so any longer.
First Col. Magness took issue with the notion that the TCA's certified alternative, or route for the road, is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), a requirement of the Coastal Zone Management Act. The project's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) states, "the Collaborative had essentially agreed that ... the CC, CC-ALPV, and A7C-ALPV alternatives are not practicable because they would result in severe community disruption." That final set of acronyms stands for the Central Corridor Alternative, and two Avenida La Pata-based derivatives. According to Col. Magness,
"During the Corps' 2004-05 deliberation of the abovementioned alternatives, at no time did we determine the Central Corridor Alternative, Central Corridor-Avenida La Pata or Alignment 7 Corridor-Avenida La Pata Alternative to be not practicable... The statement in the applicant's final SEIR that these alternatives "...[w]ere determined [by the Collaborative] to be not practicable is incorrect and thus misrepresents the Corps' position."
Next, Col. Magness put the TCA's appeal itself in his sights. It seems that page 6, paragraph 9 of the brief claims that "[t]he Collaborative unanimously determined the Green Alignment of the FTC-S to be the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative." This didn't cut the mustard with the colonel.
"As I explained above, the Corps provided its 'preliminary' LEDPA determination, but did not issue any final LEPDA decision. The omission of the word 'preliminary' in the Appellant's brief is not only misleading, but creates potential misconceptions about the Corps' ability to render impartial decisions that are neither arbitrary nor capricious... the LEDPA decision (preliminary and final) rests solely with the Corps; it is not a decision that is subject to consensus or unanimity among other federal and state agencies, as implied by the Appellant's chosen wording."
With that opponent hastily dispatched, Col. Magness moved on to eliminate the claim that the Final SEIR was subject to "unanimous recommendations" including the COE. Page 7, paragraph 10 of the Report claims the TCA Board of Directors certified the Final SEIR "[w]ith the unanimous recommendations of the Collaborative." Col. Magness says not so.
"Aside from our official public comments issued to FHWA on the 2004 Draft EIS/SEIR, we offered no recommendations on the CEQA document beyond our November 1, 2005 letter pertaining to the 'preliminary' LEDPA.... To be forthright and accurate, the applicant (TCA) unilaterally decided to split the historically combined NEPA/CEQA document and allow the Final SEIR to proceed in advance of the Final EIS. My staff had no prior knowledge or input on this action taken by the TCA Board of Directors nor were they provided the opportunity to review the final CEQA document in advance of its certification."
Not done yet. I'm just going to throw in the entirety of the next paragraph; I love the poetic brevity of solid military prose.
"Page 17 of the Appellant's principal brief reiterates the following, verbatim: 'Flying in the face of thirty years of planning studies by all levels of government and the conclusion reached after six years of study by the federal agencies with jurisdiction over resources affected by this Project, the Commission claims there are other reasonable alternatives. The selection of the FTC-S was the outcome of the Collaborative's six year process of planning and analysis to ensure the selection of the LEDPA, a test equivalent to the California Coastal Act the chosen alternative be the "least environmentally damaging feasible alternative' [emphasis added]. These assertions are false. I have not reached a conclusion with respect to the SOCTIIP [the regional transit plan which includes the 241], not reached a final LEDPA determination, nor have I yet made a public interest determination. Furthermore, my agency has not concurred with TCA that there are no other reasonable or feasible alternatives other than the applicant's preferred alternative. Again, I submit for the administrative record that based on the 2004 Draft EIS/SEIR the Corps holds the opinion there are other practicable alternatives available to TCA that would achieve the overall project purpose."
(Digg this story HERE)
April 10, 2008 05:41
Wow! Just like in the western movies, the Cavalry (in the form of Army COE) comes charging over the hill, to save the "conservation settlers", from those wild & savage, "TCA Indians". ;-)
April 10, 2008 08:23
Another fine piece of reporting from Alex, whose writings will comprise the only full documentation of TCA's ultimate demise. No slimier, more dishonest, more self-serving bureaucracy exists Orange County-- I can hardly wait for their financial wheels to come off.
April 10, 2008 15:33
The TCA is a joke!
How can we believe anything they are presenting to the public? If TCA can't trust staff to keep these very specific policies and agencies steps in order and truthful, how can they continue this mess?
This letter confirms what so many who are opposed to this project have stated. That TCA jumped on this plan and are forcing its will on anybody in their way.
Why can't they do their job appropriately and let the best plan with input from all parties be the winner?
April 10, 2008 16:40
Double Wow!!! Go General! - just attended today's TCA meeting where they announced, "It's TCA Eco-Tour-Time...and, there are ONLY 2 available spots open. TCA? Eco-Tours? That's right folks!
TCA will take you out into their New & Improved Wilderness they've "fixed-up" with their toll roads. Really. TCA's Wildland Improvements Project is ongoing as they make-over all'em ol'rocks and dirt
and weeds into shiny new toll-road-scapes. And,
this is the-honest-best-of-all-TCA-truth: they are putting transponders on bobcats along the 73.
Apparently bobcats have been bombing-thru toll plaza's without paying? No word on snakes, lizards, turtles, pocket mouse or the them stealthy fairy shrimp. How about Natcatchers? Apparently their flying ability eludes capture until TCA commission's their heli-squad to chase down the tiny winged evaders. There's only 2 spots left - so don't delay. Road Kill? Oh please. The inevitable flattening of wildlife on TCA's wilderness friendly road-scape's has been retitled to: Carpets of Bio-Diversity. Things that go bump in the night, oops. You've heard of fat-cats...at TCA they're called flat-cats aka mountain lions.
TCA's gone absolutely Wild.
Who knew?
3 Cheers for the General!!!
Did anyone here the rumor, TCA's penciling a toll
road thru Yosemite Valley? Heard they got the
idea from all us surfers labeling Sano and Trestles
our Yosemite of Surfing. Wouldn't ya'know.
HEY!!!, there went another cheating bobcat...
April 11, 2008 02:35
General? Actually it was a Colonel, Jerry. Col. Magness to be precise. But if he keeps making such good calls, perhaps he'll be a General someday.
April 11, 2008 05:05
Hey Alex,
Keep up the great work, and someday you'll be getting as much praise & adoration as Moxley! ;-)
April 11, 2008 09:59
Alex, I appreciate your effort to highlight the Corps’ dedication to doing the right thing regarding some of our nation’s most precious assets. I mean, isn’t that what we all want? Under the Corps’ regulatory mission, I'm charged with protecting aquatic resources, while allowing reasonable development through fair, flexible and balanced permit decisions. That said, I believe your blog overstates the purpose of my recent letter to NOAA. It was a response to the Federal Register Notice that TCA had filed an administrative appeal to override the CCC's objections to the proposed project. It was an effort to clarify the public record and maximize public confidence in our impartial and independent decision-making role.
Let me be absolutely clear; we are neither a project proponent nor a project opponent. We value our role in working with the Collaborative, the group of federal and state agencies drafting the environmental documents for the proposed project. And we will continue to work with TCA and the other agencies to ensure these documents are complete and are of the highest quality. Throughout this ongoing review process, we will carefully consider the views of the public, government agencies, interest groups and project proponents. Once all sides have been heard from, we will carefully evaluate the positives and the negatives to determine what will best serve the public interest.
One of the biggest challenges the Corps faces today is finding the right balance among often conflicting concerns related to our precious aquatic resources. That is why it is so important to set the record straight and continue the collaborative effort as the proposed project moves forward in the permit evaluation process.
April 11, 2008 13:31
Col. Magness, sir;
Thank you for once again striving to ensure that the Corps message is understood loud, clear and unambiguously. And thank you for your work on behalf of the people of Southern California. Your drive to ensure that the environmental documents are of the highest quality is a credit to the United States Army.
That being said, I believe that regardless of your clearly objective and constructive position on the issue, your conclusions are devastating to the current incarnation of the Foothill-South extension. If your consideration of the current Green Alignment for the project as the LEDPA was only preliminary, what business did TCA have in certifying the alignment and finalizing the EIR? What business has the project in coming this far down the pipeline at all?
The TCA's haste to approve their project seems to have wasted a lot of people's time, money and energy.
April 11, 2008 15:41
According to Colonel Magness' letter:
"...there are other practicable alternatives available to [the] TCA...".
Ahhhh...music to my ears! Yes, there are other alternatives to bulldozing a state park for a highway that WON'T relieve traffic.
This is what we've all been saying for years! The people of OC have said it, the State Parks Commission has said it, and the CCC has said it. And now the Army Corp of Engineers is saying it; Apparently, the Army COE recognizes that, despite the TCA's bogus claims to the contrary, there ARE other options we can look at here. The TCA's greed and financial self-interest are the sole reasons they refuse to consider these other alternatives, and instead try to pretend like they don't even exist.
The good Colonel's response on this message board included the phrases "...best serve the public interest...", "fair, flexible and balanced", "impartial", and "...[setting] the record straight...". Hats off to you, sir, for attempting to clear away the TCA's smokescreen and get the straight facts out there for all to see! If the TCA was fair, honest, and straight up with the public, this issue would have been settled long ago. But calling the TCA on their never-ending stream of BS can be quite a chore. In fact, the TCA seems to be the antithesis of concepts such as "fairness", being "impartial", and serving "the public interest".
One final thought:
Messageboard poster Jerry Collamer mentioned the TCA is now hosting "eco-tours"? HUH?!? Are you kidding me? Isn't that like letting Anheuser-Busch host AA meetings? Jeez, what next...
April 11, 2008 21:32
What happened to freedom of speech????????
April 12, 2008 02:08
Laura;
Are you referring to the TCA's freedom to describe the project in whatever terms they see fit? Because when it comes to the law, you have to be careful - legal terms carry specific meaning and weight, so colorful language quickly drifts into the misrepresentation and falsity cited by the Colonel.