tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post427918750845869307..comments2024-01-11T22:45:53.276-08:00Comments on Tom King's CRM Plus: Beware the Arbitrary APEThomas F Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-79083740126346963442014-06-09T14:00:18.418-07:002014-06-09T14:00:18.418-07:00Thanks, James. Yes, the APE does not have to be c...Thanks, James. Yes, the APE does not have to be contiguous; the regs define it as the area OR AREAS where the action may affect historic properties if any are present. So you could have a project that will wipe out archaeological sites over HERE, for example, and have visual effects on other historic properties over THERE. As to direct vs. indirect -- that gets tricky, as you recognize. The distinction really IS a fuzzy one, but I think it generally comes down to how certain the effect is, and how closely linked it is to the project itself. Not very satisfying, I know, but the best I can do -- besides the formal definition of indirect effect in the NEPA regs -- related to the action but later in time or farther removed in distance.Thomas F Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-51878850897526576762014-06-09T13:42:36.623-07:002014-06-09T13:42:36.623-07:00While I think I understand what you mean when you ...While I think I understand what you mean when you talk about, "...all the areas where EFFECTS on historic properties may occur," am I right in thinking that this could mean that an APE may not be contiguous? Visual impacts for instance may occur from a park on a hill that are not apparent from the area immediately surrounding the project boundary. <br /><br />On a related note, how exactly does one distinguish between direct and indirect effects? While some direct effects are obvious (bulldozing a historic building), other effects seem to be much more difficult to pigeonhole into either category (increased traffic around a historic property due to the project). Thank you for your time,<br />James K.dogscratcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08604795007817060655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-83567769419064662412014-06-08T02:52:29.502-07:002014-06-08T02:52:29.502-07:00I'm not understanding your point, bloke. Are ...I'm not understanding your point, bloke. Are you saying that because a landowner doesn't want to acknowledge that his property will be affected by a federal action, the ostensibly responsible federal agency should say "oh, OK," and not consider the potential effects? I'm well aware of how devoted folks in the silver state (and elsewhere) are to their property rights, but that devotion doesn't seem to me to relieve the federal government of its obligation to consider the effects of its actions on the environment.Thomas F Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-650062871628400922014-06-07T23:18:21.426-07:002014-06-07T23:18:21.426-07:00Tom, I am usually all on board with you and just a...Tom, I am usually all on board with you and just about all your perspectives and justifiable rants. However, on this one all was not fairly presented to reflect the matter in its entirety. This country of ours was founded on particular tenets, in this case private property which some hold precious to a point of lunacy. And there are a great many cases when the property owner is not the project proponent, although is getting a stack of money for use of land to stage on,,,<br />I can say that I myself have faced landowners who basically said they would not hesitate to shoot at me or call in local law enforcement for our removal. <br />And in cases when there may actually be a HP affected, it is at the discretion of the landowner to decide whether to allow any party to.<br />Now maybe you come from another neighborhood) these days, but I have no doubt that you recollect some of these private property minded types when you were at UCR and especially when you have Ventured into the silver state.<br /> <br />I say this because it would probably be good to check on this kind of thing before sending an attorney after them. <br />This is not to discredit what you are saying Tom - I absolutely agree there are cases when the federal agency does an extremely poor job identifying and defining the APE-hell half of them don't even know what an indirect effect is, let alone know what an adverse effect is. They still struggle with trying to remember the trick regarding when to use affect verses effect.Tom's BLM blokehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04420198474210499290noreply@blogger.com