tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post4273508689769782020..comments2024-01-11T22:45:53.276-08:00Comments on Tom King's CRM Plus: Cumulative effectsThomas F Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037819472341496713noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-87920252284147052362022-11-02T12:21:24.167-07:002022-11-02T12:21:24.167-07:00Wow i can say that this is another great article a...Wow i can say that this is another great article as expected of this blog.Bookmarked this site..<br /><a href="investmentgradeincomeproperty.com" rel="nofollow">Investment Grade</a><br />Larry walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03635221157012442808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-44944158520026701732011-01-19T15:18:07.428-08:002011-01-19T15:18:07.428-08:00[Crimey! now your sofware tells me that my email i...[Crimey! now your sofware tells me that my email is too long. I'll try to break it into two parts. EOC<br />Thank you both, Tom and Bat, for this enlightening discussion. Here in Washington State, we have a highway replacement project that will at least double, in some places more than double, the width of the SR 520 bridge that crosses Lake Washington, up from four lanes to six lanes and a "managed shoulder" for gas-powered single occupancy, high occupancy, and bus vehicles. <br />Both the cultural resources consultants for Section 106 and the EIS writers have refused to consider cumulative effects of the project on two National Register historic districts and individually eligible historic resources adjacent to the present bridge and already blighted by it in many ways--noise, visuals, grit, air pollution, water pollution, salmon and and other wildlife habitat destruction, vibration, traffic in the neighborhoods... <br />The cultural resources people have simply dodged questions about why they are not considering cumulative effects on cultural resources--one consultant saying only that the category of cumulative effects is difficult. A fequent phrase in the seven drafts of their Cultural Resources Discipline Report (CRDR) that we have reviewed thus far has been "There is already a bridge there, so a [higher, wider] replacement bridge would not have an adverse effect on historic resources."<br />WSDOT, the agency acting for the FWHA, says in the most recent EIS, the Supplemental Draft EIS of January 2010 (the last before the Final EIS), in the chapter on "Indirect and Cumulative Effects," that it will not consider cumulative effects because it "has no control over other agencies." <br />In the SDEIS, "Indirect and Cumulative Effects Discipline Report," WSDOT analysts claim to base a finding of no adverse cumulative effects on two assumptions made by the analysts [long quotation from the report's pp 18-19]: "first, they considered construction-related effects to be short-term [a conservatively estimated five and a half years] and temporary in relation to long-term trends affecting the resources. And second, they considered operational effects of the project to be long-term and permanent through the project-design year, 2030. On the basis of these two assumptions, the analysts considered only direct or indirect effects of operating the completed facility as potential project contributions to cumulative effects. This was because in most cases, only these permanent effects would have the potential to influence long-term trends in the condition of the resources. The analysts did recognize, however [the paragraph continues], that in the case of a resource already under severe environmental stress, short-term construction effects added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions could tip the balance and adversely affect the resource. No such case was found in the cumulative effects assessments conducted for this project." Huh?<br />[to be continued in next post--eoc]Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09346494013858451225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8788575.post-86138726137074707862007-12-27T10:53:00.000-08:002007-12-27T10:53:00.000-08:00Tom,As I read your commentary I envisioned the pro...Tom,<BR/><BR/>As I read your commentary I envisioned the projects flowing through our office and cringed at how many have flowed through carrying the unaddressed or under-rated accumulative affect. I recently gave a presentation on the effectiveness of NHPA to my Historic Preservation class. One example had a normally quiet student reaching for his rotten veggies. He happens to be one of the people living in a community much like your small Virginia town. He was furious at me for letting the road-widening project to proceed due to the exact reasons of traffic load and urban sprawl you mention. <BR/>He put his rotten roughage away when I explained that the developer is under no obligation to follow our recommendations on mediating adverse affects. The client, involved in our survey, felt that constructing barriers and buying historic properties was all that fit the budget and proceeded with its plan having fully addressed the indicated affects.<BR/>Having said this I would like to move into a related issue. <BR/>IT IS our job to consider all possible affect each project has on the culture and environment in which the project occurs. I fully agree with all the sentiments presented by your write-up and applaud your exploration and findings....however....<BR/>As with your post on illegal antiquities trafficking, we have a market problem. There are far too many firms in the CRM industry that present laundry lists of resources and conclude no affect simply due to a failure to pause to think or research the subject area. The reason for this lack of effort can be, in part, laid at the feet of the capitalist system. In order to initiate the research to uncover issues within the communities and environment, time must be spent on becoming informed. Would you have known that the people of Buckland DIDN”T want urban sprawl if they had not organized in time to state their opinion? What if they hadn’t, as my small town has not? What would have been the story if the majority of the town thought that the road widening was necessary for economic growth? How would we know without an extra cost for social research (which is, not normally, considered as part of the process)? <BR/>Section 106 gives us a professional out by using the phrase “good faith effort”, and all of us have had to sigh, in resignation, after the fact, on too many an occasion. My point (finally) is a question. How do we budget to do a proper job, to the level that is truly necessary, when dealing with a fragile environment and humans who have varied social and economic goals, and stay competitive? The need has been identified. Now how do we realistically incorporate it? <BR/>To the flip side; how do we convince the client that we aren’t splitting un-necessary hairs to drive up costs? Capitalism! Ya gotta love it.<BR/>Respectfully; Bat <BR/>Archaeologist/Asst. Historian<BR/>SWCA Environmental Consultants<BR/>Salt Lake City, Utah<BR/>paleobats@yahoo.comUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12729168692313918345noreply@blogger.com