text:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION CAUTION MACON, INC.; CHET STRUNK; ) JUNE BRYANT; JOHN DOE ) and JANE DOE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) 5. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE ) NO. 5:99-CV-383-2 CITY OF MACON, GEORGIA; BIBB ) COUNTY, GEORGIA; KENNETH R. WYKLE, ) as Administrator of The Federal Highway ) Administration; LARRY R. DREIHAUP, as ) Division Administrator of The Federal Highway ) Administration; GORDON J. LINTON, ) Administrator, Federal Transit Administration; ) RODNEY SLATER, Secretary of THE UNITED ) STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) TRANSPORTATION; THE UNITED STATES ) OF AMERICA; GEORGIA DEPARTMENT ) OF TRANSPORTATION, and Their Successors ) in Office, ) ) Defendants. ) PLAINTIFFS= POST-HEARING BRIEF, MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS= MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND CLOSING ARGUMENT COME NOW Caution Macon, Inc., Chet Strunk, June Bryant, John Doe and Jane Doe, by and through their counsel, and pursuant to the direction of the Court, file this Post-Hearing Brief, Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants= Motions to Dismiss And Closing Argument, and show this Court as follows: I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have violated the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. ' 4321, et seq. (ANEPA@). The complaint in this action, filed September 29, 1999, seeks a determination by this court that the environmental assessment approved by the Federal Highway Administration (AFHWA@) on August 17, 1998 (AEA@) and the Finding of No Significant Impact (AFONSI@) for Georgia Project STP-3257 (1), Bibb County, P.I. #350820 (the AHouston Road Project@) issued by the FHWA on August 17, 1998, are invalid and that the EA be remanded to the agency for review and that the remaining Defendants be enjoined from constructing or implementing the Houston Road Project until further order of this Court and upon the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (AEIS@), appropriate public comment and the final approval of the EIS. The EA is found in the transcript as Plaintiffs= Ex. 69. The FONSI is Plaintiffs= Ex. 68. The Defendant Georgia Department of Transportation (AGDOT@) is made a party to this action pursuant to its capacity as the agency through which the funding is channeled for projects in the State of Georgia which qualify for and are funded with federal funds. Pursuant to an agreement with GDOT, Defendants City of Macon and Bibb County (AMacon-Bibb@) obtained jurisdiction over the road improvements in the City of Macon and/or Bibb County. Under that agreement, Macon-Bibb was responsible for the preparation of requisite environmental studies and documents to be submitted to the GDOT for review and preparation of the environmental document. (TR. Vol. I, pp. 28-29; Federal Defendants= Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Attachment and cover letter of Wayne Shackelford to Larry Dreihaup dated August 12, 1998). Macon-Bibb entered into a contract with Moreland & Altobelli Associates, Inc. to perform these duties. (TR. Vol. III, pp. 8, 12 & 27, 103). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claims unless and until the federal claims have been dismissed by this Court and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1367. 2 II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review of the final agency action of the FHWA is conducted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. '701, et seq. AUnder the Administrative Procedure Act, a court shall set aside an action of an administrative agency where it is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion or not in accordance with law.@ Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb=s History, Inc. v. United States Army Corps. of Engineers, 87 F.3d 1242 (11th Cir. 1996), citing 5 U.S.C. ' 706(2)(A) and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). III. STANDARD FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF A court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party shows (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of its case, (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction were not granted, (3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiffs outweighs the harm an injunction may cause to the defendant, and (4) that granting the injunction would not be a disservice to the public interest. Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1994). Canal Authority v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974). IV. ARGUMENT AND CITATION OF AUTHORITY A. A Full-Blown EIS Is Appropriate For The Houston Road Project. This Court must decide whether Macon-Bibb may go forward with the Houston Road Project with the aid of federal funds without this Court requiring a further review by the FHWA of the EA and the requirement that the Defendants prepare a full-blown EIS.1 This Court must 1 See argument below on the issue of segmentation which will require that the Houston Road Project be looked at as a larger project and therefore an EIS would be required. 3 affirm the Secretary=s decision unless the decision was Aarbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.@ 5 U.S.C. ' 706(1)(A). Pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, the Court is required to consider whether: 1. The Secretary acted within the scope of his authority... . 2. The Secretary properly construed his authority to approve the use of [Section 106 and Section 4(f) resources] as limited to situations where none of the alternatives to such use are feasible and prudent. 3. The Secretary could have reasonably believed that in the case under review there are no feasible and prudent alternatives. 4. The Secretary=s decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors. 5. The Secretary made a clear error of judgment. 6. The Secretary=s action followed the necessary procedural requirements. Stop H-3 Ass=n v. Dole, 740 F.2d 1442 (9th Cir. 1984). Although Athe Secretary=s decisions are entitled to a presumption of regularity, that presumption does not >shield his action[s] from a thorough, probing, in-depth review.=@ Id., quoting Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 415. The court must also review the full administrative record. Id. at 1450. B. Plaintiffs= Promptly Brought this Action and Are Not Barred by the Doctrine of Laches. Laches is purely an equitable doctrine by which equitable relief is denied to one who has been guilty of unconscionable delay in seeking that relief. United States v. Olin Corp., 606 F. Supp. 1301 (N.D. Ala. 1985). Plaintiffs here seek judicial relief before Defendants Macon-Bibb have actually signed the construction contract or commenced construction and during a period of time shortly after the EA had been amended and approved as of August 10, 1999, (TR. Vol. III, pp. 106, 108-109; Federal 4 Defendants Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss, p. 87). Airport Neighbors Alliance, Inc. v. United States, 90 F.3d 426, 429 (10th Cir. 1996) (when most of environmental concerns related to use of enlarged airport runway and not to its actual construction, NEPA challenge relating to enhanced use not moot despite completion of enlargement). By analogy, a plaintiff must act in such a way that the challenge of an agency=s EIS, for example, as being inadequate, cannot be undertaken until the agency has made the final EIS publically available. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 US 390, 406 n.15, 96 S.Ct. 2718, 2728 n.15, 49 L. Ed.2d 576, 588 n.15 (1976). Plaintiffs contend that the EA was, in fact, not complete in the sense of being final until it was amended in August 1999. (Plaintiffs= Ex. 83). Plaintiffs have not delayed in filing this action to the extent that the equitable doctrine of laches would apply. To assert that laches applies to an environmental case, the defendant must show: (1) a delay in asserting a claim or right; (2) inexcusable delay; and (3) undue prejudice to the party against whom the claim is asserted. Save Our Wetlands, Inc. v. United States Corp of Engineers, 549 F.2d 1021 (5th Cir. 1977); Olin Corp., 606 F. Supp. at 1309-10; Hall County Historical Society, Inc. v. Department of Transp., 447 F. Supp. 741, 748 (N.D. Ga. 1978). All three requirements must be met by defendant. See, e.g., Ecology Center v. Coleman, 515 F.2d 860, 867 (5th Cir. 1975) (even though defendant showed unexplained delay of plaintiff, failure to show prejudice barred defendant from successfully asserting laches); Watz v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 500 F.2d 628, 633 (5th Cir. 1974) (A[P]roof of either absence of prejudice or excuse for delay will repel a claim of laches@). Laches is an equitable doctrine in which the trial judge maintains a considerable discretion in deciding. Watz v. Zapata Off-Shore Co., 500 F.2d 628, 633-34 (5th Cir. 1974). 5 1. Plaintiffs Have Not Delayed in Asserting Their Claim. Here, negotiations were undertaken and pursued, and an ad litem notice served on Defendants in early 1999. (TR. Vol. III, pp. 141-142). Plaintiffs have not delayed in asserting any of their rights with respect to the Houston Road Project. The court in Hall County examined whether a plaintiff was guilty of inexcusable delay when the plaintiff=s rights under several federal statutes became enforceable a few years prior to plaintiff filing suit to enjoin construction of a federally-funded highway through a historical area. Hall County, 447 F. Supp. at 748. The court considered plaintiff=s efforts to bring the unique historical character of the district to the defendant=s attention using less intrusive means than filing a lawsuit. After continued negotiations with defendant to no avail, plaintiff finally filed suit. Id. The court held that laches was not applicable. Id. Thus, the courts recognize a plaintiff=s efforts to rectify his complaint through non-legal means upon the maturity of his claims. Plaintiffs have not delayed their opposition to the Project, but have actively pursued governmental authorities, readily voicing their complaints through numerous measures. Plaintiffs have submitted numerous letters, attended public hearings and sought meetings with public officials to express their concerns regarding the detrimental impacts of the project on the community, historic structures, and environment. (TR. Vol. III, p. 14). Defendants argue that since the EA was issued in August 1998 and the lawsuit was filed September 29, 1999, Plaintiffs are barred by laches. The evidence shows that plaintiffs sent an ad litem letter to Defendants Macon-Bibb on March, 9, 1999, and on May 10, 1999. (TR. Vol. III, pp. 141-142). The evidence further shows that the project was delayed during the period in which the addendum to the EA was being prepared. The Addendum Assessment of 6 Effect for the Houston Road Project was approved in August 1999. (TR. Vol. III, p. 96, Ex. D B/M 10). The FHWA=s witness, Faye Dimassimo, testified that, in effect, the EA is a living document. In fact, the EA is subject to additional review upon the discovery of additional substantive information or matters which would affect the environmental assessment of a project. (TR. Vol. III, pp. 109, 128). Unless the proposed action falls within a categorical exclusion, the agency must comply with NEPA=s environmental assessment procedures, EIS procedures, or both. 40 C.F.R. ' 1501.4(a)-(b)(x). While NEPA and CEQ regulations may not mandate a supplemental EA, the court has found that an agency=s failure to do so when new information had become known was a failure to comply with NEPA. Leavenworth Audubon Adopt-A-Forest Alpine Lakes Protection Soc=y v. Ferraro, 881 F.Supp. 1482, 1491 (W.D. Wash. 1995). 2. The timing of this lawsuit has not prejudiced Defendants. Defendant GDOT further argues that, since the contract for construction of the Houston Road Project was let on September 24, 1999, following the publication of the request for bids on September 17, 1999, that Plaintiffs were further barred by laches. By asserting that Plaintiffs are guilty of laches, Defendants are forcing Plaintiffs to find a manufactured boundary between ripeness and inexcusable delay. Like the Plaintiff in Hall County, Plaintiffs properly and timely brought their Complaint in this case after pursuing non-legal means, and should thereby be allowed to pursue their legal contentions. To assess prejudice, the courts examine the actual expenditures of the defendant agencies and weigh the public interest in the transportation needs offered by the project with the environmental harm. Ecology Center of Louisiana, Inc. v. Coleman, 515 F.2d 860, 868 (5th Cir. 7 1975); Save Our Wetlands, 549 F.2d at 1028 (balancing expenditures of agency with environmental benefits to discontinuing the project). Defendants only cite a delay in the completion of the project as a harm to the general public. Though Plaintiffs plainly acknowledge that safer roads are important, Plaintiffs fervently assert that any benefits the public would reap from the expanded road are outweighed by the detrimental impacts of the Houston Road Project, including air pollution, flood damage, damage to historic structures, and a likely increase in speeding, causing dangerous roadways. See id. at 869 (finding environmental degradation as supportive of a finding that prejudice exists). Defendants cannot tie their prejudice to the assumptions that the road will positively affect the community. 3. Plaintiffs= actions do not have the necessary detrimental effect to constitute laches. Defendants have not made an adequate showing of factual evidence to support a laches defense. Defendants= Motions to Dismiss focus only on Defendants= perceived prejudice to the public of stopping the Houston Road Project and its unsubstantiated conclusion that Plaintiffs seek Aa strategic advantage or to reopen the public debate.@ Surely, such a frail, meager showing is not sufficient to overcome the hurdles to establish laches in this case. 8 C. Defendants= Conclusions Regarding Their AHard Look@ at the Effects of the Project Are A Nullity Because Defendants= Improperly Segmented the Project to Circumvent NEPA=s Procedures. NEPA=s requirements were not satisfied because Defendants improperly segmented the Houston Road Project to avoid preparation of an EIS. NEPA requires that an EIS be prepared when a governmental action has a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. 42 U.S.C. ' 4332; Sadler v. 218 Housing Corp., 417 F. Supp. 348, 355 (N.D. Ga. 1976). To avoid the procedural requirements imposed by NEPA, government entities sometimes Asegment@ the project into several smaller projects that dilute large significant impact into smaller effects, such that each smaller project does not have a significant impact. In this way, the government avoids its obligation to formulate a full EIS. To combat this method of avoidance, the Code of Federal Regulations require that the action be evaluated to Aconnect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental matters on a broad scope@ and A[h]ave independent utility or independent significance, i.e., be usable and be a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area.@ C.F.R. 23 ' 771.111. Thus, the regulations require governmental entities to address their proposed roadway projects with a broad view of the entire impact of the project on the environment, establishing guidelines to define an independent project versus a segmented project. A line of cases in this circuit demonstrate the use of this scheme of avoidance in the highway context. Named Individual Members v. Texas Highway Dep=t, 446 F.2d 1013, 1022-23 (5th Cir. 1971) (rendering government=s division of highway project into two end segments illegal and demonstrative of bad faith); Hawthorne Environmental Preservation Ass=n 9 v. Coleman, 417 F. Supp. 1091, 1099-1100 (N.D. Ga. 1976) (holding that EIS must be conducted after concluding that government improperly segmented highway project). To examine whether a highway project is unfairly divided into smaller projects, courts look at whether the length of the highway project is between two logical termini. See, e.g., Hall County, 447 F. Supp. at 749. Other considerations include whether the segmented portion is an extension of the present road or a connective link; has independent utility; and whether the segment serves local needs. Hawthorn, 417 F. Supp. at 1100. The court has also analyzed whether the proposed segment does not irretrievably commit federal funds for other related projects. Piedmont Heights Civic Club, Inc. v. Moreland, 637 F.2d 430, 440 (5th Cir. 1981). When the roadway runs between two cities, logical termini are readily apparent. In contrast, a roadway running within a city=s termini are not always clear, so the project=s independent utility is more closely examined. Id. The Houston Road Project cannot be considered a separate utility under the guidelines of the Code of Federal Regulations and case law of this circuit. The logical termini of the Houston Road Project are not clearly apparent. The EA, on Page 1 in the ANeed and Purpose@ statement, asserts that A[t]he improvements are proposed to begin at the existing intersection of Houston Road and Sardis Church Road/Walden Road and extend north to the existing Houston Road and US 41/SR 11 intersection... .@ (Plaintiffs= Ex. 69). The EA, on Page 3, further asserts that the Alogical northern terminus of the proposed improvement is at the existing intersection of Houston Road and US 41/US 129/SR 11/SR 49/SR 247, a multi-lane facility, which will provide a desirable multi-lane facility interface.@ In fact, the testimony reveals that the Houston Road Project, as planned, ends several hundred feet before the intersection which is asserted as the logical 10 northern terminus of the proposed improvement. It therefore fails to connect to a major thoroughfare and terminates at a dangerous underpass that represents a congested area and bottlenecks by reason of a sudden reduction of traffic lanes at that point. (TR. Vol. II, pp. 103-104; pp. 117-118). A closer examination of the traffic counts and accident data, which were the subject of the testimony of Faye Dimassimo and Jim Evans, shows that such data took into account the entirety of Houston Road and includes data accumulated at the actual intersection of Houston Road and SR 247 (which intersection is not part of the Houston Road Project).2 Both Walter Kulash and Douglas Hayes testified to their concerns relating to safety issues because the Houston Road Project illogically terminates several hundred feet before the intersection. Accordingly, the Houston Road Project does not have logical termini. The Houston Road Project does not have independent utility or serve local needs. The Houston Road Project does not serve a purpose independent from the other portions of the roadway that have been omitted from the entire roads program project and earmarked for later development. Contra Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb=s History, Inc. v. United States Corps of Engineers, 87 F.3d 1242, 1248 (11th Cir. 1996) (finding independent utility when new road would take residents from the western part of the county to the eastern part of the county, connecting commercial activity and lessening traffic volume). The origin of the funding also suggests a lack of separateness of the Houston Road Project from the overarching Macon-Bibb Roads Improvement Program. The initial funding for the Macon-Bibb Road Improvement Program came about from a single referendum in 1994. Sierra Club v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 982, 2 See argument in Section F related to the flawed traffic counts and accident data. 11 987-88 (5th Cir. 1974) (AThe element of time is materially important and cannot be ignored in determining the issue as to whether the projects are separate.@). The treatment of the Houston Road Project as an independent utility apart from the larger roads project for no apparent reason is a blatant attempt to circumvent NEPA=s requirements for the preparation of an EIS for the entire roads project. D. The Violations of the Statutory Scheme of NEPA in the Preparation and Approval of the EA Is Arbitrary, Capricious, an Abuse of Discretion, and Not in Accordance with the Law. 1. The Plaintiffs Have Met Their Burden To Show That Defendants Acted Arbitrarily and Capriciously In The Preparation And Approval of The EA. The court has announced its intention to be guided by the law as stated in the case of Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 404 U.S. 402 the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. ' 706(2)(A). The court should further be guided by the Federal Declaration Judgment Act. The case of National Helium Corp. v. Morton, 486 F.2d 995, 1000 (10th Cir. 1973), Cert. denied, 416 U.S. 993 (1974), held that NEPA furnishes a jurisdictional base for federal court action. The relief under NEPA is declaratory and injunctive. Its purpose is to maintain the status quo until the agency has complied with NEPA=s procedures abiding a decision based on consideration of all relevant environmental consequences of the proposed action. Once the agency has complied with NEPA=s procedures, the Plaintiffs understand that they cannot judicially prevent the agency from pursuing its action however environmentally unwise that 12 action may be. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 109 S.Ct. 1835, 1846, 104 L.Ed.2d 351 (1989). The federal courts apply the traditional test for injunctive relief which, with some variations depending on the circuit, inquires whether the plaintiff has shown: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat of irreparable injury if the injunction is denied; (3) the threatened injury outweighs the threatened harm the injunction may cause the defendants; and (4) the public interest will not be disserved by granting the injunction. Canal Authority v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 572 (5th Cir. 1974). The U.S. Supreme Court, in Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council, 490 U.S. 360, 109 S. Ct. 1851, 1860; 104 L.Ed.2d 377 (1989), applying 5 U.S.C. ' 706(2)(A), settled a conflict among the circuits by determining that the appropriate standard of review for agency=s decision not to supplement an EIS was an arbitrary and capricious standard of the Administrative Procedure Act and not the reasonableness standard formerly applied by some circuits. The court states, however, that the difference between the standard was, Anot a great pragmatic consequence.@ Id. 109 S. Ct. at 1861 n. 23; North Buckhead Civic Association v. Skinner, 903 F.2d 1533, 1538 n.20 (11th Cir. 1990). The Supreme Court=s holding regarding the standard of review requires a reviewing court to set aside an agency=s decision, if it is Aarbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.@ 5 U.S.C. ' 706(2)(A). The reviewing court must also Aconsider whether the decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error in judgment.@ The inquiry is required to be searching and careful but the ultimate standard of review is a Anarrow one.@ Marsh, supra.; Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 404 U.S. 402, 416 (1971). 13 Further, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency and requires the plaintiff to accept the initial burden of proof in challenging the agency=s determination not to prepare an EIS based on the showing that the proposed action does not significantly affect the human environment. Missouri Coalition for the Env=t v. Corps. of Engineers, 866 F.2d 1025, 1032 (8th Cir. 1989) (plaintiff has initial burden to demonstrate facts omitted from the record which, if true, would show substantial impact on the environment). The 5th Circuit has also accepted the alternative that the plaintiff carries its burden by showing that a determination of significance could not be fairly made at that time because the agencies determination is based on a flawed analysis. Fritiofson v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225, 1238 (5th Cir. 1985); Foundation on Economic Trends v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 143, 154 (D.C. Cir. 1985). In the Fritiofson decision, the court stated the test was Awhether there is a possibility, not a certainty, of significant impacts.@ While the Plaintiff=s allegation must be supported by specific evidence [Coalition on Sensible Transportation, Inc. v. Dole, 826 F.2d 60, 68 (D.C. Cir.1987)], if the plaintiffs meet their burden of proof, the burden shifts to the agency. Missouri Coalition, supra. at 1032. The agency=s decision not to prepare an EIS will not be upheld unless the agency=s decision was supported by a Ahard look@ at the proposed action=s potential environmental affects. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 462 U.S. 87, 103 S.Ct. 2246 (1983). As presently prepared, it is clear that the Secretary ultimately found the EA lacking and insufficient, particularly as relates to the need for the amendment for the historic data that was accomplished only in August of 1999. (Plaintiffs= Ex. 83) NEPA=s requirements are mandated 14 in addition to the statutes affecting the agency in the assessment process. The Addendum (Ex. 83) was relegated to a time when the environmental assessment really became the instrument to rationalize and justify the prior decision. See Save the Yaak Comm. v. Block, 840 F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir. 1988). Further, the traffic engineer offered by the Defendants, Mr. Evans, during testimony in which the Plaintiffs offered evidence of erroneous figures, admitted his first draft was only Afor review@ and had Atypographic@ errors that required a resubmission (TR. Vol. III, p. 169; D B/M Ex. 11). Both the resubmission and critique by Plaintiffs= witness, Mr. Hayes, were both accomplished only after the NEPA process was a fait d=accompli. (TR. Vol. III, pp. 161, 168-171). Further, Mr. Evans= traffic count figures were not restricted to the section to be built along the Houston Road segment, including the SR 247 underpass and curve (TR. Vol. III, pp. 172-173, 177 & 183; Plaintiffs= Ex. 84), nor did he consider speed limit changes, enforcement policies or quantify the use of private driveways and curb cuts, which surely would have been relevant to a rigorous analysis. Evans= testimony revealed in toto something less than a careful and considered analysis and was absolutely flawed as a matter of technical accuracy.. As relates to use issue of segmentation, Mr. Evans did not address the matter. His testimony was based on traffic projections to year 2025 which were not generated by his own research but figures produced by the DOT, an agency with an interest as a decision-maker; they therefore included counts beyond the limits of the project. (TR. Vol. III, pp. 166-168). Even 15 after his data selection outside of the project was modified and corrected of errors, it was submitted to the Aroads program@ and not as a part of the EA.3 Thus, the traffic data in toto constitutes misleading and erroneous information on the vital issue of traffic, including the traffic accidents, i.e., what type and what kind, the cause, and whether they occurred at intersections, mid-blocks or at driveways, and the misleading traffic volume figures taken from areas outside the project. And finally, the question remains as to why the corrected information was not dealt with in the EA or at least in the same manner as the historic data, that is, by a formal amendment. The answer is, of course, that accuracy and comprehensive data review were not considered essential to the project. It was first, and last, a perfunctory effort. Preparation of the EA on applications to an agency should have begun close to the time when the application was made and should have been completed and commented upon and available to the public sometime before the sales tax referendum in 1994. (TR. Vol. III, p. 171) . Aside from admitting that the job that was done was unsatisfactory, the Addendum prepared in August of 1999, shows that the EA is, by its own admission, a document which was being amplified and modified right up to the time when they proposed to advertise the acceptance of construction bids. Such timing is too late for an effective use of the document and is clearly a post hoc rationalization of its prior delegation to parties and contractors who have a palpable interest in seeing that the road is constructed without delay. While the Secretary may delegate the preparation of an EA to consultants and to applicants for federal funding, the regulations 3 This fact explains D B/M Ex. 11 document with the corrected figures (in cloud bubbles) submitted by Mr. Hayes. It does not and cannot explain why the figures were not a part of the EA. 16 require that federal officials independently review the EA and verify the data in it. Save Our Wetlands, Inc. v. Sands, 711 F.2d 634, 641-43 (5th Cir. 1983); See, Sierra Club v. Alexander, 484 F. Supp. 455, 466-67 (1980). In the case at hand, the agency, contrary to the usual practice, did not prepare its own EA.4 If information significantly relied upon by the agency is challenged as being inaccurate and insufficient, the agency must conduct an independent investigation to verify or discredit the information. Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d 633, 639-42 (7th Cir. 1986); North Carolina v. Hudson, 665 F. Supp. 428, 442 (E.D.N.C. 1987). The exercise of Aconsiderable caution@ is required when federal agencies review an EA prepared by an entity [such as Moreland & Altobelli] with an interest in the proposed action so that the agency does not substitute the entity=s analysis for its own. 42 U.S.C. ' 5304(g); Brandon v. Pierce, 725 F.2d 555, 560 (10th Cir. 1984). A federal agency is responsible for the scope and content of the environmental assessment. 40 C.F.R. ' 1506.5(b), See, Stephens v. Adams, 469 F.Supp. 1222, 1227 (E.D. Wis. 1979). Among those things that should be discussed in the EA is the alternatives to the recommended action, if the proposed action Ainvolves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.@ 42 U.S.C. ' 4332(2)(E). In any case, The EA and the FONSI must provide a reviewable record of an agency=s decision not to prepare an EIS. The EA=s analysis may be less rigorous then that of an EIS, but may not be perfunctory or conclusory. Citizen Advocates for Responsible Expansion, Inc. v. Dole, 770 F.2d 423, 434 (5th Cir. 1985). While the agency is left to choose its methodology in 4 See, Blaug, Use of the Environmental Assessment by Federal Agencies in NEPA Implementation, 15 Envt=l Professional 57, 61 (1993). 17 its EA, its methodology, nevertheless, must be scientifically justifiable. City of New York v. United States Department of Transportation, 715 F.2d 732, 751 (2d Cir. 1983). Macon-Bibb=s Exhibit 12 (TR. Vol. III, p. 121) makes the point of the inherent problem confronting the public in obtaining the information needed to make decision for a public improvement. Both the document and 23 C.F.R. ' 771 are supposed to be guidelines and regulations that prescribe the documentation for an EA. As described in Ms. Dimassimo=s testimony (TR. Vol. III, p. 123; L. 6-19), the EA is to assist in determining whether an EIS is required. In making the determination, Ms. Dimassimo offers this startling opinion, A... the EA should address only those resources or features which the FHWA decides would have a likelihood for being significantly impacted.@ This excludes detailed information or long descriptions Aor analysis@ which may have been conducted for the proposed action. Surely, this point of view arrogates to the agency a discretion which, if taken literally, is beyond review of any other decision-maker. It goes beyond that which was intended by the CEQ and NEPA. 2. The Defendants Have Violated NEPA By Not Considering All Prudent And Reasonable Alternatives To The Project As Required By City of Alexandria, Virginia v. Slater, 1999 LEXIS 32702 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 1999). The Court has requested the parties to analyze City of Alexandria, Virginia v. Slater, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 32702. Since the case deals with a full EIS and involves a project studied over some ten years, it deals with a different set of rules for an obviously larger, higher profile project. At issue, however, is the spare and terse document (the EIS) prepared by the Administration. While the District Court found it inadequate because it failed to consider 18 alternatives, the Circuit Court reviewed the EIS analysis and was content with its analysis of the impact. The EA and FONSI get the Plaintiffs in this case no meaningful analysis. Further, it elicits the response that none is needed because the project deserves no more than a cursory, superficial look. Plaintiffs point out that the statute and regulations require a Ahard look@ and rigorous analysis. As the Slater opinion points out, Plaintiffs cannot abide an analysis which ventures from the Aterse to the intolerably mute,@ as recognized in Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC, 444 F2d, 841, 852. The frustration with an unhelpful EA that shrugs off important concerns with sweeping conclusions of Ano impact@ and declarations of indifference to omissions and errors rises to fortissimo, when Plaintiffs consider the effort they made to inquire and participate and their effort to apprize themselves as to the status of the project. There also were efforts directly to obfuscate the facts and to leave omissions unresolved. Nor was the issue of segmentation and stated reasons for issuing a FONSI dealt with in the EA. Slater presented, in a word, an issue of substitution of judgment of the Administration=s alternatives and plan. Plaintiffs here have had no opportunity to argue and scrutinize any plan because the FONSI issued, and it was too spare to offer any basis for judgment. Not only were the neighborhood Plaintiffs= efforts to have this project meaningfully reviewed to no avail, but the entire process and the procedures employed amongst the federal, state and local entities and their contractors were so incestuous as to effectively result in a conspiratorial effort to comply with so meager a work product that it became non-dimensional and Aintolerably mute.@ 19 The matter cannot be assessed without the same kind of judicial scrutiny that the District Court and Circuit Court applied in Slater,--but essential to that analysis is the EIS and, prefatory to that, a serious-minded effort in compiling an EA that considers Awhen the proposed action is an integral part of a coordinated plan to deal with a broad problem, the range of alternatives that must be evaluated is broader.@ Slater at 7, citing Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, Id. at 835. Thus, in spite of the lack of direct factual distinction between the EA and EIS, a discussion of other relevant issues may be helpful. The Defendants have not followed NEPA=s mandate that it consider all reasonable alternatives in its decision-making process. City of Alexandra, Virginia v. Slater, 1999 LEXIS 32702 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 1999) lays the framework for analyzing whether a government agency properly considered all reasonable alternatives before arriving at its preferred alternative project plan. Defendants have run afoul of the requirements set forth in the Slater interpretation of NEPA=s reasonable alternative procedural prong. Defendants= must properly proceed through the procedural steps of NEPA, which ensure that all the impacts of a federal action upon the environment are thoroughly considered.5 Though NEPA is a procedural act, Congress instituted it to effectuate environmental protections, forcing government to consider all feasible alternatives. Defendants should not be permitted to side-step this important focal point which arose to the creation of NEPA even at the critical EA level. 5 Paul S. Weiland, Amending the National Policy Act: Federal Environmental Protection in the Twenty-first Century, 12 J. Land Use & Envtl. Law 275, 281 (1997) (reviewing Senate sponsor of NEPA, Dr. Lynton K. Caldwell=s assurance that the purpose of the Act is Ato adopt a national policy for the environment in the context of the planetary biosphere@). 20 To ensure that all prudent and reasonable alternatives are considered, Slater requires the governmental body to identify the prudent and reasonable alternatives. Merely considering a build or non-build alternative misses the mark. (TR. Vol. III, pp. 119-120). Slater developed considerations for defining a prudent and reasonable alternative. When focusing on viable alternatives, Slater requires a correct assessment of the properties impacted by the project and the reasonability of the other Project objectives considered by the government to create a baseline from which to judge alternatives. Only with the environmental impacts identified can alternatives addressing environmental problems be analyzed. The Defendants= assessment of alternatives must be evaluated in light of the framework enunciated by Slater. The deficiencies become transparent. Once alternatives have been identified, NEPA requires assessment of environmental impacts of each alternative. Thus, Slater develops a rather in-depth framework for the reasonable alternative inquiry. a. Defining a Reasonable Alternative The reasonableness of an alternative can only be determined in light of the objectives of the federal action. Slater, 1999 LEXIS 32702 at *13-14. First, the objectives of the entity conducting the federal project must be identified and defined. Id. An alternative can only be excluded from consideration in an EIS when it does not achieve the ends of the federal action. Id. As a result, Defendants are bound by NEPA to consider any alternative that may satisfy project needs. This is precisely what Walter Kulash alluded to when he testified about modeling and its current accessibility with the aid of electronic programs and alternatives shown on the cost benefit analysis. (TR. Vol. I, p.76). The court cannot prioritize the importance of the project objectives, but the court must compel the government to engage in all relevant inquiries 21 indigenous to the federal action. In general, a roadway project=s objectives will involve environmental concerns as well as traffic and safety issues. See, e.g., Slater, 1999 LEXIS 32702 at *14-15 (considering region=s traffic needs and environmental goals in bridge project). All objectives must be identified and evaluated. Thus, an alternative is reasonable if it brings about the ends of the federal action and must be included in the EA/EIS for the project. Id. at *14. In the instant action, Defendants must define the Project objectives. Defendants state that transportation needs and cost efficiency in achieving them were considered as an objective of the Project. (TR. Vol. I, p. 120; EA p. 1) Specifically, the EA identifies the purpose and need of the Project as road efficiency, traffic movement, and safety. EA at 1. Safety was also an objective. (TR. Vol. I, p. 73 ). The GDOT evaluated the impact of high speed traffic routed through or near residential communities. Id. at 127. In addition, the EA identified traffic accidents as a project objective. The Defendants identified some environmental objectives, including damage to local neighborhoods, air quality, historic impacts, and air/water quality. Id. at 120-28 (generally discussing environmental concerns). Defendants attempts were merely cursory and dismissive, omitting important project impacts. Accordingly, Defendants= stated objectives are not reasonable because environmental project focuses are omitted. EA at 6-31. Id. at *13. b. Defendants did not evaluate all the Project=s objectives, resulting in a failure to properly identify all the adverse consequences of each alternative as required by NEPA. Defendants failed to identify all environmental impacts of the Project. Without identifying these impacts, Defendants could hardly identify the environmental consequences of each alternative. Slater, 1999 LEXIS 32702 at *22 (reiterating requirement of NEPA that 22 Aadverse environmental effects@ of each alterative be identified). A reasonable and prudent alternative must effect as little environmental damage as possible. To properly assess which alternatives are reasonable and prudent, the adverse environmental effects must be identified as a preliminary matter so that the court can assess whether project alternatives address them and the impact on them. Slater, 1999 LEXIS 32702 at *22. Without having an understanding of the environmental concerns surrounding the Project, Defendants could not adequately identify reasonable and prudent alternatives, an exercise essential to a ' 106/4(f) determination. As shown in this case, the impact on the historic property was not finally determined until the amendment was filed and accepted. (August 10, 1999, Ex. 83). For example, the court in Slater recognized the need to examine whether ancillary construction activities near the project had an environmental impact significant enough such that their impacts should have been included in the government=s consideration. Id. at *30-31. As a result of limiting environmental impacts to a build or no-build alternative, the Defendants= identification of reasonable alternatives and then identifying the adverse environmental consequences is to convert the process to one of non-analysis. Defendants omitted significant environmental impacts from their analyses, dramatically affecting their decision regarding the feasibility of alternatives. The fall line city terrain and landscape of Macon presents a Adeceivingly large impact@ that the defendants have underestimated. (TR. Vol. I, p.74). Due to the old road structure of Macon, widening Houston Road requires new cut and fill slopes to be placed close to homes. Due to the creation of new slopes, fill, and road widening, significant vegetation must be removed. Id. at 75 (large swath of 23 vegetation gone). Defendants did not consider the impact on the ecosystem of removal of significant vegetation of the socio-economic impact on the neighborhood. In addition, moving power poles beyond the new right-of-way requires trees to be cut. Id. Defendants failed to consider this environmental impact. Defendants also did not fully evaluate the impacts of flooding of the Project. The flood plain crosses Houston Road according to the 2015 plan. (TR. Vol. II, p.115). The EA incorrectly states that the flood plain does not cross the road, dismissing stream impact flooding and drainage as a concern. Id. The EA does not resolve the flooding issue. Id. at 129-30. Thus, Defendants have omitted development of several important environmental concerns that must be addressed in an EA under NEPA. Failure to identify or give credence to flooding concerns, tree demolition, and removal of vegetation prevented Defendants from accurately defining reasonable alternatives and analyzing the environmental impacts of each. The EA lacked any analytic discussion of the limited number of impacts that were identified in the EA. The Slater court examined the government=s depth of discussion of alternatives and project objectives to determine whether the government truly gave pause to the stated objectives. Defendants in this case overtly dismissed important environmental concerns, imprudently casting off their NEPA obligations. Alternative courses of action to the preferred alternative have only received Afragmentary and incomplete@ review by the government, preventing a true evaluation of the trade-offs that can be made to accomplish all project goals. (TR. Vol. I, p.86). The EA also did not even undertake a thorough analysis of its chosen alternative. See, e.g., id. at 95 (where Walter Kulash states, AI cannot assume [accidents have] been part of the process because I don=t see a rigorous analysis of what getting those left-turn 24 vehicles out of the stream would have done, for example, to the rear-end collisions . . . . I see just a blanket statement that we must have five lanes to solve this problem.@). c. Defendants failed to consider all reasonable and prudent alternatives as required by NEPA Defendants failed to pursue all reasonable and prudent alternatives as required by NEPA and Slater. As a result, Defendants has not chosen an alternative that addresses and mitigates the weighty environmental effects of the Project. Plaintiffs can demonstrate the deficiencies in Defendants= procedural process by presenting viable alternatives that were not considered. In addition, circumstantial evidence apparent in Defendants= procedural process shows an utter lack of attention to alternatives, but instead, evidences Defendants= true intent to railroad the Project through the procedural process, shortcutting NEPA. Plaintiffs present viable alternatives that Defendants have curiously overlooked. Slater requires that Plaintiffs= proposed alternative meet all the project objectives, bringing about the ends of the federal action. Slater, 1999 LEXIS 32702 at *13-14. Plaintiffs assert that an Alternate Networking alternative should have been considered. (TR. Vol. I, p.77-78). Presently, Macon has a single arterial road infrastructure in which development connects only to that arterial road. Id. at p.77. The Alternate Networking alternative would involve creation of new links to the local and state roadway network so that alternate paths would divert traffic from the single artery. Id. at 78. In the instant action, numerous alternate routes are available. Id. The EA, however, did not include even a fragment of the alternate networking process as part of any of Defendants= alternatives. Id. The Alternate Networking alternative would accomplish Defendants= overarching goal of moving traffic as fast as possible. Id. at 85. But see 25 TR. Vol. I, p. 82-83) (describing problems with major arterial improvements, such as the build alternative, with accomplishing end goals of satisfying traffic demands). Plaintiffs also propose consideration of Amiddle-ground@ alternatives. TR. Vol. I, p.70). Intermediate alternatives that are conspicuously absent from the EA usually make the best alternativesByielding the benefits of the project through an efficient model. Id. at 71. Defendants did not consider a three-lane alternative with selected right-turn lanes combined with interaction improvements. This alternative would provide many project benefits while minimizing the costs and impacts, creating only a small footprint on the landscape. Id. at 72. In addition, Plaintiffs propose an alternative to reduce Houston Road to a two-lane, bringing it up to a standardized roadway system, and increasing the Industrial Highway to an improved four-lane road. (TR. Vol. II, p. 140-41). Traffic would be diverted from Houston Road and drainage issues would be resolved because the Industrial Highway is beyond the drainage problem. Id. Defendants cannot in good faith assert that they considered all reasonable and prudent alternatives. Defendants considered three alternatives: (1) the build or preferred alternative; (2) a no-build alternative; and (3) two four-lane alternatives with slight derivations to the preferred alternative. (EA at 6; TR. Vol. I, p. 69-71). Defendants failed to consider a wide range of alternatives between the no-build option and the preferred alternative. Id. at 72 (AThese are the [intermediate] alternatives that we don=t find in the EA. We find the makings of what would have been a good alternative.@). In contrast, the agency in Slater considered seven build alternatives and one no-build alternative prior to deciding upon the preferred alternative. Slater, 1999 LEXIS 32702 at *5-6. The agency in Slater undertook a detailed analysis of mitigation 26 plans for environmental effects, including historical sites, drainage, and wetland mitigation. Id. Defendants in this case have not engaged in any similar analysis. The Defendants= superficial attempt to demonstrate it even identified all reasonable and prudent alternatives fails. Not only did Defendants fail to identify all alternatives, but Defendants did not seriously consider or apply the same rigor to the no-build alternative or any other intermediate alternatives. As engineering expert Mr. Kulash stated at the hearing before the Court, AI did not find a full and reasonable analytical examination of even the no-build . . . . Because we have no basis for guaging [sic] reasonable intermediate alternatives. We have a basis for guaging [sic] the full-build alternative, and that assessment is causing considerable, considerable concern.@ (TR. Vol. I, p. 72-73). For example, in the EA and supporting materials, EA preparers did not perform a travel demand forecast model for the no-build alternative. Id. Slater=s framework conclusively shows flaws in Defendants= consideration of all reasonable and prudent alternatives. Without adequately defining the environmental objectives of the Project, Defendants could not assess what viable alternatives meet those needs. Further, Defendants have ignored alternatives that would have satisfied the ends of the federal action. NEPA mandates they be considered. Thus, Defendants are unable to meet the requirements of Slater to show they adequately considered all reasonable and prudent alternatives. E0 The EA Is a Substandard and Incomplete Document, Admittedly a ALiving@ Document, and the Court Will Necessarily Inquire into Matters Outside the Document. Judicial review is restricted to the administrative record with a few exceptions. One exception is the admission of expert testimony on scientific or technical matters, not in the administrative record to demonstrate that the agency=s research and analysis of factors mandated 27 by NEPA were inadequate. See National Audubon Society v. US Forest Service, 46 F.3d 1437, 1448 (9th Cir. 1993), County of Suffolk v. Secretary of Interior, 562 F.2d 1368, 1384-1385 (2nd Cir. 1977). Newly discovered evidence or evidence showing the agency=s possible bad faith and evidence regarding a plaintiff=s suggested alternative should be admitted. Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, 935 F. Supp. 1556, 1566-68 (S.D. Ala. 1996). As the Court noted, exceptions to going outside the record apply: 1) if a court finds it necessary to do so when an explanation of the agency=s action is necessary to prevent the frustration of judicial review; 2) if the agency appears to have relied on documents or materials not in the record; 3) if technical terms of complex or complex subject matter and the agency action require explanation; or 4) if the plaintiff makes a strong showing of bad faith by the agency. Town of Norfolk v. EPA, 761 F. Supp. 867, 875-76 (D. Mass. 1991), Aff=d. 960 F.2d 143 (1st Cir. 1992); Preserve Endangered Areas of Cobb=s History, Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps. Of Engineers, 87 F.3d 1242 (1996). When an agency has decided by its conduct or omission that NEPA does not apply to a proposed action, the administrative record may be devoid of submissions regarding NEPA considerations. In such case, a reviewing court may permit parties to the action to present evidence outside the administrative record. Landmark West! v. United States Postal Service, 840 F. Supp. 994, 1004 (S.D. N.Y. 1993), Aff=d. 41 F.3d 1500 (2d Cir. 1994). 28 F0 The EA Is Procedurally Defective in Numerous Instances Which Show Substantial Threat of Irreparable Injury If the Houston Road Project Proceeds. The Plaintiffs in this case have asserted that the EA is inadequate from both the substantive and the procedural point of view. In those instances where studies were not performed by Defendants or were omitted from the EA, the procedural deficiencies are significant and glaring. In those instances where the substantive conclusions are inferences drawn from incomplete sources or studies that lack detail, the relevance of such flawed findings, undermines the substantive and procedural aspects of a acceptable EA. In the case before the Court, the omissions of analysis for such matter as the northern intersection of Houston Road and SR 247 at the overpass, the exaggerated accident counts due to the inclusion of portions of Houston Road and intersecting streets outside the subject project, as well as the exaggerated traffic counts as testified to by Mr. Evans (TR. Vol. III, p. 170), clearly indicate that Macon-Bibb=s agent, Moreland & Altobelli, was attempting to reach a conclusion and justify a finding of no significant impact. The Addendum to the EA (Plaintiffs= Ex. 83) demonstrates two immutable principles: to-wit, (1) that the accepted EA upon which the FONSI issued was inadequate and had to be amended to include the historic properties that were omitted in the EA, and (2) Macon-Bibb and its agents engaged in predatory practices which were drawn to Mayor Jim Marshall=s attention and this information prompted his memorandum to the Executive Committee for the Roads Program and its attorneys. (Plaintiffs= Ex. 53). Both episodes represent a strong showing of bad faith and improper behavior in the preparation of the EA. Preserve Endangered Areas, supra. 29 Suzan Rivers testified about the citizens= intervention and their efforts to engage Senator Brown to obtain what should have been a regular procedural step in the process of submitting a report for comment. The subsequent resignation of Mark Edwards after his proposed letter was suppressed by Adecision-makers@ and cooperating department heads, including the Department of Natural Resources, is sufficient to call into question the credibility and legitimacy of the EA filed in this case. (TR. Vol. I, pp. 162-164, 167; TR. Vol. II, pp. 86-89; Plaintiffs= Ex. 53; Ex. 59).6 Further, as Daniel Fisher testified, the omission of the flood plain map and substitution in lieu thereof of an insurance rate map in the EA when the County=s 2015 Land Use Plan identifies problems of serious flooding in South Bibb County are indications of erroneous review and conclusions. (TR. Vol. I, pp. 120-121). Marilyn Meggs testified that the EA fails to deal with the flooding conditions in South Bibb County. Ms. Meggs pointed out that the EA contains only two (2) sentences with regard to floodplains, and both statements are false. (TR. Vol II, p. 80; Plaintiffs= Ex. 69, p. 30.7 The EA did not contain comment by any reviewing agency relative to the wetlands, storm water run-off or flooding, and no further statement was made other than vague commitments to construct the road in accordance with the 100-year flood plain standard and Afeatures to prevent storm water run-off.@ (Plaintiffs= Ex. 69, p. 33). Ms. Meggs testified that she hired a professional to prepare a hydrology study of Watershed 10, which is the drainage basin affecting her property, and the results were submitted 6 Ms. Rivers testified she was unaware of any addendum to the EA at the time of the hearing. (TR. Vol. II, p. 9). 7 The EA asserts compliance with Executive Order 119988, but fails to recognize problems created by run-off of storm water. (TR. Vol. II, p. 82). 30 to the Defendants; however, neither the information contained in that study, nor any other hydrology study, is contained in or eluded to in the EA. (TR. Vol. II, p. 81). Deborah Varnadoe testified that she had concerns that the Houston Road Project would create drainage onto her residential lot at a faster rate than present, and that presently her property has been the subject of overflowing water and flooding. (TR. Vol. II, pp. 58-59). Testimony of these witnesses is Astakeholder@ testimony based on the experience of living and working in the area. Its receipt and consideration in an EA of this type of information is a core consideration of the process. It cannot be legitimately ignored by Adecision-makers@ who remain aloof and remote to the existing conditions. In fact, Macon-Bibb had a flood study prepared by Tribble & Richardson, Inc. dated May 18, 1998, which indicated the need for an additional storm water detention facility to be constructed in conjunction with the road widening. (TR. Vol. III, p. 106; Plaintiffs= Ex. 65; Vol. III, pp. 194-195). When Ms. Varnadoe attempted to obtain an updated flood study, she was told it was unavailable. (TR. Vol. II, p. 72). A document entitled Houston Road Flood Study, dated June 16, 1999, some ten (10) months after the EA was issued, was introduced into evidence by Macon-Bibb as Ex. D B/M5. This study includes the May 18, 1998 report as an Ainitial review@, and concludes, in its summary, that the road widening will have negligible effect on run-off. Plaintiffs= Ex. 65 and its conspicuous absence from detailed discussion in the EA represents a substantial oversight in the review process. Ex. D B/M5 represents another attempt by Macon-Bibb and its agent, Moreland & Altobelli, to justify, after the fact, the finding of no significant impact. The 31 amended and redacted version, which was only later revealed, provides stark evidence of a manipulated process and can only serve to draw suspicious attention to a bad faith endeavor. Plaintiffs argue that a defective environmental document cannot be cured by subsequent reports and studies. See, Grazing Fields Farm v. Goldschmidt, 626 F.2d 1068, 1072 (1st Cir. 1980). NEPA requires, however, that new information or data should be the subject of supplemental review. Price Road Neighborhood Ass=n. V. U.S. Department of Trans., 113 F.3d 1505 (9th Cir. 1997). The review is ongoing as Mr. Dimassimo conceded. (TR. Vol. III, p. 128). A court may Aproperly be skeptical as to whether an [environmental document=s] conclusions have a substantial basis in fact if the responsible agency has apparently ignored the conflicting views of other agencies having pertinent expertise.@ Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers, 401 F.2d 1101, 1030 (2nd Cir. 1983). The attempts by Defendants to suppress materials relative to the EA and which should have been reviewed by the agency is both deceptive and if further evidence of improper behavior. Plaintiffs assert it represents an abuse of discretion sufficient for this Court to enjoin this project pending a further review by the agency. Neither drainage, connector roads, alternative roads or speed limits were considered in the agencies review of this project. The two transportation engineer experts offered by Plaintiffs, Mr. Kulash and Mr. Hayes, testified that considerations of such alternatives were, as a matter or procedure, required. Mr. Hayes drew maps for floodplains, density, connector roads and other charts which were more detailed and provided needed depth to substantiate the findings in the EA. In spite of citizen efforts to draw these matters to the attention of the contractor and 32 agency preparing the EA, they were ignored in violation of Executive Order 11988. Ms. Dimassimo opined in her testimony that to minimize volume, the EA should use good quality maps and exhibits... .@ (TR. Vol. III, p. 123). A rudimentary comparison of the citizens report and information (Caution Macon=s little EIS) clearly indicates that its maps, charts and data is more informative, error-free and reliable than the information supplied by the government-prepared EA. Had the comments by citizens described on pages 34-36 and the public hearing comments been considered as required by law, a more meaningful document would have emerged. Unfortunately, they were ignored and the ultimate product was rendered virtually self-serving as a result. Ms. Dimassimo testified there were 79 accidents over a one-year period. Dough Hayes testified that he reviewed the traffic and accident data provided by Moreland & Altobelli and found it to be erroneous. (See TR. Vol. II, pp. 110, 113 and Traffic Accident Report for the years 1995, 1996, 1997 and 1998 prepared by Moreland & Altobelli. This data supports Plaintiffs= contentions that the accident data included the entire length of Houston Road and that most accidents occurred at the intersections which admittedly need improvement or at the SR 247 underpass which is not in the project. Clearly, this raises issues which to the very heart of the need for this project. There was no discussion of intersection, left and right turn lanes, exactions of property to improve access to commercial driveways or other subdivision access points which could remedy local and short trips along Houston Road and reduce traffic. Said information was simply omitted in favor of a five-lane (middle Asuicide lane@), high-speed thoroughfare which carried vehicles to a dangerous intersection and attempted 33 to push them through a restricted two-lane underpass into a curve and busy intersection. Altogether, the SR 247 quality of safety considerations pales in the light of evidence of such engineering malfeasance. The lack of non-conclusory evidence in the EA is substantial, significant and critical to the determination of the need for an EIS. It indicates that the undertaking to satisfy NEPA failed as a clearly arbitrary, capricious, and abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law. Volpe, Id. This is not a mere question of spare details. The evidence here suggests clear error in judgment and a lack of attention to the kind of searching and careful analysis required by the statute. Significantly, other evidence of arbitrary and capricious action is the fact that the EA was not made available at the federal field office as required by law, but was made available only at the Georgia DOT office on Roff Avenue (TR. Vol. II, pp. 85-86). Nor was it on view for a minimum of 15 days in advance of the public hearing. (TR. Vol. II, pp. 16, 84). G0 Plaintiffs Have Standing To Pursue Their Claims In This Action. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue this matter in federal court, citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975). Plaintiffs contend that, if Aat the very least@, as asserted by Defendants, a plaintiff must allege a personal stake in the outcome, Chet Strunk and June Bryant are such stakeholders based on their close proximity to the construction area. Other members of Caution Macon, Inc. (specifically, Deborah Varnadoe and Marilyn Meggs) have testified that the failure to adequately address the flooding issue will severely impact their properties. See argument under Section F. 34 Plaintiffs also contend that, as a private citizens group, they have standing to pursue this action. AWhere a municipality dedicates property to a public use, it inures to the benefit of all who are at the time, or may afterwards become, citizens of the municipality, such dedication being in the nature of an estoppel in pais; and...the municipality may be enjoined by any person interested.@ DOT v. City of Atlanta, 255 Ga. 124 (1985), citing Mayor & c. of Macon v. Franklin, 12 Ga. 239 (5, 6). H0 This Court Has Jurisdiction over the State Law Claim [Relating to the Sales Tax Referendum] If Plaintiffs Prevail on the Federal Issue. Deborah Varnadoe testified that the 1994 referendum represented 76 proposed road improvements, including Houston Road to be a widening from 22-foot lanes to 24-foot lanes. (TR. Vol. II, p. 61). She testified that she voted in favor of the 1994 referendum and relied on the Macon-Bibb Resolution adopted November 1, 1994, and the attachment dated August 1, 1994, as to what was to be built with the sales tax funds. (TR. Vol. II, pp. 73-75; Plaintiffs= Ex. 34 and 25). This court has subject matter over the state law jurisdiction claims unless and until the federal claims have been dismissed by the Court and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1367. The evidence shows [and counsel for Macon-Bibb freely admits they felt no need to (TR. Vol. I, p. 37)], the Defendants Macon-Bibb did not go back to the voting taxpayers when the project was changed substantially from what was voted on in 1994. A[T]he process requires that redress be available when taxes have been collected unlawfully.@ Shadix v. Carroll County, 239 Ga. App. 191 (1999), citing Reich v. Collins, 513 U.S. 106, 115 S.C. 547 (1994). 35 V CLOSING ARGUMENT If the purpose of NEPA, the Macon-Bibb 1994 Resolution and the FONSI are to accurately reflect what the project is and what the environmental impact will be in building the project, and thereby to provide Bibb County and the City of Macon citizens sufficient information to make a knowing decision as to whether to support this public improvement or not, the process has failed miserably. The preparers of the EA and the decision-makers that issued the FONSI have unwittingly or intentionally engaged in a profound obfuscation throughout the process, and in some instances, have deliberately attempted to withhold information or convey information which is simply inaccurate and misleading. Plaintiffs in this case are dismayed to learn the distance with which these environmental acts have, in fact, missed the mark. The evidence, both from expert witnesses, lay witnesses and based on the documents produced in this case, demonstrates unquestionably that not only were procedures, which are designed to insure that the data and information is accurate and alternatives are fully discussed in an even-handed manner, misapplied or omitted but that the conclusions reached from such discussions are unreliable and erroneous. Unfortunately, a cursory reading of the EA indicates that there has been no independent analysis by disinterested persons who seek to review the evidence in a fair-minded way. On the contrary, the Secretary has attempted to water down the requirements of the President=s Council on Environmental Quality (hereinafter ACEQ@) by passing its own regulations, codified as 23 C.F.R. ' 770, but has further permitted the Georgia Department of Transportation to hire as a contractor to do the environmental study, the firm of Moreland & Altobelli (affectionately called DOT II because its employees are mostly retired and former DOT employees, including its two principals, 36 Mr. Altobelli and Mr. Moreland), thereby assuring that there will be no independent research, review or analysis of the important questions that are to be scrutinized in formulating the EA. Accordingly, it is no surprise that the FHWA has approved an EA that is a conclusory and altogether inadequate document, which has revealed in the evidence of this case several misstatements, omissions and incorrect inferences drawn to support positions that are not maintainable. The DOT environmental standards officer, Mr. Studstill, signed off and submitted the EA to the FHWA, which promptly (five days after receiving it) approved the document and issued the FONSI. It is hard to imagine a procedure which is more perfunctory than that which was performed for this approval. (Plaintiffs= Ex. 69 and attachment to Federal Defendants= Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss). Indeed, a cursory review of the document by the Court itself, even without reference to the testimony in this case, will confirm the fact that the document is so conclusory and lacking in in-depth analysis as to be an arbitrary and capricious deviation from the standard set by the CEQ and NEPA and foils the purpose of the statute and the lofty purpose that it is suppose to serve. The Secretary, in suggesting that the document be accepted and serve as the basis for the issuance of a FONSI, has sought nothing more or less than to make his actions non-reviewable,--that is, agency action committed to agency discretion,--a standard of review enjoyed by few, if any, agency actions and administrative determinations. In a word, the Secretary=s true interpretations of NEPA and the CEQ is to serve his own interests, and he suggest to this Court that no other review standard may be used except that which is set forth in 23 C.F.R. ' 770, that the court is to ignore the CEQ guidelines altogether, and that, because the law supports the notion that agency=s determination should not be subject to the substitution of judgment by a court in 37 the approval process, that it is a useless endeavor for any private citizen=s group to inquire in to the quality and sufficiency of the environmental data accumulated for purposes of assessing its impact on the project. In addition to the less than adequate analysis which is passed off as an environmental assessment, the agency in this case has engaged in a segmentation of the project for the purpose and intent of seeking to minimize the project to the point where it could not be deemed worthy of real consideration. Such activity is, strictly speaking, a ruse designed to obviate the necessity of confronting the environmental reporting burden contained in NEPA and the regulations emanating therefrom. An analysis of the legal standard for reviewing environmental action does include a standard of arbitrary, capricious and no legal basis to support it. Plaintiffs contend that they have met that burden in this case and can point to volumes of evidence which supports the proposition that the Secretary has accepted and tolerated acts of bad faith and predatory and misleading practices which are designed to obtain easy approval of a project. Not only is it segmented, but it is shot through with errors and omissions which require that it be the subject of a fuller environmental impact statement which must be duly submitted for comment by other agencies in order that the basic intent and purpose of NEPA is satisfied. The interpretation pressed upon the Court by the Secretary reduces the entire process to nothing more or less than a federal boondoggle designed to obfuscate and disguise the real environmental affect of such a project. The approval process is a weak pretext for the job that was to be accomplished by the EA. 38 The Plaintiffs in this case sought to present, through expert witnesses, persons who were disinterested, i.e., Walter Kulash, who operates out of Orlando, Florida and who was hired by Moreland & Altobelli for an assessment of the Roads Program (thereby vouching for his credentials), and persons who are interested in the ways only that direct constituents can be interested. Such witnesses hold such specialized skill, knowledge and experience, as to be able to testify as experts. All the experts who submitted evidence in this case were unequivocally and confirmed in their opinion that the EA was a document of marginal significance. It lacked not only the substantive elements of a scientific and acceptable study, but more importantly, the procedures that were employed were not sufficient to supply the document with the credibility that permitted it to be useful to citizens attempting to obtain information about the projects planned. Significantly, Walter Kulash testified that the procedures were entirely unsatisfactory because the EA only looked at the two extremes, i.e., the no-build and full-build alternative. No witness testified that the no-build alternative was acceptable for the substandard road, but the alternative of the maximum five-lane road (with the median serving as a suicide lane) which was both more costly and was considered the more effective at accomplishing the narrow purpose of moving cars along a given corridor at speeds that were deemed maintainable (but not optimum), was also deemed unacceptable by the commuters. Mr. Kulash=s opinion, unequivocally stated, was that other feasible alternatives had not been investigated which would have significantly accomplished the goals of the Roads Program, at less cost and with much less environmental damage and neighborhood discombobulation. 39 Mr. Kulash suggested that, while he had not been asked to make a recommendation, the attempt to avoid making the comparisons of alternatives were contrary to the CEQ and skewed the decision-making process. He clearly recommended an independent analysis of the alternatives would benefit the decision-makers. He used the term decision-makers and stakeholders which accurately describes the positions of the two respective classes of affected parties. Decision-makers spend tax money and have as their ultimate goal the expedious accomplishment of the project with as few obstacles as possible. The other class, stakeholder, are directly affected and are struggling to maintain their homes and a healthy and wholesome existence. For other decision-makers its public approbation and approval, for the stakeholder, it is an exaction of their lifestyle and property so vehicle drivers can reach their destinations five minutes earlier. It is trees versus pavement, flooding, noise, foul air and traffic versus historic preservation and neighborhoods. The countervailing interest must be carefully studied, analyzed and considered through the lawful procedure of an EIS. It cannot be accomplished with a FONSI based on a segmented project. CONCLUSION Plaintiffs, having met their burden in this action, ask this Court to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with the Houston Road Project and require a serious review of the EA, including the data and analysis omitted therefrom. Plaintiffs request that the Court require the Defendants to prepare a full-blown EIS. 40 So certified this 28th day of January, 2000. ____________________________ RICHARD N. HUBERT Georgia State Bar No. 373900 Attorney for Plaintiffs Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin 191 Peachtree Street, N. E. 9th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1747 (404) 649-1410 41 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION CAUTION MACON, INC.; CHET STRUNK; ) JUNE BRYANT; JOHN DOE ) and JANE DOE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) 6. ) CIVIL ACTION FILE ) NO.5:99-CV-383-2 CITY OF MACON, GEORGIA; BIBB ) COUNTY, GEORGIA; KENNETH R. WYKLE, ) as Administrator of The Federal Highway ) Administration; LARRY R. DREIHAUP, as ) Division Administrator of The Federal Highway ) Administration; GORDON J. LINTON, ) Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, ) RODNEY SLATER, Secretary of THE UNITED ) STATES DEPARTMENT OF ) TRANSPORTATION; THE UNITED STATES ) OF AMERICA; and GEORGIA DEPARTMENT ) OF TRANSPORTATION, ) ) Defendants. ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of the within and foregoing PLAINTIFFS= POST-HEARING BRIEF, MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS= MOTION TO DISMISS AND CLOSING ARGUMENT) upon counsel of record in this action via facsimile and by depositing same in the United States mail, with adequate postage thereon, addressed as follows: O. Hale Almand, Jr., Esq. Almand & Ruffin P. O. Box 1605 Macon, Georgia 31202-1605 James C. Thomason, III, Esq. Office of Regional Counsel for The Federal Highway Administration Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth Street, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2219 Cathy Ann Cox-Brakefield, Esq. State Law Department 132 State Judicial Building 40 Capitol Square, S. W. Atlanta, Georgia 30334-1300 H. Randolph Aderhold Assistant U.S. Attorney 433 Cherry Street Macon, Georgia 31201 John A. Draughon Special Assistant Attorney General Bell & Melton P. o. Box 229 577 Mulberry Street Macon, Georgia 31202-0229 This 28th day of January, 2000. _______________________________ RICHARD N. HUBERT Georgia State Bar No. 373900 Attorney for Plaintiffs Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin 191 Peachtree Street, N. E. 9th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1747 (404) 649-1410 62149.1 43
Pages to are hidden for
"IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE "Please download to view full document


text:
August 14, 2014 - Industry News
The percentage of trucks put out of service during the three-day, continent-wide truck inspection blitz known as Roadcheck fell only slightly this year from 2013, while the driver figure edged higher.
Tags: Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, inspections, Safety & Compliance, CVSA, Roadcheck, Roadside inspection
We offer e-newsletters that deliver targeted news and information for the entire fleet industry.
The expert, Mark Betner from CITGO, will answer your questions
The expert, Rence Oliphant from Hendrickson, will answer your questions
Drones And the Future of Package Delivery
How Will 3D Printing Affect Trucking?
Ultimate Test Drive Video: Brain and Brawn
Ultimate Test Drive Video: Small Block, Big Load
Webasto Releases Advanced Heater Controls
V-Flap II is An Aerodynamic Mud Flap
Cloud-Based In-Cab Video System Launched
Fan Drive Cools Better in Severe Applications

subset: commoncrawl


text:
DDR, DDR2, DDR3, DDR4 Memory Design & Test
Double Data Rate (DDR) Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory (SDRAM) is implemented in several forms today:
- DDR, DDR2, DDR3, DDR4 – advancing generations of DDR technology with progressively faster data rates and clock frequencies. See DDR, DDR2, DDR3, and DDR4 design and test solutions.
- LPDDR1, LPDDR2, LPDDR3, LPDDR4 – generations of low-power DDR targeted for mobile devices. See LPDDR1, LPDDR2, LPDDR3, and LPDDR4 design and test solutions.
- GDDR5 – graphical DDR targeted for graphics boards. See GDDR5 desig and test solutions.
- UFS – universal flash storage, the next generation of mobile storage. See UFS design and test solutions.
Keysight's solutions for DDR memory applications are driven and supported by Keysight experts that are active in the Joint Electronic Devices Engineering Council (JEDEC). Our involvement in standards groups and their related workshops, and specification development enables Keysight to bring the right solutions to the market when our customers need them.
Regardless of the DDR generation design challenges you are facing, Keysight offers a complete solution set from electrical to protocol. Work with Keysight and gain insights for your best design.
What's New
- Create high-speed digital designs with Keysight solutions- from design to test to compliance
- Digital Design & Interconnect Standards – brochure
- Order the DesignCon 2014 Keysight Education Forum DVD
- New DDR4 BGA interposers for Infiniium Series Oscilloscopes
- New Logic Analyzer that Captures Industry's Highest Data Rates
Related Links
Refine the List
By Type of Content
Training & Events
- Webcast - recorded
By Product Category
All Product Categories
Oscilloscopes, Analyzers, Meters
Logic Analyzers
- 16900 Measurement Modules (1)
- 16850 Series Portable Logic Analyzers with 2.5 GHz Timing in Deep Memory (1)
- 16800 Series Portable Logic Analyzers, Built-in Pattern Generator Available (1)
- Logic Analyzer Software Applications (1)
- FPGA Design / Development Solutions (1)
- U4154A 4 Gb/s AXIe-based Logic Analyzer Module (2)
- Logic Analyzers
- Oscilloscopes, Analyzers, Meters
1-4 of 4
Accelerate DDR4/LPDDR3 Memory Debug with Bus level Signal Integrity Insight Webcast
Original broadcast March 4, 2014
Webcast - recorded
Accelerate FPGA Debug by Applying Latest Tools and Methods Webcast
Original broadcast June 10, 2014
Webcast - recorded
Next generation BERT Ensures Signal Integrity in High-speed Digital Designs Webcast
Original broadcast January 21, 2014
Webcast - recorded
Webcast: Breakthrough Insight into DDR4/LPDDR4 Memory Greater Than 2400 Mb/s!
Original broadcast January 13, 2015
Webcast - recorded


text:
Looking for Alternative for Russian Sage
Over the weekend, I was out of the state and seen some Russian Sage (someone had to tell me what it was, first time I ever seen) and thought it was beautiful.
I came home and looked it up and noticed it was not a native.
Is there an alternative native shrub that shows like Russian Sage that would be perennial in my zone (Zone 5B, IL)? and.....not invasive.
Thanks all from the newbiee here :)
I am glad someone is concerned about Russian Sage being invasive. I have seen it spread to wild areas in several states, and I am sure that in a few years there will be Russian Sage eradication programs out west. Every non-native plant brought to this continent is one more roll of the dice to see if we have another purple loosestrife, cheat grass, or kudzu.
Enough preaching to the choir... I think that Pitcher Sage (Salvia azurea) might be a nice substitute for Russian Sage. Pitcher sage is native to your area, and has a similar light blue color. I have not grown it myself, so i don't have any firsthand tips on how to grow it.
Russian sage isn't a shrub, it's a woody perennial. Trust me, you don't want it. They spread everywhere and are impossible to kill off. It laughs at Round-Up.
Vernonia fasciculata (Ironweed) is a wonderful plant as is Verbena hostata. Both bloom a pretty purple color (though not the same exact color) for a good long time. Liatris pycnostachya is another. All are good butterfly nectar plants.
Salvia azurea is s spotty native in IL, based on the USDA site and looking thru various other sites for native plants in IL.
Here is a link that might be useful: USDA
Try one of the large, native salvias - I've seen some growing here in the Wash DC area and from a distance they look just like russian sage...but sorry, I don't know the specific names....BTW, I grow russian sage in my garden and it's not invasive-behaving for me at all - it does well in our dry, humid summers here - Eric
I also thought Russian Sage would be that wonder plant we are always in search of, and it played out that way here in our arid high desert with subzero winter temps. I became alarmed when it became somewhat invasive in a garden setting, but what really caused me to strike it from my preferred plant list was when it began showing up in our native desert landscape. It did seem to respond well to Round-up, especially when mixed with 2-4-D!
Hehe, for me, the problem with Russian sage is its very ubiquity. In other words, I find it woefully overused in the trade, along with such other (to me) boring plants like feather reed grass, knockout roses, et al. Just my personal opinion. My wife wanted us to plant some RS in our home garden. This is where I had to put my professional horticulturist foot down and say 'no more'! Really sick of that thing.
I think the Salvia ideas might get you close.
Russian Sage is one of the few non native plants I do like because it does so well in our harsh summer heat/drought and it attracts bees and other pollinators like crazy. Unlike so many plants that need weekly supplemental water and even then they struggle or look fried in the heat of summer, it looks good all season. I'm not aware of it invading or displacing native plants anywhere down here. Its used on medians, public gardens and private gardens especially in harsh full sun areas where so many other plants struggle or die. Its often planted in the desert SW for the same reason.
If you want silver leaves with purple flowers, a good native substitute would be Amorpha canescens (Lead Plant) which is a prairie classic. Its roots grow deep (4ft) & it will eventually form colonies but it only blooms once in late summer. It has a wide native distribution.
I know it doesn't have the silvery foliage like Russian Sage, but Baptisia australis, also know as False Indigo, is a native with purple flowers and is also water-wise due to its drought tolerant nature and love of full sun.


text:
User Login
Sydney's best concrete pumping and shotcreting specialists
Mobile service
Also Services: Maroubra
Nu Look Improvements specialises in all aspects of concreting including stencil, stamped and plain concrete. Driveways, patios, paths & ramps & slabs. We also offer other outdoor improvements including retaining walls and minor landscaping.
Prestons NSW 2170
For ALL concreting needs around the home - Stylish and Practical design - Creative finish.
Blacktown NSW 2148
Also Services: Blacktown
Concreting and Structural Landscaping
Mobile service
Services all of the North Queensland, Cairns QLD 4870


text:
Community garden in DC metro area (MD)?
I just moved to the DC metro area in Maryland and am now without a yard : ( Does anyone know of a community garden in the area? If so, please contact me! Thanks!
If you're in Montgomery county, you might try Mont. county Parks and Recreation.
There's an article in the Metro section of today's Wasington Times about a Northeast DC community garden called Binders Gardens. The article's called "Growth in Urban Gardens".
Here is a link that might be useful: washingtontimes.com
There is a community garden not far off Wisconson Ave, north of Georgetown. We lived right around the corner from it, but at the time, it was filled with a 2 year waiting list. Beautiful garden and room to expand so you should check it out, maybe it's gotten bigger.
Girl Group Girl


text:
Upcoming Programs
View our April – May Calendar of Events Flyer
Tuesday, April 7th: Investing for Retirement
Firoza Panthaki and Kate Dumas, Chartered Financial Analysts with the Boston Security Analysts Society, explore the investment fundamentals of retirement. They cover the concepts supporting retirement savings, the types of retirement plans, including their assets and their relative advantages, and strategies to encourage retirement savings. A question and answer session follows.
Time: 6:00-7:30 p.m.
Location: Commonwealth Salon
Thursday, April 9th: Budgeting Basics with Google Sheets
Learn how to keep an inventory of monthly expenses and budget for future goals using Google Sheets. Part of the Google Apps series. A Google account is required for all Google classes.
Time: 2:30-3:30 p.m.
Location: Tech Classroom, McKim Building
Tuesday, April 21st: Basics of Investing
Sofia Faruqi and Ariel Fromer Babcock, Charter Financial Analysts with the Boston Security Analysts will explain how to understand your own personal investment objectives and translate them into a portfolio of assets that will work for you. Common pitfalls in implementing an investment plan will be revealed.
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Location: Commonwealth Salon
Wednesday, April 22nd: Planning Your Dream Retirement
Eric Roberge a financial expert who has appeared in many major publications, such as the Boston Sunday Globe and the Huffington Post will lead a discussion on why the old model of retirement does not work for today's retirees and explain a new strategy for the next stage of your life. You will learn:
- How to create the ideal vision for your future
- Why saving extra money may not provide the best chance at a successful retirement
- The reason why you should pay close attention to your neighbors
Time: 6:00-7:00 p.m.
Location: Commonwealth Salon
Thursday, April 23rd: Credit Management
Did you know that poor credit is one of the main reasons business owners can't grow their businesses and prospective homeowners can't get a mortgage? It doesn't have to be. Learn credit management tips, how you can request your credit score and the best ways to build or repair your credit. Hear from expert presenters and learn more about the various resources available to new and existing businesses. Presented by AccionUSA, Boston Impact Initiative and the City of Boston's Office of Business Development.
Time: 6:00-7:00 p.m.
Location: Commonwealth Salon
Friday, April 24th: Mutual Fund Research
Conducting Mutual Fund Research with Morningstar. Get to know the Morningstar Investment Research Center online resource. Learn how to search for funds, conduct a screening, and download reports. Part of Money Smart Week.
Time: 10:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Location: Tech Classroom, McKim Building
Thursday, May 7th: Getting Started in Business
This popular workshop provides a complete overview of business start-up and planning considerations, oriented to those planning a venture as well as existing small business owners. Topics include the entrepreneurial lifestyle, feasibility, business strategy, business plan preparation, marketing, financing, and additional resources.
To register, please call 617.287.7750 or visit our website at www.sbdc.umb.edu/training.
Time: 6:00-8:00 p.m.
Location: Commonwealth Salon


text:
Jun 12th 2013 new
(quote) Marita-847688 said: That about sums up my cooking skills right there!Once again you missed all the fancy food I cooked
Discussion related to living as a Catholic in the single state of life. As long as a topic is being discussed from the perspective of a single Catholic then it will be on-topic.
Tobias and Sarah's story is from the Book of Tobit, and his journey is guided by Saint Raphael.
Learn More: Tobias & Sarah as led by Saint Raphael


text:
You Fell For DP Joke Issue: A Tale of Gullibility and Disappointment
At one point or another on Wednesday, you thought a number of
things. You thought Emma Watson was enrolling at Penn; you thought Penn banned
hard alcohol, and that your Netflix was a goner. You were a victim of the
system DP's joke issue. It's okay, you weren't alone.
But c'mon, didn't these fantasies sound a tad familiar? Remember when Ariana Grande was coming to Penn, or when Penn deemed losing a PennCard worthy of academic probation? When Skulls was set to take over Amy's house, or when Amy Gutmann said marijuana for all?
Nevertheless, people fell for it. Hard. And in a few days,
when your tears have dried and this whole snafu becomes a thing of the past,
you'll probably think it's funny too. Until then, check out these Penn-goers who
are just like you, and maybe delete those
embarrassing overeager Facebook


text:
Besides gaining reputation with your questions and answers, you receive badges for being especially helpful. Badges appear on your profile page, flair, and your posts.
Question Badges
First bounty you manually awarded on another person's question
21 awarded
First bounty you manually awarded on your own question
117 awarded
Asked a well-received question on 5 separate days, and maintained a positive question record
341 awarded
First bounty you offered on another person's question
43 awarded
Question score of 10 or more
2.2k awarded
Asked a question with 1,000 views
5.4k awarded
First bounty you offered on your own question
169 awarded
Asked a question and accepted an answer
5.7k awarded
Asked first question with score of 1 or more
9.1k awarded
Asked a question with no votes, no answers, no comments, and low views for a week
358 awarded
Answer Badges
Edited and answered 1 question (both actions within 12 hours, answer score > 0)
161 awarded
Answer score of 10 or more
3.9k awarded
Answered more than 30 days later as first answer scoring 2 or more
256 awarded
Answered your own question with score of 3 or more
107 awarded
Answered first question with score of 1 or more
5.5k awarded
Participation Badges
Completed "About Me" section of user profile
21.4k awarded
Left 10 comments
1.5k awarded
Earned at least 200 reputation (the daily maximum) in a single day
210 awarded
Followed the Area 51 proposal for this site before it entered the commitment phase
80 awarded
Tag Badges
You must have a total score of 100 in at least 20 non-community wiki answers to achieve this badge.
293 awarded
Moderation Badges
First flagged post
1.4k awarded
First rollback
68 awarded
First down vote
1.2k awarded
Deleted own post with score of 3 or higher
26 awarded
First edit
5.9k awarded
Edited first post that was inactive for 6 months
327 awarded
First retag
323 awarded
Deleted own post with score of -3 or lower
179 awarded
Approved or rejected 100 suggested edits
25 awarded
Used 30 votes in a day
147 awarded
First up vote
18.2k awarded
First approved tag synonym
6 awarded
First tag wiki edit
93 awarded
Used the maximum 40 votes in a day
92 awarded
Other Badges
Visited every section of the FAQ (retired)
445 awarded
Shared a link to a question that was visited by 25 unique IP addresses
435 awarded


text:
Latest Expedition 38 Stories
WASHINGTON, Sept.
WASHINGTON, May 14, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- NASA astronaut Rick Mastracchio of Waterbury, Connecticut, who returned from the International Space Station Tuesday (May 13 U.S.
NASA astronaut Mike Hopkins, along with his Russian colleagues Oleg Kotov and Sergey Ryazanskiy safely landed in Kazakhstan at 11:24 p.m. EDT on Monday – ending Expedition 38 aboard the International Space Station
WASHINGTON, March 11, 2014 /PRNewswire/ -- Three crew members from the International Space Station returned to Earth Monday after 166 days in space, during which they made 2,656 orbits around
Crewmembers on board the International Space Station (ISS) conduct a change of command ceremony and prepare to leave the orbiting laboratory and head back to Earth after their nearly six-month stint in space.
WASHINGTON, March 6, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Three crew members aboard the International Space Station are scheduled to end almost six months on the orbiting laboratory on March 10,
WASHINGTON, Feb.
WASHINGTON, Feb.
WASHINGTON, Feb.
NASA Television will air live coverage of a six-hour spacewalk by two Russian members of the International Space Station crew beginning at 8:30 a.m. EST Monday, Jan. 27.
- A bereavement by loss of parents or children; the state of being orbate; orbation.


text:
- Dana White Not Optimistic About GSP Return: He Hasn't Been Hungry For A Long Time
- Surprise! Aldo & McGregor Hurl PED Accusations At One Another
- CABMMA Changes Drew Dober Loss To No Contest
- Henry Cejudo Added To June's UFC 188 From Mexico, Chico Camus Rumored Opponent
- UFC 189 World Tour Heats Up In Boston: Dana White Forced To Intervene
- Nick Diaz Hires Professionals To Investigate UFC 183 Drug Test
Carlos Condit: I've always been a fan of Georges St. Pierre
"I've always been a big fan of Georges, I've admired his style and kinda of the way he carries himself and I'm honored to get in their and challenge him for the belt and step in the cage with him. With all that aside I think that I'm the best welterweight in the world and I've been trying to prove that every single time I get in their and this fight is going to be no different. We actually never trained together. There was a time or two when we were training in the gym at the same time, but I think we kind of seen this fight on the horizon. We were always cool and always friendly with each other but he would kind of be doing his thing and I would be doing my own thing. We have never sparred and that would be the best way to get to know somebody's style." - BuddhaSport
The Natural Born Killer Carlon Condit will get his shot at Georges St. Pierre's UFC Weterweight title on October 29th. The fight will headline the stacked UFC 137 fight card, which will have the original title contender Nick Diaz now in the co-main event bout with BJ "The Prodigy" Penn. Despite representing being under the same roof Jackson's-Winklejohn's MMA, Carlos Condit declares he never sparred or even trained with Georges St. Pierre.
Jackson's MMA is well-known for producing elite Mixed Martial Arts talent, such as the reigning UFC Light Heavyweight Champion Jon Jones and the former team member Rashad Evans. The feud between the two went public after Jon Jones decided to fight for what was then Shogun Rua's title, instead of giving up on the opportunity in favor of injured Rashad Evans. One way or another, looks like there's not enough "warm feelings" between Condit and St. Pierre to create such situation, in combination with a fact that both are two of the classiest fighters in the Ultimate Fighting Championship.
Further Reading: Rashad Evans says he could never "squash the beef" with Jon Jones


text:
I have been told I need a tune-up, transmission fluid flush, steering fluid flush. All at a cost of $900.00. The tune up being about half of that. It seems like alot to me. What should I be asking?
View questions for:All Buick
1999 Buick Century
Buick Q&AAsk Your Question
1999 Buick Century Question: tuneup
Visitor, Fresno, CA, January 21, 2011, 14:23
1 Answer
Answer #1fernando January 21, 2011, 14:42Master
Check the owner's manual to see what is the next scheduled maintenance according to the mileage of the vehicle and use the Estimator tool in RepairPal to find out repair prices estimates.
To find the owner's manual use; http://repairpal.com/automobile-owners-manuals-online
RepairPal Estimator; http://repairpal.com/estimator?car_type_id=2496
More info about Tune-Up; http://repairpal.com/tune-up-what-is-it
Answer Ranks
This week's top 10
|1 stevieray1
|6 Hal...
|2 pushrod
|7 csubak30
|3 CharlesAutomotive
|8 raytucker
|4 globalhelper
|9 sunilpatel
|5 ziptie12
|10 wrayauto