+menu-


  • Category Archives A Case of Nuts and Boldt’s
  • Elwha Supplemental Impact Statement?

    Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

    The installation of Scott Pruitt, to run the Environmental Protection Agency, sued the agency he intends to lead more than a dozen times as Oklahoma attorney general, reinforces expectations.

    “I have no doubt that Scott will return the EPA to its core objectives,” said Republican Senator James Inhofe, also of Oklahoma, adding the agency had been guilty of “federal overreach, unlawful rule making, and duplicative red tape,”

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    National Park Service

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002. Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation; Olympic National Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA; Notice of Intent To Prepare a SUPPLEMENTAL Environmental Impact Statement FILED 9-11-02 

    Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

    (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

     Mar 30 2017, Olympic National Park WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    ——————————————————————————-

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002. MITIGATION PROJECT ISSUES?   IT’S IMPACT ON VISITORS? AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS ON VISITORS? FILED 9-11-02 

    Water quality or water supply mitigation issues that will be analyzed in the SEIS include impacts of rebuilding the existing rock diversion structure on riparian vegetation, wildlife, water quality and fish; land use related impacts of building permanent water treatment facilities, such as removal of vegetation and soil, use of heavy equipment to build the facilities and its impact on wildlife or VISITORS,

    VISITORS? WOW, IS THAT LIKE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT ON CLALLAM COUNTY TOURISM?

    and hazards of using chlorine and other chemicals required for treatment.    Other environmental issues not related to water quality or supply include providing access to Morse Creek and other tributaries for fisheries protection during dam removal, access to seed stock and protection of young plants in revegetating reservoir lands, changes in driving routes for trucks disposing of rubble, or noise of an onsite rubble crushing operation and its potential effects on wildlife and VISITORS.

    VISITORS? WOW, IS THAT LIKE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT STATEMENT ON CLALLAM COUNTY TOURISM?

    VISITORS? LIKE AN IMPACT STATEMENT ONP INHOLDERS?

    ——————————————————

    Jun 28, 2011

    Olympic National Park mea culpa: ‘Inholder’ blocked from family property

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/olympic-national-park-mea-culpa-8216-inholder-82…

    Jun 28, 2011 – Pearl Rains Hewett stands at a blockade on Olympic Hot Springs Road in Olympic National Park on Monday. — Photo by Chris …

    ————————————————————-

    FISH BEFORE PEOPLE

    Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan – National Park Service

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/upload/Elwha-River-Fish-Management-Plan.pdf

    2008 – ‎Related articles

    THE SITE WILL HELP PRESERVE AND RESTORE ELWHA RIVER CHINNOOK POPULATIONS BY PROVIDING SAFE HAVEN FOR 200,000 YEARLING SMOLTS.

    —————————————————————-

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002.

    Dam removal was determined to be the preferred option for restoration, and the 1996 EIS also identified a desired suite of actions to remove the dams. As a step towards accomplishing these objectives, Congress directed purchase of the dams (which occurred in February 2000 for $29.5 million, as stipulated by Pub. L. 102-495).

    ————————————————————————-

    AS A DELEGATED EIS, THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL DECISION IS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION;

     SUBSEQUENTLY THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE THE SUPERINTENDENT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

     DATED: JULY 9, 2002.JOHN J. REYNOLDS,REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION.[FR DOC. 02-23124 FILED 9-11-02; 8:45 AM]BILLING CODE 4310-70-P

    (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

     Mar 30 2017 WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    Written comments may be delivered by fax to: 360/565-1325; via e-mail to: Brian_Winter@nps.gov; or via postal mail or hand delivery during normal business hours to: Elwha Restoration Project Office, SEIS Comments, 826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 98362.

    ———————————————————————-

    Timeline of the Elwha 1992 to Present – Olympic National Park (U.S. …

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/…/timeline-of-the-elwha-1992-to-present.htm

    THE SITE WILL HELP PRESERVE AND RESTORE ELWHA RIVER CHINNOOK POPULATIONS BY PROVIDING SAFE HAVEN FOR 200,000 YEARLING SMOLTS. … Before his death in 2007, Albright pioneered propagation methods for many plants native to the Northwest.

    ———————————————————————

    Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan – National Park Service

    https://www.nps.gov/olym/learn/nature/upload/Elwha-River-Fish-Management-Plan.pdf

    2008 – ‎Related articles

    PURSUANT TO THE ELWHA RIVER ECOSYSTEM AND FISHERIES RES- TORATION ACT …… 200,000. MORSE CREEK. YEARLING SMOLTS. ON-SITE. 180,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 …… Spawning ground surveys of live or dead fish and redds can then be.

    —————————————————————————

    Apr 15, 2013

    ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY  200,000  DEAD SMOLT

    SEABURY BLAIR JR. | Elwha too clogged for fish to live – Kitsap Sun

    www.kitsapsun.com/sports/columnists/seabury-blair/356167261.html

    Apr 15, 2013 – … AS MANY AS 200000 CHINOOK SALMON WERE KILLED IN WHAT HAS TO BE ONE OF THE … HATCHERY OFFICIALS REPORTED SEEING HUNDREDS OF DEAD SMOLTS LINING THE … For almost 15 miles, the Elwha River carves through a century’s worth of … ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY  

    JUL 12, 2013 LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE’S HATCHERY

    200, 000  MORE DEAD SMOLT

    400,000 TOTAL DEAD HATCHERY SMOLT…

    —————————————————————–

    The Danger of Putting All Your Eggs in the Hatchery Basket — Wild …

    wildfishconservancy.org › About › Press › Press Clips

    JUL 12, 2013 – ROUGHLY 200,000 HATCHERY COHO SALMON AND 2000 STEELHEAD, RESULTING FROM A PUMP FAILURE AT THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE’S HATCHERY ON THE ELWHA RIVER. …

     SPRING  Apr 15, 2013 THANKS TO MISTAKEN TIMING OF LARGE RELEASE OF SMOLTS AT ONE TIME … PRODUCTION LOST (200,000 DEAD) DUE TO MALFUNCTION OF HATCHERY WATER PUMP …

    The tragedy is: this production could have occurred with much less risk with natural spawning left to the river where fish make their own decisions regarding spawning destination and time, and juveniles determine their own window for outmigration.  Instead these fish have been hi-jacked by the continued belief in hatcheries rather than the proven success story of wild fish recolonization for thousands of years and resulting diversity that hedges its bets against the whims of nature’s unpredictable events.  And we paid $16 million to create this Elwha hatchery fiasco plus further annual investments in taking fish from the river and subjecting them to the persistent belief in hatcheries that is counter to the science — further evidence of the tragic disconnect of science from policy, the latter continually driven by the politics of popular beliefs.

    http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20130711/news/307119990

     ————————————————————————————

     (FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS, SEE ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY MITIGATION PROJECT

    PLANNING REPORT AT www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).

    WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    THE SEIS WILL ALSO ANALYZE CHANGES UNRELATED TO WATER QUALITY

    MITIGATION WHERE APPLICABLE.

    One of these changes is a re-evaluation of

    options to mitigate impacts to septic systems on the Lower Elwha

    Klallam Reservation. Many of the septic systems in the lower lying

    parts of the Reservation may become ineffective when the river level

    and associated groundwater table rises as a result of river channel

    aggradation following dam removal.

    In addition to the points summarized above, further detail has been added to the revegetation plan for the areas currently inundated by the reservoirs; thus, potential impacts of

    actions associated with such revegetation will be addressed.

    ———————————————————–

    Full unedited text

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    National Park Service Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation;

    Olympic National Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA;

    Notice of Intent To Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement [Federal Register: September 12, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 177)][Notices][Page 57834-57836]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr12se02-94] SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and its cooperating agencies are undertaking a conservation planning and environmental impact analysis process intended to supplement the 1996 Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration Implementation final environmental impact statement (1996 EIS).

    Two dams, built in the early 1900s, block the river and limit anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 river miles. The 1996 EIS is the second of two environmental impact statements that examined how best to restore the Elwha River ecosystem and native anadromous fishery in Olympic National Park. Dam removal was determined to be the preferred option for restoration, and the 1996 EIS also identified a desired suite of actions to remove the dams. As a step towards accomplishing these objectives, Congress directed purchase of the dams (which occurred in February 2000 for $29.5 million, as stipulated by Pub. L. 102-495). However, release of sediment from behind the dams would result in sometimes severe impacts to water quality or to the reliability of supply to downstream users during the dam removal impact period of about 3-5 years, which the 1996 EIS proposed mitigating through a series of specific measures (see below).

    Subsequently, new research and changes unrelated to the implementation project have emerged. Therefore, the primary purpose of this Supplemental EIS (SEIS) will be to identify and analyze potential impacts of a new set of water quality and supply related mitigation measures.

    Background     Elwha Dam was built in 1911, and Glines Canyon Dam in 1925, limiting anadromous fish to the lowest 4.9 miles of river (blocking access to more than 70 miles of Elwha River mainstream and tributary habitat). The two dams and their associated reservoirs have also inundated and degraded important riverine and terrestrial habitat and severely affected fisheries habitat through increased temperatures, reduced nutrients, reduced spawning gravels downstream, and other changes. Consequently, salmon and steelhead populations in the river have been considerably reduced or eliminated, and the river ecosystem within Olympic National Park significantly and adversely altered.

    In 1992, Congress enacted the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (PL 102-495) directing the Secretary of the Interior to fully restore the Elwha river ecosystem and native anadromous fisheries, while at the same time protecting users of the river’s water from adverse impacts associated with dam removal. The records of decision associated with this process indicated removal of both dams was needed to fully restore the ecosystem. However, impacts to water quality and supply will result from release of sediments, which have accumulated behind the dams.

    The 1996 EIS proposed and analyzed mitigation measures to protect water quality and ensure supply for each of the major downstream users. These users included the city of Port Angeles’ municipal and industrial consumers, the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe’s fish hatchery, the state chinook salmon rearing channel, and the Dry Creek Water Association. Many private wells along the river could also be affected, but mitigation proposed for these users would remain substantially the same.    Currently, surface water from a rock fill diversion and intake pipe at river mile 3.3 supplies the city’s industrial clients and the state rearing channel. Mitigation to protect the city’s industrial customers described in the 1996 EIS included the installation of an infiltration gallery to collect water filtered from the riverbed and open-channel treatment with flocculants, chemicals and polymers during dam removal. The city’s municipal customers are supplied with a subsurface Ranney collector on the east-side of the river at river mile 2.8. To maintain water yield, the 1996 EIS [[Page 57835]] proposed a second Ranney collector be built on the river’s west-side, opposite the current collector. A temporary “package” treatment plant to filter water from the Ranney wells would have been operational during dam removal.

    The rearing channel would have been closed during dam removal and chinook production transferred to another state facility.    The tribal hatchery at river mile 1 will be central in protecting and producing Elwha anadromous fish for restoration following dam removal. Water for the hatchery is currently provided through wells and a shallow infiltration gallery. Measures described to protect hatchery water during dam removal included the expansion of the gallery to ensure supply and drilling of two new wells to provide clean groundwater for dilution.

    Dry Creek Water Association (DCWA) currently meets the needs of its members through groundwater wells. These wells would be subject to an increased frequency of flooding following dam removal, as well as increased sediment and mobilization of iron and manganese. The 1996 EIS analyzed two options for DCWA–connection to the city’s water distribution system, or providing additional protection from flooding for the existing DCWA system and treating on site with filtration and chlorination.

    Since December 1996 (when the most recent record of decision was signed), the U.S. Department of the Interior (including Bureau of Reclamation) and its cooperating agencies (including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe) have continued studying and refining elements of the selected alternative. As a result, they have found better solutions for protecting water quality and water supply during and following dam removal. In addition, changes in user needs have come about as a result of factors unrelated to the project.

    For example, chinook salmon and bull trout have both been listed as threatened since 1997, resulting in the requirement to keep the state rearing facility open during dam removal.

    Also, the city of Port Angeles must now meet new standards for the treatment of its municipal supplies. In addition, an industrial customer (Rayonier) which required very high quality water for its operation has since closed.    As a result of these and other changes, the agencies are pursuing an option of building permanent water treatment facilities with varying levels of treatment depending on the ultimate use of the water

    (for additional details, see Elwha River Water Quality Mitigation Project Planning Report at www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/home.htm).  The locations and types of diversions may also change because water collected from the city’s Ranney well is no longer considered to be purely groundwater, but is highly connected to the river and so must be treated as a surface supply.

    In addition, problems associated with subsurface intakes during the 3-5 year dam removal impact period may now outweigh the benefits. These problems include possible clogging and reduced yields, increased costs of providing flood protection, and increased environmental impacts associated with installing and maintaining subsurface structures in or very near the river. Sources of “true” groundwater, which are not so closely connected to the river have been investigated, but do not exist in the quantities required. This leaves surface water as a more attractive option. An alternative of replacing the existing intake structure will therefore be analyzed in the SEIS.

    Feasibility studies indicate surface water could be treated and used for the city’s industrial customer, in combination with well water for the state’s rearing facility and the Lower Elwha Klallam tribal hatchery, and as a backup for the city’s municipal customers. It may also be evaluated as an option to supply DCWA customers.

    The SEIS will also analyze changes unrelated to water quality mitigation where applicable. One of these changes is a re-evaluation of options to mitigate impacts to septic systems on the Lower Elwha Klallam Reservation. Many of the septic systems in the lower lying parts of the Reservation may become ineffective when the river level and associated groundwater table rises as a result of river channel aggradation following dam removal. Although the 1996 EIS examined a community mounding system, the number of residents living in the valley part of the Reservation has now increased. The SEIS will evaluate other options which are technically, economically, or environmentally preferable in light of these changes. At this time, the Tribe is considering a variety of options, including individual onsite systems with pressurized pumps, small group treatment options, offsite treatment by others, or combining with other valley residents (who would not be affected by dam removal) to create a community treatment system.

    Since the release of the 1996 EIS, two species of fish cited for restoration have been listed as threatened, and the NPS has worked with USFWS and NMFS staff to further address these species during and following dam removal. Keeping the rearing channel open for chinook salmon production and modifying road culverts within the park to provide access for bull trout to additional tributary habitat are examples of some of the additional actions that the SEIS will examine.

    Environmental Issues     Updated and additional information relevant to decision-making will be presented in the SEIS. In addition to the points summarized above, further detail has been added to the revegetation plan for the areas currently inundated by the reservoirs; thus, potential impacts of actions associated with such revegetation will be addressed. The 1996 EIS envisioned using one or more of nine solid waste disposal areas for rubble and other materials. Some of these may no longer be available, new sites might be added, or recycling of concrete may be economically preferable now.    Water quality or water supply mitigation issues that will be analyzed in the SEIS include impacts of rebuilding the existing rock diversion structure on riparian vegetation, wildlife, water quality and fish; land use related impacts of building permanent water treatment facilities, such as removal of vegetation and soil, use of heavy equipment to build the facilities and its impact on wildlife or visitors, and hazards of using chlorine and other chemicals required for treatment.    Other environmental issues not related to water quality or supply include providing access to Morse Creek and other tributaries for fisheries protection during dam removal, access to seed stock and protection of young plants in revegetating reservoir lands, changes in driving routes for trucks disposing of rubble, or noise of an onsite rubble crushing operation and its potential effects on wildlife and visitors.

    Scoping/Comments     Public scoping for the SEIS will conclude 30-days from the date of publication of this notice. All interested individuals, groups, and agencies are encouraged to provide information relevant to the design, construction, location, or potential environmental effects of desired measures noted above. Please limit comments to the proposal as described in this notice, since prior decisions to restore the ecosystem and anadromous fisheries through dam removal, and selection of the River Erosion alternative as the dam removal scenario, are beyond the scope of environmental impact analysis targeted in the SEIS. [[Page 57836]]

    Additional information and periodic updates will be available at the Web site noted above or by contacting the Elwha Restoration Project Office at (360) 565-1320. All comments must be postmarked or transmitted no later than 30 days from the publication date of this notice; as soon as this date is determined it will be announced on the Web site noted.

    Written comments may be delivered by fax to: 360/565-1325; via e-mail to: Brian_Winter@nps.gov; or via postal mail or hand delivery during normal business hours to: Elwha Restoration Project Office, SEIS Comments, 826 East Front Street, Suite A, Port Angeles, WA 98362.    If individuals submitting comments request that their name or/and address be withheld from public disclosure, it will be honored to the extent allowable by law. Such requests must be stated prominently in the beginning of the comments. There also may be circumstances wherein the NPS will withhold a respondent’s identity as allowable by law. As always: NPS will make available to public inspection all submissions from organizations or businesses and from persons identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations and businesses; and, anonymous comments may not be considered. Decision

    The SEIS will be prepared in accord with all applicable laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and the NPS Management Policies (2001) and NEPA guidelines (Director’s Order 12). A 60-day public review of the Draft will be initiated upon its release, which at this time is expected in early 2003; then subsequently a Final will be prepared. Issuance of both documents will be announced via local and regional press, direct mailings, on the Web site noted above, and through the Federal Register.

    AS A DELEGATED EIS, THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL DECISION IS THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, PACIFIC WEST REGION;

    SUBSEQUENTLY THE OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE THE SUPERINTENDENT, OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK.

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002.

    JOHN J. REYNOLDS,REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

    PACIFIC WEST REGION.[FR DOC. 02-23124

    FILED 9-11-02; 8:45 AM]BILLING CODE 4310-70-P


  • Violating Private Property Rights

    THERE’S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRESPASS ON PRIVATE LANDS.

    Federal judge dismisses challenge to Wyoming trespassing law

    “The ends, no matter how critical or important to a public concern, do not justify the means, violating private property rights,” U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl wrote….

    By BEN NEARY Associated Press Updated Jul 7, 2016

    CHEYENNE — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit from groups that challenged Wyoming laws prohibiting trespassing on private lands to collect data.

    Groups including the Western Watersheds Project, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the National Press Photographers Association sued Wyoming last year.

    The groups claimed state laws prohibiting trespassing to collect data were unconstitutional. The groups said the laws, which allowed both civil penalties and criminal prosecution, would block people from informing government regulators about such things as violations of water quality rules and illegal treatment of animals.

    U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl of Casper dismissed the groups’ lawsuit Wednesday, ruling there’s no constitutional right to trespass on private lands.

    “The ends, no matter how critical or important to a public concern, do not justify the means, violating private property rights,” Skavdahl wrote.

    Skavdahl last winter expressed concerns about earlier versions of the laws, which the Wyoming Legislature had passed early last year. The earlier versions sought to prohibit collection of data on “open lands,” a term Skavdahl said could be stretched to cover more than just private property.

    In response to Skavdahl’s criticism, the Wyoming Legislature earlier this year revised the laws to specify they only applied to trespassing to collect data on private lands.

    Gov. Matt Mead on Thursday said he was pleased with Skavdahl’s dismissal of the groups’ lawsuit.

    “There has been a lot of misinformation about the intent of this law,” Mead said. “The judge’s ruling affirms that the issue at the heart of the matter is preserving private property rights — a fundamental right in our country.”

    David Muraskin, a lawyer representing Western Watersheds and the National Press Photographers Association, said Thursday that his clients are disappointed with Skavdahl’s ruling and are considering whether to appeal.

    Federal judge dismisses challenge to Wyoming trespassing law

    trib.com/…/federaljudgedismisseschallenge-to-wyomingtrespa

    Casper Star‑Tribune 2 days ago – CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Wyoming laws that prohibit trespassing on private lands to

    ———————————————————————

    FEB 18, 2013

    WDFW Constitutional Trespass?

    WDFW TRESPASS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

    ———————————————————

    OCT 21, 2014

    Behind My Back | Presumed to be Constitutional?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/10/21/presumed-to-be-constitutional/

    Oct 21, 2014 – This is the PRESUMED law of the LAND in WA STATE. Goggle it for … This is PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE AG. You live in …

    Presumed to be Constitutional?

    This is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154

    These “STATE  EMPLOYEES” may enter upon “ANY LAND” or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    The US Government has taken the position that they can do anything that they want, where ever they want whenever they want. Remember the Olympic Peninsula Electronic Warfare Project? And, they got away with it until “We the People” demanded Due Process.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    Who Knew? About this is WA State Law RCW 77.12.154

    It took me two months, with the help of an attorney,  to find this  WA State Law, it was buried under the  “Right of entry”  Aircraft operated by department.

    —————————————————————————————————-

    When I told people about the law, they wouldn’t believe me. They said

    They can’t do that on my “PRIVATE PROPERTY” without my permission, without probable cause, without a search warrant.

     —————————————————————————————–

     You want to bet the government can’t do it on your private property?

    I have the documentation of hundreds of these incidences.

    In fact it is documented that FROM APRIL 21, 2010   TO FEB. 5, 2011 WDFW did knowingly trespass on every piece of private property AROUND LAKE SUTHERLAND, And on every piece of private property from Lake Sutherland down and on both sides of Indian Creek to the Elwha River.

     Indeed, They have been doing it and they are going to keep doing it, and keep doing  it until “We the People” demanded Constitutional Due Process.

    “The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

     ——————————————————————————————-

    This is the PRESUMED law of the LAND in WA STATE.
    Goggle it for yourself…
    CHAPTER 77.12 RCW POWERS AND DUTIES

     THE 2011 Response from WA State Attorney General’s office
    ANY RCW, LAW PASSED BY WA STATE LEGISLATORS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

    —————————————————————————————

    THINK ABOUT THIS?

    When They Came In WA. State

    This is  PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE AG

    You live in an isolated area…. on 20 acres of private property…you are home alone…. you are a senior citizen… your husband is gone….you look out your kitchen window…… there is a strange man walking around in your back yard…. he has walked several blocks into your private property, on your private road…
    With your husband gone…. what should you do?

    IT HAPPENED TO MY (removed for privacy)   WHAT DID SHE DO?

    SHE OWNS A GUN…

    She went outside and confronted the TRESPASSER. “This is private property” “What are you doing here?”

    The strangers response (he did not identify himself) was “I just wanted to see where this stream came from.”

    She told him, “This is private property” and asked him to get off of her land.

    So if you see some unknown guy, anytime, anywhere, A TOTAL stranger wandering around and trespassing IN YOUR BACKYARD, on your private property?

    Without your permission, without probable cause and without a search warrant?

    WHAT WILL YOU DO?

    ———————————————————————————————–

    THIS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

    WA STATE EMPLOYEES? that do not wear a uniform? do not identify themselves? use your private road for access,  go sniffing  around in their official capacity, inspecting your 20 acres of private property, and  invading your privacy  in your own  back yard?

    This is the PRESUMED law of the land in WA STATE? AND AMERICA?

    —————————————————————————————-

    PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL?

    RCW 77.12.154
    Right of entry
    — Aircraft operated by department.
    The director, fish and wildlife officers, ex officio fish and wildlife officers, and department employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    It is lawful for aircraft operated by the department to land and take off from the beaches or waters of the state.
    [1998 c 190 § 71; 1983 1st ex.s. c 46 § 19; 1955 c 12 § 75.08.160. Prior: 1949 c 112 § 13; Rem. Supp. 1949 § 5780-212. Formerly RCW 75.08.160.]
    —————————————————————————————-
    WA State law RCW77.12.154
    WDFW employees may enter upon ANY LAND or waters and remain there while performing their duties without liability for trespass.

    —————————————————————————

    THE 2011 Response from WA State Attorney General’s office
    ANY RCW LAW PASSED BY WA STATE LEGISLATORS IS PRESUMED TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL

    ————————————————————————————————————-

    And, When THEY Came  to Clallam County In WA State.

    This is the documented chronological order of the CLALLAM COUNTY TRESPASS

    PART (1)  FROM APRIL 21, 2010   TO FEB. 5, 2011 AND WHAT I DID

    DOCUMENT… DOCUMENT… DOCUMENT…

    In fact documented, in 2010, WDFW did trespass on every piece of property AROUND LAKE SUTHERLAND, And on every piece of private property from Lake Sutherland down and on both sides of Indian Creek to the Elwha River
    ——————————————————————————

    Sent: Saturday, February 05, 2011 6:38 PM
    Subject: UPDATE ON CRIMINAL TRESPASS CHARGES

    I have the following as evidence of, under Washington State RCW criminal trespass by the Dept. of fisheries and the Dept. of Transportation,

    1. A phone call on 4/21/10 from John Marrs at Lake Sutherland, asking me about the two trespassers on the Rains Sr. Trust land.
    When they were asked, who they were, they identified themselves as DFW employees. (My journals have been kept since 1999 and are admissible in court).

    2. A copy of my email date 4/21/10 to Penny Warren at the DFW regarding the trespassers.

    3. Penny Warrens DFW return e-mail to me regarding the trespassers on Rains Sr. Trust land dated 4/21/10, indicating that they were DFW employees, under contract by the DOT. She gave me the phone number for Dave Collins.

    4. A documented phone message left for Dave Collins WSDOT on 4/21/10 requesting that he call me.(my journals)

    5. A documented phone call from on 4/23/10 from Dave Collins WSDOT admitting that, (My journals) THE WSDOT WAS INSPECTING THE CULVERTS ON HIGHWAY 101 FOR FISH PASSAGE

    —————————————————————————

    10/20/14 Added for clarification

     RCW 77.12.755

    Ranked inventory of fish passage barriers.

    In coordination with the department of natural resources and lead entity groups, the department

    MUST ESTABLISH A RANKED INVENTORY OF FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS ON LAND OWNED BY SMALL FOREST LANDOWNERS

    based on the principle of fixing the worst first within a watershed consistent with the fish passage priorities of the forest and fish report.

    THE DEPARTMENT SHALL FIRST GATHER AND SYNTHESIZE ALL AVAILABLE EXISTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE LOCATIONS AND IMPACTS OF FISH PASSAGE BARRIERS IN WASHINGTON.

    This information must include, but not be limited to, the most recently available limiting factors analysis conducted pursuant to RCW 77.85.060(2), the stock status information contained in the department of fish and wildlife salmonid stock inventory (SASSI), the salmon and steelhead habitat inventory and assessment project (SSHIAP), and any comparable science-based assessment when available.

    The inventory of fish passage barriers must be kept current and at a minimum be updated by the beginning of each calendar year.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    My comment UNDER THE INTERAGENCY CONTRACT BETWEEN WSDOT AND WDFW, WDFW WAS CONTRACTED TO REPEAT THESE TRESPASSES EVERY YEAR FOR 10 YEARS.

    —————————————————————————————————–

    NOTHING IN THIS SECTION GRANTS THE DEPARTMENT OR OTHERS ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF ENTRY ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    [2003 c 311 § 10.]

    Notes:Findings — Effective date — 2003 c 311: See notes following RCW

    Active Interagency Agreements – Washington Department of …

    wdfw.wa.gov/…/contracts/i

    Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Jun 1, 2014 – 14-1109. 2014 WDFW-Quileute MOU Forage Fish … 10-1040.

    Anadromous Fish Agreement & Habitat Conservation Plan …

    Beaver Creek Intake Passage & Screening Construction …..

    Data Sharing Agreement Between DOL & DFW ….. MOA w/WSDOT

    on Hydraulic Projects, Fish Passage, CED Program.  

    Continuing, the call on 4/23/10 from Dave Collins WSDOT admitting that,

    yes, they were DFW employees,
    yes, they were doing the mapping under contract to the DOT,
    yes, they were mapping our unnamed stream/tributary into Lake Sutherland.
    yes, they had put a biodegradable white tape in our stream,
    yes, they had taken water samples….

    When I asked Dave Collins WSDOT why as Trustee of the Rains Sr. Trust I had not been contacted for permission?

    Why DFW was not required to notify and get permission like Skagit County?

    His response was, “Well, we can’t just contact/notify every little land owner”.

    I informed him that on 4/21/10 DFW was trespassing on 291 acres of Rains Sr. Trust land.

    Read the full text on behind my back.org.

    ———————————————————————

    The bottom line…

    THERE’S NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRESPASS ON PRIVATE LANDS.

    “The ends, no matter how critical or important to a public concern, do not justify the means, violating private property rights,” U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl wrote….

    By BEN NEARY Associated Press Updated Jul 7, 2016


  • The Importance of Federal Water Control?

    Contact: Rosemarie Calabro Tully
    rct@energy.senate.gov
    (202) 224-7556

    Dear Rosemarie,

    I just called your office, left a message and now as instructed, I am emailing you.

    Re: Senator Cantwell Releases a Bold Vision for Water in the 21st Century

    THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL WATER CONTROL

    Congress is one  way  Executive Order  is another a presidential memorandum to institutionalize the National Drought Resilience Partnership (NDRP)

    —————————————————————-

    Feb 5, 2013 WA STATE HAD THINGS UNDER CONTROL.

    6 (3) The provisions of this chapter apply only to waters of the
    7 Yakima river basin.

    It appears that the WA State Legislators can change WA State DOE Water Rules with a House Bill 1414 ?

    Behind My Back | Water Rules Not Etched In Stone

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/02/05/water-rules-not-etched-in-stone/

    Feb 5, 2013 – ARE WA STATE WATER RULES ETCHED IN STONE? PERHAPS NOT… 6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF … WASHINGTON:
    7 Sec. 1. RCW 90.38.005 and 1989 c 429 s 1 are each amended to read
    8 as follows:
    9 (1) The legislature finds that:

    It appears that the WA State Legislators can change WA State DOE Water Rules with a House Bill 1414 ?
    36 to satisfy both existing rights, and other presently unmet as well as
    37 future needs of the basin;

    6 (3) The provisions of this chapter apply only to waters of the
    7 Yakima river basin.

    What do we need in Clallam County to change the Dungeness Water Rule?
    Elected officials that represent us, Van De Wege, Senator Hargrove and Tharinger, to do their job and propose legislation
    36 to satisfy both existing rights, and other presently unmet as well as
    37 future needs of the basin;

    What do they need in Skagit County to change the Skagit River Water Rule?
    Elected officials that represent them, do their job and propose legislation
    36 to satisfy both existing rights, and other presently unmet as well as
    37 future needs of the basin;

    Feb 5, 2013 WA STATE HAD THINGS UNDER CONTROL.

    GOD FORBID THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ALLOW ANYTHING BE UNDER STATE CONTROL

    ————————————————————————

    WOW in 2015? Last year, Sen. Cantwell introduced the Yakima Basin bill

    THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL WATER CONTROL

    Senator Cantwell Releases a Bold Vision for Water in the 21st Century

    DOUBLE WOW 2016, Sen. Cantwell said. “The Yakima water bill is a national model for watershed management. The federal government has a responsibility to act now to support these efforts.”

    —————————————————————————————

    Indeed, step by step, one way or another, from WOTUS to Wetland Delineation, to Cantwell.

    First the Feds TAKE all of our water using WOTUS

    WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    Posted on September 4, 2015 8:52 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    WOTUS Water Runs Down Hill
    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

    ———————————
    I DON’T NEED AN APPLE TO FALL ON MY HEAD TO UNDERSTAND THE GRAVITY OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)

    Last year the administration wrote new definitions that would have subjected all waters (running down hill) within 4,000 feet of a navigable water to EPA review and control.

    Behind My Back | Congress Must Act on Water Issues

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/12/04/congressmustact-on-water-issues/

    Dec 4, 2015 – Congress Must Act on Water Issues May 24, 2014 It takes an act of the U.S. … www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/high–dry-and-destitute/.

    ——————————————————————————-

    WA State Reform on Wetland Delineation?

    Posted on February 11, 2016 11:29 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Re: WA State Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update?

    Wetland delineation is also an element of a “jurisdictional determination. ... A WETLAND IS A WOTUS “water of the United States” and thus regulated under the federal Clean …

    Wetland delineation establishes the existence (location) and physical limits (size) of a wetland for the purposes of federal, state, and local regulations.

    Wetland delineation is also an element of a “jurisdictional determination.” This process identifies which water bodies within a project’s boundaries meet the definition of “waters of the United States.” For more information on this, see the Corps’ of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Guidance Letter 08-02, Jurisdictional Determinations.

    —————————————————————————————

    SO WHAT’S OLD?

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/15/ecologysucks/

    Apr 15, 2013 – Ecology Sucks” And, the rest of the story. The local news papers did report that I said it. WHAT THE LOCAL NEWSPAPERS DID NOT REPORT …

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/highdry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and … category and have previously been posted on “behindmyback.org”.

    AND WHAT’S OLD?

    FEB 5, 2013, It appears that the WA State Legislators can change WA State DOE Water Rules with a House Bill 1414 ?

    behindmyback.org/2013/02/05/ The provisions of this chapter apply only to waters of the 7 Yakima river basin.

    ————————————————————————–

    MARCH 25, 2016  SO WHAT’S REALLY NEW?

    BY HOOK OR BY CROOK, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER

    TOTAL FEDERAL CONTROL OF ALL WATER

    Senator Cantwell Releases a Bold Vision for Water in the 21st Century

    New white paper outlines a national policy framework for drought and water security

    Congress is one  way  Executive Order  is another a presidential memorandum to institutionalize the National Drought Resilience Partnership (NDRP),

    National Drought Resilience Partnership – US Drought Portal

    www.drought.gov/drought/content/ndrp

    National Drought Resilience Partnership Fact Sheet: Learn more about the NDRP, the importance of drought preparedness, and THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL and …

    ————————————————————————-

    Senator Cantwell Releases a Bold Vision for Water in the 21st Century

    New white paper outlines a national policy framework for drought and water security

    Read Sen. Cantwell’s white paper here.

    Washington, DC – Today, on World Water Day, Ranking Member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) released a white paper to advance the development of a 21st century national framework for addressing drought and water security in the United States.  
    body{font-family: Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:9pt;background-color:

    An unprecedented drought last year and 15 years of drought across the American West have demonstrated the need to rethink U.S. water management in the 21st century. Since 1980, droughts have cost the United States more than $200 billion. The drought last year caused widespread and serious impacts for communities, agriculture, industry and the environment. As drought is predicted to continue in the coming years and as communities throughout the United States face significant water-security challenges, it is a crucial time to evaluate and develop new strategies at the national level.  

    Sen. Cantwell’s paper lays out a national framework to address water challenges through the modernization of federal programs to support and finance sustainable, watershed-scale solutions; advance science and technology; and promote partnerships with communities. The purpose of the paper is to foster a public dialogue and to develop a comprehensive policy agenda to address national drought and water security needs, as called for by states, tribes, local governments, utilities, agricultural producers and conservation groups.

    Modernizing federal programs is critical to supporting a more water-secure future,” Sen. Cantwell said. “The Yakima water bill is a national model for watershed management. The federal government has a responsibility to act now to support these efforts.”

    The framework document reflects lessons learned from Washington’s Yakima River Basin, where an extraordinary collaboration has led to a watershed planning effort that has become a national model. Last year, Sen. Cantwell introduced the Yakima Basin bill (S. 1694) to authorize federal participation in this effort, which will help usher in a new era in water management. The bill will help to restore ecosystems and endangered species, conserve water and provide water security for families, fish and farmers for years to come. Last month, Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior Michael Connor called the Yakima process a model not only for working through water challenges, but any natural resource management challenge.

    The white paper released today builds on that approach and outlines five policy principles as a national framework for drought and water security:

    1. Supporting collaborative watershed-scale solutions that are locally-driven. Governance solutions should support and incentivize collaborative, locally driven, watershed solutions by modernizing, coordinating, and streamlining federal programs to make them more effective.

    2. Financing solutions through partnerships and streamlined federal funding. Innovative water financing solutions should utilize an integrated watershed funding approach that streamlines federal funding and increases opportunities for public-private partnerships.

    3. Using and advancing the best science, technology and tools. Science and technology solutions should focus on accelerating innovation and the advancement of tipping points in science, technology and tools to transform water management.

    4. Advancing sustainable water supply solutions for people and the environment. Water supply solutions should take an integrated, portfolio approach that balances the needs of both people and the environment, including: (1) increased use of water markets, efficiency, conservation, recycling, reuse and desalination; (2) improvements in existing infrastructure, operations and low-impact infrastructure (such as aquifer storage and recovery); and (3) nature-based solutions and restoration of ecosystems and fisheries.

    5. Partnering with Tribal Nations, Arctic and Island Communities. The federal government should partner with and support Tribal Nations, Arctic and Island communities as they face unique challenges in responding to and addressing long-term water security needs.

    Addressing long-term drought is also a priority for the Obama administration. Ahead of today’s White House Water Summit, the administration released a presidential memorandum to institutionalize the National Drought Resilience Partnership (NDRP), which seeks to reduce the vulnerability of communities to the impacts of drought.

    Download Sen. Cantwell’s white paper on drought here.
    Read the presidential memorandum on long-term drought resilience here.

    ###

    Permalink: http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/3/senator-cantwell-releases-a-bold-vision-for-water-in-the-21st-century

    How does drought response relate to climate preparedness?

    • The President’s Climate Action Plan: In June 2013, President Obama released his Climate Action Plan to cut the carbon pollution that causes climate change and affects public health, including increased risk of drought wildfires.
    • Executive Order – Preparing the United States for the Impacts of Climate Change: On November 1, 2013, President Obama established a Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience to advise the Administration on how the Federal Government can respond to the needs of communities nationwide that are dealing with the impacts of climate change, including drought and wildfires.
    • Fact Sheet: Executive Order on Climate Preparedness
    • National Drought Forum Report: In December 2012, Federal agencies and states held the  ational Drought Forum (NDF) to focus on improving government coordination to support the planning and preparedness needed for enhancing resilience to ongoing or reoccurring drought. The NDRP is one important outcome of this forum and continues the Obama Administration’s commitment to helping communities get the drought assistance they need.
    • Federal Actions to Assist the Drought Emergency: A list of recent Federal actions, programs, and funding opportunities to support communities currently facing drought and to prepare for future drought events
    • Drought Recovery Matrix (download): An “at a glance” overview of federal resources, programs, funding, and authorities available to policy experts, federal and state agencies, and other impacted sectors to navigate the numerous programs and opportunities available to assist in building greater drought resilience (Last Updated in 2012).