+menu-


  • Category Archives Elected Officials
  • 2017 SMP Draft New Black Lines and Purple

    THE NEW CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP Update 273 Page Draft  is a very expensive, very complicated  environmental designation, a Color Book coded with black lines and  purple, and every other color of the rainbow to rule, regulate and restrict every  vested private shoreline property owner in Clallam County WA.

    SO WHAT’S NEW ABOUT THAT?

    DISCOVERY, NOV 9, 2017  I RECEIVED A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    Question: “Why use Color Book?”

    Answer:  “Color Books have been in the news  a lot since Nov 8, 2016”

     Hello Clallam County Country Bumpkins et al. Who knew what on Jan 26, 2011?

    And, what have we discovered …. Nov 10, 2017?

    The Clallam County DCD SMP Update Draft is a 273 page color book, It  cost American taxpayers $1,329,915.00 dollars. A US Environmental  Protection  Assistance Grant  to Clallam County WA  for Project No  PO-00J08801-1-2- 3.

    Total Project cost, one million three hundred twenty nine thousand nine hundred and fifteen dollars.

    WHO’S ACCOUNTING FOR THE MONEY?

    I’m requesting an answer from  Jim Jones, Jr.  the Clallam County Administrator..

    ——————————————————–

    NOV 3, 2017 TO NOV 8, 2017 all links are below.

    DISCOVERY  From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    What started as a $599,000.00 pass through grant from the EPA to Clallam County  for ESA Adolfson  facilitators/ consultants/ compliance experts, Margaret Clancy and Jim Kramer, we were told,  to regulate 3300 vested  private shoreline turned into $1,329,915.00 dollar project.

    DISCOVERY  Jan 26, 2011 to Nov 10, 2017 continued….

    WHO KNEW, A PERSON THAT WE HAVE NEVER SEE, IN OR AT, OR QUESTIONED AT ANY PUBLIC 2017 DCD SMP UPDATE DISCUSSIONS, IS CLALLAM COUNTY EMPLOYEE CATHY LEAR THE PROJECT MANAGER.

    ———————————————————————————

    December 6, 2011 Cathy Lear comments on the SMP Update

    HELLO COUNTRY BUMPKINS…

    Doubtless, everyone with an advanced degree in forestry would understand these references.

    This way of writing is distracting, however, for those who do not customarily speak in these terms. I think it should be made more “speaks for itself to anyone” wherever possible. A shoreline inventory should be a tool useful to anyone interested, but especially to land use planners and citizens with property they want to develop.

    We cannot assume everyone speaks the language of academic society.  

    ———————————————————————–

    NOV 9, 2017   MORE DISCOVERY  on the 2017 DCD SMP Draft Update 273 PAGE COLOR BOOK . People send me stuff, people tell me stuff, I have a researched and documented history of the Clallam County SMP Update stuff.

    NOV 9, 2017  A WARNING “IF THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY ONLY KNEW THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE, THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR”

    ——————————————————–

    I am very familiar with the color purple on maps used for the SMP Update. I did attended the 2012 SMP Update Forks Public Forum.

    WHO KNEW ABOUT THE “NEW”  EVIL BLACK LINES ON THE DCD 2017 SMP UPDATE DRAFT MAPS COLOR BOOK?  NOT ONLY DID THEY COLOR  OUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY PURPLE,

    WHO KNEW?  AND, WHO KNOWS THAT THEY DREW “NEW” EVIL  BLACK LINES ON OUR PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY?

    NOV 9, 2017 3:30PM I COULD DOCUMENT ON MAP #41 IN THE COLOR BOOK,  THE “NEW” EVIL BLACK LINES ON THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATE DRAFT MAPS, THE BLACK LINES “TOOK”  20 ACRES OF A GEORGE C. RAINS SR TRUST PROPERTY FROM  A 40 ACRE PARCEL ON THE SOL DUC RIVER.

    I WAS ABSOLUTELY FURIOUS, I IMMEDIATELY WENT TO THE CLALLAM COUNTY COURT HOUSE.

    Nov 9, 2017 I met with DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    We spoke for about an hour…

    RE: THE EVIL OF THE BLACK LINE AND THE DISCRIMINATION OF THE PURPLE COLOR.

    The bottom line… pretty much went like this.

    Mary Ellen said, “We have to leave this to the professionals”…..

    WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE YOU?

    —————————————————————————

    DISCOVERY CONTINUED….

    After a seven years fight.. The nine unpaid volunteer members of the Clallam County Planning Commission, finally gave up..

    “WE HAVE TO LEAVE THIS TO THE PAID PROFESSIONALS”…..

    THE PAID PROFESSIONALS? THAT WROTE THE DCD 2017 CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE DRAFT AND PROVIDED THE NEW 273 PAGE COLOR BOOK…….

    DCD DIRECTOR MARY ELLEN WINBORN AND SR. PLANNER STEVE GRAY, IN COLLABORATION WITH ECOLOGY’S LOCAL COORDINATOR DOE MICHELLE MCCONNEL AND ESA ADOLFSON OVERPAID FACILITATOR MARGARET CLANCY (THAT INCLUDING JIM KRAMER)

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP DRAFT 273 PAGE $1,329,915.00 DOLLAR COLOR BOOK. As the concerned trustee for over 800 acres of designated forest land, seriously affected by the DCD 2017 SMP Update Draft…. I requested a paper copy of their color book .

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: Mary Ellen Winborn

    Cc: Bill Peach ; mark mozias ; Randy Johnson

    Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:35 AM

    Subject: Requesting a copy of the 2017 SMP Update Draft

    ——————————————————————————–

    WE THE CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY CAN LEAVE THE 2017 DCD SMP DRAFT UPDATE UP TO THE PAID PROFESSIONALS AND ECOLOGY OR WE CAN CHALLENGE IT….

    Email your comments to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  Clallam County Board of Commissioners

    LINKS TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS….

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Friday, October 27, 2017 2:18 PM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004353-102417
    Attachments:
    Hewett_doc_pdf.pdf

    Friday, November 03, 2017 9:09 AM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004384-103017

     

    Attachments:
    signed_ESA_full_contract-22_pgs.pdf
    SMA_Grant_Agr_G1000062.pdf

    From: Clallam County Public Records Center

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2017 4:21 PM

    Subject: Public Records Request :: P004411-110317

    Attachments:
    PO-00J08801-1_Add_$499957__Signed_10-5-10.pdf
    PO-00J08801-2_Rebudget__Extend_to_12-31-14__Signed_10-16-12.pdf
    PO-00J08801-3_Rebudget__Extend_to_12-31-16__Signed_12-15-14_.pdf
    PO-00J08801-0_$1329915_Exp__12-31-12__Signed_8-3-10.pdf

    ——————————————————————————–

    IT APPEARS ABOVE, THAT THE PO-JOO8801  #3  REBUDGET  WAS ONLY EXTENDED TO DEC 31, 2016?

    HAS IT BEEN EXTENDED IN AND FOR  2017?

    —————————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE 2017 DCD SMP UPDATED DRAFT …

    What have I done about it?

    DISCOVERY PLUS… a huge number of SMP Public Comments

    PLUS…..

    I met with Commissioner Bill Peach for an hour on Oct 20, 2017

    I met with Prosecuting Attorney Mark Nicholas for one hour (follow the law)

    I met with Commissioner Mark Ozias on Nov 3, 2017

    I met  with my elected Commissioner Randy Johnson Nov 8, 2017

    I met with DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn Nov 9, 2017

    PLUS…..

     I AM POSTING AND EMAILING THIS SMP PUBLIC COMMENT

    —————————————————————–

    WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?

    Email your comments to:  SMP@co.clallam.wa.us  Clallam County Board of Commissioners

    THE DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DCD 2017 SMP DRAFT UPDATE  IS DEC 12, 2017….

    What will happen in eight months? who knows?

    Meanwhile this Tenacious Clallam County Country Bumpkin  is doing the usual….

    I’ll just keep making more 2017 SMP Update Draft Public comments,  posting them on my website, and sending around in cyberspace.

    DISCOVERY to be continued….

    ———————————————————————————–

    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012

    GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILE

    Seller disclosure as required by Clallam County 2012 SMP Update and WA State law

    But the best news of all is the assurance by the Planning Dept. that your private property will not have any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft restrictions and regulations.

    BUT? What has Clallam County got to lose?

    RCW 90.58.290

    Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property. The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.

    [1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]

    INDEED, ONE MUST CONSIDER  ALL OF THE  RESTRICTIVE SMP  “SHALLS” ON PRIVATE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND IN PARTICULAR… THE UNDEVELOPED PRIVATE INVESTMENT SHORELINE PROPERTIES, VIEW, ETC?

    ———————————————————————
    RE-DISCOVERY MY SMP PUBLIC COMMENT APRIL 18, 2012
    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/247_SMP041812.pdf

    Merrill, Hannah From: pearl hewett … Subject: SMP GIVE THEM AN INCH AND THEY’LL TAKE A MILEhave any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft …

    I submit this as my SMP comment

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    Grandfathered is non-conforming.

    The statistics introduced at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site. (the number was staggering)

    PER CATHY LEAR, they are waiting to compile the historic statistics to show the number of how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings were non-conforming on the old SMP marine setbacks. (hindsight is 20/20)

    How have the DOE restrictions, regulations and definitions on/of non-conforming property changed since 1976?

    I wrote the following as a tongue in cheek comment on the 2012 SMP Update.

    After seeing the statistics on non-conforming private marine property at the last SMP meeting, it is not funny, it is frightening.

    2013 OLYMPIC PENINSULA CLASSIFIED AD

    FOR SALE VIEW   LOT ON THE BEAUTIFUL STRAITS OF JUAN DE FUCA

    100FEET X400FEET

    Seller disclosure as required by Clallam County 2012 SMP Update and WA State law

    This is a 100% non-conforming lot

    There is a 175 foot setback from the HWL

    The is a 150 setback from the feeder bluff

    There is a 65 foot wetland setback

    There is a 50 foot buffer zone

    There is a 10 foot setback from buildings

    THE GOOD NEWS

    The buyer is left with 25% of his private property purchase, a 100X100 foot piece of private property (with a 75% loss of his usable private land where the buyer is free to put his 1700 sq foot home, his drain field, his parking and his deck and his garden.

    The buyer will be allowed a 20 foot view corridor (20’X300′) through the 300 feet of restricted use area of his private property. (leaving 80% of his view blocked)

    The buyer will be allowed to limb up and remove 30% of the vegetation blocking his view every 10 years on the 100 X 300 foot restricted use area of his private property.

    The buyer will be allowed a 6 foot wide foot path through the 300 foot restricted use area (in the view corridor) of his private property and home to the beach. (a full city block from beach)

    Using a variance and a geological study you may be able to reduce the setbacks and buffer zones.

    But the best news of all is the assurance by the Planning Dept. that your private property will not have any loss of value due to Clallam County’s 2012 SMP Draft restrictions and regulations.


  • More DOE Fees Increased By Rule

    ——————————————————————–

    ——————————

    —– Original Message —–

    From:Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To:ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 6:43 AM

    Subject: The following rulemaking adoption was filed with the Office for Chapter 173-224 WAC, Water Quality Permit Fees

    The following rulemaking adoption was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    July 20, 2017

    Chapter 173-224 WAC, Water Quality Permit Fees (previously called Wastewater Discharge Permit Fees) For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ruledev/wac173224/1611ov.html

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!

    —————————————————————

    RCW 90.48.465 – Water Pollution Control requires that Ecology establish, by rule, annual fees that fund the wastewater and stormwater permit programs.

    Ecology amended Chapter 173-224 WAC – Wastewater Discharge Permit Fees. This amendment allows permit fees to be increased for Fiscal Year 2018 (July 2017 – June 30, 2018) and Fiscal Year 2019 (July 2018 – June 2019) so that we can recover the cost of administering the wastewater and stormwater programs this biennium.

    Scope of rule development

    State law (RCW 80.48.465 – Water Pollution Control) requires Ecology to fund its wastewater and stormwater permit programs through annual fees paid by permit holders.

    The proposed changes sought to continue moving the program toward payment equity between permit categories. Ecology adopted a larger percentage fee increase for underpaying categories and a smaller percentage fee increase for overpaying categories.

    Ecology’s goals in establishing the percentage splits are to honor the need for fund equity while not over-burdening the under-paying categories with an increase that is not sustainable.

    We updated rule language to account for changes in current business practices relating to electronic payment options, collection processes, and data collection. We also removed the winery general permit fee category for the 2017-19 biennium, as this new permit will not be effective until July 1, 2019.

    The adopted percentages increases by category are:

    Underpaying Fee Categories
    SFY 2018
    (July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018)
    6.37%
    • Aluminum Alloys
    • Aluminum and Magnesium Reduction Mills
    • Aluminum Forming
    • Aggregate Production – Individual and General Permits
    • Aquatic Pest Control
    • Boatyards (Individual and General Permits)
    • Coal Mining and Preparation
    • Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
    • Dairies
    • Iron and Steel
    • Metal Finishing
    • Nonferrous Metals Forming
    • Ore Mining
    • Private and State Owned Facilities
    • Shipyards
    • Stormwater Construction (Individual and General Permits)
    • Stormwater Industrial (Individual and General Permits)
    • Stormwater Municipal Phase 1 and 2 Permits
    SFY 2019
    (July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019)
    5.58%
    Overpaying Fee Categories
    SFY 2018
    (July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2018)
    5.50%
    • Aquaculture
    • Combined Industrial Waste Treatment
    • Combined Food Processing Waste Treatment
    • Combined Sewer Overflow System
    • Commercial Laundry
    • Crop Preparing (Individual and General Permits Facilities
    • Not Otherwise Classified (Individual and General Permits)
    • Flavor Extraction
    • Food Processing
    • Fuel and Chemical Storage
    • Hazardous Waste Cleanup Sites
    • Ink Formulation and Printing
    • Inorganic Chemicals Manufacturing Noncontact Cooling Water With Additives (Individual and General Permits)
    • Noncontact Cooling Water Without Additives (Individual and General Permits)
    • Municipal Wastewater – >250,000 Residential Equivalents
    • Organic Chemical Manufacturing
    • Petroleum Refining
    • Photofinishers
    • Power and/or Steam Plants
    • Radioactive Effluents and Discharges
    • RCRA Corrective Action Sites
    • Seafood Processing
    • Solid Waste Sites
    • Textile Mills
    • Timber Products
    • Vegetable/Bulb Washing Facilities
    • Vehicle Maintenance and Freight Transfer
    • Water Plants (Individual and General Permits)
    SFY19
    (July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019
    4.50%

    More information on the fees is available for Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019.

    INDEED, THE DOE DID…..  update their rules language to account for changes in current business practices relating to electronic payment options, collection processes, and data collection.

    ———————————————————————-

    More information on DOE  fees is available……

    WHERE THE GOVERNMENT DOES MOST OF MY BUSINESS!

    Behind My Back | Drowning in Stormwater Runoff Tax?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/16/drowning-in-stormwater-runoff-tax/

    Mar 16, 2014WHO IS Drowning in WA STATE Stormwater Runoff Tax? …. http://daily.sightline.org/2013/05/09/the-skinny-on-was-new-stormwater-permits-1/.

    THE Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSMP)

    Participants in The Phase I and II permit will help fund the monitoring and data analysis  (KING COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE, MUST PAY $15,000 FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND $74,540 FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO PARTICIPATE.)

    The updated rules are contained in the state’s new Municipal Stormwater permits which are administered by the Washington Department of Ecology.

    ECOLOGY IS DESIGNATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO UPHOLD THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT

    Phase I Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit

    (COERCED) Participants in THE PHASE I permit will help fund the monitoring and data analysis. (KING COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE, MUST PAY $15,000 FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND $74,540 FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS TO PARTICIPATE. in The Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSMP)

    Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit

    The Phase II permit for western Washington covers at least 80 cities and portions of five counties with an effective date of September 1, 2012. The updated 2013-2018 permit became effective on August 1, 2013.

    The new PHASE II MUNICIPAL STORMWATER PERMIT, which covers the next most populated areas and affects nearly 100 cities around the state.

    (COERCED) Participants in THE PHASE II permit will help fund the monitoring and data analysis.

    ECOLOGY IS DESIGNATED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO UPHOLD THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT


  • Exceptionalism Made American Great

    Exceptionalism Made American Great

    American Exceptionalism stems from the United States emergence from the American Revolution.

    Political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called it “THE FIRST NEW NATION” DEVELOPING A UNIQUELY AMERICAN IDEOLOGY, “AMERICANISM”, BASED ON LIBERTY, EGALITARIANISM, INDIVIDUALISM, REPUBLICANISM, DEMOCRACY AND LAISSEZ-FAIRE FOR BUSINESS.

    As Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg address (1863),
    Americans have a duty to see that “government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

    It is our obligation to our dead—it is our sacred obligation’ to their children and to our children-

    THAT WE MUST NEVER FORGET WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED.

    AMERICAN PEOPLE FOUGHT AND WON THE REVOLUTION, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT ACTED, WROTE, SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE,THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    —————–
    AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM IS ONE OF THREE RELATED IDEAS.
    THE FIRST IS THAT THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES IS INHERENTLY DIFFERENT FROM OTHER NATIONS.
    SECOND IS THE IDEA THAT AMERICA HAS A UNIQUE MISSION TO TRANSFORM THE WORLD.
    THIRD IS THE SENSE THAT ITS HISTORY AND ITS MISSION GIVE THE UNITED STATES A SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER NATIONS.

    ——————————————————————
    MR TRUMP IS AN EXCEPTIONAL CANDIDATE FOR AMERICAN PRESIDENT.

    THE GOP HIGH COMMAND SEEMS INCAPABLE OF STOPPING HIM.

    A HOSTILE TAKEOVER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY BY DONALD TRUMP?

    A hostile takeover is the acquisition of one company (called the target company) by another (called the acquirer) that is accomplished not by coming to an agreement with the target company’s management, BUT BY GOING DIRECTLY TO THE COMPANY’S SHAREHOLDERS or fighting to replace management in order to get the acquisition …

    ON SUPER TUESDAY DONALD TRUMP’S HOSTILE TAKEOVER

    NOT BY COMING TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GOP’S ESTABLISHMENT

    BUT BY GOING DIRECTLY TO THE COUNTRY’S SHAREHOLDERS

    THE AMERICAN PRESIDENT MUST BE AN EXCEPTIONAL DEAL MAKER.

    TRUMP MADE AN EXCEPTIONAL DEAL WITH WORKING  AMERICAN PEOPLE.

    TRUMP- SHALL “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN”

    THE GOP HIGH COMMAND SEEMS INCAPABLE OF STOPPING HIM.

    Mar. 3, 2016, Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s dominant start to the presidential primary process looks LIKE IT COULD CONTINUE OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL WEEKS, ACCORDING TO POLLS surveying upcoming state’s contests.

    Thirteen states hold primaries or caucuses over the next two weeks. Of them, TRUMP IS LEADING POLLS IN NINE, according to the RealClearPolitics average, including some of the most important, winner-take-all states.

    Polls were accurate in predicting Trump wins in New Hampshire, South Carolina, Nevada, Vermont, Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Tennessee.

    ————————————–

    Brewer: GOP Establishment’s Attacks on Trump Will Backfire

    Fox News Insider2 days ago She said she’s disappointed that the GOP establishment has their chosen candidates and …
    ——————-

    THE HARDEST TUMBLE A PARTY CAN TAKE IS TO FALL OFF HIS OWN BLUFF

    ————————————————————————–

    Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government …

    www.people-press.org/…/beyond-distrust-how-americans-view-their-gov

    Nov 23, 2015 – A year ahead of the presidential election, the American public is deeply … Currently, just 19% say they can trust the government always or most ….

    ———————————————————————–

    American Presidential Candidate Marco Rubio, a member of the GOP Establishment actually said…..

    You know what they say about men with small hands — you can’t trust them.”

    81% OF AMERICAN PUBLIC  SAID,

    “YOU CAN’T TRUST THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT”

    —————————-

    THE HARDEST TUMBLE A PARTY CAN TAKE IS TO FALL OFF HIS OWN BLUFF

    ——————————————————————————————
    MR TRUMP IS AN EXCEPTIONAL CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT.

    THE POLITICO ESTABLISHMENT’S 2016 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN HOPEFULS DISCUSS?

    1. GREAT MINDS DISCUSS IDEAS
    2. AVERAGE MINDS DISCUSS EVENTS
    3. SMALL MINDS DISCUSS PEOPLE

    ——————————————-
    WHAT KIND OF CRUDE MINDS DISCUSS THE SIZE OF A MAN’S HANDS?

    THE CBC TV NATIONAL REPORTER SMIRKED AND SAID SPECIFICALLY, “YOU ALL KNOW WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT MEN WITH SMALL HANDS? THEY HAVE A SMALL PENIS. ” AND SENT THE WHOLE WORD LAUGHING.

    ————————–
    American Presidential Candidate Marco Rubio was in full attack mode on Donald Trump Sunday night. Rubio said at a rally in Roanoke, Virginia, on Sunday “Have you seen his hands? You know what they say about men with small hands “Little Marco,” did a short bit about what he called Trump’s short digits during his rally in Roanoke, Virginia. “He’s like 6-2, which is why I don’t understand why his hands are the size of someone who is 5-2,”. “Have you seen his hands?

    You know what they say about men with small hands — you can’t trust them.”
    Indeed, and even A FORMER GOP CANDIDATE and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker got into the action on Tuesday afternoon sending out a picture of his hand.

    ————————————————————————————–
    ON March 3, 2016 FOX NEWS TV 2016 REPUBLICAN DEBATE HAD THREE MODERATORS MEGYN KELLY, BRET BAIER AND CHRIS WALLACE.

    THE FOX REPUBLICAN DEBATE DISCLOSED THREE PRESIDENTIAL MIND RELATED MENTALITIES

    I WATCHED, RUBIO, CRUZ, TRUMP AND KASICH DEBATE

    1. GREAT MINDS DISCUSSED IDEAS
    2. AVERAGE MINDS DISCUSSED EVENTS
    3. SMALL MINDS DISCUSSED PEOPLE

    I watched Trump’s response to Rubio’s attack on his man hands.
    ——————————————————————-
    The March 3, 2016 FOX NEWS REPUBLICAN DEBATE
    THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF PUBLIC MEDIA, ALL RADIO STATIONS, NEWSPAPERS AND TV

    TO ALL NEWSPAPERS AND RADIO STATIONS—ALL THOSE WHO REACH THE EYES AND EARS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE—I SAY THIS: YOU HAVE A MOST GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE NATION NOW AND FOR THE DURATION OF THIS (ELECTION) WAR.

    If you feel that your Government is not disclosing enough of the truth, you have every right to say so.

    BUT—IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL THE FACTS, AS REVEALED BY OFFICIAL SOURCES—YOU HAVE NO RIGHT IN THE ETHICS OF PATRIOTISM TO DEAL OUT UNCONFIRMED REPORTS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE GOSPEL TRUTH.
    ————————————————————
    I’m just asking? Just saying…
    WHAT IS THE GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF FOX NEWS TV 2016 REPUBLICAN DEBATE MODERATORS ON MEGYN KELLY, BRET BAIER AND CHRIS WALLACE?

    WHAT IS THE  GRAVE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE March 3, 2016 DEBATING PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES?
    RUBIO? CRUZ? TRUMP? KASICH?

    IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL THE FACTS, AS REVEALED BY OFFICIAL SOURCES—YOU HAVE NO RIGHT IN THE ETHICS OF PATRIOTISM TO DEAL OUT UNCONFIRMED REPORTS IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE GOSPEL TRUTH.
    ————————————————————-
    THE ELECTION OF A PRESIDENT IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

    FOX NEWS CHANNEL (FNC), ALSO KNOWN AS FOX NEWS, is an American basic cable and satellite news television channel that is owned by the Fox Entertainment …

    ———————————–
    The March 3, 2016 FOX REPUBLICAN DEBATE PROVIDED SOME REALLY CRUDE ENTERTAINMENT
    (If you like Pee Wee Herman)

    ————————————-
    Stay connected with the most-trusted name in cable news through exclusive videos, show highlights and behind-the-scenes details.
    ———————————————————-
    CAMPAIGN SLOGANS FOR CANDIDATES?
    TRUMP- MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
    CRUZ – Reigniting the Promise of America
    RUBIO – A New American Century
    KASICH – K for US

    ———————————————

    The bottom line….

    AS A HARDWORKING AMERICA CITIZEN

    WHO DO YOU TRUST TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN?


  • Obama Plus the LWFC Land Grabs

    OBAMA’S PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND GRABS PLUS THE LWFC?

    Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a Federal program

    AS OF OCTOBER 2015, DESCRIBING IT (LWCF) AS A “SLUSH FUND”, ROB BISHOP (R) OF UTAH, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, HAD BLOCKED A VOTE ON REAUTHORIZATION.

    The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been America’s most important conservation “SLUSH FUNDING” tool for nearly 50 years. Since 1964, the fund has …

    For nearly 50 years taxpayers income has been diverted to fund the (LWCF)?

    Who knew?

    THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME TO THE FUND IS FEES PAID TO THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT BY COMPANIES DRILLING OFFSHORE FOR OIL AND GAS.

    ———————————————————————

    THE GOOD NEWS WAS…

    Oct 1, 2015

    Congress lets sun set on Land and Water Conservation Fund

    www.hcn.org/…/congresslets-sun-set-on-land-and-w
    High Country News

    Oct 1, 2015Congress lets sun set on Land and Water Conservation Fund … The sunsetting of the LWCF was greeted with dismay by conservationists and …

    CONSERVATIVE Sen. Daines (R)  told the breakfast meeting that reauthorization has “a higher probability if we attach it to another piece of legislation,”

    so they’ll be looking for some piece of must-pass legislation before the end of the year, like the omnibus spending bill or a HIGHWAY and transportation bill.

    ——————————————————————–

     CONSERVATIVE Sen. Daines (R) has also lent his vote to bailout the HIGHWAY Trust Fund, despite ample evidence the Fund is only “bankrupt”

    Hmmm…  Sen. Daines (R) said….
    because of Congress’ appetite for spending on projects completely unrelated to HIGHWAY
    ——————————————————————-
    Oct 1, 2015 ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE,
    CONSERVATIVE?   CONSERVATIONIST?  Sen. Daines (R) SAID…
    ATTACH THE LWCF RE AUTHORIZATION TO A  MUST-PASS LEGISLATION BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR….  The like the omnibus spending bill or a HIGHWAY and transportation bill.
    ———————————————————
    THE BAD NEWS IS..
    UPDATED Dec 16, 2015….Thanks to Sen. Daines (R)
    The NEW spending bill also gives the LWCF fund $450 million for the coming fiscal year, a near 50 percent increase over the previous level.
    ——————————
    CONSERVATIONIST? Rep. Grijalva (D) and CONSERVATIVE Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R) co-sponsored a LWCF permanent reauthorization bill

    Rep. Grijalva (D)  said…We should make it permanent, avoid prolonged budget battles and get back to the business of protecting our natural spaces.

    ————————————————————————–

    Find Your Park – Centennial (U.S. National Park Service)

    www.nps.gov/subjects/centennial/findyourpark.htm
    National Park Service

    Go to FindYourPark.com to share your heritage. Find Your Park logo … Find Your Park is about more than just national parks! It’s about the National Park Service …

    ————————————————————————-

    THIS IS ABOUT THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE…

    Land and Water Conservation Fund – National Park Service

    www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/funding.html
    National Park Service

    Oct 26, 2015 – find LWCF in your neighborhood … Current Funding for GrantsSally Jewell signed the 2015 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) …

    ———————————————————–
    Some CONSERVATIVES, complain that THE LWCF  FUNDING allows the federal government to expand its reach by buying up private land and that it helps fund environmental groups that sell land to federal officials.
    INDEED… TO NAME JUST FIVE…
    National Parks Conservation Association, Environment America, The Wilderness Society, the Land Trust Alliance, and the Nature Conservancy.
    ————————————————————————
    Sen. Daines (R) has been a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee as well as the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has also been a member of both the Commerce and Indian Affairs committees.   – See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/members/steve-daines/#sthash.WxWSWNP3.dpuf

    —————————————————————

    HOW THING WORK ON THE HILL

    With Bipartisan Support

    Americans’ current 11% job approval rating of Congress is its worst rating so far this year

    ————————————————————

    UPDATED Dec 16, 2015

    Conservation fund gets 3-year lifeline in spending bill | TheHill

    thehill.com/…/263424-conservation-fund-gets-3-year-lifeline-in-…
    The Hill

    Dec 16, 2015The reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund … is a sign of the ineffectiveness of this Congress and deep dysfunction in …

    The NEW spending bill also gives the LWCF fund $450 million for the coming fiscal year, a near 50 percent increase over the previous level.

    ——————————————————-

    WE ALL KNOW HOW OBAMA’S PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND GRABS WORK

    REFLECTED IN THE ANTI-PUBLIC-LAND AND ANTI-FEDERAL SENTIMENTS AFOOT IN SOME QUARTERS OF THE WEST.

    ——————————————————–

    (THE CENTER FOR WESTERN PRIORITIES CREATED AN INTERACTIVE MAP SHOWING

    HOW LWCF HAS MADE NATIONAL PARKS WHOLE

    BY PAYING TO BUY INHOLDINGS FROM PRIVATE LANDOWNERS.)

    ——————————————-

    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE INHOLDER WILLING SELLERS (LWFC) PROGRAM.

    Using diverted taxpayers income to pay for INHOLDERS private property.

    Congress regularly diverts…..

    ———————————————————

    WHICH HAS CONSERVED MORE THAN SEVEN MILLION ACRES SO FAR. LWCF PURCHASES WILDLIFE HABITAT, BUYS PRIVATE INHOLDINGS WITHIN WILDERNESSES AND NATIONAL PARKS, PRESERVES

    But action on LWCF was derailed by far-right opposition, led by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, House Natural Resources chairman.

    The United States’ Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a Federal program that was established by Act of Congress in 1965 to provide funds and matching grants to federal, state and local governments FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAND AND WATER, AND EASEMENTS ON LAND AND WATER,

    for the benefit of all Americans
    THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF INCOME TO THE FUND IS FEES PAID TO THE BUREAU OF OCEAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT, REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT BY COMPANIES DRILLING OFFSHORE FOR OIL AND GAS.

    Congress regularly diverts most of the funds from this source to other purposes, however. ADDITIONAL MINOR SOURCES OF INCOME INCLUDE THE SALE OF SURPLUS FEDERAL REAL ESTATE AND TAXES ON MOTORBOAT FUEL.

    The program is divided into two distinct funding pools: state grants AND FEDERAL ACQUISITION FUNDS.
    (THE CENTER FOR WESTERN PRIORITIES CREATED AN INTERACTIVE MAP SHOWING HOW LWCF HAS MADE NATIONAL PARKS WHOLE BY PAYING TO BUY INHOLDINGS FROM PRIVATE LANDOWNERS.)

    ———————————————————————————

    Mapping the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF …

    wilderness.org/mapping-land-and-waterconserva
    The Wilderness Society

    The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been America’s most important conservation funding tool for nearly 50 years. Since 1964, the fund has …
    WHICH HAS CONSERVED MORE THAN SEVEN MILLION ACRES SO FAR. LWCF PURCHASES WILDLIFE HABITAT, BUYS PRIVATE INHOLDINGS WITHIN WILDERNESSES AND NATIONAL PARKS, PRESERVES
    FUNDS FROM THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND HAVE BEEN UTILIZED OVER THE YEARS ON PROJECTS BOTH LARGE AND SMALL. LWCF HAS HELPED STATE AGENCIES AND LOCAL COMMUNITIES

    ACQUIRE NEARLY SEVEN MILLION ACRES (28,000 KM²) OF LAND AND EASEMENTS

    CONTROLLING FURTHER LAND

    Though LWCF is authorized with A BUDGET CAP OF $900 MILLION ANNUALLY
    THE PRESIDENT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDING FOR SPECIFIC LWCF PROJECTS.
    But action on LWCF was derailed by far-right opposition, led by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, House Natural Resources chairman,

    REFLECTING THE ANTI-PUBLIC-LAND AND ANTI-FEDERAL SENTIMENTS AFOOT IN SOME QUARTERS OF THE WEST.

    AS OF OCTOBER 2015, DESCRIBING IT AS A “SLUSH FUND”, ROB BISHOP OF UTAH, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE, HAD BLOCKED A VOTE ON REAUTHORIZATION.
    CONGRESS FAILED TO TAKE ACTION TO REAUTHORIZE IT.

    THAT MEANS THAT OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS WILL NO LONGER BE PAYING INTO THE CHEST THAT FUNDS THE PROGRAM —
    CONGRESS. INSTEAD, LAWMAKERS WILL BE DICKERING OVER HOW TO DIVVY UP FORMER LWCF APPROPRIATIONS, WHICH WILL NOW BE GOING INTO THE GENERAL TREASURY.

    ———————————————————-

    Land & Water Conservation Fund Grant – National Park …

    www.nps.gov/lwcf/
    National Park Service

    Nov 3, 2015 – The LWCF Program provides matching grants to States and local … protection and maintenance of recreation resources across the United States. … of $42.8 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to all 50 States, …

    The United States’ Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is a Federal program that was established by Act of Congress in 1965 to provide funds and matching grants to federal, state and local governments for the acquisition of land and water, and easements on land and water, for the benefit of all Americans.[1]

    The main emphases of the fund are recreation and the protection of national natural treasures in the forms of parks and protected forest and wildlife areas.

    The LWCF has a broad-based coalition of support and oversight, including the National Parks Conservation Association, Environment America, The Wilderness Society, the Land Trust Alliance, and the Nature Conservancy.
    The primary source of income to the fund is fees paid to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement by companies drilling offshore for oil and gas. Congress regularly diverts most of the funds from this source to other purposes, however. Additional minor sources of income include the sale of surplus federal real estate and taxes on motorboat fuel.

    Funds from the Land and Water Conservation Fund have been utilized over the years on projects both large and small. LWCF has helped state agencies and local communities acquire nearly seven million acres (28,000 km²) of land and easements controlling further land, developed project sites including such popular recreational areas as Harper’s Ferry in West Virginia, California’s Big Sur Coast, and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem in Montana, helped maintain Yellowstone National Park, and helped to build and maintain “thousands of local playgrounds, soccer fields, and baseball diamonds.”
    Though LWCF is authorized with a budget cap of $900 million annually, this cap has been met only twice during the program’s nearly four decades of existence.[citation needed] As of 2015 the program generated about $2.5 million a day from leases on offshore oil and gas drilling.
    The program is divided into two distinct funding pools: state grants and federal acquisition funds. The distribution formula takes into account population density and other factors.
    On the federal side, each year, based on project demands from communities as well as input from the federal land management agencies,

    THE PRESIDENT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO CONGRESS REGARDING FUNDING FOR SPECIFIC LWCF PROJECTS.

    In Congress, these projects go through an Appropriations Committee review process. Given the intense competition among projects, funding is generally only provided for those projects with universal support.

    Initially authorized for a twenty-five-year period, the LWCF has been extended for another twenty-five years, its current mandate running until January 2015.

    As of October 2015, describing it as a “slush fund”, Rob Bishop (R)  of Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, had blocked a vote on reauthorization.

    ————————————————–

    Congress lets sun set on Land and Water Conservation Fund

    www.hcn.org/…/congresslets-sun-set-on-land-and-w
    High Country News

    Oct 1, 2015 – Congress lets sun set on Land and Water Conservation Fund … The sunsetting of the LWCF was greeted with dismay by conservationists and …
    Oct 1, 2015 – But action on LWCF was derailed by far-right opposition, led by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, House Natural Resources chairman, reflecting the …In July, Montanans celebrated the addition of 8,200 acres, known as Tenderfoot Creek, to the Lewis and Clark National Forest.

    MOST OF THE $10.7 MILLION COST WAS PAID FOR BY THE FEDERAL LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND, WHICH USES OIL AND GAS ROYALTIES FOR CONSERVATION AND RECREATION PROJECTS.
    But action on LWCF was derailed by far-right opposition, led by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, House Natural Resources chairman,

    REFLECTING THE ANTI-PUBLIC-LAND AND ANTI-FEDERAL SENTIMENTS AFOOT IN SOME QUARTERS OF THE WEST.
    Bishop is floating his own reforms to the program, which include redirecting most of the money to state and local projects

    (IN THE 1970S, CONGRESS REMOVED A REQUIREMENT THAT STATES GET 60 PERCENT OF LWCF FUNDING).
    (THE CENTER FOR WESTERN PRIORITIES CREATED AN INTERACTIVE MAP SHOWING HOW LWCF HAS MADE NATIONAL PARKS WHOLE BY PAYING TO BUY INHOLDINGS FROM PRIVATE LANDOWNERS.)

    Congress lets sun set on Land and Water Conservation Fund
    The nation’s most successful conservation program is in jeopardy.

    Jodi Peterson Oct. 1, 2015 Web Exclusive

    In July, Montanans celebrated the addition of 8,200 acres, known as Tenderfoot Creek, to the Lewis and Clark National Forest. Most of the $10.7 million cost was paid for by the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which uses oil and gas royalties for conservation and recreation projects.
    But yesterday, the 50-year-old fund, widely viewed as one of the nation’s most popular and most successful land conservation programs, was allowed to expire completely. Despite broad bipartisan support, and despite a deadline that was no surprise to anyone, Congress failed to take action to reauthorize it.

    That means that offshore oil and gas producers will no longer be paying into the chest that funds the program —

    and now that the funding connection has been broken, reinstating it will be very difficult, especially given the tone of this CONGRESS. INSTEAD, LAWMAKERS WILL BE DICKERING OVER HOW TO DIVVY UP FORMER LWCF APPROPRIATIONS, WHICH WILL NOW BE GOING INTO THE GENERAL TREASURY.

    ————————————————–
    Earlier this summer, dozens of representatives on both sides of the aisle had signed a letter in support of the perpetually underfunded program, WHICH HAS CONSERVED MORE THAN SEVEN MILLION ACRES SO FAR.

    LWCF PURCHASES WILDLIFE HABITAT, BUYS PRIVATE INHOLDINGS WITHIN WILDERNESSES AND NATIONAL PARKS,

    PRESERVES cultural heritage sites, provides public access for fishing and hunting, and pays for urban parks, playgrounds and ballfields.

    (The Center for Western Priorities created an interactive map showing how LWCF has made national parks whole by paying to buy inholdings from private landowners.) And if put to a straight-up vote, reauthorization would pass both the House and Senate with bipartisan majorities.
    The sunsetting of the LWCF was greeted with dismay by conservationists and by many of the legislators from both parties who have long supported it, including Republican Sen. Steve Daines and Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana. At a Tuesday breakfast organized by the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers in support of LWCF, Daines said, “I personally don’t think Rob (Bishop’)s view, and others have said this, necessarily reflects probably where most of the conference is now.”
    Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Arizona had some scathing words for the House in a statement: “You can see just how extreme some House Republicans really are when a popular conservation program with a spotless, fifty-year history of bipartisan reauthorization expires thanks to their partisan games. They can’t pass a highway bill, they can’t fund the government, they’re still struggling with a defense bill, and now they insist that LWCF funding has to stop.”
    Congress is authorized to allocate up to $900 million annually to LWCF, not from taxpayers’ dollars but from royalties paid by energy companies drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf.

    It rarely gives the fund anywhere close to that, though, and in recent years has sent about two-thirds of the allocation to the general treasury. As a result, the program has accumulated a $20 billion IOU, which Rep. Bishop cites as a reason not to continue funding it. But that money isn’t just lying around waiting to be spent, explains Mary Hollow, executive director of Montana-based Prickly Pear Land Trust, in the Helena Independent Record: “This is a paper account with nothing in it — there are only cobwebs,” she said. “The $20 billion has already been spent — diverted to fund other things … it’s inaccurate and unrealistic to think that if LWCF expires and we lose our authorization and revenue source that it would be business as usual.”
    So what’s likely to happen next? “This is a sad day for everyone who cares about our national parks and outdoor conservation, recreation and wildlife.

    Congress has broken an enduring promise to the American people,” said Alan Rowsome, senior director at the Wilderness Society and co-chair of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition, in a statement.

    But the coalition, the outdoor recreation industry, other conservation groups, and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers aren’t just mourning the program’s loss — they’ll be kicking efforts into high gear to get the LWCF reauthorized as quickly as possible.
    And Congressional supporters are looking for those opportunities. Sen. Daines told the breakfast meeting that reauthorization has “a higher probability if we attach it to another piece of legislation,”

    so they’ll be looking for some piece of must-pass legislation before the end of the year, like the omnibus spending bill or a highway and transportation bill. He and Sen. Jon Tester, D-Montana, have also cosponsored legislation introduced by Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, that permanently reauthorizes the program, and Tester cosponsored a bill that goes farther, locking in the full appropriation of $900 million so it can’t be siphoned off for other uses.

    Rep. Grijalva and Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick co-sponsored a permanent reauthorization bill as well. When introducing it, Grijalva said, “Drawing out the uncertainty over the program’s funding every few years serves no one, especially when our constituents so strongly believe in the LWCF’s mission and value to the country. We should make it permanent, avoid prolonged budget battles and

    get back to the business of protecting our natural spaces.

    Anything less is a disservice to the legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and the generations of Americans who gave us the many beautiful American landscapes we enjoy today.”
    Jodi Peterson is a senior editor at High Country News. Follow @peterson_jodi


  • UN Heritage Sites and Corridors Back to 1492

    Heritage Area Designations | Another Land Grab U.N. …

    Heritage Sites and Corridors

    HERITAGE CORRIDORS ARE EXTENSIONS OF RESERVES AND U.N. ADVOCATES CLAIM MILLIONS OF ACRES ARE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN LARGE CARNIVORES!

    If this is allowed to continue, you will witness the elimination of human presence on much of our American landscape!
    ——————————————

    Go Find Your Park? WHAT IS IT?

    Heritage Area Designations | Another Land Grab U.N. …

    securetherepublic.com/…/heritageareadesignationsanotherlandgrab-u…

    Aug 29, 2013 – Heritage Area DesignationsAnother U.N. Agenda 21 Land Grab … World Heritage Area Sites – are under United Nations Educational, .

    ——————————————————————

    DIGGING DEEPER DOCUMENTING MORE

    In the proposed Crooked Road National Heritage Area.

    In one fell swoop…

    19 COUNTIES IN SOUTHERN VIRGINIA WERE TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA. (unknown to county the commissioners)

    To do something in one fell swoop is to do it suddenly or in a single, swift action.routinely fast-tracked to passage through Congress with no debate, (unknown to county the commissioners) Fell here is an adjective meaning fierce, savage, cruel, or ruthless

    Sponsored by Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) since 2011. and Senator Mark Warner, Senator (DVA) since 2009, the impending designation, routinely fast-tracked to passage through Congress with no debate,

    —————————————————

    snippet for clarification

    The Crooked Road: Virginia’s Heritage Music Trail (TCR) has been working for over two years 07/28/2012 – with federal officials on a proposal to designate The Crooked Road region of Southwest Virginia
    (19 counties, four cities and over 50 towns) as a National Heritage Area.
    – See more at: http://www.cybergrass.com/node/1546#sthash.OCTOw2r4.dpuf
    ——————————————————————–

    the impending designation, routinely fast-tracked to passage through Congress with no debate,

    WOULD HAVE REMAINED UNKNOWN TO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

    until  A CONCERNED CITIZEN made the counties aware of this move by The Crooked Road 501c3 organization last August, 2012.

    The Crooked Road organization, RESPONDING TO A FOIA REQUEST TO A PRIVATE CITIZEN,  admits  that

    COMMISSIONERS OF ALL 19 COUNTIES WERE NOT ADVISED OF THIS SCHEME!
    ————————————————————————

    WOW,  FEDERAL OFFICIALS WERE WORKING ON THE 

    Crooked Road National Heritage Area.

    FROM 2010 TO 2013

    AND THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WERE NOT ADVISED?

    AND, WOULD HAVE REMAINED UNKNOWN TO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS?

    ———————————————————————

    ARE YOU A CONCERNED AMERICAN PRIVATE CITIZEN?

    PLEASE ADVISE YOUR ELECTED COUNTY COMMISSIONERS….

    DO YOU HAVE A CONCERNED COUNTY COMMISSIONER?

    ARE YOU A CONCERNED COUNTY COMMISSIONER?

    I am a concerned American Private citizen ,aka a Concerned American Grandmother.

    my website is how I document and advise my elected representatives at every level.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Impending Heritage designation, routinely fast-tracked to passage through Congress with no debate….

    —————————————————-

    I always wanted to do a post using this poem with my freedom of speech

    There was a crooked man, and he walked a crooked mile,
    He found a crooked sixpence against a crooked stile;
    He bought a crooked cat which caught a crooked mouse,
    And they all lived together in a little crooked house.
    ————————————————————
    Was sponsored by Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) since 2011. and Senator Mark Warner, Senator(D-VA) since 2009, the impending designation, routinely fast-tracked to passage through Congress with no debate?
    —————————————————————————–

    Hmmm… How many counties on the Olympic Peninsula? Four (4)
    Clallam and Jefferson Counties, parts of Grays Harbor and Mason Counties, are on the peninsula.

    Hmmm… How many counties on Puget Sound? Twelve (12) counties are located in the Puget Sound region:
    • Clallam
    • King
    • Kitsap
    • Island
    • Jefferson
    • Mason
    • Pierce
    • San Juan
    • Skagit
    • Snohomish
    • Thurston
    • Whatcom
    REFRESH YOUR MEMORY on ..

    Behind My Back | WA State Maritime Heritage Area

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/07/01/wastatemaritimeheritagearea/

    Jul 1, 2015 – H.R. 2833 WA State Maritime Heritage Area Maps A MAP IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS Citizens be warned look at your county maps …

    Twelve (12) counties are located in the Puget Sound region:
    ————————————————————————

    Heritage Area Designations | Another Land Grab U.N. …

    securetherepublic.com/…/heritage-area-designations-another-land-grab-u…

    Aug 29, 2013 –Heritage Area Designations Another U.N. Agenda 21 Land GrabWorld Heritage Area Sites – are under United Nations Educational, …

    Heritage Area Sites – are under United Nations Educational, …

    ——————————————————————–
    DIGGING DEEPER DOCUMENTING MORE

    The sinister Department of Interior failed again, earlier this year, in another attempted LAND GRAB, but this time it was in Virginia under a proposed Heritage Area called Crooked Road National Heritage Area 19 COUNTIES IN SOUTHERN VIRGINIA WERE TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA. This sure sounds like the deception that went on with the National Blueway System all over again.

    If this Crooked Road National Heritage Area designation would have taken place, it would effectively put the proposed “National Heritage Area” under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service and Department of the Interior.
    WashCo Votes No to Crooked Road National Heritage Area

    It was a major win for property rights activists Tuesday, March 12th, when Washington County Supervisors voted 5-2 against the impending designation of 19 counties in South West VA Congressional District 9 as the USA’s 50thNational Heritage Area“, which would effectively put the District under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service and Department of the Interior.
    Following the lead of Wythe and Russell Counties, along with the Town of Rural Retreat, Washington County passed the Resolution of Non-Support. Smyth County supervisors voted to defund TCR last year.
    —————————————————————————-

    DIGGING DEEPER DOCUMENTING MORE
    There are currently 49 National Heritage Areas, some of which use variations of the title, such as NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDOR.

    HERITAGE CORRIDORS ARE EXTENSIONS OF RESERVES AND U.N. ADVOCATES CLAIM MILLIONS OF ACRES ARE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN LARGE CARNIVORES!

    ————————————————————————-
    President Ronald Reagan signing the Illinois & Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor Legislation on August 24, 1984 at the Conrad Hilton …

    ————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | Restoration of Ursus arctos horribilis?

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/…/restoration-of-ursusarctoshorribili

    Feb 14, 2015 – The RESTORATION OF URSUS ARCTOS HORRIBILIS, THE HORRIBLE BROWN BEAR, … www.behindmyback.org/2013/02/04/back-to-1492/.
    This reintroduction plan has been in the works for over 25 years

    ———————————–
    NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDORS ARE EXTENSIONS OF RESERVES AND U.N. ADVOCATES CLAIM MILLIONS OF ACRES ARE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN LARGE CARNIVORES!

    —————————————————

    Behind My Back | Back to 1492

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/02/04/back-to-1492/

    Feb 4, 2013 – “It is a bold attempt to grope our way back to October 1492 and find a different trail, a trail overgrown and nearly forgotten” – Words of Dave …

    ————————–
    Feb 4, 2013 – BACK TO 1492. A PLAN WHICH IS NOW IN PROCESS OF BECOMING FEDERAL POLICY ~ WAS HATCHED MANY YEARS AGO BY TWO RADICAL ECO-FREAKS – DAVE FOREMAN

    ——————————
    Quote attributed to Dave Foreman WE LIVE FOR THE DAY WHEN GRIZZLIES IN CHIHUAHUA HAVE AN UNBROKEN CONNECTION TO GRIZZLIES IN ALASKA, WHEN GREY WOLF POPULATIONS ARE CONTINUOUS FROM NEW MEXICO TO GREENLAND

    ————————-
    Quote attributed to Dave Foreman “WE MUST… RECLAIM THE ROADS AND THE PLOWED LAND, HALT DAM CONSTRUCTION, TEAR DOWN EXISTING DAMS, FREE SHACKLED RIVERS, AND RETURN TO WILDERNESS MILLIONS AND TENS OF MILLIONS OF [ACRES OF] PRESENTLY SETTLED LAND.” – Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in her book Trashing the Planet (1990)

    ——————————————
    Indeed in 2016 NATIONAL HERITAGE CORRIDORS ARE EXTENSIONS OF RESERVES AND U.N. ADVOCATES CLAIM MILLIONS OF ACRES ARE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN LARGE CARNIVORES!

    ——————————————————-

    RECEIVING MORE READING MORE DOCUMENTING MORE

    January 22, 2016

    Pie N Politics » Siskiyou County residents express worry …

    pienpolitics.com/?p=24781

    2 hours ago – Siskiyou County residents express worry over wolves ... from Siskiyou County who were concerned about the wolves‘ return to California.January 22, 2016

    by Liz Bowen
    Record Searchlight
    Local News
    January 22, 2016
    YREKA — Some 300 people showed up at a hearing in Yreka on Thursday night to comment on the state’s draft Gray Wolf Conservation Plan.
    Most of those who spoke represented ranching and hunting groups from Siskiyou County who were concerned about the wolves’ return to California.
    “I don’t want a wolf kill on my place,” said Ryan Walker, a Siskiyou County rancher, referring to wolves killing cattle. “I need to know where the wolves are.”
    The conservation plan attempts to manage the growing number of wolves that have showed up in the state during the past year.
    The state Department of Fish and Wildlife plan analyzes where wolves are likely to live in the state, what they will prey on, how they will affect livestock ranchers and humans. The state is also holding conservation plan meetings in Sacramento and Long Beach.
    This past summer, fish and wildlife biologists documented the state’s first pack in more than 80 years. DNA analysis of the wolves’s droppings indicate they came from the Imnaha pack in northeast Oregon.
    Many of the ranchers who spoke Thursday urged the state to put radio collars on the wolves so they can take steps to protect their cattle.
    Patrick Griffin, a wolf consultant for Siskiyou County, said after a calf was killed, ranchers wanted to know where the wolves were so they could prevent another death.
    “After the incident on the east side of the county, it would have been nice to know where the wolves have gone,” Griffin said.
    The DFW’s Eric Loft told the crowd that getting the wolves collared is a high priority. However, state officials need to locate the wolves before they can collar them.
    “We’ve lost track of the Shasta Pack. We don’t know where they are,” said Karen Kovacs, a program manager for the department.
    Fish and wildlife officials said wolves probably killed a calf in Siskiyou County in November. Kovacs urged those in the audience to notify the department when they see a wolf or any evidence of one.
    Mark Baird, a leader in the State of Jefferson movement, said he suspects the wolves are being trucked into the state, and he and others are looking for evidence.
    But Loft denied that and said he, too, would like to see evidence of anyone in the fish and wildlife department trucking in wolves.
    Siskiyou County Sheriff Jon Lopey said he was concerned about wolves harming people, as well as the economic impact wolves will have on ranchers.
    “I’m very, very concerned, and so are my fellow sheriffs, both inside and outside California,” Lopey said.
    Rich Klug, with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, said he was concerned about how wolves would affect elk herds. He said there are only about 7,000 elk in Northern California. If wolf packs grow too numerous, they could greatly reduce the numbers of elk, which are wolves’ primary source of food, he said.
    About a half-dozen people also spoke in favor of wolves. Karin Vardaman of the California Wolf Center said she was eager to work with ranchers and state officials to prevent cattle deaths.
    “We have no desire to see cattle die,” Vardaman said.
    “I’m very, very concerned, and so are my fellow sheriff’s, both inside and outside California,” Lopey said.
    Rich Klug, with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, said he was concerned about how wolves would affect elk herds. He said there are only about 7,000 elk in Northern California. If wolf packs grow too numerous, they could greatly reduce the numbers of elk, which are wolves’ primary source of food, he said.
    About a half-dozen people also spoke in favor of wolves. Karin Vardaman of the California Wolf Center said she was eager to work with ranchers and state officials to prevent cattle deaths.
    “We have no desire to see cattle die,” Vardaman said.
    http://www.redding.com/news/local/Siskiyou-County-residents-express-worry-over-wolves-366161771.html?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_content=&utm_campaign=TopHeadlines_Newsletter
    In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlLiz Bowen | January 22, 2016 at 6:04 pm | Categories: Dept. Fish & Game, Siskiyou County, State gov, Wolves | URL: http://wp.me/p13fnu-6rH


  • Page (1) She Said American’s Are Not Stupid

    Page (1) She Said American’s Are Not Stupid

    And, I resent the hell out of clever elected politician’s that think we are.

    Gruber said,  “It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” And, “They proposed it and passed OBAMACARE, because the American people are too stupid to understand the difference,”

    REALLY, Politicians are clever and American people are stupid

    The law was written behind closed doors  DEMOCRATS intentionally made the law confusing to mask the fact that the law instituted a new tax. Why’d the DEMOCRATS do this? Voters don’t like new taxes.

    DEMOCRATIC Policymakers crafting the law had to take POLITICS into account. And ALL POLITICIANS know that Voters don’t like new taxes.

    “It’s a very clever, you know, Elected politicians passed the Obama care Act  in the senate on December 24, 2009, and passed in the house on March 21, 2010. because the American people are too stupid to understand?  Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever?

    POLITICIANS ARE CLEVER? AND REALLY, AMERICAN VOTERS ARE TOO STUPID TO  VOTE THEM OUT IN 2016

    As a concerned American Citizen, WATCH, THE NEWS, Be informed.

    —————–
    WATCH THE NEWS RESEARCH AND DOCUMENT
    (1) C-SPAN CABLE-SATELLITE PUBLIC AFFAIRS NETWORK, IS AN AMERICAN CABLE AND SATELLITE TELEVISION NETWORK THAT WAS CREATED IN 1979 BY THE CABLE TELEVISION INDUSTRY AS A PUBLIC SERVICE.
    ————————————————————————————-
    SHE SAID, DON’T BOTHER TO WATCH
    WA STATE KBTC-TV PUBLIC TELEVISION. WHO KNEW THAT

    THE WA STATE KBTC TV PUBLIC TELEVISION IS “CERTAINLY NOT NEWS”?
    Starting in the spring of 2012, New Media Solutions (NMS) was contracted to re-format and produce the KBTC PROGRAM.

    KBTC New Media Solutions (NMS) Tom Layson HE SAID HE SPECIALIZES IN BRAND JOURNALISM. IT IS CERTAINLY NOT NEWS OR JOURNALISM, BUT IS RATHER A FLAVOR OF VIDEO PRODUCTION AND MARKETING THAT BORROWS FROM NEWS’ documentary and cinema verite styles.

    TO BRING VISUAL STORYTELLING TO THE PEOPLE, ORGANIZATIONS AND ENTITIES most importantly, more effectively harnesses authentic performances
    New Media Solutions (NMS) is here with to help KBTC NONPROFIT PUBLIC TELEVISION tell it, the BATES TECHNICAL COLLEGE WAY with video production designed to grow sales, solicit funding, win clients, explain and train, and elevate brands
    http://www.newmediasolutions.tv/about/

    The KBTC station originally signed on the air September 25, 1961 as KTPS-TV, owned by TACOMA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Its offices and broadcasting center are located on the campus of owner BATES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

    WA STATE KBTC-TV PUBLIC TELEVISION IS OWNED BY BATES TECHNICAL COLLEGE.

    Over half of KBTC’s funding comes from viewers who support local public television through generous donations.

    Pacific Legal Foundation, QUESTION EVERYTHING

    WHERE DOES THE REST OF KBTC’s funding COME FROM?
    —————————————————————
    (2) WATCH CBC Canada program “The National” for the global prospective
    ————————————————————-
    (3) WATCH FOX NEWS for the most urgent NEW problems
    ———————————————————
    (4) WATCH The Local News for local crime and violence
    ———————————————————–
    (5) WATCH THE WEATHER CHANNEL the Global weather phenomena, whether the weather is global warming? climate change? or just part of Natural Born Monsters. Apr 16, 2014 – The jet stream’s plunging pattern is a long-standing natural phenomenon?

    ———————–
    WATCH THE GROWING ….
    ‘Climate change industry’ now a $1.5 trillion global business …
    www.washingtontimes.com/…/climate-change-ind…
    The Washington Times
    Aug 11, 2015 – “The $1.5 trillion global ‘climate change industry’ grew at between 17 and …. 1.5 trillion dollar industry BUILT ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF AGENDA DRIVEN APPOINTED AGENCIES, GRANTS AND FUNDING TO NGO GLOBAL, NON-GOVERNMENT NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS.
    DON’T FORGET THE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS… GOVERNMENT UNIONS AND APPOINTED JUDGES.
    —————————————————————–
    WATCH THE GROWING NATIONAL DEBT OF THE DEAD ….
    BUILT ON GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF AGENDA DRIVEN APPOINTED AGENCIES, UNIONS, GRANTS AND FUNDING TO NGO GLOBAL, NON-GOVERNMENT NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS .
    DON’T FORGET THE PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS… GOVERNMENT UNIONS AND APPOINTED JUDGES. (redundant? hardly)

    ——————————————————————————-
    SHE SAID, LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WATCH WHAT’S GOING ON BEHIND OUR BACKS BEHIND CLOSED DOORS AND QUESTION EVERYTHING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT’S PARTISAN POLITICAL AGENDA, period….
    ———————————————————————————
    This is my 608th documented, investigative report posted on my website. Each published report requires several hours of research, to read thousands of words online, to become informed, to fully document the facts, from more than one reliable source, connect the dots, “She Said He Said” and track down the TRUTH AND POLITICS (today’s 6:45am to 2:00pm)
    —————————————————————————————
    LEARNING FROM HISTORY
    Below, is just ONE CLASSIC EXAMPLE of what you can document, when you watch, when you do in-depth research and question everything.
    Every time I watched KBTC-TV PUBLIC TELEVISION, I knew there was something really weird going on with their political liberally slanted agenda programming?
    INDEED, QUESTION EVERYTHING
    ——————————————————————————————
    IF YOU ARE A CONCERNED CITIZEN AND REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN?
    WATCH THE NEWS LISTED ABOVE NUMBERS (1) THRU (5).

    ———————

    IF YOU WANT PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT WATCH PUBLIC BROADCAST STATION (PBS)
    OR IF YOU WANT? YOU CAN WATCH THE ” BS” FROM NEW MEDIA SOLUTIONS (NMS) ON KBTC-TV PUBLIC TELEVISION.
    WATCH THE VISUAL STORYTELLING TO THE PEOPLE, WATCH THE AUTHENTIC PERFORMANCES AND, TASTE THE FLAVOR OF(NMS) VIDEO PRODUCTIONS CINEMA VERITE STYLES.
    VERITE STYLES a documentary technique developed by the Soviet filmmaker Dziga Vertov (1896-1954)

    One of Dziga Vertov films is famous for the range of cinematic techniques.

    VERTOV INVENTS, DEPLOYS OR DEVELOPS, such as double exposure, fast motion, slow motion, freeze frames, jump cuts, Dutch cuts, extreme close-ups tracking shots, footage played backwards, stop motion animation and self-reflexive visuals (at one point it features a split-screen tracking shot; the sides have opposite Dutch angles).

    ———————–
    she said “NOW THAT’S WHAT I CALL (NMS) 2015 ENTERTAINMENT”

    VIDEO PRODUCTIONS CINEMA VERITE STYLES.
    The Man with the Kinocamera, or Living Russia)[1] is an experimental 1929 silent documentary film, with no story and no actors,[2] by Soviet director Dziga Vertov, edited by his wife Elizaveta Svilova.
    Vertov’s feature film, produced by the film studio VUFKU, presents urban life in the Soviet cities of Kiev, Kharkov, Moscow and Odessa.[3] From dawn to dusk Soviet citizens are shown at work and at play, and interacting with the machinery of modern life.
    TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE SAID TO HAVE “CHARACTERS,” THEY ARE THE CAMERAMEN OF THE TITLE, THE FILM EDITOR, and the modern Soviet Union THEY DISCOVER AND PRESENT IN THE FILM.

    ————————–
    Page 1, She Said – He Said, is just another chapter in the Book of Revelations by Pearl Revere
    to be continued….


  • Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research?

    Indeed it was LEGALIZED  by an Act of Congress in 1993

    Federal law since 1993 “The National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act” of 1993 103rd Congress (1993-1994) has allowed fetal tissue research. In addition, fetal tissue can be sold at a price that allows an organization to recoup the costs associated with it.

    GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE

    IF THIS CONGRESS HADN’T PASSED THE LAW

    Sponsor: Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] (Introduced 01/21/1993)

    Committees: Senate – Labor and HUMAN RESOURCES
    With (17) Democratic and (4) Republican Cosponsors (named below)

    … PLANNED PARENTHOOD WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IT

    ———————————————————————–

    I research, read the legalese mumbo jumbo, connect the dots, document, copy, paste and disseminate the good, the bad and the truth…
    ———————————————————————————–
    THE FEDERAL STATUTE AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY ON TRANSPLANTATION RESEARCH USING FETAL TISSUE

    Legitimization of Fetal Tissue Transplantation Research …

    A 32 page document (the good the bad and the truth)

    https://dspace.creighton.edu/…/28_34CreightonLRev895(2000-2001).pd…
    by JL Gonzalez – ‎2001 – ‎Cited by 11 – ‎Related articles

    Jul 12, 1974 – A. The Federal Statute and Legislative History ….. 899. B. State … CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW … Transplantation research using fetal tissue has the po- … See James F. Childress, Ethics, Public Pol- ….. 103-43,. Title 1, §§ 111-12, pt. 2, 107 Stat. 129, 129-33 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 289g-1 to 2 (1994). 28.

    ———————————————————————–
    snippet…
    Through appropriate government regulations a woman’s decision to abort can be effectively separated from the subsequent process of consensual FETAL DONATION and TRANSPLANTATION. Consequently, acknowledging that the Supreme Court has adjudged the woman’s decision to abort to be constitutionally protected,

    the lingering ethical queries encircling FETAL TISSUE TRANSPLANTATION should not be whether abortion itself is morally acceptable, but rather,

    WHETHER SUCH RESEARCH IS JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE OF ITS OVERWHELMING CURATIVE POTENTIAL.

    THE ONLY REMAINING QUESTION WILL THEN BE NOT “WHETHER” FETAL TRANSPLANTATION RESEARCH SHOULD BE DONE AND REGULATED, BUT HOW.
    ———————————————————————————
    IN JUNE 2001, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH) adopted the definition of “CLINICAL RESEARCH” as: (1) Patient-oriented research. RESEARCH CONDUCTED WITH HUMAN SUBJECTS (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS AND COGNITIVE PHENOMENA) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects.

    ———————————————————————
    WHO REGULATED, CONGRESS LEGISLATED AND HOW……..
    S.1 – National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act of 1993 103rd Congress (1993-1994)
    Law
    —————————————————————————

    DOCUMENTATION OF VOTING RECORD

    Sponsor: Sen. Kennedy, Edward M. [D-MA] (Introduced 01/21/1993)

    Committees: Senate – Labor and Human Resources

    This bill  Became Law
    Cosponsor Date Cosponsored
    Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Wellstone, Paul D. [D-MN]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Lautenberg, Frank R. [D-NJ]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Pell, Claiborne [D-RI]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Simon, Paul [D-IL]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Wofford, Harris [D-PA]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Inouye, Daniel K. [D-HI]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Sarbanes, Paul S. [D-MD]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Moseley-Braun, Carol [D-IL]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Riegle, Donald W., Jr. [D-MI]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Durenberger, Dave [R-MN]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Metzenbaum, Howard M. [D-OH]* 01/21/1993
    Sen. Levin, Carl [D-MI] 01/26/1993
    Sen. Rockefeller, John D., IV [D-WV] 02/02/1993
    Sen. Harkin, Tom [D-IA] 02/02/1993
    Sen. Hatch, Orrin G. [R-UT] 02/02/1993
    Sen. Kassebaum, Nancy Landon [R-KS] 02/02/1993
    Sen. Kerry, John F. [D-MA] 05/20/1993
    —————————————————————————-
    CONGRESS PASSED THE LAW ALLOWING FETAL TISSUE RESEARCH
    ————————————————————————
    REMEMBERING THAT, In June 2001, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    adopted the definition of “CLINICAL RESEARCH” as:
    (1) Patient-oriented research. Research conducted with human subjects (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS AND COGNITIVE PHENOMENA) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects.

    AND, THE STATUTE DEFINES “CLINICAL RESEARCH” TO INCLUDE “CLINICAL TRIALS”
    —————————————————————
    NIH Policy and Guidelines on The Inclusion of Women and Minorities
    as Subjects in CLINICAL RESEARCH – Amended, October, 2001

    NOTE: Additional information concerning the NIH Policy on Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in CLINICAL RESEARCH is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/women_min.htm.

    ————————————————
    SUMMARY: This notice updates the NIH policy on the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in CLINICAL RESEARCH. It supercedes the 1994 Federal Register notice (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not94-100.html) and the August 2000 notice in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-048.html).

    It incorporates the definition of CLINICAL RESEARCH as reported in the 1997 Report of the NIH Director’s Panel on CLINICAL RESEARCH.

    Also, this notice provides additional guidance on REPORTING analyses of sex/gender and racial/ethnic differences in intervention effects for NIH-defined Phase III “CLINICAL TRIALS”. The guidelines ensure that all NIH-funded CLINICAL RESEARCH will be carried out in a manner sufficient to elicit information about individuals of both sexes/genders and diverse racial and ethnic groups and, particularly in NIH-defined Phase III “CLINICAL TRIALS” to examine differential effects on such groups. Since a primary aim of research is to provide scientific evidence leading to a change in health policy or standard of care, it is imperative to determine whether the intervention or therapy being studied affects women or men or members of minority groups and their subpopulations differently.

    —————————————————————————-
    In June 2001, NIH adopted the definition of CLINICAL RESEARCH as: (1) Patient-oriented research. Research conducted with human subjects (or on material of HUMAN ORGANS SUCH AS TISSUES specimens and cognitive phenomena) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects. Excluded from this definition are in vitro studies that utilize human tissues that cannot be linked to a living individual. Patient-oriented research includes: (a) mechanisms of human disease, (b) therapeutic interventions, (c) clinical trials, and (d) development of new technologies; (2) Epidemiologic and behavioral studies; and (3) Outcomes research and health services research http://www.nih.gov/news/crp/97report/execsum.htm.

    EFFECTIVE DATE: This amended policy is effective immediately and applies to all grants and cooperative agreements currently active and to be awarded. Contract solicitations issued as of October 2001 must adhere to the amended policy.

    —————————————————————–
    I. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

    —————————————————–

    REMEMBERING THAT, In June 2001, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    adopted the definition of “CLINICAL RESEARCH” as:
    (1) Patient-oriented research. Research conducted with human subjects (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS AND COGNITIVE PHENOMENA) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects.
    AND, THE STATUTE DEFINES “CLINICAL RESEARCH” TO INCLUDE “CLINICAL TRIALS”
    ———————————————————————————–
    THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH REVITALIZATION ACT OF 1993, PL 103-43, WAS SIGNED INTO LAW ON JUNE 10, 1993, directed the NIH to establish guidelines for inclusion of women and minorities in “CLINICAL RESEARCH”.
    The statute states that:
    In conducting or supporting CLINICAL RESEARCH. for the purposes of this title, the Director of NIH “SHALL”… ensure that (a) women are included as subjects in each project of such research; and (b) members of minority groups are included in such research. 492B(a)(1)
    The statute further directed the NIH to establish guidelines to specify:
    (a) the circumstances under which the inclusion of women and minorities as subjects in projects of CLINICAL RESEARCH. is inappropriate …;
    (b) the manner in which clinical trials are required to be designed and carried out; and
    (c) the operation of outreach programs, 492B(d)(1)
    THE STATUTE DEFINES “CLINICAL RESEARCH” TO INCLUDE “CLINICAL TRIALS” AND STATES THAT:
    In the case of any “CLINICAL TRIALS” in which women or members of minority groups will be included as subjects, the Director of NIH “SHALL”. ensure that the trial is designed and carried out in a manner sufficient to provide for valid analysis of whether the variables being studied in the trial affect women or members of minority groups, as the case may be, differently than other subjects in the trial. 492B(c)
    Specifically addressing the issue of minority groups, the statute states that:
    The term “minority group” includes subpopulations of minority groups. The Director of NIH“SHALL”. through the guidelines established…define the terms “minority group” and “subpopulation” for the purposes of the preceding sentence. 492B(g)(2)
    The statute speaks specifically to outreach and states that:
    The Director of NIH, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Research on Women’s Health and the Director of the Office of Research on Minority Health,
    “SHALL”. conduct or support outreach programs for the recruitment of women and members of minority groups as subjects in the projects of CLINICAL RESEARCH. 492B(a)(2)
    The statute includes a specific provision pertaining to the COST of CLINICAL RESEARCH and, in particular “CLINICAL TRIALS”.
    (A)(i) In the case of a clinical trial, the guidelines shall provide that the costs of such inclusion in the trial is (sic) not a permissible consideration in determining whether such inclusion is inappropriate. 492B(d)(2)
    (ii) In the case of other projects of CLINICAL RESEARCH, the guidelines shall provide that the costs of such inclusion in the project is (sic) not a permissible consideration in determining whether such inclusion is inappropriate unless the data regarding women or members of minority groups, respectively, that would be obtained in such project (in the event that such inclusion were required) have been or are being obtained through other means that provide data of comparable quality. 492B(d)(2)
    Exceptions to the requirement for inclusion of women and minorities are stated in the statute, as follows:
    The requirements established regarding women and members of minority groups shall not apply to the project of CLINICAL RESEARCH if the inclusion, as subjects in the project, of women and members of minority groups, respectively-
    (1) is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects;
    (2) is inappropriate with respect to the purpose of the research; or
    (3) is inappropriate under such other circumstances as the Director of NIH may designate. 492B(b)
    (B) In the case of a CLINICAL TRIAL, the guidelines may provide that such inclusion in the trial is not required if there is substantial scientific data demonstrating that there is no significant difference between-
    (i) the effects that the variables to be studied in the trial have on women or members of minority groups, respectively; and
    (ii) the effects that the variables have on the individuals who would serve as subjects in the trial in the event that such inclusion were not required. 492B(d)(2)
    II. POLICY
    A. Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in CLINICAL RESEARCH
    IT IS THE POLICY OF NIH THAT WOMEN AND MEMBERS OF MINORITY GROUPS AND THEIR SUBPOPULATIONS “MUST” BE INCLUDED IN ALL NIH-FUNDED “CLINICAL RESEARCH”,
    unless a clear and compelling rationale and justification establishes to the satisfaction of the relevant Institute/Center Director that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. Exclusion under other circumstances may be made by the Director, NIH, upon the recommendation of an Institute/Center Director based on a compelling rationale and justification. COST IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE REASON FOR EXCLUSION except when the study would duplicate data from other sources. Women of childbearing potential should not be routinely excluded from participation in CLINICAL RESEARCH. This policy applies to research subjects of all ages in all NIH-supported CLINICAL RESEARCH studies.
    The inclusion of women and members of minority groups and their subpopulations must be addressed in developing a research design or contract proposal appropriate to the scientific objectives of the study/contract. The research plan/proposal should describe the composition of the proposed study population in terms of sex/gender and racial/ethnic group, and provide a rationale for selection of such subjects. Such a plan/proposal should contain a description of the proposed outreach programs for recruiting women and minorities as participants.
    B. NIH-defined Phase III Clinical Trials: Planning, Conducting, and Reporting of Analyses for Sex/Gender and Race/Ethnicity Differences.
    When an NIH-defined Phase III clinical trial is proposed, evidence must be reviewed to show whether or not clinically important sex/gender and race/ethnicity differences in the intervention effect are to be expected. This evidence may include, but is not limited to, data derived from prior animal studies, clinical observations, metabolic studies, genetic studies, pharmacology studies, and observational, natural history, epidemiology and other relevant studies.
    Investigators must consider the following when planning, conducting, analyzing, and reporting an NIH-Defined Phase III clinical trial. Based on prior studies, one of the three situations below will apply:
    1. Prior Studies Support the Existence of Significant Differences
    If the data from prior studies strongly support the existence of significant differences of clinical or public health importance in intervention effect based on sex/gender, racial/ethnic, and relevant subpopulation comparisons, the primary question(s) to be addressed by the proposed NIH-defined Phase III clinical trial and the design of that trial must specifically accommodate this. For example, if men and women are thought to respond differently to an intervention, then the Phase III clinical trial must be designed to answer two separate primary questions, one for men and the other for women, with adequate sample size for each.
    The Research Plan (for grant applications) or Proposal (for contract solicitations) must include a description of plans to conduct analyses to detect significant differences in intervention effect (see DEFINITIONS – Significant Difference) by sex/gender, racial/ethnic groups, and relevant subpopulations, if applicable. The final protocol(s) approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) must include these plans for analysis. The award will require that for each funded protocol, investigators must report in their annual Progress Report cumulative subject accrual and progress in conducting analyses for sex/gender and race/ethnicity differences. If final analyses of sex/gender and race/ethnicity are not available at the time of the Final Progress Report or Competing Continuation for the grant, a justification and plan ensuring completion and reporting of the analyses are required. If final analyses are required as part of the contract, these analyses must be included as part of the deliverables. These requirements will be cited in the terms and conditions of all awards for grants, cooperative agreements and contracts supporting NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials.
    Inclusion of the results of sex/gender, race/ethnicity and relevant subpopulations analyses is strongly encouraged in all publication submissions. If these analyses reveal no differences, a brief statement to that effect, indicating the groups and/or subgroups analyzed, will suffice.
    2. Prior Studies Support No Significant Differences
    If the data from prior studies strongly support no significant differences of clinical or public health importance in intervention effect based on sex/gender, racial/ethnic and/or relevant subpopulation comparisons, then sex/gender and race/ethnicity will not be required as subject selection criteria. However, the inclusion and analysis of sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic subgroups is still strongly encouraged.
    3. Prior Studies Neither Support nor Negate Significant Differences
    If the data from prior studies neither strongly support nor strongly negate the existence of significant differences of clinical or public health importance in intervention effect based on sex/gender, racial/ethnic, and relevant subpopulation comparisons, then the NIH-defined Phase III clinical trial will be required to include sufficient and appropriate entry of sex/gender and racial/ethnic participants, so that valid analysis of the intervention effects can be performed. However, the trial will not be required to provide high statistical power for these comparisons.
    The Research Plan (for grant applications) or Proposal (for contract solicitations) must include a description of plans to conduct valid analysis (see DEFINITIONS – Valid Analysis) by sex/gender, racial/ethnic groups, and relevant subpopulations, if applicable. The final protocol(s) approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) must include these plans for analysis. The award will require that for each funded protocol, investigators must report in their annual Progress Report cumulative subject accrual and progress in conducting analyses for sex/gender and race/ethnicity differences. If final analyses of sex/gender and race/ethnicity are not available at the time of the Final Progress Report or Competing Continuation for the grant, a justification and plan ensuring completion and reporting of the analyses are required. If final analyses are required as part of the contract, these analyses must be included as part of the deliverables. These requirements will be cited in the terms and conditions of all awards for grants, cooperative agreements and contracts supporting NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials.
    Inclusion of the results of sex/gender, race/ethnicity and relevant subpopulations analyses is strongly encouraged in all publication submissions. If these analyses reveal no differences, a brief statement to that effect, indicating the groups and/or subgroups analyzed, will suffice.
    For all three situations, cost is not an acceptable reason for exclusion of women and minorities from clinical trials.
    III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
    While this policy applies to all applicants/offerors for NIH-SUPPORTED CLINICAL RESEARCH, certain individuals and groups have special roles and responsibilities with regard to its implementation.
    1. NIH Staff
    The NIH staff provide educational opportunities for the extramural and intramural communities concerning this policy; monitor its implementation during the development, review, award and conduct of research; and manage the NIH research portfolio to comply with the policy.
    2. Principal Investigators
    Principal investigators should assess the theoretical and/or scientific linkages between sex/gender, race/ethnicity, and their topic of study. Following this assessment, the principal investigator and the applicant/offer or institution will address the policy in each application and proposal, providing the required information on inclusion of women and minorities and their subpopulations in clinical research projects, and any required justifications for exceptions to the policy.
    For foreign awards and domestic awards with a foreign component, the NIH policy on inclusion of women and minority groups in research is the same as that for research conducted in the U.S. If there is scientific rationale for examining subpopulation group differences within the foreign population, investigators should consider designing their studies to accommodate these differences.
    Investigators and their staff(s) are urged to develop appropriate and culturally sensitive outreach programs and activities commensurate with the goals of the study or objectives of the contract. The objective should be to actively recruit and retain the most diverse study population consistent with the purposes of the research project. Indeed, the purpose should be to establish a relationship between the investigator(s) and staff(s) and populations and community(ies) of interest such that mutual benefit is derived for participants in the study.
    Investigator(s) should take precautionary measures to ensure that ethical issues are considered, such that there is minimal possibility of coercion or undue influence in the INCENTIVES OR REWARDS offered in recruiting into or retaining participants in studies.
    To assist investigators and potential study participants, NIH staff have prepared educational materials, including a notebook titled the, “NIH Outreach Notebook On the Inclusion of Women and Minorities in Biomedical and Behavioral Research.” The notebook as well as the Frequently Asked Questions document, are located at the following URL: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/women_min.htm
    3. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)
    It is the responsibility of the IRBs to address the ethical issues as outlined in Section IV(2) for Principal Investigators. As the IRBs implement the regulation for the protection of human subjects as described in Title 45 CFR Part 46, “PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS”, http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html they must also attend to the guidelines for the inclusion of women and minorities and their subpopulations in CLINICAL RESEARCH. They should take into account the Food and Drug Administration’s “Guidelines for the Study and Evaluation of Gender Differences in the Clinical Evaluation of Drugs,” Vol. 58 Federal Register 39406 http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/old036fn.pdf.
    —————————————————————————
    REMEMBERING THAT, In June 2001, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    adopted the definition of “CLINICAL RESEARCH” as:
    (1) Patient-oriented research. Research conducted with human subjects (OR ON MATERIAL OF HUMAN ORIGIN SUCH AS TISSUES (FETAL TISSUE), SPECIMENS AND COGNITIVE PHENOMENA) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects.
    AND, THE STATUTE DEFINES “CLINICAL RESEARCH” TO INCLUDE “CLINICAL TRIALS”
    ————————————————————————–
    4. Peer Review Groups
    In conducting peer review for scientific and technical merit, appropriately constituted initial review groups (including study sections), technical evaluation groups, and intramural review panels are instructed, as follows:
    • to evaluate the proposed plan for the inclusion of minorities and both genders for appropriate representation or to evaluate the proposed justification when representation is limited or absent,
    • to evaluate the proposed exclusion of minorities and women on the basis that a requirement for inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects,
    • to evaluate the proposed exclusion of minorities and women on the basis that a requirement for inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the purpose of the research,
    • to determine whether the design of “CLINICAL TRIALS” is adequate to measure differences when warranted,
    • to evaluate the plans for valid analysis for NIH-defined Phase III “CLINICAL TRIALS”,
    • to evaluate the plans for recruitment/outreach for study participants, and
    • to include these criteria as part of the scientific assessment and evaluation.
    THE REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS FOR GRANTS ARE AVAILABLE ON LINE AT THE FOLLOWING URL: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/hs_review_inst.pdf
    For contracts, the contracting officer will provide instructions for contract reviewers. Further information on instructions for contracts may be obtained at the following URL: http://oa.od.nih.gov/oamp/index.html.
    Or contact:
    National Institutes of Health
    Division of Acquisition Policy and Evaluation
    Office of Acquisition Management and Policy
    6100 Executive Boulevard, Room 6C01
    Phone: 301-496-6014
    Fax: 301- 402-1199
    5. NIH Advisory Councils
    In addition to other responsibilities for review of projects where the peer review groups have raised questions about the appropriate inclusion of women and minorities, the Advisory Council/Board of each Institute/Center shall prepare biennial reports, for inclusion in the overall NIH Director’s biennial report, describing the manner in which the Institute/Center has complied with the provisions of the statute.
    6. Institute/Center Directors
    Institute/Center Directors and their staff shall ensure compliance with the policy.
    7. NIH Director
    The NIH Director may approve, on a case-by-case basis, the exclusion of projects, as recommended by the Institute/Center Director, that may be inappropriate to include within the requirements of these guidelines on the basis of circumstances other than the health of the subjects, the purpose of the research, or costs.
    IV. DEFINITIONS
    Throughout the section of the statute pertaining to the inclusion of women and minorities, terms are used which require definition for the purpose of implementing these guidelines. These terms, drawn directly from the statute, are defined below.
    A. Clinical Research
    Clinical research is defined as:
    (1) Patient-oriented research. Research conducted with human subjects (or on material of human origin such as tissues, specimens and cognitive phenomena) for which an investigator (or colleague) directly interacts with human subjects. Excluded from this definition are in vitro studies that utilize human tissues that cannot be linked to a living individual. Patient-oriented research includes: (a) mechanisms of human disease, (b) therapeutic interventions, (c) clinical trials, and (d) development of new technologies, (2) Epidemiologic and behavioral studies, (3) Outcomes research and health services research. http://www.nih.gov/news/crp/97report/execsum.htm
    B. NIH-defined Clinical Trial
    For the purpose of these guidelines, an NIH-defined “clinical trial” is a broadly based prospective Phase III clinical investigation, usually involving several hundred or more human subjects, for the purpose of evaluating an experimental intervention in comparison with a standard or control intervention or comparing two or more existing treatments. Often the aim of such investigation is to provide evidence leading to a scientific basis for consideration of a change in health policy or standard of care. The definition includes pharmacologic, non-pharmacologic, and behavioral interventions given for disease prevention, prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy. Community trials and other population-based intervention trials are also included.
    C. Valid Analysis
    The term “valid analysis” means an unbiased assessment. Such an assessment will, on average, yield the correct estimate of the difference in outcomes between two groups of subjects. Valid analysis can and should be conducted for both small and large studies. A valid analysis does not need to have a high statistical power for detecting a stated effect. The principal requirements for ensuring a valid analysis of the question of interest are:
    • allocation of study participants of both sexes/genders (males and females) and different racial/ethnic groups to the intervention and control groups by an unbiased process such as randomization,
    • unbiased evaluation of the outcome(s) of study participants, and
    • use of unbiased statistical analyses and proper methods of inference to estimate and compare the intervention effects among the sex/gender and racial/ethnic groups.
    D. Significant Difference
    For purposes of this policy, a “significant difference” is a difference that is of clinical or public health importance, based on substantial scientific data. This definition differs from the commonly used “statistically significant difference,” which refers to the event that, for a given set of data, the statistical test for a difference between the effects in two groups achieves statistical significance. Statistical significance depends upon the amount of information in the data set. With a very large amount of information, one could find a statistically significant, but clinically small difference that is of very little clinical importance. Conversely, with less information one could find a large difference of potential importance that is not statistically significant.
    E. Racial and Ethnic Categories
    1. Minority Groups
    A minority group is a readily identifiable subset of the U.S. population that is distinguished by racial, ethnic, and/or cultural heritage.
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Directive No. 15 http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ombdir15.html defines minimum standards for maintaining, collecting and presenting data on race and ethnicity for all Federal reporting. NIH is required to use these definitions to allow comparisons to other federal databases, especially the census and national health databases. The categories in this classification are social-political constructs and should not be interpreted as anthropological in nature.
    When an investigator is planning data collection on race and ethnicity, these categories shall be used. The collection of greater detail is encouraged. However, more detailed items should be designed in a way that they can be aggregated into these required categories. Using respondent self-report or self-identification to collect an individual’s data on ethnicity and race, investigators should use two separate questions with ethnicity information collected first followed by the option to select more than one racial designation. Respondents shall be offered the opportunity to select more than one racial designation. When data are collected separately, provision shall be made to report the number of respondents in each racial category who are Hispanic or Latino.
    The following definitions apply for ethnic categories.
    Hispanic or Latino – a person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of race. The term “Spanish origin” can also be used in addition to “Hispanic or Latino.”
    Not Hispanic or Latino
    The following definitions apply for racial categories.
    American Indian or Alaska Native – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North, Central, or South America, and who maintains tribal affiliations or community attachment.
    Asian – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. (Note: Individuals from the Philippine Islands have been recorded as Pacific Islanders in previous data collection strategies.)
    Black or African American – a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa. Terms such as “Haitian” or “Negro” can be used in addition to “Black or African American.”
    Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands.
    2. Majority Group
    White – a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.
    NIH recognizes the diversity of the U.S. population and that changing demographics are reflected in the changing racial and ethnic composition of the population. The terms “minority groups” and “minority subpopulations” are meant to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, of differing racial and ethnic categories.
    3. Subpopulations
    Each racial and ethnic group contains subpopulations that are delimited by geographic origins, national origins and/or cultural differences. It is recognized that there are different ways of defining and reporting racial and ethnic subpopulation data. The subpopulation to which an individual is assigned depends on self-reporting of specific origins and/or cultural heritage. Attention to subpopulations also applies to individuals who self identify with more than one race or ethnicity. Researchers should be cognizant of the possibility that these racial/ethnic combinations may have biomedical, behavioral, and/or social-cultural implications related to the scientific question under study.
    F. Outreach Strategies
    These are outreach efforts by investigators and their staff(s) to appropriately recruit and retain populations of interest into research studies. Such efforts should represent a thoughtful and culturally sensitive plan of outreach and generally include involvement of other individuals and organizations relevant to the populations and communities of interest, e.g., family, religious organizations, community leaders and informal gatekeepers, and public and private institutions and organizations. The objective is to establish appropriate lines of communication and cooperation to build mutual trust and cooperation such that both the study and the participants benefit from such collaboration.
    —————————————————————————-
    WHETHER SUCH RESEARCH IS JUSTIFIABLE BECAUSE OF ITS OVERWHELMING CURATIVE POTENTIAL.
    ——————————————————————————————–
    V. NIH CONTACTS FOR MORE INFORMATION
    The following senior extramural staff from the NIH Institutes and Centers may be contacted for further information about the policy and relevant Institute/Center programs:

    ——————————————-
    Dr. Paulette Gray
    National Cancer Institute
    6116 Executive Boulevard, Suite 8001
    Bethesda, MD 20892-8327
    Telephone: (301) 496-5147
    Email: grayp@dea.nci.nih.gov

    —————————————-
    Dr. Lore Anne McNicol
    National Eye Institute
    Executive Plaza South
    6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 350
    Rockville, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 496-5301
    Email: loreanne.mcnicol@nei.nih.gov

    ——————————————–
    Ms. Sharry Palagi
    National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute
    Building 31
    31 Center Drive, Room 5A-07
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 402-3424
    Email: palagis@nih.gov

    ——————————————–
    Dr. Miriam Kelty
    National Institute on Aging
    Gateway Building
    7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Room 2C218
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 496-9322
    Email: keltyM@nia.nih.gov

    ————————————————-
    Dr. Eleanor Hanna
    National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
    Willco Building
    6000 Executive Boulevard, Suite 514
    Rockville, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-6231
    Email: ehanna1@mail.nih.gov

    ————————————————-
    Dr. John McGowan
    National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
    6700 B Rockledge
    6700 Rockledge Drive
    Bethesda, MD 20817
    Telephone: (301) 496-7291
    Email: jm80c@nih.gov

    ———————————————-
    Dr. Julia Freeman
    National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
    Natcher Building
    Building 45, Room 5AS19F
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-4543
    Email: freemanj@ep.niams.nih.gov

    ——————————————————–
    Dr. Susan Streufert
    National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
    6100 Executive Boulevard
    Building 61EB, Room 4A05
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 435-6856
    Email: streufes@mail.nih.gov

    ————————————————
    Dr. Julie Gulya
    National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
    Executive Plaza South
    6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 400D-7
    Rockville, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 435-4085
    Email: gulyaj@ms.nidcd.nih.gov

    ———————————————-
    Dr. Norman S. Braveman
    National Institute on Dental and Craniofacial Research
    Natcher Building
    Building 45, Room 4AN24C
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-2089
    Email: BravemanN@de45.nidr.nih.gov

    —————————————————
    Dr. Robert Hammond
    National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
    2 Democracy Boulevard, Room 715
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-8834
    Email: hammondr@extra.niddk.nih.gov

    —————————————
    Dr. Teresa Levitin
    National Institute on Drug Abuse
    Neuroscience Building
    6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 3158
    Bethesda, MD 20852
    Telephone: (301) 443-2755
    Email: tlevitin@nida.nih.gov

    ———————————————————
    Dr. Anne P. Sassaman
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
    P.O. Box 12233, MD EC-30
    Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
    Telephone: (919) 541-7723
    Email: sassaman@niehs.nih.gov

    ——————————————–
    Dr. Alison Cole
    National Institute of General Medical Sciences
    Natcher Building
    Building 45, Room 2AS49K
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-1826
    Email colea@nigms.nih.gov

    ————————————————
    Dr. Richard Nakamura
    National Institute of Mental Health
    Neuroscience Building
    6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 8235
    Bethesda, MD 20852
    Telephone: (301) 443-3675
    Email: rnakamur@mail.nih.gov

    —————————————
    Ms. Lynn Morin
    National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
    Neuroscience Building
    6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 2152
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 496-3102
    Email: morinl1@ninds.nih.gov

    —————————————————–
    Dr. Mark Guyer
    National Human Genome Research Institute
    Building 31
    31 Center Drive, Room B2B07
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 496-7531
    Email: guyerm@exchange.nih.gov

    ——————————————-
    Dr. Carole Hudgings
    National Institute of Nursing Research
    Natcher Building
    45 Center Drive, Room 3AN-12
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-5976
    Email: carole_hudgings@nih.gov

    —————————————————
    Dr. Christine Goertz
    National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
    Building 31
    31 Center Drive, Room 5B-58
    Telephone: (301) 402-1030
    Email: GoertzC@od.nih.gov

    ———————————————-
    Dr. Geoffrey Cheung
    National Center for Research Resources
    Rockledge Centre I
    6705 Rockledge Dr, Rm 6118
    Bethesda, MD 20817
    Telephone: (301) 435-0768
    Email: cheungg@ncrr.ncrr.nih.gov

    ——————————————
    Dr. Kenneth Bridbord
    Fogarty International Center
    Building 31
    31 Center Drive, Room B2C39
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 496-2516
    Email: bridbordk@ficod.fic.nih.gov

    —————————————————
    Dr. Joan T. Harmon
    National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
    Room 697
    6707 Democracy Boulevard
    Bethesda, MD 20892
    Telephone: (301) 594-8813
    Email: joan_harmon@nih.gov

    ———————————-
    Dr. Eric Bailey
    National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities
    2 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800
    Bethesda, MD 20817
    Telephone: (301) 402-1366
    Email: baileye@od.nih.gov

    ——————————————————————
    It is important to distinguish fetal research activities performed on the living
    fetus in-utero, which is medically and legally defined as potentially therapeutic,
    from the use of tissue from dead fetuses in research.


  • Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S

    Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S
    This is an area of statewide concern. Ecology is “BEGINNING” rulemaking “TO AMEND SEVERAL” of the rules related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA)

    ———————————————-
    Please send this out to notify

    ALL WA STATE VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ————————————————–
    ECOLOGY STATES
    We have already reached out to INTERESTED parties such as the
    WA Department of Commerce (for Growth Management Act consistency), Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) and Association of Washington Cities (AWC).

    ——————————————————–

    ECOLOGY STATES
    We will communicate with STAKEHOLDERS through the agency email lists (WAC Track and program lists), a rulemaking web page, e-mail, and regular mail.

    We intend to get feedback and early input from A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SOUNDING BOARD.

    WE WILL CONSULT WITH INTERESTED TRIBES.

    ECOLOGY STATES

    WE WILL RELEASE A PRELIMINARY DRAFT RULE FOR INFORMAL COMMENT SO WE CAN GET MORE INPUT …..”BEFORE WE PROPOSE A FORMAL DRAFT RULE (CR-102) FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.”

    We will hold “PUBLIC HEARINGS” on the draft rule (CR-102) that are accessible to interested parties throughout the state.
    —————————————————————-
    IS COUNTY GOVERNMENT INTERESTED?
    ARE VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS INTERESTED?

    —————————————————————-

    HOW INTERESTED PARTIES CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION TO ADOPT THE NEW RULE AND FORMULATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE BEFORE PUBLICATION:

    (List names, addresses, telephone, fax numbers, and e-mail of persons to contact; describe meetings, other exchanges of information, etc.)
    Rule Coordinator:
    Michelle Wilcox, SEA Program,
    WA State Department of Ecology,
    PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600.
    Phone: 360-407-7676.
    E-mail:smarulemaking@ecy.wa.gov.

    —————————————————————–
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Dumar, Laurie (ECY)
    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV
    Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 4:56 PM
    Subject: Ecology rulemaking filing: Shoreline Management Act

    Ecology filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    September 2, 2015
    Rule preproposal

    • Permits for oil or natural gas exploration activities conducted from state marine waters (WAC 173-15)
    • Shoreline management act – streams and rivers constituting shorelines of the state (WAC 173-18)
    • Shoreline management act – lakes constituting shorelines of the state (WAC 173-20)
    • Adoption of designations of shorelands and wetlands associated with shorelines of the state (WAC 173-22)
    • State master program approval\amendment procedures and master program guidelines (WAC 173-26)
    • Shoreline management permit and enforcement procedures (WAC 173-27)
    Thank you for using WAC Track!

    ________________________________________
    Visit us on the web or social media.
    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

    ————————————————–
    This is attachment A

    RULEMAKING IS NECESSARY TO:

    1.CLARIFY THE PROCESS TO COMPLY WITH THE PERIODIC REVIEW REQUIREMENT PER RCW 90.58.080 as the first round of Shoreline Master Program
    (SMP) REVIEWS WILL BE DUE TO ECOLOGY JUNE 2019;

    2. Simplify the process for approving minor updates to SMPs;

    3. Update the list of shorelines of the state to be consistent with the SMP updates;

    4. Ensure consistency with amendments to statute since the last rule revision;

    5. Capture any administrative updates since the last rule revision;

    6. Consider clarifying the planning process for water-dependent uses INCLUDING SALMON NET PENS; AND,

    7. Consider including a new section on planning for coastal hazards.
    ——————————————————————————————
    THIS IS A REALLY BIG LAND GRABBER…..
    DESIGNATING THE ASSOCIATED SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS

    • Adoption of designations of shorelands and wetlands associated with shorelines of the state (WAC 173-22)

    ——————————————————————————————
    Ecology’s full text
    Ecology rulemaking filing: Shoreline Management Act
    Chapters 173-15, 173-18, 173-20, 173-22, 173-26, 173-27 WAC
    Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Rules
    PREPROPOSAL STATEMENT OF INQUIRY
    CR-101 (June 2004)(Implements RCW 34.05.310)
    Do NOT use for expedited rule making
    Agency: Department of Ecology AO #15-06
    Subject of possible rule making:
    Ecology is beginning rulemaking to amend several of the rules related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58,
    SPECIFICALLY:
    • Chapter 173-15 WAC -Permits for Oil or Natural Gas Exploration Activities Conducted from State Marine Waters
    • Chapter 173-18 WAC -SMA–Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC -SMA–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • CHAPTER 173-22 WAC -ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC -State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC -Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

    Statutes authorizing the agency to adopt rules on this subject :RCW 90.58.060 REQUIRES ECOLOGY TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW AND UPDATE WAC 173-26.

    The last rule update was in 2011 and focused mostly on GEODUCK AQUACULTURE.

    OTHER CHAPTERS ARE BEING INCLUDED IN THE UPDATE TO IMPROVE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE RULES.

    Reasons why rules on this subject may be needed and what they might accomplish:
    This is Attachment A……

    Reasons why rules on this subject may be needed and what they might accomplish:
    RULEMAKING IS NECESSARY TO:

    1.CLARIFY THE PROCESS TO COMPLY WITH THE PERIODIC REVIEW REQUIREMENT PER RCW 90.58.080 as the first round of Shoreline Master Program

    (SMP) REVIEWS WILL BE DUE TO ECOLOGY JUNE 2019;

    2. Simplify the process for approving minor updates to SMPs;

    3. Update the list of shorelines of the state to be consistent with the SMP updates;

    4. Ensure consistency with amendments to statute since the last rule revision;

    5. Capture any administrative updates since the last rule revision;

    6. Consider clarifying the planning process for water-dependent uses INCLUDING SALMON NET PENS; AND,

    7. Consider including a new section on planning for coastal hazards.

    Reasons why rules on this subject may be needed and what they might accomplish (continued)
    Identify OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES THAT REGULATE THIS SUBJECT AND THE PROCESS COORDINATING THE RULE WITH THESE AGENCIES:

    Local governments must follow the SMP Guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC) when drafting their local shoreline master programs.

    The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020) INTO STANDARDS FOR REGULATION of shoreline uses.

    We have already reached out to interested parties such as the
    WA Department of Commerce (for Growth Management Act consistency), Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) and Association of Washington Cities (AWC).

    Process for developing new rule (check all that apply):
    Negotiated rule making n/a
    Pilot rule making n/a
    Agency study n/a
    OTHER (DESCRIBE)
    We will use standard rulemaking.

    We will communicate with stakeholders through the agency email lists (WAC Track and program lists), a rulemaking web page, e-mail, and regular mail.

    We intend to get feedback and early input from A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SOUNDING BOARD.

    WE WILL CONSULT WITH INTERESTED TRIBES.

    WE WILL RELEASE A PRELIMINARY DRAFT RULE FOR INFORMAL COMMENT SO WE CAN GET MORE INPUT …..”BEFORE WE PROPOSE A FORMAL DRAFT RULE (CR-102) FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.”

    We will hold “PUBLIC HEARINGS” on the draft rule (CR-102) that are accessible to interested parties throughout the state.

    HOW INTERESTED PARTIES CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION TO ADOPT THE NEW RULE AND FORMULATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE BEFORE PUBLICATION:
    (List names, addresses, telephone, fax numbers, and e-mail of persons to contact; describe meetings, other exchanges of information, etc.)

    Rule Coordinator:
    Michelle Wilcox, SEA Program,
    WA State Department of Ecology,
    PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600.

    Phone: 360-407-7676.
    E-mail:smarulemaking@ecy.wa.gov.

    VISIT THE SEA PROGRAM RULE
    web page at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/rules/rulemaking-index.html

    Join the Listserv at http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-SHORELINE-RULE
    Learn more about Shoreline Master Programs at:
    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/index.html

    DATE 09/01/15 CODE REVISER USE ONLY
    NAME (TYPE OR PRINT)
    Gordon White
    SIGNATURE
    TITLE Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Manager


  • Federal Fire Fighting Nonsensical Restrictions?

    Federal Fire Fighting Nonsensical Restrictions?

    Common sense would dictate that US forest fires should be put out, where ever they are, as quickly as possible by any and all available means.

    As Congress would have it, fighting wild fires on the federal government owned, roughly 635-640 million acres, 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States, is controlled by the United States Forest Service.
    ——————————————————
    snippet ( full text below)
    This is the second year that Montana has been barred from DEPLOYING STATE HELICOPTERS TO PUT OUT FIRES ON PUBLIC LANDS CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE. “This makes no sense, and puts the safety and property of Montanans at risk,” Governor Bullock said.

    ———————
    CBS contacted the U.S. Forest Service Region headquarters in Missoula and said, “they responded with a statement, but said they’re not taking questions on the issue at this time. Public Affairs Staffer Elizabeth Sloan declined to comment on the accuracy of Governor Bullock’s letter, but, as part of a prepared statement, said:
    “THE FOREST SERVICE AND THE STATE OF MONTANA HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS TO WHICH EACH MUST ADHERE.”
    ————————————————————————-
    DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS? (forget common sense)
    As Congress would have it, The Wilderness Act of 1964, banned the use of motorized vehicles, bulldozers, chainsaws, etc. for firefighting on, wild, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and CULTURAL resource land, etc.

    —————————————-
    Unfortunately, As Congress would have it, the United States Forest Service is limited by and barred from putting out fires, or allowing states to put out fires on federally controlled lands because of the incessant federal bureaucracy DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS that cripples America.

    ——————————————–
    There is a HUGE difference between WILDLAND forest fire fighting, where WILDLAND is by definition, land that has not been cultivated, especially land set aside and PROTECTED AS A WILDERNESS.

    ———————————–
    The DOI, National Parks, POLICY on WILDLANDS and wildfires “Let it Burn?”
    ————————————————————————-

    I think we need to read and take heed. Please feel free to send this far and wide. If this is happening in Montana, it would be totally stupid to think  it isn’t happening in Washington, Idaho and California.
    ——————————————————————–

    From: Jennifer Fielder [mailto:sen.jfielder@legmt.gov]
    Sent: Saturday, August 29, 2015 11:43 AM
    To: undisclosed-recipients:
    Subject: Update From Sen Fielder – Feds won’t let state put wildfires out
    MONTANA
    Feds won’t let state put wildfires out
    Here is my article, the way I submitted it:
    By Sen Jennifer Fielder, R – Thompson Falls Aug 24, 2015 (note to readers below)
    What’s wrong with this picture? The federal government admits they don’t have the resources to fight the fires. But when Montana mobilized our state firefighting aircraft, the feds told Montana firefighters to stand down.

    ————————————————
    It’s been happening all over the west. People are being evacuated, homes burning, thousands of wild animals and livestock destroyed. Billions of dollars in valuable timber and other property is going up in smoke. Lakes, streams, and fisheries decimated. And state owned firefighting aircraft are barred from putting out fires on federally controlled lands because of the incessant federal bureaucracy that is crippling America.

    ————————————————–
    Last Friday Governor Steve Bullock wrote a letter to the Obama administration asking them to lift the “nonsensical restrictions”. The Governor declared a state of emergency and authorized Montana National Guard troops and the state’s wildland firefighting aircraft to assist in putting out the wildfires burning on federally controlled lands in Montana.

    ———————————–
    “I am doing my part to mobilize every available firefighting resource at my disposal, and make them available to all fire protection agencies,” Bullock wrote in the letter. “I encourage you to do your part by directing leadership within your respective agencies to rescind this unnecessary and artificial restriction on Montana aircraft as soon as possible.”
    Newsmax reported late Friday: Bullock spokesman Mike Wessler said U.S. fire managers barred the use of UH-1H helicopters over federal land because they have objected to modifications to the state’s fleet that made them faster and able to carry more water. Bullock said in the letter that Montana pilots who have flown UH-1H helicopters on hundreds of wildland fire missions have been told to stand down as blazes broke out “in full view of our aviation staff, who watched them grow as federal firefighters waited for other ‘approved’ aircraft to be dispatched from distant locations.
    The modifications made on the fleet did not impact its flight worthiness and it has been used numerous times to battle blazes on state and private lands, with no accidents, Wessler told Reuters on Friday.
    Bullock’s letter comes as U.S. fire managers have said the nation’s firefighting resources, including crews and aircraft, are stretched thin amid a season that has brought destructive and even deadly fires to the U.S. West.
    CBS News also released similar accounts: The State of Montana has five specially-modified military surplus Bell helicopters that it uses to fight fires. [Montana DNRC Director] Tubbs says the Forest Service doesn’t acknowledge the special modifications the state has made that make Montana’s choppers safer and more effective than similar helicopters that the federal agency restricts.
    “They’re very effective,” Tubbs says. “The first firefighter that can get to a scene is one of our Bell 205s, most times. They carry a crew of 7 firefighters, so there’s a manager, 6 firefighters and a pilot. They deploy the firefighters on the ground, the firefighters hook the bucket up, the bucket goes up, they find a water source, and they start fighting that fire both on the ground and with water [dropped from above]. They’re one of the reasons that [the state of Montana is] so effective at stopping fires at less than 10 acres, and that saves money and cuts risk.”

    —————————————-
    CBS contacted the U.S. Forest Service Region headquarters in Missoula and said, “they responded with a statement, but said they’re not taking questions on the issue at this time. Public Affairs Staffer Elizabeth Sloan declined to comment on the accuracy of Governor Bullock’s letter, but, as part of a prepared statement, said: “The Forest Service and the State of Montana have different standards and regulations to which each must adhere.”

    ————————————————-
    This is the second year that Montana has been barred from DEPLOYING STATE HELICOPTERS TO PUT OUT FIRES ON PUBLIC LANDS CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE. “This makes no sense, and puts the safety and property of Montanans at risk,” Governor Bullock said.

    —————————————
    On this the governor and I agree. Perhaps now we can convince him to join with other states in preparing for management of federally controlled public lands to be turned over to the states. I have no doubt Montanans can and will do better than WA DC.

    ————————————————————
    Sen Fielder represents Senate District 7 which includes all of Sanders County and Mineral County, and a southwest portion of Flathead County and western-most Missoula County. She can be reached at Sen.Jennifer.Fielder@mt.gov, by signing in at www.jenniferfielder.us, or by mail at P.O. Box 2558 Thompson Falls, MT 59873.
    ———————————————————————————-
    SPECIAL NOTE TO READER: Local paper: “Feds don’t help firefighting effort”, incorrectly attribute statement to Sen. Fielder
    SPECIAL NOTE TO READER: Earlier this week, I released the article below to the Sanders County Ledger with the headline as shown “Feds won’t let state put wildfires out”. The Sanders County Ledger retitled my article, “Feds don’t help firefighting effort”. This is an egregious misrepresentation of the content of my article (which, you can see below, in no way indicates that the feds are not helping firefighting efforts). Of course, the federal government has hundreds of firefighters and support contractors working the fires, many putting in valiant efforts to combat the blaze. My column points out, factually, that the federal government will not allow state firefighting aircraft to work on putting out the fires. (With the state’s help, some of these fires likely could have been extinguished before they grew out of control, as the state of Monatana has a stellar track record for stopping wildfires before they exceed 10 acres in size).
    I have requested that the Sanders County Ledger publish a retraction and apologize to their readers and the firefighters for the horrendously incorrect statement, “Feds don’t help firefighting effort”, and to make it clear it was the Ledger who made this remark, not me.
    ———————————————————————————-
    IDAHO
    Wildfires spark debate

    The bottom line
    “People can rant and rave about global warming being the cause of the fires, but the real reason is there is so much fuel out there and the reason for that is because the forest is not being managed,” Corkill said. “This is an irresponsible waste of a national resource. It seems it is acceptable to let a tree burn, but not acceptable to harvest a tree to build someone a house.”
    ————————————————————–
    Lawmakers say changes needed; Forest Service says it’s doing its best with available funds

    Posted: Sunday, August 30, 2015 12:00 am | Updated: 1:17 am, Sun Aug 30, 2015.

    Wildfires spark debate By BRIAN WALKER/bwalker@cdapress.com The Coeur d’ Alene Press | 25 comments

    Brad Corkill is fuming over the wildfires that have devastated the Northwest this summer.

    “In my opinion, these fires are completely avoidable,” said Corkill, owner of Whiteman Lumber Co. in Cataldo and an Idaho Fish and Game commissioner.

    “The Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe national forests have not had a major fire since the early 30s. These forests were, until 1993, two of the most heavily managed in the entire U.S. Forest Service system. They were logged in a responsible, professional manner.”

    Corkill is a 40-year veteran of the timber industry, including 37 of those years in North Idaho. He believes changes in forest management over the past 20 years have led to wildfires raging out of control this summer.

    “The road system was well-maintained (years ago) so, if a fire did break out it, it could be accessed and dealt with,” Corkill said. “Now those roads are being eliminated … .”

    Corkill said the Coeur d’Alene and St. Joe rivers were known as world-class trout fisheries, but cringes at the thought of what they may be like next spring after this summer’s fires.

    Jason Kirchner, public affairs officer with the U.S. Forest Service’s Idaho Panhandle National Forest, said his agency has been dealing with 70 different fires over 35,000 acres in the Idaho Panhandle this summer.

    He said the USFS is doing the best it can with forest management with the funding it receives, but funding has decreased 10 to 30 percent per year since 2012.

    “We’ve done a great job with management with the budgets we’ve received,” he said. “We’ve been more efficient with our dollars than what Congress expected. With that said, we can only do what we’re funded to do. Most federal budgets have decreased, and ours have been among them.”

    Kirchner said forest management is an “enormous” task that also includes restoring watersheds and wildlife habitat, hazardous fuel reduction and prescribed burns.

    “There’s more to forest management than just logs,” he said. “The American people have an expectation to do more than logging, and that’s reflected by the budget our forests receive from Congress.”

    In addition to taking care of natural resources, the USFS is the largest firefighting agency in the nation, Kirchner said.

    He said most of the region’s wildfires have been lightning-caused.

    “We’re never going to be able to avoid wildfires,” he said. “This is also not a national forest problem. There have also been major fires on BLM lands, state lands and private timberlands. This is not unique to federal lands.”

    Kirchner said citizens are encouraged to be involved in forest management through collaborative groups and comment periods.

    “We ask the public to help us drive projects – not just when projects are proposed but year-round,” he said. “We want healthy national forests.”

    Suzanne Wrasse, a spokeswoman in office of Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said simply increasing the Forest Service budget will not decrease fire severity.

    She said Risch has and will continue to support efforts that will increase forest management on federal lands, including the Farm Bill that was signed into law that gives the USFS the ability to use a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act for the treatment of forests that have or will be prone to disease and insect infestation.

    “The implementation of this authority needs to be expanded greatly,” Wrasse said. “We have a tremendous amount of natural resources in Idaho. These resources can be and should be harvested in a sustainable manner to restore forest health. The status quo leads to stand-replacing crown fires and the worst air quality in the country.”

    Rep. Ral Labrador, R-Idaho, wrote via email he agrees that a lack of forest management has increased the frequency and intensity of the fires as USFS timber harvests have declined 80 percent in the past three decades, leaving forests unhealthy and dense with fuel that leads to catastrophic fires.

    “The core of the problem is a burdensome statutory and regulatory framework that invites legal challenges that interfere with good management,” Labrador wrote, adding that the USFS acknowledged the problem in its own 2002 report called “The Process Predicament” that concluded the agency has had trouble fulfilling its mission.

    Labrador wrote that states are more capable of forest management, which is why he reintroduced this session the Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act, which would establish pilot projects to allow states to manage as much as 2 percent of USFS lands. The same bill passed the House in 2013, but the Senate did not consider it.

    Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, is the author of the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act co-sponsored by Labrador and being considered by the House Resources Committee. The bill – which has a companion bill in the Senate that’s co-authored by Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon – would allow disaster relief funds to pay for catastrophic wildfire suppression costs and ensure the USFS would have more funds for fuels reduction and other prevention work.

    Lawmakers say forest management legislation being floated eliminates “fire borrowing,” which occurs when funds are taken from the USFS fire prevention budget to cover the costs of fighting fires. That situation has kept the agency from getting out ahead of wildland fires, lawmakers say.

    Nick Goulette, project director of the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network, said homeowners and landowners also need to take responsibility to ensure their property is cleared of fuels as that practice can save homes.

    No one at the Kootenai Environmental Alliance in Coeur d’Alene could be reached for comment on Thursday and Friday.

    Corkill said responsible forest management is needed. And he believes that should be left to forest professionals, not attorneys involved in environmental lawsuits. He said the time to act on forest management is long overdue.

    The bottom line
    “People can rant and rave about global warming being the cause of the fires, but the real reason is there is so much fuel out there and the reason for that is because the forest is not being managed,” Corkill said. “This is an irresponsible waste of a national resource. It seems it is acceptable to let a tree burn, but not acceptable to harvest a tree to build someone a house.”

    http://www.cdapress.com/news/local_news/article_10cd3bb9-6734-500a-8653-59c6988a6540.html

    In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. s: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml


  • Are You A Normal Person?

    Are You A Normal Person?

    The is a DIRECT QUOTE OF ECOLOGY’S ANSWER  to a basic question.

    Aren’t people more important than fish?

    IF YOU’RE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU’D ANSWER “YES, PEOPLE USUALLY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH.”

    HOWEVER, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a “VALUE JUDGMENT” of what we want our world to look like.

    ————————————————————————

    VALUE JUDGMENT by definition

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted to assessments that reveal the values of the person making the assessment rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ——————————————————————————–

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY  Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ————————————————————————————————-

    ARE INSTREAM FLOWS ALL ABOUT PROTECTING FISH? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

    ——————————————————————————————————

    SO? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

    ARE YOU A NORMAL PERSON?

     By definition.. NORMAL is also used to describe individual behaviour that CONFORMS TO THE MOST COMMON BEHAVIOUR IN SOCIETY (known as conformity). Definitions of normality vary by person, time, place, and situation – it changes along with changing societal standards and norms.

    —————————————————————-

    ARE PEOPLE USUALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    By definition.. USUALLY?

    1. Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed

    2. Regularly or customarily used

    3. In CONFORMITY with regular practice or procedure:

    ———————————————————————————

    ARE PEOPLE  MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    USUALLY…….

    By definition.. HOWEVER

    1. In spite of that

    2. nevertheless

    3.  by whatever means

    4.  in whatever manner

    ——————————————————————

    It actually boils down to aVALUE JUDGMENT” (by definition)

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ———————————————————————————

    THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT?

     WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY VALUES FISH BEFORE PEOPLE?

     —————————————————————————

    Hmmm… THE $$$ VALUES  OF EARTH ECONOMICS ?

    devoted to promoting ecosystem health and ecological economics

    ———————————————————————-

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules
    Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ———————————————————————————

    What was the question?

    Are instream flows all about protecting fish? What about people?

    What was ECOLOGY’S Answer?

    Isn’t instream flow really an issue of “water for fish” vs. “water for people”?  Aren’t people more important than fish?  If you’re a normal person, you’d answer “yes, people usually are more important than fish.”  However, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a value judgment of what we want our world to look like.  Fish are in fact just one of many organisms that live in streams but they often offer a gauge of overall environmental health.

     Instream flow is an issue of water and river management – seeking ways to maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems that contribute to a high quality of life while sustaining our basic life functions and economies.  Accomplishing this goal is never easy, as it involves integration of scientific knowledge and societal demands within a set of legal limitations.

    But informed and effective instream flow management should afford a healthy, enjoyable existence for people while maintaining healthy, diverse aquatic resources.   It’s much more complicated than “keeping a little water in the creek for the fish.”

    Instream Flow Council

    ————————————————————————————–

    WA STATE ELECTED LEGISLATORS VALUE JUDGMENT?

     INSTREAM FLOW IS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. THE TERM IS OFTEN RESTRICTED TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    —————————————————————-

    THE OBJECTIVE REALITIES OF WHAT IS BEING ASSESSED?

    Start here

    EVEN,  BEFORE GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION

    INSTREAM FLOW WAS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    ——————————————————–

    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 farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND 

    DESTITUTE  by definition, WITHOUT THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    AFTER, GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION?

    INSTREAM FLOW IS NOW A  CRITICAL ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    —————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    Community Drought Forum

    May 21, 2015

    6:00-8:30PM

    Guy Cole Convention Center

    202 North Blake Avenue, Sequim, WA 98382

     ————————————————————-

    Please GO PUBLIC with this.

    Invite every “CITIZEN” that is critically affected by

    Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    PLEASE  attend this Clallam County Community Drought Forum

    JEFF MARTI DROUGHT COORDINATOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WILL BE THERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

    ————————————————————————————————————

    ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT ECOLOGY’S WATER VALUE JUDGMENT?

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WRAC)

    Meetings are normally attended by about FORTY PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT STATE AGENCIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WATER UTILITIES, INDIAN TRIBES, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, CONSULTANTS, LAW FIRMS AND OTHER WATER STAKEHOLDERS. 

     GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    CONTACT

    Chris Anderson
    Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program
    e-mail: chris.anderson@ecy.wa.gov
    Phone: 360-407-6634