+menu-


  • Category Archives Endangered Species Act
  • WA DOE Rules Recreational Use of Water?

    TO PROTECT SURFACE WATER CONTACT BY RECREATIONAL USERS?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SURFACE WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES?

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    Aquatic Life Uses (see WAC 173-201A-200)(1):

     

    Recreational Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(2))

    Extraordinary Primary Cont.

    Extraordinary quality primary contact waters. Waters providing extraordinary protection against waterborne disease or that serve as tributaries to extraordinary quality shellfish harvesting areas.

    Primary Cont.

    Primary contact recreation.

    Secondary Cont.

    Secondary contact recreation.

     

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    Miscellaneous Uses: (see WAC 173-201A-200)(4))

    Wildlife Habitat

    Wildlife habitat.

    Harvesting

    Fish harvesting.

    Commerce/Navigation

    Commerce and navigation.

    Boating

    Boating.

    Aesthetics

    Aesthetic values.

     

    ——————————————————————

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

    SHALL WE HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN THE LAW AND THE DOE RULE?

    (RCW 90.58.020) Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)

    There are three basic policy areas to the Act: shoreline use, environmental protection and public access. The Act emphasizes accommodation of appropriate uses that require a shoreline location, protection of shoreline environmental resources and protection of the public’s right to access and use the shorelines

    Public access: Master programs must include a public access element making provisions for public access to publicly owned areas, and a recreational element for the preservation and enlargement of recreational opportunities.

    The overarching policy is that “the public’s opportunity to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of natural shorelines of the state shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible consistent with the overall best interest of the state and the people generally. “Alterations of the natural conditions of the shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given priority for…development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of people to enjoy the shorelines of the state.”

    SHALL WE THE CITIZENS BE ALLOWED TO WALK ON THE SHORELINE BUT NOT TAKE RECREATION  IN THE WATER?

    —————————————————————————-

    CONTINUED….

    Designated uses have sometimes been called “BENEFICIAL USES” and include public water supply, protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife,

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

    agricultural, industrial, navigational and aesthetic purposes. Water quality criteria designed to protect the designated uses and are used to assess the general health of Washington surface waters and set permit limits. Marine and fresh waters have designated uses assigned in a “use-based” format, where individual waterbodies are assigned individual uses.

    To find the designated uses for marine waterbodies refer to WAC 173-201A-610 and 612. For marine aquatic life uses see map (PDF). For marine criteria refer to WAC 173-201A-210, 240, and 260.

    Finding designated uses and criteria for rivers and streams is slightly more complex because of the large number of salmonid species and their complex freshwater spawning cycles.

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards.

    Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

     

    Chapter 246-260 WAC: WATER RECREATION FACILITIES

    apps.leg.wa.gov › WACs › Title 246

    Mar 27, 2014 – Special design and construction provisions for hotels and motels (transient accommodations) serving fewer than fifteen living units and for spas …

    ————————————————————————————

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria TO PROTECT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • REVIEW CURRENT WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USE categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR FRESH WATERS AND Table 612, USE DESIGNATIONS FOR MARINE WATERS

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

    Sent: Monday, August 21, 2017 3:51 PM

    Subject: The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser: Chapter 173-201A WAC- Recreational Use Criteria

    The following rule pre-proposal was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    August 16th, 2017

    Chapter 173-201A WAC: Recreational Use Criteria

    For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/ruledev/wac173201A/1607/1607timedocs.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 WAC Track.

    Have a good day!

    Visit us on the web or social media.

    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

    Laws & Rules > Open Rulemaking > Chapter 173-201A Recreational Use Criteria

    Chapter 173-201A WAC
    Recreational Use Criteria

     

    Español (Spanish) > Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese) > 한국어 (Korean)

    The Department of Ecology plans to amend Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.

    This rulemaking will:

    • Include new indicators and numeric criteria to protect water contact recreational uses in sections 200(2) and 210(3).
    • Review current water contact recreational use categories and modify sections 600 and 610 if necessary.
    • Improve the location information in use designation tables listed in this chapter – Table 602, Use designations for fresh waters and Table 612, Use designations for marine waters.

    Timeline and Documents

     

    Date (date subject to change)

    Activity

    August 16, 2017

    Announcement Phase (CR-101)
    Announcement documents
    Read the CR-101

    August 16, 2017 – Spring 2018

    Rule Development Phase
    Develop and prepare the rule language, regulatory analyses documents, SEPA documents, and other information.

    Spring 2018

    Rule Proposal Phase (CR -102)
    Proposal documents available upon filing.

    Spring 2018

    Hold public hearing comment period.

    Spring – Fall 2018

    Review public comments and prepare adoption packet.

    Fall 2018

    Rule Adoption Phase (CR-103)
    Documents available upon filing.

    Fall 2018

    Rule effective (usually 31 days after filing)

    Accessibility (ADA) – For documents in alternate format, call 360-407-6600, 711 (relay service), or 877-833-6341 (TTY). Also see Ecology’s ADA Accessibility page.

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

    CONTACT

    Bryson Finch
    360-407-7158
    bryson.finch@ecy.wa.gov

    STAY INFORMED

    Subscribe to the
    E-mail ListServ to receive updates

    RELATED LINKS

     

    Feedback?

     

    To find the designated use(s) for rivers and streams refer to WAC 173-201A-600 and 602 (Table 602) of the water quality standards. Table 602 is an extensive listing of waterbodies and the uses assigned to those waterbodies. Section 600 outlines default uses for those waterbodies not specifically named in Table 602.

    Publication Summary Table  602.

    Title

    Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC

    Publication number

    Date Published

    Date Revised

    06-10-091

    December 2006

    March 2017

    VIEW NOW:

    Acrobat PDF format (Number of pages: 142) (Publication Size: 1956KB)

    Trouble viewing?

    ·         Get the latest Adobe Reader

    ·         Microsoft Word Viewer.

    ·         Microsoft Excel Viewer.

    Author(s)

    Water Quality Program

    Description

    This updated version of publication #06-10-091 incorporates rule language adopted by Ecology on August 1, 2016.

    REQUEST A COPY

    The mission of the Department of Ecology is to protect, preserve, and enhance Washington’s environment. To help us meet that goal, please consider the environment before you print or request a copy.

    Accessibility Options
    Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service
    Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341

    ·         Water Quality Order Form

    Contact

    Becca Conklin at 360-407-6413 or swqs@ecy.wa.gov

    Keywords

    rule, surface water, standards, quality, water quality standards

    WEB PAGE

    Surface Water Quality Standards

    RELATED PUBLICATIONS

    Title:

    Water Quality Standards For Surface Waters Of The State Of Washington

    Waters Requiring Supplemental Spawning and Incubation Protection for Salmonid Species

     


  • People Send Me Stuff – This is Good News

    Three (3) BLM state directors removed in reorganization — sources

    Reassigning three state directors represents a major administrative change for the agency.

    DO YOU REMEMBER BLM NEVADA STATE DIRECTOR AMY LUEDERS?

    Amy Lueders was BLM Nevada director during the disastrous 2014 armed standoff with ranchers and militia groups who blocked the agency from removing hundreds of head of cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy that were illegally grazing on federal land.

    DO YOU REMEMBER BLM NEW MEXICO STATE DIRECTOR AMY LUEDERS?

    Amy Lueders, appointed New Mexico state director in 2015, was viewed as instrumental in helping BLM develop sweeping federal greater sage grouse conservation plans that were key in convincing the Fish and Wildlife Service not to list the bird for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

    PRIOR to her appointment as New Mexico director, Amy Lueders served on detail in BLM’s Washington headquarters overseeing SAGE GROUSE CONSERVATION as acting assistant director for renewable resources and planning.

    Zinke, a longtime critic of the federal plans, this month announced Interior will review the GROUSE PLANS to determine in part whether they are hindering energy production on public lands (Greenwire, June 7).

    New Mexico Director, Amy Lueders is among as many as 50 BLM and other Interior (SES) career officials notified this month that they are being transferred to different agencies or other positions within BLM

    Sources also confirmed that , Amy Lueders is being transferred to an unspecified position at the Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque, N.M. The Washington Post first reported , Amy Lueders’ transfer.

    —————————————————————-

    Read, research and document ….

    After President Trump took office Jan 20, 2017

    MIKE NEDD  BECAME THE  BLM “ACTING” DIRECTOR IN MID MARCH 2017 according to Sally that answered Nedd’s phone in  his WA DC office 202-208-3801, today  June 30, 2017. (she was not very friendly)

    ——————————————————-

    BLM ACTING Director Nedd was not involved in the decision to transfer the state directors, a source with knowledge of the reorganization told E&E News.

    The source said Nedd was told of the transfers about an hour before the letters were sent June 15 to the employees targeted for transfer.

    ——————————————————————–

    BLM “ACTING”  Director Mike Nedd “REACTING” to as many as 50 BLM and other (SES) Interior career officials notified June 15, 2017 that they are being transferred to different agencies or other positions within BLM, click on the link

    BLM ACTING Director Nedd sent an agencywide email to all staff Date: Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:35 AM  Subject: Defining Our Priorities in a Time of Change

    snippets…

    Hello Fellow BLMers,

    During this transition, it’s important we take extra care of one another and ourselves. If we do so, I know we will succeed. We’re BLM Strong, and we’ll get through this transition. We are all in this together.

    Take care and have a wonderful day! : )

    MICHAEL D. NEDD

    BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, ACTING DIRECTOR

    202-208-3801 Office mnedd@blm.gov

    —————————————————————–

    Hmmm….. Acting BLM Director Michael D. Nedd’s  5:35 AM  email’s  bottom line

    “Do all the good you can, in all the ways you can, for all the people you can, WHILE you can!

    ————————————————————–

    AND THAN, REACTING  FURTHER AFTER the  5:35 AM email  …. BLM ACTING Director Mike Nedd held a June 16, 2017 teleconference with members of the agency’s Executive Leadership Team to discuss the latest SES transfers and to prepare senior leadership for “one or two more rounds” of similar moves in the coming weeks, sources said.

    —————————————————————————–

    I was Reacting to the good news.. but as usual, I did more reading, researching and the documentation above before I posted this comment.

    We are all in this together. continue reading the good news…

    Take care and have a wonderful day! : )

    ————————————————————-

    This is the Good News

    unedited full text at the bottom

    —– Original Message —–

    From: XXX

    To: phew@wavecable.com

    Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 11:04 AM

    Subject: BLM at Interior being reorganized

    INTERIOR (DOI)

    3 BLM state directors removed in reorganization — sources

    Scott Streater, E&E News reporter

    The Bureau of Land Management is reassigning three state directors — Ruth Welch in Colorado, Bud Cribley in Alaska and Amy Lueders in New Mexico — to positions at other federal agencies as part of a broader Interior Department reorganization. BLM (Welch);Cribley/LinkedIn;BLM/Facebook (Lueders)

    The Bureau of Land Management is reassigning the directors of the Alaska, Colorado and New Mexico state offices to positions at other federal agencies as part of an Interior Department reorganization that sources say is only beginning.

    Alaska Director Bud Cribley, Colorado Director Ruth Welch and New Mexico Director Amy Lueders are among as many as 50 BLM and other Interior career officials notified this month that they are being transferred to different agencies or other positions within BLM, multiple sources with knowledge of the moves told E&E News.

    The Senior Executive Service officials were told of the transfers earlier this month and given 15 days, or until Wednesday, to either accept the transfers, retire or resign (Greenwire, June 16). Additional transfer notices will be coming as soon as this week, sources said.

    BLM and Interior Department officials have declined to provide many details about the ongoing reorganization effort, or the transfers of SES employees to other federal agencies.

    But reassigning three state directors represents a major administrative change for the agency. The trio at issue oversee 94 million acres of some of the most resource-rich and environmentally sensitive lands managed by the agency.

    It’s not clear whether anyone has been named to replace the outgoing state directors.

    Heather Swift, an Interior spokeswoman, declined to confirm that the state directors are being reassigned.

    “I have no information on specific personnel matters at this time,” Swift said in an email.

    But sources confirmed that Cribley is being transferred from the Alaska state office to an unspecified administrative position at the Fish and Wildlife Service in Washington, D.C. Cribley would have 60 days to move if he accepts the transfer, sources said.

    Welch is being reassigned to an administrative position with the Bureau of Reclamation but will remain in the Denver area.

    Sources also confirmed that Lueders is being transferred to an unspecified position at the Fish and Wildlife Service in Albuquerque, N.M. The Washington Post first reported Lueders’ transfer.

    It’s not clear whether the three state directors have agreed to the transfers. Only Cribley, who first joined BLM in 1975, has been with the agency long enough to retire with full benefits, sources said.

    Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has defended the transfers in general, telling reporters last week that he wasn’t firing anyone, but rather shifting people to jobs where their skills are better suited (E&E News PM, June 21).

    Senior executives are required when they enter the SES to sign a form acknowledging they are subject to involuntary reassignments.

    By statute, reassignments must comply with proper notification requirements of at least 15 days for a transfer to another SES job within the same agency and the same commuting area, and 60 days for a transfer outside the geographic commuting area.

    “If you accept an SES position, you should be prepared to move,” Zinke said.

    More moves coming

    BLM acting Director Mike Nedd held a June 16 teleconference with members of the agency’s Executive Leadership Team to discuss the latest SES transfers and to prepare senior leadership for “one or two more rounds” of similar moves in the coming weeks, sources said.

    A BLM source said a new round of agency transfers could come as early as Thursday.

    Swift, in a brief email to E&E News, wrote that Zinke “has been absolutely out front” that transfers were coming since “his first-day address to all employees” in March.

    They are part of an Interior agencywide reboot Zinke outlined in general terms this month that calls for reorganizing the agency under a “joint system” that would shift federal employees from Washington to the field (E&E News PM, June 8).

    He has promised more details in the coming weeks.

    “Personnel moves are being conducted to better serve the taxpayer and the Department’s operations through matching Senior Executive skill sets with mission and operational requirements,” Swift wrote.

    The Trump administration’s proposed fiscal 2018 budget for BLM calls for a nearly 13 percent cut in funding from current operating levels.

    Nedd sent an agencywide email to all staff June 16 acknowledging that the budget cuts, if implemented, “could mean 1,000 fewer full-time equivalent employees across the Nation,” according to a copy of the email obtained by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

    Nedd’s email says the agency can probably handle most of the reduction through attrition and retirements but adds that BLM “may also seek authority from the Office of Personnel Management to offer early retirement and voluntary separation incentives later this year.”

    Nedd was not involved in the decision to transfer the state directors, a source with knowledge of the reorganization told E&E News. The source said Nedd was told of the transfers about an hour before the letters were sent June 15 to the employees targeted for transfer.

    Sources said the transfer decision came down the chain of command from James Cason, Interior’s associate deputy secretary.

    Cason, a George W. Bush-era official who served as Interior associate deputy secretary from 2001 to 2009, is co-leading an Interior rule-cutting task force (E&E News PM, April 24).

    Though details are few, the transfers have sparked questions from elected leaders. New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall (D) at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing last week expressed concern to Zinke about losing Lueders.

    Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), attending the Western Governors’ Association annual meeting in Whitefish, Mont., told E&E News this week that he’s concerned about the impacts of losing talented BLM staffers that his office has worked with on issues like greater sage grouse management.

    “All I have is anecdotal information, but it sounds like people are being transferred away from their expertise and away from their traditional area of responsibility, and I do worry that we’re going to lose some of the institutional memory, that kind of muscle memory that allows you to get good policy and not bad policy,” Hickenlooper said.

    Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D), also attending the WGA meeting, echoed Hickenlooper. While Bullock said it’s “laudable” to reorganize the agency to make it more effective, “we need to make sure in doing so we’re not taking steps back.”

    Political payback?

    Alaska, Colorado and New Mexico have all been involved in controversial energy development and natural resource issues in the past few years, and sources say Interior brass do not view the three state directors at issue as being compatible with the Trump administration’s stated push to promote more oil and gas development and mining activity on federal lands.

    The transfer of Cribley, who has been BLM’s Alaska state director since November 2010, comes just weeks after Zinke toured the state and announced plans to open new sections of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to oil and gas leasing (Energywire, June 1).

    Sources said Cribley had a good relationship with Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who accompanied Zinke on part of his tour through the state last month.

    But Murkowski and other members of Alaska’s congressional delegation have long complained about federal land-use policies that they say have limited access to mineral resources and stifled economic development.

    Welch, appointed Colorado state director in June 2014, helped broker agreements throwing out already-issued oil and gas leases in the Thompson Divide portion of the White River National Forest and atop the sensitive Roan Plateau.

    Welch stood next to former Interior Secretary Sally Jewell during a ceremony in Denver announcing both agreements; the leader of an industry trade group derided the ceremony as “despicable” (E&E News PM, Nov. 17, 2016).

    Lueders, appointed New Mexico state director in 2015, was viewed as instrumental in helping BLM develop sweeping federal greater sage grouse conservation plans that were key in convincing the Fish and Wildlife Service not to list the bird for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

    Prior to her appointment as New Mexico director, she served on detail in BLM’s Washington headquarters overseeing sage grouse conservation as acting assistant director for renewable resources and planning.

    Zinke, a longtime critic of the federal plans, this month announced Interior will review the grouse plans to determine in part whether they are hindering energy production on public lands (Greenwire, June 7).

    Lueders was also BLM Nevada director during the disastrous 2014 armed standoff with ranchers and militia groups who blocked the agency from removing hundreds of head of cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy that were illegally grazing on federal land.

    Other moves

    Other high-ranking BLM officials are also being transferred.

    Among them is Salvatore Lauro, who directs the agency’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.

    Lauro is scheduled to be transferred to the Fish and Wildlife Service as chief of FWS’s Office of Law Enforcement.

    The current FWS Office of Law Enforcement chief, Bill Woody, will essentially switch places with Lauro and is scheduled to be transferred to head up BLM’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security.

    In addition, Janine Velasco, BLM’s assistant director of business, fiscal and information resources management, is being transferred to an unspecified administrative position at FWS in Washington.

    Reporter Jennifer Yachnin contributed.

    —————————————————————————

    “Do all the good you can, in all the ways you can, for all the people

    you can, WHILE you can!


  • 2012 SMP Issues Left on the Table

    June 9, 2017  My Updated Public Comment  CLALLAM COUNTY WA SMP

    Subject: SMP PUBLIC COMMENT JULY 14, 2012  ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES

    July 10, 2012 the 19 SMP Issues left on the table by the Clallam County SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee.

    Two thirds or more of the SMP (citizens?) Advisory Committee VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHOUT ARGUMENT, SUGGESTIONS OR COMMENT?

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    ———————————————————–

    The 19 SMP Update unresolved issues left on the table, At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting, Against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    If any of you read this complete July 14, 2012 comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committee members that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County, prior to the 2017 final SMP Draft Proposal, being given to the Clallam County Planning Commission.

    July 10, 2012 The last remark Steve Gray made to me, nearly five years ago was “I just want to get this over with.” 

    ————————————————————

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    SMP Cumulative Impact on People

    Posted on November 18, 2014 10:35 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    This is my Clallam County SMP Public comment and objection

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ———————————————————-

    SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    —– Original Message —–

    From: zSMP
    Sent: Friday, June 02, 2017 4:39 PM
    Subject: FW: Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) – New Revised SMP Draft (June 2017)

    Interested Parties,

    You are receiving this email because you are on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update email notification list.  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 

    An “INTERESTED PARTY SINCE JAN 26, 2011?” concerned, vested, voting, Clallam County private shoreline property owner and member of SMP Update (citizens) Advisory Committee.

    —– Original Message —–

    Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    THE REST OF THE STORY…….

    THE PREVIOUS CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    From: pearl hewett

    to  zSMP

    Cc: several

    Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 3:13 PM

    Subject: SMP COMMENT #292 ON THE SMP Advisory Committee

    This is my full comment on the SMP Advisory Committee

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Estate

    Concerned Member SMP Advisory Committee

    At the July 10, 2012 SMP Committee Advisory meeting

    Two thirds or more of the SMP Advisory Committee

    VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE,

    against my suggestion that we needed an additional August meeting to complete our duty to the citizens and private property owners, as SMP advisors, prior to the final SMP draft proposal being written.

    The SMP Advisory Committee that  represent the 3300 Clallam County shoreline private property owners is approximately as follows.

    1/3 = 10 private interest groups

    1/3 = 10 paid government employees

    1/3 = 10 SMP Affected taxpaying private property owners (only 8 at this meeting)

    DOES THE MAKEUP OF THIS COMMITTEE EXPLAINS WHY?

    THEY VOTED TO WALK  AWAY FROM THE TABLE

    LEAVING 19 OR MORE PROPOSED SMP DRAFT ISSUES RELATED TO THE DOE SMP TAKING OF PRIVATE PROPERTY without argument, suggestions or comment?

    (1) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? The undecipherable table with the percentages, the 15% of whatever? It made no sense to me either? One vested citizen, could help with  his knowledge of what he thought it actually was/represented? It would be very helpful to members of the committee.

    The written text related to the undecipherable table below

    1. Minor new development Grading shall not exceed 500 cubic yards; and ii. Land disturbing activities shall not exceed 20,000 square feet, except that on parcels less than five (5) acres, land disturbing activities must not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the gross parcel size; and iii. The total cumulative footprint of all structures on a parcel must be less than 4,000 square feet; and iv. The total cumulative impervious surface area on the parcel must be less than ten (10) . All land disturbing activities must be located on slopes less than fifteen (15) percent; and vi. All land disturbing activities must comply with any critical area buffer and other protection standards established for parcels created by land division.

    ————————————————————————

    (2) DISCUSSED AND QUESTIONED? NOT ADDRESSED

    The limited number of trained specialists,  Engineer’s  comment was in reference to the county SMP  requiring specialists, to perform the mitigation tests. If a property owner could even find one to do the testing? The time delay and cost would be prohibitive.

    ——————————————————————-

    (3) PRESENTED NOT DISCUSSED

    SMP Excessive restrictions on all forms of developments. I am extremely concerned about the additional restrictive requirements written into the SMP update for major development. They are counter- productive to the economic recovery of Clallam County, they restrict the ability of business and citizens to create employment opportunities in both Clallam County and Port Angeles. Why are the Dept. of Community Development and the planning biting off their own feet? Why are they creating these obsessive restrictions on all developments?

    The way Steve was talking it, with all the added bells and whistles, it was to make any form of mitigation for anything totally infeasible, creating a like it or lump it, situation for all development by business or private shoreline property owners.

    ———————————————————————

    (4) PRESENTED- DISCUSSED but NOT ADDRESSED

    The cumulative effect of setbacks SHORELINE, WETLAND and HABITAT   one citizen did a good job when he pointed out an example of the enormous  loss of private property use with the setbacks on Lake Pleasant, in conjunction with the yet undetermined, Clallam County DOE designated WETLANDS.

    ———————————————————————–

     (5) PRESENTED NOT ADDRESSED

    More additional HABITAT setbacks

    IT WAS IMPRESSIVE HOW SMOOTHLY MARGARET AND STEVE JUST ADDED ON THE ADDITIONAL HABITAT SETBACKS, BUT DID NOT MENTION ENDANGERED SPECIES.

    1. Rare, endangered, threatened and sensitive species means plant and animal species identified and listed by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as being severely limited or threatened with extinction within their native ranges.
    2. Threatened species means a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future, as classified by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Natural Resources, Washington Natural Heritage Program, or the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ————————————————————————-

     

    (6)  COMMENT NOT ADDRESSED

    1. Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the County auditor.

    ————————————————————————————

    (7) NO DISCUSSION OR RESOLUTION (not required by law)

    1. Restoration means the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of fill, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.

    ————————————————————————————

    (8) DOE DESIGNATED WETLANDS NOT IDENTIFIED OR INCORPORATED

    Wetlands have no boundaries, adjoining wetlands could restrict the use of your property.

    1. Wetlands means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. Wetlands do not include those artificial wetlands intentionally created for non-wetland sites, including, but not limited to, irrigation and drainage ditches, grass lined swales, canals, detention facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, farm ponds, and landscape amenities or those wetlands created after July 1, 1990, that were unintentionally created as a result of the construction of a road, street, or highway. Wetlands created as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities shall be considered as regulated wetlands.

    PROHIBITED EXCEPTION DISCUSSED AND RESOLVED BY RCW

    Provisions for protection SHALL be included in SMP up date.

    1. Revetment means a sloped wall constructed of rip-rap or other suitable material placed on stream banks or other shorelines to retard bank erosion and minimize lateral stream movement.
    2. Rip-rap means dense, hard, angular rock free from cracks or other defects conductive to weathering often used for bulkheads, revetments or similar slope/bank stabilization purposes.

    ————————————————————————-

    (9) DISCUSSED UNDEFINED NO RESOLUTION [insert final date]

    3.1.1 Shoreline Environment Designations

    1. A shoreline environment designation has been assigned to each segment of the shoreline in accordance with this section. The designations are based on the following general factors:
    2. The ecological functions and processes that characterize the shoreline, together with the degree of human alteration as determined by the [insert final date] Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report and subsequent technical analyses; and

    ——————————————————————

    (10) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

     EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. c. Hazard Tree Removal: Removal of a hazard tree may be allowed in the buffer when trimming is not sufficient to address the hazard. Where the hazard is not immediately apparent to the Administrator, the hazard tree determination SHALL be made after Administrator review of a report prepared by a qualified arborist or forester.

    ——————————————————————–

    (11) NOT PRESENTED OR  DISCUSSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    1. Invasive Species Management: Removing invasive, non-native shoreline vegetation listed on the Clallam County Noxious Weed List may be allowed in the buffer when otherwise consistent with this Program. The disturbed areas must be promptly revegetated using species native to western Washington. The Administrator SHALL require a vegetation management plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the invasive species removal. The vegetation management plan SHALL  identify and describe the location and extent of vegetation management. For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the vegetation management plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the vegetation management will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the invasive species management area SHALL be clearly defined on the site plan

    ———————————————————————–

    (12) NOT DISCUSSED – ADDRESSED OR RESOLVED

    Taking of Value of view property by limited 20% KEYHOLE view corridor. If 50% of the value of your shoreline property is for the view? Losing 80% the view value will affect the true and real value of your property

    4.2.4 Regulations – Shoreline Buffers

    . 3. Buffer Condition: Shoreline buffers shall be maintained in a predominantly well vegetated and undisturbed condition to ensure that the buffer provides desired buffer functions including shade, habitat, organic inputs, large woody debris, slope stability, water storage, biofiltration, contaminant removal, and fine sediment control. Up to eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area shall be vegetated with native trees and shrubs. The remaining twenty percent (20%), or at least fifteen (15) linear feet of the water frontage, whichever is greater, may be retained as lawn for active use.

    1. Allowed Uses and Buffer Modifications: The Administrator may allow limited clearing, thinning, and/or pruning to accommodate specific shoreline buffer uses and modifications identified in this section. Such allowances shall not require compensatory mitigation provided that the amount and extent of the clearing, limbing, and/or pruning are the minimum necessary to accommodate the allowed use and all other requirements of the Program are met:

    —————————————————————————–

    (13) view corridor NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer

    1. View Corridors: The Administrator may allow limited and selective tree removal, pruning, and/or limbing in the buffer to create a view of the shoreline when otherwise consistent with this Program. The removal, pruning, and/or limbing shall not require any ground-disturbing equipment and shall not materially alter soils or topography.

    ————————————————————————-

    (15) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    EXPENSE OF SPECIALISTS FOR APPROVAL

    Administrator shall require a view clearance plan

    The Administrator shall require a view clearance plan prepared by a qualified ecologist, forester, arborist, or landscape architect prior to approving the view corridor. The view clearance plan shall identify and describe the location and extent of the proposed tree removal, pruning, and limbing and shall demonstrate compliance with American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Standards for Tree Care Operations (Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management – Standard Practices). For properties within designated landslide or erosion hazard areas, the Administrator may require review of the view clearance plan by an engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to ensure that the proposed removal, pruning, and/or limbing will not cause or exacerbate hazards associated with soil or slope instability. The location and size of the view corridor shall be clearly defined on the site plan.

    1. Private Pathways: Private pathways which provide pedestrian access to the shoreline may be allowed within the buffer provided they are constructed of pervious material, are less than or equal to six (6) feet wide, and follow a route that minimizes erosion and gullying

    ——————————————————————————–

    (16)  NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

    Taking of Private property for Public access

    The removal of any reference to  the taking of private property for Public access, Clallam County has the highest public access to public land in WA State. At the Private DOE meeting on June 6, 2012 Gordon White agreed that we have sufficient cause 51% to remove any taking of private property for public access.

    —————————————————————————–

    (17) DISCUSSED AND DISMISSED

    EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal

     As questioned by Rob McKenna, why are the DOE SMP setbacks more restrictive the EPA. Precautionary setback are not legal.

    ——————————————————————————–

     (18) LEGALITY OF 80% TAKING  NOT DISCUSSED NOT ADDRESSED

    ONE HUNDRED PERCENT (100%) NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

    1. At least eighty percent (80%) of the buffer area between the structures and the shoreline and/or critical area is maintained in a naturally vegetated condition.

    What provisions have the DOE made to  stay within the LAW?

    “It is now undisputed that the county had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own private property.”CAO’S 65 PERCENT” SEIZURE OF PROPERTY PLF Lauds Supreme Court for “Driving a Stake Through One of the Most Extreme Assaults on Property Rights in the U.S.”

    SEATTLE, WA; March 4, 2009: The Washington Supreme Court

    the CAO limited rural landowners with five acres or more to clearing only 35 percent of their property, forcing them to maintain the remaining 65 percent as native vegetation indefinitely. Rural landowners owning less than five acres were allowed to clear only 50 percent of their parcels. Affected landowners had to continue paying taxes on the portion of the property rendered useless by the CAO.

    —————————————————————————–

    (19) NOT DISCUSSED OR ADDRESSED

     THE PROVISIONS OF WAC173-26-191 ANYTHING THAT MAY BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A STATE LEVEL,

     MAY ALSO BE  ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL AT A COUNTY LEVEL AND SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN CLALLAM COUNTY SMP UPDATE.

     

    WAC 173-26-191

    Agency filings affecting this section

    Master program contents.

    2 The results of shoreline planning are summarized in shoreline master program policies that establish broad shoreline management directives. The policies are the basis for regulations that govern use and development along the shoreline.

    SOME MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES MAY NOT BE FULLY ATTAINABLE BY REGULATORY MEANS DUE TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON THE REGULATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE POLICIES MAY BE PURSUED BY OTHER MEANS AS PROVIDED IN RCW 90.58.240.

    SOME DEVELOPMENT REQUIRES A SHORELINE PERMIT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

     A LOCAL GOVERNMENT EVALUATES A PERMIT APPLICATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM POLICIES AND REGULATIONS AND APPROVES A PERMIT ONLY AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CONFORMS TO THEM. EXCEPT

    WHERE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED IN STATUTE, THE REGULATIONS APPLY TO ALL USES AND DEVELOPMENT WITHIN SHORELINE JURISDICTION, WHETHER OR NOT A SHORELINE PERMIT IS REQUIRED, AND ARE IMPLEMENTED THROUGH AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO RCW 90.58.050 and 90.58.140 AND ENFORCEMENT PURSUANT TO RCW

    90.58.210 through 90.58.230.

    ————————————————————-

    If any of you read this complete comment? You understand fully, why I am critical of the two thirds majority of the Advisory Committees that failed to complete their responsibility to the citizens and private property owners of Clallam County on July 10, 2012,  prior to the final SMP Draft Proposal.

    INDEED, THE INTENT OF A PARTY CAN BE DETERMINED BY EXAMINING THE UNDERSTANDING OF A REASONABLE PERSON, AFTER CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO ALL RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE NEGOTIATIONS, ANY PRACTICES THE PARTIES HAVE ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THEMSELVES, USAGES AND ANY SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES.

    IF THE PARTIES DON’T WANT YOU TO DO IT, THE PARTIES WILL MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

    The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017). 


  • U.N.-linked U.S.A. Land Grabs

    U.N.-linked U.S.A. Land Grabs

    The federal and state governments, as usual, are taking our money and using it against us, turning it over to UN groups for them to implement UN objectives.

    Who else but the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) to the rescue for connectivityEstablished by the Department of Interior (DOI), it is an “international” network to advance collaborative landscape conservation.

    Remember, this is the federal government doing it, not some obscure group.

    Can President Trump undo all of this?

    Wrong question.

    SHALL PRESIDENT TRUMP NEW DOI DIRECTORY RYAN ZINKE, STOP THE DOI CREATED GNLCC  ORGANIZATION, THAT PROMOTES THESE UN AFFILIATED LUNATICS, FROM TAKING MORE LAND?

    —————————————————————-

    U.N.-linked conservation ‘connectivity’ projects gobbling up Idaho, Northwest

    Each of these organizations are connected to UN NGOs such as the Nature Conservancy , Wilderness Society, and Wildlife Conservation Society. Don’t be fooled by the new UN addition in red (map below), a disclaimer that unless the organization is in consultative status it does not connote affiliation with the UN. That is flat out not true. And like children playing in a sandbox, these groups all play with each other, are interconnected, and overwhelm us with their agenda.

    Commentary by Karen Schumacher

    Redoubt News

    Kiss Idaho Goodbye: Another Major Land Takeover

    Who else but the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) to the rescue for connectivity.  Established by the Department of Interior (DOI), it is an “international” network to advance collaborative landscape conservation.

    They would love to see this land all locked up into one major landscape of wilderness, for wildlife only.

    But the truth is, it is just the UN agenda.  As a partner to the DOI, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has been promoting connectivity for a very long time. 

    —————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | Marv Chastian – Back to 1492

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/03/26/marv-chastian-back-to-1492/

    Mar 26, 2017 – Marv ChastianBack to 1492 A plan which is now in process of becoming federal policy ~ was hatched many years ago by two radical …

    ——————————————————————–

    Redoubt News

    Kiss Idaho Goodbye: Another Major Land Takeover

    For Idaho, not only is there the Columbia River Treaty re-negotiations that will take control of all water resources, there is also another major land take over.

    There are a multitude of Idaho non-profits and United Nations (UN) non-governmental organizations (NGO) that are aggressively pursuing connectivity projects.  Essentially the goal is to connect large swaths of land in Idaho’s east corner which neighbors Montana and Wyoming.  They would love to see this land all locked up into one major landscape of wilderness, for wildlife only.

    The  High Divide (HD), Crown of the Continent (COC), Yellowstone to Yukon (Y2Y), Greater Yellowstone (GY), and the land trust partnership group Heart of the Rockies Initiative (HOR), are just a few of the organizations that are destructively working to create wildlife corridors in the Island Park area.

    Each of these organizations are connected to UN NGOs such as the Nature Conservancy (NC), Wilderness Society (WS), and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).  Don’t be fooled by the new UN addition in red, a disclaimer that unless the organization is in consultative status it does not connote affiliation with the UN.  That is flat out not true.  And like children playing in a sandbox these groups all play with each other, are interconnected, and overwhelm us with their agenda.

    Anyway, here is the map that shows how much land they are after with the Salmon Selway not even included in this discussion.  This map is proudly displayed on the WCS website, a trophy of the successful tromping of Idaho.

    Kiss Idaho Goodbye

    Quite a bit of money contributes to this takeover.  Just the Greater Yellowstone alone has over 10 million dollars in their coffersWhere do they get all that money?  Part of it is your tax dollar.

    Now your tax dollar goes to this in other ways as well.  The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) believes in creating wildlife corridors which eventually contribute to connectivity and have spent your money to study it and figure out how many wildlife are affected by collisions.  Forget how it has impacted humans.  You are even paying your governor to participate in this through the Western Governors’ Association (WGA).

    But don’t forget the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD), your state taxes are used for this nonsense as well.  Four years ago Idaho Fish & Game honored an ITD Senior Environmental Planner for his success in collectively garnering over 718,000 dollars to study (affectionately known as the Cramer study) where wolverines and bears migrate, and a study to prioritize wildlife collision areas.  Here is the 2016 report and on page 6 you can see all the recommended overpasses, underpasses, fencing, traffic calming, and driver warning systems for Highway 20 in Island Park.  What is truly remarkable about this is while our Idaho roads and bridges crumble there is plenty of money to spend on figuring out where cars collide with wildlife and put money into building a road for them.  And here is the Highway 20 priority map for those animals.  Now it makes sense why Idaho registration fees went up and why the current legislature has a huge task in front of them to fund transportation.

    Those bunnies need a safe passageway.

    Now there are many working tirelessly on this so surely it must all be coordinated together.  Who else but the Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative (GNLCC) to the rescue for connectivity.  Established by the Department of Interior (DOI), it is an “international” network to advance collaborative landscape conservation.  Here is the amount of land the GNLCC wants to take and a link to the data they have been collecting.  Remember, this is the federal government doing it, not some obscure group.  There are a multitude of participants, including multiple UN affiliates, making decisions about Idaho.

    Kiss Idaho Goodbye

    In a nutshell, the DOI created an organization that promotes these UN affiliated lunatics taking more land away from Idahoans.  Originating in 2009 with order 3289, and advancing it with order 3330, then announcing the truth to “develop opportunities to further establish partnerships that benefit Tribes and Federal agencies” in order 3342.

    The National Park Service (NPS) and US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) were granted the privilege of administering the GNLCC in 2010.  The implementation plan includes partnerships with land protection NGOs and land trusts, Canada, IUCN, USFS, and the BLM while using the Endangered Species Act to justify its means.  Of course they are using your tax dollar to stick it to you, not only in this way but in grants as well, up to one million.

    But the truth is, it is just the UN agenda.  As a partner to the DOI, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has been promoting connectivity for a very long time.  As well, the FWS has its own comradely with the UN for migratory species protection.  According to Agenda 2030, Goal 15.5, we are assigned the task to “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats…”.  Roadkill should certainly be a focus to ensure a natural habitat is protected in a way that it does not cause harm to the animal.  As this Agenda 2030 document explains in #33, “We are therefore determined to conserve and…protect biodiversity, ecosystems and wildlife.”  Look forward to paying for animal roads.

    The federal and state governments, as usual, are taking our money and using it against us, turning it over to UN groups for them to implement UN objectives.  Can President Trump undo all of this?  Or will it take the masses to finally stand up and say no more.  How can the tiny community of Island Park fight this off?  What are our legislators doing to stop this?  Idahoans just continue to see our state being eaten up by government with its UN partnerships.

    Kiss Idaho Goodbye.

    Free Range Report


  • Marv Chastian – Back to 1492

    Marv Chastian – 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 Forman the Earthfirst guy and Oregon State prof, Reed Noss.

    ——————————————————————————–

    “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 Forman, founder of Earth First – and more recently, a director of The Sierra Club. He goes on to describe his intellectual child, The Wildlands Plan: “We seek wolf tracks rather than gold” . . “Return big, charismatic species such as buffalo, grizzly bears, elk, wolves, puma (otherwise known as cougars) to their pre-Columbian haunts.” These are words he used to describe his plan for America – about 20 years ago. At the time, it appeared to be just another crazy rant. Today, it is a shadow plan being stealthily realized by government fiat.
    He goes on: “a vast system of connected wilderness reserves that would crisscross the continent . These reserves would dwarf the largest national parks. Rather than build roads, laborers would remove existing ones, along with dams, power lines and other human-made structures. Planners would choose the reserve sites with plants and animals, not people , in mind, selecting them not for recreational opportunities, but for their ecological potential. Up to half the contiguous United States would be involved in a transformation whereby “islands” of civilization would be surrounded by wilderness tracts and corridors.”
    Note: since the animals would be connected, the people would not – except by air – and probably we would be forbidden to use airplanes, since they might disturb the animals.

    “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, when vast, unbroken forests and flowing plains again thrive and support pre-Columian populations of plants and animals”. So says Forman and co-author Reed Noss, prof at Oregon State in Corvallis, OR.

    50 Grizzlies require about 12 million acres – about a dozen Olympic National Parks)

    “Our goal is to create a new political reality based on the needs of other species”, Forman. In 1492, Cholera, rabies, smallpox, yellow fever were rampant. Without modern medicine, industry, etc and with people stacked up in big city high rises, they would become rampant again.

    You can bet the half of the US to be converted to an animal park is the Western Half – not the Eastern. It starts with places such as the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State. Not too many people live here. It you destroy their livelihoods and industry, they will leave on their own.

    This is the philosophy behind the Elwha fiasco. Salmon is simply a word thrown in to get the backing of the public. But destroying the only spawning area for Elwha salmon certainly is not the way to enhance them. Forman’s dream is coming true. Do you like it?

    Government has already torn up many forest roads. Bureaucrats are working to deny people water, insist on huge “buffer zones” for most everything. They like to call it “science”. But it has all the earmarks of religion. Real science is that which you can prove. Unproven theories can just as easily be religion as science.

    For a dozen years bureaucrats working on unproven theories have denied us the use of a fabulous 70 acre piece of ground right next to the Port Angeles harbor. A few years ago, they denied us the valuable use of another large tract of waterfront property using the tribe as their excuse. The (so called) natives are simply immigrants who’s ancestors got here earlier than our European ancestors. Yet the WILD LANDS plan hints that maybe they will be allowed to stay in the great animal park to hunt with bow and arrow? I don’t think so. But, the idea is loaded with sentimentality – so they use it.

    One interesting and revealing clue about the true philosophy of modern “animal rights activists” is their selection of the species they attribute rights to. They are nearly all predators. Early settlers battled hugely against predators. Predators killed their livestock and sometimes people. To encourage people with the necessary skills and weapons, they put bounties on wolves and other predatory creatures. And I recall from my youth, men I knew who made their living off those bounties. Today, those bounties have been replaced with fines and/or imprisonment if you do kill predators. All of that helps to discourage folks from living in the country and eliminates attractive species (deer, elk, mountain goats, etc)

    I have video that shows salmon runs in the Elwha were excellent 50 years after the dams were built. Also video of the gorgeous Trumpeter Swans which visit the Elwha each winter – but not again after this coming one, and video showing the disgusting landscape and air full of rock dust when the upper lake was drawn down by only 10% back in the 90s. If your group would like to see it, let me know.

    marv@marvchastain.com

    Back to 1492

    I introduced you to MARV CHASTAIN

    —————————————————

    Let me re-introduce you to GEORGE C. RAINS SR. my Dad.

    The Long Range Plan of NPS 1944-2016

    The Long Range Plan of NPS 1944-2016

    In a conversation at Sol Duc Hot Springs between the acting Olympic National Park Superintendent Preston Macy and my father George C. Rains Sr. in 1944.

    “George, I should not tell you this, but the long range plan of the National Park Service is to take the whole Olympic Peninsula over and put it in the Olympic National Park and move everyone off the Olympic Peninsula.”

    JULY  2011, POSTED  BY CITIZENS REVIEW ONLINE

    Conspiracy Exposed – Citizen Review Online

    www.citizenreviewonline.org/2011/Jul/George_Rains_Statements.pdf

    The notarized document “Conspiracy Exposed” was written on Oct. 8,1992 by. George C. Rains Sr. when he was 77 years old. The referenced “Conspiracy” was …

    Another chapter in the Book of Revelations by Pearl Revere

    The Long Range Plan of the National Park Service 1944-2016  is Exposed

    ——————————————————————————-

    My Dad and Marv are gone….

    They were two old timers with a history and  they had “living memories” of how it used to be in America. They spent many years of their lives trying to protect our rights.

    Dad and Marv may rest in peace, now that Donald J. Trump is President of the United States Of America

    They were two of many, since day one, who acknowledged, encouraged, supported and enabled me in my endeavor to become an American Somebody.

    Jan 26, 2011, American Citizens were afraid of what their  government was going to do to them.   That was unacceptable to me. And, I thought somebody should do something about that. Then I realized I was somebody, and I have been doing something about that ever since.

    Donald J. Trump is President. I have “living memories” of how it used to be in America.

    Behind My Back | Find Your Park Forget Me Not

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/02/13/find-your-park-forget-me-not/

    Feb 13, 2016 – UNBELIEVABLE… Find Your Park Forget Me Not. Built in 1910 and 1926 respectively, the Elwha dam (108 feet high) and Glines Canyon dam …
    And, I shall continue to support my President.

     


  • Obama’s 10,000 Executive Commandments?

    Obama’s 10,000 Executive Commandments?

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda

    INTRODUCTION:

    FROM RULE OF LAW TO RULE BY…WHATEVER?

    ——————————————–

    IVE GOT A PEN AND I’VE GOT A PHONE.

    AND THAT’S ALL I NEED.

    BARACK OBAMA Jan 14, 2014

    ——————————————-

    THE PERTINENT QUESTION AS FAR AS REGULATORY BURDENS ARE CONCERNED IS WHAT THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND MEMORANDA ARE USED FOR AND WHAT THEY DO…….

    Thank God, President Trump, and his  incoming  administration, has promised to restore checks and balances on administrative agencies and appoint federal officials with integrity who will protect the rights of all Americans—not just their preferred special interests.

     WOW.. the more I document and know… The more I must document and post what We the People, American Citizens don’t know……

     —————————————————————————————–

    Snippets from TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS 2015  (a 91 page report)

    Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)

     An Annual Snapshot  of the Federal Regulatory State

    REGULATION: THE HIDDEN TAX

    Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations affect

    the economy by hundreds of billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars annually,

    in addition to the official dollar outlays that dominate the federal policy

    debate.

    THE PRECISE REGULATORY COSTS CAN NEVER BE FULLY KNOWN because, unlike taxes, they are unbudgeted and often indirect. But scattered government and private data exist about the number of regulations issued, their costs and effects, and the agencies that issue them.

    The Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis and the

    Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.,

    JOINTLY ESTIMATE

    THAT AGENCIES SPENT $59.5 BILLION (ON BUDGET) TO ADMINISTER AND POLICE THE REGULATORY ENTERPRISE.

    THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WHICH WAS FORMERLY RANKED CONSISTENTLY IN THE TOP FIVE, IS NOW SIXTH,  BUT ADDING ITS 186 RULES BRINGS THE TOTAL FROM THE TOP SIX RULE MAKING AGENCIES TO 1,639 RULES, OR 48 PERCENT OF ALL FEDERAL RULES.

    ADDING THE $1.88 TRILLION IN OFF-BUDGET COMPLIANCE COSTS BRINGS THE TOTAL RECKONED REGULATORY ENTERPRISE TO ABOUT $1.94 TRILLION.

    The “Unconstitutionality Index,” the ratio of regulations issued by agencies to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, was 16 for 2014 and 51 for 2013. The average for the decade has been 26. This disparity highlights the delegation of lawmaking power to unelected agency officials.

    Compiling some of that information can make the federal regulatory enterprise somewhat more comprehensible.

     THAT COMPILATION IS ONE PURPOSE OF TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS

    ————————————————————————————-

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda

    Ten Thousand Commandments 2016 (an 89 page report)

    An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State

    Clyde Wayne Crews • May 3, 2016

    In January 2016, the Congressional Budget  Office (CBO) reported outlays for fiscal year (FY) 2015 of $3.687 trillion and projected spending for FY 2016 at $3.919 trillion. Discretionary, entitlement, and interest spending is projected to surpass $4 trillion in 2017 and to top $5 trillion by FY 2022.2High debt and deficits notwithstanding, $5 trillion in annual spending will soon be the new normal.

    Highlights of the 2016 edition include:

    • The federal regulatory cost reached $1.885 trillion in 2015.
    • FEDERAL REGULATION IS A HIDDEN TAX THAT AMOUNTS TO NEARLY $15,000 PER U.S. HOUSEHOLD EACH YEAR.
    • In 2015, 114 laws were enacted by Congress during the calendar year, while 3,410 rules were issued by agencies. Thus, 30 rules were issued for every law enacted last year.
    • Many Americans complain about taxes, but regulatory compliance costs exceed the $1.82 trillion that the IRS is expected to collect in both individual and corporate income taxes from 2015.
    • Some 60 federal departments, agencies, and commissions have 3,297 regulations in development at various stages in the pipeline.
    • The top five federal rulemaking agencies account for 41 percent of all federal regulations. These are the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services, and Transportation.
    • The 2015 Federal Register contains 80,260 pages, the third highest page count in its history. Of the seven all-time-highest Federal Register total page counts, six occurred under President Obama.
    • The George W. Bush administration averaged 62 major regulations annually over eight years, while the Obama administration has averaged 81 major regulations annually over seven years.

    View the fact sheet

    Ten Thousand Commandments 2016 Table of Contents

    Executive Summary
    Introduction
    Chapter 1: The Cost of Regulation and Intervention
    Chapter 2: Thousands of Pages and Rules in the Federal Register
    Chapter 3: Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda
    Chapter 4: 24,000 Public Notices Annually
    Chapter 5: Analysis of the Regulatory Plan and Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations
    Chapter 6: GAO Database on Regulation
    Chapter 7: Regulation and the EPA
    Chapter 8: Regulation and the FCC
    Chapter 9: Liberate to Stimulate

    ———————————————————————————-

    2015  The Ten Thousand Commandments  a 91 page report

    TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS ARCHIVES

    10KC 2015 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2014 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2013 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2012 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2011 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2010 (full study in PDF)

    10KC 2009 (full study in PDF)

    ——————————————————————-

    Pardon my redundancy……

    An Annual Snapshot of  the Federal Regulatory State

    2015 Edition by Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.

    REGULATION: THE HIDDEN TAX

    Federal environmental, safety and health, and economic regulations affect

    the economy by hundreds of billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars annually,

    in addition to the official dollar outlays that dominate the federal policy

    debate.

     THE PRECISE REGULATORY COSTS CAN NEVER BE FULLY KNOWN because, unlike taxes, they are unbudgeted and often indirect. But scattered government and private data exist about the number of regulations issued, their costs and effects, and the agencies that issue them.

    Compiling some of that information can make the federal regulatory enterprise somewhat more comprehensible. THAT COMPILATION IS ONE PURPOSE OF TEN THOUSAND COMMANDMENTS, highlights of which follow:

    Based on the best available federal government data, past reports, and contemporary studies, this report highlights estimated regulatory compliance and economic costs of $1.88 trillion annually.

    In 2014, 224 laws were enacted by Congress during the calendar year, whereas 3,554 rules were issued by agencies. Thus, 16 rules were issued for every law enacted last year.

    The “Unconstitutionality Index,” the ratio of regulations issued by agencies to laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, was 16 for 2014 and 51 for 2013. The average for the decade has been 26. This disparity highlights the delegation of lawmaking power to unelected agency officials.

    If one assumed that all costs of federal regulation and intervention flowed all the way down to households, U.S. households would “pay” $14,976 annually on average in regulatory hidden tax. That payment amounts to 23 percent of the average income of $63,784 and 29 percent of the expenditure budget of $51,100. The “tax” exceeds every item in the budget except housing. More is “spent”on embedded regulation than on health care, food, transportation, entertainment, apparel and services, and savings. The estimated cost of regulation exceeds half the level of the federal spending itself, which was $3.5 trillion in 2014.

    Regulatory costs of $1.88 trillion amount to 11 percent of the U.S. GDP, which was estimated at $17.4 trillion in 2014 by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    When regulatory costs are combined with federal FY 2014 outlays of $3.5 trillion, the federal government’s share of the entire economy now reaches 30.6 percent.

    The costs of the regulatory “hidden tax” surpass federal income tax receipts. Regulatory compliance costs exceed 2014 total individual income tax revenues of $1.386 trillion.

    Regulatory compliance costs vastly exceed the 2014 estimated U.S. corporate income tax revenues of $333 billion and rival corporate pretax profits of $2.235 trillion.

    If it were a country, U.S. regulation would be the world’s tenth-largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.

    U.S. regulatory costs exceed each of the GDPs of Australia and Canada, the highest income nations among the countries ranked most free in the annual Index of Economic Freedom and Economic Freedom of the World reports.

     

    The Weidenbaum Center at Washington University in St. Louis and the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.,

    JOINTLY ESTIMATE THAT AGENCIES SPENT $59.5 BILLION (ON BUDGET) TO ADMINISTER AND POLICE THE REGULATORY ENTERPRISE. ADDING THE $1.88 TRILLION IN OFF-BUDGET COMPLIANCE COSTS BRINGS THE TOTAL RECKONED REGULATORY ENTERPRISE TO ABOUT $1.94 TRILLION.

    Among the six all-time-high Federal Register page counts, five have occurred under President Obama.

    The annual outflow of more than 3,500 final rules—sometimes far above that level—means that 90,836 rules have been issued since 1993.

    The Federal Register finished 2014 at 77,687 pages, the sixth-highest level in its history. Federal Register pages devoted specifically to final rules stand at 24,861 in 2014. The record high is 26,417 in 2013.

    The 2014 Federal Register contained 3,554 final rules and 2,383 proposed rules. Since the nation’s founding, more than 15,209 executive orders have been issued.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA ISSUED 215 BY THE END OF 2014.

    President George W. Bush’s administration averaged 62 major rules annually during his eight years in office; Obama’s six years so far have averaged 81.

    Whereas the federal government issues more than 3,500 rules annually, public notices in the Federal Register normally exceed 24,000 annually, with uncounted “guidance documents” and other materials among them. There were 23,970 notices in 2014, and there have been 501,899 since 1995.

    Sixty federal departments, agencies, and commissions have 3,415 regulations at various stages of implementation, according to the 2014 “Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions,” which lists federal regulatory actions at various stages of implementation.

    Of the 3,415 regulations in the pipeline, 200 are “economically significant” rules, which the federal government defines as having annual effects on the economy of $100 million or more. Assuming that those rule making effects are primarily regulatory implies roughly $20 billion yearly in future off-budget regulatory costs.

    Of the 3,415 regulations now in the works, 674 affect small businesses. Of those, 374 required a regulatory flexibility analysis; 300 were otherwise noted by agencies to affect small businesses.

    The five most active rule-producing agencies—the departments of the Treasury, Interior, Commerce, Transportation, and Health and Human Services—account for 1,453 rules, or 43 percent of all rules in the Unified Agenda pipeline.

    The Environmental Protection Agency, which was formerly ranked consistently in the top five, is now sixth, but adding its 186 rules brings the total from the top six rulemaking agencies to 1,639 rules, or 48 percent of all federal rules

    ——————————————————-

    I started here…

    Chapter 3 May 3, 2016

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda

    https://cei.org/…/Ten%20Thousand%20Commandments%202016%20-%20Chapter%…

    Crews: Ten Thousand Commandments 2016. 23. Presidential Executive Orders and. Executive Memoranda. President Obama famously pledged to use his “pen …

     

    Presidential Executive Orders and Executive Memoranda …

    https://cei.org/10KC/Chapter-3

    May 3, 2016 – [51] Executive orders, presidential memoranda, and other executive actions make up a … [61] In all, four of Obama’s executive orders directly address … Read Chapter 2 – THOUSANDS OF PAGES AND RULES IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER.

    The pertinent question as far as regulatory burdens are concerned is what these executive orders and memoranda are used for and what they do…….

    We live in an era in which the government— without actually passing a law—increasingly dictates parameters of various economic sectors, including health care, retirement, education, energy production, finance, land and resource management, funding of science and research, and manufacturing. Executive actions and decrees issued in a limited government context have different implications than do those issued in an era of activist government, rendering some of what transpires today without precedent………

    Counting rules and regulations, executive orders, memoranda, and other regulatory guidance gets us only so far. These actions need more scrutiny and oversight, because they have become powerful means of working around the constitutional system of legislation made by an elected body.[69]

    ———————————————————————————

    Are you concerned, with any of Obama Executive Orders and Memorandums

    IVE GOT A PEN AND I’VE GOT A PHONE.

    AND THAT’S ALL I NEED.

    BARACK OBAMA

    FROM RULE OF LAW TO RULE BY…WHATEVER?

    President Obama famously pledged to use his “pen and phone” to implement parts of his policy agenda without congressional approval.[51] Executive orders, presidential memoranda, and other executive actions make up a large component of that initiative.[52] This section examines those numbers, but a considerable amount of executive branch activity is not well measured and merits heightened attention, especially when an administration so explicitly emphasizes unilateral action.[53]

    Presidential memoranda since 1999— which presidential scholar Phillip Cooper has termed “executive orders by another name”—are also depicted in Figure 15.[55] Memoranda may or may not be published, depending on the administration’s own determination of “general applicability and legal effect,” making it “difficult to count presidential memoranda.”[56] Obama’s pace since 2009 tops that of George W. Bush, which is unsurprising given his administration’s openness about prioritizing executive action. Bush published 129 memoranda over his entire presidency, whereas Obama issued 219 during his first seven years that were published in the Federal Register

    ——————————————————————————————

    This kind of bullying and intimidation of Americans by a federal agency must be shut down. The incoming Trump administration has the opportunity to restore checks and balances on administrative agencies and appoint federal officials with integrity who will protect the rights of all Americans—not just their preferred special interests.

    Originally posted at The Daily Signal. 

    President-elect Donald Trump has a golden opportunity to restrain other overzealous regulators. One place to start is at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which governs private-sector labor relations. Originally built to act as an impartial agency that represents the public in labor disputes, the agency has become overly political and prone to playing favorites.

    How Trump Can Curb the Power of Unelected Regulators

    The Daily Signal Trey Kovacs December 9, 2016

    —————————————————————————————–

    From Rule of Law to Rule by…Whatever

    Presidential Memoranda | whitehouse.gov

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential…/presidentialmemoranda

    EXECUTIVE ORDERS · PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDA · PROCLAMATIONS · LEGISLATION · NOMINATIONS & … MEMORANDA. PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM on December 08, 2016 …

    Presidential Memoranda

    Presidential Memorandum on December 09, 2016

    Presidential Memoranda — Minnesota World’s Fair 2023

    Presidential Memorandum on December 09, 2016

    Message to the Senate — UN Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration

    Presidential Memorandum on December 09, 2016

    Message to the Senate — Arms Trade Treaty

    Presidential Memorandum on December 08, 2016

    Presidential Determination and Waiver — Pursuant to Section 2249a of Title 10, United States Code, and Sections 40 and 40A of the Arms Export Control Act to Support U.S. Special Operations to Combat Terrorism in Syria

    Presidential Memorandum on December 08, 2016

    Message to Congress — Brazil Social Security Agreement

    Presidential Memorandum on December 05, 2016

    Presidential Memorandum — Steps for Increased Legal and Policy Transparency Concerning the United States Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations

    Presidential Memorandum on December 05, 2016

    Letter from the President — Supplemental 6-month War Powers Letter

    Presidential Memorandum on December 02, 2016

    Presidential Determination — Pursuant to Section 570(a) of the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1997

    Presidential Memorandum on December 01, 2016

    Presidential Determination — Suspension of Limitations under the Jerusalem Embassy Act

    Presidential Memorandum on November 16, 2016

    Presidential Memorandum — Eligibility of the Multinational Force and Observers to Receive Defense Articles and Defense Services


  • The Human Toll of WA DC Edicts 2012-2016

    2012 TWO COUNTIES – same problem – water and land use REGULATIONS

    SISKIYOU COUNTY CALIF –  CLALLAM COUNTY WASHINGTON

    WHAT HAVE OUR COUNTY’S GOT IN COMMON?

     WATER AND LAND USE REGULATIONS AND LITIGATION ARE DESTROYING US.

    —————————————————————————————–

    2016  THREE  COUNTIES – same problem – water and land use REGULATIONS

    FEBRUARY 26, 2016  THE SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY (WA DC Edicts) FEDERAL CONTROL, THREE COUNTIES,  THREE STATE, SISKIYOU COUNTY CALIF –  CLALLAM COUNTY WASHINGTON And JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON CAUSED BY THE….

    ———————————————————————

    THIS IS A MUST READ FIRST

    BLM Bureau of Land Mismanagement

    Posted on February 29, 2016 9:33 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    February 26, 2016 Toni Webb’s  story is here… OREGON CANDIDATE EXPOSES SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY FEDERAL CONTROL IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY OREGON

    Liz and I both saw this … As the history of our three counties in three different states. Washington State, Oregon and Calif. Liz Bowen is from Siskiyou County, Calif. Pie N Politics Pearl Rains Hewett is from Clallam County WA

    —————————————————————————-

    JUNE 10, 2016

    The Bottom line….

    Pearl Rains Hewett,  LET ME ASK AMERICA A QUESTION

    HOW HAS THE ‘SYSTEM’ BEEN WORKING OUT FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?

    —————————————————————————–

    By Donald J. Trump April 14, 2016 7:18 p.m. ET

    (unedited full text)

     LET ME ASK AMERICA A QUESTION

    HOW HAS THE ‘SYSTEM’ BEEN WORKING OUT FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?

    Behind My Back | Let Me Ask America a Question

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/26/letmeaskamerica-a-question/

    Apr 26, 2016 – Let Me Ask America a Question. How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family? No wonder voters demand change.

    ————————————————————————————-

    MAY 9, 2016 DONALD J. TRUMP SAID ” AS A BUSINESSMAN I THINK REGULATIONS ARE EVEN WORSE THAN TAXES”.

    WOW, GETTING RID OF THE EPA?  Environmental Protection Agency

    THE ESA THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT?

    May 27, 2016 – Trump accused state officials of denying water to Central Valley farmers so they can send it … so they can send it out to sea ‘to protect a certain kind of threeinch fish‘. The theory that California’s water shortage is all the fault of the Environmental Protection Agency is, like most conspiracy.

    GO FIGURE? WATER FOR PEOPLE NOT A THREE INCH ENDANGERED SMELT.

    The Human Toll of WA DC Edicts 2012-2016

    Apr 26, 2016 – Let Me Ask America a Question. How has the ‘system’ been working out for you and your family? No wonder voters demand change.

    ———————————————————————————-

    DONALD J. TRUMP, AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, A BUSINESS MAN, WILL BE TRANSFERRING THE CONTROL OF OUR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC LANDS BACK TO WESTERN STATES, LIKE OREGON, BACK TO WE THE PEOPLE, BECAUSE IT IS SO CRITICAL TO OUR SURVIVAL.

    ——————————————————

     The Human Toll in Siskiyou County – KARE

    www.klamathalliance.org/information/the-humantoll-in-siskiyoucounty/

    Siskiyou County has been hard hit by the environmental movement during the past twenty years. Time and again, we are promised that tourism will rise and …

    ———————————————————————————

    Nov 18, 2012- June 10, 2016

    CLALLAM COUNTY WASHINGTON- SISKIYOU COUNTY CALIF-  

    OUR TIMBER INDUSTRIES  HAVE BEEN HARD HIT BY THE “ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT” DURING THE PAST TWENTY YEARS.

    TIME AND AGAIN, WE ARE PROMISED THAT TOURISM WILL RISE AND …

    ————————————————————————————

    from Pearl Rains-Hewett

    Posted 11/18/2012

    WHAT HAVE OUR COUNTY’S GOT IN COMMON?

    OUR TIMBER INDUSTRIES AND,

    How Water and Land Use REGULATIONS and Litigation Are DESTROYING Us

    2012 “The hand writing on the wall” is an idiom for “imminent doom or misfortune” and for “the future is predetermined”.

    CLALLAM COUNTY

    Timber harvesting is the dominant land use in the County with 285,842 acres in large commercial timber holdings. Widespread timber harvesting in the area began in the 1920’s and continued intensively through the 1980’s, when the rate slowed significantly due in part to federal listings of the northern SPOTTED OWL AND MARBLED MURRELET.

    At one time, it was the largest timber production area in the state.

    However, OUR FOREST INDUSTRIES HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED BY FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS.

    How many sawmills and wood processing facilities are gone?

    There is no doubt that the restrictions on timber harvest from public lands under the Northwest Forest Plan have played a significant role in this decline.

    Eighty- one % (81%) of the land base in Clallam County proper is in Federal (or state) ownership.

    Olympic National Forest Is over 1 million acres.

    There are more than ? miles of wild and scenic rivers in Clallam County.

    What is the unemployment rate? 9.1% of the labor force Sep 2012

    One aspect of this is land conversion from private to Federal lands.

    acquisition or conservation easements

    new wildlife refuge

    convert acres of farmland to wetlands

    There are many forest-dependent communities in our county where local unemployment is estimated from?

    ——————————————————————————————

    SISKIYOU COUNTY

    Siskiyou County accounts for 15% of the timber harvested in California.

    At one time, it was the second largest timber production area in the state.

    However, our forest industries have been devastated by Federal and State regulations.

    There are many forest-dependent communities in our county where local unemployment is estimated from 30-40%.

    There is no doubt that the restrictions on timber harvest from public lands under the Northwest Forest Plan have played a significant role in this decline.

    all 17 sawmills were gone and wood processing facilities

    Sixty-three % (63%) of the land base in Siskiyou County is in Federal (or state) ownership.

    There are more than 152 miles of wild and scenic rivers in the County.

    National Forest’s 1.7 million acres alone comprises 42% of Siskiyou County’s land base.

    In March of 2012, the unemployment rate was 18.7%, ranking Siskiyou 50th out of 56 counties in the state.

    The AP Economic Stress Index ranks Siskiyou County as the 14th most economically stressed county in the United States.

    One aspect of this is land conversion from private to Federal lands.

    Since 1999, 8,625.71 acres valued at $3,922,179 have been converted to Federal land.

    Another 11,236 acres of ranch land in the Shasta Valley is currently proposed for conversion to a new wildlife refuge.

    In addition, the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement seeks to convert 44,479 acres of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin to wetlands, (some of which may be in Siskiyou County.)

    It also proposes to secure 21,800 acres of farmland by acquisition or conservation easements in the Scott and Shasta Valleys of Siskiyou County.

    ————————————————————————-

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    Please read on if you are concerned

    —————————————————————————

    Siskiyou County Supervisor Marcia Armstrong 5/31/12

    “I have completed part I of my report on (Integrated Water Resources Management) IWRM. http://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/IRWM%20siskiyou%20part1.htm This includes an economic and social impact study, a briefing on each of Siskiyou County’s Agricultural areas in the Klamath, a briefing on water rights and a chronology of the major actions (legal, regulatory) in the Klamath River/Siskiyou County over the past 15 years.”

    Part 1 – Siskiyou County

    How Water and Land Use Regulations and Litigation Are Destroying Us

    By Marcia H. Armstrong © 2012
    armsrtrng@sisqtel.net
    (reprint granted with attribution)

    Background on Siskiyou County and its Economy

     

    GENERAL:

    Sixty-three % (63%) of the land base in Siskiyou County is in Federal (or state) ownership. There are portions of the Klamath National Forest; Shasta-Trinity National Forest; Six Rivers National Forest;Modoc National Forest; and Rogue Siskiyou National Forest in Siskiyou County. The Klamath National Forest’s 1.7 million acres alone comprises 42% of Siskiyou County’s land base. The county also includes the Tule Lake and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges, as well as the Lava Beds National Monument. There are various BLM lands administered by the Redding, Medford, Ashland and Susanville BLM offices. There are more than 152 miles of wild and scenic rivers in the County. There are lands held in tribal trust for the Karuk and Quartz Valley Indian tribes.

    The entire land base of Siskiyou County is 4,038,843 acres or 6,287 square miles. Of this, 1,153,246 acres (29%) is in farmland, however only 138,000 acres (3% of tot. county acres) are irrigated. 2,525,216 acres is considered rangeland/woodland/ forest (inc. National Forest.) Our relatively sparse population of 44,301 classifies the county as “frontier.” There are nine small incorporated cities that date back to the California Gold Rush. Eight tenths of one percent of private land is urban.

    In the year 2000, the average unemployment rate for the year was 7.5%. By 2008, it had risen to 10.2%, rising again to 15.8% in 2009. In March of 2012, the unemployment rate was 18.7%, ranking Siskiyou 50th out of 56 counties in the state. There are many forest-dependent communities in our county where local unemployment is estimated from 30-40%. The average wage per job in 2008 was $32,707. That was only 63% of the state average. The median household income was $36,823 — or 60% of the state median. Non-household median income is currently $27,718 — a ranking of 47th in the state. The AP Economic Stress Index ranks Siskiyou County as the 14th most economically stressed county in the United States.

    Siskiyou County has a substantial low income population. In 2010, 18.6% of all residents in Siskiyou County, 26.6% of children under the age of 18 and 7.3% of those 65 years or older lived below the poverty line. In 2010, the economic impact of jobs at Human Services and entitlement benefits to County residents was $71,581,874. This includes: $11.6 million in annual “assistance costs” (CalWorks/welfare, Foster Care;) $8.8 million in annual food stamps; $4.7 million in In-Home-Support-Services for the elderly and disabled; and $36.7 million in Medical Assistance/Medi-Cal.

    Social statistics indicate that Siskiyou County has the second highest child abuse/neglect rate in the state – (3 times the state average.) Compared to Los Angeles County, Siskiyou County has higher rates of all forms of violent crime except homicide. [aggravated assaults, forcible rape, and robbery.] Often these crimes have similar underlying causes, namely, social strain combined with the selective disinhibition fueled by alcohol and drug use (read Robert Nash Parker; Robin Room; and Jeffery A Roth). The premature death rate for the general population is almost twice that of the national average.

    According to Indicators of Alcohol and Other Drug Risk and Consequences for California Counties Siskiyou County 2007, the number of local fatalities in alcohol-involved motor vehicle accidents was three times that of the statewide average; the death rate due to alcohol and drug use was 32.5 deaths per 100,000 persons (compared to a state average of 20.9/1000.) Methamphetamine accounted for 44% of admissions for alcohol and drug treatment. Admissions for alcohol use accounted for 31 percent of admissions in 2004. The death rate for cirrhosis if the liver was three times the Healthy People 2010 goal. Drug-induced deaths were 19 times higher than the Healthy People 2010 goal per 1,000. About 85% of child abuse cases involve methamphetamine.

    THE ECONOMY OF SISKIYOU COUNTY IS BASED ON SMALL BUSINESS. In 2008, there were 6,857 non-farm proprietors in Siskiyou County. According to 2007 data, 61% of non-farming establishments in Siskiyou County had less than 4 employees; 82% had less than 10 employees and 93% had less than 20.

    Agriculture is a major economic sector of the county. Our 2010 Siskiyou County Annual Crop and Livestock Report indicates that the agricultural valuation in the county was $195,711,956 (gross and excluding timber.) According to the USDA Ag Census, in 1992 Siskiyou County had 647,446 acres in farms. By 2007, this had been reduced to 597,534 acres. The 1996-2008 Land Use Summary, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program indicates that during the span of the report, Siskiyou County lost 15,164 acres of prime farmland; 3,036 acres of farmland of statewide importance; 40,456 acres of farmland of local importance. With an addition of 16,126 acres of grazing land and 2,390 acres of unique farmland, this mean a total loss of 40,140 acres of farmland. In 2000, there were 895 farm proprietors in Siskiyou County. This declined to only 730 in 2008. The county lost 81 livestock ranches from 1992 to 2007, with an accompanying loss of 20,882 fewer cattle and calves in inventory. According to the CA D.O.T. Siskiyou County Economic Forecast, since 1995, Siskiyou County’s agriculture industries have experienced substantial job loss of about 586 jobs, declining almost 45%.

    During the past 20 years, there has also been a restructuring of size and sales in agricultural operations. Since 1992 to 2007, there has been an increase in the number of small farms: farms under 10 acres doubled to 80. Farms under 50 acres increased 59% to 229. Farms 50-179 acres increased 27% to 228. Farms from 180-449 acres remained about the same at 79. However, there was a 19% reduction in farms 1000 acres or more to 100 farms in 2007. One aspect of this is land conversion from private to Federal lands. Since 1999, 8,625.71 acres valued at $3,922,179 have been converted to Federal land. Another 11,236 acres of ranch land in the Shasta Valley is currently proposed for conversion to a new wildlife refuge. In addition, the proposed Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement seeks to convert 44,479 acres of farmland in the Upper Klamath Basin to wetlands, (some of which may be in Siskiyou County.) It also proposes to secure 21,800 acres of farmland by acquisition or conservation easements in the Scott and Shasta Valleys of Siskiyou County.

    At the same time, farms having less than $2,500 in sales increased 105% to 359. Farms selling $2,500-9,999 stayed about the same at 151. Farms selling $10-$24,999 decreased 10% to 95. Farms selling $25,000-$49,999 decreased about 18% to 60. Farms selling $50,000 to $99,999 decreased 45% to 44 and farms with sales in excess of $100,000 increased by 28% to 137.

    Siskiyou County accounts for 15% of the timber harvested in California. At one time, it was the second largest timber production area in the state. However, our forest industries have been devastated by Federal and State regulations. For instance, the forestry section of Siskiyou County’s 1972 Conservation Element of the General Plan indicated that there were 17 sawmills in the county (employing 2,055 people or 24% of the employment base) and 8 wood processing facilities (employing 294 people or 3% of the employment base). There were 46 logging contractors and support establishments employing 501 people or 5% of the employment base. By 2007, ALL 17 SAWMILLS WERE GONE. The census indicates that there were a total of 6 wood products manufacturing establishments (including veneer mills) employing 380 people (one mill has subsequently closed in Butte Valley). There were 38 Logging, Forestry and Support Establishments employing 157 employees.

    There is no doubt that the restrictions on timber harvest from public lands under the Northwest Forest Plan have played a significant role in this decline. In 1978, 239 MMBF of timber was harvested from the Klamath National Forest (KNF), 274 MMBF from the Shasta Trinity National Forest (STNF) and 73 MMBF from the Six Rivers National Forest (SRNF.) In 2008, 20 MMBF was harvested from the KNF, 22 MMBF from the STNF and 8 MMBF from the SRNF. [Seehttp://users.sisqtel.net/armstrng/regulatory%20impacts.htm for links to tables and reports]

    ————————————————————————–

    The Human Toll in Siskiyou County – KARE

    The Human Toll in Siskiyou County

    SISKIYOU COUNTY HAS BEEN HARD HIT BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT DURING THE PAST TWENTY YEARS. TIME AND AGAIN,

    WE ARE PROMISED THAT TOURISM WILL RISE AND OFFSET ANY DAMAGE TO OUR RESOURCE DRIVEN ECONOMY, AND YET THOSE DOLLARS REFUSE TO MATERIALIZE.

    For 20 years, timber has been excluded from our national forests (see this shocking graph) which consume nearly two thirds of our entire county. Mining has been all but eliminated, agriculture (the largest remaining industry in this county)

    AND NOW KS WILD HAS THE TEMERITY TO CLAIM THAT OUR COUNTY WILL BE BETTER OFF WITH ANOTHER 200,000 ACRES (OF 600,000 TOTAL) OF TIMBERLAND LOCKED UP IN SOME “CLIMATE REFUGE?” Next time somebody trots out that line, give them some of these demographic statistics:

    Unemployment, July 2011

    (State wide data by county: PDF file)

    • California: 12.4%
    • Siskiyou Co: 16.6%
    • Shasta Co: 15.0%
    • Modoc Co: 13.9%
    • Humboldt Co: 11.9%
    • LA Co: 13.3%
    • Sacramento Co: 12.9%
    • San Franscsco Co: 9.0%

    Siskiyou County 2010 Snapshot

    (PDF file)

    • Population: around 48,000
    • The median age of the population is 43
    • 36% of the population is employed
    • Unemployment is 18.5%
    • Median Household Income $35,692 ($59,928 for CA)
    • 28% of households have children under 18 (46% USA)
    • 18% of the population lives below the poverty line (13% CA)
    • 27% of children live below the poverty line (18.5% CA)
    • 18% of the population is eligible for food stamps
    • 22% are eligible for Medi-Cal programs (18% CA)
    • Substantiation of Child Abuse and Neglect 31.7 per 1,000 ( 9/1,000 for CA)
    • Siskiyou Co. has higher rates of all violent crime (aggravated assaults, forcible rape and robbery) except homicide than Los Angeles Co. 11% of Seniors aged 60 and above have been abused.
    • Methamphetamine accounts for 44% of substance abuse treatment admissions. Roughly 11.9 percent of adolescents under 18 reported binge drinking over the past month (CA 6.6 percent.)
    • Of youth between age 10-17 admitted for treatment, 72% were for marijuana, 17% methamphetamine, and 11% alcohol. 83% were male. This age group also accounts for 13% of drug-related arrests.
    • Individuals between 25 and 34 years account for 25 percent of admissions to alcohol and drug treatment. This age group also accounts for 22 percent of drug related arrests
    • Individuals between 35 and 44 years accounts for 27 percent of alcohol-related arrests

    Twenty Year Trends

    (PDF file)

    • Demographic Trends — Age distribution: The census indicates that between 1990 and 2008, Siskiyou County experienced a 25% loss in the population of children under the age of 18. The County saw a 45% increase in the population age 45-64 and an 18% increase of those age 65 and older. This shows that our population is aging dramatically, and younger family wage earners are migrating elsewhere.
    • Income Trends; The BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) indicates that in 1987, the average wage for jobs in Siskiyou County were 73% of the California average. There was a steady decline down to as low as 57% in the year 2000, then the percentage stabilized at 61 % with an increase to 63% in 2008. This shows that our wages are depressed, not keeping pace with inflation and the rest of the state.
    • Unemployment — The EDD statistics indicate that from 1990-2009, the highest rates of unemployment occurred in individual months in 1991-1993 (19.3-21.1%.) The average rate of unemployment for 1991 was 13.2, for 1992 — 15.8 and for 1993 -15.6. This high rate likely reflects the closure of the four timber mills in Siskiyou County between 1989-1999. The rate of unemployment then very gradually decreased each year until it plateaued around 2001 -2007 at 8-9.5% It climbed to an average of 10.2% in 2008 and was at 15.8% average in 2009.
    • Median Household Income The census (SAIPE) reports that in 1989, the median household income of Siskiyou County residents was $22,077. This was 66% of the California median, (down $11,000 from the CA median.) In 2008, the Siskiyou County median was $36,823. It had decreasedto 60% of the California median, (down $24,000 from the CA median household income.) Siskiyou County ranks 51 out of 58 California Counties in median income.
    • Poverty Rates — The census (SAIPE) reports that in 1989, 14.4% of Siskiyou County residents lived below the poverty line. This was 1.7% higher than the poverty rate for California in general. In 1989, 23.5% of children under 18 in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. This was 2.2% higher than the California rate. In 2008, 16.4% of all residents in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. This is a 2 percent increase in the rate over that of 1989 and is 3.1% higher than the California rate. In 2008, 25.4% of children under the age of 18 in Siskiyou County lived in poverty. That is a 2 percent increase in the rate over that of 1989 and is 6.9% greater than the California rate.

    Summary Comment: Siskiyou County is an aging county. A large percentage of children in the county live in poverty and this is getting worse. Average wages are poor compared to the rest of California and getting worse. The household median income in the County has historically lagged far behind that of California and is getting worse. Unemployment has always been substantially higher than California in general. After stabilizing from high employment in the aftermath of mill closures and Forest Service layoffs, unemployment has substantially increased in the past two years and is climbing. It is currently 15.6% (May 2010.) The well-being of a substantial number of Siskiyou County residents is depressed and trending downward.

    ———————————————————–

    JUNE 10, 2016

    The Bottom line….

    Pearl Rains Hewett,  LET ME ASK AMERICA A QUESTION

    HOW HAS THE ‘SYSTEM’ BEEN WORKING OUT FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY?

     


  • The Federal Fault of Land Grabbing

    GIVE US BACK OUR STATE LAND

    LET OUR PEOPLE GROW and farm, and sow,, and reap, and ranch, and mow, and harvest, and log, and mill, and mine, and build, and manufacture, and create jobs.

    It is our heritage, it is who we are and what we do, it is our way of life, it is our source of employment and income, it provides our shelter, the roof over our heads, food on our tables and heat from our hearth, indeed it has been  the  lot of our lives for many generations of American  families.

    We are American citizens. We had sovereign enabling state land. We were and are public and private property owners. We the people were and are the best stewards and caretakers of our state and private land.

    So we saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil. We know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live

    —————————————————————————————-

    February 26, 2016 Toni Webb is a candidate for Commissioner of Josephine County, Oregon

    THIS IS SNIPPET OF HER STORY… Oregon candidate exposes social, economic catastrophe caused by federal control in Josephine County

    TO: Candidates running for President of the United States

    This letter is to inform you of the struggles faced by the people of Josephine County, Oregon, due to ongoing problems with the federal government’s control of our public land, including our once-productive forests. Bad policies and misguided management by federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, have left our rural county economically and socially devastated.

    —————————————————————————————-

    How can  the American people prosper and gain from their toil?

    When Obama’s executive orders, his anointed appointed and  non-government agencies including appointed judges, use every trick in the book, by hook or by crook to grab, control, restrict, regulate and prohibit  all private and state public land use?

    How can  the American people prosper and gain from their toil?

    START HERE

    American Lands Council – A Constitutional Means To Financial …

    www.freedomworks.org/…/americanlandscouncil-consti…

    FreedomWorks

    Nov 29, 2013 – Federal Lands Map The American Lands Council recently came to Oregon to discuss the dichotomy … There is a Federal Fault Line between states that had their lands granted to them after statehood and those that didn’t;.

    States that had their lands granted to them after statehood?

    —————————————————————–

    Read this…

    The ENABLING ACT February 22, 1889

    Posted on March 9, 2014 11:10 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Way back then, the Federal Government  and the elected representative gave to and enabled American citizens,  they made  donations of public lands to such states.

    Moving forward 125 years, “We the People” of Washington State (the Western United States), are in a battle with the Federal  and state Governments  and our elected representative struggling to preserve, protect,  maintain the use of,  intent and purpose of the  public lands that were given to us in TRUST.

    —————————————————————————————–

    How can the American people prosper and gain from their toil?

    JUST GIVE US BACK OUR STATE LAND?

    IF ONLY IT WAS THAT EASY….. REMEMBER THIS PART?

    Obama’s  executive orders, his executive land grabs, his federally anointed appointed and  NON-GOVERNMENT agencies including appointed judges, use every trick in the book, by hook or by crook to grab, control, restrict, regulate and prohibit all private and state public land use?

    Executive Orders Matter

    Posted on October 5, 2015 6:22 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514, CLIMATE CHANGE Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, establishes an integrated strategy for sustainability within the Federal Government. Under the Executive Order, each agency is required to evaluate their climate change risks and vulnerabilities to manage the effects of climate

    ——————————————-
    CLIMATE CHANGE: OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER 13514
    Things that matter TRUTH AND POLITICS
    IT’S AS EASY AS ONE, TWO THREE…
    (1) FEDERAL Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030.
    OBAMA’S RULE ASSIGNS CUSTOMIZED TARGETS TO EACH STATE
    “CLIMATE CHANGE WILL NOT BE SOLVED BY GRABBING POWER FROM STATES or slowly hollowing out our economy,” Bush said.
    ———————————————————————————-
    (2) STATE Planning Steps Set a Mandate
    THE ACTUAL PRICE WON’T BE CLEAR UNTIL STATES DECIDE HOW THEY’LL REACH THEIR TARGETS THEN LEAVES IT UP TO THE STATE TO DETERMINE HOW TO MEET THEM.
    IF STATES REFUSE TO SUBMIT PLANS, THE EPA HAS THE AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE ITS OWN PLAN

    (3) 2015 COUNTY Planning Steps Set a Mandate

    ———————————————————————————-

    BLM Bureau of Land Mismanagement

    Posted on February 29, 2016 9:33 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    February 26, 2016 Toni Webb’s  story is here… OREGON CANDIDATE EXPOSES SOCIAL, ECONOMIC CATASTROPHE CAUSED BY FEDERAL CONTROL IN JOSEPHINE COUNTY

    Liz and I both saw this … As the history of our three counties in three different states. Washington State, Oregon and Calif. Liz Bowen is from Siskiyou County, Calif. Pie N Politics Pearl Rains Hewett is from Clallam County WA

    I hope that you, as candidates for President of the United States, will seriously consider why the effort to transfer the ownership and control of public lands back to western states, like Oregon, IS SO CRITICAL TO OUR SURVIVAL.

    Dept. of Interior Deterioration

    Posted on May 4, 2014 10:32 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    —————————————————————-

    Our Public Land Heritage: From the GLO to the BLM

    The document is only 27 pages of how the federal government turned
    The GLOW of the Act Establishing Yellowstone National Park (1872) – Our ..

    AS A PUBLIC PARK OR PLEASURING GROUND FOR THE BENEFIT AND ENJOYMENT OF THE PEOPLE. INTO A OBAMA’S PERSONAL AGENDA. grabbing of our public land for conservation and protection under federal lands.

    —————————————–

    SHALL I GO ON….

    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 …

    Calif. Farmers High Dry and Destitute

    Posted on February 29, 2016 8:52 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Calif. Farmers HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE

    Obama admin allocates water for endangered fish, leaves …

    m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/24/obam

    The Washington Times

    Logo: The Washington Times · Home · NewsObama admin allocates water for endangered fish, leaves California farmers high and dry … Wednesday, February 24, 2016 … some farmers are looking at another year of a zero federal water … “We’ve got to not only take a look at providing project [water] yield, we’ve also got …

    Washington State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE by WA State DOE WATER RULES.

    SO WHAT’S NEW? ENDANGERED FISH BEFORE FARMERS, FOOD AND THE ECONOMY.

    YEP… AGAIN AND STILL, FLUSHING TRILLIONS OF GALLONS PEOPLE WATER DOWN THE ENDANGERED SPECIES TOILET.

    ——————————————————————

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotus-water-runs-down-hill/

    Sep 4, 2015 – WOTUS rule – Pacific Legal Foundation https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus. Pacific Legal Foundation PLF Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper, …

    ————————————————————————————-

      Category Archives Public Access to Public land

      WOW Stop the 2016 WILD OLYMPICS

    Posted on April 23, 2016 8:08 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

     

    ENUF… ONE LAST QUESTION

    Behind My Back | Are You A Normal Person?

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/05/18/are-you-a-normalperson/

    May 18, 2015 – If you‘re a normal person, you‘d answer “yes, people usually are more important … www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/high–dry-and-destitute/.


  • Calif. Farmers High Dry and Destitute

    Calif. Farmers HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE

    Obama admin allocates water for endangered fish, leaves …

    m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/24/obam
    The Washington Times

    Logo: The Washington Times · Home · NewsObama admin allocates water for endangered fish, leaves California farmers high and dry … Wednesday, February 24, 2016 … some farmers are looking at another year of a zero federal water … “We’ve got to not only take a look at providing project [water] yield, we’ve also got …

    Washington State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE by WA State DOE WATER RULES.

    SO WHAT’S NEW? ENDANGERED FISH BEFORE FARMERS, FOOD AND THE ECONOMY.

    YEP… AGAIN AND STILL, FLUSHING TRILLIONS OF GALLONS PEOPLE WATER DOWN THE ENDANGERED SPECIES TOILET.

    ——————————————————-

    New post on Pie N Politics

    Feds allocate water for endangered fish, leave Calif. farmers high and dry
    by Liz Bowen
    By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times
    Wednesday, February 24, 2016
    Despite wetter-than-average weather in California, some farmers are looking at another year of a zero federal water allocation even as the billions of gallons of water continue to be dumped into the ocean in order to save a three-inch fish.
    The worst part for many lawmakers at Wednesday’s House subcommittee hearing is that the Delta smelt remains as vulnerable as ever after the loss of 1.4 trillion gallons of water since 2008 under the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ———————————————————–

    PLEASE CLICK ON  AND LISTEN TO THE

    subcommittee hearing

    ———————————————————-

    High, Dry and Destitute

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett

    Fish Before People Regardless of Cost

    Fish Before People Regardless of Cost

    The court held that the protection of EVERY ENDANGERED SPECIES is the highest priority of the federal government, REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

    California’s worst drought in 1200 years in pictures – BBC.com

    FARMERS BEFORE FISH?

    Pacific Legal Foundation, CHALLENGED, sought Supreme Court review, but the High Court denied, it set up reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s  ruling…..

    the court held that the protection of every endangered species is the highest priority of the federal government, regardless of the cost. The result has been a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucracy that frustrates human interests and species conservation.

    Status: On July 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing before the entire court, leaving an adverse ruling from March in place. PLF attorneys filed a petition for certiorari on September 30, 2014. The petition was denied on January 12, 2015.

    ——————————————————————————————————————–Pacific Legal Foundation, a bit of unedited text..

    Stewart & Jasper Orchards v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Issue: Representing several California farmers, PLF attorneys are challenging the biological opinion (BiOp) by federal agencies used to restrict water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in order to protect the Delta smelt, a small fish listed under the Endangered Species Act. In 2012, PLF previously sought Supreme Court review of the case on a Commerce Clause challenge because smelt are in intrastate species, but the High Court denied cert. With a recent adverse ruling at the Ninth Circuit on the biological opinion, it sets up reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s TVA v. Hill decision, relied on by the Ninth Circuit to uphold the smelt BiOp. In TVA v. Hill, the court held that the protection of every endangered species is the highest priority of the federal government, regardless of the cost. The result has been a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucracy that frustrates human interests and species conservation.

    Status: On July 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing before the entire court, leaving an adverse ruling from March in place. PLF attorneys filed a petition for certiorari on September 30, 2014.

    The petition was denied on January 12, 2015.

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

    Complex and contradictory laws, and court decisions, and regulations have made it nearly impossible for water to flow and our communities to grow

    Indeed, a  growing number of communities across the West have become impacted by severe drought conditions,

    Washington State Declares Drought Emergency

    www.huffingtonpost.com/…/washingtondrought-e
    The Huffington Post

    May 15, 2015 – Drought isn’t just a California problem, folks. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee declared a statewide drought emergency on Friday

    ————————————————————————————————–

    How complex is this?

    The court held that the protection of EVERY ENDANGERED SPECIES is the highest priority of the federal government, REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

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

     As House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy explained, “California is enduring its worst drought in 1,200 years, and a growing number of communities across the West have become impacted by severe drought conditions.”

    This week, the House will consider a bill to address water policies in California and the West:

    What happened to this?

    Western Water and American Food Security Act (HR 2898)

    Pie N Politics 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.shtml
    Liz Bowen | February 29, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Categories: CA. Congressman Tom McClintock, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, Politicians & agencies, Water, Resources & Quality | URL: http://wp.me/p13fnu-6xm
    Comment See all comments

    ——————————————————-

    Dec 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | Congress Must Act on Water Issues

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

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

    Comment


  • Fish Before People Regardless of Cost

    Fish Before People Regardless of Cost

    The court held that the protection of EVERY ENDANGERED SPECIES is the highest priority of the federal government, REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

    California’s worst drought in 1200 years in pictures – BBC.com

    FARMERS BEFORE FISH?

    The petition was denied on January 12, 2015.

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

    Stewart & Jasper Orchards v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Issue: Representing several California farmers, PLF attorneys are challenging the biological opinion (BiOp) by federal agencies used to restrict water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in order to protect the Delta smelt, a small fish listed under the Endangered Species Act. In 2012, PLF previously sought Supreme Court review of the case on a Commerce Clause challenge because smelt are in intrastate species, but the High Court denied cert. With a recent adverse ruling at the Ninth Circuit on the biological opinion, it sets up reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s TVA v. Hill decision, relied on by the Ninth Circuit to uphold the smelt BiOp. In TVA v. Hill, the court held that the protection of every endangered species is the highest priority of the federal government, regardless of the cost. The result has been a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucracy that frustrates human interests and species conservation.

    Status: On July 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing before the entire court, leaving an adverse ruling from March in place. PLF attorneys filed a petition for certiorari on September 30, 2014. The petition was denied on January 12, 2015.

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

    Complex and contradictory laws, and court decisions, and regulations have made it nearly impossible for water to flow and our communities to grow

    Indeed, a  growing number of communities across the West have become impacted by severe drought conditions,

    Washington State Declares Drought Emergency

    www.huffingtonpost.com/…/washingtondrought-e
    The Huffington Post

    May 15, 2015 – Drought isn’t just a California problem, folks. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee declared a statewide drought emergency on Friday

    ————————————————————————————————–

    How complex is this?

    The court held that the protection of EVERY ENDANGERED SPECIES is the highest priority of the federal government, REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

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

     As House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy explained, “California is enduring its worst drought in 1,200 years, and a growing number of communities across the West have become impacted by severe drought conditions.”

    This week, the House will consider a bill to address water policies in California and the West:

    Western Water and American Food Security Act (HR 2898)

    • Sponsor: Rep. David Valadao (R-CA) —Bipartisan— “Aims to make more water available to families, farmers, and communities in California and bordering Western states. The dedication of vast quantities of water to protect certain species of fish listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a significant obstacle hindering water delivery in Central and Southern California. HR 2898 will require federal agencies to use current and reliable data when making regulatory decisions, which in turn will provide more water for communities in need,” according to the bill sponsor. The bill will also provide federal regulators with direction and flexibility to capture water during periods of greater precipitation, which can be used to increase California’s water supplies dramatically. (Read bill text)