+menu-


  • Category Archives EPA Clean Water Act
  • WA State DOE Environmental Justice WAC

    WA State DOE Environmental Justice WAC

    Regarding proposed WA State  Chapter 173-321 WAC

    WHAT IS VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH?

    RELATED TO THE OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE IS THE DOCTRINE OF VAGUENESS. THE VAGUENESS DOCTRINE, AN ASPECT OF THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE, HOLDS THAT A LAW IS FACIALLY INVALID IF PERSONS OF “COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AS AT ITS MEANING AND DIFFER AS TO ITS APPLICATION.”

    —————————————–

    SO WHAT ABOUT THIS WA STATE WAC?

     IS IT FACIALLY INVALID IF PERSONS OF “COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AS AT ITS MEANING AND DIFFER AS TO ITS APPLICATION?

     AS USUAL YOU HAVE TO READ 173-321 WAC, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GRANTS TO FIND OUT WHAT’S IN IT!

    MISLEADING TO SAY THE LEAST” I read it, the full text is below.

     For more information:

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/rules/wac173321/1613ov.html

    ECOLOGY’S Introduction

    Under Chapter 70.105D RCW, Ecology administers a program for GRANTS TO

     “PERSONS WHO MAY BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY A RELEASE OR THREATENED RELEASE OF A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS”.

    Grants are used to “facilitate public participation in the investigation and remediation of a release OR THREATENED RELEASE OF A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE and to implement the state’s solid and hazardous waste management priorities.”

    Scope of rulemaking
    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) PROPOSES TO:

    • REVISE PROGRAM PRIORITIES TO INCLUDE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
    • Revise eligibility requirements
    • Clarify the criteria used to evaluate applications
    • Revise eligible costs
    • Develop a method for renewing grants annually per Chapter 70.105D RCW
    • Streamline the grant application and evaluation process to increase consistency, transparency, objectivity, and efficiency
    • Revise the grant application process to authorize electronic submittals
    • Update grant administration requirements
    • Align Chapter 173-321 WAC to current program needs.

    Added for clarity…

    CHAPTER 173-321 WAC

    PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GRANTS

    Complete Chapter

    WAC Sections

    173-321-010

    Purpose and authority.

    173-321-020

    Definitions.

    173-321-030

    Relationship to other legislation and administrative rules.

    173-321-040

    Applicant eligibility.

    173-321-050

    Application evaluation criteria.

    173-321-060

    Eligible project costs.

    173-321-070

    Grant funding.

    173-321-080

    Grant administration.

    WAC 173-321-060

    Eligible project costs.

    (1) ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS FOR SUBSTANCE RELEASE GRANTS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO:

    (A) HIRING TECHNICAL ASSISTANTS TO REVIEW AND INTERPRET DOCUMENTS;

    (b) PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT and public education activities;

    (C) REVIEWING SPECIFIC PLANS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING AND ANALYSIS, REVIEWING REPORTS SUMMARIZING THE RESULTS OF SUCH PLANS AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS TO SUCH PLANS.

    (D) EXPENDABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY;

    (E) OTHER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES AS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

    (2) ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT

     PRIORITY GRANTS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO:

    (a) Assisting in DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING PROGRAMS that promote or improve state or local solid or hazardous waste management plans;

    (b) Assisting in developing programs or activities that promote and are consistent with the state solid or hazardous waste management priorities;

    (C) EXPENDABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY;

    (D) OTHER PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES AS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

    (3) Ineligible projects and grant costs shall include but not be limited to:

    (a) Independently collecting or analyzing samples at facility sites;

    (B) HIRING ATTORNEYS FOR LEGAL ACTIONS AGAINST POTENTIALLY LIABLE PERSONS, FACILITY OWNERS, OR THE DEPARTMENT. APPLICANTS WHO RECEIVE A GRANT AWARD SHALL NOTIFY THE DEPARTMENT IF LEGAL ACTION IS INTENDED OR TAKEN ON THE SUBJECT OF THE GRANT PROJECT OR APPLICATION;

    (C) LEGISLATIVE LOBBYING ACTIVITIES;

    (d) Real property;

    (e) Nonexpendable personal property.

    [Statutory Authority: Chapter 70.105D RCW. WSR 01-05-024 (Order 97-09A), § 173-321-060, filed 2/12/01, effective 3/15/01. Statutory Authority: 1989 c 2. WSR 89-21-072 (Order 89-26), § 173-321-060, filed 10/17/89, effective 11/17/89.]

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

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

    ————————————————————————

    Why does WA State DOE need an Environmental Justice WAC?

    WAC, WAC, WAC, ECOLOGY’S HISTORIC POLICY OF REDUNDANT DUPLICITY

    Environmental Justice | US EPA

    https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice

    Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES.

    ——————————————————————-

    Chapter 173-321 WAC
    Public Participation Grants

    Overview

    Introduction

    Under Chapter 70.105D RCW, Ecology administers a program for grants to “persons who may be adversely affected by a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance and not-for-profit public interest groups”. Grants are used to “facilitate public participation in the investigation and remediation of a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance and to implement the state’s solid and hazardous waste management priorities.”

    Why are we doing this rulemaking?
    In 2016, Ecology obtained an independent audit of our Public Participation Grants program. The current application process for the grants requires a significant amount of time and agency resources to establish applicant eligibility and award the grants. Changes Ecology is proposing are either specific audit recommendations or based on the agency’s experiences implementing the program.

    Input from past grant recipients and other stakeholders also indicated a need to increase the emphasis the PPG program places in reaching disadvantaged communities adversely affected by toxic contamination and cleanup work. Updating the rule now will allow us to apply these changes to grants awarded in the 2017-19 biennium.

    Scope of rulemaking
    Ecology proposes to:

    • Revise program priorities to include environmental justice
    • Revise eligibility requirements
    • Clarify the criteria used to evaluate applications
    • Revise eligible costs
    • Develop a method for renewing grants annually per Chapter 70.105D RCW
    • Streamline the grant application and evaluation process to increase consistency, transparency, objectivity, and efficiency
    • Revise the grant application process to authorize electronic submittals
    • Update grant administration requirements
    • Align Chapter 173-321 WAC to current program needs.

    Ecology will periodically update these web pages to provide up-to-date information about this rulemaking. We will notify interested parties through the agency email listserv (WAC Track), a Waste 2 Resources ListServ specifically established for the Public Participation Grants program. We will e-mail contacts identified in our grants-related database and those identified by grants staff. We will publish notice in the Washington State Register as we move through the process. To learn more about how to contact Ecology and participate in the process, please visit our public involvement page.

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

     

     

    Regarding 173-321 WAC, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION GRANTS

    Granted, I have been publicly participating, criticizing, objecting, commenting and tracking Ecology’s, WA State DOE Environmental WAC-ING for years.  I do investigative documentation and reporting on my website. I have been signed up for Ecology’s WAC Track for years, receiving, reading hundreds of pages,  investigating and documenting, posting, commenting and disseminating information on  one proposed WAC after another WAC….

    This was my published opinion on Apr 15, 2013,  and I’m sticking with it. period

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/04/15/ecology-sucks/

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

    ———————————————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Ecology’s Expedited Rule Making?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/26/ecologys-expedited-rule-making/

    JUN 26, 2014 – Washington Department of Ecology AO #14-01 NOTICE THIS RULE REPEAL IS BEING PROPOSED UNDER AN EXPEDITED RULE- MAKING …

    —————————————————————————-

    MY ONE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO ECOLOGY’S EXPEDITED RULE MAKING

    Behind My Back | A Thousand Wrongs? One Right?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/09/17/2757/

    SEP 17, 2014 – OK, so what’s WRONG with that? We the people, have every RIGHT to make a THOUSAND public objections and comments. So what’s …

     “One right doesn’t remedy a thousand wrongs.’

    —————————————————————————-

    WHAT IS VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH?

     BEST GUESS OBAMACARE….

     RELATED TO THE OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE IS THE DOCTRINE OF VAGUENESS. THE VAGUENESS DOCTRINE, AN ASPECT OF THE DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE, HOLDS THAT A LAW IS FACIALLY INVALID IF PERSONS OF “COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST NECESSARILY GUESS AS AT ITS MEANING AND DIFFER AS TO ITS APPLICATION.”

    The bottom line….

    WHAT IS VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH, deserves another posting on my website.


  • Elwha Supplemental Impact Statement?

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

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

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

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    National Park Service

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

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

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

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

    VISITORS? LIKE AN IMPACT STATEMENT ONP INHOLDERS?

    ——————————————————

    Jun 28, 2011

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

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

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

    ————————————————————-

    FISH BEFORE PEOPLE

    Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan – National Park Service

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

    2008 – ‎Related articles

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

    —————————————————————-

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002.

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

    ————————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————-

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————

    Elwha River Fish Restoration Plan – National Park Service

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

    2008 – ‎Related articles

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

    —————————————————————————

    Apr 15, 2013

    ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY  200,000  DEAD SMOLT

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

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

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

    JUL 12, 2013 LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE’S HATCHERY

    200, 000  MORE DEAD SMOLT

    400,000 TOTAL DEAD HATCHERY SMOLT…

    —————————————————————–

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

    wildfishconservancy.org › About › Press › Press Clips

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

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

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

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

     ————————————————————————————

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

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

    WE CAN’T FIND THAT PAGE….

    THE SEIS WILL ALSO ANALYZE CHANGES UNRELATED TO WATER QUALITY

    MITIGATION WHERE APPLICABLE.

    One of these changes is a re-evaluation of

    options to mitigate impacts to septic systems on the Lower Elwha

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

    parts of the Reservation may become ineffective when the river level

    and associated groundwater table rises as a result of river channel

    aggradation following dam removal.

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

    actions associated with such revegetation will be addressed.

    ———————————————————–

    Full unedited text

    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    National Park Service Elwha Ecosystem Restoration Implementation;

    Olympic National Park; Clallam and Jefferson Counties, WA;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    DATED: JULY 9, 2002.

    JOHN J. REYNOLDS,REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

    PACIFIC WEST REGION.[FR DOC. 02-23124

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


  • Feb 28, 2017 POTUS Executes WOTUS

    PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (POTUS) DONALD J. TRUMP

    SIGNED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER ON WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES (WOTUS)

    Indeed, Trump Signed an Executive Order to Begin Water Rule Rollback

    In President Trump’s own words, “With today’s executive order I’m directing the EPA to take action paving the way for the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule,” Trump said.

    “The EPA so-called Waters of the United States rule is one of the worst examples of federal regulation, and it has truly run amok, and is one of the rules most strongly opposed by farmers, ranchers and agricultural workers all across our land,” Trump said. “It’s prohibiting them from being allowed to do what they’re supposed to be doing. It has been a disaster.”

    The rule was signed by President Obama in May of 2015, (the master of several disasters) and went into effect in late August of 2015.

    President Trump’s  Director of Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt was  sworn in on Feb 17, 2017. “They” say….Scott Pruitt is the EPA’s Legal Nemesis

    POTUS Executes WOTUS

    They” say it was a hatchet job.

    “They” say 3000 jobs will be lost at the EPA.

    I say great, 3000 more ways to downsize the government

    —————————————————————

    START HERE… WHERE EVERYTHING FEDERAL STARTS….

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

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

    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

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

    —————————————————————————-

    The EPA is earning a reputation for abuse – The Washington Post

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/…epa-is…abuse/…/gIQAucvzzT_story.html

    May 3, 2012Earlier this year, Mike and Chantell Sackett brought a case against the EPA to the Supreme Court, challenging a “compliance order” …

    ——————————————————-

    Apr 4, 2012 www.nationalreview.com/article/295188

    That subtext to the Sackett opinion is one that the lower courts (who try to avoid being overruled) can read as clearly as EPA.
    Congress should subpoena Al Armendariz, the EPA’s regional administrator, to come explain how this whole fiasco happened.
    ——————————————————
    Apr 25, 2012 – Uploaded by Senator Jim Inhofe

    2010, video  which shows a top EPA official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, using the vivid metaphor of crucifixion to explain EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo
    ————————————————————-
     Apr 4, 2012

    The EPA Abuses First, Apologizes Later – | National Review

    www.nationalreview.com/article/295188

    Apr 4, 2012 – EPA can issue emergency orders to anybody. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sackett v. EPA, which insisted that citizens hit with an …

     The EPA Abuses First, Apologizes Later
    April 4, 2012 4:00 AM @Mario_A_Loyola

    The regulatory state’s biggest bully beats up another victim.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/295188

    ————————————————————————-

    May 29, 2012

    Senate Republicans Request Answers on EPAís Sackett … – Inhofe

    www.inhofe.senate.gov/…/senate-republicans-request-answers-on-epais-sackett-comm…

    May 29, 2012Senate Republicans Request Answers on EPA’s Sackett Comments … Post saying that the agency is ‘earning a reputation for abuse.’ EPA …

    Just saying….

    May 29, 2012 The establishment’s GOP asked questions and talked about it

    —————————————————————–

    Sep 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/plf-lawsuit-on-wotus/

    Sep 4, 2015 – PLF lawsuit on WOTUS Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit … www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/12/who-is-protecting–we-the-people/.

    ————————————————

    Feb 11, 2016

    Behind My Back | A Wetland is A WOTUS

    www.behindmyback.org/category/a-wetland-is-a-wotus/

    Feb 11, 2016 – www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/26/let–me–ask–america-a-question/ ….. www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/wotus–water-runs-down-hill/.

    The Environmental Protection Agency says ANY BODIES OF WATER near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will (RUN DOWN HILL AND) fall under federal regulation.

    ————————–

    THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!
    NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL

    WA STATE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE GRAVITY FED TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT of WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS.
    Indeed, WA State Dept. of Ecology “DID”  ADOPT AND DESIGNATE THE SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BODIES OF WATER, within 4,000 feet of a navigable water, including wetlands near a river, lake, saltwater, or standing water, that (run down hill) can affect waterways (run down hill and) “COULD” affect the environment, that

    SHALL fall under the WOTUS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Water Act and become subject to EPA review and control.

    —————————————————————–

    The EPA’s enforcement policy and tactics for WETLANDS

    EPA’s abuse of the Sacketts inspires latest thriller by CJ Box

    www.pacificlegal.org › Home › News & Media
    Pacific Legal Foundation

    Mar 12, 2013“EPA is not above the law — that’s the bottom line with the Sacketts‘ Supreme Court victory,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff, who …

    ———————————————————–

     EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    EPA Official: EPAs “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo
    Apr 25, 2012 – Uploaded by Senator Jim Inhofe

    A video from 2010, which shows a top EPA official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, using the vivid metaphor of crucifixion to explain EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    Just saying…

    Apr 25, 2012 The establishment’s GOP watched it and talked about it.

    ——————————————————

    On Feb 28, 2017 with the stroke of his pen in President Trump’s own words, “With today’s executive order I’m directing the EPA to take action paving the way for the elimination of this very destructive and horrible rule,” Trump said.

    ———————————————————————

    March 2, 2017 UNDER WOTUS, THE EPA’S  POLICY FOR ENFORCEMENT HAS  ABUSED HUNDREDS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS, INCLUDING IMPRISONMENT.

    HOW HORRIBLE IS THAT….

    ——————————————-

    Post on Pie N Politics

    WOTUS overturned! Now pardon Joe Robertson!

    Clean Water ACT – EPA, CORRUPTION, Federal gov & land grabs, President Trump and officials
    On the back of today’s Executive Order, Joe deserves an immediate, unconditional federal pardon.
    ….
    To be Continued…

  • Pruitt Draining the EPA Swamp?

    Feb 19, 2017 The good news is….  PRUITT HAS BEEN SWORN IN

    (And according to Reuters)    THE REAL FRENZY WILL BEGIN.

    ——————————————————————————–

    BY DEFINITION THE REAL FRENZY STARTED THE DAY DONALD J. TRUMP ANNOUNCED HE WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT … AND HAS INTENSIFIED EVERYDAY SINCE JUNE 16, 2015

    A REAL FRENZY INDEED…..

    A temporary madness, in a rage amounting to a FRENZY

    A violent mental or emotional agitation

    Almost weeping in a FRENZY of anxiety …

    Intense usually wild and often disorderly compulsive or agitated activity

    The mob chanted itself into a FRENZY extreme mental agitation

    Wild excitement or derangement.

    A fit or spell of violent mental excitement

     A paroxysm characteristic of or resulting from a mania

    According to Reuters? NEXT WEEK THE REAL FRENZY WILL BEGIN?

    But next week, once Pruitt is sworn in, the real frenzy will begin. According to Reuters, President Donald Trump plans to sign between two and five environmental executive orders aimed at the EPA and possibly the State Department.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Fox News, Sen. John Barrasoso, January 17, 2017

    Sen. Barrasso: For 8 years the EPA has made life hard for too many Americans. That’s about to change
    ——————————————–

    Sen. John Barrasso penned an op-ed noting how the outgoing administration’s EPA “THE  EPA HAS ABUSED AND ATTACKED FAR TOO MANY HARD-WORKING AMERICAN FAMILIES According to Barrasso, “President-elect Trump has vowed that his administration will overturn two federal regulations for every new one it proposes.

    The administrator of the EPA Scott Pruitt, will play a vital role in keeping that promise

    ABUSE AND ATTACK,  PART AND PARCEL, OF THE EPA REIGN OF TERROR AND TYRANNY

    Scott Pruitt Will End Obama’s EPA Tyranny – The PolitiStick

    politistick.com/pruitt-heads-epa-leftist-slavery-ended/

    Jan 16, 2017 – Obama used the EPA as his personal hit squad. … Ending leftist government bullying will spark a new era of American prosperity – investors risking …. disasters that have plagued america during Ojackasses reign of terror.

    —————————————————————————

    Behind My Back | End the EPA Reign of Terror?

    www.behindmyback.org/category/end-the-epareign-of-terror/

    TRUMP FREEZES EPA Grants and Contracts. Trump moved to block implementation of at least 30 environmental rules finalized in the closing months of …

    WHY WOULD ANY AMERICA CITIZEN CONSIDER CRUCIFIXION BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA) TO BE TERROR? 

    This kind of bullying and intimidation of Americans by a federal agency must be shut down.

    —————————————————————————————-
    CRUCIFIXION BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)
    JUN 29, 2012 – TWO MONTHS AFTER (OBAMA’S APPOINTED) EPA’S “WE CRUCIFY THEM” AL ARMENDARIZ REGION VI ADMINISTRATOR RESIGNED THE SIERRA CLUB HIRED HIM.  TAKING AL ARMENDARIZ’S  SAME EPA “PHILOSOPHY OF CRUCIFIXION ENFORCEMENT” BY  TO THE SIERRA CLUB.

    Ken Kramer, Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, emailed the following statement “The resignation of Dr. Al Armendariz as Region 6 EPA administrator is a major loss for Texas. He brought a breath of fresh air – literally and figuratively – to Texas in his vigorous enforcement of the federal Clean Air Act. . Dr. Armendariz was one of the best Region 6 EPA administrators who have served since the post was created in the 1970s.

    YEP, EPA ENFORCEMENT BY CRUCIFIXION  IS LITERALLY AND FIGURATIVELY A VIGOROUS TERROR BULLYING AND INTIMIDATION OF AMERICANS BY A FEDERAL AGENCY.

    ————————————————-

    Feb 19, 2017 

    Scott Pruitt Confirmed and Sworn in as EPA Administrator | U.S. EPA …

    https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/scottpruitt-confirmed-and-swornepaadministrator

    AL ARMENDARIZ WAS THE EPA REGION 6 ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTED BY OBAMA.

    EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt Draining the EPA Swamp?

    A huge task considering how many Obama appointed EPA leftovers are still in place, according to their personal biography’s, below.

    Check them out….. You decided

    ————————————————————–

    Current EPA Leadership

    EPA is headed by an Administrator, who is supported by a Deputy, five Associate, twelve Assistant, and ten Regional Administrators. You can find information below about key EPA leaders in these offices:


    EPA Administrator

    Deputy Administrator

    Mike Flynn

    Acting Deputy Administrator Mike Flynn

    Top of Page

    Assistant Administrators

    Office of Administration and Resource Management (OARM)

    Donna Vizian

    Acting Assistant Administrator Donna Vizian

    Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)

    Sarah Dunham

    Acting Assistant Administrator Sarah Dunham

    Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP)

    Wendy Cleland-Hamnett

    Acting Assistant Administator Wendy Cleland-Hamnett

    Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO)

    David Bloom

    Acting Chief Financial Officer David Bloom

    Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)

    Larry Starfield

    Acting Assistant Administrator Lawrence Starfield

    Office of Environmental Information (OEI)

    Steve Fine

    Steven Fine, Acting Chief Information Officer

    Office of General Counsel (OGC)

    Kevin Minoli

    Acting General Counsel Kevin S. Minoli

    Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

    Arthur Elkins

    Inspector General Arthur A. Elkins, Jr.

    Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA)

    Jane Nishida

    Acting Assistant Administrator Jane Nishida

    Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM)

    Barry Breen

    Acting Assistant Administrator Barry Breen

    Office of Research and Development (ORD)

    Robert Kavlock

    Acting Assistant Administrator Robert Kavlock

    Office of Water (OW)

    Mike Shapiro

    Acting Assistant Administrator Michael Shapiro

    Regional Administrators

    Region 1 (Boston, MA – Serving CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, and VT)

    Deborah Szaro

    Acting Regional Administrator Deborah Szaro

    Region 2 (New York, NY – Serving NJ, NY, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands)

    Walter Mugdan

    Acting Regional Administrator Walter Mugdan

    Region 3 (Philadelphia, PA – Serving DE, DC, MD, PA, VA, and WV)

    Cecil Rodrigues

    Acting Regional Administrator Cecil A. Rodrigues

    Region 4 (Atlanta, GA – Serving AL, FL, GA, KY, MS, NC, SC, and TN)

    Anne Heard

    Acting Regional Administrator Anne Heard

    Region 5 (Chicago, IL – Serving IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI)

    Robert A. Kaplan

    Acting Regional Administrator Robert A. Kaplan

    Region 6 (Dallas, TX – Serving AR, LA, NM, OK, and TX)

    Samuel Coleman

    Acting Regional Administrator Samuel Coleman

    Region 7 (Kansas City, KS – Serving IA, KS, MO, and NE)

    Edward Chu

    Acting Regional Administrator Edward H. Chu

    Region 8 (Denver, CO – Serving CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, and WY)

    Deb Thomas

    Acting Regional Administrator Debra Thomas

    Region 9 (San Francisco, CA – Serving AZ, CA, HI, NV, Pacific islands, and 148 tribes)

    Alexis Strauss

    Acting Regional Administrator Alexis Strauss

    Region 10 (Seattle, WA – Serving AK, ID, OR, WA and 271 native tribes)

    Michelle Pirzadeh

    Acting Regional Administrator Michelle Pirzadeh

    Top of Page

    Associate Administrators

    Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR)

    Robin Richardson

    Acting Associate Administrator Robin Richardson

    Office of Homeland Security (OHS)

    David Kling

    Associate Adminstrator David J. Kling

    Office of Policy (OP)

    Shannon Kenny

    Acting Associate Administrator Shannon Kenny

    Office of Public Affairs (OPA)

    George Hull

    Acting Associate Administrator George Hull

    Office of Public Engagement and Environmental Education (OPEEE)

    Top of Page

    Key Staff in the Office of the Administrator

    Acting Chief of Staff John Reeder

    Photo Not Available

    Director of the Office of Administrative and

    Executive Services Reginald E. Allen

    Ruth Etzel

    Director of the Office of Children’s Health Protection

    Dr. Ruth A. Etzel, M.D., Ph.D.

    Photo Not Available

    Acting Director of the Office of Civil Rights Lilian Dorka

    Photo Not Available

    Director of the Office of the Executive Secretariat Brian Hope

    Chris Zarba

    Director of the Science Advisory Board

    Staff Office Christopher Zarba

    Picture of Denise Benjamin Sirmons

    Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged

    Business Utilization Denise Benjamin-Sirmons

    Top of Page


  • EPA Grants and Contracts

    TRUMP FREEZES EPA Grants and Contracts

    Trump moved to block implementation of at least 30 environmental rules finalized in the closing months of President Barack Obama’s term.

    Trump freezes EPA Grants and Contracts.

    THE EPA’S FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST OF $8,600,000.00 BILLION, IN ADDITION $5,000,000.00 MILLION IN STATE GRANT FUNDING IS PROVIDED IN THE WETLANDS

    ———————————————————

    THE EPA’S ACTIVE CONTRACTS LIST 10/26/2016
    DATA PROVIDED BY US EPA OFFICE OF ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT

    NUMBER OF CONTRACTS: 629

    TOTAL CONTRACT OBLIGATION: $6,398,369,335.21

    ACTIVE CONTRACTS BY CONTRACT NUMBER AS OF 10/26/2016

    —————————————————————–

    Here how the EPA grants worked with and through the DOE at a state level.
    ————————————-
    The EPA granted to WA State DOE $100,000.00 for the Shoreline Management Update  (SMP) in a pass through grant)
    EVERY SMP UPDATE IN EVERY COUNTY, IN THE USA WAS GRANTED $$$$ ( AS A PASS THROUGH GRANT)   BY THE EPA, TO  EVERY STATE DOE, TO BE GRANTED TO EVERY COUNTY.
    ——————————————————————————————————

    Fiscal Year 2016 – US EPA

    https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/…/epa_fy_2016_congressional_justification.pdf

    The agency’s FY 2016 budget request of $8.6 billion enables us to ..Many communities are facing multiple pollution problems and are looking for integrated or holistic …. In addition, $5 million in state grant funding is provided in the wetlands.

    EPA Active Contracts Listing | Contracting with EPA | US EPA

    https://www.epa.gov/contracts/epa-active-contractslisting

    Oct 31, 2016 – Listed below, you will find the EPA Active Contracts Listing, which lists of all currently active EPA Contracts. The listing is available by Contract …


  • 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?

     


  • Public Notice Every Fruit Packer in WA State

    Public Notice Every Fruit Packer in WA State

    Every new or existing fresh fruit packing facility within the entire state of Washington which receives, packs, stores, and/or ships either hard or soft fruit is required to apply for coverage under either this general permit or an individual NPDES/state waste discharge permit.

    ————————————————-

    The following PUBLIC NOTICE published to the Washington State Register May 4, 2016:

    WSR 16-09-074 DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    Types of Facilities or Dischargers and Geographic Area Covered:

    Every new or existing fresh fruit packing facility within the entire state of Washington which receives, packs, stores, and/or ships either hard or soft fruit is required to apply for coverage under either this general permit or an individual NPDES/state waste discharge permit.

    ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS: Ecology completed a new economic impact analysis that will be available May 2016

    All written comments should be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 2016, to the Department of Ecology, 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA 98903, Attn: Cynthia Huwe, cynthia.huwe@ecy.wa.gov.

    ————————————————-

    The bottom line…

    Word gets around in Cyberspace

    ——————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Rodriguez, RaChelle (ECY)

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

    Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 4:05 PM

    Subject: The following Public Notice published to the Washington State Register May 4, 2016

     

    The following Public Notice published to the Washington State Register May 4, 2016:

     

    WSR 16-09-074

    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    [Filed April 18, 2016, 2:18 p.m.]

    PUBLIC NOTICE OF DRAFT GENERAL NATIONAL

    POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

    PERMIT FOR THE FRESH FRUIT PACKING INDUSTRY

    http://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/law/wsr/2016/09/16-09-074.htm

    WSR 16-09-074

    DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    [Filed April 18, 2016, 2:18 p.m.]

    PUBLIC NOTICE OF DRAFT GENERAL NATIONAL

    POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES)

    PERMIT FOR THE FRESH FRUIT PACKING INDUSTRY

    Introduction: In 1994, the Washington state department of ecology (ecology) developed an NPDES general permit to regulate the discharge of wastewater from fresh fruit packing facilities.

    This permit was developed to meet the requirements of chapters 90.48, 90.52, and 90.54 RCW as amended, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (Title 33 United States Code, Section 1251 et seq.) as amended. All requirements of 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) 122.41 and 122.42 are incorporated in this general permit by reference.

    The fruit packing industry is eligible for coverage under a general permit due to: (1) The similar wastewater characteristics among facilities; (2) the uniform discharge conditions to which all facilities would be subject; and (3) the significant reduction of resources necessary for permit handling. However, individual NPDES/state waste discharge permits will still be applied in those instances where ecology determines the general permit is not appropriate for a facility or an individual facility does not wish to be covered by the general permit.

    This general permit establishes treatment/disposal methods, effluent limits, and best management practices for discharges from the fresh fruit packing industry. Compliance with this general permit is anticipated to protect human health and waters of the state.

    Types of Facilities or Dischargers and Geographic Area Covered: Every new or existing fresh fruit packing facility within the entire state of Washington which receives, packs, stores, and/or ships either hard or soft fruit is required to apply for coverage under either this general permit or an individual NPDES/state waste discharge permit.

    Documents Available for Review: You may download a copy of the draft permit and fact sheet at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/permits/fruit_packers/index.html; or you may request a copy from Cynthia Huwe, (509) 457-7105 or e-mail cynthia.huwe@ecy.wa.gov.

    Public Workshops: Public workshops concerning this draft general permit shall be held on May 18, 2016, in Union Gap and May 19, 2016, in Leavenworth. WebDMR training will also take place on these dates. Please see below for location and exact times.

    DATE Wednesday

    May 18, 2016

    Thursday

    May 19, 2016

    WORKSHOP BEGINS 9:00 a.m. to noon 1:30 to 4:00 p.m.
    WebDMR TRAINING

    BEGINS

    1:30 to 3:30 p.m. 10:00 a.m. to noon
    LOCATION Washington State

    Department of Ecology

    – CRO

    Chelan County Fire District #3 Community Fire Hall
    ADDRESS 1250 West Alder Street 228 Chumstick Highway
    CITY Union Gap, WA 98903 Leavenworth, WA 98826
    ROOM 102 B

    Additional WebDMR Training: An additional WQWebDMR system training (training only, no workshop) will be offered on Thursday, August 18, 2016, from 10 a.m. to noon at the Central Regional Office, 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA, in Conference Room 102B.

    When and How to Submit Comments: Comments on the proposed general permit may be given at the public hearings. Interested persons are also invited to submit written comments regarding the proposed general permit. All written comments should be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 2016, to the Department of Ecology, 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA 98903, Attn: Cynthia Huwe, cynthia.huwe@ecy.wa.gov.

    This notice will be published in the legal section of the Yakima Herald-Republic and the Wenatchee Daily World on May 4, 2016. A mailing containing this notice will be sent to all current permittees and other interested parties.

    Final Determination: All comments received at the public hearings or at ecology’s central regional office by 5:00 p.m. on June 17, 2016, will be considered before final permit terms, limitations, and conditions are established. A responsive summary of comments received during the comment period will be prepared and available for public review. If the final content of the general permit remains substantially unchanged from the draft permit, a copy of the final determination in the form of a public notice of issuance shall be forwarded to all persons who submitted written comment or gave public testimony regarding the permit. However, if the final determination is substantially changed, another public notice of draft permit shall be published.

    Economic Impact Analysis: Ecology completed a new economic impact analysis that will be available May 2016, on department of ecology’s publications and forms web site located at https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/UIPages/Home.aspx.

    Tentative Determination to Issue: After ecology receives and considers all public comments, it will issue the final permit. Ecology expects to issue the general permit in August 2016, with an effective date of September 1, 2016.

    Further Information: Contact Sanjay Barik at sanjay.barik@ecy.wa.gov, (509) 454-4247; or Marcia Porter at marcia.porter@ecy.wa.gov, (509) 454-7864; 1250 West Alder Street, Union Gap, WA.

    Ecology is an equal opportunity agency and does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, disability, age, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disabled veteran’s status, Vietnam Era veteran’s status or sexual orientation. If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact Cynthia Huwe at (509) 457-7105.

    The bottom line…

    Word gets around in Cyberspace


  • 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/.


  • The Importance of Federal Water Control?

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

    Dear Rosemarie,

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

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

    THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL WATER CONTROL

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

    —————————————————————-

    Feb 5, 2013 WA STATE HAD THINGS UNDER CONTROL.

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

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

    Behind My Back | Water Rules Not Etched In Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Feb 5, 2013 WA STATE HAD THINGS UNDER CONTROL.

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

    ————————————————————————

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

    THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL WATER CONTROL

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

    First the Feds TAKE all of our water using WOTUS

    WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

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

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

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

    Behind My Back | Congress Must Act on Water Issues

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

    WA State Reform on Wetland Delineation?

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

    SO WHAT’S OLD?

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

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

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

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

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

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

    AND WHAT’S OLD?

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

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

    ————————————————————————–

    MARCH 25, 2016  SO WHAT’S REALLY NEW?

    BY HOOK OR BY CROOK, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER

    TOTAL FEDERAL CONTROL OF ALL WATER

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

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

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

    National Drought Resilience Partnership – US Drought Portal

    www.drought.gov/drought/content/ndrp

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

    ————————————————————————-

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

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

    Read Sen. Cantwell’s white paper here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ###

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

    How does drought response relate to climate preparedness?

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

     


  • WA State Reform on Wetland Delineation?

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

    Dear Rene’, Hello our/my elected Federal, my elected WA State representative, Clallam County Commissioners,  Mary and Connie,

    I received emails from Rene’ in Eastern WA (full text at the bottom)

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

    A WETLAND IS A WOTUS “Water Of The United States”

    Our Olympia representatives have “NEVER” supported wetlands delineation reform.

    OUR WA State legislators “DID NOT OBJECT” to WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)
    Washington State attorney General “DID NOT” file a law suit against WOTUS on behalf of the citizens of WA State.

    ——————————————–

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

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

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

    Remember that the Corps, not applicants or their consultants, determines whether or not a wetland is a “water of the United States” and thus regulated under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA). If the Corps determines that a wetland is not subject to the CWA, the wetland may still be a “water of the state” and subject to regulation by Ecology as well as by local jurisdictions. Ecology regulates wetlands determined by the Corps to be non-jurisdictional due to their isolation from navigable waters. > More on Isolated Wetlands

    ———————————–

    So, September 2, 2015 WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser: Rule preproposal
    (using only online public notification?)

    ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE (WAC 173-22)

    ———————————————————-

    September 3, 2015

    What’s Up with WOTUS? – News | Agweb.com

    www.agweb.com/…/whatsup-with-wotus-NAA-university-news-release/

    What does the temporary injunction of WOTUS mean for farmers? … What’s Up with WOTUS? September 3, 2015 05:57 AM …

    —————————————————

    September 4, 2015

    PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    Posted on September 4, 2015 9:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett
    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” (WOTUS) power grab

    ——————————————————————

    September 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

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

    ———————————————————

    January 22, 2016 THE GOOD NEWS WAS….

    WOTUS rule – PLF Liberty Blog – Pacific Legal Foundation

    blog.pacificlegal.org/tag/wotusrule/

    Congress and Obama clarify their positions on the WOTUS rule, and it doesn’t look good for the President. Posted on January 22, 2016 by Todd Gaziano.

    January 22, 2016 THE BAD NEWS IS…

    PRESIDENT OBAMA VETOED THE LEGISLATION A DAY LATER.

    SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?

    REGARDING Legislative reform ideas for WA STATE SMPs and wetlands delineation update?

    The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.

    ——————————————————————————

    The EPA’s enforcement tactics for WETLANDS

    EPA’s abuse of the Sacketts inspires latest thriller by CJ Box

    www.pacificlegal.org › Home › News & Media
    Pacific Legal Foundation

    Mar 12, 2013 – “EPA is not above the law — that’s the bottom line with the Sacketts‘ Supreme Court victory,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff, who …

    ———————————————————–

     EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    EPA Official: EPAs “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make …

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ze3GB_b7Nuo
    Apr 25, 2012 – Uploaded by Senator Jim Inhofe

    A video from 2010, which shows a top EPA official, Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, using the vivid metaphor of crucifixion to explain EPA’s enforcement tactics for oil and gas producers.

    ————————————————————————-

    START HERE…

    WHERE EVERYTHING FEDERAL STARTS….

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

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

    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

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

    —————————————————————–

    PLF UNDERSTANDS THE GRAVITY OF (WOTUS)

    WOTUS – Pacific Legal Foundation

    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    —————————————————-

    snippet..

    The Environmental Protection Agency says ANY BODIES OF WATER near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will (RUN DOWN HILL AND) fall under federal regulation.

    ————————–

    THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!
    NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL

    WA STATE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE GRAVITY FED TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT of WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS.
    Indeed, WA State Dept. of Ecology “DID”  ADOPT AND DESIGNATE THE SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BODIES OF WATER, within 4,000 feet of a navigable water, including wetlands near a river, lake, saltwater, or standing water, that (run down hill) can affect waterways (run down hill and) “COULD” affect the environment, that shall fall under the WOTUS Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act and become subject to EPA review and control.

    ——————————————————————————

    Full text of emails received from Rene” on this

    Subject: Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Appy Holadays Sport Horses
    To: ddashiell@co.stevens.wa.us ; wesm03828@gmail.com
    Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 5:51 PM
    Subject: Legislative reform ideas for SMPs and wetlands delineation update
    Hello Commissioners,

    I would appreciate it if you could forward this email to Steve Parker as well, since I don’t have his email address on hand. As SMPs are starting to be formed in this County, I hope our State can move in this direction, described below, instead. Below are some good ideas I wanted to provide for you to think about, as the State CAPR Director, Glen Morgan has sent this to all the CAPR groups for info.

    We hope to have Glen Morgan and Licensed Hydrogeologist, Steve Neugebauer over here again this spring to help with the SMPs and related issues. If either of you would want to attend, let me know and I will be sure to send you an invitation with time and date.

    In the meantime, we have taken Don’s advice to get the wetland delineation removed from the Potter’s property through licensed hydrogeologist, Steve Neugebauer, and actual “Wetland Specialist”, Rone Brewer who both worked together and provided a complete wetlands determination that was 218 pages in length.

    However, now the Planner is not willing to write the letter that can be recorded with the County that verifies that there is not in fact a wetland on the Potter’s property. While that is the conclusion that you had advised we move toward, the Planner is refusing to cooperate with writing the letter of verification. We would appreciate your help with this issue, as it was your direction that we have been taking and have now completed.

    Apparently Connee Potter has tried a few times to set an appointment with Don, but has not heard back from him yet. So if you could please respond asap, we would like to get this wrapped up.

    Thank You,

    Rene’ Holaday

    Stevens County CAPR, Chapter 15
    —–Forwarded Message—–
    From: Scott Shock
    Sent: Feb 10, 2016 9:55 AM
    To: ‘Cindy Alia’ , Glen Morgan , capr-gov@lists.celestial.com
    Subject: [capr-gov] Legislative reform for shorelines and property rights in Wisconsin

    FYI:

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/9/assembly-to-vote-on-water-development-property-rig/

    Assembly approves water development, property rights bills

    By TODD RICHMOND – Associated Press – Tuesday, February 9, 2016

    MADISON, Wis. (AP) – Shoreline property owners would have more leeway to dredge and build structures on bodies of water under legislation the Wisconsin Assembly advanced Tuesday despite concerns from minority Democrats that the proposals would harm the state’s waters.

    The bill would make sweeping changes to statutes and regulations governing construction in water bodies, with one of the biggest changes involving waters designated as areas of special natural resource interests, or ASNRIs.

    Under current law, such areas include waters of significant scientific value that contain endangered or threatened species, wild rice waters, ecologically significant coastal wetlands along Lakes Michigan and Superior and wild or scenic rivers. Construction permits in such areas require builders to meet a long list of standards.

    The bill would remove the requirement that an ASNRI have significant scientific value and prevent the Department of Natural Resources from designated an ASNRI based on scientific value without legislative approval beginning in 2017.

    The legislation also includes changes that would make dredging and filling wetlands easier.

    The bill would create a general permit authorizing shoreline property owners to dredge 25 cubic yards of material from an inland lake and 100 cubic yards of material from outlying waters annually. The DNR’s review of alternatives to filling wetlands would be limited to options consistent with the scope of the project and maintenance work on roadside ditches that affects wetlands could be done without a permit.

    The measure’s authors, Rep. Adam Jarchow of Balsam Lake and Sen. Frank Lasee of De Pere, contend the measure will cut red tape, clarify regulations and puts more power in property owners’ hands. A host of business associations, including Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state’s largest business group, and the Wisconsin Builders Association, support the bill.

    A number of environmental groups, including Clean Wisconsin, the Clean Lakes Alliance and the state’s Sierra Club chapter, oppose it. Assembly Democrats railed against the bill on the chamber floor, warning the measure gives shoreline property owners permission to damage water bodies and aquatic habitats.

    “You do not go into a body of water with a general permit and start dredging things up and think you’re making things better,” Rep. Chris Danou, D-Trempealeau, said. “This is bad for Wisconsin. This is bad for Wisconsin’s outdoor heritage. It will damage things.”

    Republicans control the chamber, thought, and in the end lawmakers adopted the bill on a 57-39 vote. The bill goes next to the state Senate.

    The Assembly also passed another bill Tuesday sponsored by Jarchow and Lasee that would expand property owners’ rights. The measure prohibit counties from imposing development moratoriums, forbid municipalities from blocking property owners from selling or transferring the title to their land and block counties from regulating repairs on structures legally located in shore land setback areas.

    The bill also would require judges to resolve any question about the meaning of a zoning ordinance in favor of property owners. Undeveloped land zoned for residential, commercial or manufacturing use would be taxed at 50 percent of its value.

    The Assembly passed that bill on a 56-39 vote with almost no debate. It now goes to the Senate as well.

    ___

    Follow Todd Richmond on Twitter at https://twitter.com/trichmond1

    Copyright © 2016 The Washington Times, LLC.

    From: Google Alerts [mailto:googlealerts-noreply@google.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 8:07 AM
    To: Scott S. Shock
    Subject: Google Alert – “eminent domain” OR “regulatory taking” OR “property rights” seattle OR “king county” OR washington

    “eminent domain” OR “regulatory taking” OR “property rights” seattle OR “king county” OR washington

    Daily update ⋅ February 10, 2016

    NEWS

    Assembly to vote on water development, property rights bills

    Washington Times

    MADISON, Wis. (AP) – The state Assembly is poised to vote on a pair of bills that would ease water body development regulations and expand …

    Flag as irrelevant

    See more results | Edit this alert

    You have received this email because you have subscribed to Google Alerts.

    Unsubscribe | View all your alerts

    Receive this alert as RSS feed

    Send Feedback

    _______________________________________________
    Capr-gov mailing list
    Capr-gov@lists.celestial.com
    http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/capr-gov

    —————————————————————–

    THIS IS A VERY LONG POST…

    WATER HAS BEEN RUNNING DOWN HILL FOR A VERY, VERY, LONG TIME…

    if you are interested in reading the full 4800 word text go to behindmyback.org

    Continue reading here if you are interested more…

    ———————————————————————————–

    PLF lawsuit on WOTUS

    Posted on September 4, 2015 9:46 am by Pearl Rains Hewett
    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new
    “waters of United States” (WOTUS) power grab

    Judge blocks Obama EPA rule as federal power grab over state waters A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.
    The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.

    WA STATE IS NOT PART OF THE Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) WOTUS LAWSUIT

    ———————————————————————————

    Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/9694.html

    ———————————————-

    So, September 2, 2015 WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser: Rule preproposal
    (using only online public notification?)

    ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE (WAC 173-22)
    ———————————————————————————

    What’s Up with WOTUS? – News | Agweb.com

    www.agweb.com/…/whatsup-with-wotus-NAA-university-news-release/

    What does the temporary injunction of WOTUS mean for farmers? … What’s Up with WOTUS? September 3, 2015 05:57 AM …
    Implementation of the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” (usually referred to as the WOTUS rule) was set to become effective on August 28, 2015. Several lawsuits were filed by agricultural groups, among others, requesting a preliminary injunction, or order, to halt the rule’s implementation until lawsuits could be settled. Late in the afternoon on August 27, a District Court judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction stopping the WOTUS rule from going into effect for thirteen states, including Nebraska.
    FOR ALL OTHER STATES WHO DIDN’T HAVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS ISSUED, THE RULE TOOK EFFECT AS PLANNED ON AUGUST 28, 2015.

    Why were lawsuits filed against the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers (CORP) following release of the final WOTUS rule? Several lawsuits were filed following publication of the final WOTUS rule in the Federal Register.

    Twenty-seven states, along with industries from petroleum to construction, and agricultural groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Pork Producers Council all filed separate lawsuits. These numerous lawsuits have since been consolidated into a single lawsuit that identifies three arguments for vacating the rule.

    The first argument is that the finalized WOTUS rule exceeds the intended purposes of the Clean Water Act and represents an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government on land. Second, the rule-making process is designed to give the public an opportunity to comment on all aspects of a rule. In this case, EPA added items to the final rule that were not in the proposed rule.

    The third, and perhaps most concerning argument, is that the EPA may have inappropriately worked with environmental activists to lobby for the rule and support the agency’s agenda. If true, this represents an abuse of the federal rulemaking process by the EPA.

    ————————————————————————
    BELOW IS THE LINK TO THE 136 PAGE FEDERAL MANUAL

    Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional

    https://www.fws.gov/…/wetlands/i…
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    Jan 10, 1989 – cally Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, EPA’s Wetland Identification … Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation.

    ———————————————————————————–

    full text provided for your convenience

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

    Posted on September 4, 2015 8:52 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    WOTUS Water Runs Down Hill

    So, the LAW OF GRAVITY becomes the EPA WOTUS WATER LAW OF THE LAND?

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

    —————–
    USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL ” water returns to the earth from precipitation falling on the land, where “GRAVITY” either takes it into the ground as infiltration or it begins RUNNING DOWNHILL as surface runoff”

    ——————————-
    USGS WATER SCIENCE SCHOOL “NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, IT TRIES TO FLOW DOWNHILL”

    (SO DO WETLAND WATERS JUST SEEP DOWNHILL?)

    ———————————-
    The Environmental Protection Agency says ANY BODIES OF WATER near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will (RUN DOWN HILL AND) fall under federal regulation.

    ————————–
    NO MATTER WHERE ON EARTH WATER IS, GRAVITY RUNS WATER DOWN HILL

    —————————–
    Indeed, science has proven that each water basin has its own land area of the water cycle, including its rainfall, its snow melt, recharging the aquifer, surface water, groundwater, rain that is absorbed into the soil RUNS DOWNHILL. Rain that is not absorbed by soil RUNS OFF DOWN THE HILL

    .——————–
    But how does much of the water get back into the oceans to keep the water cycle going?
    Indeed, the U.S. Geological Survey science tells us that 93 to 97 percent of well water used for domestic or irrigation purposes, RUNS DOWN HILL and is returned to the watershed in the proximity of where it was withdrawn.

    And, ALL precipitation, rain and snow melt do the same, GRAVITY TAKES WATER DOWN HILL as infiltration or surface runoff.

    ————————————–
    The EPA says, the new rule applies to tributaries and ANY BODIES OF WATER (that runs downhill) near rivers that (run down hill and ) “COULD” seep into waterways and “AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT”
    ———————————————————————————
    PLF UNDERSTANDS THE GRAVITY OF (WOTUS)

    WOTUS – Pacific Legal Foundation

    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    Pacific Legal Foundation

    The Obama Administration has imposed a new Clean Water Act (CWA) dictate that … PLF attorneys are hard at work developing our legal challenge to this … We will alert you when we file our lawsuit — and keep you posted along the way, …

    Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) lawsuit challenges Obama Administration’s new“waters of United States” power grab

    WOTUS rule – Pacific Legal Foundation
    https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus
    Pacific Legal Foundation
    PLF Principal Attorney M. Reed Hopper, who successfully argued the … We will alert you when we file our lawsuit — and keep you posted along the way, as we …
    —————————————————————-
    Judge blocks Obama EPA rule as federal power grab over state waters A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

    ——————————-
    THE SUIT IN QUESTION WAS FILED BY 13 STATES (ALASKA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, COLORADO, IDAHO, MISSOURI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA AND WYOMING),
    which claimed, among other things, that the WOTUS rule is a threat to state sovereignty because it asserts federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)that should be subject to state government control. As a general matter (and as the Supreme Court has recognized) land-use control is generally beyond the scope of federal power. In this case, the district court concluded that the states were likely to succeed on the merits as the EPA had adopted an “exceptionally expansive” view of its own jurisdiction under the CWA. According to the court, the WOTUS rule “allows EPA regulation of waters that do not bear any effect on the ‘chemical physical, and biological integrity’ of any navigable-in-fact water,” and therefore exceeds the limits on federal regulatory authority identified by the Supreme Court in Rapanos.

    The EPA, said it will only honor the injunction in the 13 states that had sued, and will move forward with the rules in the rest of the country.

    —————————————————
    OUR WA State legislators “DID NOT OBJECT” to WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS (AND EVEN SOME RELATIVELY DRY LAND)
    Washington State attorney General “DID NOT” file a law suit against WOTUS on behalf of the citizens of WA State.
    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit.

    WA STATE IS NOT PART OF THE WOTUS LAWSUIT
    ———————————————————————————-

    WA STATE GOVERNMENT IS BOUND BY THE GRAVITY FED TRICKLE DOWN EFFECT of WOTUS federal jurisdiction over WETLANDS AND WATERS.
    Indeed, WA State Dept. of Ecology MUST FIRST ADOPT AND DESIGNATE THE SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY BODIES OF WATER, within 4,000 feet of a navigable water, including wetlands near a river, lake, saltwater, or standing water, that (run down hill) can affect waterways (run down hill and) “COULD” affect the environment, that shall fall under the WOTUS Environmental Protection Agency Clean Water Act and become subject to EPA review and control.

    ——————————-
    So, September 2, 2015 WA STATE DEPT. OF ECOLOGY filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser: Rule preproposal
    (using only online public notification?)

    ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE (WAC 173-22)
    ———————————————————————————
    What’s Up With WOTUS?
    9/3/2015
    Implementation of the Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” (usually referred to as the WOTUS rule) was set to become effective on August 28, 2015. Several lawsuits were filed by agricultural groups, among others, requesting a preliminary injunction, or order, to halt the rule’s implementation until lawsuits could be settled. Late in the afternoon on August 27, a District Court judge in North Dakota issued a preliminary injunction stopping the WOTUS rule from going into effect for thirteen states, including Nebraska.
    FOR ALL OTHER STATES WHO DIDN’T HAVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS ISSUED, THE RULE TOOK EFFECT AS PLANNED ON AUGUST 28, 2015.

    Why were lawsuits filed against the EPA and Army Corp of Engineers (CORP) following release of the final WOTUS rule? Several lawsuits were filed following publication of the final WOTUS rule in the Federal Register.

    Twenty-seven states, along with industries from petroleum to construction, and agricultural groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Corn Growers Association, and National Pork Producers Council all filed separate lawsuits. These numerous lawsuits have since been consolidated into a single lawsuit that identifies three arguments for vacating the rule.

    The first argument is that the finalized WOTUS rule exceeds the intended purposes of the Clean Water Act and represents an unconstitutional overreach by the federal government on land. Second, the rule-making process is designed to give the public an opportunity to comment on all aspects of a rule. In this case, EPA added items to the final rule that were not in the proposed rule.

    The third, and perhaps most concerning argument, is that the EPA may have inappropriately worked with environmental activists to lobby for the rule and support the agency’s agenda. If true, this represents an abuse of the federal rulemaking process by the EPA.

    What does the temporary injunction mean for Nebraska farmers? It means that, for now, the status quo will be maintained. So current guidance documents and existing regulations for making “jurisdictional determination” will continue to be used by the Corp. New definitions and parameters outlined in the WOTUS rule will not be part of the Corp’s checklist when making these determinations in Nebraska. Jurisdictional determination simply means that the Corp reviews the necessary checklist regarding features of a water body, and possibly conducts an on-site inspection, to make a decision about whether the water body should be under their jurisdiction as “waters of the U.S.”

    The temporary injunction does not halt the rule entirely; it simply postpones implementation of the rule until legal proceedings are completed (which could take months or even years as we saw with the new AFO/CAFO regulations a few years back).

    If the pending lawsuits are not successful, and the WOTUS rule is eventually implemented in Nebraska, it remains to be seen what parts of the rule will remain and which will not. In Nebraska, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.
    Source: Amy Millmier Schmidt, UNL Livestock Bioenvironmental Engineer
    ————————————————————————————
    By Jonathan H. Adler August 28, 2015
    UPDATE: On Friday, the plaintiff states informed the court that the U.S. EPA had announced it would continue to apply the WOTUS rule in states that did not challenge the injunction.

    Late Friday, the district court responded with an order for supplemental briefing on whether the injunction “applies nationally or in a limited geographic area.” Briefs are due on Tuesday, September 1.
    ———————————————————————
    CALIFORNIA IS NOT PART OF THE LAWSUITS
    California Farmers Claim EPA Water Rules Extend To Dirt Fields
    August 31, 2015 6:22 PM
    SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY (CBS13) — Farmers say federal regulators are going too far and are taking away their water and chipping away at their property rights under a new rule.
    The Environmental Protection Agency says any bodies of water near a river, or standing water that can affect waterways will fall under federal regulation.
    Since the 1980s, the EPA has regulated any water you can navigate through, including rivers and large lakes. But the new Clean Water Act Rule will add smaller bodies of water to the government’s oversight.
    Bruce Blodgett with the San Joaquin Farm Bureau says the new rule would include any standing body of water, and dry land that can potentially hold water.
    “This field is a great example,” he said. “This dirt field would now be ‘waters of the U.S.’ under this proposed rule.”
    The bureau says the new rule allows the government to require farmers to get permits to farm from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    “We have a lot of fields that are fallow, sitting idle this year, because of the drought,” he said. “That will enable the Corps to come after those lands when they try to bring them back into production next year saying, ‘No, those are now waters of the U.S.’”
    Under the new Clean Water Act rule, the bureau claims any private property with a pond and any farm with an irrigation district is now under federal regulation.
    But the EPA says, that’s not true. It says the new rule applies to tributaries and water near rivers that could seep into waterways and affect the environment . The agency says it’s not going after ponds and won’t interfere with farm irrigation. It says ditches that are not constructed in streams and that flow only when it rains are not covered.
    A federal court has granted 13 states a stay on the orders while it examines a lawsuit. California is not part of the lawsuits, but farmers are watching.

    ————————————————————-