+menu-


  • Category Archives EPA Clean Water Act
  • behindmyback.org WA State DOE SMA 1971

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME
    Based on this 1971 premise

    1971 Rod Mack:

    ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE is one of many perspectives,

    MY OBSERVATION IS THAT IN AREAS WHERE ECONOMICS IS A PRIME
    CONSIDERATION—

    IN THE SMALLER, LESS AFFLUENT
    COMMUNITIES—

    THERE IS A HIGHER PRIORITY FOR JOBS AND TAX
    BASE THAN THERE IS PRIORITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS

    Rod Mack  My charge, when I joined ECOLOGY IN 1971, was developing the regulations related to the permit system of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as well as the guidelines.

     Those GUIDELINES were basically instructions FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ preparation of their Master Programs as well as standards or criteria for evaluating developments that took place on the shorelines, AGAIN, BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    —————————————————————-

    2017 Pearl Rains Hewett:

    ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE is one of many perspectives,
    MY OBSERVATIONS FROM JAN 26, 2011 TO OCT 22, 2017  IS THAT IN AREAS WHERE ECONOMICS IS A PRIME CONSIDERATION—IN THE SMALLER, LESS AFFLUENT
    COMMUNITIES—THERE IS A HIGHER PRIORITY FOR JOBS AND TAX
    BASE THAN THERE IS PRIORITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

    ———————————————————————-

    President Trump was elected Nov 8, 2016 because

    FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS, THE VOTERS, IN AREAS WHERE ECONOMICS WAS A PRIME CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS A HIGHER PRIORITY FOR JOBS AND TAX BASE  FOR HARD WORKING MIDDLE CLASS CITIZENS IN THE USA,THAN THERE WAS A PRIORITY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS.

    INDEED, TRUMP’S PRIORITY ONE WAS ROLLING BACK THE FEDERAL JOB KILLING REGULATIONS, AND RETURNING POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE.

    WHAT HAPPENED TO US BETWEEN 1971 AND OCT 22, 2017 ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE?

    TRICKLE DOWN FEDERAL JOB KILLING REGULATIONS. period

    ENACTED BY CONGRESS CONTROLLED AND MANDATED BY FEDERAL APPOINTED AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS placed exclusive, planning and regulatory authority with federal appointed government agencies EPA ETC….

    ———————————————————————————–

    Aug 13, 2013 I POSTED “SMP and Water 1970-2013” on behindmyback.org on and sent it to ZSMP as a public comment.

    SMP and Water 1970-2013

    Posted on August 13, 2013 11:22 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME?
    Based on this 1971 premise

    ———————————————————

    NOV 17, 2014 I POSTED IT AGAIN…..

    Behind My Back | SMP a Good Idea? 1971-2014?

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/11/17/smp-a-good-idea-1971-2014/

    NOV 17, 2014 – www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/06/ad–valorem–tax-dilemma/ … permit system of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as well as the guidelines. … The FEDERAL road to WA State ECOLOGY’S SMP and WATER HELL was … it said, if a state wants to do a program, here’s some MONEY to do it; then, once …

    ——————————————————————-

    NOW, WE ARE FACED WITH THE CLALLAM COUNTY 2017 SMP UPDATE

    WHAT AM I GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT…

    THE USUAL…

    ———————————————————–

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: pearl hewett

    To: zSMP

    Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:09 PM

    Subject: SMP and Water 1970-2013

     

    This is my public comment on the

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    1971 Rod Mack: ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE is one of many perspectives,
    my observation is that in areas where ECONOMICS is a prime
    consideration—in the smaller, less affluent
    communities—there is a higher priority for jobs and tax
    base than there is priority for environmental concerns

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME?
    Based on this 1971 premise

    Rod Mack: My charge, when I joined ECOLOGY IN 1971, was developing the regulations related to the permit system of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) as well as the guidelines. Those GUIDELINES were basically instructions FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ preparation of their Master Programs as well as standards or criteria for evaluating developments that took place on the shorelines, AGAIN, BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    IT SEEMED LIKE A GOOD IDEA AT THE TIME?
    Both by premise and legislative intent

    IN 1971….

    In 1972 the SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT PASSED

    The FEDERAL road to SMP and WATER HELL was PAVED with good intentions?

    AND HOW MUCH FEDERAL MONEY?

    When the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came along, it said, if a state wants to do a program, here’s some MONEY to do it; then, once it’s done, here’s some MORE MONEY to manage it.

    There’s a definite tie. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came about in ’72 at virtually the same time our Shoreline Management Act was finally approved.

    We were watching it very closely, because the federal law provides SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING to states that develop management programs. Here, we had the Shoreline Management Act.

    MORE FEDERAL MONEY AND MORE FEDERAL MONEY AND MORE FEDERAL  MONEY
    ————————————————————–
    BAIT AND SWITCHED TO FEDERAL CONTROL

    When? and how did we lose our right to local government?
    When? and how were the appointed given state RULE by WAC?
    When? and how were federally appointed agencies given ultimate power?

    WHEN INDEED..
    THE EXPLOSION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED
    BETWEEN 1970 AND 1980 TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT

    ———————————————————
    HISTORY Shoreline Act 40, 263 From 1971-2005
    Washington State Department of Ecology
    Ecology Publication #05-01-006
    A 570 page report the first 35 years, 1970 – 2005
    ———————————————————-
    UPDATE 2013 STATE? SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT?
    HAS BECOME FEDERALLY ENACTED
    SHORELINE MANAGEMENT BY APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES.
    ———————————————————–
    Shoreline Act 40, 263 From 1971-2005

    1971 The ENVIRONMENTALISTS proposed the state’s jurisdiction would include 500 feet back from the water’s edge, providing for a strip of land, 500 feet wide, that would be the jurisdiction of their bill.

    1971 They, the ENVIRONMENTALISTS also placed primary, almost exclusive, planning and REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, instead of LOCAL GOVERNMENT
    Resulting in a very STRONG ROLE by the STATE and a much lesser role by LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

    That initiative got enough signatures to go on to the ballot at the next general election. Seeing that, THE LEGISLATURE THEN DECIDED, as is allowed and provided for under the state’s constitution, to enact their version to put on the ballot, which was the 1972 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT, which ultimately passed. The basic difference between the initiative and the act was that the act named a strip 200 feet from the water’s edge as the area of jurisdiction, and then set up the joint state/local approach.
    ——————————————-
    2013 WA STATE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT ACT? AND WATER?

    A much lesser role of STATE AND LOCAL government?

    FEDERAL APPOINTED AGENCIES EDICTS MANDATING TO THE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

    WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY’S WAC’S, EDITICS, RULING, REGULATING AND ENFORCING OF LOCAL COUNTY AND CITY GOVERNMENT

    ENACTED BY CONGRESS CONTROLLED AND MANDATED BY FEDERAL APPOINTED AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS placed exclusive, planning and regulatory authority with federal appointed government agencies EPA ETC….

    RESULTING IN A VERY STRONG ROLE BY THE ACTS OF CONGRESS and AMENDMENTS TO THOSE ACTS and DELIGATING ALL POWER TO APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS.

    IF WILD OLYMPICS WAS FEDERALLY ENACTED jurisdiction would include 500 feet (or more) back from the water’s edge, providing for a strip of land, 500 feet (or more) wide, that would be the FEDERAL jurisdiction of that ACT.

    ————————————————————-

    Chapter Seven – Saving the Shorelines 2005
    The Plan to Protect the Coastlines
    An interview with Rodney Mack
    February 2, 2005
    Position held at time of interview:
    Retired, formerly Program Manager for the Shorelands and
    Environmental Assistance Program,
    Washington State Department of Ecology, 1983-1994

    From an environmental standpoint, given the two versions of the shorelines legislation, the environmentalist version talked about a jurisdictional area. In other words, what areas, what pieces of geography, the act applied to.

    Our Shoreline Management Act was probably, with maybe the exception of California, the strongest law of its kind in the country at the time. This was right at the beginning of the ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT, and what we were doing was groundbreaking. It wasn’t a case where we could pick up the phone and call some other state and say, hey, what did you guys
    do in dealing with this? Other states were calling us.

    When the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came along, it said, if a state wants to do a program, here’s some MONEY to do it; then, once it’s done, here’s some more MONEY to manage it.

    There’s a definite tie. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act came about in ’72 at virtually the same time our Shoreline Management Act was finally approved.

    We were watching it very closely, because the federal law provides SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING to states that develop management programs. Here, we had the Shoreline Management Act.

    ———————————————————–
    History is GOOD
    EXACTLY WHAT WAS WA STATE PLANNING IN 2005?

    shoreline development 259, 262, 264

    WA STATE WATER

    There’s an old saying, “In the Eastern United States, we take water forgranted. In the WEST, we take water from each other.

    My comment WHISKEY IS FOR DRINKING; WATER IS FOR FIGHTING OVER
    ————————————————————-
    Chapter 4, Troubled Waters: Rivers, Streams, and Salmon Recovery
    ……….117
    Habitat, Hydropower, Hatcheries and Harvest, Dick Wallace
    ………….117
    Protecting In-stream Flows, Ken Slattery
    ………………………..129
    The Problem of Pollutants in the Watershed, Dave Peeler
    ……………139
    Devising a Plan for the Dungeness and Elwha Rivers, Cynthia Nelson
    …..149

    Chapter 5, Shifting Standards:
    Treating Wastewater Discharges to Puget Sound
    ………………………165

    Chapter 7, Saving the Shorelines
    ………………………………….259
    A Plan to Protect the Coastlines, Rod Mack
    ………………………259
    Chapter 8, Dividing the Waters: Determining Yakima River Water Rights
    …..295

    Chapter 9, Environment 2010
    RANKING AIR AT THE TOP, Stu Clark
    ……………………………..344
    AT THE TABLE FOR EPA, Randy Smith
    …………………………….390
    History is GOOD
    EXACTLY WHAT WAS WA STATE PLANNING IN 2005?
    WA STATE ON WATER
    ————————————-
    Water Code of 1917 298
    water pollution 9, 41-42, 117
    Water Pollution Control Commission 6, 8-9, 11, 25,
    27, 92, 166, 180, 464
    Water Pollution Hearings Board 25
    Water Quality 11, 16, 18, 58, 60, 80, 113, 118, 122, 139,
    141, 160
    Water Quality Investigation Section 508
    Water Quality Program 11, 18, 80, 118, 139, 165-166,
    451, 494, 503, 508
    WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 1971 18, 131, 317
    Water Resources Program 18, 92, 118, 126, 129, 134,
    149, 295, 303, 305, 309, 318
    WATER RIGHT CLAIMS REGISTRATION ACT 310
    water rights 9, 14, 122, 124, 129-130, 132, 137, 143,
    146, 149-150, 152-153, 155-157, 160, 163, 186,
    295-304, 306-311, 313-314, 317-326
    Water rights 296
    Water Rights Claims Registration Act 300
    WATER STRATEGY 124
    water-dependent industrial uses 285
    Watershed Management Act 143, 145, 147
    Watershed planning 121, 159
    Watershed Planning 117, 122, 131-133, 144, 149,
    158-159
    Watershed Planning Act 122, 131-133, 144, 149,
    158-159
    watershed planning units 132, 14
    ———————————————————–
    2005 WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY AND CONGRESS
    —————————————————————-
    CONGRESS 2, 6, 70, 125, 130, 133, 186-187, 193,
    356-359, 372-373, 376, 378-379, 382, 387-388,
    391-392, 400, 462, 505, 524
    ————————————————————
    2013 WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY AND CONGRESS

    CONGRESS PASSED THE ESA AS PART OF THE EXPLOSION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED BETWEEN 1970 AND 1980 TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

    1966 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Endangered Species Act
    Congress passed the ESA as part of the explosion of federal … – Gale
    www.gale.cengage.com/pdf/samples/sp657497.pdf‎
    by ES ACT – ‎Related articles

    Congress passed the Endangered Species Preservation Act in 1966, … Congress enacted significant MORE amendments in 1978, AND MORE 1982, and MORE 1988,

    1969 The National Environmental Policy Act of | Department of Energy
    energy.gov/nepa/downloads/national-environmental-policy-act-1969‎

    Full text of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, available as a download. NEPA established a national policy for the environment …
    ————————————————-
    1972 Coastal Zone Management Act – Office of Ocean and Coastal …
    coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/czm_act.html‎
    Congressional Action to Help Manage Our Nation’s Coasts … growth in the coastal zone by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The Act …
    ————————————————
    1972 CONGRESS ENACTS FEDERAL Clean water act
    CWA | Civil Enforcement | Compliance and Enforcement | U.S. EPA
    www.epa.gov/Compliance/civil/cwa/index.html‎
    —————————————————
    Congress passed the ESA as part of
    THE EXPLOSION OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION ENACTED
    BETWEEN 1970 AND 1980 TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

    This entry was posted in APPOINTED FEDERAL AGENCIES, Clallam County SMP, Economic Impact, Intro to Deprived Of Our Water, Politically Motivated, Rubber Stamped, Shoreline Management Plan, The We’s who WANT, Tribal Right issues?, WA State Water Laws, WHAT A CONCEPT?, Wild Olympics.

    OCT 22, 2017


  • WA DOE Rules Recreational Use of Water?

    TO PROTECT SURFACE WATER CONTACT BY RECREATIONAL USERS?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

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

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

    WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SURFACE WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES?

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

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

     

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

    Extraordinary Primary Cont.

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

    Primary Cont.

    Primary contact recreation.

    Secondary Cont.

    Secondary contact recreation.

     

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

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

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

    Wildlife Habitat

    Wildlife habitat.

    Harvesting

    Fish harvesting.

    Commerce/Navigation

    Commerce and navigation.

    Boating

    Boating.

    Aesthetics

    Aesthetic values.

     

    ——————————————————————

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

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

    (RCW 90.58.020) Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————-

    CONTINUED….

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

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Chapter 246-260 WAC: WATER RECREATION FACILITIES

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

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

    ————————————————————————————

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

    This rulemaking will:

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

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

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

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

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

    August 16th, 2017

    Chapter 173-201A WAC: Recreational Use Criteria

    For more information:

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

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

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

    Thank you for using WAC Track.

    Have a good day!

    Visit us on the web or social media.

    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

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

    Chapter 173-201A WAC
    Recreational Use Criteria

     

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

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

    This rulemaking will:

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

    Timeline and Documents

     

    Date (date subject to change)

    Activity

    August 16, 2017

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

    August 16, 2017 – Spring 2018

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

    Spring 2018

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

    Spring 2018

    Hold public hearing comment period.

    Spring – Fall 2018

    Review public comments and prepare adoption packet.

    Fall 2018

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

    Fall 2018

    Rule effective (usually 31 days after filing)

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

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

    CONTACT

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

    STAY INFORMED

    Subscribe to the
    E-mail ListServ to receive updates

    RELATED LINKS

     

    Feedback?

     

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

    Publication Summary Table  602.

    Title

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

    Publication number

    Date Published

    Date Revised

    06-10-091

    December 2006

    March 2017

    VIEW NOW:

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

    Trouble viewing?

    ·         Get the latest Adobe Reader

    ·         Microsoft Word Viewer.

    ·         Microsoft Excel Viewer.

    Author(s)

    Water Quality Program

    Description

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

    REQUEST A COPY

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

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

    ·         Water Quality Order Form

    Contact

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

    Keywords

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

    WEB PAGE

    Surface Water Quality Standards

    RELATED PUBLICATIONS

    Title:

    Water Quality Standards For Surface Waters Of The State Of Washington

    Waters Requiring Supplemental Spawning and Incubation Protection for Salmonid Species

     


  • More DOE Fees Increased By Rule

    ——————————————————————–

    ——————————

    —– Original Message —–

    From:Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

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

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

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

    July 20, 2017

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

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

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

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

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!

    —————————————————————

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

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

    Scope of rule development

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

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

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

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

    The adopted percentages increases by category are:

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

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

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

    ———————————————————————-

    More information on DOE  fees is available……

    WHERE THE GOVERNMENT DOES MOST OF MY BUSINESS!

    Behind My Back | Drowning in Stormwater Runoff Tax?

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

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

    THE Regional Stormwater Monitoring Program (RSMP)

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

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

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

    Phase I Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit

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

    Phase II Western Washington Municipal Stormwater Permit

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

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

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

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


  • POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE and Justice Scalia

    POTUS WOTUS EPA ACE  and Justice Scalia

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers ACE (Corps) promulgated in 2016.

    The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.”

    It instructs EPA and the ACE Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    President Trump signed executive order on February 28, 2017 instructs EPA and the Corps to

    “CONSIDER” ADOPTING THE SCALIA TEST FROM RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).

    ORDER § 3. SCALIA OPINED IN RAPANOS THAT, “THE PHRASE ‘THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    ————————————————————————

    Notice that Trump signed the EO back at the end of February 2017, and the EPA is JUST NOW sending the information out. It looks like they have deliberately STALLED.

    These statements have to be in by June 19, 2017. Heads up!

    ————————————————————————————

    THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF NAVIGABLE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

    IS LOCATED AT 33 CFR 329.4

    • 329.4 General definition.

    Navigable waters of the United States are those waters that are subject to the ebb (the outgoing phase; when the tide drains away from the shore) and flow (the incoming phase; when water rises again) of the tide and/or are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. A determination of  navigability, once made, applies laterally over the entire surface of the waterbody, and is not extinguished by later actions or events which impede or destroy navigable capacity.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    The federal definition 40 CFR 230 .3 pertains to the Clean Water Act and waters of the United States.

    WOTUS BY OBAMA

    The definition of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) is very dangerous and overreaching. Under section (o), parts of the definition read as follows:
    o) The term waters of the United States means: …

    (ii) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;

    (iv) All impoundments of waters otherwise identified as waters of the United States under this section;

    (vi) All waters adjacent to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section, including  wetlands, ponds, lakes, oxbows, impoundments, and similar waters;

    (vii) All waters in paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section where they are determined, on a case-specific basis, to have a  significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. The waters identified in each of paragraphs (o)(1)(vii)(A) through (E) of this section are similarly situated and shall be combined, for purposes of a significant nexus analysis, in the watershed that drains to the nearest water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an  adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific significant nexus analysis is required.

    (A)Prairie potholes. Prairie potholes are a complex of glacially formed wetlands, usually occurring in depressions that lack permanent natural outlets, located in the upper Midwest.

    (viii) All waters located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section and all waters located within 4,000 feet of the high tideline or ordinary high water mark of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (v) of this section where they are determined on a case-specific basis to have a significant nexus to a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section. For waters determined to have a  significant nexus, the entire water is a water of the United States if a portion is located within the 100-year floodplain of a water identified in paragraphs (o)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section or within 4,000 feet of the high tide line or ordinary high water mark. Waters identified in this paragraph shall not be combined with waters identified in paragraph (o)(1)(vi) of this section when performing a significant nexus analysis. If waters identified in this paragraph are also an adjacent water under paragraph (o)(1)(vi), they are an adjacent water and no case-specific  significant nexus analysis is required.

    —————————————————————————————

    WRITING FOR THE COURT IN THE 2014 CLEAN AIR ACT CASE, UTILITY AIR REGULATORY GROUP V. EPA, JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED EPA’S INTERPRETATION UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD BRING ABOUT AN ENORMOUS AND TRANSFORMATIVE EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

    JUSTICE SCALIA DECLARED “We expect Congress to speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast ‘economic and political significance,’” he wrote.
    —————————————————————————————

    OBAMA VETOES GOP ATTEMPT TO BLOCK WOTUS WATER RULE

    By Timothy Cama – 01/19/16 07:22 PM EST

    ———————————————————-

    EPA ‘Waters of U.S.’ Rule Is a Power Grab | National Review

    www.nationalreview.com/article/431134/epa-waters-us-rule-power-grab

    by Rupert Darwall February 11, 2016 4:00 AM. Obama’s power-mad agency claims jurisdiction over land and water use almost everywhere in … EPA, under the Clean Water Act, a statute Congress passed two years after its clean-air sibling. … partially checked, in what has become known as the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS).

    ————————————————————————————————-

    President Trump signed an executive order on February 28, 2017, to roll back the waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) promulgated in 2016. The Order is entitled, “Presidential Executive Order on Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the ‘Waters of the United States’ Rule.” It instructs EPA and the Corps to begin the process of a rule-making to withdraw the WOTUS rule, id. at § 2(a), and to take appropriate actions in the courts where the rule is in litigation. Id. § 2(c).

    The Order raises a number of interesting issues. First, it instructs EPA and the Corps to “consider” adopting the Scalia test from Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Order § 3. Scalia opined in Rapanos that, “the phrase ‘the waters of the United States’ includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic features’ that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams[,] . . . oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.’. . . . The phrase does not include channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or channels that periodically provide drainage for rainfall. . .” 547 U.S. at 739.

    Because Rapanos was a split decision (4–1–4), there is no controlling opinion. The circuit courts, applying the Marks analysis, have concluded that Kennedy’s lone concurring opinion, which focused on the significant-nexus test, is the controlling standard from the case. (A couple of circuits have allowed Kennedy’s or Scalia’s opinion to be used to establish jurisdiction.) All of the circuit courts and almost all of the district courts have rejected the argument that Scalia’s test should be adopted as the sole jurisdictional test. The Supreme Court has denied certiorari numerous times since Rapanos on WOTUS issues, so we have no clarification from the Court on how to interpret the decision.

    IT IS CLEAR WHY THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CHOSEN SCALIA’S TEST—IT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE OF JURISDICTION.

     THAN THE KENNEDY TEST, WHICH EPA AND THE CORPS ADOPTED IN THE WOTUS RULE.

    UNDER THE SCALIA TEST, MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS—ESPECIALLY IN THE ARID WEST—WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO  THE CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA) BECAUSE MOST HEADWATER SYSTEMS ARE EPHEMERAL OR INTERMITTENT AND ARE THEREFORE NOT “RELATIVELY PERMANENT WATERS.” HEADWATER SYSTEMS COMPRISE A LARGE PART OF THE NATION’S TRIBUTARY SYSTEM. IN PLACES LIKE ARIZONA EVEN THE MAIN CHANNELS ARE DRY MOST OF THE YEAR AND, THEREFORE, MAY NOT MEET THE SCALIA TEST FOR JURISDICTION.

     

    THE SCALIA TEST WOULD LIKELY ALSO REMOVE MANY OF THE NATIONS’ WETLANDS FROM . EXPANSION IN EPA’S REGULATORY AUTHORITY WITHOUT CLEAR CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION.

     

    AS JUSTICE SCALIA SAID “WE EXPECT CONGRESS TO SPEAK CLEARLY IF IT WISHES TO ASSIGN TO AN AGENCY DECISIONS OF VAST ‘ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL SIGNIFICANCE,’”

    —————————————————————————-

    President Trump Issues Executive Order Directing EPA to Review the WOTUS Rule

    Thursday, March 2, 2017

    On February 28, 2017, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) to review the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) definition of “Waters of the United States”(WOTUS) Rule (the Rule) (80 Fed. Reg. 37054, June 29, 2015). Restoring the Rule of Law, Federalism, and Economic Growth by Reviewing the “Waters of the United States” Rule, Executive Order (Feb. 28, 2017) (EO). The EO directs EPA and ACE to review the WOTUS Rule for consistency with the policies set forth in the EO which specifies that “It is in the national interest to ensure that the Nation’s navigable waters are kept free from pollution, while at the same time promoting economic growth, minimizing regulatory uncertainty, and showing due regard for the roles of the Congress and the States under the Constitution.” The EO also directs EPA and ACE to “publish for notice and comment a proposed rule rescinding or revising the [WOTUS] rule, as appropriate and consistent with law.”

    Pursuant to the EO, EPA and ACE submitted for publication in the Federal Register, a notification of intention to review and rescind or revise the Rule. Notice of Intention to Review and Rescind or Revise the Clean Water Rule, Environmental Protection Agency and Dept. of Defense, Feb. 28, 2017. The notification will be published in the Federal Register in the coming days.

    THE EO ALSO DIRECTS EPA AND ACE TO CONSIDER INTERPRETING THE TERM “NAVIGABLE WATERS,”IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE OPINION OF JUSTICE SCALIA IN RAPANOS V. UNITED STATES, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). The Rapanos opinion set out two separate standards for CWA jurisdiction. See Rapanos at 715‑718. Justice Scalia, writing for a plurality, determined that the statute should only apply when there is a “continuous surface connection”between “relatively permanent”waters. Id. at 743. Justice Kennedy, on the other hand, determined that jurisdiction should be based on whether a water or wetland possesses “a significant nexus to waters that are or were navigable in fact or that could reasonably be so made.” Id. at 759. Neither standard was supported by a majority, so neither standard has become binding precedent. See Id. at 715-718. Regulators, however, have generally followed Justice Kennedy’s standard,

    AND THUS, A SWITCH TO JUSTICE SCALIA’S STANDARD WOULD REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL EXTENT OF THE CWA. SEE 80 FED. REG. 37054, 37056, 37060-37061 [WOTUS RULE].


  • 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?