+menu-


  • Category Archives Goliath’s Restoration Consortium
  • China Dam Smart? U.S.A. Dam Stupid?

    China Dam Smart?  U.S.A. Dam Stupid?

    CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD

    The Chinese dam policy was to build and keep dams to provide clean renewable electric power, control the dam water and prevent the dam flooding and release the dam water to prevent drought

    HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER CONTROLS THE WORLD?

    WHAT PART OF THIS DAM CHINESE POLICY DID THE DAM US GOVERNMENT NOT UNDERSTAND?

    IT WAS NOT HE WHO “OWNS THE WATER”, WOTUS….

    IT IS”HE WHO CONTROLS THE WATER”

    Behind My Back | WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

    Sep 4, 2015 – “WATERS OF UNITED STATES” POWER GRAB. WOTUS RULE – Pacific Legal Foundation https://www.pacificlegal.org/wotus. Pacific Legal Foundation

    DAMS CONTROL WATER. period

    THE STUPID US GOVERNMENT WAS SO “DAM DUMB” THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    Behind My Back | How Dam Dumb is the US Government?

    www.behindmyback.org/2016/04/17/how-dam-dumb-is-the-us-government/

    Apr 17, 2016CHINA WAS SO DAM SMART THAT THEY BUILT THE BIGGEST DAM IN THE WORLD. … www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/04/WOTUS-WATER-RUNS-DOWN-HILL/ … Jun 12, 2013 – ACCORDING TO AMERICAN RIVERS, 65 US dams were …

    THE SAGA OF THE STUPID U.S.A. DAM DESTRUCTION

    Map of U.S. Dams Removed Since 1916 | American Rivers

    https://www.americanrivers.org/threats-solutions/restoring…rivers/dam-removal-map/

    Today, many dams that were once at the epicenter of a community’s livelihood are now old, unsafe or no longer serving their intended purposes. Learn how …

    THE ELWHA RIVER DAMS THAT WERE ONCE THE EPICENTER OF OUR COMMUNITY’S LIVELIHOOD, ARE NO LONGER SERVING THEIR INTENDED PURPOSES. period

    THEIR INTENDED DAM PURPOSES?  Protecting and Providing Clallam County’s infrastructure, (the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants)

    Indeed, THE INTENDED ELWHA DAM PURPOSES, Dam cheap, dam clean hydroelectric power, dam renewable energy that kept the dam economy strong, providing a clean water supply, insuring flooding and drought protection, preventing millions of dam dollars of destruction in and on public and private land, property, protecting public access roads, and A COUPLE OF the really big epicenter of our communities livelihood,  THE OLYMPIC HOT SPRINGS ROAD? THE TOURISM, THE ACCESS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IN THE OLYMPIC NATIONAL PARK THAT KEPT OUR ECONOMY STRONG, INCLUDED TWO BEAUTIFUL LAKES.

    IT’S A DAM SHAME THAT 300,000 TOURISTS  CAN’T GET THERE FROM PORT ANGELES WA.

    LEARN HOW DAM STUPID…….THE REMOVAL OF THE BIGGEST DAM REMOVAL EVER, WORKED OUT FOR PORT ANGELES, CLALLAM COUNTY ETAL., WASHINGTON STATE U.S.A.

    AS PRESIDENT TRUMP ASKED “HOW’S THE U.S.A DAM

    SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR YOU?

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

    Seabury Blair Jr.
    Columnist

    Posted: April 15, 2013

     

    Two days after I hiked the sandy, rocky desolation that used to be Lake Mills, as many as 200,000 chinook salmon were killed in what has to be one of the biggest blunders in the history of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

    The year-old salmon were released from the new $16 million Elwha Hatchery run by the state and Lower Elwha Klallam tribe on April 5. Most — if not all — were killed when they tried to swim downstream through the thick gray goop that is the lower Elwha River, created by the removal of two dams built illegally in 1910.

    Though they only had to negotiate 3.5 miles of the river before reaching clearer waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the silt in the river began choking them almost the minute they swam from the crystalline hatchery water into the moving mire that is the Elwha. Hatchery officials reported seeing hundreds of dead smolts lining the riverbank, their gills clogged by the same silt that forced “temporary closure” of a $70 million Elwha River water treatment plant.

    In the Port Angeles Daily News, Mike Gross, Fish and Wildlife biologist, called the release of the salmon “a mistake.” Gross said he suspected the fish suffocated when silt prevented their gills from providing oxygen.

    I imagine it would be akin to trying to breathe volcanic ash for days without a mask, or running a marathon in a massive dust storm.

    Hatchery officials said they checked on the amount of silt in the Elwha on April 4, and determined it was acceptable to release the fish. They said the silt in the river increased overnight.

    I hiked about 3 miles downstream in the desolate bed of the former Lake Mills on April 3, and I don’t need a degree in biology to tell you that no fish could live in that water. The river looked no different when I left the Elwha Campground on April 4.

    For almost 15 miles, the Elwha River carves through a century’s worth of mud, sand and river cobble deposited behind the Elwha and Glines Canyon dams. Above Rica Canyon, at the entrance to the former Lake Mills, the river is the same old blue friend I’ve known for more than 50 years.

    But beginning at the old Lake Mills inlet, the river turns into gray slurry that is poison to any fish. I don’t imagine many wild animals drink from that deadly potion and live, either.

    Fisheries biologists have been releasing coho salmon into Indian Creek, which flows from the west into the Elwha; and Little River, which flows from the east. Both tributaries are about 7 miles upstream from the mouth of the river.

    They’ve reported some of the fish, along with a few chinook they released into Lake Mills before it became the desolation it is today, have survived the gantlet of poison. Now the state is planning to release nearly a million salmon from the hatchery in June.

    About the same time, work on removing the remainder of the Glines Canyon dam is expected to resume, which will surely cause more sediment to be swept downstream. Worse, concrete dust from the dam will be stirred into the mix, making it even more deadly.

    Let us hope the state and tribe can think of a way to get healthy salmon from the hatchery to the Strait before they kill a million more fish.

    Seabury Blair Jr. is the author of Backcountry Ski! Washington; Day Hike! Olympic Peninsula; Day Hike! Columbia Gorge; The Creaky Knees Guide to Washington; the Creaky Knees Guide to Oregon; and Washington Wild Roads. Email Seabury at skiberry@hughes.net.

    ————————————————————————-

    HOW’S THE SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR PORT ANGELES WA?

    Port Angeles to sue Park Service in dispute over Elwha River water …

    www.peninsuladailynews.com/…/port-angeles-to-sue-park-service-in-dispute-over-el

    6 days ago – PORT ANGELES — The Port Angeles City Council has set the stage for … impasse related to the historic removal of the Elwha River dams.

    snippet….City Attorney Bill Bloor said at the council meeting Tuesday that the Park Service has not provided contract information being sought by the city on the $25 million Elwha River surface water intake and treatment facilities.

    ————————————————————-

    Word gets around in cyberspace

    New post on Pie N Politics Siskiyou County CA

    Port Angeles to sue Park Service in dispute over Elwha River water facilities

    by Liz Bowen

    PNP comment:  Port Angeles is a city in and the county seat of Clallam County,

    Washington, United States. With a population of 19,038 as of the 2010 census,[7]

    it is the largest city in the county, according to Wikipedia. It is worth checking out the entire article at the link below.

    It looks like the fed gov. is not fulfilling its obligations. Shock !!! — Editor Liz Bowen

    —————————————————-

    Behind My Back | Pie N Politics page (1)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/07/27/pie-n-politics-page-1/

    Jul 27, 2015 – Pie N Politics page (1) Pie N Politics. Like many areas of the United States, citizens in Siskiyou County are finding government regulations are …

    Aug 19, 2016 – A PLAN TO REMOVE FOUR KLAMATH RIVER DAMS

    TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY AND HABITAT FOR FISH AND RIVER COMMUNITIES

    ———————————————————————————

    The removal of  two dams on the Elwha River in WA State  2011-2014 “WAS”  previously the biggest dam removal DISASTER in U.S. History.

    After the removal of the Elwha River Dams.

    Apr 15, 2013 ELWHA RIVER WATER QUALITY?

    THE QUALITY OF MY PORT ANGELES DRINKING WATER….

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

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

    ————————————————————

    YEP, THE ELWHA DAM PROTECTED THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA’S ACCESS INFRASTRUCTURE, THE ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE.

    Battered by Dam Removal – Elwha Bridge

    Posted on January 11, 2017 4:26 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    Battered by Dam Removal Elwha Bridge Destroyed

    A DAM TRAGEDY THE ELWHA RIVER BRIDGE

    ———————————————————————

    Flooding is a Dam Shame

    Posted on June 28, 2013 7:31 am by Pearl Rains Hewett

    Drought is a dam shame

    China was so dam smart that they built the biggest dam in the world.

    He who controls the water controls the world?

    In the USA the government was and is so dam stupid they decided that hydro electric power was not dam clean, dam cheap, dam renewable dam energy, not dam flood control and not dam drought and dam property loss prevention.

    The dam Chinese government is so dam smart they work in the best interest of the dam people.

    The Chinese dam prevents the dam loss of life, billions of dam dollars in property damage, provides dam cheap, dam clean, dam renewable, dam energy and helps keep their dam economy strong.

    The Chinese dam controls the dam water releases the dam water to eliminate the dam droughts

    What part of this dam Chinese policy does the dam US government not understand?

    THE US GOVERNMENT IS SO DAM DUMB THEY WORK FOR THE DAM LOBBYIST AND THE DAM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS. SAVE THE DAM ENDANGERED etal., ad nausaum, SALMON AT WHAT COST?

    The best dam interest of the dam people in the USA be dammed

    As dictated by the dam US government

    The dam people in the dam USA are flooded and cleaning up the dam water damage for six dam months of the year.

    The dam people in the USA suffer the dam drought for the other six dam months of the year

    The Chinese dam policy was to build and keep dams to provide clean renewable electric power, control the dam water and prevent the dam flooding and release the dam water to prevent drought

    THE DAM USA POLICY CREATES LOSS OF DAM LIFE, DAM MISERY AND DAM SUFFERING FOR MILLIONS OF DAM AMERICANS EVERY DAM YEAR.

    AS PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD ASK

    “HOW’S THE DAM U.S.A. SYSTEM WORKING OUT FOR YOU?


  • The ROSS Approach to Puget Sound

    The ROSS Approach to Puget Sound

    OUR WATER AND TIMBER

     THE REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY (ROSS)

     http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    LOCAL PRIORITIES IN PUGET SOUND

    At the heart of the ROSS are WATERSHED Open Space Strategies, engaging local stakeholders who know the priorities and challenges of their sub-basins intimately.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Local stakeholders who know the priorities and challenges of their sub-basins intimately?  Skagit and Clallam County.

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

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

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and …

    —————————————————————————–

    REGIONAL ANALYSIS IN PUGET SOUND

    Together, we will analyze and SYNTHESIZE local priorities and regional challenges to plan across traditional jurisdictional and watershed boundary lines for our shared future.

    ——————————————————————–

    THE ROSS APPROACH ON MANAGED  TIMBER  PRODUCTION

     GOT TIMBER?  WANT DNR TO GIVE CLALLAM COUNTY’S TIMBER BACK?

     THE  WASHINGTON  STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES  HAS  GIS  SPATIAL  DATA  SETS  ABOUT  FOREST  PRACTICES  WHERE  THE  TIMBER  HARVEST  AREAS  CAN  BE  SEEN  IN  POLYGONS.

     BETTER CHECK IT OUT…

    ———————————————————————-

    I Signed up for the ROSS Newsletter!

    I will receive monthly project updates and opportunities to get engaged in the Regional Open Space Strategy.

    ————————————————————————————-

    Informing Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    Managed  timber  production PAGE 9

    In  the  context  of the  ROSS,  we  ATTEMPTED  to  use  the  MODEL  to  assess  general  habitat  rarity  and  quality  within  our  focus  area.

    All  types  of  land  covers  that  were  open  space habitat.

    THREATS  CONSIDERED  IN  THE  MODEL  WERE  ROADS,  HIGHWAY,  TRAILS,  AND  DEVELOPED  LAND.  The  relative  sensitivities  of  land  cover  to  these  THREATS  used  in  the  model  WERE  PLACEHOLDERS  SINCE  CONCLUSIVE  DATA  FOR  THESE  VALUES  COULD  NOT  BE  FOUND.

    Ultimately, we  could  not  run  the  model, even  as  a  trial,  because  of  technical  issues.  The  InVEST software  displayed  an  error  that  the  GIS  data  used  did  not  cover  the  same  geographic  space.

    While  this  was  not  the  case,  our  team  did  not  resolve  the  issue in  time  for  this  report.  Managed  timber  production  model  The  InVEST  timber  model  has  been  developed  to  measure  the  amount  and  volume  of  the  timber  produced  over  a  time  period  and  to  calculate  the  net  present  value  of  that.

    The  amount  of  timber  harvests  from  both  natural  forests  and  managed  plantations  can  be  estimated  by  using  this  model.    The  model  requires vector  GIS  data,  information  about  harvest  levels,  frequency  of  harvest,  costs  of  harvesting  and  management  practices for  each  timber  harvest  parcel.  The  model  can  make  two  types  of  calculations  in  terms  of  the  selected  time  period:  the  timber  parcel  map  can  be  related  either  to  a  current  map  or  to  a  future  scenario  map.

    The  TIMBER  MODEL  can  be  especially  useful  for  ONE  OF  THE ROSS’  KEY  AREAS: “Rural  and  Resource  Lands”.    Since  the  model  gives  as  output  the  amount  and  volume  of  the  timber  produced  over  a  period  of  time  and  that  harvest’s  net  present  value,  it  can  be  beneficial  in  terms  of  calculating the  OPPORTUNITY  costs  of  preserving  a  forestland  or  opening  it  up  for  development.  

    THE  WASHINGTON  STATE  DEPARTMENT  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES  HAS  GIS  SPATIAL  DATA  SETS  ABOUT  FOREST  PRACTICES  WHERE  THE  TIMBER  HARVEST  AREAS  CAN  BE  SEEN  IN  POLYGONS.  The  information  about  the  volume  of  timber  produced  is  available  too.

    HOWEVER,  in  order  to  be  able  to  run  the  model  other  data  needs  (such  as  frequency  of  harvesting,  percentage  of harvesting,  maintenance  cost,  and  harvesting  cost)  need  to  be  collected  from  the  timber  parcel  owners.

    While  running  trial  of  this  model  we  discovered  that  in  order to  find  the  necessary  data  mentioned  above  to  run  the  model  we  would  need  to  conduct  a  field  study  and  collect  the  information  from  each  parcel  owner.  As  our  time  to  complete  the  study  was  limited, we  could  not  conduct  a  field  study.  It  may  be  POSSIBLE  in  the  future  to use  sustainable  forest  practices  information  to  estimate  for  example  the  frequency  of  timber  harvesting  in  Pierce  County.

    HOWEVER,  we learned  that the  definition  of  sustainable  forest  practices  may  vary  from  one  landowner  to  another  and  that  we  cannot  generalize  one  model  for  each  timber  harvest.

    THUS,  as  a  result  we  could  not  run  the  model.  Figure  6  provides  an  example  for how  the  model  output  can  be  used  in  VISUALIZATION  of  different  scenarios.

    The  last  column  in  the  figure  entitled  “MARKET  VALUE  OF  COMMODITY  PRODUCTION”  includes  the  value  of  the  timber  produced  in  that  area.  The  greenest  color  represents  the  highest  production  of  ecosystem  services  and  the  pinkest  color  represents  the  lowest  value  of  them.  For  example, in  the  conservation  scenario  it  can  be  seen  that  the  market  value  of  the  commodity  produced is  lowest  whereas  carbon  sequestration  has  the  highest  value  in  that  scenario……

    ———————————————————————————-

    OUR WATER And OUR TIMBER, WHO COULD ASK FOR ANYTHING MORE?

    Ask a Silly Question?

    The Butterfly has landed?
    What does the expansion of a military base  have to do with designating 150 acres of Clallam County property to a WA State conservancy group as OPEN SPACE FOR AN ENDANGERED BUTTERFLY?

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

    THE REGIONAL OPEN SPACE STRATEGY (ROSS)

    DRAFT Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    DRAFT

    Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Executive Committee

    Role: Project Guidance & Endorsement of ROSS

    Lead: Ron Sims (PSP Leadership Council)

    Oct 12, 2011 – … Executive Ron Sims to the Puget Sound Partnership Leadership Council.

    Members: PSRC; Decision-Makers in King, Kitsap,

    Pierce, & Snohomish; Land & Resource Conservation

    Agency & Association Directors; MAJOR AGRICULTURE &

    FORESTRY INTERESTS, Large Community Organizations;

    and Supporting Financial Institutions

    ———————————————-

    ROSS Project Team

    Role: Staffing & Coordination

    Lead: Green Futures Lab

    Members: NCLC, National Park

    Service RTCA Program, & The

    Bullitt Foundation.

    ————————————————-

    Steering Committee

    Role: Oversight, Integrated ROSS Development

    Lead: TBD Members:

    Land Trusts; Key National, State, PSRC,

    County, City, Tribe, & Port Staff; Environmental

    Management Orgs.; Advocacy & Community Interests;

    Economic/Workforce Interests; Design & Planning

    Professionals, and Research Institutions

    ———————————————————

    Technical Advisory Committees

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Bob Feurstenberg

    & TBD Members:, USFS, NPS, TPL, TNC,

    Earth Economics, PSP, Forterra

    PSRC, Research Institutes, etc

    ——————————————————

    Recreation & Trails Advisory Committee

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Amy Shumann (PHSKC) & Jennifer Knauer(PSP)

    Members:  WSDOT, BAW, CBC, NPS, TPL, SPF, Parks/Recreation &

    Health Depts., Greenways, etc

    —————————————————————–

    Rural & Resource Lands Advisory Committee

    Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Lauren Smith (King County) & Skip Swenson (Forterra)

    Members: TPL, TNC, Land Trusts, Farm/Forestry Orgs., Labor, Property Rights, Cons.

    Dists., etc.

    —————————————————–

    Urban & Community Plan Advisory Committee

     Role: Work Sessions & Issue Paper

    Lead: Joe Tovar (Inova) & Ben Bakkenta( PSRC)

    Members: Forterra, ULI, Impact Capital, Great City,

    Tilth, SPF, Groundswell NW, Greenways, etc

    —————————————————————————–

    WATERSHED OPEN SPACE TASKFORCES

    Role: Watershed Open Space Studies.

    Leads:  Associated Watershed Councils & Conservation Districts

    ————————————————————–

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL OF THE ATTACHMENTS BELOW

    It’s an extensive partnership of governments and non-profits.

    Implementation of the strategy will require buy-in $$$$$$ And, the power

    They have begun mapping the priority areas to consider for acquisition

    Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    Prepared for the Regional Open Space Strategy of Central Puget Sound

    Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    The ROSS approach brings together decision makers, planners, businesses, and individuals with the power to make smart, regional-based, and coordinated decisions to support open space and our future quality of life in the Puget Sound Region. This collaborative effort is stewarded by the University of Washington’s award-winning Green Futures Lab.

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

    I found above plan/strategy in the MRSC publication.  This has to be a part of the desired ARL sweep.  The article says they have begun mapping the priority areas to consider for acquisition (haven’t found them yet).  Implementation of the strategy will require buy-in from an informed citizenry and the support of the regions leaders from both public and private sectors.

    IT’S AN EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS.

    http://openspacepugetsound.org/ross-approach

    DRAFT Committee Structure & Organizational Framework

    Introduction to the Regional Open Space Strategy (ROSS)

    A Collective Vision

    PRELIMINARY COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY

    Researching and Analyzing Governance Models for UW Green Futures Research + Design Lab

    Informing Conservation Decisions Based on Ecosystem Services

    ————————————————————————————————–

    THIS  EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS, HAS BECOME AN ALL TOO FREQUENT PATTERN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    ——————————————————————————————

    This is part of  my comment on the Clallam County New SMP Matrix

    THE NGO, NOTHING TO LOSERS, PILING ONE NGO NON-TAXPAYING  SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPIES COMMENTS,  on top of another NGO non-taxpaying  special interest group comment, all in collusion with, in cahoots with, in partnership,affiliated with, paid for by and with grants and with our tax dollars, from  local, county, state and federal government agencies.

    AND, WITH ALL OF OUR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL  ELECTED, APPOINTED AND PAID EMPLOYEES IN ALL AGENCIES, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH, IN COLLUSION WITH, IN CAHOOTS WITH, AFFILIATED WITH AND COORDINATING WITH THE GLOBAL, OUT OF TOWNERS, NGO, NOTHING TO LOSERS NON-TAXPAYING  OPPORTUNISTIC SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS.

    Sound familiar?

    —————————————————————————————-

    Indeed, THIS  EXTENSIVE PARTNERSHIP OF GOVERNMENTS AND NON-PROFITS, HAS BECOME AN ALL TOO FREQUENT PATTERN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    “WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE MORE THAN 600 PARTNERS TOGETHER”

    A quote from Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    The Washington State legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership a state agency dedicated to identifying, prioritizing, and coordinating efforts to protect and RESTORE PUGET SOUND.

    Since its founding in 2007, the partnership has collaborated with state and federal agencies, local governments, tribes, businesses, and citizen groups to achieve specific cleanup and restoration goals for Puget Sound.

    Who knew about this? Who knew about ROSS?

    (PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
    A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND.

    THIS IS NOT A CASUAL REPORT OF RESTORATION FOR THE SMP UPDATE

    The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States;

     DATA IS ALSO ACQUIRED FOR WATER SHED DRAINAGE AREAS of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.

    “WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE MORE THAN 600 PARTNERS TOGETHER”

    A quote from Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    ——————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    www.behindmyback.org/2014/06/09/the-restorationshellgame/

    Jun 9, 2014 – A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that is involving the … MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

     


  • The Out of Town NGO’s Are Back

    The Out of Town NGO’s Are Back

    Funding for this work is provided by SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, PATAGONIA, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Rose Foundation and the Coastal Watershed Institute.

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN Living on the Edge  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    WHY ARE THEY HERE?

    Big meeting? Landowner Update and Discussion?

    ———————————————————–

    WHO INVITED THEM? Who’s collaborating with them?

    AND WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR THIS?

    http://www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org/earthEconomics.pdf

    NATURE’S VALUE IN CLALLAM COUNTY: THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF FEEDER BLUFFS and 12 Other Ecosystems. Earth Economics: Tacoma, Washington (a 146 page document)

    EARTH ECONOMICS would like to thank all who contributed valuable information to this project: Anne Shaffer and Nicole Harris from the Coastal Watershed Institute, CATHY LEAR AND STEVE GRAY FROM CLALLAM COUNTY, Dave Parks from Department of Natural Resources, George Kaminsky and Heather Barron from Department of Ecology, Kathryn Neal from the City of Port Angeles, Clea Rome from the WSU Extension, Ian Miller from WA Seagrant and Helle Andersen, formerly of CWI

    We deeply appreciate those who helped review and edit this document, Donna J. Nickerson, Aaron Schwartz, CATHY LEAR, Anne Shaffer and Dave Parks

    ——————————————————————

    COASTAL WATERSHED INSTITUTE CWI IS A 501C3 NON-PROFIT

    EARTH ECONOMICS IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION

    ———————————————————————————

    WHAT DO THEY REALLY WANT?

    Behind My Back | Surfrider Foundation Wants?

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/07/14/surfrider-foundation/

    Jul 14, 2013 – The WE’S WHO WANT OUR WA STATE WAVES? THE WE’S WHO … ENTER Surfrider Foundation ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. Surfrider …

    THE WAVES OF 18 COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD

    ———————————————————————

    THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE IS A LOCAL PROCESS

    Why are THEY being given  an special SMP UPDATE before the first notification, publication, workshop, has been sent or given to the 3300 affected private shoreline property owners in Clallam County?

    WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS FOR THIS?

    Why is Clallam County paying A COUNTY EMPLOYEE, our Taxpayer Dollars, TO GIVE THEM AN SPECIAL SMP UPDATE BEFORE NOTIFICATION OF THE AFFECTED CITIZENS?

    Clallam County will provide an update on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)

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

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    Living on the Edge? OR ARE THEY LIVING ON THE FRINGE OF AGENDA 21?

    Landowner Update and Discussion?

    How much land do THEY own CLALLAM COUNTY?

    —————————————————————————————–

    Why do THEY keep showing up in OUR back yard? THEY Pretend to be living on the edge?

    THEY Pretend they represent, “US”  the 3300  VESTED CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS  AFFECTED BY THE CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE UPDATE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    THEY ARE NOT MY REPRESENTATIVES.

    THEY ARE THE CHOIR, THAT SINGS TO THE EPA, ECOLOGY, THE TRIBES, AND a plethora of PAID GOVERNMENT (including Clallam County) EMPLOYEES AND NGO SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS GLOBAL, AND OTHER, AND FOR-PROFIT CONSULTING GROUPS.

    ———————————————————————–

    And, Clallam County employees are in collaboration with THEM?

    —————————————————————————-

    AND? THEY ARE GOING ALL WORKING TOGETHER?  THEY ARE GOING TO DEFINE THE BEST STEWARDSHIP? AND? THEY ARE GOING PROVIDE LONG TERM MANAGEMENT ACTIONS? THEY ARE GOING TO PROTECT THE DUNGENESS FEEDER BLUFFS?

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

    OUR FAMILY HAS PROVIDED OVER 60 YEARS OF PRISTINE LONG TERM MANAGEMENT AND STEWARDSHIP ON OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    OUR PRIVATE PRISTINE  SHORELINE FAMILY TRUST PROPERTY IS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS.

    —————————————————————————————————

    BUT WOW, IF I GO TO THEIR MEETING?

    THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE ME A LANDOWNER UPDATE AND DISCUSSION

    THE CWI and collaborators, including Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources and Ecology, North Olympic Land Trust, Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe are working together to define the best community stewardship and long term management actions to protect the Dungeness feeder bluffs.

    ——————————————————————————————

    THESE OUT OF TOWNER’S ARE ALL  coming here, to CLALLAM COUNTY WITH THEIR NGO AGENDA.

    ——————————————————————————————–

    WHO ARE THESE OUT OF TOWN  NON-GOVERNMENT SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS?

    —————————————————————————————–

    Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI)

    CWI IS A SMALL 501C3 NON-PROFIT FIRST FORMED IN 1996. CWI’s goal is to advance protection of intact and critical natural ecosystems thru long-term wise ecosystem management, nearshore restoration at the ecosystem level, and mentoring our next generation of scientists and managers, and citizen partnerships. Over our careers we at CWI have learned that -without exception- what is good for the environment is good for community. CWI has also learned that saving what we have is best for the ecosystem and economy- so CWI emphasizes protection,. We also know that when we are restoring, true restoration must occur at the ecosystem level to be successful.. Our experience is also that the majority of the community – which is growing rapidly – wants to be wise stewards but need the tools to do so. Our work is extremely challenging. Preservation and restoration can take decades-and that bureaucratic and political challenges (sometimes significant) are not reasons to quit. In total our work is to link senior scientists, managers, and citizens to motivate for the best, not just the easiest, management actions and solutions. Our work is never ending and crosses generations. Collectively CWI senior scientists have hundreds of years of experience managing and researching the natural history of this region CWI engages these scientists with college students, citizens, and landowners on the ground to understand how our natural ecosystems function and how to protect them while training the next generation of managers and scientists. We bring science to management in a rural, and sometimes extremely conservative, but ecologically critical region of the Pacific Northwest. Top priority work for CWI include coordinating the Elwha Nearshore Consortium, a group of scientists, citizens, and managers dedicated to understanding and promoting the nearshore restoration associated with the Elwha dam removals, and conduct unique and critical research to understand and promote nearshore habitat function, and define how to protect the nearshore functions, including cross regional fish use of nearshore habitats, and the importance of Dungeness and Elwha feeder bluffs for surf smelt. CWI also regularly sponsor’s community forums on emerging and ongoing topics including Elwha nearshore science, management, and restoration, and net pen aquaculture. Nearshore ecosystem services are complex, compelling, and integral element of CWI’s work. We are honored to be a partner in this new frontier of ecosystem management

    ————————————————————————————————-

    Earth Economics

    EARTH ECONOMICS IS A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION located in Tacoma, Washington, dedicated to researching and applying the economic

    solutions of tomorrow, today.Earth Economics provides robust, science-based, ecologically sound economic analysis, policy recommendations and tools to

    positively transform regional, national and international economics, and asset accounting systems. Working with leading ecologists, economists and modelers, we serve a large circle of businesses, non-profits, government agencies, policy makers and media channels with research, reports, presentations, workshops and investigations. Our goal is to help communities shift away from the failed

    economic policies of the past, towards an approach that is both economically viable and environmentally sustainable.Mission Statement: Earth Economics applies new economic tools and principles to meet challenges of the 21st century: achieving the

    need for just and equitable communities, healthy ecosystems, and sustainable economies.

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

    SO HERE IS YOUR  BIG INVITE

    (I called Jamie Michel 206-282-3025 no response)

    Press Release

    Date: December 5, 2014

    **For Immediate Release**

    FROM: COASTAL WATERSHED INSTITUTE, PO box 2263, Port Angeles www.coastalwatershedinstitute.org, 360.461.0799

    Contact: Jamie Michel, jamie.michel@coastalwatershedinstitute.org, 206-282-3025

    Living on the Edge

    Landowner Update and Discussion

    Tuesday January 27th, 2015

    6:00-8:00 pm at Dungeness Schoolhouse 2781 Towne Road, Sequim

    The Coastal Watershed Institute (CWI) and partners invite the community to a bluff management workshop the evening of 27 January 2015 at the historical Dungeness Schoolhouse from 6:00 – 8:00 pm.

    This workshop will provide an update to our ongoing work to understand and promote wise stewardship of this important region of the nearshore. CWI will provide an update on efforts including the development of a realtor funding pool for distressed landowners (see photo), and protection grants.

    Clallam County will provide an update on the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), and Washington Department of Natural Resources will present findings long term bluff erosion study just published. Staff from the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge will provide details on their upcoming anniversary celebration in May.

    CWI and collaborators, including Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife, Natural Resources and Ecology, AND THE NORTH OLYMPIC LAND TRUST,

    —————————————————————————————-

    UPDATE

    The Land Trust has completed its largest land conservation project ever! We are pleased to announce that we have purchased a 280-acre property just east of the Lyre River on the Strait of Juan de Fuca. This stunning property features the estuary at the mouth of the Lyre River, streams, wetlands, tidelands, kelp beds and bluff-backed beaches.   It also includes a large upland area with a diverse forest at various ages of growth,  Learn more ›  “The Land Trust has been working with community partners for years to conserve this property,” Planning is underway for the use of the property.  VISITORS WILL BE ABLE TO PARK ABOUT A MILE FROM THE BEACH and walk in from there. Visitors can enjoy DAY-USE activities such as birdwatching, wildlife viewing, surfing, picnicking, and beach walking. The area will be closed to all motor vehicles.

    THE USUAL? NO HORSES? NO RUNNING? NO JOGGING? NO BARKING?

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

    AND, Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge, the Surfrider Foundation, and the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe are working together to define the best community stewardship and long term management actions to protect the Dungeness feeder bluffs.

    The January 27th workshop will continue this dialogue between scientists, managers and bluff landowners on next steps for all of us to the benefit of our community and the environment. Join us!

    —————————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    WHO INVITED THEM?

    Who’s collaborating with them?

    AND WHO AUTHORIZED PAYMENT OF COUNTY FUNDS TO COUNTY EMPLOYEES FOR THIS MEETINGS SMP PRESENTATION?

    Funding for this work is provided by Surfrider Foundation, Patagonia, Puget Soundkeeper Alliance, Rose Foundation and the Coastal Watershed Institute.


  • An International WATER WAR?

    An International WATER WAR?

    U.N. to intervene in Detroit WATER shutoffs

    The UN calls the plan to shut off water A CLEAR VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

    Canadians fight to keep water on for 79,000 in Detroit

    SHUTOFF FOR NOT PAYING THEIR WATER BILLS? UTILITY BILLS?

    ————————————————————————————————

    WHY? can’t the people in the city of Detroit afford to pay their  Water Bills?

    HAS IT GOT SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE PROCESSING AND HANDLING FEES?

    I don’t know how the City of Detroit bills their customers?

    The  City of Port Angeles, WA 98362 supplies my water on a combined utility bill.

    ——————————————————————————-

    ANALYZE THIS?

    IT’S JUST LIKE ONE OF THOSE RIP OFF TV ADS.

    FOR ONLY $1.20, THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES,WA 98362,  WILL GIVE YOU 55 CF OF WATER.

    ALL YOU  HAVE TO DO IS PAY THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES  A FEE OF $102.22 FOR  PROCESSING AND HANDLING YOUR  $1.20 WORTH OF WATER.

    ————————————————————————————————

    57% OF MY MONTHLY COMBINED UTILITY BILL IS WATER RELATED.

    HOW MUCH OF THE PROCESSING AND HANDLING FEE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT?

    ———————————————————————

    DOCUMENTATION

    I have my June 2014, City of Port Angeles combined utility bill in front of me.

    My water consumption charge is $1.20.

    YES, exactly, one dollar and twenty cents (WATER CON 0-1000)

    My water base charge is $28.22

    my sewer usage 0-429 CF is $43.95

    My CSO-usage 0-429 CF is $18.00

    The Harbor WATER study is $4.10

    TOTAL MONTHLY WATER RELATED CHARGES ON MY UTILITY BILL $95.47

    PLUS,  I MUST ADD $105.00 A YEAR, ADDED TO MY CLALLAM COUNTY PROPERTY TAX FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF, ANOTHER $8.75 FOR  MY MONTHLY WATER RELATED CHARGES.

    TOTAL $103.42 A MONTH IN WATER RELATED CHARGES  BILLED TO ME BY THE CITY OF PORT ANGELES, WA 98362

    57% OF MY MONTHLY UTILITY BILL IS WATER RELATED.

    ————————————————————————————-

    U.N. to intervene in Detroit water shutoffs

    TALKS ON ‘HUMAN-RIGHTS VIOLATIONS’

    PLANNED WITH OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

    the U.N now plans to conduct confidential policy discussions with the Obama administration to be followed by a formal public report to the U.N. Human Rights Council.

    On Monday, the U.N. Human Rights Council’s office in Geneva confirmed to WND that the U.N. plans to intervene directly in the Detroit water crisis, determined to apply international law TO JUDGE THE U.S. IN VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS to safe water.

    ———————————————————————————

    DOESN’T OBAMACARE COVER MEDICAL TREATMENT FOR DEHYDRATION?

    (I just couldn’t resist)

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

    WHY? can’t the people in the city of Detroit afford to pay their  Water Bills?

    HAS IT GOT SOMETHING TO DO WITH PROCESSING AND HANDLING FEES?

    ANOTHER MAN-MADE DISASTER. DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT?

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

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/u-n-to-intervene-in-detroit-water-shutoffs/#M4pGWKlhofMomdrc.99

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/canadians-fight-to-keep-water-on-for-79-000-in-detroit-1.2695043

     


  • $14.8 Billion for Restoration

    Sent to Representative Derek Kilmer,

    The bottom line?

    100% of the MARYLAND $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED  to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    IS WA STATE GOING TO FOLLOW MARYLAND’S LEAD? AND LEGISLATE AND MANDATE ALL OF OUR STORMWATER RUNOFF TAX DOLLARS TO  THE RESTORATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    RESTORATION OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT? vs: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    WHEN ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE GOING TO PRIORITIZE AND START FUNDING THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.”

    THE EVERYDAY, DAY AFTER DAY, VIOLENT HORRIFYING  “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT” THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE BEING FORCED TO  LIVE WITH  IN THEIR CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    Is anyone in congress addressing the Restoration of “Law and Order” to stop the 2014 epidemic of violent crimes against People across the United States Of America?

    Please ask CONGRESS to legislate  American RESTORATION tax  dollars wisely, in a country of the people, by the people, FOR THE PEOPLE.

    Pearl Rains Hewett
    Just a concerned American Grandmother

    ————————————————————

    $14.8 Billion for Restoration
    Posted on June 10, 2014 9:12 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

    In the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, legislators, passed a $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR UNFUNDED, EPA MANDATED Rain Tax. (for storm water runoff)

    100% of the $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    The federal government and, every state legislature, provides restoration funding for the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, spending and granting billions of our American tax dollars.

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

    WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF LEGISLATION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

    2009-2014 IT’S TIME TO PLAY CATCH UP.

    WHO KNEW?

    SINCE 2009 our legislators, elected representatives have been busy, busy, busy.

    THEY HAVE LEGISLATED, ECOLOGY (DOE) AND A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION TO BE IN CONTROL OF  THE TAXPAYERS FATE, FOR THE FUNDING AND COST OF WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF

    Stormwater Technical Resource Center

    The 176 PAGE REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

    Water Quality Program

    Washington State Department of Ecology

    Olympia, Washington

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

    The passage of House Bill 2222 in 2009 set in motion the creation of THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER (Center)that would focus RESOURCES on protecting Washington’s waters through improvements in regional stormwater management.

    The Bill, codified in RCW 90.48.545, directs the state Department of

    Ecology(Ecology)“as funding becomes available… to create a stormwater technical resource center in partnership with a university, nonprofit organization, or other public or private entity to provide tools for stormwater management.

    TO PROVIDE SEED MONEY FOR CREATION OF THE CENTER, ECOLOGY SOLICITED GRANT PROPOSALS

    for a Center that would benefit stormwater management programs across Washington and support NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) stormwater permit programs.

    In late 2009, ECOLOGY AWARDED FUNDING to the City of Puyallup and its two primary associates: Washington State University (WSU) and the University of Washington(UW). Their charge was to convene an advisory committee to consult on the development and the overall administrative strategy of  a Stormwater Technical Resource Center.

    The ADVISORY COMMITTEE includes representatives from state agencies, local governments, the business community, the environmental community, tribes and the building and development industry.

    ——————————————————-

    THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER

    The Center has been established AS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.

    Center staff created a 5-Year Business Plan, (Appendix C), and has started to deliver the following services

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

    Ecology (DOE) is working on Funding?

    During the past year, Ecology (DOE) has met with staff from THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, and the Advisory Committee to identify FUNDING strategies. While there is still a need for base-level support to grow the Center,

    FUNDING mechanisms for THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, include COST REIMBURSEMENT for technical reviews, trainings, MONITORING and other technical resource services. In addition, donations, endowments, BONDS, conferences, membership dues, GRANTS and support from in-kind services and DEDICATED ACCOUNTS are all evaluated in the Business Plan.

    ————————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    100% of the MARYLAND $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED  to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    IS WA STATE GOING TO FOLLOW MARYLAND’S LEAD? AND LEGISLATE AND MANDATE ALL OF OUR STORMWATER RUNOFF TAX DOLLARS TO  THE RESTORATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    RESTORATION OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT? vs: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    WHEN ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE GOING TO PRIORITIZE AND START FUNDING THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.”

    THE EVERYDAY, DAY AFTER DAY, VIOLENT HORRIFYING  “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT” THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE BEING FORCED TO, LIVE WITH  IN THEIR CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    This entry was posted in Bang for their buck? Restoration, Controlled by Non-Profits?, Cut Federal Funding, Diverting Our Tax Dollars, Economic Impact, Elected Officials, EPA Clean Water Act, EPA UNFUNDED MANDATES, Follow the Money, Goliath’s Restoration Consortium, Government Accountability, If it’s Federal IT’S LOCAL, Learning From History?, Legislated Economic Oppression, Politically Motivated, Senate Hearings on EPA, Taken by the “GRANTED”, The Money’s All Gone?, The We’s who WANT, WA State Dept. of Ecology. Bookmark the permalink.Edit
    The “RESTORATION” Shell GameIn the state of Maryland, their elected representatives, legislators, passed a $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR UNFUNDED, EPA MANDATED Rain Tax. (for storm water runoff)

     100% of the $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    The federal government and, every state legislature, provides restoration funding for the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, spending and granting billions of our American tax dollars.

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

    WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF LEGISLATION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS?

    2009-2014 IT’S TIME TO PLAY CATCH UP.

    WHO KNEW?

    SINCE 2009 our legislators, elected representatives have been busy, busy, busy.

    THEY HAVE LEGISLATED, ECOLOGY (DOE) AND A NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION TO BE IN CONTROL OF  THE TAXPAYERS FATE, FOR THE FUNDING AND COST OF WA STATE STORMWATER RUNOFF

    Stormwater Technical Resource Center

    The 176 PAGE REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE

    Water Quality Program

    Washington State Department of Ecology

    Olympia, Washington

     

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

    The passage of House Bill 2222 in 2009 set in motion the creation of THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER (Center)that would focus RESOURCES on protecting Washington’s waters through improvements in regional stormwater management.

     

    The Bill, codified in RCW 90.48.545, directs the state Department of

    Ecology(Ecology)“as funding becomes available… to create a stormwater technical resource center in partnership with a university, nonprofit organization, or other public or private entity to provide tools for stormwater management.

     

     

    TO PROVIDE SEED MONEY FOR CREATION OF THE CENTER, ECOLOGY SOLICITED GRANT PROPOSALS

     for a Center that would benefit stormwater management programs across Washington and support NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) stormwater permit programs.

     

    In late 2009, ECOLOGY AWARDED FUNDING to the City of Puyallup and its two primary associates: Washington State University (WSU) and the University of Washington(UW). Their charge was to convene an advisory committee to consult on the development and the overall administrative strategy of  a Stormwater Technical Resource Center.

     

    The ADVISORY COMMITTEE includes representatives from state agencies, local governments, the business community, the environmental community, tribes and the building and development industry.

     

    ——————————————————-

     

    THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER

    The Center has been established AS NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.

    Center staff created a 5-Year Business Plan, (Appendix C), and has started to deliver the following services

     

    http://apwa-wa.org/Uploads/CommitteeFiles/Stormwater/1110009.pdf

     Ecology (DOE) is working on Funding?

    During the past year, Ecology (DOE) has met with staff from THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, and the Advisory Committee to identify FUNDING strategies. While there is still a need for base-level support to grow the Center,

    FUNDING mechanisms for THE STORMWATER TECHNICAL RESOURCE CENTER, the Center, include COST REIMBURSEMENT for technical reviews, trainings, MONITORING and other technical resource services. In addition, donations, endowments, BONDS, conferences, membership dues, GRANTS and support from in-kind services and DEDICATED ACCOUNTS are all evaluated in the Business Plan.

    ————————————————————————–

    The bottom line

    100% of the MARYLAND $14.8 Billion Dollars in storm water runoff tax dollars are MANDATED  to be spent on the “RESTORATION” of the NATURAL ENVIRONMENT.

    IS WA STATE GOING TO FOLLOW MARYLAND’S LEAD? AND LEGISLATE AND MANDATE ALL OF OUR STORMWATER RUNOFF TAX DOLLARS TO  THE RESTORATION OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    RESTORATION OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT? vs: NATURAL ENVIRONMENT?

    WHEN ARE OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE GOING TO PRIORITIZE AND START FUNDING THE RESTORATION OF AMERICA’S “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.”

    THE EVERYDAY, DAY AFTER DAY, VIOLENT HORRIFYING  “SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT” THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS AND THEIR FAMILIES ARE BEING FORCED TO, LIVE WITH  IN THEIR CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

     


  • The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    The “RESTORATION” Shell Game

    A highly convoluted “GAME OF RESTORATION” that  is involving the sleight of many, many hands, in which hundreds of  inverted Federal agencies, WA State agencies, WAC’S and /or other NGO, NUTSHELLS are moved about, and hard working taxpayers must attempt to spot which is the one, of many thousands, with  NGO’S or other government agencies are underneath the “RESTORATION” plan.

     

    WOW!  HOW MANY NUTS CAN YOU GET UNDER ONE RESTORATION SHELL?

    “WE’RE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING THE MORE THAN 600 PARTNERS TOGETHER,

    designing a unified plan, and making sure money is being spent efficiently, and our region is making progress,” says Gerry O’Keefe, executive director of the Puget Sound Partnership.

    In response to this growing environmental crisis, the Washington State legislature created the Puget Sound Partnership a state agency dedicated to identifying, prioritizing, and coordinating efforts to protect and RESTORE PUGET SOUND. Since its founding in 2007, the partnership has collaborated with state and federal agencies, local governments, tribes, businesses, and citizen groups to achieve specific cleanup and restoration goals for Puget Sound.

    ——————————————————————————————

    No doubt with MORE THAN 600 RESTORATION PARTNERS the following is a true statement

    In addition, multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and AUTHORITIES creates challenges for coordinated decision-making and proactive planning.

    Even the government is clueless, when it comes to how many nuts are responsible for  planning, authorizing and implementing the RESTORATION SHELL GAME .

    ———————————————————————————————–

    A DECEPTIVE? AND EVASIVE? NGO OR GOVERNMENT ACTION OR PLOY, ESPECIALLY A POLITICAL “GAME OF RESTORATION”  ONE.

    Who knew about this?

    (PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
    A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND.

    THIS IS NOT A CASUAL REPORT OF RESTORATION FOR THE SMP UPDATE

    The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States; data is also acquired for water shed drainage areas of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.

     ————————————————————————————————

    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    Under chapter 43.372 RCW,
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
    ———————————————————-
    A FEDERAL Part of the PUGET SOUND restoration plan
    FINAL May 2009, GEOSPATIAL METHODOLOGY USED IN THE PSNERP COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE ANALYSIS OF PUGET SOUND

    (PSNERP) PUGET SOUND NEARSHORE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION PROJECT
    A 373 PAGE REPORT ON THE RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND

    The PSNERP GI study area includes the entire portion of Puget Sound, and the Straits of Juan deFuca and southern Strait of Georgia that occur within the borders of the United States; data is also acquired for water shed drainage areas of Puget Sound rivers that extend into Canada.

    This is not a casual report of RESTORATION for SMP mitigation.
    ——————————————-
    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    Under chapter 43.372 RCW,
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).
    Once the MSP is complete, ecology will submit it to the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for its review and APPROVAL for incorporation into
    Washington’s FEDERALLY APPROVED coastal zone management program
    Under the 1972 CONGRESS ENACTED FEDERAL Coastal Zone Management ACT
    ——————————————————-
    Pursuant to WAC 197-11-900 (922-948),the department of ecology
    PACIFIC COAST MARINE SPATIAL PLAN (MSP).

    In addition, multiple, overlapping jurisdictions and AUTHORITIES creates challenges for coordinated decision-making and proactive planning.
    ————————————————-
    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

     


  • EPA Can’t Regulate Stormwater

    Virginia fought the EPA storm water mandate arguing that the agency overstepped its authority under the Clean Water Act.  In January, FEDERAL JUDGE LIAM O’GRADY AGREED stating in his ruling that   “storm water runoff is not a pollutant and EPA is not authorized to protect it.”

    Court: Stormwater runoff not a pollutant, EPA can’t regulate it

    11:45 PM 01/03/2013

     Michael Bastasch

    A FEDERAL JUDGE RULED THURSDAY THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EXCEEDED ITS AUTHORITY BY TRYING TO REGULATE WATER AS A POLLUTANT AND RESTRICTING STORMWATER FLOW into a Fairfax County creek.

     

    “STORMWATER RUNOFF IS NOT A POLLUTANT, SO EPA IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO REGULATE IT,” said federal judge Liam O’Grady, who sided with the county and Virginia in the ruling.

     

    In July, Virginia ATTORNEY GENERAL KEN CUCCINELLI AND THE DEMOCRATIC-LED FAIRFAX COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FILED A LAWSUIT  AGAINST THE EPA. The agency proposed a plan that required the county to control the flow of water in order to manage sediment discharges in Accotink Creek watershed.

     

    “EPA was literally treating water itself — the very substance the Clean Water Act was created to protect — as a pollutant,” Cuccinelli said in a statement. “This EPA mandate would have been expensive, cumbersome, and incredibly difficult to implement.”

    Virginia and Fairfax argued that the agency exceeded its authority under the Clean Water Act and diverted public funds away from more effective projects to restore Accotink Creek and other waterways.

     

     (RELATED:EPA withdraws threat of lawsuit against chicken farmer)

     

    The plaintiffs also argued that the EPA’s plan could cost $500 million dollars, charging that the plan would have required state and local officials to “take people’s houses, evict them, knock the houses down and plant grass.”

     

    The Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA the authority to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) to regulate maximum acceptable levels of pollutants that can be discharged in particular waterways.

     

    The EPA argued that water can be regulated as a pollutant if there is an overabundance of it. According to the agency, the water runoff was negatively impacting Accotink Creek, which it has the legal authority to protect.

    read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/03/court-stormwater-runoff-not-a-pollutant-epa-cant-regulate-it/ixzz2yPPLWhjL



  • EPA RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND

    IF THE EPA CALCULATES AND MANDATES THE COST OF AN UNFUNDED WA STATE RESTORATION “RAIN TAX” TO CLEAN UP PUGET SOUND?

    AT THE GOING EPA RATE OF $3,304,309.00 @ SQ MI FOR THE EPA MANDATED UNFUNDED RESTORATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY, for the clean-up of 4479 sq mi of Chesapeake Bay.

    NO PROBLEM, PUGET SOUND (PER) PSP HAS ONLY 2500 SQ MI,

    IT WOULD ONLY BE $8,260,772,500.00  OVER  EIGHT BILLION DOLLARS

    FOR AN EPA UNFUNDED MANDATE “RAIN TAX” RESTORATION OF PUGET SOUND

    SIGN ARE POSTED AT THE KINGSTON FERRY TERMINAL

    THE HAND WRITING IS ON THE DOCK.

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

    Mar 21, 2014 – The people in Maryland are PROTESTING THE $14.8 BILLION DOLLAR RESTORATION “RAIN TAX” AN UNFUNDED AND MANDATED BY THE EPA FOR THE RESTORATION OF CHESAPEAKE BAY

    IN MARYLAND, CITIZENS HAVE, ONLY THREE THINGS ARE CERTAIN — DEATH, TAXES AND RAIN

    IN WASHINGTON STATE, CITIZENS HAVE, THINGS THAT ARE CERTAIN  DEATH,TAXES AND RAIN

    AND…  WOW,  

    922,000 acres of restricted public use and access in the WILD Olympic National Park, ONP UN Man and the Biosphere, ONP UN World Heritage Site, taxes, RAIN, fish, the Boldt decision, tribes, instream flows, $2.4 BILLION Dollar Federal Judgment for culverts for fish, 37 rivers in Washington  state designated as National Wild and Scenic, manipulated balding, breeding and seeding of endangered butterflies, reintroduction of endangered species, reintroduction of the sage grouse, critical areas for endangered species, (3) national monuments,San Juan Islands National Monument, Thanks to the Washington state house and senate for uniting to provide $65 million for the WWRP grant program AND ESRP has received and invested $26.5 million in state capital funds and an additional $2.5 million in federal partnership funds in restoration or protection projects.

    PATTY MURRAY WILL BE BACK FOR MORE WILDING IN WA STATE

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

    April 22, 2013 by Pearl Rains Hewett comment

    SHALL THE PEOPLE OF WA STATE START PROTESTING NOW?

    INDEED, TODAY IS APRIL 9, 2014

    WHEN SHALL THE PEOPLE OF WA STATE START PROTESTING?

    INDEED,SIGNS ARE POSTED AT THE KINGSTON FERRY TERMINAL

    THE HAND WRITING IS ON THE DOCK.

    ———————————————————————-

    MARYLAND LAWMAKERS FINALLY CONSIDER REPEALING

    THE SO-CALLED “RAIN TAX”

    www.theblaze.com/…/maryland-lawmakers-finally-consider-rep…

    TheBlaze

    Jan 22, 2014 – Maryland lawmakers in 2012 passed a bill to levy a fine on anything that prevented … meaning many state residents had no choice but to literally pay a tax on rain. … of the STORM WATER MANAGEMENT WATERSHED AND RESTORATION PROGRAM. … THE EPA ESTIMATED THAT THE PROJECT WOULD COST ROUGHLY $14.8 BILLION.