+menu-


  • Category Archives The Butterfly Saga
  • An Endangered Gopher Tax?

    The Thurston County Commissioners in collusion with the US Fish and Wildlife Service have created a novel method of extracting additional tax dollars from prospective new homeowners in Washington State.  According to public documents, Thurston County staff has proposed a new gopher tax, up to $42,000 for new homeowners who might consider building a home on or near land that might be inhabited by a rodent called the Mazama Pocket Gopher.  This gopher tax (called “mitigation” in planner-speak) would be in addition to any other fees, permits, taxes, or other costs that might be imposed on the construction of a new home in Thurston County, Washington.  For direct links to the concept files written and presented by Thurston County planning staff go here and here.

    For Whistleblowers, please go here to learn more 

    The $42,000 gopher tax is likely to become law later this year.   Two of the three Commissioners (Sandra Romero and Cathy Wolfe) have been supportive of the plan and the process for many years now.  In addition, the Thurston County Planning Department has been largely controlled by the US Fish & Wildlife Service for years – many of the county employees are entirely subsidized by USFWS grant money.  This has been a concern of property rights advocates for many years because local county staff won’t question their orders from USFWS when their jobs depend on grant dollars from that federal agency.

    Another aspect of the gopher tax that has local observers concerned is the current plan for much of this money to be transferred to an out-of-state nonprofit organization.  Some of these gopher tax monies would stay in Thurston County, but it appears that after insiders get their cut, most of these funds would be sent to an out-of-state organization to manage local taxpayer-purchased land that could be set aside as bonus pocket gopher habitat.

    The Pocket Gopher – Endangered Animal or Convenient Excuse?

    The Thurston County Mazama pocket gopher was listed as a threatened species by the USFWS in April,  2014.  The listing process was controversial, and generated a lot of local citizen backlash as well as open ridicule by rural Thurston County residents directed at the Commissioners, USFWS, and others who championed the original listing process.  Most casual observers could see that something was very wrong in Thurston County.

    Protesting pocket gopher listing
    A pirate might know it is stealing, but Thurston County calls it a tax or a “fee.” It is all about the money.

    Pocket gophers are considered pest rodents throughout most of the United States where they live.  They are prolific and resilient creatures, often found in areas that have been heavily disturbed by agriculture or forestry efforts.  In fact, the two largest concentrations of pocket gophers in Thurston County were found at the Olympia Airport and the surrounding industrial park and at the nearby Fort Lewis Firing Range.  Interestingly, the very gophers who USFWS claims are threatened, thrive in the middle of the artillery impact range on a piece of land that has been repeatedly pulverized, destroyed, and burned for most of a century.  Now, both USFWS and the Thurston County planning department argue that building a home on 5 acres will so harm the gophers that a prospective homeowner must pay $42,000 for permission to apply for a home – maybe.

    Few observers accuse the USFWS of staying true to science or the facts when it comes to listing endangered species.  On the east side of Washington State, USFWS attempted to list the “White Bluffs Bladder Pod” as an endangered species certain that this plant was so rare that it justified land restrictions.  However, a local agricultural organization took samples of the “endangered” plant, conducted DNA tests, and determined that it was a very common weed found in many Western States.  USFWS still plans to list the plant as endangered regardless of the truth or science.  This wouldn’t be the first time USFWS has listed an animal on the Endangered Species list that wasn’t endangered.  In some cases, the listed animals haven’t even been proven to exist.

    The pocket gopher listing process has become just as silly.  No USFWS employee is willing to say how many of these endangered pocket gophers actually exist.  In fact, they tend to become angry if anyone dares ask.  Partly, this is because past population counts have proven to be wildly inaccurate.  Another reason government staff requires forced ignorance of the gopher population numbers is that it would lead to a logical question which they also refuse to answer – how many gophers do you need for them to no longer be considered threatened?  None dare even think these thoughts, at least not if you want the grant gravy train to continue.  Solving a real problem has never been the goal.

    Gophers can be killed, just not by humans
    Gophers are a natural part of the food chain, but Thurston County is the ultimate predator and plans to profit from the gopher tax they impose on new home owners.

    Interestingly enough, the DNA samples for this “endangered” gopher exist at the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, but they refuse to allow an outside organization to take samples for an independant DNA test.  It is illegal for someone to trap a gopher and take independent samples – you could be arrested and get a criminal record like this guy.  Willful ignorance appears to be the order of the day in Thurston County and at the USFWS.  Science and the facts are entirely irrelevant.  The process is the point and the punishment.

    ———————————————————————–

    Thurston County Invents $42,000 Gopher Tax for New …

    https://www.wethegoverned.com/thurstoncountyinvents42000gopher

    We the GovernedThurston County Invents $42,000 Gopher Tax for New Homeowners. March 1, 2016 Glen Morgan 2 Comments. The Thurston County Commissioners in collusion with the US Fish and Wildlife Service have ….. gallup poll results, they are here: http://www.gallup.com/poll/5392/trust-government.aspx.

    ———————————————————————–

    Subject: County Gopher Tax??

    BRILLIANT! These greenies in Thurston County have outdone themselves here. Is this coming to all WA Counties in the future? Great article by our CAPR Director, Glen Morgan:

    Glen Morgan – Short Bio | We the Governed

    https://www.wethegoverned.com/glenmorgan-short-bio/

    Jan 10, 2016 – Glen Morgan was the Grassroots Director and the Property Rights Director … Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR) “for exemplary performance in …

    https://www.wethegoverned.com/thurston-county-invents-42000-gopher-tax-for-new-homeowners/

    You can all learn a LOT from Glen’s website at: www.wethegoverened.com

    Stevens County CAPR,Chapter 15
    Rene’ Holaday
    www.capr.us/STEVENS/
    email: mrromantico@earthlink.net…don’t send anything to: rholaday7@hughesnet.com -I never open it. 😉
    509-935-8377

    ———————————————–

    unedited full text…..

    bottom line

    Just asking? Just saying….

    MORE PETTY LARCENY IN WASHINGTON STATE?


  • 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?

     


  • If Corporations Are Not People?

    What ARE  the GLOBAL NON- GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS OF non-profit, tax exempt, special interest, radical extremist groups that are suing, settling, manipulating, coercing and unduly influencing, to a very great extent, or to an excessive, improper, or unjustifiable degree, our federal, state and local elected government officials and appointed agencies?

    OUR SILENCE ENABLES THE COLLECTIVE US GOVERNMENT, APPOINTED AGENCIES AND PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDERS

    To litigate and legislate the middle class, vested, hard working American man and his family down the bottom less EPA ENVRIONMENTAL poverty hole with unfunded federal mandates from the Affordable Care Act, the Clean Water Act, The Clean Air Act, The Endangered Species Act and indeed The proposed UNFUNDED Wild Olympics Wilderness & Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 2014.

    THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICA IS IN AN ECONOMIC CRISIS $17,264,902,213.00 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT,  NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL CRISIS

    ———————————————————————————————

    Yes, they THE COLLECTIVE US  GOVERNMENT are smothering the goose that laid the gold egg.

    At every level of government in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    The ways and means? call them what you will, by which the government takes  more of our taxpayer dollars in an endless manipulated quagmire of the U.S. governments incomprehensible fiscally irresponsible new math.

     At every level, they are heaping more and more  layers of financial oppression on to “we the people” using unfunded trickle down mandates, tax, sale tax, road tax, transit taxes, taxes to study, medical care, tolls, fees, services, taxes for schools,  gas we are being nickeled and dimed into poverty.

    —————————————————————————————–

    And, what are they doing with our tax dollars? Indeed, they are THROWING OUR MONEY  into the NGO and EPA environmental endangered, restoration, sue and settle  poverty hole

    They are giving and granting our tax dollars to Global NON-Government Organizations to  pay for sue and settlements, for  endangered species, purchase, restoration, manipulated balding and seeding land with endangered butterflies for land trusts, selling us out  and selling us off to land conservation groups, open spaces, millions and millions of dollars in grants to  every global non-profit environmental group  that sticks out their GREEN  hand out!

    And,  every dollar of taxpayer money spent for and given to these non-government organizations, IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

    the bottom line

    If corporations are not people?

    What SHALL WE CALL the GLOBAL NON- GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS OF non-profit, tax exempt, special interest, radical extremist groups that are suing, settling, manipulating, coercing and unduly influencing, to a very great extent, or to an excessive, improper, or unjustifiable degree, our federal, state and local elected government officials and appointed agencies?

    —————————————————————————————-

    If no one ever researches, documents and disseminates what Is going on?

    IF NO ONE EVER DEMANDS ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WHAT THE COLLECTIVE US GOVERNMENT IS DOING TO “WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE”?

    If no one ever makes anything they are doing to “We THE AMERICAN PEOPLE” a matter of public record?

     If no one publicly challenges them ?

    If no one publicly questions them?

    If no one publicly exposes them?

     Then, they, THE COLLECTIVE US  GOVERNMENT will continue to do what they have always done without being censored by anyone.

    THE COLLECTIVE US  GOVERNMENT will continue to be the somebody and the something that suppresses and controls everything that may offend or harm others.

     

     


  • Specific Response from Kilmer

    Dear Ms. Pearl Rains Hewett,

    I am following up on your emails regarding the Checkerspot Butterfly. I encourage you to reach out to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and share your concerns.

     It sounds like there are a few questions you would like relayed to the Department of Interior. Our office would like to serve as a liaison between you and the Department to make sure that you can get your questions answered. Could you provide me with a few questions you would like our office to relay to the Department of Interior? We can submit the questions on your behalf and then follow-up with the answers we receive.

    Thank you.

     Best,

    Sarah Round

    Legislative Correspondent

    Office of Rep. Derek Kilmer (WA-06)

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

    I appreciate this  opportunity  and your offer to serve as my liaison to obtain answers to my questions from the US Department of the Interior regarding the ESA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    My questions for the US Department of the Interior regarding The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Endangered Species Act

    QUESTION 1. How many U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service legal agreements (Sue and Settle) on endangered species have been settled historically, to date Jan. 25, 2014?

    September 9, 2011 – A FEDERAL JUDGE approved the landmark 757 species legal agreement between the Center for Biological Diversity and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

    ————————————————————————-

    QUESTION 2.  what number of endangered species and the number of acres of critical habitat that are now listed and designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the United States of America?

    ———————————————————————-

    QUESTION 3. What is the cumulative cost to American taxpayers in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service above and including litigation and other paid legal fees, for the purchase and payment for land, for manipulated balding and reintroduction of species, including all federal grants, and including all monies spent by the Dept. of Defense and all other expenditures of taxpayer money taken from other government agencies?

    ——————————————————————————————–

    QUESTION 4. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did take the economic impact on critical habitat designation into consideration, How does the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service justify its decision, in the legal agreements between the Center for Biological Diversity and the Fish and Wildlife Service. in terms of costs and benefits under The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)?

    To pass muster at Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs  an agency must justify its decision making in terms of costs and benefits.

    —————————————————————————————–

    Considering that The U.S. Supreme Court found that “the plain intent of Congress in enacting” the ESA “was to halt and REVERSE THE TREND TOWARD SPECIES EXTINCTION, WHATEVER THE COST.

    And considering, naturalresources.house.gov/esa/

     ESA-Related Litigation and DOI’s “Mega-Settlements”: groups are using the ESA to file hundreds of lawsuits against the government.

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

    QUESTION 5. Shall the American taxpayers be required to bear an infinite cost, imposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the Endangered Species Act,  into perpetuity?

    I appreciate this opportunity to obtain answers to my questions from the US Department of the Interior.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

     


  • Doc Hasting Contact info.

    Are you concerned about the negative economic impact of the Endangered Species Act in WA State on harvesting of private timberland? State DNR timberland? National forest land? And the restriction of public access to public land in Olympic National Park, with additional undisclosed restrictions on all land located in and around Clallam County with the WDFW seeding (manipulated balding) of the endangered TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY?

    House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) and his working group of committee members want to hear from you.

    Through a series of events, forums and hearings, the Working Group will invite open and honest discussion and seek answers to the following questions: (listed below)

    Contact information

    https://www.google.com/#q=ESAworkinggroup.house.gov+dec.12%2C2013
    PRESS RELEASE | 12/12/2013
    Witnesses Highlight Examples of How ESA Settlements are Harming Transparency, State and Local Economies, and Efforts to Conserve Species

    ESAworkinggroup.house.gov
    WASHINGTON, D.C., December 12, 2013 – Today, the House Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing entitled “ESA Decisions by Closed-Door Settlement: Short-Changing Science, Transparency, Private Property, and State & Local Economies.”

    And, the good news is…
    “House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) is on a roll.”

    THIS OVERSIGHT HEARING IS THE FIFTH IN A SERIES

    WASHINGTON, D.C., DECEMBER 12, 2013 – Today, the House Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing
    ENTITLED “ESA DECISIONS BY CLOSED-DOOR SETTLEMENT: SHORT-CHANGING SCIENCE, TRANSPARENCY, PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND STATE & LOCAL ECONOMIES.”

    This hearing examined the impacts of the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) closed-door mega-settlements on listing and critical habitat decisions and the need to reform this law to ensure that its focus is on recovering species while protecting jobs and local economies.

    ——————————————————————————————-
    https://www.google.com/#q=ESAworkinggroup.house.gov+dec.12%2C2013
    PRESS RELEASE | 12/12/2013
    Witnesses Highlight Examples of How ESA Settlements are Harming Transparency, State and Local Economies, and Efforts to Conserve Species

    ESA Working Group
    esaworkinggroup.hastings.house.gov/‎
    Finding Solutions to Improve the Endangered Species Act. October 11, 2013. Central Washingtonians have felt very real impacts from the Endangered Species …
    Finding Solutions to Improve the Endangered Species Act …
    hastings.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=355394‎
    Oct 11, 2013 – … threatening ranchers’ livelihoods and landowners’ private property. … Working Group website: http://esaworkinggroup.hastings.house.gov.

    ————————————————————————————————-
    May 9, 2013 – For more information on the ESA Working Group, visit http://naturalresources.house.gov/ …
    http://esaworkinggroup.hastings.house.gov/esa/about.htm
    About the Working Group

    The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was created four decades ago in 1973 to preserve, protect and recover key domestic species. Since that time, over 1,400 U.S. domestic species and sub-species have been listed. Most species remain on the list and hundreds more could potentially be added within the just the next two years.
    The Endangered Species Act Working Group is comprised of Members from across the country who will analyze the ESA from all angles. It will consider what works well with the current law and its regulations, ways it could be updated, and how to boost the law’s effectiveness for both species and people.
    Through a series of events, forums and hearings, the Working Group will invite open and honest discussion and seek answers to the following questions:
    • How is ESA success defined?
    • How do we measure ESA progress?
    • Is the ESA working to achieve its goals?
    • Is species recovery effectively prioritized and efficient?
    • Does the ESA ensure the compatibility of property and water rights and species protection?
    • Is the ESA transparent, and are decisions open to public engagement and input?
    • Is litigation driving the ESA? Is litigation helpful in meeting ESA goals?
    • What is the role of state and local government and landowners in recovering species?
    • Are changes to the ESA necessary?
    In The News:
    • Op-Ed by Rep. Doc Hastings: “Finding Solutions to Improve the Endangered Species Act”
    • Op-Ed by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer: “Promoting Common-Sense Reforms to the Endangered Species Act”
    • Rep. David Valadao Release: “Valadao, Endangered Species Act Working Group Host Congressional Forum”
    • ABC 10 News: “Casperson speaks to Endangered Species Act group”
    • Capital Press: “Forum elicits criticism of Endangered Species Act”
    • Association of California Water Agencies: “Endangered Species Act Forum Held”
    • Forest Landowners Association: “The 40th Birthday of ESA”
    • Western Governor’s Association: “WGA testifies at Endangered Species Act forum in Washington”

    Contact: Committee Press Office 202-226-9019


  • The Butterfly Saga part (4)

    Clallam County WA is not the only one objecting to habitat for endangered butterfly species.

    Why would anyone else object to being required to set aside 39,000 acres of non-continuous habitat for two endangered (sue and settle) butterfly species?

    … If these critical habitat designations are put into place, they could have a negative impact on local economies by hampering such activities as (timber harvesting) farming, ranching and energy development.”

    ESA SETTLEMENTS that would require the following states to set aside land as a habitat for two endangered butterfly species. The habitat is a non-continuous 39,000-acre space that spans North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin.
    ————————————————————————————————-
    And, the good news is “House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) is on a roll.”

    THIS OVERSIGHT HEARING IS THE FIFTH IN A SERIES

    WASHINGTON, D.C., DECEMBER 12, 2013 – Today, the House Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing

    ENTITLED “ESA DECISIONS BY CLOSED-DOOR SETTLEMENT: SHORT-CHANGING SCIENCE, TRANSPARENCY, PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND STATE & LOCAL ECONOMIES.”

    This hearing examined the impacts of the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) closed-door mega-settlements on listing and critical habitat decisions and the need to reform this law to ensure that its focus is on recovering species while protecting jobs and local economies.

    This oversight hearing is the fifth in a series this Committee has held on the Endangered Species Act this year. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) announced at the hearing today that the Committee intends to advance common sense legislation to improve the ESA for the benefit of both species and people.

    “Undoubtedly, some believe cramming hundreds of obscure species onto the ESA list under deadlines and blocking off huge swaths of land because of the settlements are ‘successes,’ but many areas of the country tell a different account of how these policies are impacting their communities, their economies, and ultimately, the species,” said Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04). “The ‘listing-by-litigation’ approach is not working for people and species.”

    Witnesses at the hearing highlighted the importance of local conservation efforts already underway and how deadlines dictated by closed-door mega-settlements with litigious groups are driving federal listing decisions rather than sound science guided by transparent information.
    read more at, http://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364253
    ———————————————————————————–
    Environment – November 26, 2013 10:45AM
    1.North Dakota wants to delay federally mandated butterfly habitat …
    cir.ca/news/butterflies-are-disappearing/102734‎
    Delay federally mandated butterfly habitat
    … If these critical habitat designations are put into place, they could have a negative impact on local economies by hampering such activities as (timber harvesting) farming, ranching and energy development.”
    that would require the following states to set aside land as a habitat for two endangered butterfly species. The habitat is a non-continuous 39,000-acre space that spans North Dakota, South Dakota, Michigan, Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin.
    ——————————————————————————-
    To Kilmer 39,000 Acres
    Posted on December 7, 2013 1:31 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment
    Delay federally mandated butterfly habitat
    … If these critical habitat designations are put into place, they could have a negative impact on local economies by hampering such activities as (TIMBER HARVESTING) farming, ranching and energy development.”
    Clallam County WA is not the only one objecting to habitat for endangered butterfly species.
    THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE following states to set aside land as a habitat for two endangered butterfly species. The habitat is a noncontinuous 39,000-ACRE SPACE THAT SPANS NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, IOWA AND WISCONSIN.
    Two Northwest species–a bird and a butterfly (TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY) –were granted protection under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY said Wednesday.
    The designation comes as part of a (SUE and SETTLEMENT) agreement reached with the center in 2011 that required USF&WS to speed protection for 757 species in the US.
    The rest is self explanatory.
    Delay federally mandated butterfly habitat
    … If these critical habitat designations are put into place, they could have a negative impact on local economies by hampering such activities as (TIMBER HARVESTING) farming, ranching and energy development.”
    —————————————————————————————-
    Environment – November 26, 2013 10:45AM
    1.North Dakota wants to delay federally mandated butterfly habitat …
    cir.ca/news/butterflies-are-disappearing/102734‎
    Nov 26, 2013 – “We believe granting this extension to the comment period would help ensure … a letter to the FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS) asking for a 30-day delay of the comment period TO STUDY THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE HABITAT.
    North Dakota wants to delay federally mandated butterfly habitat
    North Dakotan politicians are trying to delay a rule established under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE STATE TO SET ASIDE LAND AS A HABITAT FOR TWO ENDANGERED BUTTERFLY SPECIES.
    The habitat is a non-continuous 39,000-ACRE SPACE THAT SPANS NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, IOWA AND WISCONSIN.
    “We believe granting this extension to the comment period would help ensure that public input is maximized and the effects of this proposal are fully understood… If these critical habitat designations are put into place, they could have a negative impact on local economies by hampering such activities as farming, ranching and energy development.”
    North Dakota Governor John Dalrymple (R), Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D) and John Hoeven (R), and Rep. Kevin Cramer (R) sent a letter to the the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) asking for a 30-day delay of the comment period to study the economic effects of the habitat.
    THE FWS SAID IT HAS NOT YET ANALYZED THE ECONOMIC IMPACT, BUT WILL SOON.
    The loss of habitat, along with increased pesticide and bug spray use, are leading to dwindling numbers of butterflies. Currently, there are 17 species and subspecies of butterflies listed as endangered in the U.S., and two species are listed as threatened.
    ————————————————————————————————————
    Would you, as my representative, request an copy of the analysis of the economic impact statement from the FWS for WA State land set aside as critical habitat for endangered species?
    ———————————————————————————————————-
    In addition, there shall be a negative economic impact for WA State on private property , State DNR land, National forest, Olympic National Park, all land located in and around Clallam County with the WDFW seeding of the endangered TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY.


  • The Butterfly Saga part (3)

    A recorded Public Comment to Clallam County on ENDANGERED LAND USE (prior to passage)

    Public Comment on Current Use Assessment CUA2013-01 for Property ID 073019-11000

    152 acres change from “Forest” designation to “Open Space” designation

    The staff report refers to a Conservation Easement as the highest public benefit, per the Warranty Deed AF#2013-1290241

    However, no conservation easement can be found as a condition of the mentioned Warranty Deed (within the Deed or as an attachment).

    Restrictions within the warranty deed consistent with a mentioned Cooperative Agreement between the US Army and the Nature Conservancy.

    Clallam County is not a party to that Cooperative Agreement

    The Cooperative Agreement is not a component of the recorded Warranty Deed

    The public is not privileged to said Cooperative Agreement

    Section 3 of the Warranty Deed, subject to the property being used in a manner that is not consistent with the Cooperative Agreement, shall transfer to the US Army all or a portion of the property.

    The county’s protections under CCC 27.08 will not be obtainable if the Federal government becomes the Grantee/owner.

    The Federal government could manage the land outside the intent of a conservation easement. It’s feasible the Federal government wouldn’t be bound to continue even the intent of the cooperative agreement.

    If the Federal government became the owner, and did not maintain the intent of a conservation easement, the county would receive no benefit to removing the designation because the Federal government doesn’t pay property taxes anyway.

    The applicant is an out of state organization; what protections will the county maintain without assurances the county and state would have with the owner being in-state.

    There is no plan made available as to how this property will be managed by the organization, what will be their focus in its management and how will they manage the resources?

    How will their land practices contribute to the Landslide Hazard, manage to preclude a mass wasting or become a hazard contributor to adjacent properties? Such as not reforesting the landscape.

    The property is enclosed within the confines on all four sides by timber/forest designated lands. It has no public road network.

    In the applicants rational to apply for the acquisition funding under the US Army program it’s cited to preclude development; how is this a public benefit when these lands are within a forest designation, what is the likelihood development would even take place near/long term?

    Given this general area is a manage forest, taking this 152 acres out of that overall management of the area has the high likelihood of having an EFFECT ON THE ADJACENT FOREST. What is the PUBLIC BENEFIT of reducing a productive/harvestable forest?

    There is potential the use of this land will influence the management of the adjacent WDNR (on three sides) lands, and the possibility of AFFECTING THE HARVEST REVENUES the county would be a beneficiary to. This is contradictory to it being a PUBLIC BENEFIT in terms of the county.

    An Open Space designation will create a patchwork of land designations, just when WDNR is completing land exchanges to remove the patchwork of designations that already occur across the county. That PUBLIC BENEFIT will be reversed in such a change.

    The state/county would receive public benefit leaving the designation as forest/timber with the revenues and taxes received during any future harvest. The staff analysis could have done a comparison on this potential future harvest revenue.

    A $94 annual revenue benefit is not a realistic PUBLIC BENEFIT; it is essential this county shore up its revenues.

    A 90% reduction in land valuation IS NOT A PUBLIC BENEFIT

    The Clallam County Planning Commission held the required public hearing but did not take/offer to take public testimony.

    A public hearing is not a planned function of the Board of County Commissioners in this process; therefore NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY HAS OR WILL BE TAKEN IN REGARDS TO THIS APPLICATION

    The Board’s resolution being considered is not factual because section 6 is not correct, in regards to public testimony.

    I have to call in to question why land acquisition for the purpose of preserving the land in its natural, scenic, open condition to maintain its ecological, historical, visual and educational values is being applied by the US ARMY IN CLALLAM COUNTY, far from its military installations or other operational holdings/reservations.

    If this is for the purpose of mitigation for those afar installations (and possibly OUT OF STATE GIVEN THE ORGANIZATION THAT RECEIVED THE ACQUISITION FUNDING) why impact forest revenues for the public benefit of those outside the area? This is NOT A PUBLIC BENEFIT for those in the county.

    This has the appearance of locking the land AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC, as an example: how will this area be considered for allowing access for hunting…whereas the forest owners have a history of allowing hunting on their property…but WILL THIS OUT OF STATE ORGANIZATION have the same relationship with the public? And the Cooperative Agreement (not seen or provided) MAY HAVE ALL KINDS OF NON-PUBLIC BENEFIT ramifications such as “REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ARMY…shall be permitted at all reasonable times to inspect the Property.” Another government agency keeping its thumb on the pulse of the landscape.

    This sets a precedence of another taking of the sustainability of this region, to maintain its self-sufficiency.

    I request you do not approve this application. Keep this land in forest designation.

    ——————————————————————————-


  • The Butterfly Saga part (2)

    THE BUTTERFLY SAGA PART (2)

    SAGA INDEED, a complicated series of events or personal experiences stretching over a considerable period of time, or a detailed account of such a series of events or experiences. Documenting the who? what? when? where? why? and questioning the ABYSMAL FAILURE OF OUR OPEN AND TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT.

    ABYSMAL by definition horrible, extremely bad or severe

    This ONE investigation, of JUST ONE of over 2000 convoluted endangered species using the same SUE AND SETTLE PROCESS, funded with taxpayer dollars, resembles a highly evolved “Shell Game” being used under the Endangered Species Act.

    CONVOLUTED by definition, too complex or intricate to understand easily

    “SHELL GAME” by definition a game involving sleight of hand, in which three inverted cups or nutshells are moved about, and contestants must spot which is the one with a pea or other object underneath.

    The bottom line

    MANIPULATED BALDS?
    MANIPULATED to control or influence somebody or something in an ingenious or devious way, to move, operate, or handle something, to change or present something in a way that is false but personally advantageous

    THE WA STATE US MILITARY CONNECTION

    JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCORD HAS SERVED AS THE SOURCE POPULATION FOR THE COLLECTION OF EGGS AND ADULT BUTTERFLIES FOR CAPTIVE PROPAGATION FOR REINTRODUCTION efforts using MANIPULATED BALDS on 152 acres of land in Clallam County.

    —————————————————————————————
    WA STATE RESTRICTING WDNR TIMBER HARVEST AND PUBLIC USE

    http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/species/taylor%27s_checkerspot.pdf

    WDFW is also working with Olympic National Forest to develop checkerspot management plans for occupied sites on Forest Service lands, and habitat management efforts for one site were initiated in 2011. WDNR and WDFW completed a management plan in 2011 for four Taylor’s checkerspot sites on lands MANAGED BY WDNR IN CLALLAM COUNTY. The plan includes site-specific management to minimize and mitigate the potential impacts to checkerspots and their habitat FROM TIMBER HARVEST, silviculture, road maintenance, fire management, PUBLIC USE, and other activities.
    ————————————————————————————-
    Portion of a public comment to Clallam County

    Full text on THE BUTTER FLY SAGA PART (3)

    Current Use Assessment CUA2013-01 for Property ID 073019-11000
    Given this general area is a manage forest, taking this 152 acres out of that overall management of the area has the high likelihood of having an effect on the adjacent forest. What is the public benefit of reducing a productive/harvestable forest?

    There is potential the use of this land will influence the management of the adjacent WDNR (on three sides) lands, and the possibility of affecting the harvest revenues the county would be a beneficiary to. This is contradictory to it being a public benefit in terms of the county.
    —————————————————————————-
    ENDANGERED STATUS FOR THE TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY

    STATE STATUS: ENDANGERED, 2006
    FEDERAL STATUS:ENDANGERED, October 3, 2013

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-03/pdf/2013-23567.pdf

    FEDERAL REGISTER PAGE 61,452
    page number sixty one thousand four hundred and fifty two
    / Vol. 78, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2013 / Rules and Regulations

    Part II
    Department of the Interior
    Fish and Wildlife Service
    50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
    ENDANGERED STATUS FOR THE TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY
    and Threatened Status for the Streaked Horned Lark;
    Final Rule October 3, 2013

    PAGE number, sixty one thousand nine hundred and forty three

    [[Page 61943]]
    Several HISTORICAL SITES WITH POTENTIALLY SUITABLE HABITAT WERE
    SURVEYED ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA (CLALLAM COUNTY) during spring

    2003. Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly was found to occupy five locations in this geographic area in 2003. At one historical site near the mouth of the DUNGENESS RIVER, only a few individuals were detected. However, no Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies were detected at this location during surveys from 2005 through 2009 (McMillan 2007, pers. comm.; Potter 2012, pers. comm.). The other four populations were found on grassy openings on shallow-soiled bald habitat west of the ELWHA RIVER. Two of these sites were estimated to support at least 50 to 100 adult Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies (DAN KELLY RIDGE AND EDEN VALLEY), and just a few individuals were found at the two other bald sites (STRIPED PEAK AND HIGHWAY 112) (Hays 2011, p. 1). Subsequent surveys at the latter two sites, Striped Peak and Highway 112, from 2004-2011, have
    failed to relocate or detect any Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies. In 2006 a population was discovered near the town of SEQUIM. Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have since been detected annually at
    this location from 2006-2011 (Hays 2009, pers. comm.; Hays 2011, p. 29). At this site, Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies inhabit approximately 5 ac (2 ha) of estuarine, deflation plain (or back
    beach), a road with restricted use, and farm-edge habitat. In 2010, a maximum count of 568 Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies was recorded on a single day (April 3, 2010); normally peak daily counts from this location range from 50 to 240 individuals (Hays 2011, p. 29). Since 2007, three new Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly populations have been found in Clallam County on Olympic National Forest lands.

    All three sites are located in the Dungeness River watershed: Bear
    Mountain, Three O’Clock Ridge, and Upper Dungeness (Holtrop 2009, p.
    2). THE FOREST SERVICE AND WDFW ARE CURRENTLY MONITORING BUTTERFLY numbers at these sites annually. As of 2012, a total of six occupied sites are known from Clallam County: Sequim, Eden Valley, Bear Mountain, Three O’Clock Ridge, and Upper Dungeness.

    ————————————————————————————
    THE WA STATE US MILITARY CONNECTION

    JOINT BASE LEWIS MCCORD

    The 91st Division Prairie is located on JBLM and encompasses approximately 7,600 acres (ac) (3,075 hectares (ha)) of native grassland. Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies are documented at two locations within 91st Division Prairie, Range 50–51, and Range 72–76.

    The only extant, (still in existence) NATURALLY OCCURRING POPULATION of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly within the south Puget Sound is located here,
    AND HAS SERVED AS THE SOURCE POPULATION FOR THE COLLECTION OF EGGS AND ADULT BUTTERFLIES FOR CAPTIVE PROPAGATION FOR REINTRODUCTION efforts.

    This is the largest population of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, and it occurs in several small, discrete patches of habitat. Maximum DAILY COUNTS from surveys conducted at this site between 2005–2012 ranged from 70 to 2,070

    Due to the limited distribution and few populations of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly, surveys for this subspecies are quite thorough, generally consisting of a MINIMUM OF 3 DAYS OF VISITS DURING THE FLIGHT PERIOD, AND OCCASIONALLY NUMBERING UP TO 10 OR 12 DAYS OF COUNTS. Multiple days of counts during the annual flight period greatly
    increase the reliability of abundance data for butterflies; thus, we believe the data on numbers of the Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies to be highly reliable

    Summary

    —Based on historical and current data, the distribution and abundance of Taylor’s checkerspot
    butterflies have declined significantly rangewide, with the majority of local extirpations occurring from
    approximately the mid-1990s in Canada (COSEWIC 2011, p. 15), 1999–2004 in SOUTH PUGET SOUND, and around 2007 at the Bald Hills location in Washington. Several new locations harboring Taylor’s checkerspot butterflies have been rediscovered on historical sites on WDNR LANDS (USFWS 2004, PP. 3–4; USFWS 2007, P. 5) and have also been found at new locations on natural and MANIPULATED BALDS?

    MANIPULATED to control or influence somebody or something in an ingenious or devious way, to move, operate, or handle something, to change or present something in a way that is false but personally advantageous

    MANIPULATED BALDS?

    WITHIN THE DUNGENESS RIVER WATERSHED ON THE NORTH OLYMPIC PENINSULA IN WASHINGTON. Currently 14 individual locations are considered occupied by the Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly rangewide: Denman Island (British Columbia, Canada); Eden Valley, Dan Kelly Ridge, Sequim, Bear Mountain, Three O’Clock Ridge, and Upper Dungeness (north Olympic Peninsula, Washington); Range 72–76, Range 50–51, Pacemaker Training Area 14 (JBLM, Washington);
    Scatter Creek, and Glacial Heritage (south Puget Sound, Washington); and Beazell Memorial Forest, and Fitton Green-Cardwell Hill (Oregon)


  • The Pockets of Sue and Settle

    The Pocket Gopher, for one. The Pockets that that have been picked using Sue and Settle? The NGO’S that are raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars by suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the Endangered Species Act, including paying the legal expenses to the environmental groups.
    —————————————–
    TARGETING The DEEP POCKETS of the EPA and USFWS?

    DEEP POCKETS – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_pocket‎
    In the context of a lawsuit, the DEEP POCKETS is often the target defendant, even when the true (moral) culpability is with another party because the DEEP POCKETS has … MONEY to pay a verdict.
    ———————————————————————————————————–
    The EMPTY POCKETS of “We The People” the collective financial destitution and despair caused by EPA and USFWS Sue and Settle agreements
    —————————————————————-
    The pockets of government deception?

    12 States Sue EPA over Clean Air Records – Governing
    www.governing.com/…/12-States-Sue-EPA-over-Clean-Air-Records.htm…‎
    Twelve states are suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for not complying with their public-records requests for information on the implementation of …
    ———————————————————————————————
    The NGO’s that Sued, settled and pocketed $$$ agreements of the Clean Water Act?
    Raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars?

    The NGO’s that Sued, settled and pocketed $$$ agreements of the Clean Air Act?
    Raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars?

    The NGO’s that Sued, settled pocketed $$$ agreements of the Endangered Species Act?
    Raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars?
    ———————————————————————————————-

    The pockets of Public and Private “NO MAN’S LAND” created by Sue and Settle?

    Pockets of the collective financial destitution and despair caused by EPA and USFWS Sue and Settle agreements, ruling unfunded mandates?

    Remember the of financial destitution and despair caused in the timber industry by the Pockets of endangered Spotted Owls?

    OK, now multiply the pockets of Financial destitution and Despair, that SHALL be caused by using Sue and Settle agreements, with over 2000 pockets of endangered species, now listed in the United States Of America.

    The pockets of NGO Sue and Settle agreements, collective Impact on “We the People” and America?
    PRICELESS? by definition, impossible to put a value on, worth more that can be calculated in terms of money.

    Indeed, the collective impact of Financial Destitution and Despair to “We the People” caused by the pockets of Sue and Settle agreements, is impossible to put a value on and cannot be calculated simply in terms of money.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    Google behindmyback.org Sue and Settle for documentation and comments
    also Google behindmyback.org endangered butterfly for more….
    ———————————————————————————————-
    Sue-And-Settle Nets Environmentalist Groups Billions | Tom …
    tomremington.com/2013/05/23/sue-and-settle-nets-environmentalist-gro…‎

    /2013/05/23/sue-and-settle-nets-environmentalist-groups-billions/
    Now we have “Sue-and-Settle”. According to Jillian Kay Melchior at National Review Online, environmentalist groups are raking in millions and costing taxpayers billions of dollars by suing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), only to have the EPA “settle” the case, therefore bypassing Congressional scrutiny and of course keeping actions out of sight of the public, while blaming the courts.
    When environmental groups petition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to list so many species under protection of the Endangered Species Act, that it is impossible for the USFWS to address all of these requests. Under the rules of EAJA, if the USFWS does not address each request in a timely manner, government coughs up all the legal expenses to the environmental groups. It’s a giant cash cow.

    Bottom line
    WHY WOULD ANY REASONABLE PERSON SAY THAT “SUE AND SETTLE SUCKS”?


  • To Kilmer 39,000 Acres

    Delay federally mandated butterfly habitat
    … If these critical habitat designations are put into place, they could have a negative impact on local economies by hampering such activities as (TIMBER HARVESTING) farming, ranching and energy development.”

    Clallam County WA is not the only one objecting to HABITAT FOR ENDANGERED BUTTERFLY SPECIES.

    THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE following STATES TO SET ASIDE LAND AS A HABITAT FOR TWO ENDANGERED BUTTERFLY SPECIES. The habitat is a noncontinuous 39,000-ACRE SPACE THAT SPANS NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, IOWA AND WISCONSIN.

    Two Northwest species–a bird and a butterfly (TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY) –were granted protection under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, THE CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY said Wednesday.

    The designation comes as part of a (SUE and SETTLEMENT) agreement reached with the center in 2011 that required USF&WS to speed protection for 757 species in the US.

    The rest is self explanatory.
    Delay federally mandated butterfly habitat
    … If these critical habitat designations are put into place, they could have a negative impact on local economies by hampering such activities as (TIMBER HARVESTING) farming, ranching and energy development.”

    THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE STATES TO SET ASIDE LAND AS A HABITAT FOR TWO ENDANGERED BUTTERFLY SPECIES. The habitat is a noncontinuous 39,000-ACRE SPACE THAT SPANS NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, IOWA AND WISCONSIN.
    —————————————————————————————-
    Environment – November 26, 2013 10:45AM
    1.North Dakota wants to delay federally mandated butterfly habitat …
    cir.ca/news/butterflies-are-disappearing/102734‎

    Nov 26, 2013 – “We believe granting this extension to the comment period would help ensure … a letter to the FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS) asking for a 30-day delay of the comment period TO STUDY THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE HABITAT.

    North Dakota wants to delay federally mandated butterfly habitat

    North Dakotan politicians are trying to delay a rule established under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE STATE TO SET ASIDE LAND AS A HABITAT FOR TWO ENDANGERED BUTTERFLY SPECIES.

    The habitat is a noncontinuous 39,000-ACRE SPACE THAT SPANS NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, IOWA AND WISCONSIN.

    “We believe granting this extension to the comment period would help ensure that public input is maximized and the effects of this proposal are fully understood… If these critical habitat designations are put into place, they could have a negative impact on local economies by hampering such activities as farming, ranching and energy development.”

    North Dakota Governor John Dalrymple (R), Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D) and John Hoeven (R), and Rep. Kevin Cramer (R) sent a letter to the the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) asking for a 30-day delay of the comment period to study the economic effects of the habitat.

    THE FWS SAID IT HAS NOT YET ANALYZED THE ECONOMIC IMPACT, BUT WILL SOON.

    The loss of habitat, along with increased pesticide and bug spray use, are leading to dwindling numbers of butterflies. Currently, there are 17 species and subspecies of butterflies listed as endangered in the U.S., and two species are listed as threatened.
    ————————————————————————————————————

    Would you, as my representative, request an copy of the analysis of the economic impact statement from the FWS for WA State land set aside as critical habitat for endangered species?
    ———————————————————————————————————-

    In addition, there shall be a negative economic impact for WA State on private property , State DNR land, National forest, Olympic National Park, all land located in and around Clallam County with the WDFW seeding of the endangered TAYLOR’S CHECKERSPOT BUTTERFLY.

    Thank you,
    Pearl Rains Hewett
    A concerned American Grandmother