+menu-


  • Category Archives The Olympic Peninsula Water Project
  • WA DOE Rules Recreational Use of Water?

    TO PROTECT SURFACE WATER CONTACT BY RECREATIONAL USERS?

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

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

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

    WHAT ARE THE CURRENT SURFACE WATER CONTACT RECREATIONAL USES?

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

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

     

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

    Extraordinary Primary Cont.

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

    Primary Cont.

    Primary contact recreation.

    Secondary Cont.

    Secondary contact recreation.

     

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

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

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

    Wildlife Habitat

    Wildlife habitat.

    Harvesting

    Fish harvesting.

    Commerce/Navigation

    Commerce and navigation.

    Boating

    Boating.

    Aesthetics

    Aesthetic values.

     

    ——————————————————————

    Find Designated Uses for Waters of the State

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

    (RCW 90.58.020) Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs)

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————-

    CONTINUED….

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

    AS WELL AS RECREATIONAL

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

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

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

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

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

     

    Chapter 246-260 WAC: WATER RECREATION FACILITIES

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

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

    ————————————————————————————

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

    This rulemaking will:

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

     

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

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

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

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

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

    August 16th, 2017

    Chapter 173-201A WAC: Recreational Use Criteria

    For more information:

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

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

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

    Thank you for using WAC Track.

    Have a good day!

    Visit us on the web or social media.

    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

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

    Chapter 173-201A WAC
    Recreational Use Criteria

     

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

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

    This rulemaking will:

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

    Timeline and Documents

     

    Date (date subject to change)

    Activity

    August 16, 2017

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

    August 16, 2017 – Spring 2018

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

    Spring 2018

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

    Spring 2018

    Hold public hearing comment period.

    Spring – Fall 2018

    Review public comments and prepare adoption packet.

    Fall 2018

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

    Fall 2018

    Rule effective (usually 31 days after filing)

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

    ADDITIONAL RULE INFORMATION

    CONTACT

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

    STAY INFORMED

    Subscribe to the
    E-mail ListServ to receive updates

    RELATED LINKS

     

    Feedback?

     

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

    Publication Summary Table  602.

    Title

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

    Publication number

    Date Published

    Date Revised

    06-10-091

    December 2006

    March 2017

    VIEW NOW:

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

    Trouble viewing?

    ·         Get the latest Adobe Reader

    ·         Microsoft Word Viewer.

    ·         Microsoft Excel Viewer.

    Author(s)

    Water Quality Program

    Description

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

    REQUEST A COPY

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

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

    ·         Water Quality Order Form

    Contact

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

    Keywords

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

    WEB PAGE

    Surface Water Quality Standards

    RELATED PUBLICATIONS

    Title:

    Water Quality Standards For Surface Waters Of The State Of Washington

    Waters Requiring Supplemental Spawning and Incubation Protection for Salmonid Species

     


  • WA DOE $50 Comment Recording Fee?

    WA DOE $50 Public Comment Recording Fee?

    1. Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections. 
    2. All letters of protest will become public record. 
    3. Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable. 
    4. Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611,
    5. within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT,  AS A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD,  ON MY WEBSITE.

    ————————————————————-

    TAKE NOTICE STEVENS COUNTY WE MUST  PROTEST OR OBJECT WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    ———————————

    TAKE NOTICE GRANT COUNTY WE  MUST PROTEST OR OBJECT  WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    ————————————————————-

    I GOT MY  PUBLIC NOTICE IN A PRIVATE EMAIL ON TUES JULY 11, 2017

    The email said,  So whatever we can pull together ASAP will be helpful. 

    I SUGGEST WE START HERE….

    EMAIL YOUR, OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS AND PROTESTS  REGARDING THE WA STATE DOE WATER RULERS NEW $50 COMMENT RECORDING FEE,  TAKE NOTICE TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT, FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND CITY.

    INDEED,  EMAIL  OBJECTIONS, COMMENTS  AND PROTESTS  SENT TO YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, ARE LEGALLY RECORDED DOCUMENTATION AND THEY ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. 

    ————————————————————————————

    THIS DOE $50.00 FEE  TO PROTEST OR OBJECTION AND  TO RECORD PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER DOE WATER APPLICATION NO. G3-30736 IS NOT SOMETHING NEW.

     IT’S JUST NEW TO VOTING TAXPAYING CITIZEN WATER USERS.

    ———————————————————————

    HOW WA STATE DUE PROCESS ON PUBLIC NOTIFICATION WORKS, OR NOT?

    Somebody found something, and read something in  the Chewelah Independent, a newspaper in Stevens County WA on June 22nd 2017 that was placed by the Dept. of Ecology. 

    Indeed, I got my PUBLIC NOTICE in a private email on Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    OBJECTIONS OR PROTESTS COMMENTS WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    WORD GETS AROUND IN CYBERSPACE (eventually)

    I AM FREELY PROTESTING AND OBJECTING TO THIS $50.00 DOE FEE ON PUBLIC COMMENT MY WEBSITE.

     —– Original Message —–

    From: XXX

    To: XXX

    Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 8:57 PM

    Subject: SCPRG Update

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 20, and June 30, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————-

    WA State DOE From TAXATION TO FEE-DOM

    ——————————————————————————-

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ————————————————————————- 

    OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    OBJECTIONS OR COMMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY A $50 RECORDING FEE PAYABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY, CASHIERING UNIT, P.O. BOX 47611, OLYMPIA, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————–

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA. NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE: 

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————————–

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A)

    DOE TAKE WATER TAKE NOTICE WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017.

    Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 Pub: June 13 & 20, 2017

    —————————————————————————

    STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY OFFICE OF COLUMBIA RIVER YAKIMA, WA

    NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE PUBLIC WATERS TAKE NOTICE:  That STEVENS COUNTY of Colville, WA, on February 11, 2015, under Application No. G3-30736 applied to appropriate public waters, subject to existing rights, from multiple wells in the amount of 3,350 gallons per minute for continuous multiple domestic and industrial supply.

    That source of the proposed appropriation is located with the Colville River Water Resource Inventory Area, Stevens County, Washington.

    Protests or objections to approval of this application must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.  All letters of protest will become public record.  Cash shall not be accepted.  Fees must be paid by check or money order and are nonrefundable.  Protests must be accompanied by a $50 recording fee payable to the Department of Ecology, Cashiering Unit, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, WA 98504-7611, within 30 days from June 22, 2017.

    —————————————————————————

    GRANT COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD AMENDED NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF GROUNDWATER CERTIFICATE 399A(A) TAKE NOTICE: Central Terminals, LLC of Moses Lake has made an APPLICATION FOR CHANGE/TRANSFER of Water Right to add two (2) additional points of withdrawal (POW), for Groundwater Certificate 399A(A). The Board has accepted the applicaiton for active Board review by assigning its number of GRAN-16-10. The Department of Ecology has assigned tracking number CG3-*01104C(A)@2 to this application. That Ground Water Certificate 399A(A) with a priority date of April 18, 1949 has current authorization for 800.0 gallons per minute, 296.1 acre-feet per year, for Continuous Industrial use.

    The current authorized point of withdrawal is located within the NW1/4SW1/4 Section 20, T19N., R29E., W.M., The proposed additional points of withdrawal will be one (1) existing well located within the NW1/4SE1/4 of section 20, T19N., R29E. W.M., and one (1) new well located within the NE1/4NE/4 of Section 29, T19N, R29E. W.M.

    Any interested party may submit comments, objections, and other information to the Board regarding this application. The comments and information may be submitted in writing or verbally at any public meeting of the Board held to discuss or decide on the application. Additionally, the Board will consider written comments or information provided within thirty (30) days from the last date of publication of this notice, said written comments or information to be provided to its office located at 2145 Basin Street SW, Ephrata, WA 98823. Any protests or objections to the approval of this application may be filed with the Department of Ecology and must include a detailed statement of the basis for objections.

     Protests must be accompanied by a fifty dollar ($50.00) recording fee and filed with the Cashiering Section, State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47611, Olympia, Washington 98504-7611 WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM JUNE 20, 2017. #06029/86342 PUB: JUNE 13 & 20, 2017

    ————————————————————————-

    WA State taxes TAXATION from our elected representative

    DOE FEE INCREASES DO NOT HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE.

    AS IT STOOD ON OCT 26, 2013 , AND AS IT STANDS JULY 12, 2017

    ELECTIONS DO CREATE  OUR LEGISLATORS’

    ————————————————————————- 

    Behind My Back | Fee Fie Foe Fum

    www.behindmyback.org/2013/10/26/fee-fie-foe-fum/

    Oct 26, 2013 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feefie-foefum. THERE’S LITTLE REASON EVER TO USE IT? This entry was posted in By Hook or By Crook, …

     OCT 26, 2013 IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN’T FORCE US TO PAY MORE TAXES?

    WHAT CAN THE GOVERNMENT DO TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM US?

    The bottom line
    REMEMBER A “FEE” IS NOT A TAX
    AND, A TOLL IS JUST A FEE
    AND, A SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A CHARGE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE
    AND, A FARE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    AND, A DOE $50.00 RECORDING FEE IS JUST ANOTHER FEE

    WA STATE FROM TAXATION TO DOE FEE-DOM

    —————————————————————————————-

    Clallam County citizens  sent in over a thousand objections  on The DOE Dungeness Water Rule and the DOE sent us 500 pages of too bad so sad.

    —————————————————————

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH THE WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE)

    —————————————————————————–

    VENGEANCE IS MINE SAITH WA STATE VOTERS COME ELECTION TIME


  • The Importance of Federal Water Control?

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

    Dear Rosemarie,

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

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

    THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL WATER CONTROL

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

    —————————————————————-

    Feb 5, 2013 WA STATE HAD THINGS UNDER CONTROL.

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

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

    Behind My Back | Water Rules Not Etched In Stone

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Feb 5, 2013 WA STATE HAD THINGS UNDER CONTROL.

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

    ————————————————————————

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

    THE IMPORTANCE OF FEDERAL WATER CONTROL

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

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

    First the Feds TAKE all of our water using WOTUS

    WOTUS “Water Runs Down Hill”

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

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

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

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

    Behind My Back | Congress Must Act on Water Issues

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

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

    ——————————————————————————-

    WA State Reform on Wetland Delineation?

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

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

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

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

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

    —————————————————————————————

    SO WHAT’S OLD?

    Behind My Back | “Ecology Sucks”

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

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

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

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

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

    AND WHAT’S OLD?

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

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

    ————————————————————————–

    MARCH 25, 2016  SO WHAT’S REALLY NEW?

    BY HOOK OR BY CROOK, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER

    TOTAL FEDERAL CONTROL OF ALL WATER

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

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

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

    National Drought Resilience Partnership – US Drought Portal

    www.drought.gov/drought/content/ndrp

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

    ————————————————————————-

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

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

    Read Sen. Cantwell’s white paper here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ###

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

    How does drought response relate to climate preparedness?

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

     


  • Public Land Use? Howls of Complaints?

    I received information on, the Public ” HOWLING” on Public Land Use complaints against the feds, in an email from Liz Bowen Pie N Politics in California.

    Public lands ‘listening’ session brings howls of complaints …

    www.deseretnews.com/…/Publiclandslisteningsessionbri
    Deseret News

    15 hours ago – Public landslistening’ session brings howls of complaints against feds.

    17 Comments ». By Amy Joi O’Donoghue, Deseret …

    13 hours ago – Public lands ‘listening’ session brings howls of complaints against feds … Chris Stewart, R-Utah, convened the session in St. George — part of his congressional district — to let county …. Kick the Feds out of our state, period!
    ———————————————————-
    So, I sent a comment to…..

    Dear Senator Lankford,
    I received the following information in an email from a friend in California. It is an on-going country wide issue.
    We the people have no way of resolving this problem, other than forwarding this information to a concerned, responsive, elected representative in WA DC…..
    the bottom line…
    “Congress is really our last, best hope for solving this.”

    Thank you,
    Pearl Rains Hewett

    ————————
    Then… I made a comment on Pie N Politics website

    Pie N Politics | LizBowen.com

    lizbowen.com/?page_id=393

    Pie N Politics. Like many areas of the United States, citizens in Siskiyou County are finding government regulations are destroying their RIGHTS. This includes …
    ————————————————–
    my comment to Pie N Politics ….
    If you want an elected federal representative to “LISTEN” to your complaints and respond.. Senator Lankford, is your man.
    —————————————–
    Dear Senator Lankford,
    I received the following information in an email from a friend in California. It is an on-going country wide issue.
    We the people have no way of resolving this problem, other than forwarding this information to a concerned, responsive, elected representative in WA DC……
    the bottom line…
    “Congress is really our last, best hope for solving this.”

    Thank you,
    Pearl Rains Hewett
    ————————
    Sent and received by Team Lankford!
    Thanks
    Thank you for reaching out to Team Lankford! Your form has been successfully submitted. Someone on our team will get back to you as soon as possible.
    ———————————————————————————
    I have three (3) mostly, usually, unconcerned, unresponsive elected representative in WA DC
    Rep. Derek Kilmer, and Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell.
    And, I have three (3) mostly, usually, unconcerned, unresponsive elected representative in WA State
    Rep. Steve Tharinger, Kevin Van De Wege and Senator Jim Hargrove
    And, I have three (3) mostly, usually, unconcerned, unresponsive elected representative, Commissioners in Clallam County WA.

    ————
    I have been, well… sort of howling at all nine (9) of them, mostly D-WA representatives, sending them emails, and asking them questions for years.. about restricted public and private land use, among other things.

    And, all nine (9) of my elected representatives are mostly D-WA, are mostly, usually, unconcerned and unresponsive. period.

    Like, I might as well have been howling at the moon…

    ———————————————————-
    Fortunately, My grandson set up this website for me… registered 2013-01-29.
    Today is 2016-01-23, I’ve spent nearly three years researching, documenting and posting over 650 comments on restricted public and private land use, among other things.
    —————————————————————————–
    Well, Like I said….
    IF YOU WANT AN ELECTED FEDERAL REPRESENTATIVE TO “LISTEN” TO YOUR COMPLAINTS AND RESPOND.. SENATOR LANKFORD, IS YOUR GO TO MAN.
    ———————————————————————-
    My comments matter, as a matter of fact… I even got a Christmas card

    (I know a robo card)

    However, the bottom line on Senator Lankford Christmas card is…
    Stay Connected!
    If you would like more information on these topics or any other legislation currently before the U.S. Senate, please do not hesitate to call my D.C. office at (202) 224-5754. My Oklahoma City office can be reached at (405) 231-4941 and my Tulsa office at (918) 581-7651. You can also follow me on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram for updates on my work in Congress.
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Sen. James Lankford
    To: phew@wavecable.com
    Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 7:20 AM
    Subject: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

    ————————————————————-

    BACK TO THE HOWLING…

    Public lands ‘listening’ session brings howls of complaints …
    www.deseretnews.com/…/Public-lands-listening-session-bri…

    WHO’S LISTENING?
    Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, Jason Chaffetz R-Utah, Rob Bishop R-Utah, as well as Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas
    ———————————————————————————
    I received the following information in an email from Liz Bowen Pie N Politics in California.
    full text…
    By Amy Joi O’Donoghue,
    Deseret News
    Published: Friday, Jan. 22 2016 10:00 p.m. MST
    ST. GEORGE — Four U.S. congressmen spent several hours Friday hearing a litany of complaints asserting federal land management agencies are harming families and livelihoods and need to be reigned in — if not eliminated altogether.
    Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, convened the session in St. George — part of his congressional district — to let county leaders and others air their views on federal public lands management in Utah.
    The list of grievances was long: grazing reductions, wild horse and burro overpopulation, agencies colluding with environmental groups in illegal, backdoor meetings, heavy-handed law enforcement tactics and dismissive attitudes by faceless bureaucrats that are harming rural life in Utah.
    “Is there any question or any wonder why people are angry? It seems glaringly obvious to me why people are angry,” Stewart said.
    “It did not used to be this way, and it does not have to be this way in the future.”
    Commissioners from six rural counties in Utah implored Stewart and Reps. Jason Chaffetz and Rob Bishop, R-Utah, as well as Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas, to fix what’s wrong with the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service, emphasizing they’re at the breaking point.
    “Elected officials have tried to protect their constituents from the overreach the best we can, but it is tough to compete with special interest groups,” said Washington County Commissioner Victor Iverson. “Congress is really our last, best hope for solving this.”
    Iverson and others blasted agencies for “sue and settle” policies that have left Western lands in paralysis for grazing, timber production, ranching and other uses.
    “Range management is more a result of lawsuit than science,” Iverson said. “Special interest groups sue the land management agencies and they agree to settle on terms that do not benefit the general public and are almost never disclosed. … There is an overabundance of failed public policies.”
    Beaver County Commissioner Tammy Pearson described struggling ranchers held hostage by the proliferation of wild horses that are ruining a drought-striken range for cattle, wildlife and other uses.
    Pearson, a rancher herself, said the situation is dire.
    “Producers have exhausted their financial reserves, have lost their faith in federal agencies and have been backed into a corner by those agencies and so-called environmentalists and advocacy groups,”

    she said. “This grief has caused the uprisings that we see in Nevada, Oregon, and quite possibly in Utah.”
    Westerman, who said the BLM does not operate in his state, said it was clear to him there is a problem that has to be addressed.
    “We are all going to have disagreements on something as passionate as how federal public lands are used. It is more the process that I am worried about. Broken promises. Collusion. Lack of trust. Closed door meetings, circumvention of the law and double standards. Those are not the kind of words that are beneficial to our country regardless of what location you are at.”
    Stewart told the crowd he is committed to finding a solution given the realities that are playing out in Utah and elsewhere in the West.
    “You cannot protect Utah families if you don’t give them hope for the future,” he said. “And you can’t give them hope for the future if they feel like the federal government has a boot at their throat.”
    Email: amyjoi@deseretnews.com
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865646022/Public-lands-listening-session-brings-howls-of-complaints-against-feds.html
    —————————————————————————

    Congressional committee rails on BLM over Washington …

    WOW Snippets, full text below….

    “These issues are not only important to not only Utah, they are important to the whole country,”

    Members of a congressional subcommittee skewered the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management of Utah Friday over a proposed land use plan they say ignores the will of residents and the letter of a 2009 public lands law for Washington County.

    “We are here because Congress is hearing a crescendo of complaints about

    “We are here to get to the bottom of it.”

    BLM tactics and policies across the country, and St. George seems to be a poster child of BLM bad behavior,” said Tom McClintock, R-California and chairman of the House Natural Resources Federal Subcommittee.

    The agency’s preferred action in the land use plan released last year proposes to reduce grazing by 40 percent in those national conservation areas,

    restrict St. George’s access to up to 37 percent of its water

    and does not include a northern transportation corridor through the Red Cliffs area in Washington County, according to critics.

    —————————————————————————-

    Ful ltext

    Congressional committee rails on BLM over Washington …

    www.deseretnews.com/…/Congressionalcommitteerails-on
    Deseret News

    23 hours ago – Congressional committee rails on BLM over Washington County land … about a Bureau of Land Management proposed land use plan they …

    ST. GEORGE — Members of a congressional subcommittee skewered the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management of Utah Friday over a proposed land use plan they say ignores the will of residents and the letter of a 2009 public lands law for Washington County.

    “We are here because Congress is hearing a crescendo of complaints about

    “We are here to get to the bottom of it.”

    The subcommittee convened the rare field hearing after McClintock said they’d heard a litany of complaints over the BLM’s draft resource management plans proposed for the Beaver Dam Wash and Red Cliffs National Conservation Areas.

    The plan is being crafted as a result of the 2009 Public Lands Omnibus Act, which McClintock said embodied the spirit of compromise and was held up as a model for locally generated public lands planning across the nation.

    “This subcommittee doesn’t normally hold hearings on individual land use plans. But it appears that the BLM, which administers nearly half of the land area of Washington County, has ignored the will of Congress and thumbed its nose at the people whose taxes support this government and whose livelihoods and quality of life are now directly threatened by it.”

    The agency’s preferred action in the land use plan released last year proposes to reduce grazing by 40 percent in those national conservation areas, restrict St. George’s access to up to 37 percent of its water and does not include a northern transportation corridor through the Red Cliffs area in Washington County, according to critics.

    Washington County Commission Chairman Alan Gardner and St. George Mayor Jon Pike both testified at the hearing — held at the Dixie Convention Center in St. George — that they were left out of BLM’s planning process and surprised at the plan’s components when it was released.

    “I would have expected to have had many discussions with the BLM about all of these issues that have been raised today,” Pike said,

    particularly since they concern water rights.

    “I would have liked to have had those conversations before the plan was released.”

    Acting BLM Utah Director Jenna Whitlock defended her agency and disputed the allegation local elected officials were not involved in the planning stages.

    “We really feel like we have a good record,” she said, adding she believes the proposed plan follows the 2009 law.

    The hearing, which was attended by Utah Reps. Jason Chaffetz, Chris Stewart and Rob Bishop, drew sympathetic comments from Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas, who said these divisive land issues impact everyone.

    “These issues are not only important to not only Utah, they are important to the whole country,” he said, adding that he had read about the controversy 1,000 miles away in his home state. “It appears to me that the law is being ignored, this law passed by Congress. This seems to be a pattern with the BLM. … Do you recognize that you are creating some really bad publicity for the BLM across the country?”

    ———————————————————————–

    I am compelled to insert this comment.

    “If you want to understand why so many people distrust the federal government, this is a good example,” @RepChrisStewart re BLM plans

    ————————————————————————

    And, this  comment.

    Iverson and others blasted agencies for “sue and settle” policies that have left Western lands in paralysis for grazing, timber production, ranching and other uses.

    The issue of “WILD NON-PROFITS”  undue partisan influence on the US government, is not only important to Utah, the “WILD NON-PROFITS” are a threat to the Public use of public  and private land in the whole country.

    ———————————————————————————

    Friday’s hearing was packed with members of the public sporting “Wild Utah” pins who are supportive of BLM’s planning efforts that are designed to conserve the desert tortoise, which was added to the Endangered Species list in 1990 and conserve desert landscapes.

    Paul Van Dam, one of the witnesses who testified at the subcommittee hearing, said the BLM is a responsive agency and was engaged with the public while it crafted its proposed plan.

    ———————————————————–

    Really…”If you want to understand why so many people distrust the federal government, this is a good example,” @RepChrisStewart re BLM plans

    —————————————————-

    “I have dealt with the BLM for a long time,” said Van Dam, who used to head up the grass-roots environmental organization called Citizens for Dixie’s Future. “My experiences are positive.”

    —————————————————————————–

    Sorry, I can’t resist this one..

    no duh… radical non-profits usually do have a positive experience with the BLM

    ———————————————————–
    the bottom line…

    “These issues are not only important to not only Utah, they are important to the whole country,”
    Email your comments to Senator Lankford, Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, Jason Chaffetz R-Utah, Rob Bishop R-Utah, as well as Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Arkansas they are are listening..

    Rep. Chris Stewart told the crowd he is committed to finding a solution given the realities that are playing out in Utah and elsewhere in the West.

    “Congress is really our last, best hope for solving this.”
    Thank you,
    Pearl Rains Hewett


  • Olympic Peninsula OLYMPEX Water Project

    Olympic Peninsula OLYMPEX Water Project

    WOW…NASA IS LAUNCHING A SATELLITE TOGETHER WITH THE NASDA SPACE AGENCY OF JAPAN

    IT’S ALL ABOUT WATER.. the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) over the entire Earth.

    ———————————————
    AND, WOW…..THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IS AN IDEAL LOCATION to conduct a Ground Validation (GV) campaign for the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM)

    ————————————
    YES Indeed, OLYMPEX  IS THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA WATER PROJECT

    ——————————————————–
    IT’S ALL ABOUT ALL OF OUR WATER ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA.

    EVERY SINGLE DROP.
    AND, you better pay attention…One of the most comprehensive ground validation (GV) field campaigns for GPM will be held from November 2015 through February 2016 ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST OF THE UNITED STATES.

    UW/OLYMPEX Home Page

    ————————————————————————-
    My tip of the day? A benign email?

    Water is essential to life
    From: Streamkeepers [mailto:Streamkeepers@co.clallam.wa.us]
    Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 2:32 PM (full text at the very bottom)
    —————————————————————–
    WE THE PEOPLE ON THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA ARE BEING TARGETED WITH AN INTERNATIONAL WATER PROJECT CALLED THE GLOBAL PRECIPITATION MEASUREMENT (GPM) PROGRAM.

    Satellite Water Surveillance

    ———————————————————————————
    WHY US?

    BECAUSE? THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IS AN “IDEAL LOCATION” TO CONDUCT A GV CAMPAIGN FOR GPM.
    It is situated within an active mid-latitude winter storm track in the northwest corner of Washington State. It reliably receives among the highest annual precipitation amounts in North America ranging from over 2500 mm on the coast to about 4000 mm in the mountainous interior.

    —————————————————————
    WHY US?

    BECAUSE? THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IS AN “IDEAL SIZE” TO CONDUCT A GV CAMPAIGN FOR GPM.
    This unique venue is of an ideal size for A FIELD CAMPAIGN INVOLVING AIRCRAFT, RADARS AND OTHER GROUND-BASED SENSORS.
    Added for clarity of other, a satellite with a dual frequency (Ka and Ku band) radar and passive microwave sensors (10-183 GHz frequencies)

    ——————————————————

    WHY OLYMPEX?

    OLYMPEX will be able to monitor the storm characteristics and processes over the ocean, their modification over complex terrain and the resulting hydrologic impacts.

    WHY OLYMPEX?

    OLYMPEX is ideally suited to quantify the accuracy and sources of variability and uncertainty inherent to GPM measurements in such a varied region.
    ————————————————————————————
    OLYMPEX THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA IDEAL LOCATION WATER PROJECT
    —————————————————————————————
    OUTLINE ON OLYMPEX

    OLYMPEX will be conducted as an integrated validation program that will simultaineously address several GPM goals:

    To address the broad focus of OLYMPEX, the ground validation program will include accurate measurements of all aspects of the hydrological cycle on a range of spatial and temporal scales.

    Specifically, OLYMPEX will monitor and measure the following quantities:

    These requirements will be met with an integrated approach, including:

    ————————————————————–

    THE BOTTOM LINE ON OLYMPEX

    Through this combination of surface-based instrumentation, snowpack monitoring strategies, multi-frequency radars, aircraft satellite simulators, aircraft and surface-based microphysical measurements, hydrologic measurements and numerical model estimates of many of these quantities, OLYMPEX will provide an unprecedented integrated picture of the surface and in-cloud microphysical properties and their variability that can be transferred to wide-range meteorological and topographic conditions.
    ——————————————————————————–

     

    OLYMPEX Summary

    The current Operations Plan is here.
     The NASA Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) program together with the NASDA space agency of Japan will launch a satellite with a dual frequency (Ka and Ku band) radar and passive microwave sensors (10-183 GHz frequencies) for measuring precipitation over the Earth. This satellite will serve as a calibration reference for a constellation of satellites operated by several countries. It is crucial to validate the GPM satellite measurements at various location around the world. The NASA GPM Ground Validation Program is coordinating ground validation field campaigns at key locations. One of the most comprehensive ground validation field campaigns for GPM will be held from November 2015 through February 2016 on the Olympic Peninsula in the Pacific Northwest of the United States.

    ———————————————-

    The primary goal of this campaign, called OLYMPEX, is to validate rain and snow measurements in midlatitude frontal systems moving from ocean to coast to mountains and to determine how remotely sensed measurements of precipitation by GPM can be applied to a range of hydrologic, weather forecasting and climate data.

    ———————————————————-
    The Olympic Peninsula is an ideal location to conduct a GV campaign for GPM. It is situated within an active mid-latitude winter storm track in the northwest corner of Washington State. It reliably receives among the highest annual precipitation amounts in North America ranging from over 2500 mm on the coast to about 4000 mm in the mountainous interior. This unique venue is of an ideal size for a field campaign involving aircraft, radars and other ground-based sensors. OLYMPEX will be able to monitor the storm characteristics and processes over the ocean, their modification over complex terrain and the resulting hydrologic impacts. OLYMPEX is ideally suited to quantify the accuracy and sources of variability and uncertainty inherent to GPM measurements in such a varied region.
    OLYMPEX will be conducted as an integrated validation program that will simultaineously address several GPM goals:
     Physical validation of the precipitation (rain and snow) algorithms for both the GPM MIcrowave Imager (GMI) and Dual-Frequency Precipitation Radar (DPR).
     How precipitation mechanisms in midlatitude frontal systems and their modification by terrain affect GPM rainfall estimation uncertainties.
     Quantifying the accuracy and uncertainty of the GPM precipitation data and its hydrologic applicability.
     Merging numerical modeling and satellite observations to optimize precipitation estimation in hybrid monitoring systems of the future.

    —————————————————————————–
    To address the broad focus of OLYMPEX, the ground validation program will include accurate measurements of all aspects of the hydrological cycle on a range of spatial and temporal scales.

    Specifically, OLYMPEX will monitor and measure the following quantities:
     Seasonal accumulation of the snowpack (in terms of snow water equivalent, or SWE) over the higher terrain, and its variability in the rain/snow transition zone.
     The storm-by-storm liquid and frozen precipitation at multiple sites over the coast, the lowlands, foothills and mountains.
     The upstream meteorological conditions over the Pacific Ocean.
     Brightband variability in height and over ocean, coastal and mountain surfaces.
     Microphysical properties within all sectors of midlatitude storms, before and after their passage over complex terrain.
     Emissivity of a variety of surfaces including the ocean, coastal lowlands, forest and snow-covered mountains.
     River response and runoff.

    ———————————————————————
    These requirements will be met with an integrated approach, including:
     Surface precipitation gauge networks and snowpack monitoring instrumentation.
     Accurate surface measurements of falling liquid and solid precipitation using a combination of radar and gauge instruments.
     Disdrometer networks to measure microphysical properties of falling hydrometeors.
     A suite of scanning, dual-polarization and vertically pointing surface-based radars.
     Satellite-simulator and microphysical measurements from aircraft.
     Stream flow monitoring.
     Use of numerical modeling tuned with ground-based data to estimate microphysical properties of precipitation and accumulated snow on the ground for the more remote areas where it is difficult to obtain direct surface measurements.

    —————————————————————————-

    THE BOTTOM LINE
    Through this combination of surface-based instrumentation, snowpack monitoring strategies, multi-frequency radars, aircraft satellite simulators, aircraft and surface-based microphysical measurements, hydrologic measurements and numerical model estimates of many of these quantities, OLYMPEX will provide an unprecedented integrated picture of the surface and in-cloud microphysical properties and their variability that can be transferred to wide-range meteorological and topographic conditions.

    For questions, contact Lynn McMurdie)

    ———————————————————————-
    My tip of the day? The benign email….
    From: Streamkeepers [mailto:Streamkeepers@co.clallam.wa.us]
    Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 2:32 PM
    Citizen Scientists Needed to Monitor Olympic Precipitation
    Water is essential to life. Our changing climate is making the dry season longer, reducing snowpack in the mountains, and increasing the runoff from rainstorms. New technology promises to help us monitor the amount, timing and type of precipitation. The Olympic Peninsula has been selected as a proving ground to calibrate the instrumentation and interpretation of the data. The project is called OLYMPEX and it is being coordinated by the University of Washington. They are asking for our help in collecting precipitation data; and the more data we can provide to the project, the better the precipitation, snowpack, water supply, runoff, habitat, and flooding information will be in our area. Go here to learn how you can get your rain gauge and where to report your data. The rain gauge cost is about $30.