Hey folks,

The following is a better response to the EPA proposed rule change, other than F***--off.  Please click the link to the petition that is following the message below and fill it out.   The government will not listen to those who do not speak out....Rob T.

On proposed rule redefining the Waters of the United States pursuant to the Clean Water Act

"Ditch the rule!"

Statement To President Barack Obama, EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers:

The proposed rule represents an expansion of federal regulatory authority beyond the language and intent adopted by Congress in the Clean Water Act.

The Supreme Court twice rejected attempts by regulators to assert authority over “isolated waters” ruling that waters must have a “a continuous surface connection" or “significant nexus” to navigable waters. 

Congress repeatedly voted not to adopt policies similar to those in the proposed rule. If the rule is adopted it usurps congressional authority. 

The proposed rule would bring vast amounts of land under federal control adding unnecessary and redundant red tape to areas currently adequately regulated by state and local governments.

EPA's cost-benefit analysis is deeply flawed, employing decades old cost estimates that were not adjusted for inflation, or current economic and market conditions.

We, the undersigned, declare that the proposed rule will place undue regulatory burdens and limitations on people attempting to responsibly use their land, adds new regulatory dead weight to the economy and would produce no meaningful gains for the environment or the nation and should not be promulgated.

Hey Folks,

The Board of Commissioners have three important items on the Agenda.  The only way to make sure the commissioners make the right decision is for the public to show up and voice their opinion.   You do not have to attend all the meeting, but it helps to show up for the right meeting.  Politicians are uncontrollable looters without the support of a vigilant community.  The items on the agenda are list below.....Rob T. 

Section 3, Item A --Request for an approval of contract with AmeriCorp and the Health & Human Resource Department. 

Section 3, Item B---Contract with a cheesy motivational speaker

Section 3. Item M---Discussion on the South Coast Community Foundation

If you cannot make the meeting then call and email them beforehand: 

Hey Folks,

The city of Portland has to take money from everyone who pays incomes taxes every time it takes public money from Urban Renewal and shells it out to private investors.  This effects everyone no matter where you live in the state.  The article below explains how this is working for one UR project in the city. 

The state has to back-fill the Portland school districts that sacrifices money to the Urban Renewal area.   The states equalization program is used to siphon state income taxes and funnel that money into the city's economic development fund using the back-fill process.  Since Portland is the largest city with the highest population, the amount of money is much more than what the other cities and counties can receive in government compensation, which gives the more densely populated areas an economic advantage over the less populated areas using a program that was suppose to make all the schools in the state financially equal. 

Another problem is that it pits urbanized cities against the rural counties, which turns the Urban Renewal program into a Rural Destruction program, becasue all the taxpayers of the entire state has to make up for the money the state government gave to the Portland school district.  The city officials also have the power to determine who will and who will not get this money, thus controlling who does business in the city.  The term for all of this is economic fascism and this is happening all over the United States....Rob T. 

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hear NDAA Legal Challenge, Allowing President and Military to Arrest and Detain Americans Indefinitely Without Due Process
April 29, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In refusing to hear a legal challenge to the indefinite detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), the United States Supreme Court has affirmed that the President and the U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals, including American citizens. By denying without comment a petition for review in Hedges v. Obama, the high court not only passed up an opportunity to overturn its 1944 Korematsu v. United States ruling allowing for the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, but also let stand a lower court ruling empowering the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” to indefinitely detain persons associated with or “suspected” of aiding terrorist organizations. In weighing in on the case before the lower court, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute challenged the Obama administration’s claim that the NDAA does not apply to American citizens, arguing that the NDAA’s language is so unconstitutionally broad and vague as to open the door to arrests and indefinite detentions for speech and political activity that might be critical of the government.

“Once again, the U.S. Supreme Court has shown itself to be an advocate for the government, no matter how illegal its action, rather than a champion of the Constitution and, by extension, the American people,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State. “No matter what the Obama administration may say to the contrary, actions speak louder than words, and history shows that the U.S. government is not averse to locking up its own citizens for its own purposes. What the NDAA does is open the door for the government to detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker. According to government guidelines for identifying domestic extremists—a word used interchangeably with terrorists, that technically applies to anyone exercising their First Amendment rights in order to criticize the government.”

The NDAA 2012, the mammoth defense bill passed by Congress in 2011 and signed into law by President Obama, contains a provision allowing for the indefinite detention of those who “associate” or “substantially support” enemies of the U.S. such as terrorist groups. These terms, however, are not defined in the statute, and the government itself is unable to say who exactly is subject to indefinite detention based upon these terms, leaving them open to wide ranging interpretations which threaten those engaging in legitimate First Amendment activities. Soon after the NDAA was enacted, a lawsuit was filed by citizens and non-citizen activists and journalists alleging that it violated their constitutional rights by threatening them with indefinite detention for engaging in protected speech, such as protesting American foreign policy or interviewing suspected terrorists for journalistic purposes. On September 12, 2012, U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest of the Southern District Court of New York ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and placed a permanent injunction on the indefinite detention provision. However, President Obama appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled in July 2013 that the journalists and activists did not have standing to challenge the detention provisions. In rationalizing its decision, the court stressed that there had been no history of enforcement against persons such as these plaintiffs (activists and journalists, but non-combatants), the statute is not aimed at persons like them, and there has been no specific threat by the government to apply the statute to them. Critics of the NDAA had hoped that the U.S. Supreme Court would agree to hear the case and, in so doing, reverse its 1944 ruling in Korematsu v. United States, which concluded that the government’s need to ensure the safety of the country trumped personal liberties and allowed for the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.

Legal Action

Click Here to read The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in Hedges v. Obama Press Contact

Nisha Whitehead
(434) 978-3888 ext. 604
(434) 466-6168 (cell)
[email protected]

Morgan Griffith Introduces EPA MACT Act
http://morgangriffith.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=363414


Wednesday, Dec 4, 2013 | Andie Pivarunas (202-225-3861) | 0 comments Congressman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) yesterday introduced the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Maximum Achievable Contraction of Technocrats (MACT) Act, H.R. 3641.  More than nine out of every ten EPA employees were considered “non-essential” and were furloughed during the recent partial government shutdown.  Griffith’s EPA MACT Act would require the EPA Administrator to reduce the EPA’s workforce by 15 percent within three years.  It also allows the EPA Administrator to have an additional (4th) year if she deemed it necessary to achieve the goal.

After introducing the EPA MACT Act, Griffith issued the following statement:

“This is the time of year when folks make their Christmas lists, or lay out their hopes and aspirations for the new year.  The overwhelming majority of citizens of the Ninth District of Virginia would welcome the inclusion of the EPA MACT Act on their wish lists.  It may be asking a lot of Santa for this bill to become law, but the economy of the Ninth District and our people can’t take any more job-killing, unreasonable EPA regulations.

“Many in my area and in coal communities across the nation may wish for the complete elimination of the EPA, but the EPA MACT Act is a more balanced approach.  It recognizes that the EPA has put forward some reasonable regulations in the past, and that the agency ought to have the resources in order to be able to continue enforcing those reasonable regulations.  Our environment and our communities are better because of earlier actions.  Further, the EPA oversees some important programs, such as the grant programs that provide clean water to underserved areas. 

“But, for example, should fire hydrants be subject to EPA drinking water regulations that exempt shower valves and bathtub faucets?  My kids often will get a drink from the shower or bathtub faucet, but have never had a drink from a fire hydrant.  Do you know many people who regularly drink from a fire hydrant?  I don’t.  But in October, EPA issued guidance saying that fire hydrants installed after January 4, 2014 must comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act.  Communities across the country could have to spend millions of dollars replacing their fire hydrant inventories in order to both keep the public safe and comply with this ridiculous guidance.

“Just yesterday, the House unanimously passed a bipartisan bill that rejects this guidance.  But when will it stop?  The EPA has been worrying over the ‘pollution’ emitted by cows (methane) for decades,* and they have even deemed carbon dioxide as harmful!  Carbon dioxide is one of the gases that all humans emit when exhaling.  If you were to take their reasoning to an extreme, the EPA might one day claim to have the authority to regulate the number of children we can have.  After all, new human beings will obviously emit the ‘harmful’ gas carbon dioxide when they start their first cry!  I’m not suggesting that the EPA is even thinking about doing that now, but former Chairman John Dingell – who wrote the Clean Air Act – has said that he never anticipated that the Clean Air Act would be used to regulate carbon dioxide.**

“Clearly, EPA regulators are waging a war on common sense, American manufacturers, jobs, and more.  There are real businesses that have closed and real people who have lost their jobs as a result of unreasonable EPA actions.  The American people need some relief without delay.  This bill would give a small measure of hope to those who face the prospects of the business they work for being shuttered and the loss of their jobs because of an overzealous EPA producing massive new unreasonable regulations.”

A copy of the EPA MACT Act is attached.

### 

*http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html
**http://www.mlive.com/opinion/kalamazoo/index.ssf/2011/06/viewpoint_congress_never_inten.html

Related Posts:
SCOTUS---EPA Takes a Spanking from The Supremes Claims Agency "Overreached" 
DEQ---Public Comments by July 31, 2014 Proposed Revisions Air Quality Permitting
EPA---Public Comments on Proposed Water Rule to Make Federal Land Grabs Easier 
EPA---Public Comment on Disapproval of OR Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 
SCOTUS---Did EPA Overstep on Global Warming 
EPA---Public Comments on New Stricter Performance Standards for wood heaters
Federal Legislative Action Alert:  Vote YES on S.890 to Protect Private Property
The Natural Resources Report---Two Stories Showing Cause and Effect
EPA---Article in the Western Mining Alliance Newsletter on Oregon Spotted Frog
EPA---Victims of Government: The Case of Steve Lathrop, Sounds Familiar
Port Orford---Government Ownership equals Poverty and hungry children
The Nature Conservancy---Contact the Oregon Leadership Team 
The Nature Conservancy---Oregon Grasslands: Crucial for Wildlife Survival‏
The Bandon Marsh  Mosquito Farm
USFWS---Public Responses to the Bandon Marsh Mosquito Invasion
Letter to Mr. Lowe of the USFWS about the Bandon Marsh Mosquitoe  Problem
Department of Interior---Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations AKA The Coquilles

Get a warrant! Today’s cellphone privacy decision in Plain English
By Amy Howe on Jun 25, 2014 at 5:25 pm

In 1973, the Supreme Court held that police officers did not need a warrant to look inside a pack of cigarettes that they found in the coat pocket of a man who had been arrested.  Those kinds of warrantless searches were allowed, the Court reasoned back then, to protect police officers and to prevent the destruction of evidence.

Forty years later, California and the federal government urged the Supreme Court to adopt the same rule for cellphones.  Once someone is arrested, they contended, police should be able to go through the entire contents of his phone without a warrant because cellphones are just like any other item that you can carry in your hand or pocket.  But today the Supreme Court emphatically rejected that argument.  Therefore, unless it’s an emergency, police need to get a warrant before they can search your cellphone.  Let’s talk about the decision in Riley v. California in Plain English.
Continue reading »

The Ruling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf

Hey Folks,

Below are links to some of Mary Geddry's articles....Rob T.

MGx server attacks coming from Coos County‏
https://mgx.com/2014/06/19/server-management-troubled-times/

SCCF vote still open for discussion‏
https://mgx.com/2014/06/17/countys-sccf-vote-still-discussion/

More from the Oregonian
http://mgx.com/2014/05/25/oregonian-jordan-cove-lng-creates-big-divisions-coos-bay/

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2014/05/jordan_cove_lng_terminal_in_co.html#incart_m-rpt-1


SCCF directors call it quits‏
http://mgx.com/2014/05/24/sccf-directors-git-gittin-good/

Hey Folks, 

The Port of Coos Bay, the city of Coos Bay and North Bend, and the County Board of Commissioners, have to pass a resolution before the Jordan Cove Energy Project can receive the 20-year property tax exemption from the Bay Area Enterprise Zone.  Most businesses cannot take advantage of EZ tax breaks and neither can the average citizen, which makes it an unfair tax exemption that benefits large corporations.  The vote on these resolutions is not supposed to take place for a few more months.   

In the meantime, the City Manager for the City of Coos Bay is refusing to release a report from the city’s attorney containing his legal opinion of the bylaws regulating the South Coast Community Foundation.  The designers of the Community Enhancement Plan have promised transparency, but already the members involved with this taxing fraud are hiding documents from public scrutiny.  If the Mayor and City Councilors of Coos Bay expect to garner the trust of the people then they should demand that the City Manager, Rodger Craddock, release the attorney’s report.  You may want to ask them why they would deny the public the information needed to make an objective opinion on the CEP in the first place.  Following the contact info for the Coos Bay councilors there are some of the documents to show the paper trail of the manager's refusal to release this important document.  It is some very interesting reading the exchange between the County DA and the City Manager…..Rob T. 

Oregon Firearms Federation

  06.16.14
Supreme Court Rules You Cannot Buy A Gun For Another Approved Person.
Today the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that if you purchase a firearm and transfer it to another "approved" buyer, you are a "straw purchaser" and may go to prison.
The ruling is in the case US vs Abramski, a case to which Oregon Firearms contributed to an Amicus brief.

The buyer of the gun purchased a gun legally and transferred it to his uncle who was also an approved buyer. The uncle took possession of the gun after passing a background check.  Abramski (a former police officer) was charged with a "straw purchase."

"The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them." 

Clearly this transfer had nothing to do with crimes or people who are ineligible to receive firearms. This ruling will vastly complicate any future transfers of legitimately owned guns. 

Open Letter,

To further "set the record straight" I want to make it clear that my questions/statements directed toward the USFWS biologist Bill Bridgeland during the Vector Board meeting on 1 May 2014 were in no way meant to discredit or misrepresent the South Slough Research Reserve’s salt marsh restoration program. Given that I was actively involved as a contractor in gathering much of the data you presented to the Board the other night, I know that the Kunz Marsh restoration was a resounding success. As regards marsh elevation and accretion, it is clear that marsh elevation declined or stabilized over the first six years or so after the dikes were removed, and then began to rise as the accretion rates and salt marsh plant abundance increased. Knowing that during the initial restoration effort marsh elevation can decline, I was concerned that the channelization project being proposed for the Ni-les’tun portion of the Bandon Marsh (at a possible cost of $500,000) might not ameliorate the mosquito problem, if subsidence was out pacing accretion and small depressions suitable for mosquito breeding recurred. I was encouraged to hear Bill say that he had five monuments in place on the marsh and had documented that accretion was increasing marsh elevation. I was also interested in what was going to be done with the dredge spoils (as much as 10,000 yd3 ) with creation of the channels and I learned that this material was to be distributed on site and, I am assuming, could be used to fill remaining low-lying areas that would be subject to retaining brackish water after a spring tide series.

As regards mosquito abundance off Hinch Rd. near the Kunz Marsh restorations sites up the Winchester Cr. arm of South Slough, my assessment is based on the three summers I worked in that area. I was surprised by the abundance of mosquitos in this area, but having dealt with mosquitos when working on my bottomland pasture I realized early on that the mosquitos at the Kunz Marsh site were a different species than the Anopheles spp. I had encountered on my pasture and that in fact they were summer salt marsh mosquitos (Aedes dorsalis). There was not a time when working in this area over those three summers that I and my crew did not have to repeatedly slather on repellent to keep from being "eaten alive" by mosquitos. Interestingly, we did not have to use repellent when collecting data on the monument sites and other vegetation "control" survey sites located to the north (most often upwind of the Kunz sites). So, it appeared that, as you pointed out at the Board meeting, mosquito abundance was somewhat localized, and as I mentioned to Bill during the previous meeting that the presence of those mosquitos did not cause the problems the USFWS is having to deal with because there was no one living in the area of the Kunz Marsh restoration site. Additionally, when conducting the plant surveys along transects extending from the Winchester Cr. channel inland to the upper reaches of the Kunz Marsh sites we noted mosquito larvae in abundance in brackish water pools. Unfortunately, none of the sampling methods I was tasked with performing to monitor invertebrate abundance were applicable to quantifying the abundance of adult or larval A. dorsalis abundance, so my assessment, like your’s, remains largely anecdotal. Furthermore, I suspect that with continued accretion and the increase in salt marsh plant abundance on the Kunz sites over the last ten years, the amount of habitat for A. dorsalis has been greatly reduced, and out of curiosity I plan to visit this area several times this summer to see if that is the case. But, in summary, to assert that there was not a significant increase in A. dorsalis population abundance related to the conditions on Kunz Marsh during the early stages of restoration strains credulity.

At present I am focused on whether or not the channelization project on the Bandon Marsh will ameliorate mosquito abundance to the point where mosquitos are again a minor nuisance to residents in Bandon and in the lower Coquille Valley. But I also have a personal stake in the outcome of the channelization project because the LNG folks have purchased the land that was once the Kentuck golf course, which they plan to inundate with bay water to mitigate for habitat loss that will occur during construction of the terminal’s ship berthing area on the North Spit of Coos Bay. The Kentuck golf course is less than a mile up wind of my home and that of a dozen other residents. The successful conversion of this land to a functional salt marsh that does not provide habitat for mosquitos will hinge on the outcome of channelization and the proper application of knowledge gained from the restoration efforts at the Bandon Marsh as well as the Kunz Marsh. Adscititiously, the mosquito problem on the Bandon Marsh should forewarn those that may be involved in the Kentuck restoration and for that matter the proposed China Camp Creek restoration of the potential adverse consequences of marsh restoration. Specifically, if these projects result in an increase in mosquito abundance that adversely affects even one nearby landowner, there will be grounds, in my opinion, to hold those responsible liable for damages.

Regards,
Daniel H. Varoujean II

COOS COUNTY

VECTOR ASSESSMENT & CONTROL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

AGENDA

June 25, 2014

5:30 – 7:00 p.m.

 

Bandon Conference and Community Center (aka Bandon Barn)

1200 W   11th St.  SW Bandon OR 

5:30 – 5:35      Roll Call & Approve minutes of 6/11/14 meeting

5:35 – 5:50      Staff Report

5:50 – 6:00      Bat House Program

6:00 – 6:20      June Event Planning

6:20 – 6:25      Mosquito Magnets

6:25 – 6:40      Mapping Project

6:40 – 6:55      Public Comment

6:55 – 7:00      Committee Member Comment

7:00                 Adjourn

ENTERPRISE ZONE AGREEMENT
The sponsors of the Bay Area Enterprise Zone comprising the governing bodies of the Cities of Coos Bay and North Bend, Coos County and the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay (hereinafter “The Zone Sponsors”) and Jordan Cove Energy Project LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership (hereinafter “JCEP”) do hereby enter into an agreement for extending the period of time in which JCEP shall receive an exemption on its investments in qualified property in the Bay Area Enterprise Zone contingent on certain special requirements under ORS 285C.160.
RECITALS
The Zone Sponsors and JCEP do hereby mutually accept the following facts for purposes of entering into an agreement:
I. FINDINGS
A. The Cities of North Bend and Coos Bay, Coos County and the Oregon International Port of Coos Bay (collectively, “The Zone Sponsors”) jointly sponsor the enterprise zone known as the Bay Area Enterprise Zone (the “Zone”).
B. JCEP proposes to construct and operate a facility inside the Zone, as currently configured, and to employ a significant number of persons, who will be compensated on average at substantially more than the average annual county wage, at the facility, which will produce, liquefied natural gas for export (the “Facility”).
C. The Oregon Legislative Assembly has adopted ORS285C.400 to 285C.420 and 317.123 to 317.131 (the “Statutes”) which provide tax incentives to business firms that invest in a qualifying facility within a rural enterprise zone in a ‘county with chronically low income or chronic unemployment.’ Coos County is currently eligible in terms of chronically low income and chronic unemployment.
D. Administrative rules (OAR 123-065-3000 to 123-065-3999, 150-285C.409 and 150-285C.420), as adopted by the State of Oregon, further define and implement the Statutes.
E. The benefits to a certified business firm under the Statutes include primarily a 100-percent exemption on new, non-transport property (but not any value assessed as land) that is owned/leased by the business firm and is otherwise subject to ad valorem taxation, and that is located at the site of a qualifying facility. The exemption covers property tax years, after construction commences and before the facility is placed in service. The exemption further applies to all such property for a single period of 7 to 15 consecutive tax years after the facility is placed in service, as determined by a written agreement between the zone sponsor and the business firm under ORS 285C.403(3)(c).
No property may be exempt, as described above, if that property has received an enterprise zone exemption under ORS 285C.170 or 285C.175.
Moreover, if the certified business firm is a C corporation and owns the facility, the Governor may formally approve tax credits equal to 62.5 percent of the business firm’s 1
annual gross payroll costs at the facility. The firm may claim these credits for a period of 5 to 15 fiscal years of the firm, starting as late as the third year after the year when the firm places the qualifying facility in service. These tax credits are supplemental to any exemption from property taxes. They would offset the business firm’s annual state corporate excise and income tax liability and are subject to other provisions of law.
F. Before commencing construction or installation of improvements or property, and before hiring employees in the enterprise zone, a business firm must submit the Oregon Department of Revenue’s CERTIFICATION APPLICATION Long-Term Rural Oregon Tax Incentive, #150-310-073 (the “Application”), in order to receive the benefits described above. Submission is made to the local zone sponsor (in the person of the local zone manager) and to the county assessor, who shall jointly approve the application, certifying the business firm, subject and pursuant to the following:
i. Execution of a written agreement between the business firm and the local zone sponsor
ii. Adoption of resolutions by the governing body of the county and the city, in which the facility would be located, approving the property tax exemption
iii. Satisfactory commitment to the requirements of ORS 285C.412 and to any additional requirement contained in the written agreement
iv. Review of the written agreement’s administrative sufficiency and confirmation of the county’s current economic status, by the Oregon Economic and Development Department.
The county assessor may make his/her approval of the Application contingent on establishing satisfactory administrative arrangements with the business firm, including but not limited to regular notice and substantiation for relevant junctures in the development of the facility, property located at the facility site or satisfaction of statutory requirements.
In order for JCEP to receive the benefits, the local zone manager and county assessor need to approve the Application before the date on which any facility property is placed in service and before termination of the enterprise zone.
G. Irrespective of certification and the written agreement, a business firm qualifies for and receives/retains the above-mentioned benefits only if minimum investment costs, hiring and compensation at the affected facility in the enterprise zone are achieved and maintained, according to the applicable provisions under ORS 285C.412 and 285C.420. Expected, applicable minima are more specifically described in the “Terms and Conditions” below.
H. The Zone Sponsors have found that the construction and operation of the Facility will foster desirable economic development in the Zone and its local area and will be in the best interest of The Zone Sponsors.
I. The description of the site where the Facility will be located is contained in Exhibit A. A map showing the site is in Exhibit B.
2
J. The Facility is located in unincorporated territory of the County.
K. JCEP presently estimates and anticipates that:
i. The Facility will encompass approximately ______,000 square feet comprising one or more building(s) and other structures.
ii. At least initially, the total cost for improvements, machinery & equipment, and the acquisition, construction, reconstruction and/or installation of property at the Facility will be approximately $___ million
iii. The site preparation, construction and improvements at the Facility will most likely commence after _________ but not later than __________.
iv. The Facility will most likely be placed in service after January 1, 20____, but not later than December 31, 20____.
v. JCEP will initially hire about _______ full-time employees at the Facility, the workforce for which will likely increase substantially thereafter.
vi. Average annual compensation for all employees at the Facility will equal or exceed $_________.
The above estimates reflect presently available information and are subject to change. JCEP in no way warrants the accuracy of the above estimates. Subject to the minima stipulated under ORS 285C.412, JCEP eschews any liability to the Zone Sponsor (or to any cosponsor or any other party) if the actual numbers differ from the above estimates.
L. Pursuant to this agreement, JCEP, at its discretion, may seek approval from the Governor for the aforementioned corporate excise and income tax credits available under ORS 307.124.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Now therefore, as an incentive for JCEP to locate the Facility within the Zone, and in accordance with ORS 285C.403(3)(b) and (c), the parties do hereby enter into the following agreement (the “Agreement”):
II. OBLIGATIONS OF THE COMPANY
A. Conditions
All obligations of JCEP described in this Agreement arise solely because of, and depend entirely upon, the following:
1. JCEP’s development, and the placement in service, of the Facility at the location described in Exhibits A and B.
3
2. JCEP’s ability to avoid property tax liability as provided under ORS 285C.409, while property and improvements comprising the Facility are in the process of being constructed or installed, and for 15 consecutive property tax years thereafter, due to the Facility’s inclusion in the Zone.
If either condition is not satisfied for any reason, JCEP is excused from performance of any obligation pursuant to this Agreement.
B. Statutory Obligations
1. JCEP shall complete the Application and submit a signed original and executed copy of it, with this Agreement and related attachments, to the local zone manager for the Zone and to the County Assessor for Coos County, before the commencement of construction or installation of property and improvements and before hiring employees at the Facility.
2. JCEP shall comply with ORS 285C.412 and 285C.420 and does thereby commit to meet the applicable requirements of the Statutes, such that the particular provisions for qualification of the Facility are those under ORS 285C.412(3), as follows:
a. By the end of the calendar year when the Facility is placed in service, the total cost of the Facility shall equal or exceed _____ percent of the 20___ real market value of all nonexempt taxable property in Coos County up to $____________ million.
b. On or before the third calendar year following the year when the Facility is placed in service, the number of full-time, year-round employees at the Facility shall be ______________ or more.
c. On or before the fifth calendar year following the year when the Facility is placed in service, average annual compensation (including wages, salary, non-mandatory insurance and other financial benefits) of all employees working at the Facility shall equal or exceed 150 percent of the most recent figure for average annual covered payroll in Coos County from the Oregon Employment Department.
C. Additional Obligations
JCEP hereby commits to meet certain additional requirements as reasonably requested by The Zone Sponsor and established solely through this Agreement, as follows:
1. JCEP agrees that failure to satisfy requirements of this paragraph shall result in disqualification of property from exemption in accordance with ORS 285C.420, including but not limited to the payment of back taxes. Any such disqualification shall be pursuant to a 60-day period for resolving the matter after the receipt of notice, as sent by certified mail from the Sponsor to the County Assessor and JCEP. On or before December 31 of each year, in which begins a tax year when the Facility is exempt under ORS 285C.409(1)(c) in or after 20___, JCEP shall
4
pay to The Zone Sponsor a Project Fee in the amount of $_________0,000. (Moneys comprising the Project Fee shall be deposited with The Zone Sponsor and shall be budgeted, expended and distributed by The Zone Sponsor as described in Exhibit C).
2. JCEP shall furnish timely information or document to the Coos County Assessor, the Zone Sponsor and state agencies, as necessary, appropriate, or requested for administrating the provisions of this Agreement or associated tax incentives.
Except as indicated directly above, no promise or warranty attributable to JCEP, whether verbal or written, shall be deemed an obligation or local additional requirement that is in any way incumbent on JCEP for purposes of tax incentives under the Statutes.
III. OBLIGATIONS OF SPONSOR
A. The governing bodies of The Zone Sponsors shall adopt resolutions to authorize the approval of this Agreement, such that:
1. If this resolution has not all been adopted on or before __________, this Agreement becomes null and void
2. Official, executed copies of the adopted resolutions shall be attached and included with this Agreement in Exhibit D
3. The resolution adopted by the governing bodies of The Zone Sponsors shall serve to approve the Facility for the property tax exemption under ORS 285C.403(3)(a).
B. The Zone Sponsors hereby set the period of the property tax exemption for purposes of ORS 285C.409(1)(c) to be 15 consecutive years, notwithstanding any shorter period that may be allowed by law.
C. The Zone Sponsors shall distribute and use the funds paid with the aforementioned Project Fee as described in Exhibit C and shall fully indemnify and hold JCEP harmless from any liability arising from those funds or their use.
D. The Zone Sponsors shall not impose or request any additional requirement of JCEP, except as expressed in this Agreement.
E. The Zone Sponsors shall support JCEP in having the Facility approved by the Governor for the tax credits under ORS 307.124, but The Zone Sponsors make no warranty with respect to its ability to affect any outcome in such regards.
IV. TERM OF AGREEMENT
This Agreement shall commence on the last date of execution by the parties and terminate on June 30 of the last tax year of the exemption.
5
V. GENERAL TERMS
A. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party (provided, however, that JCEP may assign this Agreement to any affiliate involved in the liquification, transport and sale of liquid natural gas without the consent of the Port). JCEP shall provide written notice of any such assignment to the Port and shall, notwithstanding any such assignment, remain liable for its obligations under this Agreement. To avoid any ambiguity, the parties agree that JCEP may not assign this Agreement to any affiliate without the consent of the Port unless such assignment is to any affiliate involved in liquification, transport and sales of liquid natural gas as described in the proceeding sentence.
B. The governing law, jurisdiction, and venue. Any legal action or proceeding with respect to this Agreement or any other documents or instruments executed in connection with this Agreement shall be governed by the Laws, and brought in the Circuit Courts of the State of Oregon without regard to principles of conflicts of laws, and by the execution and delivery of this Agreement, both parties hereto consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of those courts.
C. Attorney’s Fees. If a suit, action, or other proceeding of any nature whatsoever (including any proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code), is instituted in connection with any controversy arising out of this Agreement or to interpret or enforce any rights or obligations hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to attorney, paralegal, accountant, and other expert fees and all other fees, costs, and expenses actually incurred and reasonably necessary in connection therewith, as determined by the court or body at trial or on any appeal or review, in addition to all other amounts provided by law. Payment of all such fees shall also apply to any administrative proceeding, trial, and/or any appeal or petition for review.
D. Miscellaneous Provisions. This Agreement may only be amended in writing, signed by both parties. Waiver of any provision of this Agreement by either party shall not be considered a future waiver of that provision or any other provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement was negotiated at arms’ length by sophisticated parties and shall not be construed against the drafter. Should any provision of the Agreement be deemed illegal, void, or unenforceable the parties intend that all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Each of the parties signing below represents and warrants that
(1). He/she has been authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of their respective organizations; and
(2). Neither the execution of this Agreement, nor the execution, delivery, or recordation of any document or Agreement referenced herein, nor the closing of any transaction contemplated herein, constitutes or will constitute a default under any Agreement to which it is a party. 6
Time is of the essence in the performance of this agreement. Nothing in this Agreement expressed or implied, is intended to or shall confer upon any person other than the parties hereto, and their respective successors and permitted assigns, any rights, benefits, or revenues of any nature under or by reason of this Agreement. This Agreement may be executed by the parties hereto and any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one in the same Agreement. Each counterpart may consist of a number of copies hereof each signed by less than all, but together signed by all, the parties hereto.
E. Notices. All notices to be given hereunder unless specified to the contrary shall be in writing and provided to the parties by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or by a nationally recognized national air carrier service at the following addresses:
Oregon International Port of Coos Bay
PO Box 1215
Coos Bay, OR 97420
Copy to:
Mike Stebbins
P.O. Box 1006
North Bend, OR 97459
JCEP
Copy to:
Any notice shall be deemed given:
(a) If delivered, on the first business day after the date of delivery or refusal of delivery if sent by personal delivery or airborne, Federal Express or a comparable national air carrier service and provided such delivery or refusal delivery is evidenced in writing by the delivery service; or
(b) If mailed on the third business day following mailing if deposited in the United States, postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.
7
SIGNATURES
ACCEPTING FOR THE ZONE SPONSORS OF THE BAY AREA ENTERPRISE ZONE:
County of Coos
__________________________________ Signature
__________________________________ Printed Name
__________________________________ Printed Title
__________________________________ Date
Oregon International Port of Coos Bay
__________________________________ Signature
__________________________________ Printed Name
__________________________________ Printed Title
__________________________________ Date
City of Coos Bay
__________________________________ Signature
__________________________________ Printed Name
__________________________________ Printed Title
__________________________________ Date
City of North Bend
__________________________________ Signature
__________________________________ Printed Name
__________________________________ Printed Title
__________________________________ Date
8
ACCEPTING FOR Jordan Cove Energy Project:
__________________________________ Signature
__________________________________ Printed Name
__________________________________ Printed Title
__________________________________ Date
9
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY SITE
10
EXHIBIT B
MAP OF FACILITY SITE
11
EXHIBIT C
PLAN FOR DISTRIBUTION AND USE PROJECT FEE
[law enforcement, recreation district]
12
EXHIBIT D
COUNTY RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR 15-YEAR EXEMPTION ON RURAL ENTERPRISE ZONE PROPERTY
13

From: Rob Taylor [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 10:35 AM
To: Bobbi Brooks; Bob Main; John Sweet; Melissa Cribbins
Subject: Official Information Request on JCEP in EZ

Hello,

Can someone tell me if the County has passed the resolutions to allow the JCEP to receive the EZ deductions?  According to the EZ agreement below, all members are suppose to pass a resolution.  I have not seen that yet. 

Please look at the following EZ agreement and read the parts highlited in red.  Look at section F letter ii or section 3 letter A.  

Does the county need to pass a resolution?  If the county has passed a resolution then please forward me a copy of that document?  Thank you.... 


Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
PO Box 973
Bandon OR 97411
Phone: 541-347-9942
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com

From: Rob Taylor [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2014 12:41 PM
To: Margaret Barber
Subject: FW: Official Information Request on JCEP in EZ

Hello,

Could you please tell me if any of the members of the Coos Bay Enterprise Zone has voted on any resolutions to allow the tax exemptions for the JCEP? 


Sincerely,
Rob Taylor
PO Box 973
Bandon OR 97411
Phone: 541-347-9942
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.CoosCountyWatchdog.com

A SAOVA message to sportsmen, farmers and pet owners concerned about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged.

Legislation Briefs and Updates June 23, 2014
SAOVA Friends,

Our volunteers are already busy following primary elections and monitoring HSUS/HSLF political contributions. To date contributions to Democrat federal candidates is $92,000 and to Republicans $45,000. Top Senate recipients are Mary Landrieu (D, LA) with $8,000 followed by Senators Kelly Ayotte (R, NH); Thad Cochran (R, MS); Susan Collins (R, ME); and Jack Reed (D, RI) with $3,000. Top recipients among House Members are Jeff Denham (R, CA) with $5,000; Michael Fitzpatrick (R, PA) with $4,000; Earl Blumenhauer (D, OR) with $3,500; and Julia Brownley (D, CA), Peter DeFazio (D, OR), Jim Gerlach (R, PA), Peter Roskam (R, IL), and Kurt Schrader (D, OR) with $3,000. Planning ahead, HSLF contributed $5,000 to the Mikulski for Senate Committee for the 2016 primary.

Notable listing among HSLF independent expenditures is $41,799 supporting the Congressional campaign of Tony Strickland (R, CA).

Who funds HSLF? Many donors are from within the HSUS or from related organizations. Largest donors to date are Carole Baskin (Big Cat Rescue) $10,000; Eric Bernthal, Esq (HSUS Chair of the Board) $10,000; Jeanne and Ed Daniels (animal rights activists) $10,000; Mary Max (HSUS Board of Directors) $10,000; Marian Probst (Fund for Animals) $10,000; Jason Weiss (HSUS Board of Directors) and Donna Weiss $10,000; Peggy Kaplan (HSUS National Council Chair); Richard Kaplan $10,000; and Arthur Benjamin (HSUS
National Council) $5,000.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.
 
Thanks for reading. Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators
[email protected]
[email protected]

HUNTING ON PUBLIC LANDS AT RISK

HSUS has petitioned the Department of the Interior to ban the use of lead ammunition when discharging a firearm on federal lands. The petition, signed by the HSUS, the Fund for Animals, Defenders of Wildlife, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and others, asks that the federal government mandate the use of non-lead ammunition for the taking of all species in areas managed by the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This would put one-fifth of the total land
area of the United States off limits to hunters with traditional ammunition.

Last year HSUS successfully lobbied the California legislature to ban the use of lead ammunition.

CALL YOUR OFFICIALS TODAY:

Call Interior Secretary Sally Jewell today at 202-208-3181 and tell her to reject this scientifically baseless petition from HSUS to ban traditional ammunition. Let the Department of the Interior know that requiring the use of alternative, non-lead ammunition, is nothing more than a back-door way to ban hunting by raising the price of participating in an American sporting tradition.

- There is no sound science to support banning traditional ammunition used
by hunters for centuries.

- There is absolutely no adverse wildlife population impact that warrants
such a drastic measure.

- There is no evidence that consuming game taken with traditional ammunition
poses a human health to hunters and their family.

SUPREME COURT SLAMS EPA ON GREENHOUSE GAS REGULATIONS
June 23, 2104 - Supreme Court Says EPA "Overreached, Violated Separation of Powers"
http://www.southeasternlegal.org/news/2014/6/23/supreme-court-slams-epa-on-greenhouse-gas-regulations.html

The United States Supreme Court today held that the Obama Administration's Environmental Agency overstepped its authority by rewriting the Clean Air Act to fit its regulatory scheme on greenhouse gas emissions.  The Court struck down the agency's broad assertion of power and held that the EPA must have Congressional authorization to rewrite the Clean Air Act.  "This is a powerful end to the five-year climate change challenge," said Shannon Goessling, SLF executive director and chief legal counsel.


Click here for complete statement

Click here for Supreme Court decision

Related Posts:
SCOTUS---Court Takes up case of Fired Air Marshal for whistle-blowing 
SCOTUS---Court Vacates Police Immunity Ruling
7th Circuit Court Rules Against Gun Activist Using Precedence Set in the Drug War 
OR Supreme Court---LOC Celebrates the Fact the Property Owners lose more rights
SCOTUS---Is it a fish or an incriminating document? 
SCOTUS: Google believes Snagging Data over Unsecured WI-FI Is Not Illegal 
SCOTUS---Oregon Protest Case Heard by the Supreme Court Marsh 26, 2014
SCOTUS---Court Upholds Property Rights in Rails-to-Trails Case
SCOTUS----Amazon workers' suit for paid search waits
SCOTUS---Rejects Appeal of Victim Disarmament Legislation 
SCOTUS---Did EPA Overstep on Global Warming 
SCOTUS---Court grants reprieve to death row inmate over pentobarbital 
SCOTUS---Case on Obama Recess Appointments 

Hey Folks,

The following is the letter sent out by the ODFW to the hunters in a survey on Lead Ammo.  California just past an outright ban on the use of lead ammo and eventually some government agency will force that policy on all fifty states through more regulations.  In the mean time, hunters who receive this letter can express their opposition to the ban, and if you do not receive the letter, you can still submit your own opinion.  Even though, it may not count....Rob T.  

Hello Folks,

Monday’s Executive Council meeting, member Roger Doll will be discussing the Oregon Forest Practices Act and the chemical/herbicide use effects on salmon, water, health & soils. He will discuss herbicide use on fish-bearing & non fish-bearing streams, comparisons to Washington & California, recent trends in agriculture - GMO’s, weed resistance and public awareness, and would like the group to discuss. 

7pm at the Annex on Monday the 23rd, hope to see you there!

And I also attached a short briefing paper that was written 18 years ago by our friend and BLM partner, Max Yager.  He was sorry to miss the party and wanted to share his perspective on the early days.  Thanks Max!

Let me know if you have any questions and thank you for all you do!

Cheers,
Kelly

Republican Party of Coos County
When
Thu, June 26, 5:30pm – 6:30pm
Where
Red Lion Hotel
Coos Bay, 1313 N Bayshore Dr, Coos Bay, OR, United States (map)

Description
Regular monthly meeting of the Republican Party of Coos County 5:30 for no-host dinner 6:30 for Central Committee meeting Discussion, Candidates, Public Speakers Everyone is Welcome

Related Posts:
RPCC---Video of Candidate Forum for County Commissioner April 24, 2014
RPCC---Republican Monthly Meeting "Candidate Forum" April 24, 2014
RPCC---Republican Party Monthly Meeting "Candidate Forum" February 27, 2014
RPCC---Republican Party of Coos County Monthly Meeting January 23, 2014
Republican Party of Coos County Monthly Meeting December 19, 2013
RPCC---NO Republican Meeting for November have a Happy Thanksgiving. 
AFP---Patriots Picnic Saturday October 12, 2013
The Republican Party of Coos County Should Take a Stand
Republican Party of Coos County Monthly Meeting Thursday June 27, 2013
Political Leadership School Saturday June 1, 2013
Republican Party of Coos County Monthly Meeting April 25, 2013
Save the Mingus Memorial---Updated 3/31/2013‏
Greg Walden wants Your Opinion
Republican Party of Coos County Monthly Meeting 02/28/2013 At Red Lion  
Republican Party of Coos County Monthly Meeting 01/24/2013 At Red Lion 

Hey Folks,

Recently a group of concerned citizens went out and received several resolutions against nominating Port Orford as a site for a National Marine Sanctuary.  Many believed that the resolutions from 2 counties, Coos & Curry, the city of Port Orford, and the Ports of Bandon, Port Orford, and Gold Beach, would be sufficient in stopping this environmentally extreme endeavor, but not so fast.  President Obama is implementing his  National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes and zoning the oceans controlled by the US.  He also mandated the expansion of the National Marine Sanctuary in the pacific off the coast of Hawaii. http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/MNM/mnm_index.html

This is a policy that will inflate the price of all the food and other resources gathered from the oceans and it will do little to improve the quality of the environment.  The following is the translation of the Plan according to the White House with a response from Doc Hastings.  The battle to stop the feds from seizing the waters and beaches, and all the other natural resources, will continue.....Rob T. 

National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan To translate President Obama's National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes into on-the-ground actions to benefit the American people, the National Ocean Council released the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan.  The Implementation Plan describes specific actions Federal agencies will take to address key ocean challenges, give states and communities greater input in Federal decisions, streamline Federal operations, save taxpayer dollars, and promote economic growth.

The Council developed the Implementation Plan over the past two years with extensive input from national, regional, and local stakeholders from all marine sectors; tribal, State and local governments; and the private sector, scientists and the public.

In early 2012, the National Ocean Council released for public comment the draft Implementation Plan. The final Implementation Plan incorporates suggestions on the draft, including key support for local and regional capacity and self-determination, and the development of more and better information related to ocean conditions. The plan specifies that regional stakeholders will determine the scope, scale and content of collaborative marine planning, that participation is voluntary, and that regional planning bodies will be established only in regions that want them.

Click here to read the press release.

View fact sheets about:

• The Implementation Plan
• Marine Planning
• Coastal Communities
• Recreational Fishing and Boating
• Commercial Fishing
• Aquaculture
• Agriculture
• Offshore Renewable Energy
• Offshore Oil and Gas
• Shipping and Ports

Click here to read the Implementation Plan.

Click here to read the Implementation Plan Appendix.

Click here to read the Draft Implementation Plan and the public comments received.

The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force On June 12, 2009, President Obama sent a memorandum to the heads of executive departments and Federal agencies establishing an Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force and charged it with developing recommendations to enhance national stewardship of the ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes. The Task Force released interim reports for public comment in September 2009 and December 2009, and received and reviewed close to 5,000 written comments from Congress, stakeholders, and the public before finalizing its recommendations. President Obama signed an Executive Order on July 19, 2010 adopting the Final Recommendations and establishing a National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Coasts, and Great Lakes.

Read the Final Recommendations of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force

Hastings: Imperial President Moves Forward with Ocean Zoning

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 17, 2014 - House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) released the following statement regarding President Obama’s announcement of overreaching Executive action to unilaterally lock-up huge portions of the Pacific Ocean:

"For years the Obama Administration has threatened to impose ocean zoning to shut down our oceans, and today the President is making good on that threat.  This is yet another example of how an Imperial President is intent on taking unilateral action, behind closed doors, to impose new regulations and layers of restrictive red-tape.  Oceans, like our federal lands, are intended to be multiple-use and open for a wide range of economic activities that includes fishing, recreation, conservation, and energy production.  It appears this Administration will use whatever authorities – real or made-up – to close our ocean and coastal areas with blatant disregard for possible economic consequences.

“This Administration is creating an unworkable patchwork of management regimes that will hurt our economy and further strain our enforcement capabilities.  The State Department just completed negotiating several science-based international fishery management agreements in the Pacific and is working on changes to an existing international agreement to allow U.S. tuna boats to have access to waters in the South Pacific.  This announcement undercuts all of that work and will likely make the U.S. tuna fleet even less viable, meaning in the not-too-distant future all of America’s tuna will be caught by foreign vessels.”

###

Printable PDF of this Document
Contact: Committee Press Office 202-226-9019

NOAA Announces Updated Process for Nominating New National Marine Sanctuaries   

Franklin Point, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (credit: Robert Schwemmer).

Today at Capitol Hill Ocean Week, John Podesta announced that NOAA will be publishing a final rule re-establishing the process by which the American public can nominate nationally significant marine and Great Lakes areas as potential new national marine sanctuaries.  We're taking this step to address the growing number of requests for new national marine sanctuaries.  ...And your nearly 18,000 comments on the proposed rule, published in June 2013, vastly favor this move.

NOAA's statutory mandate to identify, designate and protect marine areas of special national significance has existed since 1972 through the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. In 1995, the agency deactivated its sanctuary nomination process (known as the Site Evaluation List, or SEL) so that ONMS could focus on management of the existing sanctuary system. Since then, numerous individuals and entities - Members of Congress, state and tribal governments, non-governmental organizations, academic institutions, and others - have inquired about designating a national marine sanctuary in a variety of coastal communities.  Now, for the first time in 19 years, the SEL, which tended to be an agency-driven, "top-down" approach to sanctuary nominations, will be replaced by the sanctuary nomination process, which is based on a more grassroots, "bottom-up" approach.

Notably, while this action allows communities from around the country to nominate their most treasured areas as national marine sanctuaries, it does not guarantee sanctuary designation, nor does it add new regulations to areas in the marine or Great Lakes.

This is your opportunity to protect your treasured places and ensure that they, and the resources contained within, are conserved for generations to come.

We encourage your participation and look forward to your continued engagement.  For more information, check out  sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/nomination/.

Sincerely,
Daniel J. Basta
Director, NOAA's Office of National Marine Sanctuaries 
  sanctuaries.noaa.gov/management/nomination

Related Post
Letter to Editor---Ph.D. Misinforms People of Port Orford About Marine Sanctuary  
Honest Critique of NOAA Meeting in Port Orford 
Why does the Government Own & Hoard Resources?
Local Resolutions Against Marine Sanctuary Off the Coast of Southern Oregon
Natural Resources Committee Approves Legislation to Improve Nation's Fisheries
Port Orford "Action Alert" Environmental Extremist Pushing National Marine Sanctuary 
Support Local Hatcheries Protest Native Fish Society April 11, 2014
Port Orford---Residents Get Closer to Recalling the Mayor for Bad Decision Making 
EPA---Public Comment on Disapproval of OR Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 
City of Port Orford---Argument for the recall of the Mayor 
Senator Whitsett---Oregon: Transfer public lands from feds?
Natural Resources Committee--State Forests Management Superior to Federal Forests
Federal Register taking comments on hunting in The Bandon Marsh
The Nature Conservancy---Oregon Grasslands: Crucial for Wildlife Survival‏
The Bandon Marsh  Mosquito Farm
USFWS---Public Responses to the Bandon Marsh Mosquito Invasion
Letter to Mr. Lowe of the USFWS about the Bandon Marsh Mosquitoe Problem
Department of Interior---Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations AKA The Coquilles
USFS---Federal land buries rural economies in WA & OR   
ODFW---A bright outlook for ocean salmon seasons
EPA---Victims of Government: The Case of Steve Lathrop, Sounds Familiar

DEQ proposes revisions to air quality permitting, Heat Smart, and gasoline dispensing facility rules

 DEQ proposes rule revisions to:

• Clarify and update air quality rules
• Update particulate matter emission standards
• Change permitting requirements for emergency generators and small natural gas or oil-fired equipment
• Establish two new state air quality area designations, “sustainment” and “reattainment,” to help areas avoid and more quickly end a federal nonattainment designation
• Designate Lakeview as a state sustainment area while retaining its federal attainment designation
• Change the New Source Review preconstruction permitting program
• Modernize methods allowed for holding public hearings and meetings
• Re-establish the Heat Smart woodstove replacement program exemption for small commercial solid fuel boilers regulated under the permitting program
• Remove annual reporting requirements for small gasoline dispensing facilities

DEQ requests public comment on the proposed rules. To consider comments on the proposed rules, DEQ must receive the comment by 5:00 p.m., July 31, 2014. DEQ will hold public hearings Jul. 16, 2014. Click here to view the rulemaking documents and details about the public comment period, including the time and location of hearings and how to submit comments.

DEQ plans to take the final proposal including any modifications made in response to public comments to the Environmental Quality Commission for decision at the commission's January 2015 meeting. If adopted, DEQ will submit the rules to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a revision to the State Implementation Plan as required by the Clean Air Act.

Questions? Contact Jill Inahara at 503-229-5001 or [email protected]. In Lane County, contact Max Hueftle at 541-736-1056 or [email protected].

Related Posts:
EPA---Public Comments on Proposed Water Rule to Make Federal Land Grabs Easier 
EPA---Public Comment on Disapproval of OR Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control 
SCOTUS---Did EPA Overstep on Global Warming 
EPA---Public Comments on New Stricter Performance Standards for wood heaters
Federal Legislative Action Alert:  Vote YES on S.890 to Protect Private Property
The Natural Resources Report---Two Stories Showing Cause and Effect
EPA---Article in the Western Mining Alliance Newsletter on Oregon Spotted Frog
EPA---Victims of Government: The Case of Steve Lathrop, Sounds Familiar
Port Orford---Government Ownership equals Poverty and hungry children
The Nature Conservancy---Contact the Oregon Leadership Team 
The Nature Conservancy---Oregon Grasslands: Crucial for Wildlife Survival‏
The Bandon Marsh  Mosquito Farm
USFWS---Public Responses to the Bandon Marsh Mosquito Invasion
Letter to Mr. Lowe of the USFWS about the Bandon Marsh Mosquitoe  Problem
Department of Interior---Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations AKA The Coquilles

Hey Folks,

I have been harping on how Urban Renewal and government economic development for its deleterious effects on our public schools and the economy overall, but the following article is another great example to bolster that argument.   Right now in OR, cities and counties have not begun to fully use their legal ability to create more and larger UR area's or enterprise zones, so these taxing schemes have not been maximized to its fullest extent, yet.  And currently, this system is taking about a billion tax dollars out of the OR state economy and the Portland school district is going to ask for more from the taxpayer. 

Why didn't the use of these types of economic development plans for the last 40 years still not provide a tax base that could support the local school system?    That was the promise made when the politicians asked for the support of the voters to create these taxing programs, but the fulfillment of those promises seem to be lacking in real value.  

When the cities and counties start to become more dependent on these types of corporate sustainability programs, it will cause all the other taxing districts to have to raise the taxes on the people or cut basic services.  The system will continue to pull a huge amount of our income taxes through the state's school equalization program that will also be doled out to cronies and special interest.  It also creates a huge inequity in the so called school equalization program, because larger cities and more populated counties can circumvent the system to pull more of the money from the state's general fund than smaller cities or counties.

  Then, much like Coos county's new Community Enhancement Plan, local politicians will use this system to accrue tax dollars and turn it into corporate welfare, union endowment plans and political slush funds---all to the detriment of the taxpayer.  It is win, win, win for the tax and spend political elite, but it is lose, lose, lose for the average tax payer.....Rob T.

Read more at: 

Hey Folks,

The following story is from Craft3, which is a tax payer funded nonprofit, NGO.  The group lends money to businesses using public taxes and uses the interest on the borrowed funds to build up the groups portfolio. 

It might be good for a few select businesses, but it is a form of government economic development with a heavy emphasis on environmental friendly industries or what I call enviro-eco-devo mumbo-jumbo.  The organization sets the policies to control the recipients and to eliminate any undesired elements.  Banks, and Saving and Loans Companies, had financial standards, but did not focus on the function of the company to make sure it provided some predefined community or environmental benefit.  Those policies of government administrators having the power to pick winners and losers is a form of Economic Fascism.  Please read the report to see where the money went, because you are paying for it.....Rob T. 

Craft3 is a nonprofit lender strengthening economic, ecological and family resilience in Pacific Northwest communities. We do this by providing loans to entrepreneurs, nonprofits, individuals and others who don't normally have access to financing.

Craft3 is pleased to celebrate 20 years of impact in the Pacific Northwest. After two decades our founding vision remains: to strengthen economic, ecological and family resilience in the region. In our 2013 Annual Report, we share the successes of our borrowers, the individuals and businesses that have partnered with Craft3 to improve their own circumstances. Below are the highlights of our 2013 Annual Report. Enjoy! 

Hey Folks,

The following letter is to the Lane County commissioners and the video is excellent.  Lane County may be the first county to pass an actual ordinance against the 2012 NDAA, which will catapult the issue back into the news.  Once this ordinance is passed in Lane County, we are going to take the wording in the ordinance and use it as an initiative for cities and counties who refuse to pass it through a regular vote of the council or committee.  This has been the reason for our delay on filing the NDAA resolution as an initiative in Coos Bay, so Coos Bay, North Bend and Coquille would be a good place to start when we have an actual ordinance in place, which will give it precedence.   

The BOC in Coos County voted to adopt a resolution against the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA, section 1021 and 1022, except for one commissioner. 

Commissioner John Sweet refused to protect the rights of the average citizen and voted NO on the NDAA resolution for Coos County.  Contrary to the oath he took at the beginning of his term, Mr. Sweet must have a problem defending the freedoms of his constituents and this was not the first time.  He opposed the voice of the voters by trying to install a County Administrator.  He just called the position, Finance Director, but it was the same position, so maybe it is time for a change. 

If you would like to show your support for the Lane County Ordinance opposing the unconstitutional provisions of the NDAA, then call or email the commissioners..  The Lane BOC contact info can be found here:
http://www.lanecounty.org/Departments/BCC/Pages/default.aspx

Rob T. 

 Although we could not attend your June 3rd, 2014 Board of County Commissioners meeting, we attentively watched the webcast of your discussions regarding the proposed resolution and ordinance. We were greatly impressed with the well-crafted resolution and your unanimous vote for its approval. We’re also grateful for the dialogue between the commissioners, acknowledging the effectiveness of withholding any county funds or resources from an unconstitutional implementation of sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA. We were greatly disappointed however, in the time your legal council spent transforming the mainly symbolic resolution into anything substantial, or effective in protecting the constitutional rights of your constituents.

At the end of the awe inspiring public hearing where individuals from all across the political spectrum came together to voice their concerns about the NDAA, we saw and heard four commissioners truly committed to addressing their constituents concerns. In all of your final comments to the public, the enactment of an ordinance prohibiting the use of county tax dollars and resources from being used in the assistance of the implementation of the unconstitutional provisions of NDAA in Lane County was mentioned. Pat Farr also explicitly requested the BCC legal council to look into and draft several possibilities into how this effort could be effectively done. Despite Mr. Farr’s request, the legal council spent much of their time and energy reviewing and deconstructing an example ordinance submitted by Shane Ozbun, former State Director of PANDA ~ Oregon. Although this sample ordinance submitted by Mr. Ozbun, who has no experience drafting legislation, was clearly submitted with the purposes to help the BCC legal council brainstorm possibilities to fulfill Mr. Farr’s formal request for ordinance options. This submission was not intended to be the only and primary ordinance option available to the commissioners.

The legal council, and you the commissioners, were in the right with your concerns over the broad terminology used in the proposed ordinance. After all, it’s the broad terminology of the language in the 2012 NDAA that concerned the 300 people who attended your public hearing one month ago. However, after listening and reviewing the materials submitted by your legal council, I found that many of the arguments against this ordinance are relatively easy to solve and clarify. Below I have outline the concerns made in section ‘D’ and ‘E’ of their June 3rd report titled; Review of a proposed County Ordinance prohibiting expenditure of resources in implementation of illegal federal directives to arrest and detain US citizens in certain cases:

 

Section D: Financial and/or Resource Considerations

Moving forward, if the Board adopts an Ordinance, there are a number of unknown resource considerations including:

o    How the federal government will allocate resources to Lane County if it has adopted policies which make it a crime to carry

out certain federal laws.

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Lane County’s ordinance would only affect a federal law that becomes unconstitutionally interpreted. In the case of section 1021 and 1022 of the 2012 NDAA, it would only be a criminal act to assist or fund the NDAA’s implementation once it has violated the constitutional due process rights of its citizens, or more easily and specifically defined in the contents of ORS Volume 4: Criminal Procedures, Crime.

…unknown resource considerations including:(continued)

o   The public safety resources required in order to arrest, prosecute, and jail those who may be found guilty of implementing federal law in light of the well-known resource constraints currently existing in Lane County.

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Your extremely diverse constituency, both geographically and politically in Lane County, supported the idea of an ordinance because it actually codified their concerns. Despite resource constraints in the rare occasion where an individual assists in the implantation of an activity that usurped state criminal procedures, and stripped persons of their constitutional rights, the use of funds to arrest, prosecute, and jail those individuals would be deemed appropriate.

…unknown resource considerations including:(continued)

o    How the Board would trigger a “freeze” on expending fiscal resources in the event the federal government seeks assistance enforcing the provisions of the 2012 NDAA, and would that freeze only apply to certain revenues?

 

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: In the event that the federal government unconstitutionally implements sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA in ways that violate the constitutional rights of Lane County citizens, absolutely no funds, resources, or personnel should be allocated in assistance of that effort. In this situation, Lane County would also have legal standing to file suite against those who violate the U.S. and State Constitutions as well as the Oregon state laws. Due to the valid legal standing Lane County would have, this hypothetical lawsuit could have the potential to reach the Supreme Court with the opportunity to rule sections 1021 and 1022 of the NDAA as unconstitutional. At the very minimum this would at least bring massive public and political awareness to the issue.

 

 E. Analysis (from the Review of a proposed County Ordinance)

1) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 1 of ‘E’:

- No other ordinance in the U.S. has been passed against the NDAA, so why should Lane County pass one?

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: According to the A.O.C.’s report on County Home Rule, Oregon counties have the most discretionary authority on local matter than any other state in the U.S.. Lane County has received the most overwhelming amount of bipartisan support for such an ordinance, and supporter have come from all across Lane County’s jurisdiction. With the recent Supreme Court’s refusal to rule on the constitutionality of the 2012 NDAA, on March 28th of 2014, increases the importance in addressing this issue with both local and states solutions.

2) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 2 of ‘E’:

-Penalty for violating ordinance exceeds the scope of county’s authority

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Simply change the penalty for the proposed ordinance to the maximum penalty allowed under county law, both monetarily and with time served.

3) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 3 of ‘E’:

-Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution: State laws are inferior and cannot conflict with federal laws.

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: The text of the Supremacy Clause reads as; “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof.” The NDAA was passed legally under the U.S. Constitution, however, in the event where sections 1021 and 1022 become unconstitutionally interpreted and implemented violating other rights explicitly written in the U.S. Constitution, those provisions in the NDAA no longer become the “law of the land” because they are not “in pursuance thereof” the U.S. Constitution.

4) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 4 of ‘E’:

- State courts are bound then to give effect to federal law when it is applicable and to disregard state law when there is a conflict.

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Oregon has a long history of State Constitutionalism. Hans Linde, former Supreme Court Justice in Oregon, wrote extensively about the subject stating that state courts are allowed to think independently on individual cases and are not expected to follow slavishly to U.S. Supreme Court precedence on every case. Oregon along with many other states’ Supreme Courts have made rulings on specific cases that applied more protections to the 1st Amendment and due process rights than the U.S. Supreme Court had in previous cases. These decisions have not been overturned or challenged at the federal level.

5) Summary of legal council’s arguments against an ordinance in paragraph 5 of ‘E’:

-A court challenge would be twofold: (1) the conduct to be criminalized is so vague that a reasonable person could not know if they were violating it (facially unconstitutional) and it could potentially criminalize lawful constitutional expression (unconstitutional as applied).

PANDA ~ Oregon’s Response: Mr. Ozbun was only submitting an example ordinance and believed the legal council would be able, and more importantly, willing to fix some of the issues with the legalese of the ordinance. The crime could be easily defined by any entity attempting to violate the due process procedures outline in Volume 4 of the ORS titled Criminal Procedure, Crime. One example of this would be ignoring the right for the accused/detained to see a judge within 72 hours of being detained. Any county employee (who is a “county resource” and operating under “county funds”) that becomes aware of such illegal activity outlined above, should be required to report such activity to the proper authorities (i.e. County Sheriff), and deny any support or resources under their authority to the violators of the state and or county law. If the county employee fails to do so, they are then aiding and abetting criminal activities further defined under ORS § 161.155 Criminal liability for conduct of another.

I hope these counter legal arguments help you continue your brave dedication and support towards defending your constituents’ constitutional rights, and your Oath of Office. I ask that you reopen the discussion for an effective ordinance at the next possible BCC meeting. I’m more than happy and willing to work with your staff in anyway to make this process as fast and effective as possible. I will be sending this letter to all the political action groups and the individuals who have dedicated much of their time and energy in bringing awareness to this issue. I have also provided a link below where you can access your comments made on April 15th regarding the public hearing of your unanimous support for an ordinance, as well as Mr. Farr’s request to your legal council to provide a few different ordinance options. Thank you for the services you provide this county and for your support and time spent on this issue specifically. For any future inquiries or action concerning PANDA ~ Oregon, or the NDAA, please get in touch with me by phone or e-mail as I will now be the primary contact for PANDA ~ Oregon.

Sincerely,
Colin Farnsworth
PANDA Oregon State Director
Phone: (206)450-7249

Commissioners’ comments on April 15th NDAA public hearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UnT_KJSpXQ