Friday, November 18, 2016 

In late 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a major update to the Worker Protection Standards (WPS). These rules apply when most pesticide products are used on an agricultural establishment.

You can read the updated EPA rules HERE. And an OFS overview can be found HERE.

Most of the new rules go into effect on January 1, 2017 and the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OR-OSHA) is currently finalizing the Oregon specific rules for implementation. While some of the Oregon specific rules are positive, other sections are troubling. That's why OR-OSHA needs to hear from you!

The draft OR-OSHA rules are out for comment, and they will be hosting listening sessions at three locations across Oregon November 29 - December 7.
Hood River         
November 29, 2016, 11:00am             
Pine Grove Grange
(2900 Van Horn Drive Hood River, OR)
 
Woodburn         
December 1, 2016, 10:00am             
Woodburn Grange
(908 N Settlemier Avenue, Woodburn, OR)
 
Medford 
December 7, 2016, 10:00am             
Medford/City Hall
(Suite 340, 411 W 8th Street, Medford, OR)
 
We encourage you to attend the hearings and comment on the proposed rules. You can find the OFS overview of the rules that includes important points HERE.
If you are unable to attend a listening session, you can also submit comments through the OFS VoterVoice sytem at: http://tinyurl.com/wpsofs
Or via email directly to OR-OSHA at tech.web@oregon.gov  
All comments are due by December 14th.

Have a great weekend!

Katie, Scott, Diann & Angi

Related Posts:
EPA ~ Eliminating Valuable Neonicotinoid Insecticides from Agriculture Use
Natural Resources Damning Animas Report on EPA & DOI Mismanagement  
Help Save Ranchers from Harsh USDOJ Punishment for Accidental Fire Sign Petition
EPA ~ Clean Water Rule is a Land-Grab by Obama Administration
EPA ~ Another Government Agency Using Children like Guinea Pigs
#DEQ ~Eats Crow & Proposes Temporary Revisions to Greenhouse Gas Permitting
DEQ---Extends Public Comment to August 28 for Proposed Air Quality Permitting  
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

January 6, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its preliminary pollinator risk assessment for imidacloprid, the first of several neonicotinoid insecticides ("neonics") undergoing registration reevaluation.  Following its release, many groups have provided their comments to the EPA regarding the report's conclusions.  As we approach the end of the public comment period, we need your help to make sure the voice of agriculture is adequately represented.

The assessment can be found HERE.
Comments are due by APRIL 14th.
 
Trade names for imidacloprid include:
Admire
Advise
Alias
Attendant
Axcess
Bravo
Commando
Emerge
Gaucho
Hotshot
Kilter
Malice
Mallet
Merit
Midas
Pronto
and others... check your labels!

Opponents of modern agriculture are working overtime to remove neonics from the marketplace.  Aided by a sympathetic media that all too often gives credence to their unsupported claims, these groups hope to convince the EPA that neonics must be banned to save our bees.  Even though there is no rational basis for their allegations, we have seen what happens in Europe and elsewhere when political expediency trumps sound science.  We cannot afford to let that happen here.
 
While we sometimes criticize our regulators for not always using a scientific approach to rulemaking, there is much in this risk assessment report that we can agree with and we should let them know that.  For example, the report found that most uses of imidacloprid pose minimal risks to pollinators.  Unfortunately, there are several areas, in which the potential risks are overestimated and we plan to work with the EPA to explain and correct this.
 
Comments are due by APRIL 14th.

Please contact Scott or Katie with any questions. (503) 370-8092

Click the link below to log in and send your message:
https://www.votervoice.net/BroadcastLinks/U1q_NJP3RETk7OyX08DF9g 

It appears that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is getting more active in the waning days of the current administration. From suing an Oregon farmer for stabilizing a stream bank to potentially placing major restrictions on important pesticide tools to funding billboards in Washington State that target agriculture, (see our first article) the EPA is clearly ramping up their activities around pesticides and farming practices.

Related Posts:
Natural Resources Damning Animas Report on EPA & DOI Mismanagement  
Help Save Ranchers from Harsh USDOJ Punishment for Accidental Fire Sign Petition
EPA ~ Clean Water Rule is a Land-Grab by Obama Administration
EPA ~ Another Government Agency Using Children like Guinea Pigs
#DEQ ~Eats Crow & Proposes Temporary Revisions to Greenhouse Gas Permitting
DEQ---Extends Public Comment to August 28 for Proposed Air Quality Permitting  
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

Related Posts:
Bandon Changes the Revered Day of Infamy to Trash Art Day
BOC ~ Important Public Work Session on Tide Gates Monday September 28, 2015
ODFW ~ Conservation Opportunity Areas for Stealing Private Property
USACE ~ Comment on Permit Application Process Wednesday November 18, 2015
USFWS ~ Treating Private Property off the Bandon Marsh
The Mosquitoes Return to the Coquille Valley
Sweet Recall Meeting 7:00pm Friday July 31, 2015
Two Bills on Wetlands in Oregon Legislature SB544 Protects Landowners
ACTION ALERT ~ Bandon City Council Meeting Jan. 5, 2015 ~ Real Mosquito Report
Fred Messerle Bankrupting Beaver Slough Drainage District to Harass Neighbor  
ODFW ~ Permit for the Winter Lake/China Creek Project,  Messerle Named Manager  
ODFW ~ Purchases Private Property for Wetland Restoration "Mosquito Preserve"
Did the Mayor of Bandon Lie to the People of Coos County? 
Officials Obscuring Facts on the Bandon Marsh Mosquito Infestation
#USFWS Admits Fault for the Bandon Mosquito Infestation
Someone should have told the USFWS the Three Reasons Mosquitoes Suck 

You may have heard this story. An elderly cattle rancher and his son started two preventive fires on their own property in Eastern Oregon that also accidentally scorched adjacent public lands. The ranchers paid a steep legal and financial price for the damage they caused. And now the U.S. Dept. of Justice – our own government – is branding two salt-of-the-earth Americans as “terrorists” for starting prescribed burns.

Sign the petition at http://SaveTheHammonds.com and tell the DOJ to stop this cruel and unusual punishment of American ranchers – not terrorists – who have paid their debt to society. Sign now and share this with your friends! #SaveTheHammonds

Related Posts:
DEQ---Extends Public Comment to August 28 for Proposed Air Quality Permitting  
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

Action Alert
Thursday, August 14, 2014  

Comments on EPA Worker Protection Standard Changes 
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently updating the Federal Worker Protection Standards (WPS) in regards to pesticides and it's important that they hear from you. 

Comments on the proposed changes are due next Monday, August 18.

You can submit your comments and find more information about the proposed changes HERE.

Proposed changes include:

1. Changing the WPS training requirement from every 5 years to every year.
2. Expansion of restricted areas around applications
3. Strengthening of notification requirements 
4. Many others

 

Important points to remember in your comments:

• We all agree that protecting workers who operate with and around pesticides is important, but some of the proposed changes create a burden that greatly outweighs the benefits.

• Reducing the training interval from 5 years to 1 fails to recognize the workers' existing experience and previous training, the nature of the duties of the workers and whether changes in duties have occurred since the last training. A good alternative would be to have periodic in-depth training supplemented by more frequent "refresher" training.

• Expanding re-entry intervals (REI) and areas could have unintended consequences for some operations. For example if farmworker housing is near a field, the REI could keep workers out of their homes unnecessarily.

• ODA has the plant scientists expertise to determine if additional Oregon specific regulations are needed.

• In the past, oral notification to workers has been sufficient for most applications, with written notification being a supplement. The proposed changes would up the standard in many situations to require written notification and sign posting. The timeline surrounding the sign posting would be particularly onerous as applications often change based on weather or other conditions and posting is not allowed more than 24hrs in advance.  
  

If you have any questions please call Paulette or Scott at (503) 370-8092

Watch out if it ever get's wet!

EPA's proposed rule to drop the word "navigable" and redefine the "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) to include every occasionally damp ditch and puddle in the nation is a land grab of epic proportions.

Ron Arnold has fresh details at CFACT.org.

EPA thought it could slip this one by. 
WOTUS? What's that?  Water?  Does that affect me?

Unfortunately for the big government crowd, people are catching on a lot faster than EPA would like.  Farm Bureaus and organizations like CFACT have been working hard to get the word out. 

Tens of thousands of people have signed and circulated CFACT's statement to the EPA.  If you haven't had a chance yet, sign on today and circulate it to others.  The public's chance to offer public comment closes in October.

Ron writes, "dumbfounding as WOTUS is, that’s not what makes this horror extraordinary. The fury ignited by WOTUS — an entry in the Federal Register that could easily be ignored as just another technical bureaucratic maneuver — is what’s remarkable: Where the rule says “water,” a substantial public correctly hears “land.” They get it. They really get it."

Obama's EPA has forgotten how our system works.  Congress writes the laws.  EPA's job is to faithfully administer them. 

If our would-be bureaucratic masters never learned about "checks and balances" in school, it's up to you and me to teach them.   

For nature and people too,
  Craig Rucker
Executive Director

CFACT experts testify at EPA power plant hearings

EPA held hearings today on proposed rules that would place tremendous burdens on existing power plants that would force many to shut down.

President Obama's EPA seeks to mandate a 30% reduction in U.S. CO2 emissions (over 1995 levels) by 2030.

This is radical.  This is damaging.  This is a mistake.

Congress considered regulating CO2 emissions through a cap and trade plan, but deliberately elected not to.

EPA, rather than faithfully administering the law, is stretching 1970's Clean Air Act far beyond the recognition of the legislators who voted on it.

We have extensive coverage on EPA overreach at CFACT.org.

CFACT senior policy analyst Bonner Cohen testified at the EPA hearing session in Washington, D.C.

Marita Noon, who in the spring completed a college speaking tour sponsored by CFACT Collegians, presented CFACT's testimony to the EPA hearing in Atlanta, Georgia (Pictured testifying right).  You can read it at CFACT.org.

EPA's hearing follows close on the heels of the revelation that the average price of American electricity prices just hit an all time high of 14.3 cents per kilowatt hour. 

EPA's proposed rule would push electricity rates drastically higher and take a terrible toll on jobs, manufacturing and family's cost of living.

CFACT intends to continue our efforts to educate government officials and citizens about the serious damage this and other EPA rules will do to the U.S. economy.  

The facts belong on the record. 

We'll make sure they are.

For nature and people too,
  Craig Rucker
Executive Director

Federal Land Managers Intimidation, Bullying Threaten Citizens Rights, Create a Hostile Environment

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 2014 - Today, the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulations held an oversight hearing on “Threats, Intimidation and Bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies.” This hearing continued Committee oversight into bullying by federal land management agencies and federal law enforcement agencies on private, state, and federal lands.  State and local governments, ranchers, business owners, and private citizens have been subject to threats, lack of cooperation, and numerous unfair or heavy-handed tactics which threaten public safety, the environment, endangered species, and the livelihoods of communities. Congressional oversight is necessary to provide an effective check on federal officials who abuse their regulatory powers.

“Today we took a second look at threats, intimidation and bullying by Federal Land Managing Agencies. During a hearing the Committee held last year and again today, we heard first-hand accounts of mistreatment at the hands of federal officials seeking to extort the witnesses into relinquishing their property rights,” said Representative Doug LaMalfa (CA-01). “These firsthand accounts  give the victims of abusive conduct by a federal land managing official a chance to tell their story to Congress. Status quo agency oversight, policies and procedures are inadequate for addressing or deterring employee abuses and may instead embolden overreaching or malicious employee behavior with little risk of retribution for their actions.”

Witnesses highlighted examples of flagrant intimidation met by citizens who refuse to surrender their constitutional rights, land and water rights, grazing permits and other multiple-use benefits.

###############################################################3
Contact: Committee Press Office 202-226-9019

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.

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

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 

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 inahara.jill@deq.state.or.us. In Lane County, contact Max Hueftle at 541-736-1056 or max@lrapa.org.

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

Summary
After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of "waters of the US" protected under all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act has a single definition for "waters of the United States." As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current regulatory definition of "waters of the United States." However, the decisions established important considerations for how those regulations should be interpreted, and experience implementing the regulations has identified several areas that could benefit from additional clarification through rulemaking. U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are developing a proposed rule for determining whether a water is protected by the Clean Water Act. This rule would make clear which waterbodies are protected under the Clean Water Act.

EPA tries land grab with water rule May 30, 2014
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers’ proposed definition of “Waters of the U.S.” has raised grave concern from cattle producers across the country. Today, Jack Field, cattle rancher and Washington Cattlemen’s Association executive vice president, testified before the House of Representatives Small Business Committee to discuss the overregulation and impeding impacts of the rule for rural America.

“First and foremost, the cattle industry prides itself on being good stewards of our country’s natural resources,” said Field, who owns and operates a cattle operation in Washington. “We maintain open spaces, healthy rangelands, preserve wildlife habitat, and provide the country with the juicy ribeyes we all love to throw on the grill. However, to provide all these important functions, cattlemen must be able to operate without excessive federal burdens.”

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association believes the proposed definition of “waters of the United States” expands the federal jurisdiction to include essentially all waters across the country, subjecting landowners to increased regulation and fines of up to $37,500 per day.

The increase in liability will chill landowner participation in conservation activities by making the Natural Resources Conservation Service a regulatory compliance agency. Field testified that the EPA and the Corps’ interpretive rule would make NRCS standards mandatory for all conservation activities, despite whether they are voluntary or cost-shared.

“This didn’t have to be the result,” said Field. “All the agencies had to do was engage stakeholders early on in the process, incorporate our suggestions and we would be much farther along in crafting a rule that actually clarifies the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. There was zero outreach to the agriculture community before the rule was proposed and before the interpretive rule went into effect. We are now left with a proposal that doesn’t work for small businesses, doesn’t work for cattle ranchers, and doesn’t work for the environment.”

NCBA strongly opposes EPA and the Corps’ definition and encourages producers and small business owners to submit comments to the EPA. The comment deadline is July 21, 2014.

Expanded by Proposal Release
Date: 03/25/2014
Contact Information: Julia Q. Ortiz, ortiz.julia@epa.gov, 202-564-1931; En español: Lina Younes; younes.lina@epa.gov , 202-564-9924, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) today jointly released a proposed rule to clarify protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation’s water resources. The proposed rule will benefit businesses by increasing efficiency in determining coverage of the Clean Water Act. The agencies are launching a robust outreach effort over the next 90 days, holding discussions around the country and gathering input needed to shape a final rule.

Determining Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands became confusing and complex following Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. For nearly a decade, members of Congress, state and local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups, and the public asked for a rulemaking to provide clarity.

The proposed rule clarifies protection for streams and wetlands. The proposed definitions of waters will apply to all Clean Water Act programs. It does not protect any new types of waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act and is consistent with the Supreme Court’s more narrow reading of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

“We are clarifying protection for the upstream waters that are absolutely vital to downstream communities,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “Clean water is essential to every single American, from families who rely on safe places to swim and healthy fish to eat, to farmers who need abundant and reliable sources of water to grow their crops, to hunters and fishermen who depend on healthy waters for recreation and their work, and to businesses that need a steady supply of water for operations.”

"America's waters and wetlands are valuable resources that must be protected today and for future generations,” said Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Jo-Ellen Darcy. “Today's rulemaking will better protect our aquatic resources, by strengthening the consistency, predictability, and transparency of our jurisdictional determinations. The rule's clarifications will result in a better public service nationwide."

The health of rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters depend on the streams and wetlands where they begin. Streams and wetlands provide many benefits to communities – they trap floodwaters, recharge groundwater supplies, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. They are also economic drivers because of their role in fishing, hunting, agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing.

About 60 percent of stream miles in the U.S. only flow seasonally or after rain, but have a considerable impact on the downstream waters. And approximately 117 million people – one in three Americans – get drinking water from public systems that rely in part on these streams. These are important waterways for which EPA and the Army Corps is clarifying protection.

Specifically, the proposed rule clarifies that under the Clean Water Act and based on the science:

· Most seasonal and rain-dependent streams are protected.
· Wetlands near rivers and streams are protected.
· Other types of waters may have more uncertain connections with downstream water and protection will be evaluated through a case specific analysis of whether the connection is or is not significant. However, to provide more certainty, the proposal requests comment on options protecting similarly situated waters in certain geographic areas or adding to the categories of waters protected without case specific analysis.

The proposed rule preserves the Clean Water Act exemptions and exclusions for agriculture. Additionally, EPA and the Army Corps have coordinated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop an interpretive rule to ensure that 56 specific conservation practices that protect or improve water quality will not be subject to Section 404 dredged or fill permitting requirements. The agencies will work together to implement these new exemptions and periodically review, and update USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation practice standards and activities that would qualify under the exemption. Any agriculture activity that does not result in the discharge of a pollutant to waters of the U.S. still does not require a permit.

The proposed rule also helps states and tribes – according to a study by the Environmental Law Institute, 36 states have legal limitations on their ability to fully protect waters that aren’t covered by the Clean Water Act.

The proposed rule is supported by the latest peer-reviewed science, including a draft scientific assessment by EPA, which presents a review and synthesis of more than 1,000 pieces of scientific literature. The rule will not be finalized until the final version of this scientific assessment is complete.

Forty years ago, two-thirds of America’s lakes, rivers and coastal waters were unsafe for fishing and swimming. Because of the Clean Water Act, that number has been cut in half. However, one-third of the nation’s waters still do not meet standards.

The proposed rule will be open for public comment for 90 days from publication in the Federal Register. The interpretive rule for agricultural activities is effective immediately.

More information: www.epa.gov/uswaters

Watch Administrator McCarthy’s overview: http://youtu.be/ow-n8zZuDYc

Watch Deputy Chief of Staff Arvin Ganesan’s explanation: http://youtu.be/fOUESH_JmA0

Related Posts:
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

March 10, 2014

On December 20th the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released their drafted disapproval of Oregon's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program (CNPCP). This disapproval was issued in response to a 2010 settlement agreement via Northwest Environmental Advocates (NWEA).  Oregon needs your help to ensure that funding issued under the CNPCP for water quality related programs and restoration important to farms and ranches are protected.  Please help us spread the word and let the NOAA know that Oregon's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program works!

How to protect funding for nonpoint source related water quality improvement projects on farms and ranches:

Thank you for taking steps to comment on the Notice of Intent to Find that Oregon has Failed to Submit an Approvable Coastal Nonpoint Program (78 FR 77104). This disapproval will mean the loss of $1.2 million that is used for restoration and improvement projects in Oregon in 2014/2015. Over time, it would mean the loss of up to $2 million each year that is being used by Oregon, and in particular, soil and water conservation districts (SWCD), for restoration and improvement projects.

In the sample comments linked here, please add information in the yellow highlighted portions.  Please personalize the comments in other ways that make sense to you as well. At a minimum, be sure to add:

• The date at the top; 
• Your name and contact information at the bottom (found just above the "References" section);
• And information about your own operation within the introductory paragraphs. For example, add details such as the nature of your livestock operation; what you've done to improve or protect water quality; and how long your family has farmed/ranched in the area. 

It is important to make these comments as unique as possible. 

Comments are due no later than March 20, 2014.

They should be emailed to joelle.gore@noaa.gov.

Thank you for your time, and please feel free to contact me via the information below if you have any questions or concerns. 

Sincerely,
Lauren Montgomery
Communications Officer
Oregon Cattlemen's Association
V: (503) 361-8941x12
C: (541) 619-2705
E: lauren@orcattle.com

Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012

As a Senator, I have taken steps to rein in the EPA's war on private property. Thousands of property owners across America are facing aggressive action from the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, with no legal means to fight back. While environmental protection is important, I believe that it must be balanced with the constitutional right of landowners to do what they please with their own property. That is why I introduced S.890, The Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2013. This bill will restore common sense to federal jurisdiction over navigable waters, and place reasonable limitations on an agency that has become dangerously out of control.

A House companion of the Defense of Environment and Property Act, H.R. 3377, has been introduced by Congressman Mac Thornberry, of Texas.

Several organizations have endorsed the Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2013, including:

• National Mining Association

Summary: S.890 — 113th Congress (2013-2014)
There is one summary for this bill. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

Shown Here:
Introduced in Senate (05/07/2013) Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2013 - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) to redefine "navigable waters" to specify that included territorial seas are those that are: (1) navigable-in-fact; or (2) permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies of water that form geographical features commonly known as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes that are connected to waters that are navigable-in-fact. Excludes from such term: (1) waters that do not physically abut navigable waters and lack a continuous surface water connection to navigable waters; (2) man-made or natural structures or channels through which water flows intermittently or ephemerally, or that periodically provide drainage for rainfall; or (3) wetlands without a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are waters of the United States.

Prohibits activities carried out by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Army Corps of Engineers from impinging upon states' power over land and water use.

Prohibits: (1) aggregation of such excluded wetlands or waters from being used to determine or assert federal jurisdiction, and (2) wetlands without a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are waters of the United States from being considered to be under federal jurisdiction.

Authorizes states or individual property owners to obtain judicial review of jurisdictional determinations by the Administrator or the Secretary of the Army that would affect their ability to plan the development and use of land and water resources within 30 days after such a determination.

Considers groundwater to be state water. Prohibits groundwater from being considered in determining or asserting federal jurisdiction over isolated or other waters.

Prohibits the Administrator from using a significant nexus test to determine federal jurisdiction over navigable waters and waters of the United States.

Nullifies: (1) the Corps' rule entitled "Final Rule for Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers," (2) EPA's proposed rule entitled "Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Clean Water Act Regulatory Definition of 'Waters of the United States,'" (3) the guidance document entitled "Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States (relating to the definition of waters under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act), and (4) any subsequent regulation or guidance issued by federal agencies that defines or interprets the term "navigable waters."

Prohibits the Corps and EPA from promulgating rules or issuing guidance that expands or interprets the definition of navigable waters unless expressly authorized by Congress.

Sets forth provisions requiring federal agencies to obtain consent of private property owners prior to entering their land to collect information about navigable waters.

Requires federal agencies that issue regulations that relate to the definition of navigable waters or waters of the United States and diminish the fair market value or economic viability of a property to pay the affected property owner an amount equal to twice the value of the loss. Gives no force or effect to such regulation until landowners with such claims have been compensated.

Related Posts:
OFF---Public Comment needed on the First Gun Bills Scheduled for 2014 Legislature
US Congressional Legislation on Public Access in Natural Resource Committee
Congressman Peter DeFazio Votes in favor of more Land Acquisitions
Ashland, OR debates the Right to Bear Arms,  Two must see videos on the subject 
Oregon Legislative Action Alert: Vote NO on SB1538 Support School Choice
Oregon Legislative Action Alert:  VOTE NO on SB 1538, it limits school choice

SCOTUS battle: Did EPA overstep on global warming?
Source: Christian Science Monitor "Under the US system of government, federal agencies are afforded a wide discretion to shape policies that will give force to statutes passed by Congress. But how much discretion is too much discretion? On Monday, the US Supreme Court took up a case examining whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exceeded its regulatory power when it sought to expand the use of the Clean Air Act to regulate the release of greenhouse gases that scientists say are causing global warming." (02/24/14)

http://tinyurl.com/mjz8t75

Hey Watchdogs,
You better buy Grandma long johns,  the EPA is taking away the ability of people to heat their homes and in some cases, cook their meals.  Property rights are under attack. Your yard is next....Rob T. 

• Comment on the NSPS for Residential Wood Heaters
• Attend the public hearing for the proposed standards

On January 3, 2014, EPA proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Residential Wood Heaters.

You will need Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s About PDF page to learn more.

• Proposed Standards for New Residential Wood Heaters (PDF)(354 pp, 1 MB)
• Proposed Wood Heater NSPS Overview Fact Sheet (PDF)(4 pp, 419 K)
• Fact Sheet: Proposed Requirements for Wood Stoves and Pellet Stoves (PDF)(2 pp, 101 K)
• Fact Sheet: Proposed Requirements for Hydronic Heaters and Forced Air Furnaces (PDF)(3 pp, 108 K)
• Fact Sheet: Proposed Requirements for Masonry Heaters (PDF)(2 pp, 81 K)

Contact Us to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.

Cattlemen at odds with EPA on coastal pollution plan
Posted: 30 Dec 2013 05:00 AM PST
By Oregon Cattlemen’s Association OCA statement on EPA/NOAA disapproval of Oregon’s Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program The Oregon Cattlemen’s Association (OCA) disagrees with the current...




Oregon farm income is dropping
Posted: 31 Dec 2013 05:00 AM PST
By Oregon Department of Agriculture Last year fails to match 2011’s impressive bottom line despite good prices & production Oregon farmers and ranchers fell short last year of 2011’s near record...
Continue to our web site to read the rest of this article...

Witnesses Highlight Examples of How ESA Settlements are Harming Transparency, State and Local Economies, and Efforts to Conserve Species

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 12, 2013 - Today, the House Natural Resources Committee held an oversight hearing entitled “ESA Decisions by Closed-Door Settlement: Short-Changing Science, Transparency, Private Property, and State & Local Economies.” This hearing examined the impacts of the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) closed-door mega-settlements on listing and critical habitat decisions and the need to reform this law to ensure that its focus is on recovering species while protecting jobs and local economies.

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

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

Witnesses at the hearing highlighted the importance of local conservation efforts already underway and how deadlines dictated by closed-door mega-settlements with litigious groups are driving federal listing decisions rather than sound science guided by transparent information.

Jeff Sikes, Legislative Director for the Association of Arkansas Counties, called into question the federal government’s “sue-and-settle” practices leading to questionable ESA listings. “Litigation has devastated the West, and now appears prepared to wreak the same sort of havoc in the South/Southeast. The Neosho Mucket and the Rabbitsfoot Mussel have the potential of putting 42% of our state’s watershed into critical habitat. There should be no attempts by the Fish and Wildlife Service to minimize the impacts that may be visited upon the landowners, most of whom work their tails off every day, to support their families and pay taxes.”

Carl Albrecht, CEO of Garkane Energy Cooperative, highlighted the need for listing decisions to be driven by transparent and sound information and shared with the Committee the negative effects that these listing decisions are having on rural communities. “Federal agencies begin treating species as threatened before they are ever listed under the ESA. Such is the case with the Sage Grouse in our area.  Some scientific documents on Sage Grouse released by the Department of the Interior have raised serious questions about the data and analysis used in the reports along with concerns over potential conflicts of interest among peer reviewers of the documents.” Albrecht added, “We continue incurring expenses to mitigate impacts based on the information from these reports…Garkane and other rural electric cooperatives across the nation believe that, in this the 40th year of the Act, we must look at some type of reform to alleviate the ever escalating economic burden being placed on the backs of a few.”

Greg Foley, Executive Director for the Kansas Department of Agriculture’s Division of Conservation, shared with the Committee the devastating impact that a listing would have on successful state and local conservation efforts of the Lesser Prairie Chicken.  “Agriculture is the economic driver in Kansas; negative impact to that engine means schools will close, population will decline, jobs will be lost...Because the vast majority of the Lesser Prairie Chicken range is under private ownership, a federal listing will likely hinder our ability to conserve the species rather than increase populations as intended.”  Foley called on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to “expedite consideration of all plans” to make sure the needs of local communities, economies, and affected species are met.

Megan Maxwell, Consulting Biologist from Broomfield, Colorado, pointed out the serious flaws and lack of transparency of the federal National Technical Team (NTT) report for Greater Sage Grouse. “The technical and policy flaws contained in the NTT Report are considerable and must be addressed before it is fully implemented as the ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach will produce misguided land management policies that will not benefit sage-grouse range-wide.  Such policies will not provide the best approach to sage-grouse habitat conservation and enhancement because sage-grouse conservation measures must be custom-tailored to reflect site-specific conditions.  Failure to address this problem in the NTT Report could result in ecologically devastating consequences, while broad application could conflict with FLPMA and other laws.”
###
 
Contact: Committee Press Office 202-226-9019

A Notice by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on    07/31/2013

Action 
Notice Of 90 Day Petition Finding.
 
Summary 
We, NMFS, announce a 90-day finding on a petition to delist the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). We find that the petition does not present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/31/2013-18444/endangered-and-threatened-species-90-day-finding-on-petition-to-delist-the-southern-oregonnorthern