Comments for Kootenai Environmental Alliance http://kealliance.org Kootenai Environmental Alliance Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:37:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Dike Road Trees Petition Gets Non-Reponse From U.S. Army by Save the Trees on the Dike Road in Coeur d'Alene http://kealliance.org/2012/02/14/dike-road-trees-petition-gets-non-reponse-from-u-s-army/#comment-933 Save the Trees on the Dike Road in Coeur d'Alene Fri, 17 Feb 2012 18:37:17 +0000 http://kealliance.org/?p=2792#comment-933 [...] Clearly, some don’t care as referenced in an article on the Kootenai Environmental Alliance website. (link here) [...] [...] Clearly, some don’t care as referenced in an article on the Kootenai Environmental Alliance website. (link here) [...]

]]> Comment on Coeur d’Alene Appoints Dike Road Trees Committee by Jeffery Coulter http://kealliance.org/2011/10/21/coeur-dalene-appoints-dike-road-trees-committee/#comment-922 Jeffery Coulter Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:22:55 +0000 http://kealliance.wordpress.com/?p=2003#comment-922 I can't remember if I have signed the petition yet or not but I feel we should become absolute obstructionist when it comes to this inane project. I vote for the corps to focus on other fronts like making New Orleans more protected since they basically caused the catistropic effects to the lower 8th from Katrina. I can’t remember if I have signed the petition yet or not but I feel we should become absolute obstructionist when it comes to this inane project. I vote for the corps to focus on other fronts like making New Orleans more protected since they basically caused the catistropic effects to the lower 8th from Katrina.

]]> Comment on Removing Dike Road Trees Could Cost $1.6 Million by New Posts at KEA Website « KEA Blog http://kealliance.org/2012/02/07/removing-dike-road-trees-could-cost-1-6-million/#comment-913 New Posts at KEA Website « KEA Blog Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:41:56 +0000 http://kealliance.org/?p=2758#comment-913 [...] We’re telling you this because you’re missing new posts on the Bonner County Property Rights Council’s continuing problems with drinking water protections and on a new study regarding the dike road trees. [...] [...] We’re telling you this because you’re missing new posts on the Bonner County Property Rights Council’s continuing problems with drinking water protections and on a new study regarding the dike road trees. [...]

]]> Comment on Save the Selkirk Caribou by New Post at KEA Website: Save the Selkirk Caribou « KEA Blog http://kealliance.org/2012/01/29/save-the-selkirk-caribou/#comment-912 New Post at KEA Website: Save the Selkirk Caribou « KEA Blog Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:41:41 +0000 http://kealliance.org/?p=2721#comment-912 [...] we announce that a new post is now available there that will not be available here. Click over to Save the Selkirk Caribou to read [...] [...] we announce that a new post is now available there that will not be available here. Click over to Save the Selkirk Caribou to read [...]

]]> Comment on Save the Dike Road Trees by Removing Dike Road Trees Could Cost $1.6 Million | Kootenai Environmental Alliance http://kealliance.org/save-the-dike-road-trees/#comment-909 Removing Dike Road Trees Could Cost $1.6 Million | Kootenai Environmental Alliance Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:04:30 +0000 http://kealliance.org/?page_id=45#comment-909 [...] Save the Dike Road Trees [...] [...] Save the Dike Road Trees [...]

]]> Comment on Property Rights Council Takes Aim at Drinking Water Protection by Idaho Rural Water Association Explains Drinking Water Protection to Bonner County PRC | Kootenai Environmental Alliance http://kealliance.org/2012/01/14/property-rights-council-takes-aim-at-drinking-water-protection/#comment-906 Idaho Rural Water Association Explains Drinking Water Protection to Bonner County PRC | Kootenai Environmental Alliance Mon, 06 Feb 2012 23:11:29 +0000 http://kealliance.org/?p=2663#comment-906 [...] the Bonner County Property Rights Council (PRC) continues its crusade against common sense, the Idaho Rural Water Association has weighed in with a thorough and devastating letter explaining [...] [...] the Bonner County Property Rights Council (PRC) continues its crusade against common sense, the Idaho Rural Water Association has weighed in with a thorough and devastating letter explaining [...]

]]> Comment on Sackett Facts and Circumstances by Terry http://kealliance.org/2012/01/21/sackett-facts-and-circumstances/#comment-905 Terry Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:28:08 +0000 http://kealliance.org/?p=2687#comment-905 I can't address any of your factual assumptions or speculation, but I suspect it will all come out in a courtroom someday. The issue of whether the wetlands are jurisdictional or not jurisdictional will, undoubtedly, have experts and testimony on both sides. The issues of power-boating, subdivision platting, and unrelated local permitting are not going to be relevant. I can’t address any of your factual assumptions or speculation, but I suspect it will all come out in a courtroom someday. The issue of whether the wetlands are jurisdictional or not jurisdictional will, undoubtedly, have experts and testimony on both sides. The issues of power-boating, subdivision platting, and unrelated local permitting are not going to be relevant.

]]> Comment on In Wetlands Case, Sacketts Oppose Conservation Groups’ Supreme Court Brief by Breaking News: transcript from this morning’s Supreme Court argument in Sackett v EPA | Center for Justice http://kealliance.org/2012/01/03/in-wetlands-case-sacketts-oppose-conservation-groups%e2%80%99-supreme-court-brief/#comment-904 Breaking News: transcript from this morning’s Supreme Court argument in Sackett v EPA | Center for Justice Sun, 05 Feb 2012 00:07:45 +0000 http://kealliance.org/?p=2565#comment-904 [...] checking out his pieces titled “What The Priest Lake Wetland Case Is Actually About”, “In Wetlands Case, Sacketts Oppose Conservation Groups’ Supreme Court Brief” and “What We’re Reading – Sackett Wetland Case Preview Edition”  The New York [...] [...] checking out his pieces titled “What The Priest Lake Wetland Case Is Actually About”, “In Wetlands Case, Sacketts Oppose Conservation Groups’ Supreme Court Brief” and “What We’re Reading – Sackett Wetland Case Preview Edition”  The New York [...]

]]> Comment on Sackett Facts and Circumstances by irina http://kealliance.org/2012/01/21/sackett-facts-and-circumstances/#comment-883 irina Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:16:18 +0000 http://kealliance.org/?p=2687#comment-883 So Mr. Doherty drove by the property in question -- for decades no less -- and 'knew' it was a wetland. (Interesting that he doesn't claim 'jurisdictional'). He worked for the ACOE. Surely he must have been aware that the area was being subdivided into home sites. If the ACOE wanted to protect that particular property, why weren't they proactive about it ? Clearly whoever did the subdividing was not required to put any notes regarding potentially jurisdictional properties on the platting paperwork. The onus should not fall entirely on the property owner. Again, a wetland and a jurisdictional wetland are not the same thing. Kalispell road, which apparently is what Mr. Doherty utilized for his 'drive-bys', must have been built before wetlands became an issue. Clearly, he had no problem whatsoever with using this road which was 'illegally' built over wetlands. (And which, apparently, has not in fact caused any problems or contributed to polluting Priest Lake.) There are no culverts under Kalispell road at this site, and from a legal perspective the Sackett property may very well be 'isolated' wetlands. If you're so worried about the lake being polluted, why are powerboats allowed on it ? That seems a much more likely vector than the Sackett's property, given that they had all the necessary local permits, water/sewer hookup, etc. So Mr. Doherty drove by the property in question — for decades no less —
and ‘knew’ it was a wetland. (Interesting that he doesn’t claim ‘jurisdictional’).
He worked for the ACOE. Surely he must have been aware that the area was
being subdivided into home sites. If the ACOE wanted to protect that particular
property, why weren’t they proactive about it ? Clearly whoever did the
subdividing was not required to put any notes regarding potentially jurisdictional
properties on the platting paperwork. The onus should not fall entirely on the
property owner.

Again, a wetland and a jurisdictional wetland are not the same thing. Kalispell
road, which apparently is what Mr. Doherty utilized for his ‘drive-bys’, must
have been built before wetlands became an issue. Clearly, he had no problem
whatsoever with using this road which was ‘illegally’ built over wetlands. (And
which, apparently, has not in fact caused any problems or contributed to
polluting Priest Lake.) There are no culverts under Kalispell road at this site,
and from a legal perspective the Sackett property may very well be ‘isolated’
wetlands.

If you’re so worried about the lake being polluted, why are powerboats allowed on it ?
That seems a much more likely vector than the Sackett’s property, given that they
had all the necessary local permits, water/sewer hookup, etc.

]]> Comment on KEA Comments on Forest Planning Rule by Anggi http://kealliance.org/2011/05/16/kea-comments-on-forest-planning-rule/#comment-854 Anggi Thu, 02 Feb 2012 09:18:52 +0000 http://kealliance.wordpress.com/?p=1536#comment-854 As the next Panhandle Forest Plans are raseeled this summer, it will be important to remember the Forest Service is a Trustee in administering Asarco funds for Basin clean up. Many realize the Panhandle has overr 7000 miles of roads, and is the most heavily roaded forest in the nation. As many groups make efforts to minimize nutrient loads from the upper Basin into Lake Cd’A and the Spokane River, it will be important to get the forest service to take serious inventory of roads needing resorative work, espcially those adding to sediment transport and erosion further polluting our Lakes and Rivers. We need the forest service to be accountable as Trustees to help the overall clean up plan, without threatening road closures to areas unrelated to specific Basin clean up! It will make a big improvement on water quality over time and this is DOABLE! As the next Panhandle Forest Plans are raseeled this summer, it will be important to remember the Forest Service is a Trustee in administering Asarco funds for Basin clean up. Many realize the Panhandle has overr 7000 miles of roads, and is the most heavily roaded forest in the nation. As many groups make efforts to minimize nutrient loads from the upper Basin into Lake Cd’A and the Spokane River, it will be important to get the forest service to take serious inventory of roads needing resorative work, espcially those adding to sediment transport and erosion further polluting our Lakes and Rivers. We need the forest service to be accountable as Trustees to help the overall clean up plan, without threatening road closures to areas unrelated to specific Basin clean up! It will make a big improvement on water quality over time and this is DOABLE!

]]>