- Okay, why don't we go ahead and get started.
We don't have Commissioner Zita here,
but we are just a little bit into our meeting time
and we have Mayor Kmet needs to be out of here at 2:30.
- 2:15. - 2:15.
Okay, so anxious to be sure that we get
through the agenda and we do have a busy one.
So, again welcome, this is the second
Executive Work Group meeting on this new phase
of the Capitol Lake Lower Deschutes Watershed Project.
So, let's go ahead and do introductions
and Chris did you want to start?
I know you've got someone to introduce.
- Sure, my name is Chris Liu,
Director for DES and I would like to introduce
Linda Farmer, who's right over there.
Linda Farmer is the Communications Director
for the Department of Enterprise Services,
but she's also going to be my backup here
in case I can't make a meeting,
she's authorized to make decisions for DES.
- Great, thanks Linda. - Thank you, Linda.
- Alright, Jeff, we'll just go around
the table real quick here.
- You just covered it.
(laughs)
Okay, Jeff Dickison, Squaxin Island Tribe.
- And I'm Bud Blake, Thurston County Commissioner.
- Oh, Jessi Massingale with Floyd|Snider
part of the consulting team supporting DES on the EIS.
- Tessa Gardner-Brown, with Floyd|Snider.
- Cheryl Selby, City of Olympia.
- Pete Kmet, Tumwater Mayor.
- Alright, very glad that again, to have you all here.
I'm Susan Hayman, I'm with EnviroIssues
introduced myself to you last time
and we did not meet that long ago, October 2nd, right?
So, yeah, exactly it was very fast.
So, glad to be back here with you.
That meeting was as jammed as this meeting is going to be,
but I did want to take just a minute
just to clarify what my role is so that hopefully
I'm helpful to you as you guys are meeting.
So, again, you have a full agenda.
I think that's probably going to happen rather routinely.
So, one of my important responsibilities is just try
to keep things on time and to help you meet your objectives.
The agenda is yours, so if we end up needing
to take a little more time on one topic
or take a little less on another,
then I'll just ask you how you want to accommodate that.
So, if we are starting to take more time
you may hear me gently, respectfully intervene
and just say hey, what would you like to do?
It seems like there's a lot of interest in this topic,
should we spend more time and if so,
where would you like to take that time from?
So, I'll be doing a little bit of that
and then just capturing things that need to be captured
and mostly trying to help ensure that you are
meeting the objectives you set for yourselves
and anything I can do to make you be
successful here is what I'm all about.
Then I work with our team to just ensure
that we get good documentation of the meeting.
So, any question about my role or what I'm doing here?
Okay, great, then I think with that I'm going
to turn over to Jessi and we'll just jump right in.
- I think that sounds great.
Mayor Selby and Mayor Kmet, do have to
leave a little bit early.
This agenda's similarity or consistency with
October 2nd and our future agendas
will include just time for round table feedback
and discussion on anything, as well as opportunity
for public comment, if there's folks in the public
that would like to have a chance to speak.
And then, what I also want to close us out with
is a logistical scheduling of our January meeting
or touching base on that.
So, I think we'll try to get through the
substantive pieces before you folks have to take off.
So, with our first agenda item, we did
a project overview on the 2nd.
We walked through our process map.
We kind of did a high clip, today Tessa's going to just
touch on the purpose of the EIS analysis
and some of those key milestones
that we didn't really go into on the 2nd.
- I'm going to stand up as we do this
and I wanted to mention that it's Jessi's birthday today,
so everybody has to be especially nice to her.
- Alright.
- She's here with us and not taking a day off.
(laughs)
Which she should be doing.
Okay, so again, this, the purpose of this,
you know, ten minute agenda item
is just to make sure if there are any questions
about the timing and the milestones
that we intend to move through in this process
that we have the opportunity to go through them.
I think that Jessi walked us through that full
process map last time, but at the very basic level
in terms of the steps to complete an EIS
there are those that are prescribed by state law.
The State of Environmental Policy Act.
And there are these basic steps,
so we talked about scoping, we're in scoping
through November 13th and we'll talk a little bit more
about what we've heard today.
It's been a good scoping process with
good community engagement.
In 2019, we'll begin the technical evaluation
alternatives analysis and the thinking right
now is that that work will keep us busy through 2019.
We will have a better understanding of what
our kind of nitty, gritty schedule is once we
define the scope of the environmental impact statement,
but this is our best guess at this time.
In 2020 this is when we put together the draft
and issue the draft environmental impact statement.
So that's the big reader friendly document
that summarizes our technical analysis and
alternatives analysis and is available
to the public and agencies for comment.
And then finally, we expect in 2021,
that's when the final environmental impact
statement is issued and in that document
the preferred alternative is identified.
Are there any questions about the timing,
about how we move through these steps
beyond kind of what we've covered here
and what Jessi (coughing) to you in the larger,
the larger process map?
- I do yeah. - Sure.
- How much involvement does, not just the public
but the jurisdictions as far as the scoping portion of that
and when, how, the whole process of that.
- The scoping portion of it.
Should we just jump right into that?
- Whatever, whatever's convenient to you.
- Okay, we'll touch on scoping next.
Okay, so these meetings are occurring during scoping
and we're also meeting with the workers during scoping.
We've had two public comment meetings
and Jessi will go over those in just a bit.
But I think that we can close this up.
We just wanted to make sure if there were any questions
that we had an opportunity to get to those
and then really to highlight that the work
for the technical evaluation and alternatives
analysis is to look at the impacts
and mitigation measures of the long-term management
alternatives that are carried for further evaluation.
As part of that process we'll work with coordinating
agencies and Jessi will describe our thinking behind that.
But the focus of this document really is
the area over which DES has jurisdiction over
and those technical analysis that help to make a decision
about a long-term management alternative.
- Yeah, I think this is the
process map we reviewed last time.
The only modification we've made is that we have updated
it to reflect that we are meeting with
Executive Work Group twice in October
and that we also anticipate meeting with
Funding and Governance in January, after scoping as well.
When we first had our draft, we weren't sure
if we would meet with them in January or not,
but we were able to meet with Funding and Governance
earlier this month and we'll recap that.
So, we have been able now to kind of walk through,
not just the Executive Work Group, but the Technical
and Funding and Governance Work Groups
walk through the process map, describe the briefings
and the approach for interest group briefings.
Now and also late into the draft EIS
and the approach for the community sounding board as well.
Our anticipation now is that we would post this
to the project website and just wanted to communicate
that and let you guys know and we're moving forward
with this and like Tessa mentioned,
as we get through the scoping period
and our scoping report and we're really engaging
and starting the technical analysis
and flushing this out with our teaming partners,
we will go into greater detail, you know,
the quarters ahead of us.
- Do we have copies we can take with us today?
- Yes, absolutely. - Would it be possible to
get some extra copies? - It would also be possible
to get extra copies, because I think we have.
Chris, do you want one? - Sure.
- And here's another.
- Perfect. - Special, updated.
- So, questions. - Yeah.
- And you mentioned a moment ago we'd be talking
later in the meeting about scheduling
of a meeting in January. - Yes.
- So if you want to discuss this point then, we can.
But I was concerned about the scheduling of a meeting
in January and just graphically the representation
here appears that that's right on top of the scoping report
being issued and I wanted to make sure that
we are sequencing our events such that we have
another Executive Committee meeting before the scoping
report has been issued. - That's correct.
You're correct, we're targeting January 9th through 14th
is what is in the Doodle poll for our potential
Executive Work Group meeting.
The schedule that we're looking at is the scooping
report would not be completed 'til the end of January.
So we would be walking through the detailed information
we got through the scoping periods
and the content of the report and kind of briefing
and sharing that with you prior to finalization
and completion at the end of the month.
- Okay, thank you. - Yeah.
- Just can't tell that from-- - I know, they're big circles
with a diamond and (laughs), yeah exactly.
With that scheduling of the January meeting,
we will also be sending out, or I'll be sending out
Doodle polls to the Technical, Funding and
Governance Work Groups to schedule a meeting,
January meeting with those groups as well.
I'm doing that as soon as our meeting documentation
is complete for those folks and ideally,
depending on where all the calendars fall
we would love to be able to meet with
Technical, meet with Funding and Governance
and then meet with Executive.
Similar to that sequence we did in phase one
so that we can say, hey here's input from Technical,
input from Funding and Governance and bring that forward.
Hopefully because it's far enough in advance,
we can make that happen, so.
- Did I also hear you say
that you were going to meet with the stakeholder groups too?
- Um, well they've been, we've been
doing interest group briefings,
but we won't have another set of meetings in
January quite yet.
We think the community sounding board
will come after that when we're really
getting into the technical analysis.
- Okay, thank you. - Yeah.
Let's go to our next agenda item,
which is the project, logo, and name.
Then we're going to come back to some of what we've
touched on around scoping
because we just want to be able to communicate
and summarize for you the scoping meetings
and major themes and whatnot.
But the project logo and name.
So, we on the 2nd of October, when we met
we discussed and received some input
around the project logo and the name.
Our homework item from that, or action item
was to come forward today with some variations
on what that might look like.
We transmitted those on Thursday, I think, right?
The days.
On Thursday, so that you had it a little
in advance of today and I have copies as well
if you folks want to kind of flip through them.
They printed large when we had someone print them for us.
So forgive me, they're huge.
And to kind of help tee up this discussion
there are important elements for us to make
sure we all have an understanding of
and thoughts in our mind and do you want to touch on it?
- Yeah, sure.
So we've described to you that
we have an interdisciplinary team that we're working with
and as part of that team we are engaged with ESA,
Environmental Science Associates.
They are one of the regional leaders
in SEPA EISs and they bring a good SEPA
foundation to our project team.
We work very collaboratively with them
and when we had generated these coming
out of the Executive Work Group,
when we ran, we engaged them to provide their input
on what they saw here and they had a couple tips for us.
A couple areas of guidance that they would like us
to all be aware of in terms of naming a
project in a SEPA context.
So, I'll just run through those quickly.
One is that the name really should convey
the project purpose and so retaining long-term
management project is super important
because the project purpose is to really identify
that Long-Term Management Plan.
So from a SEPA perspective, having that out front
in the name is very important.
Additionally, they said kind of the other super
important thing to know is that
typically project names don't reflect the alternatives.
And the reason for that is a couple.
One because it doesn't capture
all the nuances of an alternative.
So for example, if the hybrid was to be advanced
and there are several important variations
on that hybrid, it wouldn't capture that.
Additionally, there could be some confusion
as alternatives evolve through the process.
If the lake to evolve in a significant way
or if the hybrid was to evolve in a significant way
it wouldn't capture that.
And then finally, for just clarity and readability.
So they wanted to kind of provide that as good guidance
for us and then also, just the general importance
about name recognition for the community as we move
forward through this community process.
- Exactly, so with that what we were taking away
is that, you know, it's important for us to retain
the long-term management project.
That's the project intent, the purpose
so that folks understand it isn't one facet
of just the area around Capitol Lake or in the watershed,
that it's the long-term management project.
So, we wanted to make sure we shared that as well.
And then there's an important distinction
between the project name and the project logo.
So, what we can discuss today and dive into,
is potential variations of the logo perhaps,
as we've shown here, but retaining the elements
Tessa spoke to in the project name.
So, for example the guidance around a SEPA EIS project
and not having the alternatives to be included
within the project name, but that perhaps they
can come forward in a logo concept or something like that.
There is a distinction between a logo and a name.
So, we thought we could have a discussion
and see what you guys think about these.
I'm must looking and they printed two.
No, they're different, okay.
Have a discussion and see what you guys think
and what feedback you have so that we
and the Enterprise Services team can take
all of this in to inform our decision-making
around the project logo and around the project name.
- Do you want me just to collect this feedback
on the chart as we go.
- Sure, that sounds great.
(paper tearing)
So any thoughts, any feedback as you look at these?
- Should we sort of walk behind, walk through the reasoning
for each of the options?
- Yeah, I have a question about the (mumbles)
- Yeah, absolutely, so on the cover
is our current name that we have.
The next couple pages include capturing the primary,
kind of classic alternatives associated with the project
as they have moved forward over time.
That is estuary, hybrid, and manage lake
listed in alphabetic order.
You'll see that these two options retain long-term
management projects for the reasons we just spoke about.
What is different in these two options
that include those key primary alternatives
is the order of Capitol Lake slash
Lower Deschutes Watershed
versus Lower Deschutes Watershed slash Capitol Lake.
That's the difference there.
On the next page, this is just a
different stylistic presentation.
It's kind of the same concept and content,
just in a different order and again,
we're just using estuary, hybrid, and manage lake
as the vernacular or names that have been used
with the key alternatives over time
and also fit into a logo.
Similar, different presentation.
The one that then you'll start to see a change
where it says Environmental Impact Statement
for Capitol Lake and the three options.
This was something that was discussed as well,
but it does not retain the long-term management project
conclusion or goal of the overall project.
- Which you think is, they think it's important.
- Mmhmm, and we would concur.
So, this is absolutely something we're discussing,
but if we are thinking about that guidance
and the applicability of wanting to retain long-term
management project, then the last few options,
you know, we would not move forward
because they would not have that descriptor.
- Did you say anything about that one?
- Yep, just that it was, same content, different style.
- Oh, gotcha, okay.
- It does have Lower Deschutes Watershed.
Good catch, it does not include Capitol Lake.
So that is this one, in the title.
And the rationale behind continuing to include
Capitol Lake in the title is that that's
the name that the community identifies
and is the current name of the water body under evaluation
as part of the project and we do want to make
sure that we can have a project title,
a project logo that is recognizable to the community.
That they can understand and track.
- So you're saying that's not a conclusion.
- Yes, well this one has the long-term management project
conclusion, but it does not include Capitol Lake
as the current water body name.
- But I'm saying that when you use the word Capitol Lake
it's not a conclusion. - Oh, an alternative, yes
that's correct, that's why we have manage lake
to reflect an alternative, not the current
physical geographic name.
- I can't recall, who was it that wanted
there to be the three alternatives included in the logo?
- When we had kind of the dialogue from Jeff's input,
Commissioner Zita had recommended that we think about
the goals and where we're landing and want to go with
the process and that would be implementation
of an alternative, so that kind of came out of that
discussion was including the alternatives
potentially in the name.
That's something we had kind of
noodled over ourselves as well.
It's definitely not something we have to necessarily
land on. - Did the budget,
did the budget item identify the title or the alternatives?
- The proviso.
Do you still have that copy.
Yes, it does as well. - I don't believe
that it does. - It doesn't, well I haven't.
The preparations have varied in
how they refer to the project over the years as well.
- I'm just saying, is there anything there
that we have to make sure we address?
- Oh, we did look into that and it's not so prescriptive
that it would drive the name or logo.
- Okay. - That's a good question.
- So just my gut reaction feedback around branding.
We've already gone out with this logo.
- That's correct. - And so, rule number
one on branding is you don't switch your branding.
You might get the continuity people understanding what
that they've already engaged for process before
we engaged them in branding is not always advisable.
Especially when you have something that's so short term.
Three years is actually short term.
Would it be feasible just to flip.
Just put Lower Deschutes Watershed first
Capitol Lake second and leave the rest of it the same?
- Right, that's the one. - But this, this.
- But without the alternative.
- Without the alternatives.
- Oh, absolutely. - Just keep it super simple.
The other thing is if there's too many words
then people go.
- That is the hard part
that we even struggled with with what we currently have.
- It's already too many words.
- Is that you're saying environmental impact statement,
long term management project and then
we wanted to recognize again that the geographic context
of the watershed and it's coming out huge.
- It's a lot. - It is a lot.
- And then the last bit too is that your point
is well taken, we would not if we made a change
want to change until after scoping is complete.
Which I know now is only a few weeks away,
but we would want to do that in a natural
after scoping starting.
- Yeah. - But yeah.
- You've got your, that piece stays the same
and the colors and everything, but.
- Yeah, if we kept this configuration
and just switched, that's an option, yeah.
- Well, Jeff this is your issue.
You brought it up last meeting, what do you think?
- Your points are correct, I did bring it up last meeting.
I've already conveyed to Jessi what I thought.
- Um, oh, when I sent these, your reply
that said you were not that keen on.
- Any of it. - Any of them.
- Would you like to expand on that?
- Any of them.
Well, I don't actually think that they
are responsive to the issue that I raised,
which was primarily the subordination of
estuary to Capitol Lake or anything else
in context of the representation.
And, you know, there's nowhere that
these options equate Capitol Lake Deschutes Estuary.
I happen to feel that Lower Deschutes Watershed is,
it is problematic from a number of perspectives.
It's an inaccurate representation.
To the degree that there's any technical understanding
of what Lower Deschutes Watershed is
it would be that area above Tumwater Falls.
Capitol Lake is not Lower Deschutes Watershed.
Nor is the estuary Lower Deschutes Watershed.
So I think it actually confuses people
rather than clarify for people what you're talking about.
It's talking about something upstream.
I am not wedded to the characterizing all the,
well maybe not all the, but three options.
I think that gets too busy and too wordy for a title.
I don't really see any benefit of putting estuary hybrid,
manage lake into the title.
Would you like me to go on or
is that a good enough criticism?
(laughs)
- I guess or if we looked at from maybe from the
problem-solving, is there a suggestion that you have?
- Well yeah, Chris, I talked to Chris about this.
- Just to inform our decision making.
- You guys are just making me come up with an option
and he said, yes we are.
- Well were aiming to be responsive
to the dialogue and to the request.
- That was my point.
I didn't think it was responsive, like I said because
there is no place, there's no option that
would equate or treat equally the estuary with the lake.
And I think most people in the community at this point
know that that's what the issue is about.
So, I don't think you need to diverge from that.
So, you know, I would say
Capitol Lake Deschutes Estuary
or actually my own voice would
be Deschutes Estuary Capitol Lake.
You know, Deschutes Estuary slash Capitol Lake.
Stick with long term management project.
Stick with the EIS, but delete all the other stuff.
I happen to think it's important to have estuary
in the title with equal treatment as the lake.
One further footnote I would make
is that in your graphic design here to the left.
You've got birds.
You've got people, you've got trees,
maybe you have mountains, maybe you have waters,
but you have no fish. - I knew it was coming.
(laughs)
- That'd be cool, salmon jumping up
and bite the bait out of the blue.
- Well, I mean, that's what we're about.
That's why when I say, that I think that
there's a bias that's represented, those kind of things.
- We did include people standing on the blue triangle.
- Yeah, walking on water. - So that people would help
to not have it just be water.
- Nonetheless, you could probably add raccoons
or nutria, or you know, invasive species of some kind.
- And yet we want to keep it simple, right.
- But there's no fish.
- Where would you put the fish?
- In the water.
- Where on the water. - Well, it's not.
- That's a good point.
- It gets dicey too.
- Good specific suggestions, right?
Deschutes Estuary Capitol Lake.
- Well, I just said it was another footnote
to my critique, so there it is.
- No, thank you.
- See you start bugging me for stuff,
you're going to get stuff.
- This is good. This is good.
- I have not run this by
my (mumbles) folks, but I am going to ask
in the vein of being proactive.
What would you think about Lower Deschutes River,
so that. - No.
- We are being consistent with trying to avoid
the alternatives. - Capitol Lake was built
on the estuary.
- Totally get and respect that.
- The area you're talking
about is the estuary.
- I understand what you're saying.
I was just asking if that could be a good way
to, because the purpose of the Lower Deschutes Watershed
when we originally envisioned it in phase one
was to have that upstream and downstream.
So that it wasn't just the 260 acre from below the
Tumwater Falls to, you know, the beginning of Budd Inlet.
It was so that we could extend some of our geographic
scope further than that for things like
water quality or sediment. - Well, if you wanted to do
that then you go Deschutes, Watershed, Capitol Lake,
Estuary, Budd Inlet, South Puget Sound, haha, Sailor Sea...
(laughing)
I mean, where do you stop?
I'm trying to get to the point where
it accurately represents the geography
and people know what you're talking about.
- Well in the Deschutes Estuary is it does include
everything from the Falls up through Budd Inlet, right?
Because it goes beyond the bend.
So since that is a geographical location.
- That's why I said Deschutes Estuary kind of like.
(mumbles) Yeah, that's what I said.
- Oh. - Other thoughts?
- Well, I don't think that calling it that limits
the options because one of the comments
that we have controlling the sediment in the river.
- Is a problematic (mumbles).
- Probably, part of the picture,
you know, if you can keep it from coming in
then you have less to deal with at the end.
But I don't see this as precluding that as a
part of the management option necessarily.
- So thoughts, other thoughts about what's
being proposed here and there's lots of other feedback,
so you're not being asked to reach a decision here.
Just other thoughts? - I can give you some stuff
on point five, changing it to that.
It's actually simpler.
- Yep. - One less word.
- But does it give the bar of scope of the problem here.
What we have done here from the falls to Budd Inlet.
- You say it does not? - I don't think so.
The title doesn't do that.
I won't object to that, but I think it needs to be broader.
I respect the narrative, what he's trying to say there
because it is that end, but to get out of that
you've got to have the river involved.
- Is there anything that you could suggest that could help
make that more inclusive for what you're thinking about?
- Because the Deschutes does relate to it,
it sits on the Deschutes River.
- Is the watershed defined?
Is there a legal definition for that?
(mumbles) - 13.
(speaking over each other)
- I say (mumbles). - I say it without dyslexia.
(laughs)
- I mean that is a physical body
body that's been legally defined.
- Yeah, you know it's interesting.
I chuckled at that because these water
water resource planning projects are taking shape and
as well as Yelm is still trying to get their water right
and as Olypmia and Lacey know,
the two watersheds,
the Deschutes Watershed and the Nisqually Watershed
are very interactive. - Sure.
- Same thing with the Chehalis River,
I don't think there's a--
- Yeah, there's a, I mean, there's a line
on the map, but especially ground water hydrology,
it's back and forth, it's not clear.
- Do you have a proposal?
- So I would say Deschutes Watershed
Environmental Impact Statement Estuary and
I don't know if I'd say Capitol Lake
at least have the lake in there, I mean.
- So you want to go back to listing the three options?
- To the alternatives.
That way it covers his and
for the conversation sake, (mumbles)
but at the same time.
- So you would put in. - But I'd take out hybrid.
I know that's a possibility,
but just for the marketing prospect.
- So you would have
Deschutes Watershed Estuary and Capitol Lake
Long-Term Management Plan.
- Yeah, I would put estuary just underneath
the Deschutes Watershed, like that.
- So, like that. - Mmhmm.
- And then have estuary and Capitol Lake under here?
- Yep.
- I don't know, kind of with you both
on trying to (mumbles).
- Or perhaps because people are throwing stuff up
on the wall, we can say Deschutes Watershed hyphen Estuary
Capitol Lake, I'm not sure if that's proper English or not.
- You don't do that (mumbles) good.
- Deschutes Watershed hyphen Estuary?
- Yes.
- And then are y'all agreeing generally
from a recommendation standpoint that that long-term
management plan being there makes sense?
Did you you want me to put that somewhere?
- I think it needs to be in there.
- Oh, Capitol Lake. - No, no long-term management.
- Because I can keep writing it if that's
is kind of a solid place you're at.
So, let me just check in real quick.
So, I think you weren't looking
for a consensus decision today,
but you were wanting to get the best recommendations
you could, try to get a feel for it
and then take this back to DES and the project team.
Is that how this is? - Yeah, exactly.
I was just going to to go there.
I think this has been helpful.
We've dived a little more into different variations.
Let us kind of process internally
and take all of this in, Chris.
- You did say, if we had a change in the name that it
wouldn't be until the January meeting, is that correct?
Well, after scoping. - After scoping, yeah.
- Which is the 13th of November.
- Mmhmm.
- So it seems like the take aways are trying
to get something that fits well with the geographic
description of it. - Probably.
- It sounded like having Deschutes in there somewhere
feels good to people and you seemed to be pretty
good with having long-term management in there.
I didn't hear anybody necessarily object
to the concept of putting fish into the logo.
- Put a fish in there.
- So I'm right, okay.
Anything else you would want DES
or the project team to think about?
- Yeah, there really should be a salmon.
- There should be a salmon.
I'll second that.
(speaking over each other)
- Would have the same.
I don't think most people know what a (mumbles) is.
- That's true.
- Okay, did you get, have what you need then? On this one?
- Yes. - Okay, great thank you.
- Thank you for that discussion.
- Oh yeah.
- Let's go ahead and move into an update
and overview of scoping.
Did you want to go through major things first?
- Sure.
So, we had the two comment meetings
and what we'll do is recap what we've heard
from the verbal sessions at those comment meetings.
We had about a hundred folks total attend.
When presented with the opportunity to engage
in the same format online or engage online
with the same information,
getting that hundred folks to the meeting
in our opinion was pretty good and we also had a really
great discussion, for example, the last meeting that
we had on the 22nd, so that was last Monday.
There was about an hour of verbal commenting
and we had the opportunity to listen.
What we heard will be available through a transcript
online by early November.
But I'll just recap that for you
and then (mumbles) recapped and the scoping report,
but this is the sneak preview.
So, after the first scoping meeting on the 10th,
we put together our five most prominent themes
and then after the second scoping meeting
we did that exercise again and it turns out
that there is enough of an overlap
that we don't actually get to a list of 10.
So the 1st theme was process and there were
a number of questions about when a decision will be made.
The community is eager to see a preferred alternative
identified and then moving forward related to process
there were questions about the steps and timeline
after a preferred alternative is identified.
So questions about what that implementation timeline is.
One of the next themes are, were about the alternatives.
So we got some technical questions
and some general questions.
The technical questions were of the tune, you know,
is the retaining wall and the hybrid feasible.
What are the recreational options for each alternative?
What's the species specific
restoration for the alternatives?
And then some more general questions
related to alternatives and that's what alternatives
will be evaluated and what's the scoping process
for identifying the reasonable range
of alternatives for further evaluation in the EIS.
This is not going to be a surprise.
Sediment was the next primary theme.
We heard from commenters, the request
that we look closely at sediment
and of course that's echoed in the proviso,
the funding appropriation for this project
we will absolutely look closely at sediment.
But there were questions about where is it going,
who would dredge it, how does this happen,
what happens to the downstream users?
Technical issues, this is kind of an umbrella for
some of just the small or just the more focused
technical questions, so we heard about water quality,
sea level rise, blue carbon science, bats
and mosquitoes, invasive species.
We heard clearly about cultural issues.
So we heard both sides of that.
You know, the importance of the lake to the
Wilder and White Plan was a theme of some of the comments.
However, in contrast to that it was the
importance and cultural heritage of the area to the tribes.
We heard both of those things.
We heard about comprehensive planning.
So that's really sort of what we've been talking about.
The need to look upstream and downstream
to define our geographic scope in a broad way
that does capture the interconnectedness of the system
and then to include the community
in the planning effort, you know, this could be
through the community sounding board or a mediation process,
but very much that they wanted to be at the table.
Two more, economics, we heard about economics.
Funding considerations for implementation
that we should review, not just impacts,
but benefits and ecosystem service valuation.
And then finally, a more focused conversation
about potential impacts to LOTT, the Port of Olympia
and other downstream users.
And then the last theme that we captured
was really a lot of questions about stakeholder engagement.
So, there were a number of questions about
outreach to all local area tribes
about potential work from our project side
or outreach to the Orca Task Force in relation
to the broader salmon recovery efforts
and then finally work with other
interest groups including LOTT.
Any questions on the themes, again the point
of the comment period was to hear, to gather information.
We weren't responding to each of the comments,
but we were listening.
- Jeff.
- So for the sediment discussion,
I guess what I'm interested in in general
and picking on that topic is did we hear
anything that we haven't previously considered?
In the context of scoping, we've obviously had a lot
of conversation around sediment
and that that is a key factor in this and there's this,
that and the other that needs to be addressed.
Did anybody come up with something
that we haven't already targeted?
- I have a thought on that. - Yeah, it's a great question.
I guess for me, I would say the way
I sort of look at these comments is what does
that drive us to in terms of the EIS.
So, we've heard all of this interest in sediment
and we see it in the legislative proviso,
so that drives us to the sediment transport model
that will supplemented by a geomorphic assessment.
So those comments get me there in terms of process.
In terms of categories in each of the comments
for the verbal comment session, there wasn't
something that I, you know that had a light bulb
go off for me or was new or would change what we're
kind of anticipating will be part of the EIS,
but that was from my perspective.
- I think what was a little bit of a difference then is,
you know, through the years there's been questions
around the chemical quality of the sediments
in the Capitol Lake basins and in Budd Inlet.
What does that mean if the dam is removed
or if maintenance dredging occurs?
What is the chemical quality that if you're doing
dredging alternatives, under any alternative
has dredging included, right, where does that go
and how does that influence?
So that's something that's already been on the books
and talked about, but the slight variation that was
new is during the verbal comments there was a question
put forward around how would sediments from the river
potentially come in to Budd Inlet and
cover existing contaminated sediments.
That's a slightly different (coughing).
So, that contaminated sediment quality
and that interplay in Budd Inlet is a little
different than what I've heard before.
So I think it fits in the umbrella of the sediment
transport and evaluation work, but that was in my
mind something that was slightly different.
I hadn't heard that question asked that way before.
- Well, in that case I would apologize
because I've tried to make that point before
that part of the, part of our thinking on sediment
needs to include potential remediation strategies
for Budd Inlet contamination and
there's an ongoing process the port's involved in,
the Department of Ecology is involved in
and they're looking at the extent of contamination
and the sources of contamination and ultimately
what to do about that and you know,
there may be a twofer in this and that
some of the sediment remediation strategies in Budd Inlet
could be a product or a result of sediment capping.
There's different names for it,
different strategies for it, but allowing natural
capping of contaminated sediments over time.
So, I apologize if I haven't spelled that out
or made that more clear in my expectations previously.
That's definitely there.
Yeah, the Budd Inlet remediation aspect has been voiced.
It's an interesting balance or interplay
of the natural recovery that could occur, right,
with cleaner sediments coming into a system
but also being aware of operational elevation needs
of different facilities.
So there's a balance there.
- Yeah, obviously you can't do that everywhere,
but natural recovery is a typical strategy
incorporated into remediation decisions.
- Yep. - So this is kind of reminding
me of the conversation I've heard about really wanting
to encourage to the jurisdictions
to submit comments too, right?
- Yeah, but-- - So, that would be--
- Yeah, we were just going to today but in a little bit
provide a reminder that the scoping period does close
on November 13th and so we've been able
in meeting with the Technical and Funding and
Governance folks to also just have them
have a reminder for their agencies
as individuals or agencies to submit
comments within the scoping period.
So hopefully you folks are able to do that as well
via email or whatnot, submit comments, that would be great.
- It's so helpful to us to get comments
from each of the agencies that are coordinated
so that there is a clear summary of those issues
that are important to you and we recognize
that there will be some similarities
and some differences, but to have them on record
and have a good summary for us to look through
when we're in the nitty gritty and we're
characterizing and helping to put shape for an EIS,
we just can't stress it enough.
So, that's a way you can help us.
- Okay, clarification question on that.
Would you want us to go back to our councils
and say individually as council members
submit scoping comments or would you
prefer if we get a consensus.
I know my council pretty much has
consensus around this issue.
Submit one letter from the council or what?
What would be more. - I would say we'll
take either. (laughs) Yes.
- And if they want to submit them we will look at each one.
If there is one letter, which is more typically
how I've seen it done in agency or departments
within an agency submit kind of summary letters.
That holds just as much weight and so I think
that whatever's most convenient to you and your staff
is what we'll take. - Okay.
- So we are just about 10 minutes over our time,
but I think there's been some really important discussion.
There may be more on this side.
If there's any other question or comment
on the verbal comments that issues have been raised.
If you don't have anything pressing then
we might move on and we might have to just.
I'm not sure if there's a great opportunity
to make up some time somewhere.
We do want to be sure to get public comment.
I know we want to try to get the
round table, just to be aware.
Anything else for this topic though?
Any other thoughts for Tessa or Tessa did you have anything?
- I didn't have anything, did you?
- No, sounds good.
Alright, so we were able, like we mentioned,
to meet with the Technical Work Group on October 11th
and the Funding and Governance Work Group
that afternoon as well and what's really fortunate
and great is that we had representation
from all of the Technical Work Group agencies
that are willing to put time into the process
and were part of phase one and continuing into phase two.
So that includes representation from ecology
and fish and wildlife, DNR, the city, Thurston County.
So it was a good range of folks.
That meetings was really kind of our kick off meeting
where we were walking through the process map.
Kind of similar to what we did with you guys.
There was less of a dialogue in that meeting
because that is the Technical Work Group
so those folks are focused on the technical analysis
as part of the EIS, but what is important
with that group is that moving forward
and this has already come up a little bit today
just around, you know, what other activities
and agency efforts are occurring in Budd Inlet
or throughout the area.
We want to really leverage the participation of those
folks on the Technical Work Group to engage
those agencies and coordinate with them on the other
initiatives that they have ongoing.
So that's sea level rise, that's TMDL,
things of that nature.
So we will be reaching out to those folks.
Able to have their input as we digest the comments
received during scoping and make sure that we are
aware of their processes and major milestones as we
move through the technical analysis of the EIS as well.
And those folks allow us the opportunity to reach
into their organization and understand
what other resources of data is available,
things of that nature as well.
So, we'll be coordinating with those folks
as the year comes, 2018 closes out and prep for
the 2019 technical analysis as well.
The other thing that we discussed with the Technical
Work Group and then we move on to Funding and Governance
as well, was participation within the Work Groups.
And as part of the interest group briefing with LOTT.
LOTT's question around their participation in the process.
So the Technical Work Group also thought it made sense
to have LOTT participation at that table as well.
So we discussed that with them
and then that afternoon when we met with the
Funding and Governance Work Group
again we walked through the process map.
It was kind of our kick off to here
we are and where we're going.
We put the question to that group as well
about having LOTT participation
and they also thought it would be great to have
their participation at the Funding
and Governance level as well.
We also had good continuity with folks
from phase one into phase two with Funding and Governance.
We were able to just revisit with them
the attributes of a shared Funding and Governance
model that came out of phase one.
Kind of as a starting place, a little refresher
to some extent for phase two.
The Funding and Governance Work Group
also had some good questions about alternatives
moving forward into the EIS.
The range of those alternatives,
the no action alternatives, things along those lines.
We also discussed with them the commitment within
this EIS process to include an economic analysis.
An economic analysis that has impacts and benefits.
So impacts to commercial industrial sectors
and the benefits like Tessa has touched on
that we heard around the ecosystem service value.
So we had a dialogue around that and really.
Oh, go ahead. - Can you explain
what an ecosystem service value is?
- Yeah, good question.
Do you want to try that, we're kind of getting
into that right now with one of our teaming partners is.
We also, in addition to the engineers and hydrogeologists
and biologists that comprise our technical team
we also have economists that we'll be working with
and drawing from their experience on other EIS projects
to pull in and fit to this one as well.
- Like tourism, it's a different type of
economic benefit. - Yeah.
- Kind of like there's an inherent value in the environment.
In a grove of trees, in wetlands.
That there's not just the classic subdivide it
and make houses out of it.
There's other values to that and this
is a way of. - Of quantifying.
- Of trying to quantify that.
- Exactly and one of the things we really want
to work with them is be able to mine existing data
and approaches and values that have been assigned
to different environmental aspects throughout Puget Sound
so that we can have consistency with other approaches
and kind of precedents that come into the fold.
So, that part of it has some, the economic
analysis will have a fair amount as you would expect
of quantifiable information around costs.
And then there's also some qualitative components
when you start to get into how individuals
participate and enjoy a resource.
So it ends up kind of a mix of those two things.
- Okay. - I think the port
did some of that for their land.
- (mumbles) We'll make a note of that.
- You should check and see.
I think I've seen a report to that effect.
- Okay.
So the last thing I just wanted to mention
on the Funding and Governance Work Group as well
is, you know, this project, we've kind of said this before
that we see the Funding and Governance Work Group
being a unique opportunity to look at how
there really can be a shared funding model
for the preferred alternative, so that we really
can move as quickly as possible from an EIS identifying
a preferred alternative into securing
funding to get to permitting design
there's not a big time lag.
So one of the things we want to really be mindful of,
strategic and take advantage of is syncing
with that Work Group and making sure that we get
them what they need throughout the process as well
to support their work around shared funding.
So, we expect that process to have a two way exchange
of information as their work kind of runs parallel
to what we're doing at some extent
and then we can cross and dovetail through the process.
But any questions on Technical Work Group
or Funding and Governance Work Group at this time?
- One of the themes that came out of asking the legislature
for this amount of money,
what we're up to three point nine, four.
- Four million. - Four million.
We needed four point nine. - Yes.
- Okay, so we're considering going back
to the legislature to get that additional funding.
Weren't one of the budgets, the House or the Senate
said we needed to provide amatch
or they were asking for amatch from the
governing agencies that were related,
the cities and the county, that they want us to match.
And we were like, ooh, you know.
But can you count the emotional capital of
those work group hours, like we're bringing this.
Like we're providing the staffing from the city.
- As a contribution to the project.
- As a contribution, yeah.
- That's a good point. - It's a good point
and it's similar to a question that was raised
around when some of the processed participating agencies
are undertaking initiatives in which they are collecting
data that supports part of a technical analysis of the EIS,
is that also in a way the local entities contributing
to the process as well, right.
So there's kind of, that's a good point.
There's the technical component of it
and then there's also the staffing commitment
and component because we-- - We're putting them off other
things to do this, so it's costing the city.
- You guys have spent a lot of money mapping
all the (mumbles) out, the falls and all of that.
- Yeah, you could go out.
- Yeah, there's quite a bit of work that Olympia's
done and was kind of testing what quality
testing's been done as well.
First of all, I think LOTT should be not just that.
The funding because they have a unique authority,
shall we say, and ability to bring a different option
to the table in terms of funding.
They also, of course, have a very strong technical
capability, so I think they should be on both of those.
I think they should be here as well.
The reason why I think that is because
Lacey is part of that group and while Lacey
only has a small piece of the watershed,
ultimately. - They've pained a lot.
- They're part of LOTT and I think they should
have a voice at this table through LOTT.
So I think having, in this case Cynthia Pratt
is their representative,
here participating would make sense.
As the LOTT representative.
(mumbles)
(whispering)
- Lacey declined last time.
- They did, yeah.
So I don't know, in the world of LOTT though
maybe not so much.
- Maybe given today where we're at in the real EIS process
versus kind of that phase one as a foundation
to the EIS, but there seems to consensus across
the participants of the Work Groups
that there's definitely benefit from having LOTT
at the table and it was great and a positive thing
coming out of the interest group briefings is
if LOTT's participation and folks and team that they had
and that they expressed interest.
Was really positive, so we will circle back with
those folks and entity and reach out to them.
- Chris.
- So, what I'm hearing you say is that we should
add LOTT to this Executive Work Group?
- Yes, I think so. - Okay, as well as
our Technical and Financial group.
- I don't know, where (mumbles), Jeff on that.
I mean they're the major discharger.
- Well, I don't have--
(mumbles)
I don't have any problem with it,
I guess my only curiosity is is that the only
way we rope Lacey into this?
I mean, we asked them before and they declined.
- That's because they didn't want any responsibility
for paying for it. - Well I know,
but I mean, like I said, that's a curiosity.
It's not an objection.
- Also LOTT (mumbles).
- I don't think the state has any objections.
- Okay. - Because they also,
it effects Lacey through LOTT through sea level rise
which is also one part of the scope
of how the estuary relates and how we manage this
body of water and how it relates to what we're trying
to do around climate mitigation
and our adaptation and sea level rises.
- So do you want me to note as a followup
to check into-- - Yeah.
- Consulting someone from-- - Retreat.
- We all have representations with LOTT, I mean--
- Yeah.
- So, but you're calling out Lacey.
We've already asked Lacey and they declined.
So why not just send another invite to Lacey
in addition to that?
- Uh, we could.
- Yeah, I mean.
- I would be fine with that.
(laughs)
- Yeah, I think they're married.
- Do you want me to include that?
'cause I've got LOTT.
Do you want to include--
- Or just go back to my statement that LOTT
choose who they want.
LOTT's interests.
I'm good with. - Good with this?
And then see what happens.
- Yeah I think so.
- I do have a different group though,
and that is the Corps,
particularly the permitting side of the Corps.
Have they been invited to any of these meetings
and decided not to participate or what?
- We have reached out to both
the Army Corp of Engineers and DAHP.
- DAHP being?
- Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation.
- Oh okay.
- We've reached out to both of those agencies
to brief and communicate them on the process,
invite them to participate
in the Technical Work Group in particular.
And we saw that being mutually beneficial
to have them be aware of our process
so that we could address questions
or make sure that we factor in what would be needed
for phase three for permitting.
And that we also appropriately in any of the alternatives
included those required mitigation measures,
or acknowledgement of areas of cultural
or historical significance, et cetera.
So we are coordinating with DAHP,
and the Corps has agreed to participate
and to be responsive in a system, the process,
when we have specific questions and topics
to engage with them.
And if we have Technical Work Group meetings
where we're really focused on one element
that pertains under kind of the Corps' purview
they can have someone participate
and come to those meetings.
But on a regular basis of all of our project meetings,
they would not participate as continuous member
of the Technical Work Group.
But are a resource and will track it
and we'll provide briefings to them.
That's where they kind of landed on it.
- Say that they have resource constraints
that I know we all are constrained on,
but given the federal overlay,
there was consideration related to that
regardless of how good our,
how persuasive we are.
But Jessi will include them on all of the Work Group emails,
the Technical Work Group emails, excuse me,
so that they can see
and then at that point they can determine
whether this is a conversation specific
to an overlay that they might have with the process.
So they'll be updated that way too,
outside of briefings even.
- Exactly, and as we're going
through the technical analysis,
we'll be tracking items particularly relevant
for the Corps, Federal Permitting,
so that we can reach out and say,
okay now that, you know, and make sure
we have their input to help support phase three
in permitting as much as possible.
- Okay.
- Alright, any other, you know me,
gotta keep an eye on the time here.
So we haven't come up yet,
but again, important discussion
that you need to have.
So bumping this down a bit,
any other questions or concerns you wanna raise
for the initial work reviews?
Did you have anything else Jessi?
- Nope.
- Okay, wanna hop to the next?
- Yes, let's go there.
So supplemental engagement opportunities.
I did wanna pass out two things.
I'm gonna pass out this with a table we have.
Just 'cause I wanna do this now.
One of the action items we had on our request, Jeff,
was just a meeting roster.
So we have a hard copy with us today.
It's just a list of the meetings, briefings,
and presentations that have occurred in October.
It ends today, because that happens to be everything
we have scheduled for September and October.
Not that we left off anything.
As additional meetings or briefings are on the books,
we will update this and provide you
so that you can track and understand
where there's opportunities for folks to participate
and we'll keep this updated on the website as well.
As you can imagine, September, October really,
was a very busy month related to getting the word out
for scoping and the scoping meetings.
In November and December, that's where,
I don't know if I'd say things'll go quiet,
but there's less participation and briefings
as that's when we are digesting the scoping comments
and doing the scoping report.
But we will keep this updated
and as part of the Executive Work Group agendas,
just provide you so you know what's on the books
and forecasted out ahead of us.
Relative to the supplemental engagement opportunities,
did you want to describe just an update
on the interest group briefings?
- Oh sure.
- And we have that listed here, but we need...
- So since we last met,
and as part of our supplemental engagement opportunities,
we have met with six interest groups
and the way we sort of identified those interest groups
were those that had already been engaged in the process
and we have had meetings with them.
Let me list them and then we can go
quickly through the purpose.
So we met with CLIPA and DERT,
Thurston County Chamber, Olympia Downtown Alliance,
LOTT and the Recreational Voters Association
that's not in order of how we did them,
but the purpose of those briefings were to provide
an overview of the process,
the environmental impact statement.
To describe to them the scoping process
and what we hope to achieve in the scoping process.
And the opportunities and ways to comment
and to help them,
to help answer any questions about how they can provide
better comments or comments that may be more influential.
And then we also had an opportunity to discuss
the additional engagement opportunities,
so we described, the folks that we were meeting with,
as part of the interest groups,
the community sounding board that Jessi described to you
in October, at our October 2nd meeting,
and then also our intermittent, additional engagement
just out in the community.
Those have been pretty well received
and we've heard good feedback from the participants
about this being a helpful component of the process
and we are constraining this given the feedback
as part of our draft environmental impact
statement milestone as well.
- Thank you for doing that.
Any questions before we move
to public engagement opportunities?
- What is the community sounding board?
Is that something new?
- No that was the concept,
we have shapes on here,
it's the gray, gray circle.
All of the shapes.
Our thought concept of the community sounding board
was that we would be able to invite participants
that represent a diverse range of community interests
and be able to have an open discussion
on key items that are part of the EIS process
and the technical evaluation.
So that folks could share ideas,
express viewpoints and that we would be able
to have that dialogue and bring that information
and discussion into the Work Group meetings
and communicate what was really important
and of value for those community members.
And so we wanted to first vet that community 74 concept
with you folks on the 2nd,
today in the Work Groups,
and then we'll have work as we get into 2019.
So through the end of 2018 to really flesh out that concept
and invitation and we'd like to have a student or youth
participation in the sounding board as well,
as well as those groups that received
or had the interest group briefings
that Tessa described as well.
Those are also great organizations
that have had involvement and commitment
to the long-term management of Capitol Lakes
so we would envision those folks being invited
to participate as well as youth.
And we've had suggestions of maybe
other organizations or a task force
or things of that nature that might
come into that as well.
So that would be something that would be, in 2019.
Once we're kind of getting into the technical,
technical work of the EIS.
- Just a minor point.
But I think it's good for you to have it added,
I missed it, down-pan-uh-lines,
you said you did meet with them?
I kinda wanna document that just for the record.
- Oh yes. - We actually.
- That was today. - Yeah.
(laughing)
- It was this morning and we put this together
and since that time actually got that scheduled so.
- Okay we're gonna be okay on time here.
So our item on the agenda,
potential future public engagement opportunities.
This was something that was talked about
on the 2nd and we all hand kind of a homework item to this.
Our homework item and mayor Selby you had a good suggestion
about going to Experience Olympia.
We combined that and a couple other resources
to put together a complied list
of community events.
And we'll pass this out. I'm sorry about that.
Community events right now that are identified
for 2018 but would be expected to occur in 2019
plus or minus a few days, right?
But the seasonal dates should be correct.
The event, the community, and the website.
You are not expected to read all of this,
the front and back right now,
and know if anything is missing,
but this is kind of a compiled list
of opportunities for engagement in 2019
and our thought is that we would be able to,
as we work through the scoping comments,
we'll put the focus in November
and we're working on the report.
Like we've said, that's when we have the opportunity
to really look at a detailed schedule for 2019
and within that context can think about these events,
so that when we meet with you in January,
we would probably have our eyes set on a few of these
that we would potentially anticipate participating in.
And as Tessa walked through with the major milestones
around the EIS,
the draft EIS is expected to come out in 2020, not 2019.
But we would still like to communicate to the community
the EIS work that is occurring
and kind of keep somewhere in the purview
of people's minds so they don't forget about the project,
that they're thinking about it
we can still hear input from them
and that they're engaged and aware
of the draft EIS coming out in 2020.
So your homework item was if you have events
that you think really would be great for us to communicate
or participate in,
and what you'll notice this is,
I'm sure not all inclusive of everything,
and we didn't have access and include
Jeff, in particular, tribal events
that could be opportunities for engagement as well.
So if there are tribal events that you're aware of,
we would love to know about them for 2019.
- Or county.
- And county, yes. Exactly.
- So their assignment is to look at this before January.
- Yes, Thurston, kind of a county,
encompasses a couple,
yeah, you could look at this exactly, right.
Thank you Susan.
Look at this before our January meeting
and just see if you see if you say,
hey there's two that you're missing here
that might be good to consider.
That would be great.
- These dates are for last year,
I'm assuming 'cause they say 18.
- That is correct, yeah.
They don't have the 2019 dates.
This shows 2018, but we can probably estimate
give or take, it'll be still in May 2019
or something along those lines.
The season's probably right.
- You don't include August on here.
- Oh, back sheet. - Woop doodoo.
- My bad, so.
- Yeah the brewfest.
- Jessi, as they're considering this table
and thinking about what might be missing,
do you want them to be contemplating
of those what they think might be higher value?
Or is there any kind of a conversation
around prioritizing?
Or some number to focus on?
- I think that, well, we'll need to,
like I was saying as we are identifying our schedule
in 2019 in a more granular way,
think about where the events fall relative to that
and what makes the most sense.
But if you folks are aware of additional
or events on this list that you really feel
has good community outreach that you would recommend
or put forward, we'd love to know about that
so that we could prioritize those
as potentially when we look at where are our opportunities
we can take that in the decision-making.
- You want us to report, not right now, but later.
- Yeah, later is just fine.
I know this isn't on the list,
we didn't expect you to be like, aha you're missing...
I've got it, yeah.
- And what would be your MO for these occasions.
- It varies. Sometimes like the arts walk
that was where it was handing out fliers.
Other times it might be that we have a booth
and are able to have more of a presence.
So I think that would vary a bit
depending on the event,
and the format of the event.
Yeah, so we could be somewhat flexible
depending on what makes sense.
- Yeah keeping the project relevant,
keeping the name recognition,
answering process-related questions for the community,
helping them understand that there are ways to engage,
whether that be additional participation,
sounding board if that's something
or letting them know when the draft will be out
so that they can comment at that time.
Just really making sure that we're relevant
and known and part of the community. On a dialogue.
- And those community sounding board meetings
will be open to the public.
So it might be an opportunity that,
if someone wants an update on the process
or some of that technical analysis, they can attend.
And of course, all of our Work Group meetings
are also open to the public.
So it's kind of a reminder for folks as well.
Any questions on that?
- I have just one comment here on like, for instance,
some of these have multiple dates
because they're like concert series
or whatever series.
So you're not saying you're gonna
be at every concert, but you may be at selected concerts.
Is that what you're saying?
- This is not the list of what we plan
on participating in.
It is just the list of opportunities.
- Opportunities. Okay, I gotcha. Thank you.
- Ray, and then you wanted to ask something?
- [Ray] Yeah, I just wanted to add that I think
events where there's some kind of nexus
between the people and the project.
So I'll throw out an example
that might make sense, Duck Dash,
people are at the falls,
they're engaged with the water body
on the upland side of it,
but that's an opportunity for us to say,
hey you know, you may not think that you have
an interest in this project,
but actually you do.
You experience it in a different way
than people on the other end of the lake.
But that kind of nexus
is a really cool opportunity to get people
engaged that might otherwise just sort of pass by
and say oh that's not a thing
that I am interested and worried about.
Thank you.
- And when you actually, some of these,
you don't really have much
opportunity to, like during an Easter Egg Dash,
the kids are all about the candy,
and the parents are chasing the kids.
So you're not gonna have a good opportunity.
(speaking over each other)
- Put out the best EIS finding from the eggs.
- There you go.
(laughing)
- Like Hershey's Kiss and it's...
(speaking over each other)
- Prefer an alternative--
(laughing)
- I wanna have a reveal party,
(mumbles) preferred on communion.
- That's funny.
- So we will track this and our vision
for this is January.
We would say hey here's a few we're thinking of.
That for now, okay and...
(speaking over each other)
Okay so before we go to feedback really quick,
I was looking at the Doodle poll,
the few folks that have had the chance,
I know you are busy people,
it was looking like maybe January 11th, Friday
was the best day.
Maybe Monday the 14th is an option too,
but that seemed to have.
And of course there's certain hours of each day
that don't work, but there was some good...
(whispering)
- Yeah 11th would work for me.
- Oh that's a good point.
I'm sorry, can you say that again?
- 11th would work for me.
- I have council retreat.
- On the 11th? - So not the 11th, okay.
- Yeah that sounds fine.
- It's in the Lockport realm.
- What does your... - It's not the bree-gull-way.
- Thursday the 10th or Monday the 14th look like?
- Monday the 14th.
- 10th would work for me,
well 14th could work also.
- Any objection to 10th or 14th?
Anybody have a, no (mumbles).
- Do we have times within those days.
- Yeah that's another thing, is the time, a.m. or p.m.?
- I did a bunch of two hour slots,
so we could.
- So we should just do a Doodle poll when we're done.
- That would be best, I just thought if there's
anything I know doesn't work right now,
so if you can do that, Doodle poll,
that'll be great.
And I tried to do a bunch in a day
to see what works.
- All three days work for me, so.
- Okay. Thank you.
- It sounds like the 11th is not gonna work for Miss Selby.
- Is out (mumbles) yeah. Okay.
Tessa, what she was just reminding me,
which was great,
is that meeting documentation,
the meeting summary, was provided to you guys
via email with that Doodle poll
and what we are aiming to do
is be able to provide the meeting documentation
to the website one month following the meeting.
So that would mean that the October 2nd
meeting notes or documentation would be posted
to the website by November 2nd
and in that process then,
we are giving you one week to review
the meeting documentation,
to provide us with any edits, comments, questions
you may have.
So that would be by, today.
(laughing)
And that's today, so.
This is our first one, so go with tomorrow.
Tomorrow if needed.
They're pretty straightforward, but please let us know
if you have any edits or questions
or we captured anything too generally or too detailed,
we're open here to how it best serves your process as well.
Okay, so, round table feedback,
is there anything that just for the good of the order,
you folks would want to share, provide input, thoughts,
the like, it's just kind of an open few minutes.
- The only think I would say is I think you're gonna
find that the scoping comments
are covering wide, a huge range of issues.
And we don't have means in the budget,
or I think we decline to do a scientific study here.
It could take decades, if you really were to explore
every issue to the ends of the group.
So I think this needs to be focused
pretty carefully and we'll need to gather
some additional information, I think,
to reconfirm some of the earlier testing
that's been done, whatever.
But I hope that we can focus this
and get it done this time.
The legislature made it very clear
we're not gonna get any more money.
So we need to work within the budget that we've got.
- Absolutely. - Yeah, thank you.
And I would say that the purpose of scoping
is really to narrow the focus
of the environmental impact statement
to significant issues, so we'll keep an eye for that
as we're moving through the comments
and when we bring them to you.
- Anyone else? Comments?
- I need a small request.
You got a list of items there that were of public comment,
you wanna send them out in the notes?
Or how can we get a hold of those, I guess?
- Oh we will capture these in the scoping report,
but Jessi do you?
- I think we could absolutely have that
in the meeting documentation for today.
- That'll help be tell the board--
- That's generally the case.
- It is. Just the title, I don't want the actual.
- Yeah, just the, we'll do that,
Megan helps us with this so we will kind of bold
and make sure we capture those and you can have them
in the meeting minutes.
That's a good point to make sure we capture it.
Anything else?
I think we can provide the opportunity
for a public comments or questions.
Does anyone from the public have anything today?
- Do we want to, I know we've got a little bit of time here,
but do we wanna just generally say, couple minutes, or?
- That sounds good.
- That sound alright?
- [Audience Member] Okay I'll start again.
- I wouldn't even dream of it,
I don't even have the time (mumbles).
- [Audience Member] Thank you, appreciate it.
First of all, I think having LOTT at the table's
a really good idea and I really (mumbles) the decision.
I wanted to thank you for giving the scoping comments
from the 10th on your website.
They're very interesting, I read them
and I hope that as the scoping comments
from the 22nd get put on, maybe,
I mean I can keep an eye on the library tab
of the website, but a little notice here and there
would be great to let people know that they're available.
Also the meeting notices for these meetings
I just happened to look at the website this morning
and notice that there was a meeting today.
And so no one else knew there was a meeting today,
unless they looked at the website,
so I just wondered if that'll be,
someday they'll be sent out to the interest groups
or people that wanna maybe come listen
to what you guys have to say in the future.
I mean that's what happened in phase one, so.
It makes sense to do it again.
And then the ecosystem services piece,
it's really important to evaluate the value
of the environment and the things
that help build a healthy area in terms of the future,
future generations, the kids, they're not here
and they haven't had a voice
and I know at DERT we really try hard
to keep youth involved and keep youth informed
all the time, here's what's goin' on.
And you'd be amazed at how much they know
about the estuary, river, lake issue.
It's pretty phenomenal.
I think all the schools in the area
have been studying this, science classes.
And I know we talk to many many many classes
about what's going on.
So just, kids are important, so keep that in mind,
future generations.
And then the last thing is August 24th, 2019.
Is the festival of the (mumbles)
and I extend a hand out to you folks to be there,
unlike last time, you weren't.
So please, please join us.
- Thank you. Any other comments or questions?
- [Male Audience Member] Just trying to make comment
that the, from our perspective at CLIPA (mumbles),
started getting from her, responses to our questions
and (mumbles) and we've been sharing with 'em,
information, everything important to the scoping process.
So thank you for doing that.
- Thank you for that.
(whispering)
- Thank you.
- Any one else want to provide public comment?
Alright, we have some followup items
and we can translate those into action items
where appropriate and some of them
are down the road and may be agenda items
for the January meetings.
So I think we're good to go.
Yeah, is there anything else that we?
- No I think that's it.
Thank you for your time.
If you're able to do the Doodle poll,
let us know if you have comments
on the meeting documentation from the 2nd.
We will transmit the documentation
within a couple weeks from this meeting today as well.
And have scoping things,
we will revisit project logo variations and be doing work.
- It's like picking out wallpaper.
(laughing) Different.
- We got homework (mumbles). - That's right, homework.
(speaking over each other) - Exactly.
And we'll reach out to LOTT.
Thank you everyone and Happy Halloween.
For more infomation >> Capitol Lake/Lower Deschutes Watershed Executive Work Group meeting on Oct. 29, 2018 - Duration: 1:29:22.-------------------------------------------
2018 24ft Sebastian's Tiny in Pacific HWY Long Beach , Washington - Duration: 1:48.
Most Popular Unit Park Model Homes Champion 520 FOR SALE $50K
-------------------------------------------
Feds challenge Washington state Hanford Law - Duration: 4:48.
For more infomation >> Feds challenge Washington state Hanford Law - Duration: 4:48. -------------------------------------------
Mr. Huber Goes to Washington - Duration: 8:37.
Hello and welcome to Declassified,
I'm Gina Shakespeare. Today on the show,
Mr. Huber Goes to Washington.
This story by Brian Cates,
a political pundit and writer based in South Texas
and the author of "Nobody Asked For My Opinion … But Here It Is Anyway!"
He can be reached on Twitter at @drawandstrike.
Details are in the description below.
From the moment it was announced that Jeff Sessions was resigning as Attorney General
to be replaced by the far lesser known Matthew Whitaker,
the mainstream media immediately began strongly pushing a narrative
that President Donald Trump is preparing to fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Trump critics are convinced what the country is seeing right now
is a slow rolling repeat of the infamous 'Saturday Night Massacre' of the Watergate scandal.
President Nixon, who was desperate to stop the WaterGate probe before it reached the White House,
ordered his Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Special Counsel Archibald Cox.
Richardson refused, and resigned.
Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus also resigned rather than follow Nixon's order.
It then fell to the Solicitor General, Robert Bork, to fire Cox.
Nixon's desperate gambit to stall the WaterGate investigation failed to save his presidency,
and he resigned from office shortly thereafter.
Using the events of 1973 as their template,
Trump critics are assuming Sessions was ordered to fire Mueller and he refused,
which led to his being forced to resign so that a more compliant person
could move into the post who will follow Trump's direct orders.
So it's assumed that new Attorney General Whitaker is Trump's personally handpicked attack dog
who will do whatever Trump commands him to.
This hysterical narrative assumes that Trump sees Mueller and his team
as a real threat to himself and to his administration.
For two weeks now anti-Trump forces have loudly beaten the drum
that Muller must not be fired under any circumstances.
Outgoing Senator and fierce Trump critic Jeff Flake of Arizona has thus far made good on a promise
not to vote to confirm any more judges until the Senate brings to the floor
an unconstitutional bill he authored that literally makes it impossible
for Mueller to be fired – by the President,
by the Attorney General or anybody else.
This narrative depends on accepting the belief that the Mueller team,
which has been leaking like a sieve for over a year and a half,
has found real solid evidence of the Trump campaign colluding with the Russians
but has managed somehow to not leak it to the news media.
And Trump is growing increasingly desperate to stop the investigation
before this evidence is publicly revealed.
Washington DC is a leak culture.
It would defy belief that the Mueller team has in its possession
for even a few weeks a smoking gun that would supposedly bring down a Presidency and it didn't leak.
Any reporter that could get their hands on that smoking gun
and break the news would instantly enter the history books.
So would their source, who would instantly become the new "Deep Throat",
the inside official in the Watergate scandal that brought down the Nixon presidency.
Well the conventional take is, as usual, wrong.
Once again, Trump has the mainstream media looking in the wrong direction
and unprepared for what is about to actually happen.
The Muller Russia probe will be allowed to end of its own accord,
where it will conclude there was no Trump campaign/Russian collusion
and that no Russian activity influenced the outcome of the 2016 presidential election.
All the real movement is actually towards the unveiling of the true scope of the SpyGate scandal.
A big sign of this was broken on November 20 by John Solomon of The Hill
in a report entitled "House GOP to hold hearing into DOJ's probe of Clinton Foundation".
Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina revealed during an interview with The Hill.
TV's "Rising" radio program that US Attorney John Huber of Utah
is scheduled to come to Washington DC on December 5
and give testimony to the House Oversight Committee
about his investigation into issues surrounding The Clinton Foundation.
Meadows gave no indication in the report by Solomon if the scheduled December 5th hearing
will be open to the public or behind closed doors.
Huber first came to national attention back in March of this year
when then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions revealed in a letter to the Congress
that Huber was leading a team of US Attorneys
that was working in tandem with Department of Justice Inspector General Michael E.
Horowitz on several key investigations that arose from issues surrounding the 2016 election.
This revelation by Rep. Meadows caught many by surprise.
While it was known Huber and Horowitz were working together,
it was assumed this joint work had to do with only the three specific investigations
Horowitz has discussed publicly,
two of which have concluded and one that is still in progress:
1. the Andrew McCabe perjury report [which lead to McCabe's firing]
2. the Clinton Email report [into how the FBI handled the probe]
3. the SpyGate report [which is still in progress]
Only at this point is it being revealed that Huber has been digging deep
for some time into issues surrounding the Clinton Foundation,
possibly into any role the organization played in the issues surrounding the 2016 Presidential election.
Horowitz & Huber's team of crack investigators & US Attorneys
have spent more than a year and a half slowly
and painstakingly working their way backwards through the SpyGate maze.
The Inspector General began his latest investigation
by focusing on the moment top officials from the DOJ/FBI
presented a warrant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court [FISC] in order to begin legally spying
on minor Trump foreign policy adviser Carter Page and,
by extension, on the entire Trump campaign itself.
It has long been alleged by Republican members of the investigative committees
such as Devin Nunes [CA] and the aforementioned Mark Meadows [NC]
that there were key omissions and deliberate misrepresentations in that warrant,
most of which revolve around what has come to be called 'The Steele Dossier',
after their supposed creator, former MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele.
In taking a deep dive into the Steele Dossier's contents & how
those documents were presented to the FISC,
Horowitz & Huber by necessity had to examine where the dossier came from,
who paid for it's creation,
and exactly how it got to the FBI so the agency could make use of it.
Following the money ended up leading them straight to the law firm of Perkins Coie,
and from there, to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
Clinton tried to hide her connection to the Steele Dossier
by laundering the money through Perkins Coie,
but Horowitz is a bloodhound and he followed the trail to the real source.
The fact that Hillary Clinton paid for the creation & the dissemination of the Steele dossier
throughout the US news media came straight from Horowitz in October of 2017,
when he first called attention to his SpyGate probe by briefly surfacing to hand off
some of the evidence he found to the Congress.
That initial handoff of evidence included Clinton trying to hide her connection to the Steele Dossier
by laundering the money through Perkins Coie,
as well as the first batch of the now infamous Peter Strzok/Lisa Page text messages.
What Horowitz & Huber have documented is that one of the political campaigns
involved in the 2016 Presidential election
actually managed to pay for the creation of a series of
politically-motivated [and likely fake] 'intelligence reports'
that ended up being used by political partisans inside
federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies
to spy on and attempt to entrap the other campaign.
To use the fake intelligence reports to get approval for surveillance of the Trump campaign,
all James Comey, Andrew McCabe,
Peter Strzok & others involved in this scandal had to do was hide from the FISC
where the Steele dossier really came from and who actually paid for it.
Which they did.
Fully ponder that for a minute, if you will.
There is no way the top CIA/ DOJ/FBI people
involved in setting up the Crossfire Hurricane operation
to try to entrap the Trump campaign didn't know the 'evidence'
they were presenting to the FISC came straight from Hillary Clinton,
who paid Fusion GPS handsomely for it's invention.
The 'Russian collusion' wasn't real and they all knew it from the start.
This has been,
as President Trump has repeatedly claimed,
a 'witch hunt' where the witches aren't real.
And in closing, now Huber is coming to DC on December 5th
to discuss some of what he and Horowitz have found.
Was the Clinton Foundation involved in any of this money laundering that went on?
We'll soon know.
That's all the time we have for today,
thank you very much for watching,
and please don't forget to subscribe,
like and hit the notifications button.
Plus leave your comments in the section below, from all of us at Declassified,
take care, and we'll see you very soon.
-------------------------------------------
Lawrow: Washington toleriert nicht nur Kiews Aktionen, sondern provoziert sie - Duration: 3:08.
For more infomation >> Lawrow: Washington toleriert nicht nur Kiews Aktionen, sondern provoziert sie - Duration: 3:08. -------------------------------------------
DONALD TRUMP GOES ROGUE WITH MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT – ROCKS WASHINGTON DC - Duration: 11:23.
DONALD TRUMP GOES ROGUE WITH MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT – ROCKS WASHINGTON DC
As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following
information published by Breitbart:
President Donald Trump mocked Rep. Adam Schiff, the California Democrat who is expected to
become chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in a tweet on Sunday, calling him
"little Adam Schitt."
"So funny to see little Adam Schitt (D-CA) talking about the fact that Acting Attorney
General Matt Whitaker was not approved by the Senate, but not mentioning the fact that
Bob Mueller (who is highly conflicted) was not approved by the Senate!" Trump tweeted
around 1 p.m.
About 30 minutes after the president's tweet, Schiff tweeted:
Schiff appeared earlier Sunday on ABC's This Week, vowing to challenge President Trump's
appointment of acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker.
"I think the appointment is unconstitutional.
He is clearly a principle officer and the fact that he is a temporary principle officer
doesn't mean that that is any less subject to Senate confirmation," he said.
The Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 allows for someone to serve in an acting capacity for
210 days as long as that official served in in the same department in a fairly high-ranking
position for at least 90 days.
Schiff argued there are special rules at the Justice Department to determine who becomes
acting attorney general.
He also threatened to "expose" whether Whitaker has had any involvement in Special
Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation of the Trump campaign.
Before joining the Justice Department as former Attorney General Jeff Sessions's chief of
staff in 2017, Whitaker wrote op-eds and appeared on TV discussing his views about the investigation.
He has said the investigation should not investigate the president's finances that are unrelated
to the question of whether there was collusion with the Russians.
"We will expose any involvement he has in it.
He needs to know that if he takes any action to curb what Mr. Mueller does, we're going
to find out about it.
We're going to expose it.
And I would certainly call on my colleagues right now to avoid the constitutional crisis,
take action now, speak out against this appointment," Schiff said.
It is not the first time Trump has trolled Schiff with a nickname.
He has previously called him "Liddle Adam Schiff."
-------------------------------------------
Opinion | Where's the love for WikiLeaks now, Mr. President? - Duration: 1:14.
It's been amazing what's coming out on Wikileaks.
I mean there's WikiLeaks is fascinating.
WikiLeaks! I love WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks, right?
They want to distract us from WikiLeaks.
And you know I was getting off the plane, they were just announcing new WikiLeaks!
And I wanted to stay there but I didn't want to keep you waiting.
WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks.
I've been wondering about those WikiLeaks.
Boy that WikiLeaks has done a job on her, hasn't it?
We've learned so much from WikiLeaks.
These WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks.
The wonder of WikiLeaks.
As confirmed just today by WikiLeaks.
The WikiLeaks revelations.
Oh, we love WikiLeaks. Boy they have really — WikiLeaks!
Wiki - WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks.
WikiLeaks.
It just came out on WikiLeaks.
-------------------------------------------
Trump: Cohen lying to get reduced sentence - Duration: 2:47.
For more infomation >> Trump: Cohen lying to get reduced sentence - Duration: 2:47. -------------------------------------------
Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress about Moscow project - Duration: 1:40.
For more infomation >> Michael Cohen pleads guilty to lying to Congress about Moscow project - Duration: 1:40. -------------------------------------------
Philip Glass: The greatest influence was my father's record store - Duration: 2:17.
For more infomation >> Philip Glass: The greatest influence was my father's record store - Duration: 2:17. -------------------------------------------
Washington Holiday Preview - Duration: 0:27.
For more infomation >> Washington Holiday Preview - Duration: 0:27. -------------------------------------------
Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis - Duration: 6:27.
Welcome back, Power People. Tips, comments, recipes? Anything we can be doing better? We want to hear from you -- really! Reach out and sign up
And thanks for waking up with us. FIGHT OR FLIGHT: Two of the biggest battles of Donald Trump's presidency — building his border wall and defending himself from a legal probe he has consistently slammed as a "witch hunt" — are reaching a boiling point
Whether the president chooses to fight or fold in both cases could shape the next two years of his presidency and dictate the terms of a 2020 reelection battle
After a quiet stretch leading into the midterms, there have been several key developments just this week in Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, and whether Trump campaign aides had improper links to the Kremlin
And the president must decide whether to take a dramatic stand to secure $5 billion in funding for the border wall before Democrats take control of the House, perhaps shutting down the government in the process
Trump seems determined to fight these two wars — at least for the time being: Trump has been threatening not to sign a spending bill by Dec
7 that doesn't continue the $5 billion he wants for the barrier between the United States and Mexico
But he needs Senate Democrats (and 60 Senate votes) to sign on for that to happen — and the minority party has only agreed to $1
6 billion in funding. And it is far from clear that congressional Republicans — many of whom are on the way out after a bruising election — have the stomach for a shutdown fight
As for Schumer, he made it clear during a news conference on Tuesday that Democrats will stick to the $1
6 billion they've agreed to. "We believe it is the right way to go . . . if there's any shutdown, it's on President Trump's back," he said
It's not just Schumer and Democrats: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) told reporters she hadn't seen justification for the $5 billion figure and believes that current funds dedicated to the border "addresses so many of the issues that we have with border security
" Unpredictability: Trump said two different things on the wall in a pair of interviews with The Post and Politico on Tuesday: to my colleagues he suggested he was open to Plan B if Congress rejects the $5 billion figure; and after that to Politico, the president vowed he was "firm" and "totally willing" to shut the government down in the fight
Mueller Mania: There has been a lot of news (leaks) out of the Mueller probe — and its participants — this week that could be quite significant
Trump is preparing for battle, judging from the stepped-up vitriol against Mueller and the probe coming from his Twitter feed over the past few days
"So much happening with the now discredited Witch Hunt. This total Hoax will be studied for years!" Trump tweeted late last night
The key developments from this week that have Trump fuming — publicly and privately: Pardoning Manafort, who has been convicted by a jury on eight counts of tax and bank fraud, seems like a bad idea, according to the president's own allies
Some aggressive self-expression: The president retweeted yesterday meme of various public figures including Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein behind prison bars
He told the New York Post, "He should have never picked a Special Counsel." He also tweeted yesterday comparing the Mueller prosecutions to the "Joseph McCarthy Era!," The Post's John Wagner writes
In the more problems for Trump category, the Senate "delivered a historic rebuke of the fallout over Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi's killing last month, as a decisive majority voted to advance a measure to end U
S. military support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen," reported The Post's Karoun Demirjian, Carol Morello and John Hudson
More from their story: PELOSI PREVAILS — FOR NOW: House Democrats nominated a trio of old guard, veteran leaders — all in their 70s — to lead them come January
Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) was unopposed in her bid for the speakership, while Reps. Steny Hoyer (Md
) and James E. Clyburn (S.C.) were elected majority leader and whip, respectively
BACK TO THE BORDER — A DISPATCH: Amid fresh conflict along the southern border and a deal the Trump administration struck with the new Mexican government that allows those seeking asylum in the to wait in Mexico while U
S. officials process their claims, Power Up touched base with Joshua Partlow, The Post's Mexico City bureau chief
Here's Josh from Mexico City and Tijuana:
-------------------------------------------
Washington Post contributor Ruth Tam reacts to Zimmern apology - Duration: 3:17.
For more infomation >> Washington Post contributor Ruth Tam reacts to Zimmern apology - Duration: 3:17. -------------------------------------------
Oppy, Apples from Washington, PMA Fresh Summit 2018 - Duration: 1:04.
My name's David Nelley,
VP of Categories at the Oppenheimer Group.
We're selling three varieties right now,
which are fresh from Washington State.
The first one, out of the gates, is a Jazz Apple.
And Jazz is a year-round supply now,
good sizing, and one of the top ten premium apples in North America.
The next one we start with is Envy Apple,
and in my opinion, it's the best apple to come out of
New Zealand in the last 25 years.
So we've got that fresh starting from Washington State.
The size is huge; the color is great.
We're going to see a lot of demand for it in the export markets,
but they'll be plentiful in the domestic market, too.
Finally—last but not least—the last apple we harvest is Pacific Rose.
We're seeing that harvest right now. The color is fantastic.
Probably the best I've seen in many years.
And the Pacific Rose is a sweeter apple
to complement the sweet-tart of the Jazz.
So between those three, we've got a flavor for everybody.
AndNowUKnow!
-------------------------------------------
Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis - Duration: 11:47.
President Trump's former personal attorney Michael Cohen pleaded guilty Thursday in New York to lying to Congress about a Moscow real estate project that Trump and his company pursued at the same time he was running for president
In a nine-page filing, prosecutors laid out a litany of lies that Cohen admitted he told to congressional lawmakers about the Moscow project — an attempt, Cohen said, to minimize links between the proposed development and Trump as his presidential bid was well underway
Cohen's guilty plea — his second in four months — is the latest development in a wide-ranging investigation by special counsel Robert S
Mueller III into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Activity in that probe has intensified this week, as one planned guilty plea was derailed and, separately, prosecutors accused Trump's former campaign chairman Paul Manafort of lying to them since he pleaded guilty
The plea is likely to further chill relations between the White House and the Justice Department, where acting attorney general Matthew G
Whitaker has been serving for several weeks since the president forced out attorney general Jeff Sessions
Justice Department policies and special counsel regulations call for the attorney general to be notified of significant events in such investigations, and a person familiar with the case said Whitaker was notified ahead of time about Cohen's plea
As part of Cohen's plea, he admitted to falsely claiming that efforts to build a Trump-branded tower in Moscow ended in January 2016, when in fact discussions continued through June of that year, the filing said
Among those Cohen briefed on the project's status was Trump, on more than three occasions, according to the document
Trump has repeatedly said he had no business dealings in Russia, tweeting in July 2016, "For the record, I have ZERO investments in Russia," and telling reporters in January 2017 that he had no deals there because he had "stayed away
" On Thursday, Trump denounced Cohen when reporters asked about the case as he left the White House
"Michael Cohen is lying and he's trying to get a reduced sentence for things that have nothing to do with me," the president said
"This was a project that we didn't do, I didn't do . . . There would be nothing wrong if I did do it
" Trump's lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, suggested the timing of Mueller's move with Cohen was politically motivated
"It is hardly coincidental that the special counsel once again files a charge just as the president is leaving for a meeting with world leaders at the G20 Summit in Argentina," Giuliani said in a statement, noting that Mueller also unsealed charges before the president left the country for a summit in Helsinki in July
Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the House Intelligence Committee's senior Democrat, said the guilty plea shows the president was not truthful about his business interests in Russia during the campaign
"We believe other witnesses were untruthful before our committee," Schiff said. "We want to share those transcripts with Mr
Mueller." In particular, Schiff cited Trump adviser Roger Stone as someone whose answers were "far from truthful before our committee
" During the campaign, Cohen acted as Trump's point person in an attempt to build the Trump development in Moscow
He has said the project was in its early stages in fall 2015, as Trump's presidential campaign heated up
Cohen previously said the project stalled in January 2016, prompting him to email a top aide to Russian President Vladimir Putin seeking help
Cohen previously said that he never received a response and that the project was halted that month
In fact, according to Thursday's court filing, the Russians did respond and Cohen discussed the project for 20 minutes on the phone with an assistant to Dmitry Peskov, a senior aide to Putin
At the time, Cohen was seeking help with both securing land and financing. Peskov did not immediately respond Thursday to a request for comment
Prosecutors seemed to make a point in the document of emphasizing how Cohen had talked with Trump — whom they didn't name — about the project
The document said Cohen lied because he hoped his testimony would limit the ongoing Russia investigations
Prosecutors also said that Cohen continued to have contact into summer 2016 with Felix Sater, a Russian-born developer assisting with the project
Some of those contacts were first reported by The Washington Post. In June 2016, Sater invited Cohen to attend an economic conference in St
Petersburg, assuring Cohen that he could be introduced to Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, top financial leaders and perhaps Putin, The Post reported
Sater has been cooperating with the investigation for more than a year, providing emails and other documents, people familiar with probe have said
An attorney for Sater did not immediately comment. [Top Trump Organization executive asked Putin aide for help on business deal] According to the criminal information filed by prosecutors, Cohen sent a two-page letter to the committee in which he "knowingly and deliberately" made false statements, including that the Moscow project "ended in January 2016 and was not discussed extensively with others in the company"; that Cohen "never agreed to travel to Russia in connection with the Moscow project and 'never considered' asking Individual 1 to travel for the project"; and that Cohen "did not recall any Russian government response or contact about the Moscow Project
" The document does not identify "Individual 1," but according to people familiar with the case, that person is Trump
"Cohen discussed the status and progress of the Moscow Project with Individual 1 on more than the three occasions Cohen claimed to the committee, and he briefed family members of Individual 1 within the Company about the project," according to the filing
The document also says Cohen discussed in May 2016 the possibility he might travel to Russia before the Republican National Convention and that Individual 1 might travel there after the convention, but a month later, he told "Individual 2" that he would not be making such a trip
The document does not identify Individual 2, but people familiar with the investigation said that it is Sater, the Russian-born developer
Federal sentencing guidelines would call for Cohen to face a prison sentence of only six months at the high end and no time in prison at the low end, according to his plea agreement for making false statements
Both sides agreed that they would not ask for a sentence outside of that range, provided Cohen continues to cooperate
Outside the courthouse Thursday, Guy Petrillo, an attorney for Cohen, said: "Mr
Cohen has cooperated. Mr. Cohen will continue to cooperate." He said sentencing in the case is scheduled for Dec
12. Cohen said nothing as a gaggle of reporters shouted questions at him. In August, Cohen, 52, pleaded guilty to campaign finance violations related to payments before the election to two women who alleged they had affairs with Trump years prior
He told the court that he had arranged those payments, designed to keep the women quiet before the presidential vote, at Trump's direction
He had also pleaded guilty to multiple counts of tax evasion, as well as bank fraud, related to his personal finances and management of taxi medallions
Cohen worked as a top attorney to Trump and his real estate company for a decade
After Trump took office, Cohen left the company and became a personal attorney to the president, while taking on consulting clients, including AT&T, Novartis and a New York firm that manages assets for a Russian billionaire
Once one of Trump's most loyal aides, he has taken a swift and thorough turn against the president in recent months
Cohen used to describe himself as Trump's pit bull and delighted in jousting with the celebrity business executive's enemies, once asserting that he would "take a bullet" for his longtime boss
But after pleading guilty, he said his conscience required him to tell the truth about Trump
Before the midterm elections, he urged the public to vote for Democrats, writing on Twitter that the election "might be the most important vote in our lifetime
" In recent months, he has been spending hours meeting with prosecutors, including Mueller's team, and was spotted recently arriving in Washington for additional meetings with his legal team
John Wagner and Tom Hamburger in Washington and Anton Troianovski in Moscow contributed to this report
-------------------------------------------
Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis - Duration: 4:06.
Many families and individuals in Woonsocket, Rhode Island take part in the SNAP (food stamps) program
(Michael S. Williamson/THE WASHINGTON POST) Lawmakers have struck a final farm bill deal that scraps a plan — backed by House Republicans and President Trump — that would have added new work requirements on food stamp beneficiaries, according to a key GOP Senator
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas), chair of the Senate agriculture committee, confirmed Thursday that the farm bill deal does not include House GOP plans to add new work requirements for older food stamp recipients and for parents of children age 6 and older
The Senate and House had been at an impasse for months over the $400 billion farm bill, which allocates federal funds for farm subsidies, food stamps and conservation efforts
A bipartisan Senate version of the bill did not include the work requirements, which were opposed by the chamber's Democrats
The four lawmakers leading the negotiations — Sens. Roberts and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich
), the leaders of the Senate Agriculture Committee, as well as Reps. Mike Conaway (R-Tex
) and Rep. Collin C. Peterson (D-Minn.) — announced Thursday morning they had an agreement in principle
The White House has also not yet signed off on the legislation, Roberts said. While some Senate Republicans supported new food stamp limits, the caucus was not willing to jeopardize passage of bill that contains billions in aid for farmers
Roberts told reporters that the House bill could not have passed the Senate without changes
"You have to have something that will pass the Senate," he said. "We took a more comprehensive approach
" Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mt.), a farm state senator, said he was encouraged by news a deal had been reached and had won Stabenow's support
But the new deal faced immediate opposition from some of the most conservative House Republicans
Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC), who leads the Republican Study Committee, signaled his potential opposition to the agreement, citing conservative support for stricter work requirements
"House conservatives, the President, and the vast majority of Americans support policies that encourage work and help lift people out of poverty," Walker said on twitter
"As I've said for months, those provisions have to stay." Liberal groups have vehemently opposed the proposed restrictions on food stamps, which they say are needed for people in poverty
Between 800,000 and 1.1 million households would have faced food stamp benefit cuts under one of the House Republican proposals, according to a study by the Mathematica Policy Research, a policy research organization
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét