Categories
Documents Environment Government Legal, Laws, and Regs

Sackett v EPA – Administration Record Index Documents

I received a CD with Administrative Record documents I requested via FOIA from the EPA. These documents were submitted by the EPA based on a request from the Sacketts in the Sackett et al vs. Johnson et al court case, otherwise known as the Sackett vs. the EPA. This case received a very narrow decision in the Supreme Court last year. I’ve retrieved most of the PACER court documents and am planning on posting these this week.

Thankfully, the Administrative Record documents came with a spreadsheet index, which I converted to a basic HTML table (Sacketts vs. the EPA Administrative Record Documents). Much simpler to post online when you don’t have to individually link the large titled PDFs.

An interesting thing about the Administrative Record documents is the photos. I’m not a geologist, but I found the photos of the Sacketts’ lot to be rather convincing that yes, they were filling in a wetlands. In addition, the Sacketts’ neighbors were the ones to file a complaint because, evidently, the work the Sacketts were doing was causing water to back up into the neighbor’s place.

The Sacketts claimed ignorance of the need to see if they required a Clear Water Act permit before filling in their property. I find this less than credible when you consider that the Sacketts run an excavation and construction business. In addition, there’s also the fact that the previous owners were aware the land was designated a wetlands.

Interesting what you can find with a simple FOIA request. Which, by the way, the EPA responded to quickly and efficiently.

I’ll have more on this case at a different web site (since this one is about document access) when I have all the pieces (and I have the extra time). In the mean time, feel free to explore the Admin Record documents, and the court documents later in the week. You can definitely find out more about the case just by searching on “Sackett vs EPA” online.

Categories
Documents Government

Trashing the EPA

I’m angry about the Republican intransigence regarding a vote for Gina McCarthy.

The Republican senators state that there’s a ‘lack of transparency’ to the actions of the EPA. They use the same old tired excuse that the previous head, Lisa Jackson, used an email alias. They ignore the fact that Jackson’s formal email address gets over a million emails a year, and is thus entirely useless when it comes to necessary communication. They also ignore the assurances, given again and again, that Jackson’s alias address is used when fulfilling Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

As for those FOIA mandates, no agency is perfect, but the EPA is most decidedly trying.

Categories
Environment Government Legal, Laws, and Regs

Sackett vs EPA

I received a CD with Administrative Record documents I requested via FOIA from the EPA. These documents were submitted by the EPA based on a request from the Sacketts in the Sackett et al vs. Johnson et al court case, otherwise known as the Sackett vs. the EPA. This case received a very narrow decision in the Supreme Court last year. I’ve retrieved most of the PACER court documents and am planning on posting these this week.

Thankfully, the Administrative Record documents came with a spreadsheet index, which I converted to a basic HTML table (Sacketts vs. the EPA Administrative Record Documents). Much simpler to post online when you don’t have to individually link the large titled PDFs.

An interesting thing about the Administrative Record documents is the photos. I’m not a geologist, but I found the photos of the Sacketts’ lot to be rather convincing that yes, they were filling in a wetlands. In addition, the Sacketts’ neighbors were the ones to file a complaint because, evidently, the work the Sacketts were doing was causing water to back up into the neighbor’s place.

The Sacketts claimed ignorance of the need to see if they required a Clear Water Act permit before filling in their property. I find this less than credible when you consider that the Sacketts run an excavation and construction business. In addition, there’s also the fact that the previous owners were aware the land was designated a wetlands.

Interesting what you can find with a simple FOIA request. Which, by the way, the EPA responded to quickly and efficiently.

I’ll have more on this case at a different web site (since this one is about document access) when I have all the pieces (and I have the extra time). In the mean time, feel free to explore the Admin Record documents, and the court documents later in the week. You can definitely find out more about the case just by searching on “Sackett vs EPA” online.

Categories
Environment Government

EPA’s report on Keystone XL Pipeline

Today the EPA released a comment on the State Department’s draft report on the Keystone XL Pipeline. The conclusion states:

Based on our review, we have rated the DSEIS as E0-2 (“Environmental Objections-Insufficient Information”) (see enclosed “Summary of Rating Defmitions and Follow-up Actions”).

Environmental Objections is defined as:

The EPA reyiew has identified significant environmental impacts that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.

The Category 2 insufficiency is further identified as:

The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternative that are within tbe spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the environmental impacts ofthe action. The identified additional information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS,

This all translates to, “Busted!”

Access the report directly.

Categories
Critters Government

The Dollarhite Saga

OK, this one baffles me.

The USDA sent a letter to the Dollarhites letting them off the hook for any and all fines, as long as the Dollarhites refrain from breeding animals for sale as pets. The Dollarhites got out of the baby bunny business in 2010, so this shouldn’t be a problem. They won’t have to pay one single penny in fines, so I don’t know how this can be a problem. However they, and a tiny assortment of Tea Party members, including a writer for the site, Big Government, are unhappy with the result.

Not only are they unhappy, but they seem to be personally targeting the USDA employee who sent the Dollarhites a letter.

I am assuming that the lawyer the Dollarhites hired has enough sense to know to grab the offer. I wouldn’t be unhappy, though, if the Dollarhites rejected the offer and the complaint went in front of a judge. A judge who, I want to add, is going to be peeved that they wasted his or her time by fighting an offer that basically lets them off without any penalties. No penalties, even though they violated the law for years by selling hundreds of rabbits as pets without the proper license and required animal care inspections.

Let’s say I doubt the Dollarhites would get off as easily.

It’s unfortunate, though, that a USDA employee was targeted just for doing her job. It’s also unfortunate that Senator McCaskill would seek to placate such unreasoning and, yes, scary people.

I realize that selling baby bunnies may not seem to be the same as selling puppies, but the USDA is chartered to care for all large scale pet sales in the country. Rabbits deserve a decent life, too.

The USDA responded to my FOIA request for materials related to the Dollarhite case with a note that they’ll need an extension of time. When I do receive the materials, I’ll post an update with copies.