Latest News

News Stories

Print this page

Today's Pork Report

Your Daily Dose of Outrage

February 11, 2008

• $130 million Peoria Riverfront Museum would be impossible without a federal earmark, says museum official
• Connecticut city votes to use $1.5 million federal earmark to transform 120 year old bridge into a pedestrian walkway; City council members says “It just doesn't make sense, no matter how we got the money, for a bridge we already walk across”
• Massachusetts community may hire Washington lobbyist to obtain an earmark for beach sand around island’s high-priced homes
• With state now requiring communities to spend some of their own money on road projects first, Montana town officials wonder if they can afford federal earmarks for road projects
• $1.6 million earmark for property purchase was good deal for ex-Senate aide
• California city’s Washington lobbying agenda calls for $16 million in earmark requests; City officials want to see a return on their investment of more than $200,000 for lobbyist
• Earmark for DNA study of bears in Montana becomes Presidential campaign issue
• Congressman’s support for pork may issue in GOP primary
• Utah’s Congressional delegation dismiss calls to end earmarks
• Ex-Congressman linked to earmarking scandal to be released from prison soon

Peoria Journal Star (Illinois)
Monday, February 11, 2008

Like many other projects, plans for a riverfront museum couldn't be realized without federal funds

SPRINGFIELD - Peoria's Lakeview Museum has big plans for the empty Sears block in the heart of Downtown, but a museum official says they will be impossible without a federal earmark.

"It couldn't be done," Kathleen Woith said of trying to reach private fundraising goals to build the nearly $130 million Peoria Riverfront Museum, which officials hope to open in 2012.

About $1.4 million for the project - which still faces a $24 million shortfall - is coming from federal earmarks that the museum received over the years.

To many, earmarks - federal grants tucked into the budget for pet projects - are nothing more than budget-bloating spending that amount to political pork. President Bush became the latest critic of them during his State of the Union address last month. But to Lakeview officials and others, earmarks are vital to the civic good.

In his speech, Bush threatened to veto any spending bill that did not cut earmarks by at least 50 percent - potentially endangering billions of dollars that lawmakers hope to take home during his last year in office.

As lawmakers begin this year's budget negotiations, critics speculate that the next president will be the one to deal with the budget and the earmarks.

Earmarks make up 1.8 percent of the federal government's spending each year, according to the Office of Management and Budget.

 

The Advocate (Connecticut)
February 9 2008
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/scn-sa-bridge7feb09,0,6784768.story 
 
Board of Reps OKs repairs to historic bridge
 
By Donna Porstner
Staff Writer

STAMFORD - The city plans to spend $1.8 million to replace a historic bridge that links downtown to the West Side.

The West Main Street bridge - also known as the Purple Bridge because of a painting mishap years ago - was closed to traffic in November 2002 because it was deemed unsafe.

 
Efforts to repair the bridge have started and stopped, in part, because elected officials disagreed over whether the 120-year-old structure - now a battleship gray - should be rebuilt to withstand traffic, become a pedestrian bridge.

Built in 1888 by Berlin Iron Bridge Co. of Connecticut, the bridge over the Rippowam River was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1987.

In 2001, the Board of Finance approved an agreement with Wengell, McDonnell & Costello Inc. of Newington to design a replacement bridge. At the time, city engineers estimated the project would cost $2.3 million.

The city abandoned those plans in favor of a pedestrian bridge when there was no outcry to re-open it to traffic, City Engineer Louis Casolo said. The city spent about $225,000 on the first set of plans, he said.

Now, the city plans to spend $375,000 for the design and construction of a pedestrian bridge. A $1.5 million federal grant, passed through the state Department of Transportation, will cover the balance.

Although it will be designed for foot traffic, Casolo said the new bridge will be able to support the weight of emergency vehicles.

The Board of Representatives narrowly passed a resolution Monday night committing the city to its share of the project.

Although the federal earmark was for a pedestrian bridge, the details about the type of bridge that will be built still need to be worked out at the city level, city Grants Officer Karen Cammarota said.

Opponents say it doesn't make sense to spend a penny on a pedestrian bridge when the current bridge already serves that purpose.

"To spend $1.5 million just to make it look fancier, I don't think is in the taxpayers' best interest," city Rep. John Zelinksy, D-11, said before the vote in an attempt to sway members to vote against it. The proposal passed 19-14.

Another opponent, city Rep. John Mallozzi, D-12, said he'd rather spend $375,000 to upgrade the city's storm drain system and give up the federal grant, than build a pedestrian bridge.

"It just doesn't make sense, no matter how we got the money, for a bridge we already walk across," he said after the vote. "When you put it together with all the demands for capital projects, I think people will come to their senses."

Mayor Dannel Malloy said the project is more than aesthetic because it's only a matter of time before the bridge will deteriorate and become unsafe for pedestrians.

The Mill River Master Plan calls for a new pedestrian bridge with a more modern and slender arched railing that's illuminated at night, but Casolo said the city plans to incorporate some decorative elements of the historic bridge into its replacement.

Mill River Collaborative Executive Director Milton Puryear, whose organization is charged with shepherding the park through a major revitalization, said the look of the bridge is not as important as its function - providing a safe pathway for pedestrians walking from downtown to the West Side.

"We think it's a big part of making the park work," Puryear said. "One of the big challenges of the park is that it's bisected by all these roads."

The bridge, which connects Mill River Street with Main Street, allows walkers access to the Columbus Park area without the danger of speeding cars.

"Vehicles have a priority at every other crossing over the river, and at every other crossing the person is inches from traffic," Puryear said. "That's not inviting."

Residents who use the park for exercise shouldn't have to look over their shoulders to see whether a car is coming, he said.

"When a person steps off the curb into the park, I want their blood pressure to go down. Their antenna to go down. For them to relax. That's what a park is for," he said. "If we want Stamford's downtown to be less reliant on automobiles, it just seems like a no-brainer."
 
 
 
Newburyport Current (Massachusetts)
February 7, 2008
http://www.wickedlocal.com/newburyport/homepage/x249519171
 

Army Corps of Engineers: PI beach preservation too costly

By Gillian Swart/gswart@cnc.com

Newburyport - Owners of beachfront homes on Plum Island (Massachusetts) may be up in arms and lobbyists can pitch whatever angle they choose — the fact is, the federal government opted out of footing the bill for any improvement and protection of Plum Island beaches 30 years ago. And there’s no money now either, said a representative from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ regional office.

“We don’t do beach nourishment projects anymore,” said Ed O’Donnell, New England chief of navigation for the Army Corps of Engineers, except on a cost-sharing basis, he added.

In a 1976 feasibility report the Army Corps of Engineers concluded that “engineering costs prohibit federal participation in any projects” on the 4.7 miles of shoreline at “Plum Island National Wildlife Refuge and surrounding area” in Newburyport-Newbury.

The report recommended that Newburyport and Newbury look for other sources of funding.

The town of Newbury is asking Newburyport to jointly hire a lobbyist to get funds for dredging the mouth of the river and depositing the sand on the island’s beach and not offshore, as has been done in the past as the most economical means of disposal. The plan is for the lobbyist to work with the legislative delegation to secure funds to repair Newburyport’s south jetty at the mouth of the river. The north jetty is in Salisbury.

Newbury selectmen have approved $10,000 for fiscal 2008 and the same amount for fiscal 2009 to pay half of the $40,000 lobbyist’s fee. The town is asking Newburyport to contribute $18,000 to pay the remaining cost after private citizens’ contributions.

U.S. Rep. John Tierney said any funding for replacing sand on the beach would first require an I-933 study — concerning government regulation of private property — and a local funding partner.

“No one has been identified yet who can support the additional funding,” O’Donnell said, adding that the amount needed is $300,000 to $400,000 for putting dredged sand onto the beach.

“To my knowledge, this is the first time anyone has considered [hiring a lobbyist],” he said.

O’Donnell has met with lobbyist Howard Marlowe, who’s been tapped by Newbury to lobby for funds for improvement and protection of Plum Island beaches.

“We’re hoping that dredging alone might be helpful,” Tierney said Tuesday.

The congressman said at a Jan. 31 meeting of editors at the Current’s office in Beverly that about $650,000 of a total $1.4 million federal appropriation for dredging the mouth of the river has been approved.

“We will fight for the rest next year,” Tierney said, adding that the $1.4 million appropriation was shaved down after President George W. Bush threatened to veto the entire bill, which included funding for education and other initiatives.

Tierney also said Tuesday that the state budget for dredging, administered by the Division of Waterways, is less than $2 million and the agency has $386 million in requests.

Although O’Donnell said possibly a newer study of the area is needed, and both the jetties at the river’s mouth need to be repaired, he said it is “not something we have the funds for.”

Tierney said that in conversations with engineers from the Army Corps they hope dredging will stop water from coming up over the jetty and depriving the beach of sand.

The usually dry backshore of a sandy beach and prevailing winds onshore and alongshore are the factors necessary to “feed” sand dunes. That backshore area is disappearing on Plum Island due to the shrinking beach northward from Plum Island Center, in Newbury.         

Beach nourishment, or moving sand onto a beach, has to occur on a regular cycle of three to four years and has little or no effect on erosion caused by storms, experts say.

Tierney said that there is a process for obtaining funds for such projects and that “a lobbyist is not going to change the process.”

Thirty years ago there were far fewer homes on Plum Island and they were mostly summer cottages. At risk now are high-priced homes that have been built on the bluffs, or top of the dunes, and possibly the water/sewer system, depending on the overflow onto Northern Boulevard.

The primary dune at Plum Island Center, main access for the public to the beach, has been the target of rebuilding for years by the Newbury Beach Committee. The committee had basically rebuilt the dune from the flat.

Members of the committee regularly erected snow fencing and planted sea grass on the dune that surrounds the public access walkway to the beach. The walkway was moved slightly last year and an information kiosk was erected at the edge of the paved parking lot. That kiosk had to be removed last week as the tide advanced closer to the lot.

According to another report on the Army Corps of Engineers Web site, many communities require that buildings be erected behind the dunes or beyond a certain distance, or setback, from an established coastline.

“If dunes are cut for roads or for walkways, they become particularly vulnerable to erosion,” the report said.

Newburyport’s zoning ordinance does not expressly prohibit building on dunes, but the city does have a Wetlands Ordinance that is enforced by the Conservation Commission. Any new construction on or within 200 feet landward of the top of a coastal bank or dune would require review by the Conservation Commission.

Newburyport Mayor John Moak said the dunes in the Newburyport part of the island are fine for now.

In addition to the human element — which has been affecting the beach since humans arrived in the 1600s — jetties and groins may exacerbate the problem, according to numerous sources, including Jim O’Connell of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. 

A jetty is a pile of rocks in the water and a groin is a rock wall on the beach, both laid perpendicular to the beach. A groin collects sand on the updrift side of the wall but simultaneously deprives the downdrift side of sand. The downdrift is the direction of longshore movement of beach materials.

“Jetties and groins definitely have an influence on sediment/sand transport and are oftentimes responsible for causing localized erosion — particularly downdrift. I do know the groin in the central area is definitely having downdrift impact; that’s quite obvious with the extensive dune scarp I witnessed earlier this year on the north side of the groin,” said O’Connell.

The groin was installed by the Army Corps of Engineers to halt erosion on the beach and dunes southward of Plum Island Center, O’Donnell said, but now “things have changed and the erosion has moved up the beach.”

“I hope before the towns hire a lobbyist they have a technical analysis — at a minimum — of the causes and rates of erosion on Plum Island,” O’Connell said. “Relative sea level has been rising since the last glaciers left this region and is currently rising at approximately one vertical foot per 100 years.”

Whatever the City Council elects to do — the city’s share in Marlowe’s $40,000 fee would be $18,000 — Moak said at a public meeting Jan. 31 that homeowners had partial responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the island’s dunes. Plants with deep root systems such as sea grass, beach plum and even poison ivy help to retard erosion of dunes, experts say — decks, patios and other structures do not.

 
 

The Missoulian (Montana)
February 8, 2008
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2008/02/09/news/local/news05.txt
 
Cities balk at state's demand for road project payments

By JENNIFER McKEE of the Missoulian State Bureau

HELENA - A new state policy requiring cities to pay many millions of dollars up front for certain road projects is forcing them to wonder how or if they can maintain their most important streets, officials from Billings and Missoula told lawmakers Friday.

“They've taken a molehill and made it into a mountain,” said Billings City Councilman Ed Ulledalen of the Montana Department of Transportation's insistence that cities pay in advance for road construction.

Ulledalen made his remarks in an interview after a two-hour hearing of the Revenue and Transportation Interim Committee.

While cities are generally responsible for their own street maintenance, there are certain streets called state right-of-way roads where the city splits the maintenance and construction costs with the state, said Bruce Bender, chief administrative officer of Missoula, who also spoke at the meeting.

In Missoula, such streets include the major arterials of Brooks Street, Higgins Avenue and Russell Street.

The state oversees maintenance projects on the roads and used to send cities a monthly bill during construction, Bender said. Sometimes, the state would pay for the entire cost and bill the cities after the construction was finished.

But in 2006, the Legislative Audit Division conducted a study on the practice and found that some local governments fell behind in paying those bills. The auditors recommended the Montana Department of Transportation change the way it handled such projects.

Auditors recommended, among other things, that the agency ask local governments to pay up front “at least a portion of their anticipated construction costs.”

But instead, Bender and Ulledalen told the committee, the highway department started asking cities to pay the entire expected bill up front.

Cities can't afford that, Ulledalen said. He cited the case of Billings' Zimmerman Trail street as evidence.

A few years ago, then-U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., got a special earmark of money to rebuild the road, which connects the Billings Rimrocks to the city below. The federal money didn't go straight to the city; however, it was routed to the state as such federal funds typically are.

The state, however, refused to move forward with the project until the city could pay up front the city's $5 million share of the road construction project. The city didn't have the money and has since dropped the Zimmerman project, transferring the money instead to Shiloh Road, a major arterial on Billings' West End.

The experience was so discouraging, Ulledalen told lawmakers, Billings officials are now wondering if the city can afford to go after federal money at all for road projects. Currently, federal highway dollars go the state and then to cities and counties.

Ulledalen and Bender outlined several possible solutions to the problem, including allowing federal money to go directly to the cities and letting cities charge a local-option sales tax to pay for road construction.

Both men said their cities serve far more than the residents living within the city limits, yet only residents pay to maintain roads.

Many lawmakers, particularly those from Billings, wondered why the highway department demanded complete up front payment when the audit suggested only a partial payment. The auditors also suggested the agency require monthly payments and suggested penalties for late payments.

Jim Lynch, director of the Montana Department of Transportation, told lawmakers his agency did so to be in compliance with the audit, and reminded the panel that the highway department “isn't a bank.”

“You don't buy a car you can't afford,” he told lawmakers.

Afterward, Bender and Ulledalen brushed aside the car analogy, saying people don't pay their entire car costs up front, either.

SeaLife was good deal for ex-aide to Stevens
SEWARD CENTER: Earmark was tailored to McCabe property sale.

By RICHARD MAUER and TOM KIZZIA

New documents have emerged in Seward showing that a $1.6 million earmark in 2005 by Sen. Ted Stevens was engineered so it would lead to the purchase of property owned by his former aide, Trevor McCabe, an Anchorage fisheries lobbyist.

The public records show that another Washington lobbyist who once worked for Stevens, Brad Gilman, acted as the go-between in the deal, connecting an unnamed "Senate aide" with Gilman's two clients in Seward: the city and the Alaska SeaLife Center, a federally supported marine research center and tourist attraction.

Gilman reported that the Senate aide was shopping for an entity that would guarantee the purchase of McCabe's property if it got the earmark, the documents said. Federal agencies had rejected previous attempts by McCabe and two partners to develop or sell the property, site of a derelict building, for a government visitor center and office complex.

The result was the sudden shift of the earmark by Stevens' office from the City of Seward, which wouldn't promise to buy the property, to the Alaska SeaLife Center, which had more discretion, according to a phone log written by a Seward official and minutes of the SeaLife Center board.

The backdoor arrangement described in the documents appeared to assure that a money-losing real estate venture by the partners would be bailed out by U.S. taxpayers without any need for the earmark itself to be explicit about its intent. As passed into law, the public language of the legislation only spoke vaguely about "various acquisitions."

The Seward land sale is under investigation by the FBI and inspectors general from two federal departments, Interior and Commerce.

Roy Keim, a spokesman for the Interior Department inspector general, said in a telephone interview from Washington last week that there was no sign the investigation would wrap up soon.

"These things take a long time," he said.

Flush with the unexpected grant, the SeaLife Center bought the property for $558,000 in 2006. The only partner to agree to an interview, Seward businessman Dale Lindsey, said before his death from cancer in November that it was no windfall. He lost about $23,000 and lots of sleep on the venture, he said.

"It was probably the worst real estate deal I ever got myself involved in, when I stop and reflect back on it, even absent all the publicity," said Lindsey, concerned about how people would remember him in the town he played a strong role in building. "It just was a bum deal from the start."

Gilman didn't return numerous calls placed to his office in Alexandria, Va., where he works for Robertson, Monagle and Eastaugh, the Juneau-based law and lobbying firm. McCabe's attorney, Michael White of Seattle, said, "Trevor has been instructed by his lawyer to continue to cooperate with investigators and make no public comments." The third partner, Anchorage office building owner Steve Zelener, didn't return several calls seeking comment.

A spokesman for Stevens said the senator wouldn't comment, following an office policy in effect since Stevens came under scrutiny in the corruption investigation in Alaska. In a Daily News interview on the Seward land deal in early 2006, before the Gilman conversation was known outside of a few city officials, a Stevens spokeswoman said the earmark "was not at Trevor McCabe's request or on behalf of Trevor McCabe." The grant came with no strings attached, the spokeswoman said.

SeaLife Center executive director Tylan Schrock, who announced two weeks ago he would leave his post later this year, said in interviews earlier this year and last year that the SeaLife Center had no obligation to buy McCabe's property with the grant, and asserted that the decision to buy it was the center's alone. He has not returned calls since the City of Seward released the records of its calls with Gilman.

The Alaska SeaLife Center has long been a favorite of Stevens, who has steered more than $50 million in federal funds to the nonprofit facility since it opened in 1998, including more than $3.5 million in the most recent appropriations bills. Schrock has been executive director for more than seven of those years.

McCabe, who worked eight years for Stevens in Washington, D.C., also has close ties to the marine facility. He is a past board member and helped provide financial backing when he was head of the At-Sea Processors' Association, a factory trawler group.

The documents were obtained by the Daily News under a public records request to the Seward city administration. The SeaLife Center had earlier refused to provide the board and executive committee minutes, saying they were confidential, despite the organization's status as a nonprofit and its overwhelming reliance on public funds. The city, which has a representative on the board, reached the opposite conclusion and released its copies.

The SeaLife Center appeared in the documents as a compliant partner to the wishes of the unnamed Senate aide, as expressed by Gilman. The city, required to engage in a public process before purchasing real estate, could offer no assurances that it would buy the Arcade property with the money, the documents said.

The $1.6 million represented money left over from an earlier Stevens earmark to the National Park Service to purchase land for a federal center in Seward. The original earmark required the remaining funds be handed over to the city for waterfront development and beautification.

Instead, as the federal budget emerged in July 2005, city officials discovered the money had been redirected to the SeaLife Center "for various acquisitions, waterfront improvements and facilities that complement the new Federal facility."

Seward's mayor and its city manager asked another city official to call Gilman to see whether he could explain what happened.

The telephone log provided by the city to the Daily News doesn't name the Seward official who spoke with Gilman. City manager Phillip Oates, hired in March 2007, said it was assistant city manager Kirsten Vesel. She declined to comment.

Oates said the log was written sometime after the call from contemporaneous notes taken by Vesel.

According to the log, after some rounds of phone tag, the Seward official reached Gilman on July 27, 2005. Gilman told the city official that "a senator's aide" had called him prior to the emergence of the new earmark.

The aide, according to the log, asked Gilman whether the city could assure the purchase of the Arcade property with the funds.

"Mr. Gilman told me that he could not assure the senator's aide that the city could guarantee the purchase of any property," the log said.

The Seward official agreed with Gilman's analysis and told him so, the log said. "I concurred and said that all city property acquisitions have to go through a public process, so Administration cannot assure anything."

What about the Alaska SeaLife Center, the aide had asked Gilman, according to the log.

"Mr. Gilman told me that he was put in a difficult position because he represents the City and the ASLC," the log said. "However, he answered to the best of his ability."

Gilman's advice: "Mr. Gilman then told the Senator's aide that he thought that Tylan Schrock, executive director of ASLC, had more discretion and may be able to commit to this request. He recommended the aide call Tylan Schrock. Mr. Gilman then told me that he did not know that this conversation would lead to the transfer of the funds and was just as shocked as we were," the log said.

Minutes of the SeaLife Center's quarterly board meeting of July 22, 2005, corroborate the phone log.

"Tylan reported that he'd been contacted by DC about the ability to administer funds to purchase the Arcade property," the minutes said.

The minutes acknowledge the money had originally been destined for the city. But then the day before -- July 21, 2005, six days before the Seward official spoke with Gilman -- "Tylan received a phone call inquiring if he would be able to help move this deal forward because the City expressed some concern with doing so. The result is that approximately $1 million will go to the ASLC. The money will be used to remove the Arcade building," it said, with leftover funds for other SeaLife Center projects.

In an interview last August, Schrock said the "DC" in the minutes was a reference to Gilman, not the aide who Gilman suggested should call Schrock.

"Essentially what happened is, that the phone call that came to me was a question as to whether or not we could administer the Park Service monies in support the Waterfront Development Plan," Schrock said. "In the board meeting, what I was reporting here was that I had received a phone call but it's about the ability to administer funds that the Park Service was supposed to have used to purchase the Arcade property."

When he presented the matter to the board, before the legislation was enacted, Schrock said, "We had no idea what we could use that (money) for."

Schrock disputed the accuracy of the minutes, saying the person who took them -- his employee -- had erred in saying the money was for the Arcade property. But Schrock wouldn't identify the scribe or allow the person to be interviewed.

"Not going down the pathway -- she's not going to be talking to you, if that's where you're going to go," Schrock said.

And he couldn't explain how no one -- board member, administrator, or other attendee -- failed to catch the alleged errors before the minutes were approved at the next board meeting, on Oct. 28, 2005.

In fact, the minutes of the Oct. 28 meeting appeared to confirm the phone log and the July 22 minutes.

By the time of that meeting, SeaLife Center officials knew they would receive $1.6 million and had decided to purchase the Arcade property, the minutes said, even as they were growing concerned about "political issues that may come as fallout."

"Bottom line is that we had to move on the Arcade Building if we wanted a deal," the Oct. 28 minutes quoted Schrock as saying.

In the 46-minute interview, Schrock cited Seward's "Waterfront Development Plan" 15 times as the rational basis for the SeaLife Center's decision to buy the Arcade property. It was the plan, not a command by a Senate aide or signal from a lobbyist, that he was following, he said.

Mayor Clark Corbridge said he knew of no document with that name and referred questions to City Clerk Jean Lewis. Lewis couldn't find anything with that name either, and suggested a call to Jeff Mow, the superintendant at Kenai Fjords National Park, who helped plan the proposed federal complex, the Mary Lowell Center.

Mow said he also knew of no such document, but said that sometimes people use that term interchangeably with the Seward Waterfront Study, a 2003 report commissioned by the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service for locating the visitor center and administrative complex.

The study, which has no force of law, was conducted by the Portico Group of Seattle, which suggested the center be built downtown. In its recommended scenario, the Arcade Building would be razed and turned into "a plaza or public square." Today, the property remains a roped-off gravel patch.

Since the August interview, Schrock has refused requests to clarify what he meant by the "plan" or to answer additional questions.

Tim Nicoulin, chief financial officer of the Portico Group, said agents from the Interior Department's inspector general showed up at his firm Aug. 28. He provided all the information they sought about how recommendations were made. The investigator from the inspector general's office told him that the FBI was also investigating, he said.

"It was a very transparent process," Nicoulin said of the study, with public hearings and a large public document.

SeaLife Center board member and Seward Councilman Willard Dunham said he thought the site would be good for expansion of the SeaLife Center, not a plaza.

"That is absolutely not true that anybody was ordered to buy the goddamned Arcade," Dunham said. "The SeaLife center was looking for places to buy or look at or lease because we needed expansion."

Lindsey, the longtime Seward businessman and a partner in Arcade building, was terminally ill with cancer when he agreed to be interviewed at home in August. He said he was cooperating with the federal investigation. It is unknown what effect, if any, the loss of his potential testimony would have to any litigation arising from the probe.

Lindsey said it was McCabe's idea to create the partnership, the Centennial Group, and to buy the Arcade Building and Old Solly's next door in 2003. Each of the partners -- McCabe, a Seward native, along with Lindsey and Zelener -- owned a third of the business and contributed according to their specialities. Lindsey dealt with financing, Zelener with commercial property and McCabe with politics.

"(McCabe) was yo-yoing back and forth between Washington, D.C., more times than I knew," Lindsey said. "I think it's fair to assume he had some influence back there," Lindsey said, though McCabe never provided him with details of what he did.

Their first plan was a bust. They hired an architect to design a new building with first-class office space and underground parking for the Park Service, Forest Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.

But the Interior Department wanted to build its own building sprawling across two lots, one of which included Old Solly's, Lindsey said.

Centennial was able to come to terms with Interior for Old Solly's, but they reached an impasse with the Arcade Building next door. The first government appraisal valued the building and lot at $174,000, much less than the Centennial partners were willing to sell. Then federal inspectors found asbestos and lead paint, leading to a second government appraisal of $94,000.

Centennial withdrew its offer to sell to the Park Service in July 2005 -- around the time the earmark was being rewritten.

Lindsey said that among McCabe's influential friends on Stevens' staff was Lisa Sutherland, the senator's longtime aide when he was chairman of the Appropriations Committee and then the Commerce Committee.

In August 2003, Lindsey recalled, he offered his boat to Sutherland, McCabe, a Park Service official named Peter Armato and Mayor Shafer to sail into Resurrection Bay and get a view of Seward from the sea.

"They wanted to see what the waterfront looked like from a boat in terms of this waterfront development plan. They're primarily interested in the downtown area," Lindsey said.

McCabe seemed very close to Sutherland from having worked with her in Washington, Lindsey said.

"He was there because he and (Sutherland) work so closely together. They reminded me of brother and sister. There was a very cordial relationship that existed there," Lindsey said. "I think he's also close to Brad Gilman. They worked as lobbyists on fishery-related issues primarily and they were both from Alaska."

Armato said he couldn't talk about the boat trip because of the ongoing investigation.

Said Shafer: "All we did was, we were talking about the waterfront development and the need to improve the waterfront area."

Sutherland quit as Stevens' staff director on the Commerce Committee last March and began working as a lobbyist. She declined a request for an interview but said she would answer e-mailed questions. She never responded.

Contact Richard Mauer at rmauer@adn.com or 257-4345 and Tom Kizzia at tkizzia@adn.com or 907-235-4244.

Press-Enterprise (California)
February 8, 2008
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_sfedbudget09.412cd0d.html
 
Lake Elsinore changes approach in its federal earmarks quest
 
By AARON BURGIN
The Press-Enterprise

Lake Elsinore [California] officials hope the city's new lobbying strategy, which emphasizes regional projects, pays off in funding in 2009, after two years of striking out in Washington.

If not, the city may scrutinize its relationship with its Washington-based lobbying firm, The Ferguson Group, city officials said.

The city's lobbying agenda calls for $16 million in requests for traffic, water-and-sewer and public-safety-related projects from the 2009 federal budget. The plan will be released Tuesday at the Lake Elsinore City Council meeting.

Unlike in the past, the funding requests are for projects that are more regional and involve partnerships with other public agencies. Lake Elsinore officials believe this will improve the chances of success.

"I think it shows unification and working together with other agencies, and it will have an impact on more than just Lake Elsinore," Mayor Daryl Hickman said.

New Partnerships

Most of last year's requests focused on Lake Elsinore, including fixes for Lakeshore Drive and improvements to the city's boat launch.

The strategy shift resulted in only one item on the city's 2007 agenda being carried over to this year: an $8 million earmark request for improvements at Interstate 15 and Railroad Canyon Road, a badly congested intersection with regional significance.

Two of the water-related projects are joint requests with the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, and a public safety project partners the city with the Lake Elsinore Police Department, an arm of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

A request in support of a future Metrolink spur between Corona and Lake Elsinore would reduce traffic along Interstate 15, benefiting all of southwestern Riverside County, Lake Elsinore spokesman Mark Dennis said.

The city had $13 million in requests in 2007, but none appeared in the spending bill President Bush signed Dec. 26.

Even with the change, finding funding in Congress this year may be a difficult task, city officials and officials from The Ferguson Group, said Thursday.

David Kennett, a representative of The Ferguson Group, said changes in the sentiment toward earmark requests -- and lobbyists in general -- in recent years have hampered lobbying efforts.

He pointed to scandals involving lobbyist Jack Abramoff and then Rep. Randall "Duke" Cunningham as incidents that have made lobbying more difficult.

"Congress the past three years has tightened up on this," Kennett said.

Political experts agreed.

"It's not a lot of money," USC Public Policy Professor Sherry Bebitch Jeffe said of Lake Elsinore's requests. "But earmarks can be a little dicey, and those are going to be difficult to pursue."

Also weighing against Lake Elsinore is the fact that its congressional representative, Darrell Issa, R-Vista, is in the minority party, Jeffe said.

"They have to take their place at the end of the line," Jeffe said.

Some officials see the 2010 federal agenda, the first under a new president, as the most promising time in the city's quest for federal money.

But other council members said they see this year as the beginning of a period when they want to see results from the lobbyists -- namely, some federal funding.

The city pays the Washington firm $72,000 a year to help it navigate the appropriations process, to coordinate meetings with federal officials, to write federal grant requests and to coordinate federal relief during a major disaster.

Hickman said city officials want to see a return on their investment of more than $200,000.

"I think it's also going to determine Ferguson's future here," Hickman said. "We've invested a lot of money and don't have much to show for it."

Having a voice in Washington is a necessity for the rapidly growing city, and having a lobbyist who knows the system and has the connections is worthwhile, council members said.

'One Small Grant'

Councilman Robert Schiffner, who voted to continue the contract with The Ferguson Group, said he believes the city can score a grant or other funding this or next year.

"All it would take is one small grant and it would pay off our investment, and I feel we have some projects worthwhile of receiving some money," Schiffner said, adding that $72,000 "is not the end of the world, but I don't think I'd continue paying out money if we weren't receiving anything in return."

Hickman, Redevelopment Agency Chairman Thomas Buckley and City Manager Robert Brady will travel to Washington in March to meet with Ferguson officials and congressional representatives.
 

The city of Lake Elsinore's federal agenda focuses on forging partnerships and regional projects:

$8 million: Traffic improvements at the intersection of Interstate 15 and Railroad Canyon Drive.
$1.575 million: Installation of a new sewer system in The Avenues neighborhood of Lake Elsinore, a joint project with Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District.
$250,000: The development of an emergency operations center at the Lake Elsinore Police Department.
$3.6 million: The installation of a 6,200-foot pipeline from Eastern Municipal Water District's facilities at Wasson Sill to the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District's water treatment plant to capture Eastern's surplus recycled water, a joint project with Elsinore Valley.
$3.38 million to $4.38 million: Silt removal and erosion control at the Lake Elsinore Inlet Channel. This is an authorization request under the Water Resources Development Act.
Nonmonetary:: Request for congressional support of a Metrolink light rail spur from Corona to Lake Elsinore.

 
Reach Aaron Burgin at 951-375-3733 or aburgin@PE.com
 
 
 

Scientific American

McCain's Beef with Bears?—Pork

The presidential wannabe scoffs at pouring millions into studying grizzly bear DNA, but scientists say it's key to preserving the species

By Coco Ballantyne

Republican presidential hopeful John McCain is a well-known critic of frivolous government spending otherwise known as pork: those pricey projects that legislators routinely—and surreptitiously—slip into appropriations packages to benefit their own districts and bring them coveted votes. But scientists charge that an important study of grizzly bear DNA has gotten caught in the crosshairs as the veteran Arizona lawmaker attempts to showcase his creds as a crusader against wasteful government spending.

It is unclear why McCain, who has taken a firm stand on some other environmental issues—he believes more needs to be done to curtail global warming—considers the research to be a waste of time and money, and his press office did not respond to repeated e-mails and phone calls for comment. Yet, he is apparently so "outraged" that he takes a dig at it in a campaign TV spot in which an announcer declares:
"233 million for a bridge to nowhere. Outrageous… Three million to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Unbelievable… A million dollars for a Woodstock Museum—in a bill sponsored by Hillary Clinton. Predictable… Who has the guts to stand up to wasteful government spending? One man. John McCain."

Currently the front-runner for the GOP nod, McCain also hits the research in speeches on the stump, cracking jokes about bear paternity tests and criminal investigations. "I don't know if it was a paternity issue or criminal, but it was a waste of money," McCain railed last month during a campaign stop in Clawson, Mich. Scientists, however, are not amused: They insist that the study is not only worth every penny but that the $3-million price tag cited in the ad is, in a word, wrong.

In fact, Congress over the past five years has forked over a total of $4.8 million to study the genetic material of Montana's grizzly bears, according to Katherine Kendall, a research biologist at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Kendall heads the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project, which is aimed at obtaining the first accurate population estimate of grizzlies living in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—eight million acres of land in northwestern Montana that encompasses Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex.

"This is not pork barrel at all," says Richard Mace, a research biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP). "We have a federal law called the Endangered Species Act and [under this law] the federal government is supposed to help identify and conserve threatened species."

The grizzly has been listed as a threatened species since 1975 and scientists say that it is essential to get a handle on the population to preserve it. But, according to Kendall, until the feds decided to invest in this grizzly bear DNA study, researchers lacked the funds to conduct research at the scale necessary to get a reliable measure.

In 2002 Kendall assembled a scientific panel with representatives from the USGS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and FWP, along with other scientific and environmental organizations to determine the best way to measure the remaining grizzly population of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. It recommended setting up barbed wire hair-snagging stations to painlessly pluck fur from passing bears that would be used for DNA fingerprinting, a technique employed to distinguish individuals of the same species by the differences in their genetic material. This is the only way to accurately estimate population in such heavily forested terrain, where bears are difficult to spot, says Chris Servheen, a grizzly expert with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In response, the USGS set aside $250,000 to launch the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project; the next year, Congress stepped in to provide additional funding, and from 2003 to 2007 appropriated $4.8 million to the effort, Kendall says.

She notes that her team of 250 scientists and researchers set up hair-snag stations at thousands of locations throughout the grizzly habitat, some as far as 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the nearest road. These wire setups do not harm the bears in any way, Servheen says: "It's no more than running a comb through your hair."

The team collected 34,000 samples of bear hair over a 14-week period in 2004, which it sent over the border to the Wildlife Genetics International laboratory in Nelson, British Columbia. By extracting and analyzing DNA in the strands, researchers were able to pinpoint the species (grizzly or black bear), gender, and individual identity of host bears. It took two years to analyze the large swath of samples and another to compile the data and conduct statistical analyses to estimate the size, distribution and genetic structure of the population as well as summarize the findings, which Kendall says she hopes to publish in a science journal by summer. (She refuses to reveal the results prior to publication.)

But numbers are only part of the story. Scientists say they also have to figure out how the population is changing to determine how to protect it. Toward that end, the Montana state government four years ago launched a $250,000 per annum effort to monitor grizzly population trends (separate from, but complementary to Kendall's study on population size), according to Mace, who is in charge of that project.

"There are no answers yet," he says, noting that it is too early to tell whether the population is increasing, decreasing or if it remains unchanged since 2004. But researchers are optimistic they will be able to fashion effective preservation measures once they have a better idea of [to vary] the population size—thanks to Kendall's study—and a solid understanding of trends.

Still, for many Americans who have never seen and probably never will see a grizzly bear, the question remains: Why should one bear population merit millions in taxpayer money?

The reason, grizzly expert Servheen says: the bears are a threatened species. He estimates that only about 1,500 still reside in the 48 contiguous states, compared with some 50,000 before the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century (a 97 percent population decline). The once far-reaching grizzly habitat, which stretched from the Mississippi River to California and ranged north to south from Alaska to Mexico, is today restricted to four western states: Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. In these states, only two populations—those living in and around Yellowstone National Park and in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—number more than 50 bears and offer hope for long-term viability, Servheen says.

So is forking over huge chunks of change to protect grizzly bears "unbelievable"—or a joke—as McCain charges?

No way, scientists and environmentalists say. Protecting wildlife is expensive, but grizzlies are priceless, says Louisa Willcox, director of the Wild Bears Project for the National Resources Defense Council. "Grizzly bears are a symbol of our frontier past—of untamed wilderness," she says. "Lewis and Clark saw them eating buffalo carcasses on the American plains."

Not only are grizzlies "treasures of United States history," Servheen says, but they help us understand how effective our conservation efforts are. Despite their ferocious reputation, he notes, grizzlies are exquisitely sensitive to human activity and can only live on the wildest tracts of land. "They are an indicator of the health of ecosystems," he says, and they emblematize "the preservation of wilderness, which is becoming rarer every day."

 

 
The Washington Times
February 10, 2008
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080210/EDITORIAL/572668982
 

Rep. Gilchrest and pork

THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL

 
In an effort to stave off electoral catastrophe this year, House Republican leaders are targeting Democrats who are vulnerable to charges that they broke 2006 campaign promises to fight pork-barrel spending. The anti-pork campaign would have more credibility if House GOP leader John Boehner wasn't rallying behind embattled incumbent Rep. Wayne Gilchrest — one of the top pork-barrelers in Congress — as he attempts to fight off a primary challenge from conservative state Sen. Andy Harris, who has made ending earmark abuse a major issue in his campaign to unseat Mr. Gilchrest in Tuesday's election. The Club for Growth, an organization which focuses on combating wasteful federal spending, rated all 435 members of the House on 50 amendments to strip questionable pork projects from fiscal 2008 appropriations bills.
 
Mr. Gilchrest was one of 105 members of Congress — 81 Democrats and just 24 Republicans — who received 0 ratings for voting consistently against amendments to cut wasteful spending from appropriations bills, earning them a place in the Club for Growth's "Pork Hall of Shame." (By way of comparison, the average Democratic score was 2 percent. The average Republican score was 43 percent, while the GOP freshman class averaged 78 percent.) Following are a just a few of the pork items Mr. Gilchrest voted to force taxpayers to pay for, according to the Club for Growth:
 
*$34 million for something called the Alaska Native Education Equity program, requested by Rep. Don Young, Alaska Republican. When Rep. Scott Garrett, New Jersey Republican, questioned the earmark, Mr. Young replied: "You want my money, my money." We think the money belongs to the taxpayers, not to congressional barons like Mr. Young. But the House, including Mr. Gilchrest, disagreed, rejecting the Garrett Amendment to take out the $34 million on a 352-74 vote.
 
*$2 million to establish the "Rangel Center for Public Service" at City College of New York, requested by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, New York Democrat. The amendment was defeated 316-108 with Mr. Gilchrest voting with the majority to keep Mr. Rangel's pork project.
 
* $50,000 for the National Mule and Packers Museum in Woodlake, Calif., requested by Rep. Buck McKeon, California Republican. An amendment to bar funding for the museum was defeated on a 352-69 vote. Mr. Gilchrest voted with the majority to retain funding for the National Mule and Packers Museum.
 
* $300,000 for the Houston Zoo in Texas. An amendment to strike the funding was defeated on a 347-77 vote, with Mr. Gilchrest voting to retain the pork in the bill.
 
The Club for Growth's Web site (www.clubforgrowth.org) contains more than 40 more instances in which Mr. Gilchrest voted to keep pork-barrel spending in fiscal 2008 appropriations bills. If House Republican leaders want to be taken seriously as opponents of such spending, they need to be more careful about endorsing politicians like Wayne Gilchrest for re-election — particularly in contested Republican primaries.
 

Delegates like earmark transparency; Bennett says Bush's order will have little impact

By Matt Canham

WASHINGTON - President Bush ripped into Congress for passing pork-laden bills during his State of the Union address and again when he presented his budget proposal. He threatened to veto legislation loaded with pet projects and he ordered federal departments to ignore any requests slipped in without a direct vote.

    The White House has repeatedly touted Bush's "unprecedented steps" to rein in earmarks, but Utah politicians and budget watchdogs call it little more than rhetoric on an issue that could become a rallying cry for Republicans leading up to November's election.

    The number of earmarks has grown exponentially since Bush came into office, but now Bush wants to rein in the practice. He promised to veto any spending bill that didn't cut earmark spending in half and issued an executive order requiring federal departments to ignore any earmark that Congress didn't include directly into a law. About 90 percent of earmarks are slipped into reports connected to bills, avoiding most public inspection.

    Utah GOP Sen. Bob Bennett believes Bush's executive order will have little impact. "Basically, he is punting that to the next president," said Bennett, who is a member of the appropriation's committee in charge of earmarks.

    Bush's efforts will not affect the 11,000 earmarks worth $15 billion included in recently passed budget bills.  He is only targeting appropriations during the next cycle, which begins in October, only a few months before a new president takes office.

    Democrats may just stal