text:
DePierro, Richard - Decision, March 12, 2003
Decision, March 12, 2003
625 Broadway
Albany, New York 12233-1010
In the Matter of
the Application of RICHARD DePIERRO
for a Freshwater Wetlands permit pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL")
Article 24 and Part 663 of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of
the State of New York ("6 NYCRR")to construct a single family dwelling, parking area,
and septic system on Suffolk Street, Sag Harbor, Town of Southampton, Suffolk County, New York
in the adjacent area of freshwater wetland SA-31
DEC Project No. 1-4736-05031/00001
March 12, 2003
Decision of the Commissioner
The attached hearing report of Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Maria E. Villa in the matter of the application of Richard DePierro (the "Applicant") for a freshwater wetlands permit for the construction of a house, parking area, and septic system, which would include the placement and grading of 120 cubic yards of fill, in Sag Harbor, Town of Southampton, Suffolk County, New York, is hereby adopted as the Decision in this matter subject to my comments below.
The legislature has declared it to be the public policy of the State to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and the benefits derived from them. See, Environmental Conservation Law Section 24-0103, Declaration of Policy. The Department's regulations contain the standards to implement the legislative public policy. See, Part 663 of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York ("6 NYCRR"), Freshwater Wetlands Permit Requirements. All applicants for freshwater wetlands permits must satisfy the implementing regulations to be granted a permit.
An applicant for a Department permit bears the burden of proof to show that the project proposed meets the applicable regulatory criteria. 6 NYCRR Section 624.9(b)(1). The Department's freshwater wetlands regulations are established to evaluate the environmental compatibility of a proposed project. 6 NYCRR Section 663.5. In this instance, the Applicant did not present a prima facie case sufficient to show conformity with the regulatory criteria. Such a showing is necessary to favorably pass on a proposed project. As noted in the ALJ's Hearing Report, the Applicant did not show how the usually incompatible activities associated with its proposal, particularly the construction of a dwelling within twenty-eight feet of the wetland boundary, and the installation of a septic system sixty feet from the wetland boundary, with the associated clearing and placement of 120 cubic yards of fill, would comply with the applicable regulatory criteria. Accordingly, the application for a freshwater wetlands permit is denied.
For the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
By: Erin M. Crotty, Commissioner
Dated: Albany, New York
March 12, 2003
625 Broadway
Albany, New York 12233-1550
In the Matter of
the Application of RICHARD DePIERRO
for a Freshwater Wetlands permit pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL")
Article 24 and Part 663 of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of
the State of New York ("6 NYCRR") to construct a single family dwelling,
parking area, and septic system on Suffolk Street, Sag Harbor, Town of Southampton,
Suffolk County, New York in the adjacent area of freshwater wetland SA-31
DEC Project No. 1-4736-05031/00001
Maria E. Villa
Administrative Law Judge
The Applicant, Richard DePierro, owns real property on Suffolk Street in Sag Harbor, New York, in the Town of Southampton. On November 9, 1999, the Applicant applied to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (the "Department" or "DEC") for a freshwater wetlands permit pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") Article 24 to construct a single family residence, parking area, and septic system on the site, which would involve the placement of 120 cubic yards of fill. All of these activities are proposed for the adjacent area of a Class II freshwater wetland, designated SA-31. Department Staff concluded that this project was a Type II action pursuant to ECL Article 8 (the State Environmental Quality Review Act), and its implementing regulations, at Section 617.5 of Title 6 of the New York Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations ("6 NYCRR"), and therefore would not require an environmental impact statement (EIS).
On February 23, 2000, Department Staff issued a notice of incomplete application to Mr. DePierro, indicating that a Stage 1 A/B archaeological survey must be performed, and a report of that survey must be provided. Exhibit 15a. A letter dated February 23, 2000 accompanied the notice of incomplete application. Id. That letter recited the regulatory requirements pursuant to Part 663, and concluded that
since there do not appear to be any viable alternatives which would allow construction of a dwelling at this site, the Department intends to deny your application. In order to render the application complete and proceed to public notice and formal denial, however, a final determination from the office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation is required.
A Notice of Complete Application appeared in the November 7, 2001 edition of the Department's Environmental Notice Bulletin, and in the November 8, 2001 edition of the Southampton Press. By letter dated December 4, 2001, the Staff denied Mr. DePierro's permit application because the proposed activities would be incompatible with the wetland and its functions. By letter dated December 24, 2001, Mr. DePierro requested a hearing on the denial. The matter was referred to the Department's Office of Hearings and Mediation Services on February 4, 2002, and assigned to Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") Maria E. Villa.
A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the April 3, 2002 edition of the Environmental Notice Bulletin, and in the April 11, 2002 edition of the Southampton Press. The hearing was scheduled to take place on May 23, 2002, at the North Haven Village Hall in Sag Harbor, New York. On that day, the ALJ, the parties, and their witnesses appeared, but, due to a misunderstanding as to the Applicant's responsibility to obtain a court reporter to transcribe the proceedings, it was not possible to proceed with the hearing. Present at the North Haven Village Hall were the ALJ; Lawrence J. Koncelik, Esq., counsel for the Applicant; Vernon G. Rail, Esq. and Craig Elgut, Esq., counsel for Department Staff; Stephen Lorence, Regional Manager of the Bureau of Habitat for the Department's Region 1 office; the Applicant, Mr. DePierro, and his consultant, Philip Anderson. No members of the public appeared to make any statements concerning the application. The parties were able to complete a site visit on that day.
Issues Conference
The parties re-convened on August 7, 2002, at the North Haven Village Hall to begin the issues conference. The Applicant was represented by Lawrence J. Koncelik, Esq. The Department Staff was represented by Vernon G. Rail, Assistant Regional Attorney. No intervenors filed petitions for party status; thus, the parties to the hearing were the Applicant and Department Staff.
To identify the issues for adjudication, the parties reviewed the permit issuance criteria outlined at 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(e), and stipulated that the issue to be considered at the hearing would be whether the application satisfied the permit issuance criteria set forth in Part 663, and specifically, the standards set forth at 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(e), which includes the three-part compatibility test outlined at Section 663.5(e)(1), and the weighing standards listed at Section 663.5(e)(2). The Applicant and Department Staff stipulated as to the wetland boundaries.
Adjudicatory Hearing
Following the issues conference, the adjudicatory hearing began. The Applicant called his consultant, Philip Anderson, as a witness, and also testified on his own behalf. Stephen P. Lorence, the Regional Manager of the Bureau of Habitat in DEC Region 1, testified on behalf of Department Staff.
Following the presentation of the Applicant's direct case, counsel for Department Staff moved to dismiss the application, based upon the Applicant's failure to present a prima facie case. After hearing argument from counsel for the Applicant, the ALJ denied the motion on the grounds that the Commissioner, and not the ALJ, is the final decisionmaker in this matter, and that evidence offered by Staff could be helpful in providing a full record to the Commissioner.
The Office of Hearings and Mediation Services received the stenographic record of the hearing on September 24, 2002. On that date, the hearing record closed.
Findings of Fact
- The DEC Commissioner promulgated the official freshwater wetlands survey maps for Suffolk County in 1991. Freshwater wetland SA-31 is identified on the Sag Harbor Quadrangle as a Class II wetland.
- The features outlined in 6 NYCRR Section 664.5(b) that are associated with Freshwater Wetland SA-31, and which form the basis for its Class II designation, are not part of this hearing record. The wetland boundary is undisputed.
- The Applicant's property consists of a parcel of undeveloped land, almost an acre in size, located on Suffolk Street in Sag Harbor, New York, in the Town of Southampton. Portions of the Applicant's property are located in wetland SA-31 and its adjacent area. The wetlands at the site are largely undisturbed, with a deciduous swamp overstory of red maple and tupelo, both of which are wetland indicator species. There is also an understory of shrubs. Ferns, standing water, and hydric soils are present at the site, as well as other wetland indicators such as water stained leaves, drift lines and saturated soil.
- The subject parcel is located in a single-family residential area, with public water. There, the Applicant proposes to construct a single family dwelling , a sanitary septic system, and parking area. The dwelling would be elevated, on piles, and a catwalk about 120 feet long would be constructed to traverse the freshwater wetland's adjacent area to provide access to the dwelling. The proposal would involve the placement of approximately 120 cubic yards of fill in the adjacent area.
- The house would be located a minimum of 28 feet from the freshwater wetland boundary. The proposed septic system's leaching pool would be located about 60 feet from the boundary. The proposed development at the site would be located on a peninsula of uplands between two sections of freshwater wetland SA-31. A map of the site (Exhibit 5h), showing the freshwater wetland boundary and the proposed structures, is attached to this hearing report.
- The proposed house site would not be situated in the wetland, but is within the adjacent area. The footprint of the dwelling proposed would be 40 feet by 30 feet, for a total of 1200 square feet.
- The average size of houses in the project area is on the order of 3000 to 3500 square feet in total, including the top and bottom floors.
- To construct the house, the septic system, and the parking area, the Applicant would clear roughly fifty percent of the upland forest canopy and herbaceous and shrub layer of vegetation on the site. As part of the construction of the dwelling on the site, the entire area within the limit of ground disturbance indicated on the survey would be cleared of vegetation, including mature trees, as well as shrubs.
- Filling would be necessary in the adjacent area. The total amount of fill to be placed would be approximately 120 cubic yards. Fill would be required to place the sanitary system in the proposed location, and excavation would also be required in that area to provide for the sanitary rings. The fill would be necessary to raise the sanitary system's elevation, and heavy equipment would need to be brought in to drive piles in the wetland adjacent area to support the proposed dwelling. In addition, ditches would be dug to accommodate the necessary utilities.
- The fill material would need to be graded, which would compact soils in the regulated wetland and adjacent area. Grading would take place approximately five feet from the wetland boundary.
- Typically, a house is built on piles where the water table is too close to the surface of the ground for a foundation to be practical. At times, the water level of the wetlands at the site is much higher than observed during a site visit in May of 2002, and therefore, at certain times, the site would be muddy and/or covered in standing water. Under these conditions, a catwalk would be necessary to access the site on a year-round basis, in all weather conditions. In addition, the sanitary system would have to be raised to provide for an adequate separation between the system and the groundwater.
- The grading, filling and clearing at the site, as well as the compaction of the soils attributable to the operation of heavy equipment on the property, would all affect the wetland. The placement of fill close to the wetland, with the associated changes in grade, runs the risk of soil being eroded and washed into the wetland as a result of heavy rains. Based upon the grade changes depicted on the survey, fill would be placed within approximately three feet of the wetland boundary, at one point. The use of heavy equipment on the site and the resulting soil compaction would have a very negative impact on the subsurface habitat of salamanders and other animals that use the area (invertebrates and vertebrates).
- The clearing of vegetation within the entire limit of the ground disturbance area would have an adverse impact, particularly with respect to migratory birds, which would use the area for feeding during their spring and fall migration. As noted above, approximately fifty percent or more of the upland forest canopy, as well as the herbaceous and shrub layer on the site, would be cleared and permanently destroyed if the project were allowed to proceed. This would be a substantial impact to the adjacent area and the benefits provided by the freshwater wetland. Based upon the survey, the area to be cleared would extend to approximately five feet from the wetland boundary.
- The proposed septic system poses a potential human health risk. The system's location in relation to the groundwater, the water table, and the wetland may allow pathogens to move through the soil to the surface water, or to the wetland on either the north or south side of the sanitary system.
- The wetland at the site provides benefits associated with pollutant uptake, and assists in purifying water by filtering out nutrients, such as nitrates, that might otherwise reach the subsurface water.
- Mr. DePierro purchased the property around 1988, for $44,000. Mr. DePierro had a mortgage, which has been paid, and there are no tax arrears.
- Mr. DePierro has not approached any of his neighbors to see if there is any interest in purchasing the property, but he did attempt to trade some of his land with a neighbor to the rear of his parcel so that the proposed septic system could be sited there. The neighbor refused. Mr. DePierro is 65 years old, and bought the property with the intention of building a house and living there.
As set forth at Section 663.4(a) of 6 NYCRR, a permit or letter of permission is required for any regulated activity in a wetland or adjacent area. An "adjacent area" refers to "those areas of land or water that are outside a wetland and within 100 feet (approximately 30 meters), measured horizontally, of the boundary of the wetland." Section 663.2(b).
Section 663.5(c) provides that, in evaluating a permit application, the Commissioner must apply the standards for permit issuance set forth in subdivision (e) of Section 663.5, in conjunction with the freshwater wetland's classification as indicated on the official freshwater wetlands map filed by the Department. Here, a portion of the Applicant's property is located in freshwater wetland SA-31, which is identified as a Class II wetland, and in its adjacent area. Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(e)(2) ("Standards for Permit Issuance"), Class II wetlandsprovide important wetland benefits, the loss of which is acceptable only in very limited circumstances. A permit shall be issued only if it is determined that the proposed activity satisfies a pressing economic or social need that clearly outweighs the loss of or detriment to the benefit(s) of a Class II wetland.
Section 663.5(d) provides that "as shown in the chart in subdivision (e) of this section, a determination of compatibility and a weighing of need against benefits lost are the criteria for decisionmaking."
The Applicant has the burden of proof to demonstrate that his proposal would meet the applicable permit issuance criteria. See 6 NYCRR Sections 624.9(b)(1) and 663.5(a). The Applicant argued that the site proposed was the only practicable alternative for the construction of a residence on the property, that the area is highly developed, and that the project would not have any adverse effect on the environment, and only a minimal effect on the wetlands. Accordingly to the Applicant, a denial of the application would result in severe financial hardship, in that the property would be rendered essentially useless.
Department Staff took the position that the proposal would be incompatible with the standards for permit issuance. Specifically, according to Department Staff, the construction of a single-family dwelling, the placement and construction of a sanitary system, placement of fill, and site clearing in the area adjacent to the wetland are not compatible with Section 663.5(e), and that, in addition, the proposed location of a sanitary system in the adjacent area is incompatible under Section 663.4(d)(38). Department Staff argued that the parcel provides important freshwater wetlands benefits, that impacts to the freshwater wetland had been identified, and that, as a result, the application should be denied.
The standards for freshwater wetlands permit issuance include a three-part compatibility test that provides:
[a] permit, with or without conditions, may be issued for a proposed activity on a wetland of any class or in a wetland's adjacent area, if it is determined that the activity (i) would be compatible with preservation, protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, and (ii) would result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of, any part of the wetland, and (iii) would be compatible with public health and welfare.
6 NYCRR Section 663.5(e)(1). This Section goes on to provide that "[t]hese three tests are to be used to determine the compatibility of all activities identified as P(C) or P(N) in section 663.4(d) of this Part," or for any actions not listed in Section 663.4(d). The chart provided at Section 663.4(d) includes a list of regulated activities, and assigns a level of compatibility based on the nature of the activity and whether a proposed activity would take place in either a regulated freshwater wetland or the adjacent area. For regulated activities that require a permit ("P"), the levels of compatibility are "usually compatible" ("C"), "usually incompatible" ("N"), or "incompatible" ("X").
The regulated activities that the Applicant proposes to undertake at the subject parcel are identified in the chart provided at Section 663.4(d). Item 42 is the construction of a home and related structures. In a freshwater wetland's adjacent area, this activity is considered usually incompatible, or an "N" classified activity. Items 20, 23, and 25 on the chart at Section 663.4(d) are filling, clear cutting vegetation other than trees (except as part of an agricultural activity), and grading, respectively. In the adjacent area of a freshwater wetland, these activities are also considered usually incompatible. The introduction of sewage effluent, as would result from the installation of a septic system, is an incompatible, or "X" classified activity in a freshwater wetland's adjacent area, as denoted in Item 38 of the chart.
Section 663.5(e)(2) requires that the weighing standards must be applied to all activities identified as P(X) in 6 NYCRR Section 663.4(d), as well as all activities classified as P(N) (usually incompatible) that do not meet the three-part compatibility test discussed above. Accordingly, it is necessary to evaluate the "N" classified activities the Applicant proposes (construction of a home, filling, clear cutting, and grading) for compatibility under the three-part test, and, if the activities are incompatible, to apply the weighing standards. The weighing standards are automatically applied to the "X" classified activity, the installation of the septic system.
At the hearing, the Applicant called Philip Anderson, an environmental planner, who stated that he had testified in two prior Department hearings. Tr. at p. 20. Mr. Anderson testified that the proposed house location was the best, and in fact, the only practical alternative on the site. Tr. at pp. 30, 49 and 54. According to Mr. Anderson, there is a pond (which is sometimes dry) south of the property, and that the wetland flagged by the Department extends from the pond in a northerly direction towards the proposed building lot. Id. Mr. Anderson testified that there is another wetland system to the north of the property, which is "sometimes wet, sometimes dry." Id. The witness testified that, because the area closest to the road was not suitable for building due to the presence of the wetland, the Applicant had proposed a four-foot wide catwalk over the upland area (which is the adjacent area of the wetlands) of the property to the house. Tr. at pp. 29-30. The catwalk would pass between the wetland boundaries, with about twenty feet to the boundary on each side. Tr. at p. 34.
With respect to the impacts to the wetlands that would be anticipated from the construction of the home, and the filling, clearing and grading that would be necessary to complete the proposed project, Mr. Anderson testified that migratory birds visiting the site during construction would likely be disturbed, but that he had been to the site on many occasions, and had not noticed any birds. Tr. at p. 53. He stated that there would be limited ground disturbance, but did acknowledge that the ground disturbance would come "within five or six feet at the closest point within wetlands." Tr. at p. 53. The Applicant did not offer any persuasive evidence that the proposed project would be compatible with the preservation, protection and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, or would result in no more than insubstantial degradation to, or loss of any part of the wetland.
In addition, the Applicant's evidence was rebutted by the Department's witness, Stephen P. Lorence. Mr. Lorence testified that the wetland provided "a variety of wetland benefits that are mentioned in the law," and said that the wetland had not been severely affected by the neighboring homes in any way. Tr. at pp. 75-76. Department Staff introduced a series of photographs, taken at the time of a site visit on May 3, 2002. Tr. at p. 73, Exhibits 8, 9, and 10. The witness stated that, despite the extended drought conditions prevailing in the area at that time, there was standing water present in both the north and south wetlands at the site. Tr. at p. 74. Mr. Lorence noted that the high water mark on the trees bordering the wetland, as depicted in the photographs, was approximately two feet above the bottom of the wetland. Id.
Mr. Lorence testified credibly that the clearing, filling, and grading at the site, as well as the compaction of the soils attributable to the operation of heavy equipment during construction, would all affect the wetland. Tr. at p. 82. Mr. Lorence stated that the placement of fill close to the wetland boundary, with associated changes in grade, runs the risk of soil being eroded and washed into the wetland as a result of heavy rains. Id. Based upon the survey, Mr. Lorence testified the filling would result in changes in grade approximately three feet from the wetland boundary at one point. Tr. at p. 85. According to Mr. Lorence, soil compaction would have an adverse impact on the invertebrates and vertebrates that live in the soil in the adjacent area, including the subsurface habitat of salamanders and other animals that use the area. Tr. at pp. 82-83. Mr. Lorence stated that migrating birds would use the site to rest and feed, and that the clearing proposed on the site would have an adverse impact upon these species. Tr. at pp. 83-84. Based upon the destruction of fifty percent or more of the vegetation in the wetland adjacent area, Mr. Lorence concluded that clearing would be incompatible with the preservation, protection, and conservation of the wetland and its benefits, the first prong of the compatibility test. Tr. at pp. 87-88. Mr. Lorence testified that the filling and grading proposed would also be incompatible, because of the grade changes that would allow for runoff to flow into the wetland more quickly, carrying sediment and adversely affecting the wetland as a result. Tr. at p. 88.
Mr. Lorence testified further that, for the same reasons, the activities proposed would result in more than insubstantial degradation of the wetland and its functions, which is the second prong of the compatibility test. Tr. at p. 89. According to Mr. Lorence, this was particularly true given the close proximity of the residence to the wetland. Id. Finally, Mr. Lorence testified that the application did not satisfy the third part of the compatibility test, because the project would not be compatible with public health and welfare. Id. Mr. Lorence stated that "the law mentions several benefits, much of which are the wildlife benefits, the open space benefit, the use of a wetland for wildlife education and scientific purposes, erosion and sedimentation control, groundwater protection, and pollution protection." Id. Mr. Lorence concluded that development at this site would not be consistent with these public benefits, and would, in fact, result in a loss of those benefits. Id.
Some of Mr. Lorence's observations on this point were the subject of cross-examination by the Applicant. Mr. Lorence testified to the recreational and educational value of the wetland, observing that the site provides, in effect, a "living classroom." Tr. at p. 99. The Applicant challenged Mr. Lorence's conclusion that the site was suitable for educational and scientific purposes, pointing out that the subject parcel is private land. Tr. at p. 121-23. In light of this, Mr. Lorence's conclusions on this point are not persuasive. However, Mr. Lorence's testimony as to the wetlands' importance in filtering nutrients, such as nitrates, and preventing those nutrients from reaching subsurface water, as well as the wetland's ability to uptake pollutants and help to purify the water before it seeps into the ground, were not challenged by the Applicant. Tr. at p. 105-06.
Finally, Mr. Lorence testified credibly that installation of the septic system would result in additional pollution. Tr. at p. 107. Mr. Lorence noted that the septic system proposed for the site, which would be installed in the wetland adjacent area, is listed as "P(X)," which is incompatible with wetland functions and benefits. Tr. at p. 93. According to Mr. Lorence, based upon Department Staff's knowledge of the groundwater, the water table, and the proximity of the septic system to the wetlands at the site, there exists a potential for a serious human health concern due to pathogens moving through the soil to the wetland on either the north or south side of the sanitary system. Tr. at p. 93. Mr. Lorence also stated that a greater distance to the wetland would be required to filter out these pathogens, and observed that, during the periods of high water that could be expected at this site, this problem could be exacerbated. Id. The groundwater at the site may also be affected. Tr. at p. 108. This testimony was not rebutted, and therefore is afforded significant weight.
Consequently, based upon this record, the construction of the house and related structures, as well as the clearing, filling and grading proposed, are not compatible with the functions and benefits of the wetlands at this site. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the proposal using the weighing standards set forth in the regulations. As stated above, the septic system, designated as an incompatible activity, is automatically reviewed under the weighing standards.
The weighing standards for Class II wetlands provide that, for these activities to be permitted, the proposed project must (1) be compatible with the public health and welfare, (2) be the only practicable alternative that could accomplish the Applicant's objectives, and (3) have no practicable alternative on a site that is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area. In the case of a Class II wetland, the proposed activity must also minimize degradation to, or loss of, any part of the wetland or its adjacent area, and must minimize any adverse impacts on the functions and benefits the wetland provides.
According to the regulations, in order to be compatible with the public health and welfare, a proposed activity must be consistent with physical health, if necessary, as judged by health professionals, and consistent with related federal, State and local laws, regulations and policies. 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(f)(1)(i) and (ii). Inconsistency with these standards weighs against permit issuance.
Mr. Lorence testified that the installation of a septic system at this site is not compatible with the public health and welfare, given the proximity of the septic system to high groundwater, and the associated human health risk which could result from the transport of pathogens from the septic system to surface water, and to the wetland. Tr. at pp. 96-97. Mr. Anderson stated that the septic system was located as far as possible from the wetland, given the restrictions at the site. Tr. at p. 33. He did not, however, offer any testimony that would rebut Mr. Lorence's conclusions concerning the potential health risks associated with the installation of a septic system at this site. Under the circumstances, the record supports the conclusion that the proposal does not meet the first weighing standard, which is compatibility with public health and welfare.
The next applicable weighing standard as to which evidence was offered is whether the Applicant's proposal would minimize degradation to, or the loss of, any part of the Class II wetland or its adjacent area, and whether the proposal would minimize any adverse impacts on the functions and benefits that the wetland provides. Mr. Lorence testified that, in this case, the proposed activity would not minimize degradation to or loss of any part of the wetland or adjacent area. Tr. at p. 97. According to Mr. Lorence, the clearing proposed would destroy fifty percent of more of the adjacent area or habitat, which would have an adverse impact on open space and aesthetic appreciation. Id. Mr. Lorence testified that the clearing, as well as the proximity of the house to the wetland boundary (28 feet) would adversely affect the wildlife at the site. Tr. at pp. 97-98.
On this point, the Applicant offered the testimony of his expert, Mr. Anderson. Staff challenged Mr. Anderson's qualifications as an environmental expert, and, over objection, the ALJ allowed the testimony. Tr. at p. 50-52. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the house would be constructed on piles, that there would be limited ground disturbance, and that a catwalk, which would run close to the wetland boundary, would be built to access the house. Mr. Anderson said that he had been at the subject property on numerous occasions, and that he had not noticed many birds. Tr. at pp. 53-54. Based upon this, he concluded that the existence of the house would not have more than an insignificant impact on the birds. Tr. at p. 54. Finally, he stated that the house would be significantly smaller than other houses in the area. Id.
This testimony conflicts with that of Mr. Lorence, who stated that the filling, clearing and grading at the site, the construction of the residence, and the installation of the septic system would have significant impacts on wildlife in the area and on freshwater wetland SA-31. The weighing standard also requires an examination of the potential adverse impacts on the wetland's functions and benefits, which are closely associated with the wetland's classification. See 6 NYCRR Section 664.5(a)]. As indicated in the findings of fact, the proposed project would diminish the wetland's benefits, including wildlife habitat and soil and water quality; thus, the proposal is not compatible with preservation, protection and conservation of those benefits. The burden is on the Applicant to demonstrate that the proposal would minimize any adverse impacts on the functions and benefits that the wetland provides, and the evidence presented by the Applicant in this regard is not sufficient to meet this burden. Thus, the Applicant failed to show that his proposal would minimize potential impacts to the functions and benefits of the wetland.
Finally, the Applicant must demonstrate that the project is the only practicable alternative to accomplish the Applicant's objectives, and that there is no practicable alternative on a site that is not a freshwater wetland or adjacent area. "A proposed activity is the only practicable alternative if no other is physically or economically feasible." 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(f)(2). The regulation provides further that "this does not mean that the most profitable or least costly alternative is the only feasible one nor that the least profitable or more costly alternative is the only feasible one." Id.
Mr. DePierro testified that he was not aware of anything else that could be done with the property to realize a return on his investment. Tr. at p. 63. Mr. Anderson testified that there was no other practical alternative for the placement of the house. Tr. at pp. 54. On cross-examination, Mr. Lorence acknowledged that he was not aware of any practicable alternative. Tr. at p. 126. Mr. DePierro credibly testified that he asked a neighboring property owner to trade some land so that he could locate his septic system farther from the wetland adjacent area, but the owner refused. Tr. at p. 63. Mr. DePierro did testify that he had not explored the possibility of selling the property, possibly to an adjoining landowner. Id. In any event, the decision as to whether a permit should be granted need not turn on this question, because the Applicant has not met his burden with respect to the other weighing standards. Section 663.5(e)(2) provides that a permit cannot be issued unless the Applicant demonstrates that the proposal meets each of the weighing standards applicable to a Class II wetland. As discussed above, the Applicant has not done so here.
Finally, the regulations provide that Class II wetlands provide important benefits, the loss of which is acceptable only in very limited circumstances. Therefore, a permit shall be granted only if it is determined that the proposed activity satisfies a "pressing" economic need that "clearly outweighs" the loss of or detriment to the benefit(s) of the Class II wetland. 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(e)(2). The term "[p]ressing should suggest that for the need to outweigh the loss of or detriment to a benefit of a Class II wetland, it must be urgent and intense, though it does not have to be necessary or unavoidable." 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(f)(5)(ii). The term "clearly outweighs" "means that the need for the proposed activity must outweigh the loss of or detriment to the benefits in a way that is beyond serious debate, although there does not have to be a large or significant margin between the need and the loss." 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(f)(5)(iii).
Mr. Lorence testified that he did not believe that the proposal satisfied a pressing economic or social need, and interpreted the regulations to provide that such a need would be satisfied by the building of a hospital or a school, but not a single family home. Tr. at p. 100. According to Mr. Lorence, the pressing social need "is not an individual home or residence but rather something that serves the community as a whole." Tr. at p. 100-101. With reference to Section 663.5(f)(3), the witness opined that there must be a showing that the project will serve "the public in general," and that the project "is not for the benefit of one individual but rather for the benefit of everyone as a whole." Tr. at p. 102. Mr. Lorence's interpretation suggests that an application for the construction of a single-family home in the adjacent area of a Class II wetland would per se fail to demonstrate a pressing social or economic need, since such a project would benefit only an individual applicant. The regulations cannot be read so narrowly. The examples cited by the witness in support of this interpretation, such as the construction of dams or levees, are, by the express language of the regulation, burdens, rather than "needs." Section 663.5(f)(3). The regulation states that such burdens should be weighed against the economic and social need for the project, whether individual or public in nature.
Prior decisions of the Commissioner have addressed factually similar circumstances. See Matter of Novack, Decision, 2001 WL 980474, *6 (July 25, 2001) (denying permit for construction of single family home in Class I wetland where applicant argued that lack of affordable housing was a "compelling social or economic need," and that applicant would move out of the area if permit were denied); Matter of Grimaldi, 2000 WL 1207730, *8 (Decision, Aug. 8, 2000) (denying permit for construction of single family dwelling in adjacent area of Class I wetland). In Matter of Grimaldi, the ALJ found that
given the dimensions of the site and the proximity to the wetland, it is not readily apparent how the applicant could design a project that would meet the regulatory requirements of Part 663. . . [Nevertheless], there was no presentation of any reason why a home must be sited here. While the applicant may believe that such construction fulfills his own compelling economic need -- there was no evidence of any compelling social economic or other public need derived from this project.
Id. The ALJ went on to note that there was no presentation regarding the Applicant's costs and reasonable expectations given the limitations of the site. Id. In Matter of Janssen, Decision, 1996 WL 368831, *12 (May 14, 1996), the Commissioner denied the application for a project located within Class I wetland and adjacent area, concluding that "to get a freshwater wetlands permit, the Applicant must show that he must build the house that it is unavoidable that he build the house, and that his need for the house outweighs the loss it would cause in a manner which is beyond serious debate."
Although these cases involved Class I wetlands, where a showing of need requires a demonstration of "actual necessity," (Section 663.5(f)(4)(ii)), they cannot be distinguished on this ground. For the Class II wetland in this case, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate an "urgent and intense" need for the project. Section 663.5(f)(5)(ii). Moreover, the loss of or detriment to the benefits of the Class II wetland must be clearly outweighed by the need for the project. 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(e)(2). Under the circumstances, the Applicant's asserted need to realize a return on his investment in the property is not sufficient to outweigh the potential for contamination, and the likelihood of adverse impacts on the wetland's functions and benefits.
Other Approvals
The Applicant cannot rely on the documentation concerning the permits granted to neighboring landowners (the Joly and Chaleff applications, Exhibits 13 and 14) as sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his proposal would meet the standards outlined at 6 NYCRR Section 663.5. The ALJ received these exhibits over Department Staff's objection. The Joly application was approved in 1988, and the Chaleff application was approved in 1995. While the Applicant argued that the precedential value of these prior approvals was significant, at the time of the Joly application, this particular wetland had not yet been mapped, and thus, would not have been subject to regulation when the Joly application was approved. It appears that the project was the subject of a non-jurisdiction letter. Here, the Applicant has not contested jurisdiction.
The Chaleff application is more recent, and while approvals granted to neighboring landowners may be helpful in evaluating a particular application, it is not sufficient to rely upon such evidence without more information concerning the nexus between the prior approval and the application under consideration. The burden is on the Applicant to establish this nexus. Here, the Applicant's witness, Mr. Anderson, who was the consultant who obtained the two prior approvals for his clients, was unquestionably the appropriate individual to speak to any similarities between the earlier projects and this application. Nevertheless, he did not offer such testimony. According to Mr. Anderson, the Chaleff property is "one lot over going north from the DePierro property, " and that it also has wetlands upon it. Tr. at p. 48. This is not compelling enough to determine that, since a permit was granted in the Chaleff matter, a permit should be granted here. Moreover, a review of the survey map provided with this exhibit suggests that the Chaleff property is at a somewhat higher elevation than the subject parcel, and that the septic system is located further from the wetland boundary than the septic system proposed by Mr. DePierro. The factual differences among these two prior approvals and this case outweigh the Applicant's arguments as to those approvals' precedential value.
- Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(a), the burden of proof rests entirely upon the Applicant to demonstrate that his proposal would be compatible with the applicable standards for permit issuance.
- The standards for permit issuance are outlined at 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(e). Based on the foregoing discussion, and the findings of fact, the Applicant did not show how the usually incompatible or incompatible activities associated with building a house, parking area, and septic system, as well as the placement of 120 cubic yards of fill, in the adjacent area of a regulated freshwater wetland would, in this instance, comply with the three-part compatibility test outlined in Section 663.5(e)(1). Finally, the Applicant failed to prove how his proposal would meet the weighing standards relevant to Class II wetlands, which are outlined in Section 663.5(e)(2).
- Pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 663.5(e)(2), the loss of the benefits of a Class II wetland are acceptable only in "very limited circumstances." Section 663.5(f)(5)(i) provides further that "permits for most activities that could not avoid causing a loss of or detriment to a benefit provided by a Class II wetland would not be approved." On this record, the losses that may result if the Applicant's proposal were approved, as well as the potential for human health concerns if the septic system were installed as proposed, should not be authorized in this case.
Since the Applicant has not met his burden of demonstrating that his project meets the requirements set forth in Part 663 for issuance of a permit to proceed with the project in a Class II freshwater wetland and adjacent area, the Commissioner should deny the requested freshwater wetlands permit.


text:
Mixed technology networks
Many services running on modern digital telecommunications networks require accurate synchronization for correct operation. For example, if switches do not operate with the same clock rates, then slips will occur and degrade performance. Telecommunication networks rely on the use of highly accurate primary reference clocks which are distributed network wide using synchronization links and synchronization supply units.
185p hoangchung_dtvt 12-12-2012 52 7 Download
This book is the product of over 15 years of working with RTT, delivering strategic technology design programs for the cellular design community. This has included pro- grams on AMPS/ETACS handset, base station, and network design in the early to mid-1980s; programs on GSM handset, base station, and network design from the late 1980s to mid-1990s onward; and, more recently, programs on 3G handset, Node B, and network design.
561p nguyendv1 02-11-2009 818 475 Download
ADC's ThinMux™ product family helps carriers build today's access networks that can easily adapt to meet tomorrow's needs. Only the ThinMux products provide a single platform to encompass many universal standards (SONET/SDH, DS3, T1/E1). As bandwidth requirements increase and network technologies change, ThinMux is quickly and easily upgraded by replacing the multiplexer card within the chassis. Complete flexibility in delivering unique T1/E1 (or mixed) services without additional provisioning, servicing, inventory or training is possible through the one time ADC ThinMux investment....
4p thuyvan 13-08-2009 75 18 Download
Cognitive maps have emerged as an important tool in modeling and decision making. In a nutshell they are signed di-graphs that capture the cause/effect relationships that subject matter experts believe exist in a problem space under consideration. Each node in the map represents some variable concept.
148p bi_bi1 11-07-2012 93 10 Download
The HiGain HXU-359 STS-1 multiplexer is a cost-effective SONET access platform that enables direct insertion of DS1s or E1s onto any SONET network via an economical STS-1 interface. This environmentally hardened unit enables installation in a co-location cage or remote cabinet. The HXU-359 condenses SONET technology into the highest service density multiplexer that minimizes space, power and heat dissipation requirements. The HXU-359 offers a mixed T1/E1 service of up to 28 DS1s or 21 E1s or any valid combination onto a single high-speed STS-1 network interface....
2p thuyvan 13-08-2009 65 5 Download
Channel-Adaptive Technologies and Cross-Layer Designs for Wireless Systems with Multiple Antennas Theory and Applications
Wireless communications is one of the most active areas of research over the past and the current decades. In fact, the demand for wireless services has been changing from the regular voice telephony services to mixed voice, data, and multimedia services over the wireless media. Since the mid-1990s, the wireless industry has been advancing at an incredible speed. For example, the 2G cellular systems (such as GSM, D-AMPS, and IS-95) have significantly improved the spectral efficiency and network capacity to support wireless telephony services....
544p gian_anh 18-10-2012 40 5 Download
Any information communication tool like radio, television, mobile phone, computer, network, hard ware and software, satellite system etc., can be used for framing suitable methodologies for dissemination of innovations to the livestock farmers. No single medium of communication is the best and hence a combination of different medium referred as media mix strategies were suggested through the study for diffusion of various dairy innovations.
5p caygaocaolon7 18-09-2020 3 0 Download
Cơ chế và tính chất cơ lý của vật liệu Elastomeric Alloy từ Polypropylen và bột cao su Việt Nam phế thải
The Elastomeric Alloy (EA) materials based on polypropylene (PP) and Vietnam waste Rubber Powder (RP) has been prepared in internal mixer of Haake in melting state with peroxide initiator. Dynamically stabilizing process at presence of radical donor and acceptor systems has leaded to form chemical bonds on the surface between two phases of surspending rubber powder and PP matrix and then to form intermediate phase surrounding Rubber Particles and making EA higher dense than that of materials by simple mixing RP and PP without networking.
5p uocvong03 24-09-2015 25 5 Download
To overcome the limitations of conventional storage, Oracle Exadata Storage Servers use a massively parallel architecture to dramatically increase data bandwidth between the database server and storage. Innovative technologies such as Exadata Smart Scan, Exadata Smart Flash Cache, and Hybrid Columnar Compression enable Exadata to deliver extreme performance for everything from data warehousing to online transaction processing to mixed workloads.
10p yasuyidol 02-04-2013 38 4 Download

subset: commoncrawl


text:
We've come across a recurring theme in customer comments that has us feeling kinda down…
"I need to stop eating."
"Too bad I'm short and have stubby legs."
"My feet are freakishly big."
"I wish I had smaller boobs!"
Why do these sentiments make us sad? Because we (ModEmployees) are just like you — a spectrum of sizes and shapes! Whether you consider yourself petite, tall, slender, voluptuous, average, or anything else, we think you deserve to look and feel your best with whatever you've got today. So, we want to show you how we, in the famous words of Tim Gunn, make it work!
Does the gal above look familiar? You may remember her from our Size of the Times series, or you might have recently chatted her up, or seen her picture on our site. Her name is Mandy, and she's one of our marvelous ModStylists, and a plus size model, too! Naturally, size, shape, and style are topics she's quite well-versed in. So, let's see what makes Mandy feel confident and oh-so-cute!
"At 5'11", measuring 36"-32"-46", I am and have always been a tall, curvy gal. Growing up, I listened to my peers talk about extreme diets and exercise, and I was very self-conscious," Mandy says. "But when a petite girl in college said she was jealous of my body, my perspective changed. I realized that insecurities were a waste of my time!"
Today, Mandy focuses on highlighting what she loves — not what she'd change.
One of her favorite features to show off is her décolletage. "There's something effortlessly feminine about a pretty top or dress that displays your collarbone," she says.
Mandy recommends bateau necklines (also known as a "boatneck") with interesting embellishments, like the Tri Every Angle Tunic above, for a lovely look that highlights your clavicle.
Her second confidence-boosting wardrobe weapon? "A flirty dress with a fitted waist!" Mandy exclaims. "A dress with a tailored top and waist, and a flared skirt is like a figure-flattering no-brainer. Even if you don't have much of an hourglass shape, it creates one. Belting your outfit is another quick, easy way to create shape, and I also love tying my cardis at the waist, rather than buttoning them, for a cinched-in look."
Above, Mandy wears the Graceful Greenery Dress, the Charter School Cardigan in Rose, and the Hello, Yellow Brick Road Wedge.
Mandy's final piece of advice? "Always check the 'Details' section of our product descriptions! That's where you can find the fabric content, which lets you know if there's any stretch. Plus, it lets you know if a garment fits big or small in any area, and that can help you decide which size will work best!"
Love Mandy's tips 'n' tricks? Then you'll definitely want to check out her wishlist, which is chock-full of handpicked items that help her feel confidently cute. Or, if you want a li'l one-on-one clothing consultation, you can schedule an appointment with Mandy, or any of our other fabulously fashionable ModStylists right here!
So, do you have a fave outfit that makes you feel your very best? Or, do you want to ask Mandy for a few feel-good fashion pointers? Post your burning questions in the comments section, and she'll dish out astute advice!


text:
Chopsuey or Chop Suey is a dish made-up of meat (chicken or pork) and seafood (shrimp or fish) cooked with different kinds of vegetables. This dish is considered to be of Chinese origin but there are claims that Chopsuey is of American – Chinese origin that was made famous by Chinese immigrants in America.
In the Philippines, Chopsuey is a common dish and considered to be one of the top vegetable dishes. The local variation includes chicken liver, shrimp, and seasoned vegetables.
I usually thicken the sauce of my Chopsuey to bring out its Chinese influence. Do you prefer it the same way? Let me know what you think by commenting on the box below this post.
- 1/4 lb shrimp
- 1/2 lb boneless chicken
- 1 tsp garlic
- 2 tsp cornstarch
- 1 tbsp oyster sauce
- 1/2 piece cabbage, quartered
- 1 cup green bell pepper,sliced
- 1 cup red bell pepper, sliced
- 1 small cauliflower, cut into small pieces
- 1 ½ cup snow peas
- 1 cup carrots, sliced
- 1 cup onion, diced
- 1 cup chicken liver, sliced
- Shrimp juice (derived by crushing the head of the shrimp) or use shrimp bouillon
- 1 1/4 cup water
- salt and pepper
Cooking Procedure
- Saute the garlic and onion
- Add the boneless chicken and saute for 2 minutes
- Put-in the chicken liver and let cook for 3 minutes more
- Pour in the shrimp juice and 1 cup of water and bring to a boil. Cover the pot and simmer for 5 minutes.
- Add the shrimp then sprinkle some salt and pepper.
- Add the oyster sauce and simmer for 2 minutes.
- Put-in the cauliflower and cabbage then mix well
- Add the carrots,snow peas, and bell pepper. Cover the pot and simmer for 5 minutes or until vegetables are cooked
- Dilute the cornstarch in 1/4 cup of water then pour mixture in the pot. Mix well.


text:
Global Engagement
Connecting Rochester and the World
Since its founding, the University of Rochester has transformed the city, the region, the nation, and the world.
Office for Global Engagement
Our office is the central point of contact for any University units or external institutions interested in international travel, activities, or engagement.
International 名门棋牌 Office
ISO provides the University's international population with immigration and related support services.
Center for Education Abroad
The center advises students who are planning for—or returning from—time spent abroad
Learn more about:
International Admissions
The University is 名门棋牌 to over 2,300 international students and scholars. Learn about undergraduate and graduate studies at Rochester.
Programs & Partnerships
We're connecting with universities around the globe to offer international opportunities for students, faculty, researchers, scholars, and staff.
Travel Registry & Security
Going abroad as part of University-sponsored or supported program? Register your travel and review health, safety, and security information.
Visiting Students, Collaborators, & Researchers
Coming for a short-term visit or longer-term stay? Get help with registration, visa designations, documentation, living in Rochester, and more.
Office of Global Engagement
Contact Us
College Town
44 Celebration Drive, Suite 3.200
Rochester, NY 14627
+1 585-273-1820
Making newsU.S. Government Immigration Updates
Updates and information on the federal immigration executive order.
Making newsCOVID-19 Information
Latest updates: Visit the University's COVID-19 website for important information updates.


text:
The Bachelorette Spoilers: Andi Dorfman Cheated on By Winner Already?!by Free Britney at .
The Bachelorette Andi Dorfman's final rose ceremony isn't for another few weeks, but the spoilers regarding her final pick have already leaked to the web.
Our girl's final pick is the focal point of some shady dealings, too.
The Bachelorette rumor mill is churning hardcore today with speculation that he is already running around behind Andi's back with his previous squeeze.
His own social media footprint seems to corroborate this, no less.
Is the alleged "evidence" of the winner and his ex-girlfriend a sign that it's already over with Andi? Or a harbinger of worse things to come for them?
We can't say. We'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusion.
We'll reiterate that The Bachelorette spoilers appear below, and if you don't want to know who Andi picks, you best turn back right here, right now.
Okay? We good? Nice. Now then ...
According to The Bachelorette spoilers posted by Reality Steve, who is almost never wrong except when he's very wrong, Andi chooses Josh Murray.
Well, Josh is still in contact with his ex-girlfriend Brittany McCord, and they've been communicating on Snapchat, as Steve proved via a screen grab.
Not only do they chat, but, Josh interacts more with Brittany than Andi on there, which doesn't exactly help quell the obligatory cheating rumors.
We repeat, Snapchat lists one's preferred interaction partners in order, and Brittany is leading Andi. That's as substantive as the "evidence" gets.
[No word on whether his handle is supposed to read Scoop It, Son or Scoop, It's On. Or what adult woman actually picks out the name britty_baby2.]
There's also this, which may or may not erase some of the doubts about Josh: She wished him well on the show and dubbed herself Team Josh ...
So yeah, there's that. And it gets weirder.
Other reports claim she recently went on a date with Josh's younger brother Aaron Murray as well, so maybe she just stalks his family in general.
Either way, we'd watch out for Brittany McCord if we were Andi Dorfman, and delete the dude's Snapchat app as soon as the season finale airs.
If they're even together by then.
Think there's anything to this? Or will Andi's relationship go down as one of the shortest in Bachelorette history? Discuss in the comments below ...


text:
I am running Windows 7 (64 bit) Pro. Whenever I try to install anything from a .msi file, I always receive the error:
"Error reading from file <path>/setup.msi. Verify that the file exists and that you can access it."
I've tried opening a command prompt as administrator and loading via the installer (msiexec) directly but still receive the same error. I have administrator privileges and I checked the permissions on the file and I have full permissions. I believe this is a 32 bit application so I am wondering if that has something to do with it. Any help is appreciated.


text:
October is #BreastCancerAwareness Month. Are you aware that Nova Cells pioneered a highly successful cancer treatment approach that has put 50% of those treated with advanced cancer into full remission, and the rest in partial remission and oncostasis (No cancer progression)? Read more at http://www.novacellsinstitute.com/articles/DONOR-GRANULOCYTE-BASED-TMT-SAVING-END-STAGE-CANCER-PATIENTS-April-29-2014.pdf
Tag Archives: cancer cure
A list of conditions Nova Cells Institute has successfully treated
Learn more about each of the disorders below by either following the link, or emailing or placing a call. Nova Cells has successfully treated many other conditions so if you do not see your particular challenge here, just ask us about our experience with it!
ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease) – Email email@example.com for specifics or call 1-562-916-3410
Autism – Email email@example.com for specifics or call 1-562-916-3410
Cancer Cancer (End-stage & advanced too): http://www.novacellsinstitute.com/cancer-stem-cell-therapy.html
Cardiovascular: https://ncimx.wordpress.com/category/reversing-blockage-in-blood-vessels/
Cerebral Palsy – https://ncimx.wordpress.com/?s=Cerebral+Palsy
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) – Email firstname.lastname@example.com for specifics or call 1-562-916-3410
Dementia/Lewy Body Dementia – https://ncimx.wordpress.com/?s=Dementia
Epilepsy/Other Seizure Disorders – https://ncimx.wordpress.com/?s=Seizure
Fibromyalgia – Email firstname.lastname@example.com for specifics or call 1-562-916-3410
Fibrosis – Email email@example.com for specifics or call 1-562-916-3410
Multiple sclerosis – https://ncimx.wordpress.com/?s=multiple+sclerosis
Parkinson's Disease – See alzheimer's-dementia
Spina Bifida – https://ncimx.wordpress.com/?s=Spina+Bifida
Spinal Cord Injury/Paralysis – https://ncimx.wordpress.com/?s=spinal+cord+injury
Stroke – https://ncimx.wordpress.com/category/stroke/
Traumatic Brain Injury – Email email@example.com for specifics or call 1-562-916-3410 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting
News9: News from Nova Cells Institute
Good news on #WorldLungCancerDay
August 1 is #WorldLungCancerDay. This insidious form of cancer is one Nova Cells has had considerable success in treating. You can read more about the NCIM cancer program at http://www.novacellsinstitute.com/cancer-stem-cell-therapy.html
If you'd like specifics on advanced and end-stage cancer turnarounds* you should contact Grace Odgers, Ph.D. cand. using the information below:
Want to know more about NCIM and its pioneering immunologic treatment program for cancer? Call NCIM's US information line at 1-562-916-3410 or email NCIM patient care facilitator/educator Grace Odgers, Ph.D. cand., by e-mail at firstname.lastname@example.com.
* Many, many cancer case histories have yet to be written up. Grace has specifics and will gladly share this with anyone who calls or emails her.
First cancer patient ever treated by NCIM in full remission (And still is more than 4 years later – August 2015)
The very first cancer patient to be treated as part of NCIM's unique treatment program (March 2011) is now in full remission. You can read about the program by clicking this link: http://bit.ly/rpLikU. NCIM's Grace Pena offered this firsthand account of this man's course of care and response:
"One 71 year old gentleman with cancer of the prostate, metastasized to the liver and bone was treated almost 8 months ago. When he arrived at NCIM's contracted hospital he was in a very sad state, i.e., his legs were all swollen, his PSA was in the neighborhood of 650, he had no energy, a deadly yellowish greenish color to his face and was naturally feeling horrible. On top of all this he was in great pain and could not urinate. The doctors first controlled his swelling and drained out 3-4 liters of urine from his bladder. After a week of stabilizing him (he was literally dying), the NCIM immunological treatment program was started. Within three days his face was pinkish and his hands were getting pink. He was eating so well that the staff could not believe it. After the 7th primed donor granulocyte treatment he was walking 1/2 mile around the hospital, and feeling great. He was feeling so good in fact that he decided to return to his home state of Washington to finish up a million dollar real estate deal. NCIM doctors and staff protested wanting him to finish the entire course of therapy but he was adamant about getting home, but promised to return and complete his care once his real estate deal was completed. This he did. By October his US oncologist reported that his PSA is 1.1, his prostate is smaller than a normal 20 year olds, and he could find no cancer at all. Also, his Alkaline Phosphatase level which was about 2,000 during his treatment had dropped to something around 89."
UPDATE 3-27-2012: Patient #1 is still in full remission.
UPDATE 8-2-2015: Patient #1 is still in full remission!


text:
Anushka Sharma Finally Reacts To The Pregnancy Reports. This Is What She Said
Anushka Sharma and Virat Kohli are all set to touch the 1-year anniversary mark of their wedding soon. The couple has been giving goals to fans for a long time and continue to do so.
During the promotions of Anushka's last film Sui Dhaaga, fans suspected if she's pregnant. While attending an event, she found it hard to stand up and that's what caught everyone's attention and made them think if she's carrying her first baby.
Now as she is promoting her upcoming film Zero, while giving an interview, Anushka was asked the same question by a leading magazine. Answering the question, Anushka said that it's completely unnecessary and silly as you can hide a marriage but can't hide the pregnancy. She said that she normally ignores such things and laughs it off because people will spread rumours anyway.
Anushka said that she is working round the clock right now and when she reads such news she thinks 'where do such absurd things come from?'
Well, we wish Anushka a grand success with Zero which doubles up her 1st wedding anniversary celebrations.


text:
Comedian Liam McEneaney on How a Joke Is "Borned"
Posted by Vincent Genovese on
IFC recently launched Comedy Drop, a web series where comedians perform in unexpected places for unaware–and usually baffled–audiences. To get an insight into the mind of a comic, we asked each performer a series of 7 questions. First up: Liam McEneaney, a hilarious stand up who recently released his debut comedy album Liam McEneaney: Comedian.
Aside from Comedy Drop, where was the strangest—or most interesting—place you've done stand up?
Marco Francesco's Backhanded Carnival. Lulu the Dog-Faced Girl was the MC, and I performed while a team of go-go dancers reinterpreted the hora behind me, wearing body stockings and OJ masks. We drank so much we thought we'd die that night, but instead we ended up in a New Jersey cornfield the next morning, blinking and wondering whose Maserati was parked head-first in the ditch. Creamed corn never tasted so sweet.
Where was the first place you ever performed?
The question I'd like an answer to is, where is the last place I will ever perform?
Performing in front of crowds—especially ones not expecting comedy—has to be tough. Do you have any rituals to shake pre-show jitters?
I sit and I pray for a bomb threat to clear the room and end the show in a way that will still allow me to get paid. When that doesn't work, I call a local Catholic orphanage and ask them to inform the children that there is no God. It's pretty much the same ritual I follow before dates and and IFC.com interviews.
How do you approach joke writing? Do you hunker down and write, or does inspiration need to find you first?
In exactly the same way I approach getting answers to interviews with IFC.com; I put a set amount of cash in a paper bag and leave it under a certain tree on the first night the moon is gibbous waning. The next morning, the bag is filled with jokes stolen from Louis CK's notebook.
Is a joke ever fully "ready," or is it always "in progress"?
It makes me "laugh" to hear civilians talk comedy. The technical term we use are "fertile," "pregnant," and "borned." Once a joke is borned, you send it out into the world and never look for it again. Just like in Eskimo culture.
Also, I put the word "laugh" in quotation marks, because the official comedian term is, "explode with rage."
What is the best piece of stand up advice you've ever heard?
I was in the crawlspace above the office of the owner of a certain comedy club in New York City, and I remember he was talking to a comedian whom he liked enough to actually talk to. At the time, I was in the crawlspace because I wanted to break into show business, and was very into doing things in the most literal way possible.
I didn't catch what the owner said, but his tone of voice was so soothing that I fell asleep and dreamed that it was, "Whenever you're conducting an interview about comedy, be as serious and truthful as possible." Which is advice I've carried with me to this day, in this paper bag otherwise filled with jokes stolen from Louis CK's notebook.
What's a joke that makes you laugh, or smile, every time?
The entirety of my album, Liam McEneaney: Comedian, which is out on October 1st, 2013 on ASpecialThing Records.


text:
Just a few years after edging into Atlanta's hip-hop underground, Playboi Carti released his highly anticipated debut self-titled debut on April 14 2017. The tape debuted at #12 on the Billboard 200. His first release for Interscope Records and AWGE, Playboi Carti features "Magnolia" and "wokeuplikethis*"—two chart-busting singles that embody the 22-year-old rapper's deeply experimental but hook-heavy sound. Both tracks featured on the Billboard 100 (Magnolia peaked at #8) and appeared on Spotify's RapCaviar playlist, accolades that affirmed Playboi Carti's position as one of today's biggest breakout hip-hop artists. Playboi Carti has also won recognition within the fashion world, landing features in Vogue, GQ and W Magazine. He played to sold out crowds last summer on his debut headlining world tour, including festival appearances at Rolling Loud, Coachella (alongside Lil Uzi Vert and Gucci Mane,) and the Forbes 30 Under 30 festival where he was selected as the 2017 Music Callout.
Playboi Carti released his first album Die Lit as surprise release on May 11 via AWGE/Interscope Records. Die Lit debuted at #3 on the Billboard 200, and amassed over 60K in consumption units in its first week with over 82.1 million streams, more than double the first week streams of his 2017 self-titled debut. The album garnered a great deal of critical acclaim, earning an 8.5 score and Best New Music nod from Pitchfork, who lauded it as a "57-minute sugar high that's even wilder, more disorienting, and more perversely infectious than its predecessor." SPIN has praised the album for its "broadcast[ing] a refreshing and well-developed aesthetic–one that feels like Carti's specific achievement." Meanwhile, Stereogum has hailed Die Lit as "a strange, exciting, physical record…It bursts with ideas and with personality, and it sets itself immediately apart." A week following the release, Carti made a surprise appearance on the season finale of Saturday Night Live, joining musical guest Nicki Minaj for a performance of "Poke It Out." Nicki Minaj is featured on "Poke It Out," a track included on Die Lit.


text:
PB Process Servers UK
UK Process Servers and Enquiry Agents
We are an established and trusted firm of Nationwide Process Servers and Enquiry Agents.
We have experienced, Local Process Servers, covering every City, Town and Village in the United Kingdom.
Established in 2002, PB Process Servers UK is the preferred Process Server, for many top law firms, both in the UK and internationally. We offer our Process Serving and Enquiry Agent Services to anyone who needs a Court Order or Legal Document serving in the UK.
Over the years, we have built an enviable reputation for providing our customers with fast, effective, Legal Support and Field Agent Enquiry Services throughout the UK. Our clients are varied and include Solicitors, Lawyers, Councils, Government Departments, Companies, Insolvency Practitioners, Charities, Insurance Companies and Private Individuals.
If you need to instruct an experienced Process Server in the United Kingdom, we are ideally placed to assist you.
Court Orders Served UK-Wide
We serve Court Orders UK-Wide and are ready to assist you now in every City, Town and Village in the UK.
We serve all legal process, including Court Orders, Statutory Demands, Bankruptcy Petitions and Winding-Up Petitions, Claim Forms, Writs, Citations and Summons, Divorce Petitions, Family and Children's Proceedings, Injunction Orders, Section 21 Notices, Section 8 Notices, Tenant and Landlord Notices, to name just a few!
Our Process Servers, Private Bailiffs, Enquiry Agents or Private Investigators are some of the most experienced people in our industry. You can instruct PB Process Servers UK, safe in the knowledge your case will be dealt with by an experienced professional.
Low Cost, Fixed Fee Process Serving
We provide Low Cost, Fixed Fee Process Serving, which includes multiple visits to the same address and at least one out of hours or weekend visit when necessary. An Affidavit, Certificate of Service or Statement of Service will be returned to you once completed.
Ready To Instruct a Process Near You?
Instructing a Process Server near you is usually very easy. You will need to send us your instructions, along with the paperwork you want us to serve. You must ensure all relevant and helpful information is sent with your instructions.
For our Standard Service, your Process Server will normally attend the address for service within 2-3 days of receipt. If this is not soon enough, consider our Priority Service - Our Priority Service includes a first visit to the address within 1 business day or sooner.
We have experienced Process Servers ready to assist you immediately. The fees we quote are the fees you pay, there are no hidden charges for mileage etc.
Our website has a lot of information about Process Serving so take your time to look around. We include information and advice on Issuing a Statutory Demand, getting a Process Server To Serve a Divorce Petition, as well as general Process Serving Advice.
Find out more information about PB Process Servers UK.
Why choose us...
We promise to.....
to serve your documents promptly and in accordance with CPR rules.
to serve the papers in accordance with your special instructions.
to ensure all Data Protection and Human Rights legislation is adhered to.
to keep you updated and advise you when service has been completed.
to monitor all cases we are dealing with and ensure they are returned to you on time.
that all statements or affidavits will be completed correctly.
Help Serve Divorce Petition
Is the County Court Bailiff struggling to serve your Divorce Petition? If so we have some helpful advice. If you need help and advice on how to get the Petition served fast when the Bailiff Cannot Serve Divorce Petition follow this link >>>
How To Serve a Section 21 Notice
If you need a Section 21 Notice Serving or Section 8 Notice Serving on your tenant we can assist you. We serve Section 21 and Section 8 Notices for Landlords Nationwide for a Low Fixed Fee. Follow this link for information on How To Serve a Section 21 Notice
How To Serve a Court Order
We serve Court Orders in England and Wales. If you need help serving a Court Order PB Process Servers UK can assist you. Follow this link for help How Do I serve a Court Order
Process Servers UK
If you need a Court Order or Legal Document serving in the United Kingdom we can assist you. We regularly serve Court papers in the UK which originate from abroad for people in the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and South Africa. If you are looking for a Process Server in the United Kingdom click here.
Serving a Court Order in the UK
It is important to ensure a Court Order is served correctly. Click here for further information on serving a Court Order or Injunction in the UK.
Getting Divorced?
Our Process Servers and Bailiffs serve Divorce Petitions in England and Wales. Information on How To Serve a Divorce Petition. We assist client even where the Court Bailiff has been unable to do so. Find out more about how we can help when Court Bailiff Cannot Serve Divorce Petitions.
Legal Aid Work
We accept some Legal Aid Cases. If we accept the legal aid job then our invoice will be broken down into time and mileage at the LAA accepted rates. If your case is LAA funded follow this link for Process Serving at LAA Rates.
Process Servers London
We Serve Court papers in London. If you are looking for a Process Server in London Please visit us online also at our website:-
How To Serve a Statutory Demand
If you need help serving a Statutory Demand then we can assist you. Our Process Servers serve Statutory Demands every day. Follow this link How Do I Serve A Statutory Demand


text:
JAKARTA - Visitors have been warned not to feed the Komodo dragons found in large numbers at Komodo National Park in Indonesia.
The Komodo National Park authority has posted numerous "do not feed" signs to warn visitors around the park in east Nusa Tenggara.
The Komodo dragons are commonly spotted in the popular tourist locations of Loh Baru, Loh Wawu, Loh Dasami and Loh Wenci in Komodo Island and Rinca Island.
"The signs are posted in 10 spots to remind travellers that they are not allowed to feed the Komodo dragons," said head of the park Budi Kurniawan on Tuesday.
Budi said the large reptiles are natural hunters and being fed would negatively impact them.
Large-sized Komodo dragons are known to hunt boars, deer and horses, while smaller ones consume bugs and poultry.
"Every speedboat or cruise ship operator, guide, and traveller has to be aware of the park's rules.
"We will keep monitoring travellers' activities in the area to prevent any violations of the guidelines," said Budi.


text:
Friday 25 January
|Macropus (1)
An iconic symbol of the Australian outback, the red kangaroo is the largest living marsupial (2) (4), and one of the most abundant and striking of all kangaroos (3) (5). Standing up to an impressive two metres tall (2), the male red kangaroo is much larger and more powerfully muscled than the female, with larger shoulders and forearms, more heavily clawed forepaws, and thickened skin over the belly, which helps absorb the impact of kicks during fights (4) (6). The male also has a rather large, bow-shaped nose (3).
As the name suggests, the male red kangaroo is typically a rich reddish-brown in colour, while the female is more bluish-grey. However, some red females and bluish-grey males also occur, as well as individuals of intermediate shade (2) (3) (4) (6). The underside of the body and the lower parts of the limbs are light grey to white, the paws and toes are dark, and the tip of the tail is pale, helping to distinguish this species from the grey kangaroos, which have dark tail tips (3). In both sexes, the face is marked with a black and white patch on the side of the muzzle and a broad white stripe along the cheek, while the tip of the nose is partially naked, and is dusky in colour (2) (3) (4) (7).
The red kangaroo is most active from late afternoon to early morning, resting in the shade during the heat of the day (2) (4), and sometimes licking the forearms to cool the body through evaporation (7). The powerful, enlarged hindquarters enable the familiar leaping mode of locomotion, and the red kangaroo may be able to reach top speeds of up to 64 kilometres per hour (4), covering up to 9 metres with each leap (2). The diet consists of grasses, herbs and shrubs, with a preference for green feed, such as newly sprouted grasses (1) (4) (5), and the red kangaroo may travel long distances in response to food availability (1) (2) (5). This species usually lives alone or in small groups of up to ten, comprising mainly females with young, plus one or more males. However, larger, loose groups, or 'mobs', may gather to feed or drink (2) (4) (5).
The red kangaroo is an opportunistic breeder, able to breed year-round when conditions are favourable, but often ceasing reproduction during drought (2) (5) (8). The males engage in ritualised 'boxing' in order to gain temporary control of females in oestrus, wrestling with the forelimbs around the opponent's shoulders and kicking with the powerful hindlimbs (2) (4) (5) (6). The female usually gives birth to a single young, after a gestation period of around 32 to 34 days (2) (9). At birth, the newborn weighs a mere 0.75 grams, and takes about three minutes to make its way, unaided, through the female's fur and into the pouch, where it attaches to a teat for the next 70 days of development (2) (6) (9). The young, or joey, first protrudes its head from the pouch at 150 days, emerging for short periods at 190 days, and permanently leaving the pouch at 235 to 240 days (2) (9), although still suckling for another 3 to 4 months (4). Sexual maturity is reached at around 15 to 24 months, and lifespan may be up to 27 years (2) (4).
The female red kangaroo is able to become pregnant again within days of giving birth. However, in a process known as embryonic diapause, the new embryo remains dormant until the first young is about 200 days old, or sooner if the first young is lost. The embryo then resumes development and is born around 31 days later, within about a day of the first young permanently leaving the pouch. The female is then able to mate again (2) (4) (5) (6) (9). As a result of this process, when conditions are good the female can simultaneously support a suckling young outside the pouch, a suckling young within the pouch, and a dormant or developing embryo, and any young lost during drought can quickly be replaced when conditions improve (2) (5) (6).
The red kangaroo is distributed throughout the arid regions of mainland Australia, excluding the extreme north, east coast, and extreme southwest of the country (1) (2) (3) (5) (7).
This kangaroo occurs in arid and semi-arid habitats, in areas of less than 500 to 800 mm annual rainfall (1) (3) (5). It may be found in scrubland, grassland, woodland and desert, tending to prefer open grassy plains with scattered trees for shade and shelter (2) (3) (5) (7).
Classified as Least Concern (LC) on the IUCN Red List (1).
There are no major threats to the red kangaroo, and it remains a widely distributed and abundant species, which has generally benefitted from the spread of agriculture and the associated reduction in dingo numbers and provision of artificial watering holes for livestock (1) (2) (6) (7). Although intensive agriculture is not beneficial to the species, little of its habitat has so far been affected by this (10). However, some argue that competition with livestock and introduced rabbits, particularly during drought conditions, could present a threat (2).
Like other large kangaroo species, the red kangaroo is so numerous in some areas that it is subject to regulated commercial harvesting for its meat and hides, and is sometimes also shot as a pest (1) (2) (6) (7) (10). There is some debate over whether kangaroo populations can sustain present hunting levels, especially in light of human habitat modification and drought (2), which may potentially be exacerbated by climate change.
The red kangaroo occurs in many protected areas across Australia (1), and, like other native wildlife, is protected by law. Hunting permits and commercial harvesting are controlled under nationally approved management plans, which aim to maintain red kangaroo populations and manage them as a renewable resource, while attempting to minimise damage to agriculture (7) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15). Commercial harvesting quotas are determined annually, and aerial surveys are regularly performed to monitor kangaroo abundance and distribution (7).
As kangaroos are popular, well-known and instantly recognisable species, much controversy and public debate has surrounded their commercial hunting (10) (16), with a key element of the debate being the welfare of pouch and dependent young-at-foot (17) (18). This has led to close attention being given to appropriate kangaroo management, based on scientific research, and, although still controversial, such sustainable use has been suggested as a valuable conservation tool where wildlife and human land-use requirements conflict (10). Alternatively, wildlife tourism has been proposed as a means by which kangaroos can be protected and appreciated alive, and may provide a sustainable, economically viable and less controversial option for the conservation of these iconic species (16) (19).
To find out more about the red kangaroo and its conservation see:
For more information on wildlife tourism and conservation in Australia see:
Authenticated (27/04/10) by Dr David B. Croft, Senior Lecturer, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales.
Image credit
© Gerard Lacz / www.flpa-images.co.uk
FLPA - images of nature
Pages Green House
Suffolk IP14 5QA
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 1728 861 113
Fax: +44 (0) 1728 860 222
Link to this photo
Embed this Arkive thumbnail link ("portlet") by copying and pasting the code below.
Terms of Use - The displayed portlet may be used as a link from your website to Arkive's online content for private, scientific, conservation or educational purposes only. It may NOT be used within Apps.
Read more about
MyARKive offers the scrapbook feature to signed-up members, allowing you to organize your favourite Arkive images and videos and share them with friends.
Play the Team WILD game:
Friday 25 January
Friday 05 October
Monday 24 September


text:
Diamond jewellery is an exquisite collection for those who want to get noticed with their unique appearance. These jewellery is easy to find and can be bought complementing your personality and style. Because it is widely available, no matter how costly and beautifying they may be, at times they may fail to offer a personalized look. As lot of people these days are wearing similar pieces, the best way to make you stand out of the crowd is to accessorize it with an outfit.
People who love to buy diamond jewellery find it tough due to wide range of jewellery varieties available. The best part is that with this huge collection, there is always more possibility to find the pieces you want. Surfing online or over printed magazines that carry latest information, trend regarding new styles prevailing will fetch you what you are exactly looking for. This way you could be the first one to flaunt your style at various occasions. For your diamond necklaces, India is the popular place. Since the place is traditionally woven and is rich in varied culture and heritage; you could find mesmerizing pieces of diamond jewellery, semi-precious jewellery, loose diamonds etc. here at affordable prices.
Nowadays, you will find many independent artisans, handcrafted jewellery makers selling their products in craft fairs, online etc. Internet is the best place to know the current trend on diamond jewellery pieces like bangles, necklaces, earrings, anklets and much more. There are numerous patterns and designs available by nature inspired elements such as flowers, animals, dew drops etc. You should definitely check these out for adding extra touch to your personality on the special occasion.
If you are having limited budget you can always look for these diamond rings online. You can compare various different varieties and choose the best you require. However getting a Diamond ring online needs some caution and you should deal with some reputed online store such as Amazon before you go buying these fantastic jewellery items. If you previously bought a diamond jewellery and are wishing to try them out but are reluctant because these are old and dull, you can choose to get jewellery cleaning device and tips online for cleaning your old jewellery pieces. You can know more about these devices here and check how these devices cleans your expensive jewellery to make them new once again. This can help you save good amount of money, in case if you are having a limited budget and do not want to buy new.
Make sure that you buy these pieces suiting your facial shape, features and overall personality. Also, if you are looking for something specific like for therapeutic advantages or curative then there are specifically diamond pieces available that signifies certain goodness to the person regarding health, wealth and also some comes with spiritual beliefs. Since diamonds are available in different make, ensure which kind of jewellery you are interested in buying especially when you are buying wedding rings. With clear understanding regarding the stone elements involved in designing beaded or diamond jewellery will make sure that you are paying for the value of the pieces.


text:
Twin Boro Physical Therapy is proud to provide visitors and residents of Bridgewater with access to the best evidence-based physical therapy care in New Jersey. The Township of Bridgewater covers 33 square miles and is home to 45,000 residents. Bridgewater Township is located in the center of Somerset County, bordering 11 other municipalities. Bridgewater boasts a variety of parks, recreation and shopping opportunities, excellent schools, a minor league ballpark. Twin Boro Physical Therapy, voted best physical therapy practice by mycentralnj.com, is a New Jersey institution, with 38 years of experience helping patients live life to the fullest.
Monday 8:00AM-8:00PM
Tuesday 9:00AM-8:00PM
Wednesday 8:00AM-8:00PM
Thursday 10:00AM-8:00PM
Friday 8:00AM-8:00PM
MY HOBBIES: Working out, yoga, and horseback riding
Michelle Nielsen graduated from the University of Massachusetts in 2007 with a Bachelor's Degree in Chemistry. Her passion for health and wellness led her to Long Island University where she earned her Doctorate of Physical Therapy.
She began her career working at an outpatient spine and wellness physical therapy clinic where she gained valuable clinical experience treating patients and managing patient care. Michelle then joined Twin Boro in 2017 and has practiced in several of Twin Boro facilities advancing to become the Clinical Director of the Bridgewater location.
Michelle is trained in numerous evidence-based manual interventions, combined with her experience in yoga, weight training, and Pilates, she applies her knowledge to create individualized treatment plans to address physiological impairments as well as activity limitations.
When treating patients, Michelle implements Twin Boro's One2FourTM Care Model. This unique approach addresses the entire continuum of care for the patient and assists in patient education as well as treatment planning. This ranges from a relatively low level of function a patient might experience post injury or surgery all the way through to the peak performance required to return to their prior or preferred level of function.
In her spare time, Michelle compliments her workouts and yoga with a horseback ride through the countryside.
Incorporating the latest and most reliable scientific research and techniques into an effective evidence-based practice is the cornerstone of Twin Boro Physical Therapy's success. Patients that come into our Bridgewater office know that they are receiving the highest standard of care because our physical therapists work one-on-one to develop an individualized treatment plan for each patient. Twin Boro Physical Therapy provides treatment for the wide variety of conditions that affect the musculoskeletal system, including:
Twin Boro Physical Therapy's unique one on one approach provides patients with the dedicated care they need to achieve the best possible outcome. Addressing all parts of the recovery spectrum, the hard working team at Twin Boro Physical Therapy's Bridgewater location has the knowledge and experience required to meet the variety of needs for patients experiencing the wide assortment of conditions and disorders that can affect the musculoskeletal system.
Thank you for choosing Twin Boro! We pride ourselves in our ability to respond to your inquiries as quickly as possible.
Please complete the form below and someone will be in touch within 24 hours to schedule your desired appointment within the next 24-48 hours.


text:
Voodoo Priestess and Voodoo Doll Costume Photo 9 of 10
Rate this costume:
6 votes
|3 comments · add a comment
|Costume type:
|Costumes for Couples
This homemade costume for couples entered our 2017 Halloween Costume Contest.
A word from Lindsey, the 'Voodoo Priestess and Voodoo Doll' costume creator:
The idea for this costume was conceived while creating last year's Halloween costume. I enjoy creating costumes that make people think. Last year we were Medusa and a Stone Warrior, in piecing that costume together... Read more »


text:
eMail Campaigner - Sign up
Create a free demonstration account now and gain instant access to e-mail Campaigner. Your free trial is valid for 30 days during which time you can send up to 200 emails in the first month.
FREE 30 DAY Trial ! Sign up now using the form below.
To use the fee based, unrestricted version of e-mail Campaigner, register for your free trial, login and then change your status under the Account tab to 'Active'.
Please ensure you provide accurate contact information to enable our Support team to help you get the most out of e-Mail Campaigner. Accounts with incorrect contact information will be cancelled.


text:
Organizational Talent Rankings via Baseball America
2012 (2) | 2011 (15) | 2010 (2) | 2009 (1) | 2008 (4)
2012 Affiliate Records
MLB: [93-69] AL West
AAA: [69-75] Pacific Coast League – Round Rock
AA: [80-60] Texas League – Frisco
A+: [74-65] Carolina League – Myrtle Beach
A: [74-65] South Atlantic League – Hickory
A(ss): [28-48] Northwest League — Spokane
Graduated Prospects
Yu Darvish (RHP); Robbie Ross (LHP); Michael Kirkman (LHP)
The Run Down
This Rangers system is stacked. I could've gone 20 deep here, and I'd still be listing guys with bigger upside than most systems feature at the back-end of their top tens. One guy I had a hard time not listing here is 2012 first-rounder Lewis Brinson. Consider him #11 for now, but Brinson has the type of explosive athleticism that could carry him to the top of this list in a year's time (that's assuming guys like Profar and Olt graduate, of course). There are other youthful, high-upside types, too, in Jorge Alfaro and Joey Gallo. And as we know, there's a slew of high-impact potential at the upper reaches of the organization. I've been outspoken about the St. Louis system being the best system in baseball for fantasy purposes and otherwise, but this Texas Rangers system is not far behind.
Top Ten Prospects
1. Jurickson Profar, SS: He's ready for a full-time gig, but the Rangers depth chart can't accommodate for that just yet. He'll wait at Triple-A Round Rock for an opportunity in the bigs. Profar brings legit 20-20 potential, along with .300+ AVG, and an OBP north of .350. From shortstop, that sort of production would be enormous. Here's Grey's Jurickson Profar fantasy. Also check out my Top 25 Prospects for 2013, where Profar came in at #15. ETA: 2013
2. Mike Olt, 3B/1B: Olt will begin the year at Triple-A, but he's only a Lance Berkman trip to the DL away from joining the big club. With the potential to hit 30+ homers and collect a ton of RBI from the middle of a stacked lineup, he's a guy you'll want. For more on Olt, Grey has his fantasy for ya, and I slotted the 24-year-old slugger at #14 in the aforementioned Top 25. ETA: 2013
3. Leonys Martin, OF: Martin came in at #13 on that Top 25 for 2013 list I keep referencing. He's primed to get the bulk of the time in center for the Rangers, but Craig Gentry will likely start ahead of him versus LHP. Martin brings a plus hit tool and growing power to the fantasy game, and it might not be long before Texas does away with the platoon and gives the 25-year-old Cuban the full-time job. For more on him, check out Grey's outfield ranks, where Martin came in at #63. ETA: 2013
4. Martin Perez, LHP: He ranked #18 in my Top 25 Prospects for 2013, but that ranking was prior to news of the broken forearm he suffered this spring. Perez will be shelved for the first month of the season, before returning to action at the Triple-A level. He might not be long for the minors if his stuff returns to form — a deep arsenal including an outstanding changeup will allow him to be an above-average arm at the big league level. ETA: 2013
5. Jorge Alfaro, C: Alfaro's tools profile suggests a guy who could post .275 AVG and 25 or so homers, all while doing an outstanding job defensively behind the dish. The 19-year-old is already through is first year of full-season ball, and in that regard, he's right on track developmentally. As far as translating his raw tools into production on the field, though, Alfaro has a long way to go (.261/.320/.430 in 2012 at Low-A). He'll step up to High-A in 2013 where the Rangers hope to see an improved line. ETA: 2016
6. Justin Grimm, RHP: Grimm was battling for the 5th spot in the Rangers rotation, but was recently reassigned to Triple-A, as Texas seems more comfortable with fellow prospect Nick Tepesch in that role. Grimm's secondary stuff could use a bit more refinement, but he brings more impressive potential than Tepesch (he falls in the 15-20 range in this system for me). My guess is that it won't be long 'til we see Grimm starting games in Arlington, but there'll be further competition for a role once Martin Perez is back and healthy. ETA: 2013
7. Luis Sardinas, SS: Injuries have held him back developmentally, but Sardinas has the most impressive defensive tools at shortstop in the organization. That doesn't help us much in the fantasy game, but .300 AVG and 25+ steals from a premium position would certainly be valuable, and he brings that sort of upside. Of course, he's buried on the organizational depth chart in the middle infield, and there's plenty of uncertainty given his oft-injured reputation. Sardinas will step up to High-A in 2013. ETA: 2015
8. Rougned Odor, 2B: An advanced hit tool and plus defensive tools up the middle should make Odor a nice fantasy piece one day. Expect solid AVG and 15+ stolen bases at the big league level, but that projection could improve if he takes another step forward in 2013. Odor can reach the upper levels at age 19 if he starts off well at High-A. ETA: 2015
9. Cody Buckel, RHP: Buckel tossed 144 innings between High- and Double-A in 2012, posting a 2.49 ERA, a 1.06 WHIP and a 9.9 K/9. Great command of a deep arsenal makes him another candidate to earn starts for the Rangers at some point this season, although his overall potential isn't quite as impressive as Perez's or Grimm's. I've also heard the Buckel is best friends with Trevor Bauer, so clearly he has questionable judgement. That's gotta drag down the overall projection. ETA: 2013
10. Joey Gallo, 3B: Gallo was drafted out of high school at 39th overall last June. The 19-year-old features enormous power potential and he provided a glimpse of it in his pro debut, posting a monstrous .388 ISO in 260 PA between instructional level and short-season A ball. There's a long way to go here, but Gallo has the necessary raw power to develop into one of the more prolific home run hitting prospects in the minors. ETA: 2016